Fixed the link formatting and added a couple more sources, thanks for the heads up. The temperature claim does not seem unusual to me in the slightest. I have personally tried to do a relatively cold bath and noticed my “perception” alter pretty significantly.
The organ claim does seem more unusual, but I have heard various forms of it from many sources at this point. It does not however seem in any way implausbile. Even if you maintain that the brain is the “sole” source of cognition, the brain is still an organ and is heavily affected by the operation of other organs.
Even if you maintain that the brain is the “sole” source of cognition, the brain is still an organ and is heavily affected by the operation of other organs.
Sure but if all of the cognition is within the brain, the rest can be conceivably simulated as inputs to the brain, we might also have to simulate an environment for it.
Yours is ultimately a thesis about embodied cognition, as I understand it. If cognition is strongly embodied, then a functional human brain will need to have a very accurately simulated/emulated human body. If cognition is weakly embodied, and the brain’s digitalised neuroplasticity is flexible enough, we can get away with not simulating an actual human body.
Sure but if all of the cognition is within the brain, the rest can be conceivably simulated as inputs to the brain, we might also have to simulate an environment for it.
How would you simulate it without the rest of the body?
For example, in medical circles it’s well known that some individuals, completely indistinguishable from the external appearance, have organs in entirely ‘wrong’ places.
As in some organs are more then a hand-span farther away from where they ‘should’ be according to the most up-to-date medical diagrams.
If it’s true that some aspect(s) of cognition are stored in the body, I think it’s exceedingly likely there would be thousands of subtle variations, such as an organ’s 3D placement, that would subtly affect cognition.
Sorry, at that moment I didn’t read the entire comment, I don’t know how it happened. I probably got distracted.
I said that the body is “simulated/emulated” instead of just “simulated” to account for the possibility of having to emulate the literal body of the individual, instead of just simulating a new body (which is confusing and might be based on a misunderstanding of the difference between the two terms, but that was my intention).
Regardless, in that quotation I was assuming that the brain was the source of cognition by itself, if that’s so, the brain might even adapt to not have a proper human body (it might be problematic, but the neuroplasticity of the brain is pretty flexible, so it might be possible).
Even then, if the mapping of the positions of organs still needed to be a certain way, we could account for that by looking at the nerves that connect to the brain (if the cognition is exclusively in the brain
Even then, if the mapping of the positions of organs still needed to be a certain way, we could account for that by looking at the nerves that connect to the brain (if the cognition is exclusively in the brain
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
To me it seems contradictory, if the positions of organs matter then cognition would certainly not be exclusively in the brain.
There’s not much point on having mentioned it really, but I meant in the case that somehow the relative position of the organs could affect the way they are wired, yeah, probably not conceivable in real life.
… but I meant in the case that somehow the relative position of the organs could affect the way they are wired, yeah, probably not conceivable in real life.
Okay, if this case does exist, doesn’t that guarantee cognition wouldn’t exclusively be in the brain?
Mmm, maybe(?, do you have an actual example of this phenomenon or something? It seems weird to me that you ask this. How would this work?
Even if they are wired differently, cognition might still be solely in the brain and the way the brain models the body will still be based on the way those nerves connect to the brain.
Yeah but you didn’t tell me how different the way those organs are wired is compare to the typical way. Even if the relative position is different, I would need specific examples to understand why the mapping of the brain of those organs wouldn’t work here.
I still don’t get why from your perspective: “It seems weird to me that you ask this.”. if a very plausible reason for asking is right there a few comments prior.
Is there something you don’t understand in the previous comment(s)?
I still don’t get why from your perspective: “It seems weird to me that you ask this.”
It is true that at that time I’d lost some of the content, but I know that, I even mentioned situs inversus as an example.
But I still would need an actual example of what kind of computations you think would need to be performed in this weirdly-placed organs that are not possible based on the common idea that the brain maps the positions of the organs.
I think you need to reread my comment because I never claimed computations ‘would need to be performed in this weirdly-placed organs’.
If it’s true that some aspect(s) of cognition are stored in the body, I think it’s exceedingly likely there would be thousands of subtle variations, such as an organ’s 3D placement, that would subtly affect cognition.
If it’s true that some aspect(s) of cognition are stored in the body
it’s exceedingly likely there would be thousands of subtle variations
one example of such would be an organ’s 3D placement
These variations then would therefore subtly affect cognition, assuming point 1 holds.
For point 1, it’s not certain either way whether there’s any cognitive aspects such as storage, processing, learning, etc., happening in the body.
But if it’s true… then point 2, then point 3, then point 4.
I can’t spell it out any more clearly then this, so if there’s still some confusion I would suggest we part ways with the conversation.
As inputs on the digital nerves that link the brain with the different parts of the body. It might not be necessary to simulate a body that can actually move.
Fixed the link formatting and added a couple more sources, thanks for the heads up. The temperature claim does not seem unusual to me in the slightest. I have personally tried to do a relatively cold bath and noticed my “perception” alter pretty significantly.
The organ claim does seem more unusual, but I have heard various forms of it from many sources at this point. It does not however seem in any way implausbile. Even if you maintain that the brain is the “sole” source of cognition, the brain is still an organ and is heavily affected by the operation of other organs.
Sure but if all of the cognition is within the brain, the rest can be conceivably simulated as inputs to the brain, we might also have to simulate an environment for it.
Yours is ultimately a thesis about embodied cognition, as I understand it. If cognition is strongly embodied, then a functional human brain will need to have a very accurately simulated/emulated human body. If cognition is weakly embodied, and the brain’s digitalised neuroplasticity is flexible enough, we can get away with not simulating an actual human body.
I don’t think the debate is settled.
How would you simulate it without the rest of the body?
For example, in medical circles it’s well known that some individuals, completely indistinguishable from the external appearance, have organs in entirely ‘wrong’ places.
As in some organs are more then a hand-span farther away from where they ‘should’ be according to the most up-to-date medical diagrams.
If it’s true that some aspect(s) of cognition are stored in the body, I think it’s exceedingly likely there would be thousands of subtle variations, such as an organ’s 3D placement, that would subtly affect cognition.
Sorry, at that moment I didn’t read the entire comment, I don’t know how it happened. I probably got distracted.
I said that the body is “simulated/emulated” instead of just “simulated” to account for the possibility of having to emulate the literal body of the individual, instead of just simulating a new body (which is confusing and might be based on a misunderstanding of the difference between the two terms, but that was my intention).
Regardless, in that quotation I was assuming that the brain was the source of cognition by itself, if that’s so, the brain might even adapt to not have a proper human body (it might be problematic, but the neuroplasticity of the brain is pretty flexible, so it might be possible).
Even then, if the mapping of the positions of organs still needed to be a certain way, we could account for that by looking at the nerves that connect to the brain (if the cognition is exclusively in the brain
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
To me it seems contradictory, if the positions of organs matter then cognition would certainly not be exclusively in the brain.
There’s not much point on having mentioned it really, but I meant in the case that somehow the relative position of the organs could affect the way they are wired, yeah, probably not conceivable in real life.
Something like situs inversus.
Okay, if this case does exist, doesn’t that guarantee cognition wouldn’t exclusively be in the brain?
Mmm, maybe(?, do you have an actual example of this phenomenon or something? It seems weird to me that you ask this. How would this work?
Even if they are wired differently, cognition might still be solely in the brain and the way the brain models the body will still be based on the way those nerves connect to the brain.
Huh?
To confirm, do you understand that I replied to your comment 4 days ago, up the chain, with the example?
If you are confusing me with someone else, then I suggest rereading the comment.
Yeah but you didn’t tell me how different the way those organs are wired is compare to the typical way. Even if the relative position is different, I would need specific examples to understand why the mapping of the brain of those organs wouldn’t work here.
I still don’t get why from your perspective: “It seems weird to me that you ask this.”. if a very plausible reason for asking is right there a few comments prior.
Is there something you don’t understand in the previous comment(s)?
To me, the reason seems literally spelled out.
It is true that at that time I’d lost some of the content, but I know that, I even mentioned situs inversus as an example.
But I still would need an actual example of what kind of computations you think would need to be performed in this weirdly-placed organs that are not possible based on the common idea that the brain maps the positions of the organs.
I think you need to reread my comment because I never claimed computations ‘would need to be performed in this weirdly-placed organs’.
If it’s true that some aspect(s) of cognition are stored in the body
it’s exceedingly likely there would be thousands of subtle variations
one example of such would be an organ’s 3D placement
These variations then would therefore subtly affect cognition, assuming point 1 holds.
For point 1, it’s not certain either way whether there’s any cognitive aspects such as storage, processing, learning, etc., happening in the body.
But if it’s true… then point 2, then point 3, then point 4.
I can’t spell it out any more clearly then this, so if there’s still some confusion I would suggest we part ways with the conversation.
I think this is sound. I thought you were making stronger claims about cognitive processes that might be embodied.
Do you know any interesting literature on the topic?
As inputs on the digital nerves that link the brain with the different parts of the body. It might not be necessary to simulate a body that can actually move.
How does the possible movement of the body, or lack thereof, relate?