* hypothetical super blindseer ("The imagined superblindseér would indeed be a partial zombie who has processes (~
A-consciousness (because he can talk about stimuli in his blind field) but no
P-consciousness (because he still has no visual qualia) but super-blind-sight does not exist."
Gazzaniga first supported the idea that the right hemisphere was conscious because of experiments like the scrabble-experiment. Later he supported the idea of the interpreter-system. Experiments that supported the idea of right-hemisphere consciousness are now interpreted by him as the result of non-conscious modules. I'm not sure about the conclusion, but I would say that whether the right hemisphere is conscious or not is dependent on what people use as criterion for consciousness
10 months ago
Thank you! :)
1 year ago
Does someone know how many points you could score in the exam? 100 or less? thanks in advance!
well you can infer that both neglect and blindsight are still aware of the non-conscious information they aquire. So, they will somehow know whats happening without actually knowing that they do. Blindsight patients for eample will see something and isist they dont see anything, but if asked to guess they give the right answer. Same for neglect patients. Amnesia patients are unable to remember, however they can aquire knowledge (without knowing they do). So in all these disorders people are experiencing and behaving, without the knowledge they do. So this is disconcordant with the docterine
Lamme might say that recurrent processing can't happen properly in V1 lesionates, so the stimulus maybe reaches partial phenomenal awareness stages, but no phenomenal awareness happens. When fronto-parietal recurrent processes happens (e.g. due to attention) the information becomes a-conscious, but the patient has to be cued to retrieve it.
1 year ago
For P-Awareness to arise according to Lamme, the early visual areas have to engage in Recurrent processing. In Blindsight V1 is lesioned, thus it cannot engage in RP! As for A-awareness, P-awareness is needed in Lamme's model, this is also lacking in blindsight patients :)
For task 4, the powerpoint slide states that we should know the names Posner and Treismann.
I can't seem to find Treismann in my summaries and don't really recall the name either.
Does someone know what he/she did, or could tell me where to find it in the literature? Thanks in advance :)
Task 4 de Graaf Article: In the attentional blink experiment, the author says that when there are 100 ms between the two red letters, the participant can report both correctly, but when there is 200-400ms between them, the participants misses the second letter. Why? This seems really counterintuitive to me, as I would have guessed it the other way around?
True, that's a little counterintuitive. But imagine you see a stimulus and afterwards blink with your eyes. The stimulus at 100ms still makes it on the screen before your eyes are closed, but those that appear at 200-400ms flash up while you blink. The attentional blink works the same way.
Does anyone know exactly which brain areas we need to know for the Dorsal and Ventral pathway? (I mean the pathways relating to attention).
The literature has so many... it's a bit confusing. Thanks =)
Can someone please explain the difference between Chalmers and block regarding phenomenal vs psychological consciousness and access vs phenomenal consciousness and how that relates to double association vs. double life and how that then relates to the philosophical zombie and super blindsight? :D thanks to you all!
a-consciousness = awareness (chalmers) = global availability = ability to manipulate, control, report thoughts, feelings, perceptions,..
p-consciousness (block) = phenomenal consciousnesss (chalmers) =WHAT MIND FEELS (hard to express, e.g. "What is it like to see the colour blue?" "What is it like to taste a strawberry?")
psychological consciousness (chalmers) = causal or explanatory basis for behaviour; functional characterization: WHAT MIND DOES
"According to Chalmers, the double aspects of mental terms are psychological and phenomenal. The concept of ‘pain’ provides a clear example. The term is often used to name a particular sort of unpleasant phenomenal quality. On the other hand, there is also a psychological notion associated with the term, the concept of the sort of state that is causally connected with the damage to the organism, the relation of the organism and so on. Both of these aspects are central to the commonsense notion of pain. The reason why phenomenal and psychological properties often run together is clear: It is because the relevant properties tend to co-occur. When the processes resulting from tissue damage leading to discomfort take place, some sort of phenomenal quality arises. That is, when psychological pain is presented, some sort of experience of pain is also present phenomenal. Chalmers says that it is not a conceptual truth that the processes should be accompanied by the phenomenal quality, but it is a fact about the world. Once we have this sort of co-occurrence of properties in everyday situations, it is natural that our everyday conception of things will bind them together. "
Anonymous Space Invader
1 year ago
and Chalmers says, that we can have psychlogical consciousness without phenomenal consciousness, but not vice versa.
He explained it by giving the example of a super blindsight patient. A superblindsight patient is trained to guess, what is in his blindfield. So he kinda knows what is happening in his blindfield (psychological consciousness) but he does not experience it (phenomenal consciousness). This was evidence for his theory.
Block found evidence for his double dissociation with his matrix experiment. People where able to remember more letters, when a cue was given afterwards (tone signal). So what subjects consciously perceive outperforms, what they are able to report. In other words, phenomenal consciousness outstrips access consciousness.
Does anyone know if there is a past exam or example exam paper? I have no idea what the structure is for this exam and am a little worried. Or if anyone knows any info about the structure or what sort of questions I would really appreciate it. Thank you!
Can someone explain me what the views are of farthing, gazanigga and sperry on having consciousness in the left and right hemisphere (split brain, task 6). Im especially confused about the opinion of gazanigga..
as I understood it:
Farthing (not entirely sure about him) just tries to find out whether consciousness is just on the left hemisphere since that's where language lies or if we can say that the right hemisphere can be considered as conscious as well. But I dont think that he came to an explicit answer after presenting all experiments.
Eccles says that consciousness can only be present in the left HP since introspective verbal report (IVR) is necessary for consciousness and split brain patients can only "talk" with their left halves
Sperry then says consciousness should also be present in the right hemisphere, since the most important part is intelligent or adaptive behaviour, which can also be influenced by the right hemisphere. Basically he says that for intelligent behaviour to happen, conscious thinking and perceptual awareness are needed, but for consciousness to only lie in the right half, it is missing IVR.
Gazzaniga finnaly says that the right HP in split brain patients can only be conscious if there is some degree of language ability like in the PS patient, whose anterior commissure allowed him to answer (with left) to what was seen in right. But, the center of consciousness must therefore be in the left HP, which also has the interpreter system.
I hope this helps. This is what I got out of my notes, of course there's no guarantee, but that's how I would write it in the exam.
Anonymous Credit Card
2 years ago
Guys who are Vroon and Treismann and what did they do? :D
You are right, I translated it wrong. Instead of "you have to block the left part of the visual field", it said "you have to offer the left part of the visual field", so --> you block the right. You are obviously right, I just found the sentence was weird and automatically translated like this. Sorry for the inconvenience ! :)
Hey, I think it refers to the scientist that studied colors all her life but never experienced it. So when she left the lab, it came as a surprise to her, when she actually experienced color for the first time. She could study all about colour, but experiencing it is a different thing. -> so from a third person point of view, we can not see consciousness, there is no reason to think it could actually exist. Third person we only can collect information about the complex systems, so the existence of consciousness would come a surprise. Does this help?
You've got almost a week. It's not alot of material for this course. Grasp the concepts like bridging principles, understand the difficulties and use summaries to get the most important conclusions from all the e-readers like numbers, bridging principles used e.g. and then ou will have a fair chance.
Anonymous Space Invader
2 years ago
I will make it, thanks for the positiv words :)
Anonymous Money Exchange
2 years ago
Task 9: should we know all the effects of the different drugs? :-) Thank you!!
Hey I don't know if this is right, but this is how I perceive it - I re-wrote it, so hopefully it is clearer.
If dreams symbolically represent physical objects and events, one has to ask why feelings and wishes, fears, etc. cannot also be represented in dreams, and be expressed the same way they are in waking consciousness.
Anonymous Noodle Soup
2 years ago
Ahhh, I think that was the spark i needed. Thank you!