People who have been blinded by an injury to the visual cortex area, are able to guess the shape of an object, its location or the direction of its movement, even though they cannot see. On the phenomenon of "blind sight"
Dina Volodarsky and Noam Levithan Galileo Magazine
The processing of information about visual stimuli that reaches the brain is done in the visual cortex, located in the lower back of the occipital lobe in all hemispheres. It is known that people damaged in the area of the visual cortex claim that they are unable to see, but when they are asked to guess the shape of an object, its location or the direction of its movement, they do so with success beyond chance.
was able to distinguish facial expressions
This phenomenon is called "blindsight", which is defined as the ability to respond to visual stimuli despite the lack of sensation and lack of awareness of it. The oxymoron "blindsight" was coined by the British psychologist Lawrence Weiskrantz in 1974. In the same year, Nicholas Humphrey and his colleagues from the University of Cambridge showed that a rhesus monkey named Helen, whose primary visual cortex was missing after the researchers removed it, was endowed with blindsight. .
A few cases of blindsight have been reported in humans, but in all cases it was a partial damage to the visual cortex (usually only one hemisphere was damaged). In the latest issue of the journal Current Biology, researcher Beatrice de Gelder, from the Harvard Medical School, reports for the first time blindsight in a subject known as TN. This subject experienced two consecutive cerebral events (36 days apart), which completely destroyed the primary visual cortex in both hemispheres. In the attached article, we will mention that the destruction of the primary visual cortex leaves intact the pathway that carries information from the eye to the midbrain.
DeGalder and her colleagues report magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings in TN's brain that indicate his visual cortex is dysfunctional. Thus, TN's impressive ability to differentiate between different facial expressions (fear, anger and joy) greatly surprised the researchers. On top of that, when TN was asked to walk a route that included various obstacles (boxes and chairs) he managed to bypass them (without the help of a cane or another person), even though he was completely unaware of their existence, or that he bypassed them during the walk.
There are blind people who are able to use sound in order to identify the position and shape of objects based on the echo that returns from them, but this ability (echo-location) allows the identification of large objects only, because humans are not able to produce high frequency sounds (such as bats or dolphins). Therefore, it does not seem likely that TN used this ability, since it was able to distinguish even small objects scattered on its orbit. In addition, the experimenters who were present at the experiment testified that TN did not make a sound during the experiment.
TN Obstacle Course
The researchers did not cover TN's eyes and did not check whether such a cover would impair the abilities he displayed. Also, the article does not deal with a possible mechanism that would explain the findings. Still, the subject is very intriguing and concerns questions related to the relationship between consciousness and behavior (and in particular behavior without consciousness), which challenge the fields of psychology, neurobiology and philosophy.
From: Galileo Magazine, February 2009
47 תגובות
That's why I claim that if they had covered the experimenter's eyes, he would not have been able to do what he did - not to bypass obstacles, not to recognize emotions on other people's faces and not to insert an envelope into the slot.
I can try to offer an explanation:
Who doesn't happen to do things on an "automatic"? Sometimes this automaton leads us to do stupid things that in retrospect we realize and grab our head and say "oh nooo, what am I doing". For example: 1. Makes tea in the morning. I've done it a million times before it's a habit. I don't think about how much sugar to put, I don't think at all about making the tea. I think about other things. in the daytime But I still make tea. 2. Driving - when we learned to drive, every moment was significant, challenging, maybe even scary. At first even the heart was beating. But over time it becomes something natural until everything is done automatically (and maybe this is where some of the accidents come from when the brain works on automatic and is not ready for surprises).
There are countless more examples from everyday life. The point is that when input comes in through the senses, it is first recognized as a known pattern-causing the usual response without the need for it to pass on to consciousness/a higher level of data processing. So maybe in those people with "blind sight" the same part of the link is damaged. When well-known patterns are received by the brain through the senses, the part of vision is also not obligated to high processing because a response is automatically created in the brain to that known pattern. If the input does not match a known pattern (which is embedded in the complicated system of connections of the brain) or matches only partially, no response will be produced at the low level of processing and since there is no connection to the high level of processing in the brain, the input will be lost and there will be no response at all so that the person will not be aware of the stimulus at all.
At a low level of processing I would define the reactions as reflexes and not only motor, but also emotional - it is known that emotions are separate and intelligence is separate. That is to say that emotions are an involuntary thing and in order to control them, you have to make an effort (strongly activate the conscious part). So recognizing emotions on people's faces is also done in blind vision as part of the emotional reflex.
I don't pretend to be a neurologist or whatever it is from the field because I'm not. This part just makes sense to me.
Anonymous Dawn:
Your words are also historically incorrect and your delusions will never make you someone's hero.
Why aren't you going to take a million dollars?
the science Is this something permanent that can no longer be changed or can the paradigm change at any moment with a new and exciting discovery?
I don't expect you to believe me or appreciate me. The consequences of my words exist even if I do not receive direct feedback.
According to short calculations - history repeats itself! Waves of change of consciousness "hit" humanity in times that are getting shorter.
The paradigm is going to change.
I do not say this as a prophet or messiah but as a man who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Your heroes today were the delusional ones of old.
Today's delusions…
Shahar, there are websites dedicated to explaining science to children. Put a lot of thought and multimedia into them.
Use Google.
not dawn:
But I'm going!
Just tell me where to come and get it from you.
After all, at this moment you have agreed that not going to receive a million dollars is a legitimate proof in your eyes as well, so there is no longer any room for debate.
I demand my million dollars!
To Michael
Also the fact that you are not going to take a million dollars is good enough proof for any reasonable person and therefore not for you either.
By the way, Yaron:
You're welcome to give me a million dollars.
Yaron equals Avitar equals Abri equals Yael, not equal to Shahar nor equal to anything
The fact that Shahar isn't going to take a million dollars is proof enough for any reasonable person.
I know for you it's not good enough but I said it's only good for anyone with a mind.
Michael has little faith
Try to prove Dawn wrong if you succeed, I'll give you a million, you won't have to go as far as James Randi.
Dawn:
I understand.
Basically you are saying that you are talking nonsense just to educate me so that I stop underestimating the spirit of perversity that resides in some of us.
It won't work.
I can't help but despise the nonsense statements of liars.
It's amazing that you want to educate me so much that you can't leave for a week to take a million dollars!
Surely it will take you more than a week to crack my stubbornness. Isn't it easier to make a million dollars along the way and in the end even shorten the process?
I will not stop as long as you despise the spirit that resides in all of us.
You only remember what fits your beliefs.
If you don't want to be matched with questions whose solution is unknown to you and your colleagues and usually points to a "supernatural reality", you will have a beautiful and dark life...
There is nothing "supernatural" in reality, only a temporary lack of "physical" understanding.
Dawn:
enough already!
Yes. we felt
It also happened that we felt that way and there was no one there.
It also happened that there was no one there and we didn't feel anything.
You only remember the events that support your prejudice and forget the rest.
I repeat: if you can sense real things in a way that cannot be explained by normal physics - go to James Randi - take a million dollars - come back - and tell us "I told you so?".
If you can't do that then you should just stop langs
Have you never "felt" that a driver in the other lane was looking at you and when you turned your head, it turned out to be true?
Have you never "felt" that a person's presence entered the room you are in, even though that person entered in perfect silence?
Have you ever felt uncomfortable around a certain person who creates an unpleasant "vibe"?
Have you never arrived at a social event and "felt" good energy?
The truth is that there is a secondary error in the article in the opening line that describes the location of the information processing. And that is partially true.
There are 2 tracks. The track that goes to the back is at the end from media to ads. There is another route of A going so far. And it is responsible for initial recognition (visual reflex) of movements, etc. It doesn't end with ads. And so those people can see in an urbanized way.
Hugin:
I repeat and remind you.
If there is even one correct claim among your multitude of claims that do not match the claims of science - all you have to do is go to James Randi, show him this, and become a millionaire.
This way you will earn both money and serious attention here.
What do you think?
And how about letting us in as long as you haven't?
Hugin,
The main thing is that you state that you never insult, and we are the ones who deteriorate into personal insults...
Pine:
You are not even worth a fly-like reference to the stench of excrement let alone the abstract of it.
And Michael:
You've proven it again, Havalz.
Pine:
I think this time I'll try to save myself the stupid skirmish.
It makes sense when there is a fear that someone is taking her words seriously or when it is part of a struggle where there are several others like her who are starting to cooperate even if they don't understand each other (or themselves) but at the moment it's too bad.
Michael,
Are you really going to try to answer Hugin's response, 26?
Although I really liked the idea: "Relationship of every object and physical configuration to the metaphysical equivalent found in the abstract world". Much simpler than finding a scientific explanation, which is the purpose of the articles and discussions we try to do here in the comments 🙂
Hugin, it's not boldness of thought that we have a problem with. This is the lack of thought behind the audacity. You would have said: "Don't attack the artistic audacity", I was still ready to accept that
Oren and Michael, the reaction was only to reactions 17 and 18 and not in connection with the experiment. You have to understand that there are people who are able to "see" with a blindfold, but this is also of course completely natural.
As Oren wrote, it is quite clear that if the subject's eyes were covered in the described experiment he would not even be able to navigate between large obstacles.
Michael:
A) It is possible that visually impaired people nevertheless open up to a more abstract phenomenon by nature, similar to the world of ideas that Plato marveled at describing (perhaps this is called 'consciousness').
Finding the slot of the lock you described can be explained by the connection of each object and physical configuration to the metaphysical equivalent found in the abstract world (an unreal idea/like a projection).
b) On the physical/sensory level: the electro-magnetic field, which surrounds every bone, object, plant, animal, is similar to the explanation of static electricity subject to heat-cold, weather changes, dryness-humidity, and the like.
The visually impaired/blind, and those with a developed 'sense-sense-sense', as well as dogs for example, are sensitive to the states of static electricity surrounding the bodies and translate/identify the sense to the corresponding configuration in reality. eyes
In my opinion, there is not too much hidden hidden here if you understand the small and large logic of the phenomena.
Well, don't attack the intellectual boldness.
Beelzebub (or Beelzebub),
In the article they talked about this possibility, but these are very large objects and it is not possible to use it to distinguish small objects, facial expressions and small details. All this because using the echo in such a detailed way (similar to bats) requires working at a frequency (not to mention an intensity) that humans are unable to absorb (or produce).
But, again as we mentioned in the article, this phenomenon is easily ruled out in this specific case because the subject was able to "see" facial expressions and small objects. and did not make a sound (so that no echo could return to him). Of course, the explanation could have been completely ruled out if a test using earplugs had been added to the study.
This phenomenon in humans, even for large objects, is generally very weak because unlike bats, we do not have additional sensors (such as special hairs in our ears) or can point our ears in a certain direction, which will allow us to obtain maximum data from a reflected echo (and again - we do not work in frequencies and in appropriate strengths).
In the article, as far as I understood, we are talking about cases where the eye itself is not completely damaged, and mainly areas that transmit the information to different areas of the brain that analyze the information are damaged. Therefore, some areas do receive certain information but are not analyzed clearly so that even though they do not see a real picture, there is a part of the brain that is aware of the information.
I believe that if the subject's eyes were covered the "blind sight" would mostly disappear. Of course, there are other senses that are more heightened in blind people, but in the case examined in the article, most of this ability resulted from what I explained. The eye perceives and tries to transmit information to the brain, but the "communication" is defective. From partial information that reaches the brain but is not built into a complete image, but is received and for the blind person this is expressed in "feelings" - intuition.
Beelzebub:
Right.
So what?
It's not relevant - is it?
Michael,
People whose vision is normal cannot see because their eyes are covered, but there are blind people who do "see" - are able to avoid obstacles - with the help of an echo-locator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation
I always thought it would be interesting and even productive to check whether the ability of occult seers also allows them to fly...
Definitely research I'm willing to fund. And I'm a big believer in statistics, that is - the number of examinees should be as large as possible 🙂 You can never be too sure, right?
To 20
So it's a shame that they would have done research and simply asked you... simply.
They see, in the sense that the signals from the murmur to the brain somehow pass, but they are not aware of these signals.
Not so complicated and not so surprising.
Michael:
Insects don't need a brain, they have a cockroach in their head ;)
interested:
Even people whose vision is not damaged cannot see when their eyes are covered.
The issue of blindsight has been tested on many brain damaged people and just as they did not test if their brain damage did not allow them to fly, they also did not test if it turned them into occult seers.
It's a shame they didn't do an experiment with this person who identified the obstacles
Even in the blindfolded state, if it did recognize the faces and the obstacles even in the blindfolded state, it would be very interesting and I am surprised at the researchers who did not do this
Doron:
Your words are clearly an important part of the explanation for the phenomenon.
There are other animals - including insects - that do not have a real brain (only what are called ganglions) and have eyes.
On the other hand - it can also be argued (and it seems to me that it would be difficult to prove the opposite) - that consciousness does not require a real brain either and therefore both jellyfish and insects have consciousness.
In my opinion, this would be a false claim, but it would be very difficult and perhaps impossible to refute it.
This is why the ability to blindsight in humans (who can report to us if they see consciously) teaches us something else about the world.
In fact - it is precisely from this fact that confirmation can be drawn for the claim that insects and jellyfish are devoid of consciousness.
The brain developed in several stages and it turns out that in humans the ability to see consciously is located in a part of the nervous system that does not exist at all in insects and jellyfish.
By the way, one of the interesting experiments done on this subject is to let the person with the problem try to insert an envelope into a slot of a mailbox, without even telling him if the slot is vertical or horizontal.
They almost always succeeded in this, even though they came back and claimed that they didn't see any slit (and nothing else) at all.
I once saw a film on the National Geographic Channel or the Science Channel about jellyfish, and it turns out that there is one species of jellyfish in the world that has eyes. What's even more interesting is that these jellyfish have no brain at all. They have a very primitive nervous system, but no brain. And in all the experiments done on them, the jellyfish avoid obstacles that are placed in front of them (if the obstacle is painted in a certain color, they don't remember what specific color it was, so they can't see it and run into it.
This proves that there is a type of evidence that does not require a brain at all, only a primitive nervous system. And this may be the explanation for this phenomenon.
Hugin:
When I wrote "in the last paragraph" I meant the last paragraph of the introduction
Hugin:
I sent you a short link where it is written.
Why don't you read the things?
The nonsense of course refers to the part that interests you in the story and it is described in the last paragraph beginning with the words "Kirlian made controversial claims" and ending with the punch line "The effect was not reproduced in better-controlled experiments".
The entire process described is a process of controversial claims that were made and that as they increased the accuracy of the test it became clear that their predictions were not fulfilled.
Michael:
Enlighten my eyes so that I can understand exactly where the point is defined as nonsense by you.
If you could focus exactly on what you mean, it would help me a lot to understand my blindness.
I would appreciate it if you would walk with me step by step and little by little as if you were my stick.
Hugin:
The subject has been tested and proven to be nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography
There is no need to go back and perform steps that have already been taken, but if you still want to - you are welcome to set up a laboratory and try.
Michael:
If you are already developing the subject, you should also check another objective/external examination by the Crealini photography method, where a 'type of field' surrounding the living objects was discovered.
During the experiments (which, by the way, were discovered at first by chance) it is possible to see both on cut plants and on photos of organs that have been cut off, the complete field photo, as if it had not been cut.
Of course, you will say that this is the illusion of light or the tricks of the mind that tends to complete the sequence of light points by itself until the surrounding original whole that gives the illusion of continuity, or something like that.
But, it is also possible that blind people who have lost their eyesight develop a stronger sense of the 'field' that surrounds objects as a compensation for that trivial or primary instinct called sight.
The test should also be done for people blind from birth, compared to those who lost their sight due to an injury.
And there is a change, Michael, and so that we can make progress in something, even a tiny bit, and distinguish between the gap that you think exists between us, whether it is right and true or not.
Hugin:
Do what you want.
I know that your beliefs can only be kept alive by blocking the arrival of true knowledge so I know what prevented you from reading the book.
Michael:
If I'm not mistaken, I may have come across the book in a bookstore and something prevented me from buying it and reading it then.
I will check again, within myself, if I come across it again, if it is right for me to read it right now.
If only in order to understand the contexts, as you see fit to put them 'in the light'.
Hugin:
If the subject of phantom sensations interests you (and not only from the language and outside) you are welcome to read Ramachandran's book - Phantoms in the Brain. I think it was translated into Hebrew under the name "Illusions of the brain".
The book discusses this topic in an extremely in-depth manner, but it expands far beyond that and gives deep insights into how the brain works.
Among other things, the subject of blindsight is also discussed there, and if my memory serves me well, it is there that I also read about the subject of the neurological basis of religious "enlightenment".
Stupid:
It's much more interesting.
They do not see at all consciously.
You can interrogate them thoroughly and they will always say they don't see at all.
This is due to the fact that certain layers of their vision were not damaged at all and certain areas of the brain - those that are able to respond even without the involvement of consciousness - continue to take the visual input into account.
The next article will probably be about the studies on phantom sensations among amputees.
interesting.
Dawn:
What a profound insight!
Even normal sight is blind
Teaches something about human nature and the mind.
They just see a drop.