
Blindsight: Some people who have lost their vision find a “second sight” - d_a_robson
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150925-blindsight-the-strangest-form-of-consciousness
======
lukev
The hard SF novel _Blindsight_ , by Peter Watts, is an excellent and extremely
interesting exploration of this idea and its ramifications.

~~~
paol
Not just this idea, almost every question of consciousness/intelligence/self
awareness is approached in some form or another, from different angles.

I could go on about it, but I'll just say it's the best SF I've read in a long
while.

~~~
mirimir
I love it too. Conscious self-awareness is arguably not very useful. It
pretends to be in control, but mostly it's just observing what the mind has
already done, and makes up stuff to rationalize it. At best, that's merely
superfluous. But at worst, consciousness gets in the way, and generates
counterproductive emotional states. But fortunately, ones mind can trick its
consciousness into being useful :)

~~~
themgt
Worth trying to differentiate between "consciousness", which I think it's
obvious cats and many other animals have, and the human "voice inside your
head" / narrative self, which is much more a tower of babel built on symbolic
cards, which is a very recent human invention, and arguably that moreso than
"consciousness" is what can cause us so much harm.

~~~
mirimir
That's a good point. I was thinking of narrative self. And I am conscious of
my narrative self, so they're distinct. So arguably they're all levels in a
self-referential stack.

------
alextgordon
If you look at the visual system[1] the signal passes through many preliminary
nodes before it reaches the back of the brain aka the visual cortex (which is
responsible for the conscious visual field, i.e. "seeing").

For example, one of these preliminary nodes is the _Superior colliculus_ ,
which is part of the 'midbrain'[2]:

 _> The general function of the tectal system is to direct behavioral
responses toward specific points in egocentric ("body-centered") space. Each
layer of the tectum contains a topographic map of the surrounding world in
retinotopic coordinates, and activation of neurons at a particular point in
the map evokes a response directed toward the corresponding point in space.
[...]_

 _> Even in primates, however, the tectum is also involved in generating
spatially directed head turns, arm-reaching movements, shifts in attention
that do not involve any overt movements. [...]_

 _> Thus, cats with major damage to the visual cortex cannot recognize
objects, but may still be able to follow and orient toward moving stimuli,
although more slowly than usual._

That is just one of the preliminary areas. The SC is part of the brainstem.
People think of the brainstem as just controlling essential functions like
breathing, but it's also capable of more complex motor function.

[1]:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Gray722-...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Gray722-svg.svg)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_colliculus#Function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_colliculus#Function)

~~~
KingMob
I studied blindsight in grad school, and actually analyzed the data of patient
GY, probably the most widely-studied blindsight patient.

I forget the authors, but there was an anatomical paper showing that
blindsight requires all the secondary connections in order to happen.

So, everything from the retina synapses onto the thalamus first, and then 97+%
goes on to the primary visual cortex. The last few percent go to areas like
the SC, the frontal eye field, and V5/MT. This paper showed that if the damage
was _prior_ to, or including the thalamus, no blindsight was ever shown, but
if the damage was between the thalamus and V1, or involving V1 itself,
blindsight was possible.

The real question still is, why are these minor regions capable of supporting
tasks, but not experience?

------
danharaj
I would not expect the part of a brain that deals with self-awareness is all-
pervading and all-entwined. I would expect that you could disconnect cognition
from self-awareness. Apparently we don't even need a self to _synchronize
emotions_! That is a fantastic find!

I also think we can see a huge bias about some of our theories of what human
beings are: Many emphasize the self; a self-aware brain can become self-
obsessed. Many societies are obsessed with selves. Clearly human beings are
more and less. Decentralized. A plurality of cognitions embodied in one brain.

What is the implication for sociology? Has the emphasis on individuals been
too strong? The human fabric is ensembles interacting with each other, not
atoms. Models of rationality talk about discrete agents. What if we can't be
modeled as discrete agents? What is rationality now? Processes in my brain
have competing interests, but also cooperate. Cognitive processes are probably
not discrete. Can one come up with a model of rationality where the 'agents'
form a continuum?

~~~
Eric_WVGG
There is a study that made the rounds back in 2008 where scientists claimed
they could prove that people’s brains make decisions about 7-10 seconds before
they consciously “decide,” suggesting that cognitive thought is really just
rationalizing decisions that our brain already made for us. blah blah free
will we’re all turing machines, no but it’s interesting stuff

[http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html)

~~~
KingMob
My old labmate works with them as a post-doc now.

I would argue that most of what we do is automatic, and we are quite good at
post-facto rationalizing our decisions.

BUT, I would also argue that consciousness allows us to make fully-conscious
decisions, so we are not 100% automatic.

------
bootload
_" Just how many of our decisions occur out of our awareness, even when we
have the illusion of control? And if the conscious mind is not needed to
direct our actions, then what is its purpose? Why did we evolve this vivid
internal life, if we are almost “zombies” acting without awareness?"_

Slow thinking vs fast thinking?

~~~
norea-armozel
IMO, conscious thought is the result of being a social animal. Keeping up with
social relations is simple but when it comes to one-on-one situations you have
to drop everything and focus. Such focus has the side effect of allowing us to
reflect on ourselves (how we function, why we exist, etc). So, instead of
assuming why we're conscious at all, maybe it's better to ask why socializing
requires so much focus? Just a wild idea, I know.

~~~
conceit
I think you mixed up the complexity and cognitive demand of many to many and
one on one relations, in the second sentence. You present an intriguing idea,
anyway.

~~~
norea-armozel
No, think about it. Handling a group of people as a society is easier to
handle in the background since it's more about who you know not what you know
about them in precise form. In a one-on-one setting you're responding to
continually changing behaviors of that person (day-to-day life changes like
mood, health, and so forth). In that situation you have to put all your effort
to focus on them. It's why some people are better at picking up those cues
than others (personal example for me would be not picking up on when someone
is feeling ill or down about something). The more you get personal with
someone the more you have to get to know them, basically.

~~~
conceit
Counterpoint: the more personally involved you become with someone, the more
you are expected to devote your attention because it's getting easier as the
number of participants in the social interaction decreases.

------
ssewell
I've personally experienced this decoupling of vision and second sight. When
I've had bad migraines in the past, I typically experience scintillating
scotoma, which isn't that unusual.

But the odd thing is: even though I can visually "see" certain objects, I
don't feel like I'm observing them. For example, I can look directly at text
on my screen, but have a difficult time reading the text. It's quite an odd
experience.

------
wilwade
Reminds me of Julian Jaynes' ideas:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_\(psychology\))
(And if I remember correctly, the original study is referenced in his book)

~~~
taneq
It's referenced in Echopraxia, but only to explicitly state that the Bicameral
Brotherhood isn't named for that study. :)

------
subliminalzen
Advertisers use what is known as the Low Attention Processing Model.[1] With
this particular advertising strategy, brand information, and even an emotional
attachment to a brand, can be 'acquired' at low and even zero attention levels
using implicit learning.[2] Implicit learning cannot analyse or re-interpret
anything. The information goes directly to the subconscious mind.

Depending on the message, this can be positive or detrimental to our well-
being, and it puts into question how much free-agency we are really exercising
in our lives. The fact we are silently influenced by ambient images and
messages around us was the inspiration for these posters I designed:
[http://zenpusher.com](http://zenpusher.com)

Basically, if anyone is going to advertise to my subconscious mind, it's going
to be me. And I'd rather acquire positive habits and character traits than an
emotional connection to a product.

[1]
[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=364813&fileId=S0021849905050282)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_learning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_learning)

~~~
walterbell
Well done. This could be a sub-genre across all media formats: intentional
supraliminal messages overlaid on carrier media.

Silly example: a paid subscription service to insert contextualiy appropriate
supraliminal images into online articles, with revenue split between the
article publisher and the image creator.

~~~
nikanj
You might enjoy reading
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants)

