Hi Phage,
To my comment,
quote:
I have been asking what that process is, exactly. How does the tree detect those circumstances and adjust? How does the brain? Where is that missing piece between stimulus and response?
you responded,
quote:
No you have not, it does not, and there isn't a missing piece! You have not been investigating the biological action behind why a stomach grows to the size it does and stops, while not sticking to the sides of the abdominal cavity but mating its ends to the esophagus and the duodenum. You have not been asking why a femur grows into the shape of a femur, rather than just keeping adding bone randomly. And finally, you have not been asking how an eye distinguishes itself from the surrounding tissue and links up with other parts of the body.
These appear to be programmed processes, do they not? Like my clock ticking, or my fingernails growing. What I'm talking about is what happens when the pattern changes and the circumstances demand that the organism adapt or suffer. I'm not claiming that thought is going on like it does in our heads, but it appears to me that somehow a consciousness is involved with the adaptation. I'm willing to be proved wrong, if that happens as biological and genetic research advance.
quote:
The study of the brain is ongoing, and would continue even without such examples. For example: Phineas Gage
I'm willing to take on board the possibility that brain damage can profoundly alter a person's personality, and the implications for what we might call the soul. In fact I'm interested in learning more about these sorts of things because of what they could teach us. But to be fair, your link for this particular person shows that the facts in his case are far from clear. Can you find another, more modern example? . . . and remind me please what point you are making here?
quote:
Mr. G. got up and vomited; the effort of vomiting pressed out about half a teacupful of the brain, which fell upon the floor.
OK now, you're just trying to gross me out, right?
Finally, I said,
quote:
This isn't a case of simple adaptation, this is profound restructuring.
and you said,
quote:
Define the difference with something other than incredulity or rarity.
It's a simple question really. Sometimes incredulity can be valid in an investigation; if something seems highly unlikely and there's evidence for that, then you need to consider other alternatives along with your original hypothesis.
So how does a millimeter-thick brain lining produce all the functions of the different parts of a normal brain? Admittedly it would be helpful to have more exact details in the case, but I don't think they're publicly available (I've looked), so we have to go with what we've got. I think it's pretty reasonable to posit that what he has for a brain
can't be functioning the way a normal brain does, would be incapable of it, and must somehow be relying at least partially on other parts of the body.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.