Science cannot solve the final mystery

[tas8831]

I can't "prove" anything except that there are many things known and I don't arrange them the same way you do;

I arrange them logically and coherently, and you rearrange so as to fit your fantasies.

Blindsight - Wikipedia.

What does that have to with a visions center in the midbrain?

How much of that wiki article did you read? How much did you understand?




I've supported the other arguments before and you just denied it. [/quote]
Except that you haven't. Re-iterating mere assertions is NOT 'support' for your original assertion. Telling tangential stories is NOT supporting anything. You 100% ignore even simple, straightforward questions. You persist in making the same unsupported assertions even after having your errors explained.
This issue is a prime example - you think a link to an article on 'blindsight' rescues your assertion about there being a way to see in the midbrain.

In fact, your own link indicates quite the opposite - that one with this trauma can NOT consciously see.

Please stop with this 'poor pitiful me' routine.

If I take the time and trouble to support them again you'll deny it again. I'm not new at this.

Maybe not, but you are terrible at it.

My evidence that you are wrong is:

1. You have presented no evidence you are right. Merely asserting these counterfactual notions about floating secondary speech centers does not indicate they are real, much less demonstrate this.
2, You seem to have rather naive understanding of brain anatomy. I recognize nothing you have claimed so far as having merit, and in double-checking your claims I found that I was correct - there is nothing in the midbrain that allows one to "see", and there is no unfixed second speech center. Like most of your unsupported assertions, you appear to have just made this up because it fits your fantasy life.

The logic is that merely making a counterfactual claim does not mean it is correct. Quite the opposite, especially when you never present any supporting documentation.


Since you apparently never bothered to learn any brain anatomy before pontificating on it, let me help you out -
The optic nerves meet just anterior to the infundibulum of the hypothalamus where they form a 'cross' - the optic chiasm. At this structure, the optic nerve fibers carry sensory information from the temporal (lateral) half of each retina back on the same side to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus, and the fibers carrying sensory information from the nasal (medial) half of each retina cross to the opposite side, then continue to the LGN as well. From the LGN, the optic radiations travel back to the visual cortices, primarily in the 'far' posterior portions of the occipital lobes.
Along the way, some fibers go to other brain structures, such as the superior colliculi, which are, as I indicated earlier, involved in certain visual reflexes (like tracking objects).

And did you note I mentioned the LGN?

None of these 'stops' along the way produce "sight" in any way.

This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;
Wernicke's area - Wikipedia

Wait, hold on - you jump from visual to speech centers, just like that? Well, OK - I will pull a cladking on you:

Did you not see this in your link:


"Wernicke's area, also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech (the other is Broca's area). It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language). "

That is the first sentence in YOUR link, a link which you just claimed as support for your claim:

"This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;"

You are horrible at this.


You "believe" some crazy nonsense about a magical visual center in the midbrain. You "believe" some crazy nonsense about multiple speech centers existing - and that Wernicke's area is the only one.

This is why nobody should take you seriously on anything - it is child's play to refute your assertions.

I don't know how Brocca spelled his name.

Yet you wrote it a number of times and ignored my frequent corrections. That tells me something.

I have no intention of researching it and seeing how everyone else has spelled his name for the last century.

Why would you research anything? You just dream it up and take credit.

I'm actually pretty good at inventing experiment and hypothesis.

No, you really are not.

I'm not bad at observation.

Yes, you are.

I'm great at reverse engineering. Ancient science gets more of my attention now days.

Well sure - that is where you make stuff up and pretend to be the hero who made grand discoveries!

All that rambling 'poor pitiful me' crap and all you could bring yourself ot address is that you don;t care how Paul Broca spelled his name.

Hilarious:


Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

 

[tas8831]

No. I referred to middle of the brain (mid-brain IMS).

huh

"We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain."​

That is cool - that was totally wrong, too.

It's probably an obsolete term (aren't they all) but I've heard it referred to as the "reptilian brain". It is in the middle of the brain (of all places).

Now you're a brain expert. Get that from Graham Hancock?
The 'reptilian brain' or R-complex usually refer to parts of the hindbrain, by the way. Not that it matters because you do not believe it therefore it is not real.
I know why it is in the 'middle' of the brain. Do you?

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

 

[cladking]

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

We've been over this only five or six times.

I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see.

What I said was most change in species (what you call evolution) is caused by near extinctions. There are other drivers of change in species as well.

Near extinctions are natural (generally) and select for genes that cause behavior. Some genes make your feathers blue and some genes make you prefer macadamia nuts. The ones that drive physical characteristics tend to be irrelevant to major changes in species. Generally there will be a correlation between the amount of speciation and the degree to which the behavior is unusual.

As I have also said countless times, I believe all the evidence supports my theory preferentially to any other theory. If you have a link that shows I'm wrong then you should supply it. Just showing support for current theory is irrelevant unless it shows that current theory is the only viable explanation. I think I could do a better job of arguing against my theory than you have so far.

I don't understand why you argue with me if you don't understand the argument.

This is EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING I DESCRIBED;

"In another case study, a girl had brought her grandfather in to see a neuropsychologist. The girl's grandfather, Mr. J., had had a stroke which had left him completely blind apart from a tiny spot in the middle of his visual field. The neuropsychologist, Dr. M., performed an exercise with him. The doctor helped Mr. J. to a chair, had him sit down, and then asked to borrow his cane. The doctor then asked, "Mr. J., please look straight ahead. Keep looking that way, and don't move your eyes or turn your head. I know that you can see a little bit straight ahead of you, and I don't want you to use that piece of vision for what I'm going to ask you to do. Fine. Now, I'd like you to reach out with your right hand [and] point to what I'm holding." Mr. J. then replied, "But I don't see anything—I'm blind!" The doctor then said, "I know, but please try, anyway." Mr. J then shrugged and pointed, and was surprised when his finger encountered the end of the cane which the doctor was pointing toward him. After this, Mr. J. said that "it was just luck". The doctor then turned the cane around so that the handle side was pointing towards Mr. J. He then asked for Mr. J. to grab hold of the cane. Mr. J. reached out with an open hand and grabbed hold of the cane. After this, the doctor said, "Good. Now put your hand down, please." The doctor then rotated the cane 90 degrees, so that the handle was oriented vertically. The doctor then asked Mr. J. to reach for the cane again. Mr. J. did this, and he turned his wrist so that his hand matched the orientation of the handle. This case study shows that—although (on a conscious level) Mr. J. was completely unaware of any visual abilities that he may have had—he was able to orient his grabbing motions as if he had no visual impairments.[3]"

But somehow or other I'm wrong and you're right.

Can you explain how this can be?

 

[cladking]

I arrange them logically and coherently, and you rearrange so as to fit your fantasies.

Of course you arrange them "logically and coherently". That's what everyone here is doing but somehow you missed that there is no "logic" in modern language and that we each see what we believe preferentially to reality. You are building models of bits of reality and these "models" are your beliefs right along with scientific facts and everything else of which your consciousness is composed. For most practical purposes all we Homo Omnisciencis have acquired these bits and pieces through modern language and we think in modern language. Modern language is the formatting for your models and our ability to compare what we see and sense to these models. We are wholly dependent on this language and we express it as even our consciousness is a product of language (I think therefore I am).

Ancient people had no words for "thought", "belief", or "assumption".

You can't divorce yourself from language and you aren't even trying.

No matter how "logically and coherently" you arrange your models they are still dependent on your assumptions and premises. It is a certainty that some of these premises are in error. Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts. Your knowledge is a tiny fraction of everything there is to know. You have all this knowledge of neuoroscience but then neuoroscience DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A WORKING DEFINITION OF "CONSCIOUSNESS" which is fundamental to life, evolution, and metaphysics which means it's fundamental to science and understanding. It is fundamental to neuroscience more than anything else.

This is the nature of our species and why we can't even formulate the proper questions much less the answers. We have to go to sleep to get practical answers to practical questions.

But such anomalies are invisible because we all organize our facts "logically" with a highly confused language. This is why so many people engage in semantical arguments instead of the topic under discussion.

 

[tas8831]

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

We've been over this only five or six times.

Yes, and you have yet to provide evidence:

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More

verb

1. be or show evidence of.
   "that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings"

I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see.

Actually, I see what you most certainly implied - and I believe this BE CAUSE I see it:

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions
"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."


What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?
"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."

Fascinating!
"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."

Science cannot solve the final mystery
"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."

Argumentum ad populum
"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"

Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...

Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...

Argumentum ad populum
"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."

Argumentum ad populum
"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."

What I said was most change in species (what you call evolution) is caused by near extinctions. There are other drivers of change in species as well.

Yes, on a couple of occasions you allowed that their might be other things that cause 'change', but in every instance you claimed it was primarily or all BEHAVIOR. I have shown this with YOUR OWN WORDS.
Are you going to deny your own words now? Maybe because they are ancient or something?

Near extinctions are natural (generally) and select for genes that cause behavior.

But never, maybe bigger teeth, or a thicker hide, or better camouflage? Just 'behavior', you keep saying.

You also keep saying that the experimental evidence shows this, yet you are incompetent to produce even a SINGLE documented example of such an experiment. Were these experiments done in your magical ANCIENT LANGUAGE that did not have a word for experiment or something?

Some genes make your feathers blue and some genes make you prefer macadamia nuts. The ones that drive physical characteristics tend to be irrelevant to major changes in species.

Wow, you are in direct opposition to the majority of all evolutionary biologists on this, but we must acknowledge that YOU, a self-taught conspiracy theorist religionist on the internet is the only one with the truth... because you 'believe' it.

So... what "behavior" allowed fish to live in water below the freezing temperature? I eagerly await your genetic and behavioral analysis that explains the existence of the Notothenioidei, the so-called ice fish.

Generally there will be a correlation between the amount of speciation and the degree to which the behavior is unusual.

Nice assertion. Any data to back it up?

As I have also said countless times, I believe all the evidence supports my theory preferentially to any other theory.

I am certain you have said so 1000 times.

I am also certain that you have not yet provided a single bit of data or documentation or evidence that your beliefs have merit.

As I have said 999 time, your mere say-so is NOT evidence or data, no matter how earnestly you merely 'believe' something.

If you have a link that shows I'm wrong then you should supply it.

I will do so the moment you supply a single link to documentation of verified, valid data or published evidence that any of your claims have merit.

I think I could do a better job of arguing against my theory than you have so far.

I have not argued for anything, really - except to get you to actually provide something of substance to you contrarian and usually counterfactual assertions.
The couple of times that you produced a link that you had hoped somehow, tangentially, supported your claims, they backfired completely and only made bigger problems for you. Remember when you linked to a Wiki article on Wernicke's area, claiming that it was the most important and even only speech area humans needed (or something silly like that), yet in the first paragraph of that article I quoted that they mentioned your old go-to Broca's area? And you just blew it off, like you blow off every other refutation of your naive assertions?

I don't understand why you argue with me if you don't understand the argument.

I don't know why you keep pretending I don't understand your 'argument' - that is the problem. I understand what you are 'arguing' about better than you, and can handily see how clueless you are about it.

This is EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING I DESCRIBED;

"In another case study..."

But somehow or other I'm wrong and you're right.

Can you explain how this can be?

Yes - again, one need only look at your original claims:

"There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" but the individual is not consciously aware of vision. "

It is your naive depictions that cause you problems. You lack a useful awareness - if you are going to try to 'argue' with people that understand topics better than you, it would be in your best interests to let this be known in the first place rather than asserting that you have special insights and can understand things nobody else does. Because when I see someone write:


"There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" "

that has a very specific meaning to me. I will grant that I apparently misinterpreted what you wrote, but it is your cloudy, uninformed language and unwarranted confidence that makes it hard to tell what you mean half the time.

It is all well and good that you found or remembered an essay on 'blindsight', but if you are going to use it for some kind of argument about brain "elasticity", you made a poor choice, and you should have at least taken the time to learn the anatomy.

Then again, it seems pretty clear that in all of your biology-related arguments, you never bothered to learn the details of anything, so...

Oh - and still waiting for you to address - with evidence - this claim:

"We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain. So why do you think we need a second one floating about in the frontal gyrus?"​

The one by the inferior frontal gyrus is Broca's Area, an area that you were quite fond of until you learned that it was not where or what you thought it was. No it is not needed, according to you.
Tell me about this "bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain".

Again, no such speech centers in the actual midbrain. Nor in the 'middle of the brain.'

Can't wait to see how you will twist and turn for this one!

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

 

[atanu]

Yes, and you have yet to provide evidence:

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More

verb

1. be or show evidence of.
   "that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings"

Actually, I see what you most certainly implied - and I believe this BE CAUSE I see it:

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions
"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."


What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?
"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."

Fascinating!
"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."

Science cannot solve the final mystery
"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."

Argumentum ad populum
"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"

Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...

Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...

Argumentum ad populum
"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."

Argumentum ad populum
"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."



Yes, on a couple of occasions you allowed that their might be other things that cause 'change', but in every instance you claimed it was primarily or all BEHAVIOR. I have shown this with YOUR OWN WORDS.
Are you going to deny your own words now? Maybe because they are ancient or something?


But never, maybe bigger teeth, or a thicker hide, or better camoflage? Just 'behavior', you keep saying.

You also keep saying that the experimental evidence shows this, yet you are incompetent to produice even a SINGLE documented example of such an experiment. Were these experiments done in your magical ANCIENT LANGUAGE that did not have a word for experiment or something?


Wow, you are in direct opposition to the majority of all evolutionary biologists on this, but we must acknowledge that YOU, a self-taught conspiracy theorist religionist on the internet is the only one with the truth... because you 'believe' it.

So... what "behavior" allowed fish to live in water below the freezing temperature? I eagerly await your genetic and behavioral analysis that explains the existence of the Notothenioidei, the so-called ice fish.



Nice assertion. Any data to back it up?


I am certain you have said so 1000 times.

I am also certain that you have not yet provided a single bit of data or documentation or evidence that your beliefs have merit.

As I have said 999 time, your mere say-so is NOT evidence or data, no matter how earnestly you merely 'believe' something.


I will do so the moment you supply a single link to documentation of verified, valid data or published evidence that any of your claims have merit.

I have not argued for anything, really - except to get you to actually provide something of substance to you contrarian and usually counterfactual assertions.
The couple of times that you produced a link that you had hoped somehow, tangentially, supported your claims, they backfired completely and only made bigger problems for you. Remember when you linked to a Wiki article on Wernicke's area, claiming that it was the most important and even only speech area humans needed (or something silly like that), yet in the first paragraph of that article I quoted that they mentioned your old go-to Broca's area? And you just blew it off, like you blow off every other refutation of your naive assertions?
I don;t know why you keep pretending I don;t understand your 'argument' - that is the problem. I understand what you are 'arguing' about better than you, and can handily see how clueless you are about it.


Yes - again, one need only look at your original claims:

"There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" but the individual is not consciously aware of vision. "

It is your naive depictions that cause you problems. You lack a useful awareness - if you are going to try to 'argue' with people that understand topics better than you, it woould be in your best interests to let this be known in the first place rather than asserting that you have special insights and can understand things nobody else does. Because when I see someone write:


"There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" "

that has a very specific meaning to me. I will grant that I apparently misinterpreted what you wrote, but it is your cloudy, uninformed language and unwarranted confidence that makes it hard to tell what you mean half the time.

It is all well and good that you found or remembered an essay on 'blindsight', but if you are going to use it for some kind of argument about brain "elasticity", you made a poor choice, and you should have at least taken the time to learn the anatomy.

Then again, it seems pretty clear that in all of your biology-related arguments, you never bothered to learn the details of anything, so...

Oh - and still waiting for you to address - with evidence - this claim:

"We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain. So why do you think we need a second one floating about in the frontal gyrus?"

The one by the inferior frontal gyrus is Broca's Area, an area that you were quite fond of until you learned that it was not where or what you thought it was. No it is not needed, according to you.
Tell me about this "bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain".

Again, no such speech centers in the actual midbrain. Nor in the 'middle of the brain.'

Can't wait to see how you will twist and turn for this one!

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

You seem to be rambling now.

 

[tas8831]

Of course you arrange them "logically and coherently". That's what everyone here is doing but somehow you missed that there is no "logic" in modern language and that we each see what we believe preferentially to reality.

I already explained that sensible people believe what they see, whereas fantasy-driven zealots see what they believe.

The German word for butterfly is schmetterling. By your logic, A German speaker cannot know what a butterfly is.

I guess. Your twisted mental gymnastics are tiresome.

For most practical purposes all we Homo Omnisciencis

No such creature.

Stop playing pretend.

Ancient people had no words for "thought", "belief", or "assumption".

WE are not these mystical, fabricated 'Ancient Peoples' you carry on about, so WHO CARES???

You can't divorce yourself from language and you aren't even trying.

Of course I can divorce myself from the language of fake Ancient peoples because 1. they are not real and 2. even if they were, WE ARE NOT THEM.

No matter how "logically and coherently" you arrange your models they are still dependent on your assumptions and premises.

Same for you.
Difference is, my assumptions and premises are founded on the results of previous work (evidence/data gathering, etc.). Your are based on conspiracy/religious tales and crazy notions about Ancient people.

It is a certainty that some of these premises are in error.

Some probably are, true. Much fewer than yours are, I promise you that, since mine are not premised on arguments about what Ancient people thought or had in their vocabulary.

Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.

Really?

And you know this because of your extensive self-education?

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

Otherwise this will just be chalked up as Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261,

Your knowledge is a tiny fraction of everything there is to know.

Granted.
Unlike you, I have never set myself up as the arbiter of all truth on things I know next to nothing about.

You have all this knowledge of neuoroscience but then neuoroscience DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A WORKING DEFINITION OF "CONSCIOUSNESS" which is fundamental to life, evolution, and metaphysics which means it's fundamental to science and understanding. It is fundamental to neuroscience more than anything else.

Irrelevant when it comes to understanding the anatomy and physiology of the brain.

You know less than me, by your own admission, yet you want to proclaim that there is a:

"bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain"

And I know that there is no such thing, and whether or not I am privy to the best ever definition of "consciousness" or not is 100% irrelevant to the fact that you are talking out of your backside and are too wrapped up in your contrarian fantasy land to understand how little yo understand.

This is the nature of our species and why we can't even formulate the proper questions much less the answers. We have to go to sleep to get practical answers to practical questions.

Then you should start sleeping 23 hours a day in order to put together a single coherent, fact-based argument.

But such anomalies are invisible because we all organize our facts "logically" with a highly confused language. This is why so many people engage in semantical arguments instead of the topic under discussion.

By 'semantical' you mean, um, use the RIGHT WORDS, or when making an anatomical argument to maybe know the friggin' ANATOMY? Something crazy like that?

 

[tas8831]

You seem to be rambling now.

You seem to be less relevant than ever.

 

[cladking]

"In another case study, a girl had brought her grandfather in to see a neuropsychologist. The girl's grandfather, Mr. J., had had a stroke which had left him completely blind apart from a tiny spot in the middle of his visual field. The neuropsychologist, Dr. M., performed an exercise with him. The doctor helped Mr. J. to a chair, had him sit down, and then asked to borrow his cane. The doctor then asked, "Mr. J., please look straight ahead. Keep looking that way, and don't move your eyes or turn your head. I know that you can see a little bit straight ahead of you, and I don't want you to use that piece of vision for what I'm going to ask you to do. Fine. Now, I'd like you to reach out with your right hand [and] point to what I'm holding." Mr. J. then replied, "But I don't see anything—I'm blind!" The doctor then said, "I know, but please try, anyway." Mr. J then shrugged and pointed, and was surprised when his finger encountered the end of the cane which the doctor was pointing toward him. After this, Mr. J. said that "it was just luck". The doctor then turned the cane around so that the handle side was pointing towards Mr. J. He then asked for Mr. J. to grab hold of the cane. Mr. J. reached out with an open hand and grabbed hold of the cane. After this, the doctor said, "Good. Now put your hand down, please." The doctor then rotated the cane 90 degrees, so that the handle was oriented vertically. The doctor then asked Mr. J. to reach for the cane again. Mr. J. did this, and he turned his wrist so that his hand matched the orientation of the handle. This case study shows that—although (on a conscious level) Mr. J. was completely unaware of any visual abilities that he may have had—he was able to orient his grabbing motions as if he had no visual impairments.[3]"

But somehow or other I'm wrong and you're right.

Can you explain how this can be?

Tas8831 just keeps changing the subject to things we've been over many times before.

So I'll repeat this. Wiki seems to think we can "see" with our midbrain so why does our resident neuro expert keep saying I'm wrong?

Blindsight - Wikipedia.

ALL EXPERIMENTAL AND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE says we see what we want to see so why am I wrong when I say it?

We See What We Want to See

Wiki seems to think we have a second fixed speech center so why an I wrong when I point it out?

Wernicke's area - Wikipedia


Apparently if you're self educated it's impossible to be right. If you aren't a Peer you're not even a God.

 

[tas8831]

cladking: Unlike you I could be wrong but this what anecdotal and experimental evidence shows.


me:THEN PRESENT THIS "anecdotal and experimental evidence"!!!!!


And he never did.

 

[ecco]

You also seem to lack much understanding of any kind of metaphysics

What's to know and understand?

met·a·phys·ics
/ˌmedəˈfiziks/

1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
   • abstract theory with no basis in reality.

woo-woo
/ˈwo͞oˌwo͞o/

adjective

1. 1.
   relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.
   "quartz crystals that were so popular with the woo-woo crowd"

noun

1. 1.
   unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.
   "some kind of metaphysical woo-woo"

This is what is cluttering up many brains and preventing them from dealing with reality.

 

[tas8831]

Tas8831 just keeps changing the subject to things we've been over many times before.

Actually, I keep trying to stay on topic.

You wander off on tangents. You should probably actually read what I write, instead of pretending to know it all without reading it. You might make less a fool of yourself.

But I doubt it.

So I'll repeat this. Wiki seems to think we can "see" with our midbrain so why does our resident neuro expert keep saying I'm wrong?

Blindsight - Wikipedia.

Like here. Had you actually read my last couple of replies to you, you would have seen, re: this "blindsight":

"I will grant that I apparently misinterpreted what you wrote, but it is your cloudy, uninformed language and unwarranted confidence that makes it hard to tell what you mean half the time.

It is all well and good that you found or remembered an essay on 'blindsight', but if you are going to use it for some kind of argument about brain "elasticity", you made a poor choice, and you should have at least taken the time to learn the anatomy."​

ALL EXPERIMENTAL AND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE says we see what we want to see so why am I wrong when I say it?


We See What We Want to See

I have not once seen to you make that claim, certainly not in any of the posts I have replied to. Are you conflating this with your mantra about 'seeing what we believe'? Two very different issues.

Wiki seems to think we have a second fixed speech center so why an I wrong when I point it out?

Wernicke's area - Wikipedia

It is so cool how you conflate and confuse your claims to try to find one that is a winner. You know, I totally demolished your lie about how you never claimed that behavior drives evolution, so one would think that you would be more cautious about claiming victory on things.

Let us review your crazily-uninformed rants about speech centers and the brain, shall we?

And I won't even count the times you wrote "broccas" instead of Broca's...
Now granted - some of the times you used this zany claim were in threads I was not involved in, but came up during my search - but boy, some of these are howlers!

Ancient Civilizations

"They were replaced by a new species with a second speech center that is acquired in infanthood."​

Fascinating!

"The mutation simply tied the speech center (wernickes area) to higher brain functions."

- here you show that you do not actually know what the function of Wernicke's area is.​

Ancient Reality

"Do you now understand that we've grown a new speech center to translate the digital brain to an analog language?"

- again, clueless as to function, but so certain. Interesting.​

Science cannot solve the final mystery

"If this continues to 24 mo then the child will grow more pathways that bypass the broccas area making translation to the speech center much more difficult."
​

Gibberish - Broca's IS the motor speech area. Wernicke's is more about interpretation. Your Wiki link even said so:

"Wernicke's area, also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech (the other is Broca's area). It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language)."

Don't you read your own links?

Argumentum ad populum
I like this one - you think we can sort of choose to 'grow a broccas area' - so cute!

"We don't really "decide" to grow a broccas area. In a sense we do because "decide" is just one of those words with an infinite number of definitions and individuals do acquire language through intent. In order to acquire language we "grow a brocas area".​

And yet, Broca's area is "involved in the production of language"... Hmmmmm


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain. [No, we don't!] So why do you think we need a second one floating about in the frontal gyrus?"​

Not sure how to parse that gibberish. Wernicke's is typically unilateral, and it is located in the area of the inferior parietal/superior temporal lobe.
Broca's area is also typically unilateral, and located in the region of the inferior frontal gyrus. So there is no logic, definitely no knowledge of anatomy, in that nonsense. But I forgot - "ALL EXPERIMENTAL AND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE" agrees with your notions and pontifications... Except when it doesn't.

There are more, but this is just what I got searching for "speech center", and I grew tired of seeing all of the repetitive unsupported assertions from your fantasy land...

So, in the end, you confuse and conflate Wernicke's and Broca's area, or just don;t know which is who. You definitely do not understand basic brain anatomy. You don;t read your own links. You don;t read the posts that you respond to. You change your claims as you see fit, then get indignant that someone is still considering your earlier iteration of said claims, etc.. But sure, you are an intellectual superstar....

Apparently if you're self educated it's impossible to be right.

Not impossible, just much much less likely. As we can see on this forum. There are at least 3 creationists, for example, who 'self-taught' themselves about phylogenetics. And they believe that such things are drawn up BEFORE doing data analyses. That is about as dumb as you can get, yet they are super confident. Just like you.

If you aren't a Peer you're not even a God.

You are not a god even if you are a peer.
But you are definitely not a peer, seeing as how you are clueless on even basic biology, anatomy, and genetics, yet think you are an expert.

It would at least help to exhibit basic reading comprehension and competence.


The one by the inferior frontal gyrus is Broca's Area, an area that you were quite fond of until you learned that it was not where or what you thought it was. No it is not needed, according to you.
Tell me about this "bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain".

Again, no such speech centers in the actual midbrain. Nor in the 'middle of the brain.'

Can't wait to see how you will twist and turn for this one!



Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

 

[cladking]

Actually, I keep trying to stay on topic.

You wander off on tangents. You should probably actually read what I write, instead of pretending to know it all without reading it. You might make less a fool of yourself.

Perhaps you should read this again;

Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery

Does it not seem at all strange to you that you know everything about how the brain works but can't say what the nature of consciousness is or why only humans are intelligent? Instead of correcting my grammar, knowledge of esoteric vocabulary, and lack of in depth understanding of just about anything at all, why don't you explain why I'm wrong. All of my claims are essentially correct. You believe the broca's area produces speech because stimulating nerves results in words and sentences. Isn't this the EXACT SAME THING that would occur if it were merely a translator? Rather than point out my misunderstandings of minutia why not use your vast knowledge to show I'm wrong and quit wasting bandwidth asking me to define "Peer"?

I've already told you why when we answer one question another arises; it's because we are seeing reality in bits and pieces instead of all at once. Just assume a little altitude and you can see the tops of more hills even if those in the far distance are not entirely clear.

All of my concepts are exceedingly simple and children understand them. If this were rocket science I couldn't have done it because I'm not that smart. I don't even believe "intelligence" exists and is a mirage created by modern language that makes each of us think we know everything.

 

[cladking]

I have not once seen to you make that claim, certainly not in any of the posts I have replied to. Are you conflating this with your mantra about 'seeing what we believe'? Two very different issues.

No. We see what we expect. We see what we believe. Our experience reinforces everything we believe and experience always reinforces our beliefs until we become what we believe. This is the human condition and the reason we have seven billion languages and seven billion religions.

​

So, in the end, you confuse and conflate Wernicke's and Broca's area, or just don;t know which is who. You definitely do not understand basic brain anatomy. You don;t read your own links. You don;t read the posts that you respond to. You change your claims as you see fit, then get indignant that someone is still considering your earlier iteration of said claims, etc..

I've changed nothing. My theory grows and evolves as I get more input but the fundamentals are not changed. I can go back and read something I wrote when I first started and find it essentially the same despite the errors and omissions and the naivety displayed in it.

The one by the inferior frontal gyrus is Broca's Area, an area that you were quite fond of until you learned that it was not where or what you thought it was. No it is not needed, according to you.

No. It was not needed by Homo Sapiens, it is certainly critical to Homo Omnisciencis.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

It is my contention that "all" evidence supports my theory. It's your job to show at least one experiment that falsifies it. I don't mind if you can't do it.



My theory is just looking at all the same facts and evidence from a different perspective. Unlike Peers, I can be wrong about anything at all. Only consensus is believed to be reality today. Peers created the heavens and the earth in the last century and a half. Bully for them.

 

[cladking]

You seem to be rambling now.

It's just the same old ground over and over.

But unlike most people who tread the same ground at least in this case that ground isn't the low road.

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps you should read this again;

Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery

Never read that, and don't intend to. This is just another of your patented dodges and diversions.

Does it not seem at all strange to you that you know everything about how the brain works but can't say what the nature of consciousness is or why only humans are intelligent?

Not as strange as you misrepresenting me in so grotesque a fashion. I have NEVER claimed or implied that I or anyone else knows "everything" about how the brain works. I have PROVED, repeatedly, that I know substantially more than YOU do about the brain.
Further, I note that YOU cannot explain what consciousness is in any way, even with your zany mysticism. And I reject outright your anthropocentric nonsense about only humans being intelligent.

Instead of correcting my grammar, knowledge of esoteric vocabulary, and lack of in depth understanding of just about anything at all, why don't you explain why I'm wrong.

I have done so, repeatedly. And YOU have yet to address simple straightforward questions regarding your counterfactual claims like what 'survival of the fittest' means.

All of my claims are essentially correct.

Not 1 that I am aware of, except perhaps the 'blindsight' thing, but that was largely because I could not [parse your layman gibberish.

You believe the broca's area produces speech because stimulating nerves results in words and sentences.

I never said such a thing. You are confabulating.

I very clearly relied on Broca's premise and evidence - people with trauma to the inferior frontal gyrus lost the ability to speak.

Isn't this the EXACT SAME THING that would occur if it were merely a translator?

No.

Rather than point out my misunderstandings of minutia why not use your vast knowledge to show I'm wrong and quit wasting bandwidth asking me to define "Peer"?

I have done so, and it is not via pointing out minutiae. Yes, I pointed out your laughable spelling and general anatomy errors, and I noted that this continued despite being corrected numerous times. THAT was more informative to me than the fact that you could not spell something you had apparently read about repeatedly. it is that refusal to be corrected.
And I have asked you to define "peer" because of the pejorative way that you use the term - it does not seem to me that you are using a standard or relevant definition. The fact that you refuse to do so tells me I am correct in my assessment.

I've already told you why when we answer one question another arises; it's because we are seeing reality in bits and pieces instead of all at once. Just assume a little altitude and you can see the tops of more hills even if those in the far distance are not entirely clear.

Yet you refuse to or cannot answer the earlier question. That is the problem.

All of my concepts are exceedingly simple and children understand them.

Hmmm... Wait until those children grow up and maybe, I don't know, read a book on the subject.

If this were rocket science I couldn't have done it because I'm not that smart. I don't even believe "intelligence" exists and is a mirage created by modern language that makes each of us think we know everything.

That is because you are off-kilter a bit.

And as usual, you just omit my refutations - using your own words in a couple cases - of your claims, and ignore my simple, straightforward questions, preferring to whine and dissemble and divert.

As usual.

Why is it so hard for you to admit your errors? Are you scared that your whole fantasy world will come tumbling down if you do?

Why can you not admit that you DID, in fact, claim "behavior drives evolution" as I DOCUMENTED you had done?

When will you tell me about this "bifurcated speech center" in the "middle of the brain"?

Why can you not admit that you have been flip-flopping on Broca's area/Wernicke's area, and that you ignored a refutation of your claim in the very link you provided to "support" it?

People can see that, you know, not just me.

What to make of this bafflegab:

"If this continues to 24 mo then the child will grow more pathways that bypass the broccas area making translation to the speech center much more difficult."

given the first sentence in your Wernicke's link:

"Wernicke's area, also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech (the other is Broca's area). It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language)."


Look, nobody likes to be shown to be wrong in public, but to deny, over and over (or just ignore) your many errors does NOT make you look like some kind of un-recognized genius.

It makes you look like one of the moderators on scienceforums wrote:

"Yeah, well. I suppose they tend to ignore the screams of crackpots. Shame."

After you had posted about how YOU had been screaming at people to do infrared scanning on a pyramid.



The one by the inferior frontal gyrus is Broca's Area, an area that you were quite fond of until you learned that it was not where or what you thought it was. No it is not needed, according to you.
Tell me about this "bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain".

Again, no such speech centers in the actual midbrain. Nor in the 'middle of the brain.'

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

 

[tas8831]

It's just the same old ground over and over.

Yup - you keep making errors, refuse to own up to them, then try to hide them by omitting them in your replies or dreaming up some tangential diversion.

 

[tas8831]

I have not once seen to you make that claim, certainly not in any of the posts I have replied to. Are you conflating this with your mantra about 'seeing what we believe'? Two very different issues.

No. We see what we expect. We see what we believe. Our experience reinforces everything we believe and experience always reinforces our beliefs until we become what we believe. This is the human condition and the reason we have seven billion languages and seven billion religions.

Woweee - now that you have re-wrriten your mantra the magic number of times, it really IS totally true even though you never supported it with anything more than repetition!
NOT.
So, in the end, you confuse and conflate Wernicke's and Broca's area, or just don;t know which is who. You definitely do not understand basic brain anatomy. You don;t read your own links. You don;t read the posts that you respond to. You change your claims as you see fit, then get indignant that someone is still considering your earlier iteration of said claims, etc..

I've changed nothing.

I just documented it.

My theory grows and evolves as I get more input but the fundamentals are not changed. I can go back and read something I wrote when I first started and find it essentially the same despite the errors and omissions and the naivety displayed in it.

And then not admit to it? All in the course of 1 thread?

The one by the inferior frontal gyrus is Broca's Area, an area that you were quite fond of until you learned that it was not where or what you thought it was. No it is not needed, according to you.

No. It was not needed by Homo Sapiens, it is certainly critical to Homo Omnisciencis.

2 false claims in one sentence.
You see, superstar, convolutions leave imprints on the inside of the skull. Not only do early Homo, to include Neanderthals and even earlier ancestors, but also other apes indicate the presence of a Broca's area. Since we ARE Homo sapiens, we have one. And since there is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis", there is no need to consider your fantasy. But good on you for italicizing, as that is the correct convention. Bad on you for capitalizing the species name. Failed journalist Graham Hancock is not a good scientific source for things like binomial nomenclature or biology.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

It is my contention that "all" evidence supports my theory.

Yes, a contention that you have yet to support. Pity that you have not apologized for denying you claimed as much. I guess after I documented it, you decided to own it.. How very honest and special of you.

It's your job to show at least one experiment that falsifies it.

No, it is your job to show ONE EXPERIMENT that supports it.

I don't mind if you can't do it.

Cute. Pity that this is your last refuge - the fallacy of shifting the burden. My Amon Ra, man - if you are going to make such grandiose claims, at the very least you should be able to support it with ONE thing you claim does.

Well, anyway - here you go. "Change" not governed by behavior, but by selection for increased milk production/larger udders. That took a while to become established, looks like several centuries.. Candidate genes associated with increased milk production (phenotype - larger udders).

My theory is just looking at all the same facts and evidence from a different perspective. Unlike Peers, I can be wrong about anything at all. Only consensus is believed to be reality today. Peers created the heavens and the earth in the last century and a half. Bully for them.

Poor pitiful clad.... Nobody listens to the crowing from the corner....

Still got several to go.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Oh, and:

You know less than me, by your own admission, yet you want to proclaim that there is a:

"bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain"

 

[cladking]

"Isn't this the EXACT SAME THING that would occur if it were merely a translator?"

No.

So you not only know exactly what the broca's area does but also how it works, serves consciousness, and how it would work if it were a translator as I suggest. Yet, you don't have a working definition of "consciousnes", don't know at what age the area arises, and probably don't understand any of the distinctions between analog/ digital brain and an analog reality.

Look, nobody likes to be shown to be wrong in public, but to deny, over and over (or just ignore) your many errors does NOT make you look like some kind of un-recognized genius.

Since you have no understanding of consciousness you can't compare the types of consciousness in each part of the brain but you state positively the broca's area can't be a translator. This is remarkable. Homo Omnisciencis is so powerful. Since a little knowledge is dangerous maybe you should sleep on this.

Why can you not admit that you have been flip-flopping on Broca's area/Wernicke's area, and that you ignored a refutation of your claim in the very link you provided to "support" it?

The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Isn't this the EXACT SAME THING that would occur if it were merely a translator?

Look, nobody likes to be shown to be wrong in public, but to deny, over and over (or just ignore) your many errors does NOT make you look like some kind of un-recognized genius.

I still don't believe in "intelligence".

After you had posted about how YOU had been screaming at people to do infrared scanning on a pyramid.

They finally did the testing but hate the results so much they won't even show it to Peers. It supports my theory and "no" other.

Yup - you keep making errors, refuse to own up to them, then try to hide them by omitting them in your replies or dreaming up some tangential diversion.

I've made countless errors. I believe I've repaired them all.

You see, superstar, convolutions leave imprints on the inside of the skull. Not only do early Homo, to include Neanderthals and even earlier ancestors, but also other apes indicate the presence of a Broca's area. Since we ARE Homo sapiens, we have one.

You must be running scared now. I have no doubt you made that up and it's irrelevant anyway since my contention is that this part of the brain is adapted by the individual to use as a translator.

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior PRIMARILY causes speciation, which is "sudden."

All change in all life is sudden. This is why there are missing links; they never existed in the first place. We just see what we expect and we expect a gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. NONSENSE!

 

[cladking]

And by the by.

A great number of my errors were caused by specialists. A neurologist (a very good neurologist) told me the speech center is partially bifurcated. Several geologists told me there was no such thing as a cold water geyser, too. I kindda got away from consulting experts because their track record is so very very poor.

Do you have any idea why most people need to hold the phone to their left ear?