Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Science Daily: Fiddler crab eye view inspires researchers to develop novel artificial vision

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Artificial vision systems find a wide range of applications, including self-driving cars, object detection, crop monitoring, and smart cameras. Such vision is often inspired by the vision of biological organisms. For instance, human and insect vision have inspired terrestrial artificial vision, while fish eyes have led to aquatic artificial vision. While the progress is remarkable, current artificial visions suffer from some limitations: they are not suitable for imaging both land and underwater environments, and are limited to a hemispherical (180°) field-of-view (FOV).

Fiddler crabs can look all around, without the need to move their eyes. https://biology.anu.edu.au

To overcome these issues, a group of researchers from Korea and USA, including Professor Young Min Song from Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology in Korea, have now designed a novel artificial vision system with an omnidirectional imaging ability, which can work in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. Their study was made available online on 12 July 2022 and published in Nature Electronics on 11 July 2022.

“Research in bio-inspired vision often results in a novel development that did not exist before. This, in turn, enables a deeper understanding of nature and ensure that the developed imaging device is both structurally and functionally effective,” says Prof. Song, explaining his motivation behind the study.

The inspiration for the system came from the fiddler crab (Uca arcuata), a semiterrestrial crab species with amphibious imaging ability and a 360° FOV. These remarkable features result from the ellipsoidal eye stalk of the fiddler crab’s compound eyes, enabling panoramic imaging, and flat corneas with a graded refractive index profile, allowing for amphibious imaging.

Accordingly, the researchers developed a vision system consisting of an array of flat micro-lenses with a graded refractive index profile that was integrated into a flexible comb-shaped silicon photodiode array and then mounted onto a spherical structure. The graded refractive index and the flat surface of the micro-lens were optimized to offset the defocusing effects due to changes in the external environment. Put simply, light rays traveling in different mediums (corresponding to different refractive indices) were made to focus at the same spot.

To test the capabilities of their system, the team performed optical simulations and imaging demonstrations in air and water. Amphibious imaging was performed by immersing the device halfway in water. To their delight, the images produced by the system were clear and free of distortions. The team further showed that the system had a panoramic visual field, 300o horizontally and 160o vertically, in both air and water. Additionally, the spherical mount was only 2 cm in diameter, making the system compact and portable.

Science Daily

It’s worth highlighting this quote: “These remarkable features result from the ellipsoidal eye stalk of the fiddler crab’s compound eyes, enabling panoramic imaging, and flat corneas with a graded refractive index profile, allowing for amphibious imaging.” Does this sound like intelligent design or the result of unguided, random evolutionary processes?

Comments
JVL Just a little on the related area of PSI and ESP, another area where you are coming up against a massive amount of empirical evidence. Your superskeptical materialist position probably includes the dismissal of PSI and ESP, along with NDEs and any and all evidence for an immaterial spirit along the lines of interactional dualism, or idealist monism, for that matter. The Wiki article on ESP, and other materialist scientistic pseudoskeptic dismissals of the paranormal, ignore or dismiss all major meta-analyses of the data, like Etzel Cardena’s survey article on psi and esp research findings in American Psychologist, which presented a very strong case for the reality of these phenomena based on the cumulatively overwhelmingly evidential peer-reviewed research findings from many studies accumulated over the years. The title was “The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena” (at https://ameribeiraopreto.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/The-Experimental-Evidence-for-Parapsychological-Phenomena.pdf). From the Abstract: “The evidence (presented here) provides cumulative support for the reality of psi, which cannot be readily explained away by the quality of the studies, fraud, selective reporting, experimental or analytical incompetence, or other frequent criticisms. The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them.” Any open-minded examination of the empirical evidence shows that parapsychology is not pseudo-science, but many widely believed-in mainstream materialist sources such as Wikipedia complacently lie that it is. With the Cardena paper the best that the materialist scientistic pseudoskeptics could do when presented with this challenge was Reber and Alcock’s incredible response (at https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/07/why-parapsychological-claims-cannot-be-true/), where they couldn’t or wouldn’t waste their precious time and effort in actually examining the details of the data and research experimental results, but instead they closed-mindedly went back to David Hume and his old “pigs can’t fly” philosophical/metaphysical argument against “miracles” contravening currently understood natural law. Reber and Alcock claimed that esp and psi are simply existentially impossible, regardless of absolutely any conceivable evidence. Essentially, they threw out without examination the very large body of highly evidential experimental research results, a very large body of empirical evidence, just because they didn’t and couldn’t believe them. They strongly believe that all the data regardless of quality just must in principle be false in some way, with no need to actually show this falsity in detail. Wow, case closed. What an excellent argument. Of course, the real reason for their use of this tired and invalid old argument was that they knew that they couldn’t plausibly challenge the findings documented in Cardena’s paper.doubter
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
JVL:
Sure but if ID proponents don’t move on to those other obviously important questions ID will have a harder time escaping the accusation of being a science stopper.
We still don't know who designed Stonehenge. Is archaeology a science stopper? We don't know by who or how the Mayan calendar round was designed. How does knowing the Wright brothers help us understand airplanes?ET
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
All, The contrast between Intelligent Design and design by undirected random chance and selection has been explained here INNUMERABLE times. Yet, in each new thread, the comment by skeptics are static along the lines of: A. ID is unscientific. B. I'm not convinced. C. I've never seen anyone who could show evidence of ID. The appropriate answers are often along the lines of: A. Your opinion by itself does not constitute irrefutable proof. B. Who cares whether "you" are convinced. No amount of evidence would ever "convince" you. See A. C. You've been shown strong evidence with boring regularity, which you never bother reading because of B. What we need besides https://uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it/ is an ANTI-trollbot that simply negates unsupported assertions with . . . more unsupported assertions since no synapses were involved in the skeptical comments anyway. A. Random chance with natural selection is unscientific. B. I'm not convinced of your pathetic unsupported skepticism. C. I've never seen anyone who could show evidence of evolution. Q + -Q = 0 Maybe then we wouldn't waste our time on vacuous trollbot comments, especially when the skeptics and critics won't even take the time to consider the links provided, bother to look up a term, or even create a cogent response to a question in return. On the other hand, a well-researched, cogent question about ID would be interesting and welcome. -QQuerius
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
JVL And I notice that you have not responded to my post (#33) citing the Wilder Penfield epilepsy surgery brain stimulation data. Please plausibly explain that via reductionist materialism.doubter
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
JVL@35 I guess here, the Devil is in the nitty gritty details. How about a plausible materialistic explanation of the Pam Reynolds NDE case, for instance? Even more importantly, keep in mind that all it takes is for just one out of the multitude of veridical NDEs to be actually valid, to make the case for NDEs being glimpses of an afterlife. It would require that for the investigated cases, the careful researchers looking into verification made egregious errors in their investigations, for every single one of the over than 100 documented in The Self Does Not Die. How likely is that?doubter
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
JVL at 37, The same old same old. That's the best you can do? Here's some information for you to consider. From Communion and Stewardship: "69. ... But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).' And that is the answer. God works infallibly in Creation. God. This knowledge combines science and Divine revelation. I know this is not allowed in Biology textbooks, but it is clear that God created.relatd
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Relatd: As science, it does not get in the way of ongoing scientific research. The question is: does it support it and encourage it and does it promote an ongoing research agenda? Well, does it? The actual concern is ID getting into the public Marxist-Atheist reeducation camps as a belief in something beyond science, beyond what you can show in a lab. If you can't show it in a lab then is it science? That is the point!! The evidence for ID is all around you. Living things are designed. Yet, somehow, people cling to Richard Dawkins and his dismissal of the actual design of living things. If this gets into the schools then people might be inclined to believe in God. Can’t have that. I have a lot of very good friends who believe in God. I have one friend in particular who has discussed these issues with me and who is a staunch believer in God and we still find a lot of common ground for lots of other things. This is not a problem with me. That is not the point. The point is: what is science. And I still do not see how you can test the Divine in a lab. Faith is not science. But it's the clear stated motivation of organisations like The Discovery Institute to make faith part of science. That I object to. As should anyone of faith. Because . .. Faith should be about that which cannot be proven or shown in some cold and calculating situation. Faith should be about trusting that there is something beyond which the test tubes and scales can show. Faith should be something that lifts people above the dull and drab and mind numblingly boring everyday life. Faith sustains people, inspires peoples, gives people hope, encourages them, lifts them up above the hard scrabble every day graft they have to deal with. People of faith are lucky to have that kind of inspiration. Science is about the drab, boring, grind of churning out little steps of mechanical insight. That's the deal. If I can't reproduce your results under the same situation then I gotta think you got it wrong. It's not about faith. And faith is not about science. Nor should it be.JVL
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Seversky: It would. It would also be interesting if ID proponents could give a detailed explanation of how their putative designer did it – and who he/she/it is. Wow spoken like someone who has faith that science can answer all questions that can be thought of. Well guess what: the majority of the world doesn't think that way and are OK that many things cannot be known to humans. Maybe this is too much of a philosophical leap for materialists worshipping science and the human intellect. Exactly. That’s how evolution works. There’s a whole lot more dead ends than there are successful outcomes. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Wait a sec. Macroevolution, which as is said supposedly "works", has never been observed, same as those millions of transitional forms that left no fossils. Why don't we instead say "supposed to work" which is to say provides selective advantage for each "step" in a stepwise progression. So for some reason over the years when I ask for a stepwise advent of the respiratory endothelium with billions of cilia in coordinated motion, all electrochemically linked up to move the mucus -- it seems that the true believers can never come up with an example that would have a decimated number that provides advantage. Or starts out at very small scale and still successful moving the mucus. All I can ever get is excuses as to my question being unworthy of answer. On a different topic does anyone wonder why the same materialists come on here year after year with the same wise guy attitude, thinking somehow they'r gonna 'win'? Here's what I think: materialists worship the human intellect and invented the term 'humanism' to so indicate. On the other hand, they are terrified of the mind, because in their own mind, their mind is destined for obliteration because the brain inevitably meets its annihilation. And for people who think science can answer all questions, it is amusing to observe them struggle with one big question: if my mind is doomed, then what is it for, what does it serve? It is the one question that terrifies them, because they are deathly afraid of their 'truth', pun intended. They try to answer it, or rather their ego tries to answer it, but the ego maintains control by maintaining the fear and the belief system that underlies it. And science surely can't answer it. Which brings up a possibility. Maybe those kinds of people come to this site unconsciously seeking salvation from their mind as they perceive it. Many of us on here are free from even questioning our survival, and maybe these people harbor unconsciously a desire to reach such confidence. It takes a bit of philosophical maturity for an adult to recognize that humankind cannot know everything, but even children I think understand it until the modern educational system takes it away to be replaced with the dominant paradigm.groovamos
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Doubter: Obviously your scientistic bias prevents you from open mindedly considering all the research that has been carried out in this field. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't spent time seriously considering the data. I find your assumption offensive. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. Of course I will not hold my breath waiting for you to really look at the empirical evidence – it too greatly conflicts with your fixed materialistic world-view. I have spent a long time looking at all the data you cite. And, in the end, I disagree with you. I assume you will conclude that I am crazy or deluded or being paid money to toe the party line. Can you actually really accept that an intelligent person might end up disagreeing with you after considering all the same data? Is that okay?JVL
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Relatd: Blind, unguided chance that is not goal oriented. Or Intelligent Design where it is clear, based on the evidence, that chance, even with millions of years to play with, is incapable of building a living thing or something as specialized as the Fiddler crab eye. I don't think you have represented the unguided evolutionary theory correctly. You've focused on the random/chance aspect when, it's clear, that a lot of the theory is based on biased cumulative selection. And we are talking about millions of years. To the brain and what it does. The brain is an organ. It is the input and control center for all of the senses. There are reports of people on operating tables, under anesthesia, that end up above their bodies, and able to accurately report what the surgeons are doing. Yes but there is a researcher who has put objects at the top of cupboards and storage units in their trauma wards the idea being that IF someone was actually seeing the world from outside of their body from a position well above their body then they should have been able to see the objects stashed up there but, to this day, no one in that ward having an out-of-body experience has been able to see those objects. Why is that? But the brain as an organ is also connected to something else. Assumptions and guesses without any real hard evidence.JVL
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
JVL@24
if you can physically stimulate a place in the brain and make the patient react in a certain, predictable way then it’s clear there is no uber-mind which is observing everything and understanding what is going on. And the patients saying: I didn’t do that makes that clear. There mind is completely unaware of what the brain is doing at a very basic level at times.
Of course, in addition to veridical NDEs, you ignore the work of Wilder Penfield, the founder of epilipsy surgery. From https://mindmatters.ai/2021/08/epilepsy-if-you-follow-the-science-materialism-is-dead/:
He operated on 1100 patients with epilepsy and really developed the whole field of doing brain surgery to prevent seizures. His specialty was awake craniotomy. You give the patient local anesthesia so they don’t feel any pain. You inject the scalp with Novocaine, and so on. Penfield did this operation on over a thousand patients and he noticed two things that were fascinating. He would do hundreds of stimulations of different parts of the brain in each operation. And he would stimulate all kinds of things. He could stimulate sensations where the patients would see flashes of light or feel tingling on their skin. He could stimulate the brain and stimulate movements where the patient would raise their arm or raise their leg. He could stimulate memories where they would have this vivid memory of their mother’s face or their first day of school or being in college, and he could stimulate emotions where they would have intense emotions, to feel intense pleasure or intense fear. But he noted, and he wrote a book about it, actually — The Mystery of the Mind (1975) — that never once in hundreds of thousands of stimulations of the brain was he ever able to stimulate what he called “mind action.” He meant by that, “abstract thought.” He was never able to stimulate a person to think about philosophy or logic or do mathematics. And he said, “Isn’t that strange that most of our mental contents entails abstract thought, and that’s the one kind of mental state that I have never been able to evoke by stimulating the brain.” He said, it kind of makes sense then that maybe it doesn’t come from the brain. Maybe it’s dependent upon the brain for its normal function, but the brain is not what gives rise to it. He thought that was clear evidence for dualism. And he said that he had started out his career as a materialist and at the end of his career he was a passionate dualist. He said that this mind-action, this ability to have abstract thought, clearly does not come from the brain.
doubter
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
JVL at 29, You like slogans, don't you? ID is not a "science stopper." As science, it does not get in the way of ongoing scientific research. That's not your real concern. The actual concern is ID getting into the public Marxist-Atheist reeducation camps as a belief in something beyond science, beyond what you can show in a lab. The evidence for ID is all around you. Living things are designed. Yet, somehow, people cling to Richard Dawkins and his dismissal of the actual design of living things. If this gets into the schools then people might be inclined to believe in God. Can't have that.relatd
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
JVL@24
I am fairly familiar with the near-death research. And, in the end, I don’t find any of the evidence strong enough to make all the questions and assumptions go away. I find the ‘brain is the mind’ arguments more plausible and with far less assumptions.
Familiar with the research? Obviously your scientistic bias prevents you from open mindedly considering all the research that has been carried out in this field. As an example try actually reading and absorbing the excellent detailed summary of some of this work that exists in the book The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences by Rivas, Dirven and Smit. This book contains over 100 reliable, often firsthand, veridical NDE accounts of perceptions during NDEs that were later verified by careful and thorough investigators as accurate by independent sources. These near-death experiencers were everyday people from all over the world — many of whom were clinically dead, unable to see or hear, and yet able to perceive details of such things as rescusitative procedures, doctor's identities, other people and places in the physical world, and sometimes encounters with deceased loved ones whom they didn't know were dead. Of course I will not hold my breath waiting for you to really look at the empirical evidence - it too greatly conflicts with your fixed materialistic world-view.doubter
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
JVL at 27, You picked the wrong person. I wrote that. So, after science being turned into god, politics is the next god. Quite sad. The Marxist-Atheist school system cannot be affected since it will create/indoctrinate young people to the "correct" way of thinking. The Marxist-Atheist state within a state must remain in control or problems, like believing in God, might appear. Can't have that. You've shown no effort to "build understanding." In this particular case, all you do is point out what you call "thumb your nose" responses. Is that unexpected? I prefer to be polite but I also prefer that my politeness not to be a reason to take advantage of my trust. Do you understand? Your choices are: Blind, unguided chance that is not goal oriented. Or Intelligent Design where it is clear, based on the evidence, that chance, even with millions of years to play with, is incapable of building a living thing or something as specialized as the Fiddler crab eye. To the brain and what it does. The brain is an organ. It is the input and control center for all of the senses. There are reports of people on operating tables, under anesthesia, that end up above their bodies, and able to accurately report what the surgeons are doing. If accurate then this shows that the brain can undergo states that are poorly understood and not accepted as actually occurring. Such states cannot be brought out on command so that would make them impossible to study under a controlled setting. And even if they could, what would the practical use of such a state be? But the brain as an organ is also connected to something else. Human creativity is not a computer-like function, along with human invention. Some of it can be modeled but in reality, the majority cannot. I propose the brain has molecular connections that work at the quantum level as well. The implications are for brain-mind researchers to unravel - scientifically.relatd
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Doubter: Determining who or what was the intelligent agent involved and how they (it) did it is very secondary in this endeavor. Sure but if ID proponents don't move on to those other obviously important questions ID will have a harder time escaping the accusation of being a science stopper.JVL
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
"Asauber: What creatures, where?" JVL, Not me. Andrewasauber
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Asauber: What creatures, where? Just invent explanations that don’t explain anything? That’s not science. That’s storytelling. As in fiction storytelling. I was just speculating. I thought that was clear. I am not a evolutionary researchers and I'm not up on all the current work. You have yet to respond to my request for you to explain what you think the brain does and what it's for. Others have and I appreciate that because there should be no shame or reason why anyone should hide their reasons for their views. I expect people here to disagree with me and, I assume, people expect me to disagree with them. But I think the exchange of ideas and questions is good and helps, at the least, make it more likely that when people propose legislation or vote that they will consider the views of others that they have taken the time to understand. If you'd rather just snark and thumb your nose that's your right. But if you don't think that actually helps build understanding then I'd encourage you to have a think about what you actually want to accomplish.JVL
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Seversky@14
It would also be interesting if ID proponents could give a detailed explanation of how their putative designer did it – and who he/she/it is.
The usual straw man argument, that deliberately misdefines ID. ID research, ID science, takes on the primary critical task of identifying that some sort of intelligent design is the main "guilty party" in evolution, rather than Darwinistic RM+NS. That there absolutely must have been an intelligent agent or agents involved. Determining who or what was the intelligent agent involved and how they (it) did it is very secondary in this endeavor.doubter
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
JVL at 23, What creatures, where? Just invent explanations that don't explain anything? That's not science. That's storytelling. As in fiction storytelling.relatd
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Caspian: Let’s imagine that the mind is an immaterial entity and the brain is an organ by means of which the mind can interact with the physical world, through the medium of the body. Okay, but would that be required? The claim of people experiencing out of body experiences is that they can detect events without the intervention of the body/brain. The processing of images and thoughts involves both the brain and the mind (perhaps analogous to how the functioning of a computer involves both the hardware and the software). A lot of assumptions about channels and signals and processing and unbreakable links. You express a doubt that near-death experiences validate the mind (or soul) and brain duality. A massive amount of research suggests otherwise. Another line of research that concludes the validity of mind/brain dualism comes from Wilder Penfield (neurosurgeon). I am fairly familiar with the near-death research. And, in the end, I don't find any of the evidence strong enough to make all the questions and assumptions go away. I find the 'brain is the mind' arguments more plausible and with far less assumptions. What this suggests is that the mind, which refers to itself as “I” or “me,” stands aloof from the brain. I think exactly the opposite; if you can physically stimulate a place in the brain and make the patient react in a certain, predictable way then it's clear there is no uber-mind which is observing everything and understanding what is going on. And the patients saying: I didn't do that makes that clear. There mind is completely unaware of what the brain is doing at a very basic level at times.JVL
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Doubter: You left out one extremely important factor: the workings of Darwinistic evolution actually had to contrive to modify the genetic DNA structure in exactly the right ways to reorganize millions of sensory and processing neurons so as to invert the image to right side up. No, I don't think that is so. IF you can equip human beings with prismatic lenses which invert the view presented to their eyes and their brain can adapt, in a matter of days, an flip that image back around I don't think a genetic change is required. And of course, the brain plasticity mechanism had to somehow be also first developed. Why wouldn't it be the case that creatures which had that capacity would have an advantage?JVL
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: And yet, as Schwartz’s, and others’s, experimental research highlights, “the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.”” But other experimental results suggest that is not the case. You have to consider all the data and results. Dr. Pim van Lommel has a good illustration, I am quite familiar with Dr van Lammel especially with his work on NDEs; I mention that just so you know that my comments are not completely uninformed. The basic idea (which I have come across before) is that the physical brain is a combination of video camera and television in that it detects and grabs information from the real world, beams it out to some receiver somewhere and, also, receives broadcasts from some source somewhere which enables it to react to those broadcasts in the real world. I guess. Anyway, the scenario generates some obvious questions: Since no communications channel has been detected how do the brain and the mind communicate? Without actually detected signals or mechanisms (in the brain) clearly able to broadcast and receive signals it's all just an assumption. Something you accuse non-dualists of having. Assuming there is some communications channel that can travel over vast distances instantaneously with little or no loss of signal then . . . where is the mind? How is it stored? How is it sustained without a physical device? Another question about this assumed communication protocol is: since I don't pick up signals from all the existing and dead people on earth each person must have a dedicated 'frequency' or channel. Which means there must be billions and billions of channels which are distinct enough so that, most of the time, there is no bleed-through. How is it that physical brains can potentially detect billons of different channels? Another assumption? We know that devices like mobile phones and televisions and radios (which have some of the above functionality) require fairly robust power sources. If we're talking about a constantly working communications channel with some undetected and undefined source/detector then where is the source of that power, both for the brain and for the distant source? More assumptions? How come it is that, under certain circumstances, we have no memories or experiences? Let's say the brain is temporarily blocked like when we get a general anaesthetic. Why isn't the mind still processing information and thinking even when it's physical station is off-line? In my own personal experience that doesn't happen; there was zero time or events detected between the time I went 'out' and when I 'woke up'. Just a quick blank. Nothing. It seems to me that your view entails a lot of assumptions (and brings up a lot of questions) which seem to violate criteria like Ockham's Razor. If you want to hold that view as a matter of faith then I've got nothing to say. If you think it's science then I have to be more critical.JVL
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
JVL @ 6 Let’s imagine that the mind is an immaterial entity and the brain is an organ by means of which the mind can interact with the physical world, through the medium of the body. The processing of images and thoughts involves both the brain and the mind (perhaps analogous to how the functioning of a computer involves both the hardware and the software). The brain would not be just a transmitter, as you have indicated. You express a doubt that near-death experiences validate the mind (or soul) and brain duality. A massive amount of research suggests otherwise. Another line of research that concludes the validity of mind/brain dualism comes from Wilder Penfield (neurosurgeon). Here is an excerpt from my book, Canceled Science (p. 193-94), that summarizes his key results: “What other evidence can we bring to bear on this question of the nature of the mind and the brain? Pioneer neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, whose brain surgery techniques helped numerous patients suffering from epilepsy, provided an unusually well-informed perspective on the distinction between the mind and the brain. In his book, The Mystery of the Mind, Penfield’s direct observations of the human brain in conscious patients led him to conclude that “our being is to be explained on the basis of two fundamental elements.” He was referring to the mind and the brain, and he meant that the mind is distinct from the physical. In describing the relationship between the two, he wrote, “The mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.” Penfield offered several lines of evidence for this conclusion. A particularly dramatic source of evidence came from his observations during brain surgery on patients who remained conscious (a possibility since the brain itself doesn’t have pain receptors). “When I have caused a conscious patient to move his hand by applying an electrode to the motor cortex of one hemisphere, I have often asked him about it,” Penfield wrote. “Invariably his response was: ‘I didn’t do that. You did.’ When I caused him to vocalize, he said: ‘I didn’t make that sound. You pulled it out of me.’” He then adds, “There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide.” What this suggests is that the mind, which refers to itself as “I” or “me,” stands aloof from the brain. This view is consistent with the idea, shared by many religions and even by some who do not consider themselves religious, that humans possess an immaterial soul, one that may persist after death. Penfield’s conclusions about the mind/brain duality are not shared by all researchers, but his conclusions are to him the best fit with his surgical observations.”Caspian
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Seversky@14
That’s how evolution works. There’s a whole lot more dead ends than there are successful outcomes. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
It's what's so difficult to believe. Typically, you gloss over the barriers to such a Darwinistic transformation that I have pointed out (actually there are many more). They start with the aforementioned wait time problem and the irreducible complexity (very wide scattering of “islands of functionality" in the fitness landscape) problem.doubter
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
JVL@4 You left out one extremely important factor: the workings of Darwinistic evolution actually had to contrive to modify the genetic DNA structure in exactly the right ways to reorganize millions of sensory and processing neurons so as to invert the image to right side up. Otherwise "brain plasticity" would just give evolution a long period of plasticity transformation during development during which the organism would be eliminated by natural selection due to its bad vision. And of course, the brain plasticity mechanism had to somehow be also first developed. Brain plasticity just doesn't work for this problem - you have to explain how critical parts of the genome DNA coding for a complex irreducibly complex system could be gradually transformed to re-invert the image in such a way that the intermediate forms would not be eliminated by natural selection. Both the wait time problem and the irreducible complexity (very wide scattering of "islands of functionality in the fitness landscape") problem.doubter
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
As an aside, my middle school mascot was the fiddler crab. I grew up on the Gulf coast, and those little suckers are everywhere along the shoreline.OldArmy94
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Seversky at 14, It's the Christian God. A God who can perform miracles. And who is worthy of worship because He created, not dead chemicals springing to life for no particular reason. Stop worshiping science. Do you believe the following fiction? Time X dead chemicals + accidents equals all the living things that are alive today? Toss the dice often enough and a Mercedes can assemble itself? Design itself? Life is a lot more complicated. Even a single living cell. But you believe that "evolution" just stumbled its way into making things? Why?relatd
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
CD at 13, Blind, unguided chance that is not goal oriented. Sound plausible?relatd
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
JVL: "I don’t think so." And yet, as Schwartz's, and others's, experimental research highlights, "the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.”"
“As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Sir John Eccles - Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963 - (as quoted in Cousins, 1985, pp. 61-62,85-86) "We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists... who often confuse their religion with their science." - John C. Eccles, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, 1984 - Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963
JVL, empirical evidence could care less what you would prefer to believe! i.e. This line of research by Schwartz and others demonstrating the immaterial mind's capacity to 'restructure' the material brain is simply completely devastating to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution which hold that the material brain is somehow capable of generating the immaterial mind. JVL: "What do you think the brain actually does? Is it just a transmitter?" Dr. Pim van Lommel has a good illustration,
A Reply to Shermer: Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Dr. Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,, ,, In trying to understand this concept of mutual interaction between the “invisible and not measurable” consciousness, with its enormous amount of information, and our visible, material body it seems wise to compare it with modern worldwide communication. There is a continuous exchange of objective information by means of electromagnetic fields (real photons) for radio, TV, mobile telephone, or laptop computer. We are unaware of the innumerable amounts of electromagnetic fields that constantly, day and night, exist around us and through us as well as through structures like walls and buildings. We only become aware of these electromagnetic informational fields the moment we use our mobile telephone or by switching on our radio, TV or laptop. What we receive is not inside the instrument, nor in the components, but thanks to the receiver the information from the electromagnetic fields becomes observable to our senses and hence perception occurs in our consciousness. The voice we hear in our telephone is not inside the telephone. The concert we hear in our radio is transmitted to our radio. The images and music we hear and see on TV is transmitted to our TV set. The internet is not located inside our laptop. We can receive at about the same time what is transmitted with the speed of light from a distance of some hundreds or thousands of miles. And if we switch off the TV set, the reception disappears, but the transmission continues. The information transmitted remains present within the electromagnetic fields. The connection has been interrupted, but it has not vanished and can still be received elsewhere by using another TV set. Again, we do not realize us the thousands of telephone calls, the hundreds of radio and TV transmissions, as well as the internet, coded as electromagnetic fields, that exist around us and through us. Could our brain be compared with the TV set that electromagnetic waves (photons) receives and transforms into image and sound, as well as with the TV camera that image and sound transforms into electromagnetic waves (photons)? This electromagnetic radiation holds the essence of all information, but is only conceivable to our senses by suited instruments like camera and TV set. The informational fields of our consciousness and of our memories, both evaluating by our experiences and by the informational input from our sense organs during our lifetime, are present around us as electrical and/or magnetic fields [possible virtual photons? (18)], and these fields only become available to our waking consciousness through our functioning brain and other cells of our body. So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body. https://vdocuments.site/a-reply-to-shermer-medical-evidence-for-ndes-by-pim-van-lommel.html The Mystery of Perception During Near Death Experiences - Pim van Lommel - video - 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avyUsPgIuQ0
bornagain77
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Doubter/1
It would be interesting to get a plausible just -so story recounting in detail, step by tiny step, how random with respect to fitness genetic variations or mutations slowly but surely changed these parts of the crab’s vision system to what it is today.
It would. It would also be interesting if ID proponents could give a detailed explanation of how their putative designer did it - and who he/she/it is.
Where each step had to be advantageous not detrimental, even though transitional stages of lens shape, etc. would destroy clear vision, and of course all the different changes to different parts of the crab eye had to change in synchrony or good vision would have been lost. And all it would take to cut off a promising line of descent is one generation with a loss of good vision.
Exactly. That's how evolution works. There's a whole lot more dead ends than there are successful outcomes. Why is that so difficult to grasp?Seversky
August 3, 2022
August
08
Aug
3
03
2022
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply