It's a old article, but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne

>>7848417
I don't understand why our species insists on keeping our defective members alive. Before you get emotional about >muh life, consider that we chemo cancer cells because they are defective even non-malignent ones. We do the same thing with animals.

So why do we insist on keeping gays and trannies alive?

>>7848428
I would consider people who lack empathy to this degree to be "defective"

How many consciousnesses does it have?

>>7848417
>Their one and only shared brain thought:
>KILL US

>>7848447
Agreed. People who don't empathise with the life long suffering of defectives enough to advocate their euthanization are also defective.

>>7848428
one mans defect is another mans evolution

>>7848479
Heresy. Mankind is already the pinnacle of evolution.

my neck hurts looking at that picture.

>>7848417
I think it raises really interesting questions about personhood and the individuation of consciousness.

The two twins have distinct personalities and preferences, yet feel each other's sensations and can to an extent see through each other's eyes.

Sometimes the twins fight and slap each other, but when one twin slaps the other both twins feel it.

When one twin eats, the other twin can taste it. This is a problem because the twins like different foods.

Their brains are connected. In some sense, it is one brain. Yet they seem to be two different entities with different conscious experiences.

What is the difference between that and your brain, which ostensibly has a single conscious experience? Or do the left and right sides of your brain each have a distinct conscious experience, yet at the same time their union has a third, also distinct amalgam conscious experience?

>>7848417
How... How did they put on the shirts?

File: 1441667051230.jpg (62KB, 640x741px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x741px

Are there any CT or MRI scans available?

>dailymail

Do you think they'll perform better in exams? How do they stop them cheating?

>>7848428
why do we keep people who are on 4chan alive?

>>7848873
Probably buckle up at the back.

This children should be carefully educated.

They may be the first humans capable of 2nd person science a la Ben Goertzel.

>>7848417
To what extent can we even consider these to be two separate people? How is it that thoughts and sensory inputs are shared but there are still two consciousnesses in there, if there even are?

>>7849341
I don't want to sound like a shitposter, but this might be evidence for what we can call a "soul" or that the brain isn't the only thing related to "consciousness".

File: 1350813412096.jpg (347KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1920x1200px

>>7848417

I feel disadvantaged not having someone to really share my thoughts with and have to depend on the unreliable alternative, so called "sympathy", basically guessing what someone is thinking and explaining myself over and over until I'm convinced the other person sort of, kind of, understands or visualizes what the fuck I'm thinking.

Its complete fail-mode retardation and proof God either doesn't exist or can't even upgrade existing models of his own meat-based worship machines.

>>7849341
Well I'd say that their brain part which generates consciousness isn't as well connected. That'd be one explanation but it's just a guess so pretend it's a soul if you like.

>>7849374
Siblings can be good at that. But it's something that becomes less of a problem the better you explain. If I'm really enthusiastic about explaining something I tend to not give them much to say and I just carefully read their expressions and consider myself not knowing what I'm thinking of and what has been explained. Because when you sort of know what they're thinking and what you've actually conveyed the relevant parts of what your thinking is being conveyed rather effectively. Usually the better you know the person the easier it is to read them, exactly when they get quizzical or concerned is extremely important in determining what they didn't get, and you don't see that well if it's hard to predict how quickly the other person thinks.

Explaining yourself over and over isn't all that good because if the first time didn't work you're gonna have a very hard time changing what they're thinking with the same explanations. You have to explicitly tell them to forget everything and trust that they do. It's better if you probe them on what you've explained. What you can do is offer different explanations all the time because hopefully the idea they had of the old explanation has some conflicts with the new one. It's another form of probing essentially.

The biggest problem you face when explaining something I feel is when either the person isn't fast enough and you have to slow down but they don't tell you so you've completely lost sync with them. Or that a person forgets. Also if a person just pretends to understand, psychologists do this a lot, it's extremely frustrating and there really is no point in continuing the conversation other than being polite.

>>7849356
Is that really the only conclusion you can draw? It's obviously it's evidence that consciousness is localized to certain specific regions of the brain, not that souls exist.

Get your mind out of the gutter.

>>7849356
go fuck yourself fag

>>7848870
>>>/phi/

>>7849438
>not knowing what I'm thinking of and what has been explained. Should be "not knowing what I'm thinking of and instead consider what has been explained".

>>7848428
>So why do we insist on keeping gays and trannies alive?
back to /pol/

>>7848464
Dunno, they look happy enough

>>7848428
Keeping these two alive would be great for scientific research.

As for gays, SOME are fine but others definitely need mental help.

As for trannies, very few are fine and the others definitely need mental help.

And no, taking hormones is not help of any kind as we've already observed.

>>7849441
>Is that really the only conclusion you can draw?
No.

>consciousness is localized
Kek

>>7848428
>>>/pol/

>>7849444
nice trips friend

>implying it's not just 1 person with two bodies.

Still incredible, but they don't share a mind, just 2 bodies. Actually, not really 2 bodies, but 1 body with a human-shaped growth attached.

>>7848464
Shared KEKS

>>7849516
>>consciousness is localized
>Kek

Ablate the visual cortex of a human and they are still conscious afterwards. Neurosurgeons take out big chunks of brain matter when they're removing tumors and the patients turn out fine.

One likes ketchup, the other doesn't If the first girl eats it, the second girl gets mad at her, because she tastes it, too.
That's an interesting conflict.

These kids were in a documentary I had to watch in school once. The entire time, I just sat and wondered what it would be like to pull them apart.

I don't mean like surgery, I mean like physically pull their bodies in opposite directions. Like maybe tie both their bodies to separate trucks that drive in opposite directions. It would be almost like a wishbone, but instead of getting a wish, your tearing someone's brain in two. Every time I think about it, I just fucking get the overwhelming desire to see that and know that I never will.

>>7849605
issues: the person

>>7849588
Your assertions need to be better defined. What is consciousness? What is the self?

Honestly, the concept is ambiguous and leaves too much room for different interpretations. Just like you define "consciousness" as something material, it can also be defined as what you're always experiencing in any given moment, not something that is "found" in outer world elements, such as your brain.

Still, assuming we share at least a few ideas about these concepts: what happens if I were to remove your "consciousness" part? Or modify it? Or remove a part of it? Or clone it and replace it with the cloned part? Would you stop being "you"? Why is "your" "consciousness" located in this brain specifically, and not in another brain? Would your body stop functioning if I removed your "consciousness" part? If not, and you still behave as always, then what's the difference between having it or not?

>>7849605

this entire thread I've been wondering what sex would be like for them. Not imagining me personally having sex with them, but what it would be like to be one of the sisters while the other one was getting fucked. Like, would they share an orgasm? If so that'd be pretty hot.

>>7848870
To me, it seems like there are multiple systems that work together with an emerging consciousness. In this case, some of the systems are shared and some arent, causing two different conscious observers of the same systems. Its really cool these two kids are alive, they will be great for psychology.

>>7848870

i think its pretty obvious that it is not the brain which thinks.

the brain is just a receiver and amplifier of thought. this would seem to prove this.

>>7848417
The article says they only share the thalamus though, not cerebral cortex, meaning they share moderately processed physical stimuli but not actual "thoughts", as in higher mental processes. Still rad as fuck, where's the journal article?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (24KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1280x720px

>>7849663
delet this

>>7848417
I would share my thoughts with you but our brains aren't connected

>>7849356
The opposite, really. The fact that having a shared brain allows you direct insight into someone else's thoughts shows that the brain is all a person is.

>>7849954
Two people in one brain, anon. Think about it.

Also, see >>7849626 #

>>7848417
>Thoughts?

Oh you.

>>7849976
What parts are shared and what parts are not, though, personality is generally believed to be in the cortex, so if they each have a unique cortex attached to separate sensory perspectives doctors might expect two distinct personalities?

>>7848428
They're defective according to a book written two thousand years ago in the desert. In fact with overpopulation homosexuality is objectively not defective.