I thought Board readers might be interested in this topic:

In the August 2014 issue of Scientific American there is an interesting article called “Accidental Genius.” Below the title is the statement: “A blow to the head can sometimes unmask hidden artistic or intellectual gifts.” The essay addresses so-called, “Acquired Savant Syndrome,” and was written by Darold A. Treffert, the leading expert in this field. In essence, the article discusses instances where “normal” individuals who after an accident involving brain trauma, e.g. a blow to the head, acquired profound, new, cognitive abilities. A cited example is the case of Orlando Serrell. The article states:

“Orlando Serrell . . . who began doing calendar calculations as a boy after being knocked out by a baseball, can determine the day of the week for any day since the injury occurred. He also recalls the weather every day since his injury. Now 44, the Virginia man is still able to calendar-calculate, but his memory skills have advanced so that he can remember the minutest details of each day’s activities—a condition known as hyperthymestic memory. Brain scans at Columbia University Medical Center have confirmed that Serrell engages in unconscious calculating—and his skill is not based on memorizing the calendar.”

Here is an included video link that addresses this phenomena.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/instant-genius-after-head-trauma-video/

Of course, the difficulty is in understanding this phenomena; how and why it occurs, and most importantly, interpreting it within the framework of modern neuroscience. Neuroscience insists that ALL cognitive functions, including both savant abilities and cognitive deficiencies, must be ultimately explainable by appeal to neurological function. Thus, the brain produces cognitive capacities through neural connections in the brain, and their associated neural networks. In short, if human beings have an ability to do something, or to know something, it is only because their brains have been wired to represent environmental input, and through neural “computations” exhibit high level functional capacities as applied to such input. Thus, human learning is achieved through brain processes that “encode” environmental “information” in memory to be maintained, retrieved, and incorporated into cognitive functioning as circumstances may dictate. (See, Churchland and Sejnowski, The Computational Brain)

In ordinary savant syndrome an autistic subject might have an extraordinary artistic or cognitive ability, coupled with profound mental defects. (Recall the movie “Rainman”) This phenomenon is itself difficult to explain, but at least in that instance one might point to genetic defects that resulted in “abnormal” neurological “wiring” as a possible explanation for both the cognitive defects and the “trade-off” savant ability. Somehow, it might be argued, the savant ability was instantiated during development at the expense of other normal cognitive functions. However, with Acquired Savant Syndrome the savant abilities seem to arise out of nowhere, making a developmental explanation seemingly implausible. Moreover, they arise from brain trauma that one would expect would produce reduced cognitive capacity, not exponential cognitive enhancement. A loose analogy might be to imagine you dropped your computer on the floor, only to find that the effect was to produce a new complex function that was never previously programmed; i.e. that it “rewired itself.” Such a suggestion is not just highly improbable, it is statistically untenable as a reasonable explanation. Thus, with Acquired Savant Syndrome the neurological basis for the new abilities must have somehow pre-existed the brain trauma that produced them. But how?

We might propose that the new functional capacity, whether it be performing mathematical calculations, playing the piano, calculating calendar dates, or orchestrating music, etc., were already there, hidden deep in the brain, to be exploited if just the right head blow occurred. The blow merely flipped a switch, and like turning on a light, the new capacity was switched on. The problem with this explanation is that in many cases the new cognitive capacity would ordinarily require learning—i.e. the input of data from experience, coupled with functional learning over time that gradually “rewired” the brain to enable performance. But in Acquired Savant Syndrome what is the source of the background “data,” and when did this learning process take place? For example, playing the piano, or having orchestral skills, requires an understanding of music, instruments, sound, etc., just as doing math requires the data of numbers and operational notation. It is not just a matter of computation. A computer program does not “know” how to perform mathematical calculations unless there is added coding that provides the data necessary to make such calculations meaningful.

The Scientific American article suggests the following:

“One plausible explanation for the hidden talents that emerge in savant syndrome—whether early in life or induced by injury—is that these reservoirs of skill and knowledge must be inherited in some way. We do not start life with a blank slate that subsequently gets inscribed through education and other life experiences. The brain may come loaded with a set of innate predispositions for processing what it sees or for understanding the ‘rules’ of music, art or mathematics. Savants can tap into that inherited knowledge far better than the average person.”

The above explanation, however, is untenable: First, genetic information does not include environmental “data” that underlies learning. It is well known that our genes encode among other things physical traits, and behavioral and personality dispositions. However, genes do not encode the “data” that the brain represents during the process of learning cognitive skills. There are no genes that encode music theory, the piano keyboard, the calendar, or even numbers and mathematics, just as there are no genes for trees, frogs, houses, elephants, or god. The brain “learns” all such things through a complex system wherein the brain represents what is given by the environment, and then processes such information in negotiating life’s challenges, or developing skill sets. Second, there is no evidence that savant abilities are inherited. (However, see this interesting youtube video that discusses the possible reversibility of Rett syndrome, a neurological disorder):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyAvKGmAElQ&feature=related

Thus, savant cognitive skills require learning in the same way that ordinary skills do; i.e. within a system that includes environmental stimuli and brain processing. Consider the following comment by materialist philosopher Patricia Churchland:

“If a brain has knowledge, that knowledge depends upon wiring, that is, on neurons and how they are connected to other neurons. . . . If knowledge is acquired in response to experience, then existing wiring has to modify itself in the right way. . . . Fundamentally, the heart of the problem is to explain global changes in a brain’s output (behavior) in terms of orderly local changes in individual neurons.” (Churchland, Brain-Wise, page 329)

The problem (or, as I prefer, the insight) of Acquired Savant Syndrome is that the phenomena does not easily lend itself to a standard neurological explanation. We are forced to look past mainstream paradigms and ask what does human experience generally, and Aquired Savant Syndrome particularly, tell us about who we are; and how should we incorporate such information into our personal worldview?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2014 07:25PM by imaworkinonit.

I don't think this effect is as mysterious as you make it seem.

It is known that the brain can compensate (and sometimes even overcompensate) for certain types of trauma. This has been noted to be especially true when the brain is still undergoing development. And, of course, it depends on the type of trauma. If the damage is too extensive, then this effect is probably not going to be seen.

I don't understand all the details behind the brain's ability to do this, but I do know that we do not need to "look past mainstream paradigms" in favor of woo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2014 07:56PM by archytas.

"It is known that the brain can compensate (and sometimes even overcompensate) for certain types of trauma. This has been noted to be especially true when the brain is still undergoing development. And, of course, it depends on the type of trauma. If the damage is too extensive, then this effect is probably not going to be seen."

COMMMENT: The plasticity of the brain in the context of some relatively minor forms of trauma is well known. However, Acquired Savant Syndrome goes well beyond mere plasticity. Moreover, such plasticity involves neural mechanisms that are not themselves very well understood. So, you cannot explain a mystery by invoking another mystery, even assuming the explaining mystery was understood, and otherwise adequate, which in this case it clearly is not.

"I don't understand all the details behind the brain's ability to do this, but I do know that we do not need to "look past mainstream paradigms" in favor of woo."

COMMENT: Well, the devil is in the details, as they say, i.e. the operative mechanisms. If you do not know the details, then, of course, you have no basis to draw any conclusions as to where one needs to look for answers.

So, when you say "I do know that we do not need to look past mainstream paradigms," you must merely be stating some preconceived bias, since you cannot provide any kind of an explanation, even in principle. If you are ignorant about "the details," just admit that you have no explanation. Don't revert to a bogus claim of knowledge as to where the answer must be found.

This is yet another attempt of yours to say, "science can't explain everything, therefore accept this elaborate metaphysical sandcastle of mine."

The costs of bringing on all your extra baggage are too high.

I would rather try to investigate the phenomenon empirically and try to understand it better rather than give up and turn to mysticism. If your approach had been used to solve the scientific problems of yesterday, we'd still be living in caves today.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 01:17AM by archytas.

What is interesting to me is that we may now have the ability to enhance cognition:

Using transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), these researchers induced savantlike abilities in human volunteers. The technique generates a polarized electric current to diminish activity in a part of the left hemisphere involved with sensory input, memory, language and other brain processes while increasing activity in the right hemisphere (the right anterior temporal lobe).

The investigators then asked study participants to solve the challenging “nine-dot” puzzle either with or without tDCS—a task that requires the creativity to search for a solution in an unconventional way. Participants had to connect three rows of three dots using four straight lines without lifting a pen or retracing lines. None of them could solve it before stimulation. When 29 subjects were exposed to “sham” stimulation—electrodes emplaced without any current to test for placebo effects—they were still at a loss. With the current switched on, however, some 40 percent—14 of 33 participants—worked their way through the puzzle successfully.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/2014/08/25/get-smart-by-using-10-percent-less-of-your-brain/

Yes. Thank you for pointing this out. Here is the relevant quote from this link:

"Using transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), these researchers induced savantlike abilities in human volunteers. The technique generates a polarized electric current to diminish activity in a part of the left hemisphere involved with sensory input, memory, language and other brain processes while increasing activity in the right hemisphere (the right anterior temporal lobe)."

"The investigators then asked study participants to solve the challenging “nine-dot” puzzle either with or without tDCS—a task that requires the creativity to search for a solution in an unconventional way. Participants had to connect three rows of three dots using four straight lines without lifting a pen or retracing lines. None of them could solve it before stimulation. When 29 subjects were exposed to “sham” stimulation—electrodes emplaced without any current to test for placebo effects—they were still at a loss. With the current switched on, however, some 40 percent—14 of 33 participants—worked their way through the puzzle successfully."

COMMENT: Although this offers insight into possible explanations of ASS, the enhanced cognition exhibited here is insufficient to explain ASS for two reasons. First, the enhanced cognitive capacities are relatively minor in comparison to ASS abilities which are much more pronounced. Second, the above example stresses computational problem solving, not cognitive enhancement coupled with a presumably learned skill. As indicated in the original post, the ASS subject exhibits abilities that suggest learning, which modern neuroscience would associate with brain wiring in conjunction with environmental data; not just computationally based problem solving ability.

Wow really, temporarily applied rerouting is different than a permanent rewiring? You don't say...

One having to live with the permanent condition will obviously see different effects and outcomes than someone temporarily stimulated to have a similar condition and then relieved of it.

As the original post anecdotes mentioned, the savant skills increased over time, suggesting learning and developing within the new structural context, whether consciously or unconsciously.

The primary error in your line of reasoning is the conception of the brain as a monolithic entity.

The brain is a large network of processing centers. Some are specialized to one thing and some to another.

To keep your conscious mind from being overwhelmed by 723 different mental processes occurring at the same time your brain has a series of filters and gates that are always working at sifting through incoming data and deciding which parts to use and notice and which to ignore.

For example, there are people who can write with both hands at the same time in different languages and on different subjects.

How often have you been in the shower and the solution to a problem popped into your head?

Sometimes when I dream I am aware of different parts of my brain working on different things. One part is working on my budget, one part is solving a people problem, and still another part is planning out my weekend.

Brain injuries destroy or damage portions of the brain. In this situation, the damage occurs to one of the filters or gates either reducing or destroying the ability to regulate the level of input from certain sections of the brain.

You use Orlando Serrell as an example because he now has incredible memory and calculating skills. What about all the cases of head trauma amnesia? Would you say that it is faulty wiring that prevents them from accessing memories? It happens just as quickly as a savant forms.

In both instances the only the that has changed is the intensity of certain input and output signals in the brain. If you say that the instant savant is magic because he remembers everything then I say the man who can instantly forget everything is magic, too.

EX: "The primary error in your line of reasoning is the conception of the brain as a monolithic entity."

COMMENT: There is nothing in the OP that involves any such conception.

EX: "The brain is a large network of processing centers. Some are specialized to one thing and some to another."

COMMENT: This is overstated. Although there are certainly cognitive centers, the brain is not modular. In other words, there is a great deal of integration across "processing centers." But none of this has any obvious relevance to the OP, since however the brain is functionally parced, the bottom line is the assumption that any cognitive function is represented by some neural mechanism.

EX: "To keep your conscious mind from being overwhelmed by 723 different mental processes occurring at the same time your brain has a series of filters and gates that are always working at sifting through incoming data and deciding which parts to use and notice and which to ignore."

COMMENT: A "series of filters and gates?" This is nothing more than a computational metaphor for logic filters and gates, which do not have obvious parallels in brain structure. This statement is reminiscent of the ill-conceived "homunculus" where you have some intelligent agent "sifting through incoming data and deciding which parts to use and notice and which to ignore." There is no such entity in the brain making decisions of this sort. But, again, this misses the point. Regardless of the complexity of your "filters and gates" from modern neuroscience there is always an underlying neurological mechanism for every cognitive function. The nature of that mechanism, and the source of the information that supports it,is what is at issue here.

EX: "Brain injuries destroy or damage portions of the brain. In this situation, the damage occurs to one of the filters or gates either reducing or destroying the ability to regulate the level of input from certain sections of the brain."

COMMENT: This is highly imaginative. What actually happens in this instance is that the neural connections that underlie the ability in question have been disrupted by brain damage. You do not need to postuate filters and gates for an explanation of deficiencies caused by brain trauma.

EX: "You use Orlando Serrell as an example because he now has incredible memory and calculating skills. What about all the cases of head trauma amnesia? Would you say that it is faulty wiring that prevents them from accessing memories? It happens just as quickly as a savant forms."

COMMENT: Are you suggesting that there is no distinction to be made between explaining the positive effects of brain trauma as opposed to the negative effects. If I drop my computer and it fails to work thereafter, I can safely assume why. BUt, if it miraculously functions better, that needs a different kind of explanation.

EX: "In both instances the only the that has changed is the intensity of certain input and output signals in the brain. If you say that the instant savant is magic because he remembers everything then I say the man who can instantly forget everything is magic, too."

COMMENT: This defies common sense.

I got a pretty bad concussion two years ago playing rugby, and got mildly re-concussed last week at rugby practice - so I'm hoping this turns me into a genius :)

You were already a genius. Lay off the rugby.

Tal, I'm serious, those concussions were a warning (from nature, not from God.) Please be more careful about rugby, "lest a worse thing come upon thee."

You can separate your physical exercise from your love of rugby. Just continue watching rugby on the telly, and get a less dangerous form of exercise. You have nothing to prove at your age and your level of thought and achievement.

I believe that we inherit some of them, and that it is different for everyone.

In high school, I was just a regular student, who studied hard and got a variety of grades, that is until Organic Chemistry.

As a Junior, I watched our teacher give the first lesson on the board, with the typical drawings of chemical combinations. My first thought was, 'Oh that's easy." It was because I already knew the information that he was presenting, and everything else for the rest of the semester. I came from a working class background where no one ever talked about the subject. Having 'smarts' was not promoted at home. I got an easy A in that class.

Years later I took private singing lessons for the first time. Once again I intuitively knew how to perform, with perfect pitch and tempo. My teacher was astounded, and talked to her well known teacher, who had taught for years. He said that I was a rare 'natural', and that he had only had four students in his entire career who were naturals. I was not exposed at home because my parents were not into singing.

How did my brain know this information without it being there in the first place?

Why was one of my sons tested at age five to be a prodigy in the visual-spacial area?

Lots to think about. Brain research is still a young science.

Very interesting. I have no experience on that kind of level, but when I was in High School, I took a foreign language, French, that I had no reason to learn, but I was attracted to (not something useful like Spanish).

It came relatively easily, and I found that I could often guess words that we hadn't learned yet. It was kind of weird. But I wasn't a savant by any means. When I tried to continue that language at college (starting with the second level class, during an accelerated summer term). I got hopelessly lost learning new verb tenses and dropped out.

I took a Spanish class as an adult, and struggled the entire time. So there was something about French that just came easier. They were both Romance languages, so it seems they would have had a similar level of difficulty.

DNA ?

consider if you will the fantastic potential you carry within your genes....a zillion or so molecules arranged in swirls of strangeness

everything you are or will be can be expressed in simple yet infinite combinations of only three or so elements

a few savvy souls recently saw the possibility of DNA as a database and proceeded to encode the complete works of shakespeare using DNA as digital language

so consider with me furthermore that it is likely that each of us may hold the universe's nano-nano-database buried within us and it is thereby suscepitble to being acccessed, whether it be by whimsical fate or deliberate intent

but what the fook do I know?

Tal, all evidence is to the contrary! ;p

Allow me to cite two extreme cases of neuroplasticity to bolster one of your main points:

http://io9.com/doctors-discover-a-woman-with-no-cerebellum-1633439918

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html#.VBQ3UNm9LCS

In the first case a near-normally functioning 24 year old woman was born without a cerebellum, which effectively means without half the neurons most of us are born with. Think about that. She is born without the part of the brain associated with motor control but goes on to walk & talk etc (albeit delayed) like the rest of us. The brain somehow compensated for the missing region.

In the second case we have a man who's brain volume has been reduced by 50-75% due to "water on the brain" as an infant, but went on to live a normal life. Again, the little volume of brain that is left went on to compensate for the loss.

Both these cases should put everyone on their guard before buying into the pop-science habit of literalizing the metaphor "hard-wired". People use that phrase literally to suggest they were "just born to be a liberal" etc, as if there are neuronal networks so ingrained that they simply can't help themselves. It's silly.

While the plasticity in the above two cases is rather mysterious the end result isn't. Both cases show a normal learning process over time, the environmental-input brain 'processing' method we all used to learn to talk walk run and do algebra. It's just that in these two cases the organ that takes on the learning, the brain, was severely compromised from the outset and yet went on to somehow compensate for the deficit. Survival was at stake, the brain adapted.

Neuroplasticity describes these two cases, but I cannot begin to understand how it could be applied to describe Acquired Savant Syndrome. Indeed, "when did this learning process take place?" Even savant-like geniuses like Mozart underwent a learning process, albeit with unusual rapidity. But suddenly?

I look forward to neuroscience uncovering more phenomena that "does not easily lend itself to a standard neurological explanation." We're just beginning, and we should be wary of those who think they already know the answers, especially if they seem a little too keen to have you agree with them.

(Cheers, Henry.)

Human

Thanks for this, Human. Your mention of Mozart suggested to me the following hypothetical as food for thought:

Suppose Mozart, with all of his genetically based gifts, was brought up without ANY musical environmental input; i.e. without musical learning opportunities at all. (No proding Leopold) Then, at age 35 (just prior to his death) he was in an accident involving brain trauma that resulted in an astonishing ability to play the keyboard and compose symphonies. Would this make sense by the standards of modern neuroscience? Absolutely not!

Genes do not code "learned" abilities, they encode dispositional potentials that must be tapped into by environmental stimuli and learning processes. These learning processes result in the establishment of brain networks that underlie and enhance the abilities in question. Without learning, no brain networks are formed that underlie specific skill sets. Not even for Mozart!

Consider the Monarch butterflies. Annually they migrate from a specific few acres in Mexico (I've seen it--incredible) to the eastern U.S. and Canada. And then back again. Only it takes them about three generations (can't remember the exact number) each way. How does the nth generation know the destination and the route if it isn't encoded in the genes?

Still-not-persuaded-we-have-to-resort-to-woo-ly yrs,

S

"Consider the Monarch butterflies. Annually they migrate from a specific few acres in Mexico (I've seen it--incredible) to the eastern U.S. and Canada. And then back again. Only it takes them about three generations (can't remember the exact number) each way. How does the nth generation know the destination and the route if it isn't encoded in the genes?"

COMMENT: Well, what do you think is encoded in their genes? Landscapes? Flight patterns? Maps? Aerial photos? Genes simply do not encode for such things. Brains do that. What you are suggesting undermines both neuroscience and genetics. Although there are mechanisms where some epigenetic traits become inheritable, these are not "learned" traits. (At least not that I am aware of)

What might be encoded in the butterfly genes are behavioral dispositions to respond to certain environmental factors, which might include such things as magnetic fields, temperature, and most importantly, social interactions (note the vast literature on Sociobiology). Note also that there is still a neurological element which provides olfactory and other sensory cues that trigger behavior based upon genetic dispositions and environmental stimuli.

Finally, in the present context we can note that the migrating butterflies are not performing enhanced cognitive functions triggered by trauma.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suppose Mozart, with all of his genetically based
> gifts, was brought up without ANY musical
> environmental input; i.e. without musical learning
> opportunities at all. (No proding Leopold) Then,
> at age 35 (just prior to his death) he was in an
> accident involving brain trauma that resulted in
> an astonishing ability to play the keyboard and
> compose symphonies. Would this make sense by the
> standards of modern neuroscience? Absolutely
> not!


Right. When did the learning take place, as you ask.

While looking at this stuff via Google I noticed a few theorizing that somehow the talent already existed and was somehow "unlocked" by the head trauma. So in the hypothetical, Mozart's talent was always present in him, and so Leopold's prodding was more a 'bringing-out' something already present rather than 'putting-in' something that wasn't there before. A non-playing Mozart scenario would be a case where the talent, even though un-elicited and unpracticed, was suddenly "unlocked". So today's Acquired Savant Syndrome cases are "Mozarts" that were unlocked by head trauma rather than a Leopold. But:

then we ask: where did this talent reside? In what form?

The quality of the theorizing is very poor, which indicates to me that at this point the phenomena simply baffles those in a position to make educated guesses at what might be going on.

Fascinating discussion.

OP:

Phenomenon: singular
Phenomena: plural

Very interesting article! There's so much abut the brain that science has yet to discover. There are many parallels between autism spectrum disorders in general (autism spectrum disorders are disproportionately highly represented in Savant Syndrome cases, though the two are not synonymous as some think) and traumatic brain injury. It's sometimes tough to convince parents and special education professionals that comorbidity with autism doesn't exist in traumatic brain injury cases.

In my internship I was the lucky intake physician in the E.R.in a shaken baby case. There was no way the injuries to the little guy's brain could have happened by the simple fall the biological mother alleged, plus there was a five -year-old sibling who seemed relatively intelligent and credible who said the baby was shaken without any prompting whatsoever from the intake nurse, and he stuck to his story each time.

Parental rights were in the process of being terminated and an absolute saint of a foster mother wanted this little guy and his big brother. The foster mother, being the loving parent that she was, saw more potential in this little guy at the age of four than did anyone else, and she saw signs consistent with autism. A school psychologist decided to back her up. The only real problem with this was that it could have lent credibility to the biological mother's story that it wasn't a traumatic brain injury but autism causing his symptoms. (There was still plenty of evidence to the contrary, but it's the luck of the draw as to how sensible the judge will be that is assigned to the case in family court.)

The main problem is that it could have sent him back to the mother who shook him, and he might not have survived the next round of shaking. We printed out tons of research on the similarities between autism and traumatic brain injury behaviors to try to get the psychologist to back off. (The clinical injuries were still there. Autism doesn't cause retinal hemorrhage and subdural hematoma). Our pediatric neurologist finally had to tell the mother that we didn't know where the psychologist was coming from - maybe she thought the child could get additional services with an autism diagnosis) but the evidence wasn't there to support it, and she was risking having him sent back to his biological mother if she pursued that avenue. I had to testify in the original child abuse case resulting from the injury, and it was not pleasant, and you see all sorts of shenanigans that attorneys pull. Not all judges are equal, and some fall for bullshit.

So it doesn't surprise me that a blow to the head could create either Savant Syndrome or a closely related condition.

Edgar Cayce has not been brought up in this interesting thread. I'm not a believer in Cayce's woo, but it was the first Acquired Savant Syndrome case I ever read of many years ago.

Saree

I think that in those cases, the injury removes inhibitions and allows the person to utilize abilities that were there all along.

Calculating the day for an arbitrary date is not all that difficult. Most people could learn to do it in their heads if they really wanted to. Calculating the date for Easter is considerably more complicated, and there are people who can do that in their head.

Serious sports fans (baseball fans seem to be the gold standard) can remember a stupefyingly large number of arcane statistics.

There is a club for people who have memorized the first thousand digits of pi. I, as a twelve year old, figured out how to do a "knight's tour" (making the move of a chess knight, land on every square of the board once and only once). I could do it starting on any square, and making the first move in any direction. It just involved memorizing a sixteen move sequence, plus being able to mentally flip or rotate the sequence. It takes me longer to memorize simple piano pieces.

There are many thousands of people who can speed solve a Rubik's Cube, or count cards in multi-deck blackjack, or play 20 games of chess simultaneously and win most of them.

My point is that we vastly overestimate the rarity of savant-like abilities, and/or the actual difficulty of what they do. All those skills I listed are rare, but not extraordinarily so. They show that brains are capable of extraordinary accomplishments that most of us consider nearly or totally impossible. That a brain injury might enhance a skill rather than reduce it impresses me, but it does not astonish me to the point of thinking we are completely wrong about how brains work.

We don't know everything. We do know quite a lot about how brains work, and are making rapid progress.

Hey, and OP should go easy at flinging the word "merely" at any opinion you find not up to your exalted standards. It makes you sound professorial, and not in a good way. If you want to sound professorial, Richard Feynman is good.

I thought I was really good when I memorized pi to 50 digits in high school. I guess not.

I'm not sure what you are objecting to, BofJ. All the examples you cite to make your point are as you say, not as extraordinary as they may seem to most of us. They are 'merely' deviations from the norm. There's mystery, but not extraordinary rarity.

Okay, what you cite is as you say, "rare, but not extraordinarily so." But those are not the subject of the OP.


*Acquired* savant syndrome *is* extraordinarily rare. We are talking about people well within the norm suddenly demonstrating these rare feats. How? No matter how much you believe "we" know about how the brain works, no one has anything beyond a first idea how savant syndrome is *aquired* by otherwise normal human beings. That is the OP's point. He isn't saying anything about how 'wonderful and marvellous' the acquired abilities are, he's saying that it is a total mystery how they were suddenly acquired.

Here's a piece about an otherwise normal "dude" that suddenly became a math genius after being knocked unconscious during a mugging:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/23/from-head-injury-to-math-genius-on-savant-syndrome-and-the-possibility-of-a-little-rain-man-within-us-all/?__federated=1

*That* is what is being discussed, and *that* is what is extremely rare, and not even remotely explainable (...yet). If that doesn't *astonish* I'm not sure what would.

the old fat guy can't play the piano.

Can you give us a video clip of someone who acquired some remarkable skill?

Regarding the Doctor - Darold Treffert - I came across this (but haven't confirmed it:

"Quite apart from the implausible stories about supposed savants like Derek Amato, he also believes in psychics. [Dr. Treffert] has written about savants with psychic abilities many times, from 1988 in his paper "the idiot savant - a review of the syndrome" where he claims some psychics have extrasensory perception, to his blog in 2013 where he describes the ability of a savant girl with the ability to read minds."

Bemis, did you bump your head?


Okay, I finished the Doctor's video. The last two minutes are amazing - well, just funny, The old lady with Alzheimer's sits by the piano while a younger guy (the doctor) channels her(?) and plays How Great Thou Art on the piano while the old lady occasionally looks up in the air. The Doctor closes his presentation with "indeed, how great thou art."

You've tapped into a fruit cake Bemis. Were you able to do this yesterday?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2014 05:34PM by thingsithink.

"Quite apart from the implausible stories about supposed savants like Derek Amato, he also believes in psychics. [Dr. Treffert] has written about savants with psychic abilities many times, from 1988 in his paper "the idiot savant - a review of the syndrome" where he claims some psychics have extrasensory perception, to his blog in 2013 where he describes the ability of a savant girl with the ability to read minds."

COMMENT: Quoting an unnamed source, who without argument simply announces that such phenomena are "implausible" adds nothing. Neither does bashing the author over other alleged views.

"You've tapped into a fruit cake Bemis. Were you able to do this yesterday?"

COMMENT: I assure you that the editorial staff at Scientific American did a thorough review of this phenomena, including consideration of Dr. Treffort, before publishing this article. So, your determination that he is a "fruit cake," and that ASS must be bogus, or fraudulent, must be based upon your own wishful thinking, not reality.

This is what happens when a poster has nothing substantive to add to a discussion. They simply desperately try to attack the author.

I have been banging my head against the wall for years and I notice no positive cognitive change.

Please don't go hare-brained on us, Henry. You can do it. Step away from that tunnel of light. Do it now:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/when-brain-damage-unlocks-genius-within?page=0%2C1



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 12:44AM by steve benson.

Is this also your advice to the editorial board at Scientific American? Is there any scientific publication that I can draw attention to that might possibilty open your mind a bit? I guess not.

This shows that you are not interested in science at all. What you are interested in is your own preconceived view of what "science" is, which is patently false. Your dogmatism is apparently based upon your psychological need to bash in the name of science all things that might conceivably have any sort of religious connotation. Really, what are you so desperately afraid of?

Welcome to the RfM dunk tank Henry.

Thanx for the thread btw.

So, Joe Smith expired before the requisite blow to the head could be delivered?

If this issue ever happened to me I would start reading all of the programming launguage books. Figure out some problmes and monetize on the "gift" so long as that issue continued.

Then hire some other smart programmers to bring about more products and home to make a few million and sell the company and start over with a new idea.