Split brain

[Wudang]

In another thread we got round to talking about split brain studies, e.g. where the corpus callosum has been severed so the 2 halves of the brain can't talk to each other. This produces a number of effects that to me are one of the stronger indicators that the materialist assumption is correct. From my, admittedly limitted, understanding of the immaterialist assumption I find it difficult to see how to explain how "physical" intervention affects not just what is perceived but who is perceiving it.
Thoughts?

[lifegazer]

If only God exists, what difference does the perceptions induced by a split brain have?
Poke me in the eye and I'll lose my 3-d vision. But how does this deny the axiom of God's solitary existence? All it does is link the working of things to the perception of those things.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Why is this any more surprising than brain damage resulting in personality changes, or death removing people from the world?

[UserGoogol]

Yes, Lifegazer, your weird "God exists, but I don't" philosophy isn't really effected by this. It effects dualist theories where the soul and matter are both felt to exist, but differently.

This is different from just personality changes due to mental illness, because one could try to make an argument that the soul's personality is obscured by the faulty brain. But when you split the brain, the brain sort of splits into two minds. And that's a little harder to explain.

[Wudang]

As User Goool says. As I said I'm a bit behind current immaterialist thought but if we start from the old Cartesian proposition of "I think, therefore I am" then if the split brain issue raises questions about what we mean by "I" then traditional Cartesian Dualism has a(nother) problem which throws into sharp relief the whole extended/unextended issue. Monist arguments I'm less familiar with so I was leaving the question as open as possible.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
Yes, Lifegazer, your weird "God exists, but I don't" philosophy isn't really effected by this.
We really should frame this and hang it from the rafters. Do you know how many questions about drugs and hammers-on-the-head I've had to answer since I started out? Hundreds.

My philosophy is the only sensible form of Idealism.

[Wudang]

Would you care to acknowledge that, as explained in the other thread on Upchurch's unanswered question, there is a qualitative difference between someone being a bit woozy and having his mind split in two? You do understand the point, don't you? It's not that the person now perceives something different, it's that he is now in 2 parts, one of which perceives some things and one of which perceives others.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Would you care to acknowledge that, as explained in the other thread on Upchurch's unanswered question, there is a qualitative difference between someone being a bit woozy and having his mind split in two? You do understand the point, don't you? It's not that the person now perceives something different, it's that he is now in 2 parts, one of which perceives some things and one of which perceives others.
It's difficult to conceive of something one has never experienced. I've had double vision. LOL
The point is that no matter what is perceived, God itself is immutable.
For example, no matter what image you put on the TV screen, the TV screen is still the TV screen. A rubbish analogy, but it may help.

[Wudang]

And if I chop the TV screen in half? I don't get two half-pictures. If I chop a book in half the results are different. If I chop a hologram in half the results are yet different again.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
And if I chop the TV screen in half? I don't get two half-pictures. If I chop a book in half the results are different. If I chop a hologram in half the results are yet different again.
I knew it was a rubbish analogy. You must remember that God is indivisible - you can't chop God in half. God's not really like a TV screen - the point is that God is the medium upon which everything else is perceived.

[Wudang]

Well that's an assertion which would require proof. My view is that chopping a connection between 2 halves of a physical brain and getting 2 distinct awarenesses (and awareness is one of the usual starting points for proofs of idealism) is very strong evidence that the brain is the awareness. No god required.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Well that's an assertion which would require proof. My view is that chopping a connection between 2 halves of a physical brain and getting 2 distinct awarenesses (and awareness is one of the usual starting points for proofs of idealism) is very strong evidence that the brain is the awareness. No god required.
Proof or no proof, positing an indivisible God as the essence of any and all perception, is not countered with discussions of a split-brain.

In the placebo-effect, we have absolute evidence that an intangible thought (a belief) can affect/change the physical status of the body. The measure of the effect is arguable. What is not arguable is that a physical system can be [sometimes] drastically altered by an intangible thought.
Let's not forget either that everything we do also begins its life as a thought or instinct within our mind. Thus thought shapes history and affects the earth itself.
You see, it works both ways. Perception/matter is entwined together somehow. Both affect each other. The brain is no more awareness than awareness is the brain. Both are distinct yet embroiled together, like a cyclist upon his bike.

But my point to you is that what is perceived is also distinct from who is perceiving. Hence, no matter what is perceived and no matter how it is perceived (brain manipulation, or whatever), that The Perceiver remains immutable, throughout. Only what is perceived is subject to change.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Proof or no proof, positing an indivisible God as the essence of any and all perception, is not countered with discussions of a split-brain.


Neither is positing an invisible pink unicorn. However the starting point surely should be perception rather supposition? And what we perceive is that cutting the corpus callosum splits awareness.


In the placebo-effect, we have absolute evidence that an intangible thought (a belief) can affect/change the physical status of the body. The measure of the effect is arguable. What is not arguable is that a physical system can be [sometimes] drastically altered by an intangible thought.


Assertion again. I can assert that thoughts are not intangible. Let's stick to the point which is what we can deduce, or not, from people with split brains.



You see, it works both ways. Perception/matter is entwined together somehow. Both affect each other. The brain is no more awareness than awareness is the brain. Both are distinct yet embroiled together, like a cyclist upon his bike.



Ah, I thought you held there was only awareness.


But my point to you is that what is perceived is also distinct from who is perceiving. Hence, no matter what is perceived and no matter how it is perceived (brain manipulation, or whatever), that The Perceiver remains immutable, throughout. Only what is perceived is subject to change.

The Perceiver is now 2 Perceivers. I consider that highly mutable.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Neither is positing an invisible pink unicorn.

The point is that you claimed Idealism was floored with this split-brain stuff, and it aint.

However the starting point surely should be perception rather supposition? And what we perceive is that cutting the corpus callosum splits awareness.

Can you be more accurate about this? I mean, it's difficult to talk about something I cannot comprehend. Does the person have two simultaneous personas or one fluctuating persona or what?

Assertion again. I can assert that thoughts are not intangible.

Then you'd look foolish.

Ah, I thought you held there was only awareness.

There is a perception of being in matter. Hence the interconnectedness of perception and matter.

The Perceiver is now 2 Perceivers. I consider that highly mutable.
No. Perception is all over the place, that's all.

[ADD Boy]

Lifegazer, I suggest you look up some psychological studies on people who get their corpus callosum severed. It's actually a treatment for severe and chronic seizures - it keeps electrical impulses from building up (don't ask me for specifics on this, though).

http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/alienhand-psy.html
http://www.hippy.freeola.net/cgi-bin/counter.cgi?aliensyn.htm&iframe

That will get you started.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wudang
In another thread we got round to talking about split brain studies, e.g. where the corpus callosum has been severed so the 2 halves of the brain can't talk to each other. This produces a number of effects that to me are one of the stronger indicators that the materialist assumption is correct. From my, admittedly limitted, understanding of the immaterialist assumption I find it difficult to see how to explain how "physical" intervention affects not just what is perceived but who is perceiving it.
Thoughts?

Why is this? Are you claiming that a split brain person is literally 2 minds rather than 1?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why is this? Are you claiming that a split brain person is literally 2 minds rather than 1?
I'd say it goes further than that. What becomes evident when the corpus callosum is severed is that a whole-brain person is 2 minds (or however many you like) rather than one -- demonstrating that the term 'mind' is incoherent.

[evildave]

I seem to recall bringing this split brain stuff up before. Along with what happens when other forms of brain surgery and damage occur. Mostly having to do with pretty much anything you can point at and say "that's what a soul does" is done by a section of that meat in your skull.

The right rand literally does not know what the left hand is up to. In some cases, different halves liked and disliked different people.

It doesn't necessarily make out a brain to be "two brains" unto its self. The brain halves develop differently once they're seperated. When they were connected, they were in essence one brain that had certain specializations in different areas that worked together. When they were disconnected, they BECAME two seperate brains with different specializations, sharing the same body.

There are a ton of fascinating studies and cases available on the web.

[lifegazer]

As fascinating as this split-brain thingy might be, it does not burst the bubble of Idealism. Certainly not my branch of it (God is existence and everything else is just perceived within God).

The potential for God to perceive things within itself does not necessitate order or coherency upon those perceptions. I.e., we must assume that God is more than capable of imposing incoherent/disordered perceptions upon itself.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic

I'd say it goes further than that. What becomes evident when the corpus callosum is severed is that a whole-brain person is 2 minds (or however many you like) rather than one -- demonstrating that the term 'mind' is incoherent.

Could you then define the word "mind" and give an argument demonstrating its incoherency? Do such patients readily agree that "they" now have 2 minds?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by evildave
[B]I seem to recall bringing this split brain stuff up before. Along with what happens when other forms of brain surgery and damage occur. Mostly having to do with pretty much anything you can point at and say "that's what a soul does" is done by a section of that meat in your skull.



I hope you can prove this.




The right rand literally does not know what the left hand is up to. In some cases, different halves liked and disliked different people.



Give a specific example. With what reasons did the right hand brain like a person and the left brain not?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why is this? Are you claiming that a split brain person is literally 2 minds rather than 1?
When the Corpus Callosum is cut, the two hemispheres of the brain cannot communicate with one another. At the same time, both halves of the brain retain the quality of self-awareness and personality traits (evildave mentioned that occasionally these personality traits may even conflict with one another). That means each half of the brain literally houses its own "mind". One of the functions of the Corpus Callosum is to coordinate all these independent "mini-minds" into a single unified "mind".

The effects of these 2 or more "minds" becomes obvious when under controlled observation. For the most part, split-brain patients can read, write, dance, sing, chat, and solve problems just like normal people do.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

When the Corpus Callosum is cut, the two hemispheres of the brain cannot communicate with one another. At the same time, both halves of the brain retain the quality of self-awareness and personality traits (evildave mentioned that occasionally these personality traits may even conflict with one another). That means each half of the brain literally houses its own "mind". One of the functions of the Corpus Callosum is to coordinate all these independent "mini-minds" into a single unified "mind".

The effects of these 2 or more "minds" becomes obvious when under controlled observation. For the most part, split-brain patients can read, write, dance, sing, chat, and solve problems just like normal people do.

These patients agree "they" are now 2 minds?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
These patients agree "they" are now 2 minds?
In controlled settings, yes.

In casual settings, no. The concept of "2 minds" is so alien to the causal person that they may not be able to concieve of a coherent understanding of what the concept could be.

From Disenchanted Dictionary - Corpus Callosum (http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html?node=1852):
Even though each hemisphere specializes, they still retain the ability to learn other tasks, and in patients who've undergone this kind of surgery, that's more or less what they do. The right hemisphere can learn to read again, and in a way can start to communicate. Now if you flash the word “WALK” to the left eye (right hemisphere), the patient will get up and walk across the room. But let's say you stop him and ask him why he did this. You're using verbal language skills, and the response is going to come from the left hemisphere which has motor speech skills and “veto power” over the voicebox. The patient might say quite sincerely “I don't know!” or even “to get a Coke.”

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]
In controlled settings, yes.



Have you got any references to the effect that split brain patients admit they are 2 minds? Sorry, can't go by your say so ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Have you got any references to the effect that split brain patients admit they are 2 minds? Sorry, can't go by your say so ;)
No quotes from the patients themselves (2 minds does not mean two "identities", and much less do I expect there to be quotes from split-brain patients - if any quotes are available at all - admitting that they are two seperate identities), but there are quotes available from Roger Sperry.

From Nobel.se - Roger Sperry (http://www.nobel.se/medicine/articles/sperry/):
It was with these patients that he was able to show that a conscious mind exists in each hemisphere. The left hemisphere is the one with speech, as had been known, and it is dominant in all activities involving language, arithmetic, and analysis. The right hemisphere, although mute and capable only of simple addition (up to about 20) is superior to the left hemisphere in, among other things, spatial comprehension--in understanding maps, for example, or recognizing faces. Until these patients were studied, it had been doubted whether the right hemisphere was even conscious. By devising ways of communicating with the right hemisphere, Sperry could show that this hemisphere is, to quote him: "indeed a conscious system in its own right, perceiving, thinking, remembering, reasoning, willing, and emoting, all at a characteristically human level, and . . . both the left and the right hemisphere may be conscious simultaneously in different, even in mutually conflicting, mental experiences that run along in parallel."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Have you got any references to the effect that split brain patients admit they are 2 minds? Sorry, can't go by your say so
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No quotes from the patients themselves (2 minds does not mean two "identities", and much less do I expect there to be quotes from split-brain patients - if any quotes are available at all - admitting that they are two seperate identities), but there are quotes available from Roger Sperry.



They emphatically deny they are 2 minds from what I hear.



From Nobel.se - Roger Sperry:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was with these patients that he was able to show that a conscious mind exists in each hemisphere.



I would dispute this, although I admit it would be helpful for the guy saying this to define what he means by a "mind". Certainly I deny there are 2 selves if that is what is meant. Is this what is meant?



The left hemisphere is the one with speech, as had been known, and it is dominant in all activities involving language, arithmetic, and analysis. The right hemisphere, although mute and capable only of simple addition (up to about 20) is superior to the left hemisphere in, among other things, spatial comprehension--in understanding maps, for example, or recognizing faces. Until these patients were studied, it had been doubted whether the right hemisphere was even conscious. By devising ways of communicating with the right hemisphere, Sperry could show that this hemisphere is, to quote him: "indeed a conscious system in its own right, perceiving, thinking, remembering, reasoning, willing, and emoting, all at a characteristically human level, and . . . both the left and the right hemisphere may be conscious simultaneously in different, even in mutually conflicting, mental experiences that run along in parallel."
[/B]

Again, this term "conscious system" is obscure.

Does he mean 2 selves or not? if not then what does he mean?

I really do not believe that a person who is not a split brain patient can claim that split brain patients are 2 different selves when they themselves emphatically deny it.

I urge you for one second to consider how ludicrous this is! Surely they themselves must know if they are or not. We cannot have any declaration from the 3rd person perspective that a person is really 2 selves when the experience of self hood is incorrigibly first person and the person concerned denies he is now 2 different selves. Indeed what would it mean to say he is in error?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Could you then define the word "mind" and give an argument demonstrating its incoherency?
Wait...I say the term is incoherent, and your response is to insist that it is on me to define it? Pass. Let's hear your best effort at a coherent definition.
Does he mean 2 selves or not?
Not -- at least, not in the sense that you mean 'two selves'.
if not then what does he mean?
Let's look again at what he says:

"...a conscious system in its own right, perceiving, thinking, remembering, reasoning, willing, and emoting, all at a characteristically human level...

I urge you for one second to consider how ludicrous this is! Surely they themselves must know if they are or not. We cannot have any declaration from the 3rd person perspective that a person is really 2 selves when the experience of self hood is incorrigibly first person

From a perspective that equates 'self' with 'soul', it is to be expected that all this will appear confusing. Your best bet is probably to refuse to read about this stuff (that goes for multiple-personality disorder as well).

[Interesting Ian]

Dymanic
Let's look again at what he says:

"...a conscious system in its own right, perceiving, thinking, remembering, reasoning, willing, and emoting, all at a characteristically human level...


Come on Dymanic, you've just ignored all my questions. Are there 2 "I's" we're talking about here?

Another question. What do split brain patients in your opinion prove? That there is no united self?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They emphatically deny they are 2 minds from what I hear.
Just asking, but where do you hear this from?

I would dispute this, although I admit it would be helpful for the guy saying this to define what he means by a "mind". Certainly I deny there are 2 selves if that is what is meant. Is this what is meant?
I agree, Sperry does not immediately define what he means by "mind". From his context, it appears that he concludes "self-awareness" is the mind.

Its been a bit of a slow day for me, I'm just enjoying a bit of time to myself without heavy effort expended into reading the works of Roger Sperry. I'm sure Sperry defines "mind" somewhere in his works. If its available online, I'll make an effort to search for it when I get around to thinking about feeling like I could possibly consider doing so. I dont believe Sperry was trying to prove that there are two "people" inside the human brain.

Again, this term "conscious system" is obscure.

Does he mean 2 selves or not? if not then what does he mean?
At the moment, I dont have any sources available at my immediate disposal, but Sperry maintained that "two minds does not necessitate two identities", he notes that the two hemispheres of the brain are independently self-aware.

I really do not believe that a person who is not a split brain patient can claim that split brain patients are 2 different selves when they themselves emphatically deny it.
Well, they split-brain patients are not two different selves (that is if I understand your definition of "self" correctly).

I urge you for one second to consider how ludicrous this is! Surely they themselves must know if they are or not. We cannot have any declaration from the 3rd person perspective that a person is really 2 selves when the experience of self hood is incorrigibly first person and the person concerned denies he is now 2 different selves. Indeed what would it mean to say he is in error?
Well, there are no quotes available from the Split-brain patients so far.

No, I wouldnt say this is entirely ludicrous, I would just maintain that this information is incompatible with some Dualist and Immaterialist positions. Lifegazer's Philosophy is compatible with the information.

I'll be fully willing and able to consider that Sperry may be in error (or at least leaping the hurdles of presusposition). From the available information, the idea of 2 independently self-aware hemispheres of the brain is compatible with notion of a single "self" (or minimally, you may be able to reconcile that the two hemispheres of the brain, having developed in the same conditions, produce 2 "selves" which have little distinction between one another... there may be other ways to see the two independent hemispheres of the brain compatible with one "self", but I cant think of any off the top of my head).

I'll see what kind of information I can come up with (perhaps I'll email one of the Centers of Psychological Research and ask them their opinion).

I'll agree with you, I would not like a 3rd party telling me what I think or do not think either (Note: there is much gray area and hand waving in that last bit).

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Come on Dymanic, you've just ignored all my questions. Are there 2 "I's" we're talking about here? Pointing out that your questions are meaningless is not the same as ignoring them. We have done this dance before. You are insisting that I provide answers that are consistent with your assumptions, something I am obviously unable to do.

Another question. What do split brain patients in your opinion prove? That there is no united self?I think you know that I don't like the word prove, but I would consider them evidence that what we call the 'self' refers to a complex composite of cognitive sub-processes, and arbitrarily so. (I don't need to find a place to plug in a 'soul', you see, so I don't have your problem.)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

We cannot have any declaration from the 3rd person perspective that a person is really 2 selves when the experience of self hood is incorrigibly first person and the person concerned denies he is now 2 different selves.I think you have it exactly backwards. Let's say a hypothetical person (call him "James Kirk") is somehow split into two separate selves (say by a malfunctioning teleporter). Are not both James Kirks going to insist that there are only one of them? And is not the error of this going to be apparent only from a 3rd person perspective?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I hope you can prove this.



Give a specific example. With what reasons did the right hand brain like a person and the left brain not?

Wow, suddenly all demands about having posted this before. Well, the forum search engine doesn't seem to go that far back, or I'd have an easier time with the searches.

Oh well, a couple of fresh google searches turn up the appropriate results.

A general overview...
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web1/Vasiliadis.html

" DUAL MENTAL FUNCTIONING IN A 'SPLIT-BRAIN' PATIENT"
http://www.brain-mind.com/SplitBrainPatient.html

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why is this? Are you claiming that a split brain person is literally 2 minds rather than 1?

That would rather seem to be the evidence, at least in some cases. Communication with both halves is, of course, difficult.

[Iacchus]

So, would it be fair to say that men are left-brain oriented and women are right-brain oriented? And that this is in fact why we have two sides to the brain?

Whereas when the masculine (1) versus feminine side (2) -- the man himself (12) -- is conjoined to the the feminine (4) versus masculine side (3) -- the woman herself (43) -- you have the bridegroom (5) and the bride (6) conjoined in marriage (7).

And in case you don't understand the significance of the numbers here, they also correspond to the man and the woman's parents or, the "in-laws" ... in conjunction with the bridegroom (5-12) and the bride (6-43) and the marriage (7-343).

1) The man's father.
2) The man's mother.
3) The woman's father.
4) The woman's mother.

5) The bridegroom.
6) The bride.
7) The marriage.

While here it should be noted that the man assumes the role of the woman's father in the relationship (3), and the woman assumes the role of the man's mother in the relationship (2), all of which is illustrated by the numbers 32 and 23 -- which, when "added" -- 320 + 023 -- equals 343 -- which, is 7 x 7 x 7.

Also, did you know that the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+12) which, signifies The Advent of the New Church -- i.e., the relationship (7-343) between God the Husband (5/12) and the Church which is the Wife (6/43) -- occurs in the 43rd month following the testimony of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+11)?

Hmm ... There almost seems to be a sense of synchronicity to the whole thing now doesn't there? Perhaps the sense of synchronicity experienced between two minds?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wudang
In another thread we got round to talking about split brain studies, e.g. where the corpus callosum has been severed so the 2 halves of the brain can't talk to each other. This produces a number of effects that to me are one of the stronger indicators that the materialist assumption is correct. From my, admittedly limitted, understanding of the immaterialist assumption I find it difficult to see how to explain how "physical" intervention affects not just what is perceived but who is perceiving it.
Thoughts?

It's just like someone saying that because they do things without really thinking about them, then they are really 2 selves. Have you ever entered a room to do something, or get something, but you draw up short because you forget what it is that you came in the room for?

Most everything we do is not something we are immediately consciously thinking about. We do things on "autopilot" so to speak. Just consider when you're first learning to drive a car. One is consciously thinking about it all the time. Eventually one can drive a car but not consciously think about it at all. You can be thinking about something entirely different but yet still react appropriately to traffic lights, emergency stops and whatever.

So what has this to do with split-brain patients? Well consider such a patient buttoning up a coat with his right hand , with the left interfering and undoing the buttons! :eek: LOL To my mind it seems that the buttoning up might be on this "autopilot" with the conscious self realising that he doesn't want this action and therefore interfereing. Basically to my mind, split brain patients exhibit simply an elaborate form of absentmindedness rather than being suggestive of there literally being 2 selves inhabiting one body! This also ties in with what the patients say themselves.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

First, it should be pointed out that left/right brain distinctions have been heavily popularized and (over)simplified.

Women are much more bilateral than men are; they show much less hemispheric specialization. We're not quite sure why this is; some speculate that males experienced an evolutionary pressure to maximize efficiency at the expense of flexibility. The problem is that it's difficult to show that being specialized gives a benefit; it's a definite liability if you experience brain trauma.

Lastly, some people show a reversed specialization: their right hemispheres handle language and details while the left handles visuospatial, emotional, and "global" matters.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm


Lastly, some people show a reversed specialization: their right hemispheres handle language and details while the left handles visuospatial, emotional, and "global" matters. [/B]

Hmmm, would these people also be left handed?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

First, it should be pointed out that left/right brain distinctions have been heavily popularized and (over)simplified.And yet we wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that we are both male and female. And that's the yin and yang of it in a nutshell. :)


Women are much more bilateral than men are; they show much less hemispheric specialization. We're not quite sure why this is; some speculate that males experienced an evolutionary pressure to maximize efficiency at the expense of flexibility. The problem is that it's difficult to show that being specialized gives a benefit; it's a definite liability if you experience brain trauma.But that isn't to say the delineation doesn't exist.

However, Truth is more external (uncompromising and less forgiving) and Good is more internal (yeilding and more compassionate).


Lastly, some people show a reversed specialization: their right hemispheres handle language and details while the left handles visuospatial, emotional, and "global" matters. But this by no means is considered normal is it?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

To my mind it seems that the buttoning up might be on this "autopilot" with the conscious self realising that he doesn't want this action and therefore interfereing. What exactly is it about this 'autopilot' that makes you so certain that it is not deserving of the distinction 'conscious self'?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic
What exactly is it about this 'autopilot' that makes you so certain that it is not deserving of the distinction 'conscious self'?

When we walk say, or react to something suddenly, we're don't have a conscious thought then react to that do we? The conscious mind normally only intervenes with what you do subconsciously. :)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

When we walk say, or react to something suddenly, we're don't have a conscious thought then react to that do we? The conscious mind normally only intervenes with what you do subconsciouslySo our cognitive processes include what might be called subroutines, capable of accessing sensory information and using that information as the basis for decision-making. You seem unwilling consider this sufficient to deserve the 'conscious' distinction, reserving that for a particular type of subroutine, one devoted to regulatory or inhibitory actions on other subroutines. So you regard information about the outputs of cognitive subroutines as somehow more significant than raw sensory information?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

We really should frame this and hang it from the rafters. Do you know how many questions about drugs and hammers-on-the-head I've had to answer since I started out? Hundreds.

My philosophy is the only sensible form of Idealism.

Your philosophy attempts to make sense of this by calling it a vast conspiracy and illusion.

[Wudang]

I'd be very surprised if any of the split brain subjects did recognise themselves as being 2 minds. "Attributions" is what we do when see someone, say, perform an altruistic act and decide they're an altruistic sort of person. Even when there are strong situational pressures that would adequately explain the persons action - it's his boss' pet charity for example. Well, it turns out that we do that to ourselves - we often do things and then attribute meaning to them after, as in the case of the subject who rationalised his act as wanting a coke.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

In the placebo-effect, we have absolute evidence that an intangible thought (a belief) can affect/change the physical status of the body.


Only in the same way that thinking about moving your finger causes your finger to move. Both pathways are well understood


The measure of the effect is arguable. What is not arguable is that a physical system can be [sometimes] drastically altered by an intangible thought.


Yes, ever see an animal run? If thought was incapible of both perceiving stimuli and reacting, it would be useless


Let's not forget either that everything we do also begins its life as a thought or instinct within our mind.


more stupid useless poetry. What about reflex?


Thus thought shapes history and affects the earth itself.


It does, but not in the "telekinises" way you claim. Simply through motor-neuron interaction


You see, it works both ways. Perception/matter is entwined together somehow. Both affect each other. The brain is no more awareness than awareness is the brain. Both are distinct yet embroiled together, like a cyclist upon his bike.


more useless preachy poetry. Shall I also wax on about the program and the computer?


But my point to you is that what is perceived is also distinct from who is perceiving. Hence, no matter what is perceived and no matter how it is perceived (brain manipulation, or whatever), that The Perceiver remains immutable, throughout. Only what is perceived is subject to change.

Again, compeletly useless unless you define your terms.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Wudang
Well that's an assertion which would require proof. My view is that chopping a connection between 2 halves of a physical brain and getting 2 distinct awarenesses (and awareness is one of the usual starting points for proofs of idealism) is very strong evidence that the brain is the awareness. No god required.

Has anyone who actually understands the issue in question had this operation or accident? What did they say? Or was it all truck drivers and Dynamite tampers?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Beerina

Has anyone who actually understands the issue in question had this operation or accident? What did they say? Or was it all truck drivers and Dynamite tampers?Uh, point of clarification...the 'dynamite tamper' to whom you refer was undoubtedly Phineas Gage -- but his accident resulted in damage to the frontal lobe, not the corpus callosum. In any case, I question whether the subject himself would be in the best position to make an assessment, though there is something appealing about the idea of neurolgists volunteering as subjects for experimental brain surgeries.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Beerina


Has anyone who actually understands the issue in question had this operation or accident? What did they say? Or was it all truck drivers and Dynamite tampers?

Generally people who had extremely severe, life-threatening epileptic seizures that medication could not control were candidates for this surgery.

Here is the better overview of the two links...
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web1/Vasiliadis.html

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I question whether the subject himself would be in the best position to make an assessment, though there is something appealing about the idea of neurolgists volunteering as subjects for experimental brain surgeries.

Indeed. In that vein I remember chatting with psychology lecturers at uni who told me that earlier that day an ex-colleague had been brought in by his wife for a visit. He couldn't work after a car crash that left him with brain damage. Anyway, they're chatting away about the usual inconsequentials as one does when he said "The doctors tell me that I'm no longer capable of abstract thought. What does that mean?". Even they hadn't really grasped his injuries until then. Since he wasn't capable of abstract thought he couldn't even understand the concept any more.