Do brains really exist? [Archive]

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
"Most people ... believe that mental experiences ... are ... brain processes. I.e., they believe that the brain really exists.
But how do we reconcile the 'motion of bricks', as it were ..., with these actual experiences?

Don't understand the question. Reconcile in what way?

Well it's pretty obvious to me that the 'motion of bricks' doesn't equate to mental experiences. If it does, then please tell me what mental experiences are being had by the Atlantic Ocean, as we speak.
Further, since there are quite a few classes of mental-experience and numerous types of experience within each class of mental-experience, this raises further ludicrous contemplations, such as:
In what manner do bricks have to move or interact in order to experience feeling as opposed to sensation, for example?

Throw an orange at an apple and get a thought?
Throw a banana at a pear and get a feeling?
Are there any bananas or pears in the Atlantic?
Is the Atlantic feeling wet and thinking about travelling to the Indian Ocean?

"And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human?"

Er... the way you've defined it above, one brain is have the singular experience of one human.

The brain was described as a finite entity composed of numerous parts all oblivious to one another. Hardly singular in itself.

"Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience."

Whoever said that something composed of parts that are "seperated and oblivious to one another" has a single experience?

Well, if you believe in the reality of a brain, then that is what your belief must be.
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think your big toe (if real) is aware of your little toe (if real)?
Hopefully (being quite intelligent), you'll say no.
... Likewise, all parts of a real brain must be oblivious of each other. Otherwise, all parts of a real brain would have to be self-aware, as well as being aware of other 'parts' beyond themselves. Which would result in a brain with numerous self-awarenesses and no possibility of a singular awareness.

And how could something even be composed of seperated parts? The statement makes no sense.
Sorry?
Are you suggesting that the brain is indivisible, per chance??!!!!!

aggle-rithm

28th June 2005, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why?
... If you believe that brains really exist then your belief boils-down to the fact that a finite entity existing in space & time is composed of numerous & separated building-blocks - and that their interaction & motion yields the by-product of mental-experiences.
So my analogy suffices.

If you get enough bricks moving in the right configuration, then I suppose it could achieve an emergent property like consciousness. It would take a lot of bricks, mind you, interacting in an incredibly complex manner. I really think neurons work much better.

As for the human experience being a "singular experience" -- that impression of being "singular" can be disrupted disturbingly easily. Read some of the writings of Oliver Sacks, who often uses the phrase "de-souled by disease" to describe some of his unfortunate patients.

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
This is exactly why you need to do your homework! Thanks for confirming my point. It is more than relevant, iff, you really want to know what you are talking about!
Answer the questions in my OP or go away. I'm filtering my responses. Don't waste any more of your time unless you're prepared to stop wasting my own.

aggle-rithm

28th June 2005, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well it's pretty obvious to me that the 'motion of bricks' doesn't equate to mental experiences. If it does, then please tell me what mental experiences are being had by the Atlantic Ocean, as we speak.

...............
Throw an orange at an apple and get a thought?
Throw a banana at a pear and get a feeling?
Are there any bananas or pears in the Atlantic?
Is the Atlantic feeling wet and thinking about travelling to the Indian Ocean?

Great googly-moogly, are these some bad analogies! Read up on neural networks, then get back to us. (of course, I know you won't do this. Oh, well.)

Piscivore

28th June 2005, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human?

None of them. This is as meaningless a question as asking which air molecule makes a gust of wind. The "bricks" don't "have an experience"- you are just removing your imaginary entity down a peg. The actions of all of them together are the "experience," and the totality of the "experiences" call itself human because of feedback interactions.

Originally posted by lifegazer
And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a singular experience:

Sort of, but this isn't as big a deal as you'd like to think.

Originally posted by lifegazer
~Something~ singular encompasses/embraces the totality of ALL mental experiences... and perceives this totality of experiences As One!!!

Nope. You seem to wish there were, but no evidence has been found to support such a pronouncement.

Originally posted by lifegazer
To my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that:
motion of bricks = mental experience.

Why?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" [b]individual experience

Why? Your main obstacle, I think, is that you want to preserve the "specialness" that is you. Let go of the "entity," it is not real.

The other part you don't get, it that the "parts" are not separated. For a brief while, they are cohesive, but this is not a permanent condition.

Even the "oblivious" part is wrong, technically. The "parts" interact with each other, so they are "aware" of each other in the same way vinegar and baking soda are "aware" of each other.

Originally posted by lifegazer
These are major problems for anyone with an open-mind and a desire to see the sense of something.

Antother error. You assume that things have to make sense. I'm not being flip or insulting: very little of the universe really "makes sense" from a "human" POV. Does a mindless, impartial universe of which we are an infintesimal part make "sense"? But it seems that's what we've got.

You have to look at the evidence before you can start inventing theories.

Originally posted by lifegazer
So let's hear some sense.

If that's what you want, I'm not sure I can help you, for the reasons I give above.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Does anyone here want to tackle these problems,

This post is evidence that the answer is "yes."

Originally posted by lifegazer
or is a belief in the reality of the brain akin to a religious belief, as I suspect?

Nope.

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
Great googly-moogly, are these some bad analogies! Read up on neural networks, then get back to us. (of course, I know you won't do this. Oh, well.)
It's time for a few home-truths squire:

(1) This is a philosophical discussion - not a scientific discussion. Regardless...
(2) Science has no proof that anything! - least of all 'a brain' - is real.
(3) Science has not reconciled mental-experience to material interaction/motion.
(4) My question regarding the singularity of experience has not even been addressed by science.

Forget your science text-books. They cannot answer my questions in the OP.
And that is a fact.

If science can answer any of my questions, then tell me how 'it' has answered them. Otherwise, open your mind and starting thinking at a higher level.

Piscivore

28th June 2005, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
If science can answer any of my questions, then tell me how 'it' has answered them. Otherwise, open your mind and starting thinking at a higher level.

BD Zen did. It's our fault you don't understand the answer?

Originally posted by lifegazer
(2) Science has no proof that anything! - least of all 'a brain' - is real.
(3) Science has not reconciled mental-experience to material interaction/motion.
(4) My question regarding the singularity of experience has not even been addressed by science.

2) You've never adequately explained what you mean by "real," so I cannot answer that.
3) How do you know, when you don't recognise it when it is pointed out to you?
4) Neither has "science" addressed the question of what "42" means in relation to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Why do you think that is?

P.S.A.

28th June 2005, 04:21 PM

How is the inability to ever express remorse, or have any empathy at all, a higher form of thought? If you ask me, such thought is in fact less than human, as it encompasses fewer emotions than a health human mind, and is therefore a lower level...

28th June 2005, 04:35 PM

Goodness, he even recycles his last-resort trash postings?

We did, after all, see this line before:

I'm ready for conversion. I'm tired of having no mates and am ready to throw God into the garbage can. But I need a little persuasion. But...

Yep. Sheer psychosis. Sad, really.

But how do we reconcile the 'motion of bricks', as it were (that's what it boils down to if we believe that the brain is a finite thing existing in space & time, composed of finite building-blocks), with these actual experiences?

Neuroscientists are asking the same questions. When they have an answer, so will you.

Of course, your argument boils down to 'I don't know how it works, so it must be something else entirely.'

And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human? And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a singular experience: ~Something~ singular encompasses/embraces the totality of ALL mental experiences... and perceives this totality of experiences As One!!!

The 'singular Brain', of course.

Yes, the brain is comprised of many smaller elements - just like bricks are comprised of many smaller elements.

Meanwhile...

The experience of being a human individual is hardly a singular experience; rather, it is a compound experience comprised of many factors: sensation, emotion, memory, thought, etc. In fact, I can think of absolutely no definition of singular that would apply to human experience, unless you are merely referring to the privacy issue, which is still essentially a non-issue.

Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.

Well, obviously you need to open and broaden your mind, then.

We observe many, MANY things which are comprised of numerous parts, and they exist as individual things. And our parts are not oblivious to each other - not in the least. Neither are they purely aware. They are simply reactionary. Some parts are aware of other parts; the rest are simply connected by nerve cells as a form of monitoring system for the neural net that keeps track of it all.

I suppose you don't understand how a computer, comprised of many singular parts all oblivious to each other, can perform any actions, either?

Daft, man.

These are major problems for anyone with an open-mind and a desire to see the sense of something. So let's hear some sense. Does anyone here want to tackle these problems, or is a belief in the reality of the brain akin to a religious belief, as I suspect?

No, a religious belief is faith in something for which evidence either does not exist at all, or for which evidence is contrary to that faith. Evidence exists for the existence of the brain, within the logical paradigm of assuming what is 'out there' is at all consistant and real.

Every system of belief or knowledge relies upon at least one assumption, and one of the fundamental assumptions that has had the most practical application has been the belief that what we observe is fair evidence of what is there. Otherwise, we can rely upon nothing at all.

In religion, however, belief is often founded upon nothing at all - upon empty anecdotes or imagination or misunderstandings of observations. Evidence is often either lacking entirely, or completely contrary to those beliefs. And most religions rely upon mountains of assumptions, many of which are absurd, contradictory, or demonstrably false.

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
"And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human?"

None of them. This is as meaningless a question as asking which air molecule makes a gust of wind.

Rubbish. If you were the same size as a molecule of air, a 'gust of wind' could be equated to the movement of a molecule.
The comparison is nonsensical...
The fact is that the totality of the different experiences of human INDIVIDUALITY is a singular experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [emphasis justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

... Now, given the fact that you believe the brain to be a real entity composed of many parts - all oblivious to one another -
how do you explain the advent of a singular experience??????!!!

The "bricks" don't "have an experience"- you are just removing your imaginary entity down a peg.

Hold on: this thread is addressed to those that believe that 'the [real] brain' is the seat of all experience. [Meaning that the 'bricks' DO have an experience]
... If you believe that 'experience' emanates from 'God' or 'nothing' or ~something~ hitherto undeclared, then you shouldn't even be attempting to negate my OP - since my OP has not addressed those concepts.

The actions of all of them together are the "experience," and the totality of the "experiences" call itself human because of feedback interactions.

You're just parroting crap.
Experience is singular. Deal with it.
... Having done so, think about how/why an entity composed of numerous parts - all oblivious to one another and all ACTING DIFFERENTLY - can have a singular experience. Then we'll be in the same field-of-play.

"And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a singular experience"

Sort of, but this isn't as big a deal as you'd like to think.

*Laugh*
It's the biggest deal you'll ever see in your whole life. If indeed you ever get to 'see' it.
... Think of another mechanism: a 'car', for example:-
No parts of the car are aware of themselves (likewise, as I explained earlier, no parts of the brain can be aware of themselves - since this negates the possibility of singular experience).
So, no parts of the car can experience themselves nor each other. Yet, the majority of the people here believe that the separate parts of ~a car~ (better known as 'the brain') can experience 'Everything' as One.

This is profound. Really. Why? Because having realised that individual awareness cannot be achieved by entities either oblivious to one another or by entities with individual awarenesses of their own, the conclusion is that individual awareness emanates from an entity that is absolutely singular in itself.
... And you know what that means. Care for some knee-pads?

28th June 2005, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Rubbish. If you were the same size as a molecule of air, a 'gust of wind' could be equated to the movement of a molecule.
The comparison is nonsensical...
The fact is that the totality of the different experiences of human INDIVIDUALITY is a singular experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [emphasis justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

... Now, given the fact that you believe the brain to be a real entity composed of many parts - all oblivious to one another -
how do you explain the advent of a singular experience??????!!!

Hold on: this thread is addressed to those that believe that 'the [real] brain' is the seat of all experience. [Meaning that the 'bricks' DO have an experience]
... If you believe that 'experience' emanates from 'God' or 'nothing' or ~something~ hitherto undeclared, then you shouldn't even be attempting to negate my OP - since my OP has not addressed those concepts.

You're just parroting crap.
Experience is singular. Deal with it.
... Having done so, think about how/why an entity composed of numerous parts - all oblivious to one another and all ACTING DIFFERENTLY - can have a singular experience. Then we'll be in the same field-of-play.

*Laugh*
It's the biggest deal you'll ever see in your whole life. If indeed you ever get to 'see' it.
... Think of another mechanism: a 'car', for example:-
No parts of the car are aware of themselves (likewise, as I explained earlier, no parts of the brain can be aware of themselves - since this negates the possibility of singular experience).
So, no parts of the car can experience themselves nor each other. Yet, the majority of the people here believe that the separate parts of ~a car~ (better known as 'the brain') can experience 'Everything' as One.

This is profound. Really. Why? Because having realised that individual awareness cannot be achieved by entities either oblivious to one another or by entities with individual awarenesses of their own, the conclusion is that individual awareness emanates from an entity that is absolutely singular in itself.
... And you know what that means. Care for some knee-pads?

Hoo boy. Here goes Ego-Boy, at it again. Now he feels the need to add extra pepper to his comments. Too bad, because nothing drops the validity of a post, IMO, then abuse of punctuation. Not even colored fonts manage to destroy someone's credibility this much.

And now he's made spurious claims, and assumes that everyone now accepts them. But he hasn't even defined what he is implying or meaning by 'singular' yet. No, he's too busy declaring his claims 'profound' and making empty assertions to bother with ground-work.

Also, notice the false dichotomy in these statements? In his opinion, brain cells must either be oblivious to each other, or must be aware in and of themselves. No middle ground, no other states of being, etc.

There are many observed states within the body in which a smaller system or item within our body is aware of something and takes actions that we, ourselves, are unaware of. Think of what happens when you get a splinter in, say, some insensitive part of your foot. The body reacts appropriately, creates scab material, sends antibodies and white blood cells to care for the wound, etc... all without our awareness of it happening. So clearly, there is some other mode of action going on here - some subordinate form of awareness which exists beneath and separate from our own amalgamate awareness.

But does he consider this possibility? Of course not - it's grey area, and Darren just doesn't accept grey areas as valid.

Well, babble on, old bean. Not that this thread matters much. He still hasn't demonstrated sound premises, shown the totality of his assumptions, or demonstrated any - ANY - practical effects of embracing his theories.

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by P.S.A.
How is the inability to ever express remorse, or have any empathy at all, a higher form of thought? If you ask me, such thought is in fact less than human, as it encompasses fewer emotions than a health human mind, and is therefore a lower level...
I expressed remorse for You, but not for P.S.A (since I don't think you are P.S.A.).
If you eventually see this response and want to seriously discuss it, I will. But not in this thread.
No more games for me with you. We ignore each other or we talk like adults. Your choice.

28th June 2005, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I expressed remorse for You, but not for P.S.A (since I don't think you are P.S.A.).
If you eventually see this response and want to seriously discuss it, I will. But not in this thread.
No more games for me with you. We ignore each other or we talk like adults. Your choice.

Quoted for P.S.A.'s benefit.

Though I have a sinking sensation in me gutz that I know what the response will be... :D

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Though I have a sinking sensation in me gutz that I know what the response will be... :D
Yep, me too. But note here who holds-out the olive branch. And please quote this for his convenience also.

28th June 2005, 05:11 PM

Sorry, Darren, that would be 'stirring the cauldron'. He can read it if he takes you off of 'ignore'. Besides - it's a very arrogant comment.

I take it you are just a naturally arrogant person, aren't you?

Atlas

28th June 2005, 05:17 PM

Lg,

I liked that big toe - little toe thing. But aren't you the big toe? Why are you even talking to us? You can't even be aware of us.

And that ~Something~ thing you're talking about. You're mixed up. It's having the experience of the universe. It's a freakin singularity buddy.

You've analyzed it and resynthesized it and it remains Lg centric.

I think you should be ready for some mates, but as usual you's jus lyin.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th June 2005, 05:17 PM

Lifegazer said:
Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.
It's got a heck of a better chance at achieving some sort of experience than something with only one part would. How could a thing with only one part do anything?

~~ Paul

Piscivore

28th June 2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Rubbish. If you were the same size as a molecule of air, a 'gust of wind' could be equated to the movement of a molecule.

A gust of wind is just air molecules moving around, at any scale. Individually, they are moving all the time, but as they do not always move in concert, they do not always make wind. A single molecule cannot, by itself, say, move a newspaper down the street.

Originally posted by lifegazer
The comparison is nonsensical...
The fact is that the totality of the different experiences of human INDIVIDUALITY is a singular experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [emphasis justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

No, it isn't. A "human" doesn't remember every bit of stimulii it "experiences." And even if an individual's memory were perfect, its perception is limited- it isn't aware of every event that impacts it. While there are "experiences" of "experiences," these are not qualitatively different from the original experiences.

"The fact is" that every "human" is inseperarable part of its environment, and it cannot be removed from some sort of context.

Originally posted by lifegazer
... Now, given the fact that you believe the brain to be a real entity composed of many parts - all oblivious to one another -
how do you explain the advent of a singular experience??????!!!

I do not believe this. First off, still have no idea whatsoever what you mean by "real." Second, the brain is not an "entity". Third, the parts, as I've said, are not "oblivious to one another"- they interact. Fourth, there is no "singular experience" to explain.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hold on: this thread is addressed to those that believe that 'the [real] brain' is the seat of all experience. [Meaning that the 'bricks' DO have an experience]
... If you believe that 'experience' emanates from 'God' or 'nothing' or ~something~ hitherto undeclared, then you shouldn't even be attempting to negate my OP - since my OP has not addressed those concepts.

Nope, don't believe any of that either. "For one thing, "experiences" are not entities that can "emanate" from anything. They are events that occur between particles.

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're just parroting crap.
Tu quoque.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Experience is singular. Deal with it.

No it isn't. Just by "your" reading this post there are several "experiences" occuring that "you" aren't probably aware of.

Originally posted by lifegazer
... Having done so, think about how/why an entity composed of numerous parts - all oblivious to one another and all ACTING DIFFERENTLY - can have a singular experience. Then we'll be in the same field-of-play.

What field? Fairyland park? If you want to talk about an imaginary place, fine, but that's not the universe we have, or the one I'm talking about.

The parts are not "oblivious" to one another. They interact.
The parts do not all "act differently"- they all follow the same amazingly small set of "rules."
There are no "singular experiences" to have.

Originally posted by lifegazer
*Laugh*

Indeed.

Originally posted by lifegazer
... Think of another mechanism: a 'car', for example:-
No parts of the car are aware of themselves (likewise, as I explained earlier, no parts of the brain can be aware of themselves - since this negates the possibility of singular experience).

Heh, and yet you don't see the error... :D

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, no parts of the car can experience themselves nor each other.

Hmm. Brake pedal pushed, slave cylinder compresses, hydraulic fluid transmits force of compression to master cylinder, master cylinder compressses, more hydraulic fluid transmitts that force to the calipers, the calipers move the brake pads, the brake pads contact the rotor, the friction converts the rotational momentum of the wheels into heat, and the tires rotate slower.

What was that you were saying about the parts of the car not being able to experience each other?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Yet, the majority of the people here believe that the separate parts of ~a car~ (better known as 'the brain') can experience 'Everything' as One.

No one said that. There is no "One."

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is profound. Really. Why? Because having realised that individual awareness cannot be achieved by entities either oblivious to one another or by entities with individual awarenesses of their own,

But nobody said that it could. I said many things very different from this. Up the grade, illiterate.

Originally posted by lifegazer
the conclusion is that individual awareness emanates from an entity that is absolutely singular in itself.

*Sigh* No. "Awareness" isn't a "thing" that can "emanate" from anything. Your conclusion is, as always, just your initial, persistant desire repeated ad nauseum.

Let me know if you have the intellectual courage to address what I've actually posted, will you?

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Sorry, Darren, that would be 'stirring the cauldron'. He can read it if he takes you off of 'ignore'. Besides - it's a very arrogant comment.

I take it you are just a naturally arrogant person, aren't you?
No. I'm naturally shy & quiet and retiring.

Piscivore

28th June 2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. I'm naturally shy & quiet and retiring.

Why does that exclude arrogant?

28th June 2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. I'm naturally shy & quiet and retiring.

:dl:

And they told me you had no sense of humour! he he he

... though it would explain much...

I'm arrogant, egotistical, self-centered, and lazy. And inordinately proud of it. I even have a separate room just to store my ego in, where I feed it live virgins thrice daily. But it's starting to out-grow the auditorium...

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
And they told me you had no sense of humour! he he he

I was being serious. But I do have a sense of humour, nevertheless.

I'm arrogant, egotistical, self-centered, and lazy. And inordinately proud of it.

I already know that, since you've volunteered so much information about yourself.

P.S.A.

28th June 2005, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Quoted for P.S.A.'s benefit.

Though I have a sinking sensation in me gutz that I know what the response will be... :D

I'm sorry Lifegazer, I don't wish to directly see, let alone debate someone as disgustingly dishonest as you are. You NOWHERE in the thread in question, nor in the weeks afterward it, expressed any remorse for suffering at all. Not one bit. You went on and on quoting the passage from Matthew you claimed proved we should hate our parents instead.

But I tell you what, I'll be fair to you. I know it's 1:21 am here in the UK, and as it's a Tuesday you have perhaps another hour and a half in this posting session, I'll give you the opportunity to prove your overall worth:

I'll bet you that for every quote expressing your so called remorse that you can give us, from that thread until the present, that the other posters here who don't have you on ignore can find at least THREE different comments where you act like an insensitive asshat.

I won't bet anything on that though, as you don't, as I've already shown, have the "Balls" to back up your madness. And as I've already proven how utterly predictable you are in almost every other way too, you have nothing new to tell me at all anyway, you lunatic.

But if you really feel like proving your decency, of which I say you have none at all, why not post your first quotation where you claim you are being sensitive, hmm? Go ahead. Show us the depths of God's compassion. And everyone here can measure it against the times God showed temper, insensitivity, rage, bitterness, and appalling prejudice and spite beyond any rational reason.

I won't bother encrypting the following prediction; I simply don't have the time nor patience for this lunacy... but suffice to say, Lifegazer will simply assert again he's already shown remorse, and he'll bluster some more about refusing to debate someone who doesn't take him seriously. And he's right, I don't. I think he's a pyschotic and distasteful individual. And that's why he's staying on ignore. I find it a public service however to remind any passers by who find these lifegazer threads of just how distasteful he can be: The thead in question can be seen
here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56468&highlight=Painful) lurkers, and you may of course count for yourself how many times Lifegazer expresses remorse... and how many times he acts appallingly.

And now I dash off again. PMs replied to tomorrow, all those who've sent me one.

28th June 2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I already know that, since you've volunteered so much information about yourself.

Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention that I'm unusually open and honest?

I guess 275-lb ex-soldiers who have never lost fights in their lives and who know how to disarm just about anyone don't worry much about stalkers and madmen, do we? (Bad ego! Back in your chamber!)

:D

Actually, I'm mostly harmless. Guess what my 'sign' is?

(Hint: I actually fit my stereotype rather well, in this case.)

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
Why does that exclude arrogant?
I only have confidence in "the truth", but not 'myself' (lifegazer). As such, 'lifegazer' has nothing to be arrogant about, since that truth doesn't do much for 'him'.
Can we move on? Otherwise, start a thread about me so that I can revel in my ego being discussed. Thankyou.

P.S.A.

28th June 2005, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
:dl:

And they told me you had no sense of humour! he he he

... though it would explain much...

He is indeed naturally shy... he certainly doesn't have the "Balls" to either submit his ideas to the world of publishing or philosophy, nor even to take his ideas to the street and preach. Shy, that is, until he thinks someone is threatening him, and then he's from a hard northern city, where you wouldn't last five minutes, and he'd love for you to criticise him to his face, because... and let's not forget the hellfire raining down...

See that Lifegazer? Took me only a minute or two to recall your past behaviour, and add another comment before getting ready for bed. That's how much effort it takes to discredit you.

Nighty night, everyone!

lifegazer

28th June 2005, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by P.S.A.
I'm sorry Lifegazer, I don't wish...

This guy has me on ignore. Why? Because I have a pretty bizarre philosophy which states that only God exists.
He thinks I didn't sympathise with him when a relative (who he admitted that he wasn't that bothered about) died, recently. But he's wrong. I do sympathise with him. I just sympathise with him for reasons which are alien to contemporary thought-patterns. Which means that I do not sympathise with him for reasons which are not alien to contemporary thought-patterns.

I offered the olive-branch to this guy and have volunteered to openly discuss this. But he doesn't want to. No wonder, since it's easy to stir-up a frenzy against those that do not conform to contemporary patterns.
... And nobody can 'work' bereavement on me. I've lost everyone.

... So, **** him.
He either grows-up and faces me like a man, or he can you-know-what-off. I dont really give a you-know-what.

28th June 2005, 06:24 PM

Replace the word 'contemporary' with 'rational', and he'd be closer to the truth.

But let's take a good look at this line:

... And nobody can 'work' bereavement on me. I've lost everyone.

The second half of that statement is missing - "I've lost everyone, and have gained nothing in return."

This is why Gazerism is pointless.

End of lesson.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

28th June 2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is profound. Really. Why? Because having realised that individual awareness cannot be achieved by entities either oblivious to one another or by entities with individual awarenesses of their own, the conclusion is that individual awareness emanates from an entity that is absolutely singular in itself.

Profound? Well, yes. Profoundly absurd. Im very sorry LG, but the only thing you show is your profound ignorance. I dont like to call you ignorant, because you get upset. On the other hand, it is important to tell it to you, is the only way for you to grow.

Anyway, you showed to all of us that you dont have a clue on why my first answer was relevant. Let me pre digest it for you. The Corpus Callosum is what hold both hemisferes together. It is a band of nerve fibers located deep in the brain that connects the two halves (hemispheres) of the brain. The corpus callosum helps the hemispheres share information.

Why this should be relevant for your hypothesis? (yes LG, its just an hypothesis, nothing more). I suggested you to read also about epilepsy. I hope I dont need to explain what it is.

Anyway, here is the relevancy that you didnt see. I dont like to lecture you, still, it is the only way to show you this. Here are some paragraphs I got from here (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web1/sfeidt.html):

Background
The left and right hemispheres of the brain are connected by a dense bundle of neurons called the corpus callosum. This bundle is primarily responsible for communication of information between the two hemispheres, connecting them with approximately 200 million callosal axons (in humans.) (1) In some cases of multifocal epilepsy, the electrical discharges that cause seizures can start in one hemisphere and spread to the other by way of the corpus callosum, greatly increasing the severity of the fit. Sometimes this condition is unresponsive to medication, at which point the spasms can only be controlled with more drastic measures.(2)

In 1961, Dr. Michael Gazzaniga performed an operation which had been pioneered on animals by Drs. Ronald Meyers and Roger Sperry, but which had never before been tested on human patients. In this procedure, called a commissurotomy, the surgeon opens the skull, lays back the brain coverings with a cerebral retractor, and cuts through the corpus callosum. While this prevents a seizure from spreading, it also prevents information from being passed between hemispheres. Thanks to Dr. P. J. Vogel, we now know that severing the anterior Â¾ of the corpus callosum can effectively stop the spread of a seizure, while allowing full communication between the hemispheres to remain. (3) However, the behavior of full-commissurotomy patients has been extensively documented, and provides fascinating insight into the specialization of the hemispheres, the nature of the brain, and the nature of consciousness itself.

Results
To understand these behaviors, one must first remember that neurological wiring of the body is, for the most part, contralateral. Signals travel from the left side of the body to the right hemisphere of the brain and back, and vice versa. For example, the left hemisphere "sees" out of the right eye, and moves the right hand.

Patients who have undergone a commissurotomy, "split brain patients," experience strange, acute post-operational symptoms: many have trouble speaking, or are completely mute; often they experience inter-manual conflict, where their hands cannot cooperate; when speech is possible, many remark that their left hand is behaving in a "foreign," "alien" manner, and they express surprise that it is acting so "purposefully." These symptoms fade over time. The long-term symptoms are much more difficult to distinguish in an everyday setting. Split brain patients function normally in social settings, except for slight memory problems. Pianists can still play the piano, artists can still paint. Once in an experimental setting however, more phenomena can be observed which point to the dramatic impact of full commissurotomy on cerebral function.

In case that you still dont get it. Why is this relevant? Because when this CC is cut, the personality, yes the ego, yes LG, the "thing" that you need to be "absolutely singular" becames divided. You should study about split brain patients.

Try harder my little apprentice.

aggle-rithm

28th June 2005, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's time for a few home-truths squire:

(1) This is a philosophical discussion - not a scientific discussion.

So poor analogies are OK in philosophy?

Originally posted by lifegazer

(2) Science has no proof that anything! - least of all 'a brain' - is real.

Maybe not, in an absolute sense, but science does point the way to things that we can reliably conceptualize as being real.

Originally posted by lifegazer

(3) Science has not reconciled mental-experience to material interaction/motion.

...to your satisfaction.

Originally posted by lifegazer

(4) My question regarding the singularity of experience has not even been addressed by science.

...to your satisfaction.

Originally posted by lifegazer

Forget your science text-books. They cannot answer my questions in the OP.

...to your satisfaction.

Originally posted by lifegazer

And that is a fact.

If science can answer any of my questions, then tell me how 'it' has answered them. Otherwise, open your mind and starting thinking at a higher level.

This "higher level" doesn't involve narcotics, does it?

c4ts

28th June 2005, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Most people - here, at least - believe that mental experiences (thoughts; feelings; sensations; etc.) are brain processes. I.e., they believe that the brain really exists.
But how do we reconcile the 'motion of bricks', as it were (that's what it boils down to if we believe that the brain is a finite thing existing in space & time, composed of finite building-blocks), with these actual experiences?
And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human? And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a [b]singular experience: ~Something~ singular encompasses/embraces the totality of ALL mental experiences... and perceives this totality of experiences As One!!!

I'm ready for conversion. I'm tired of having no mates and am ready to throw God into the garbage can. But I need a little persuasion. But...
To my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that:
motion of bricks = mental experience.

Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.

These are major problems for anyone with an open-mind and a desire to see the sense of something. So let's hear some sense. Does anyone here want to tackle these problems, or is a belief in the reality of the brain akin to a religious belief, as I suspect?

You don't have to believe that your own brain exists. In fact, if you don't think it does anything, perhaps you should have it removed and find out.

Piscivore

29th June 2005, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I only have confidence in "the truth", but not 'myself' (lifegazer). As such, 'lifegazer' has nothing to be arrogant about, since that truth doesn't do much for 'him'.
Can we move on? Otherwise, start a thread about me so that I can revel in my ego being discussed. Thankyou.

I didn't say anything about you or your ego. I asked why you think "naturally shy & quiet and retiring" would preclude someone from being arrogant.

L7Cz

29th June 2005, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore
..."naturally shy & quiet and retiring"... Maybe it's natural that he should be shy and quiet and retiring, especially if he's given to spouting this nonsense at people he meets IRL. I'm pretty certain he would be shunned in short order, have zero conversations with anyone, and generally, get the idea that he's not socially appreciated. But here, every time he turns on the computer, there's someone who's willing to have a discourse with him, and he can always be the one to turn away from the conversation, thereby showing that he does have the power to control relationships, and giving his ego the shot that RL won't.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Please read about severe cases of epilepsy and the corpus callosum. A little research on Cognitive Science would be useful.

Amazing isn't it? Split the brain in 2 and we don't notice any difference whatsoever apart from highly contrived experimental circumstances. It seems we are compelled to conclude there must be something doing the unifying over and above the brain.

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
In case that you still dont get it. Why is this relevant? Because when this CC is cut, the personality, yes the ego, yes LG, the "thing" that you need to be "absolutely singular" becames divided. You should study about split brain patients.

Utter BS. Unless you're trying to tell me that TWO (or more) individuals are experienced by the brain at the same time, then this has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to my OP or to anything I have said since.
Whatever mental experiences are had, they are had by and as One.
I.e., the totality of all mental experiences is always had by
One, as a singular experience.

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by c4ts
You don't have to believe that your own brain exists. In fact, if you don't think it does anything, perhaps you should have it removed and find out.
What a thick response.

Wudang

29th June 2005, 04:59 AM

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
You still haven't read up on it have you? Otherwise you would know that each half of the brain has private experiences.
Are you trying to tell me that more than one individual can exist within the brain AT THE SAME TIME?

The latter part of that question is the all-important bit. If your answer to this question is "yes", then of course it is relevant to what I have said. If "nay", then it is completely irrelevant to anything I have said.

I contend that the totality of experiences (whatever those experiences may be), is always had as and by One.
This is the basis of my earlier posts.
So, let's clear this up and then I can move on to proving that God exists.:p

aggle-rithm

29th June 2005, 05:49 AM

ReFLeX

29th June 2005, 05:50 AM

ReFLeX

29th June 2005, 05:54 AM

Your threads aren't all the same, Lifegazer? This from the last time you started a thread in which the OP didn't refer to your Earth-Shaking Philosophy:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Squire, the thread is titled "New perspectives on relativity" and has been posted in the philosophy forum because I wanted to link some of the things Einstein said to my own idealistic form of philosophy.
That's what I want to talk about here.
Oh dear. So when was the last time you started a thread that wasn't really about your philosophy? Or even outside of R & P? Your Philosophy has an extremely narrow scope, much as you would deny it. You talk about almost nothing except about the fact that God Really Exists, and continue to abuse the words "consciousness", "awareness", "perception" and "reality" to your own ends. Because of your perseverance, your philosophy has been subject to more scrutiny than almost anyone else's here. Subsequently, even no one accepts it, you continue to think it is the truth, the way and the life, as if you were The Messiah. But the world will leave you behind, sir, and forget all about you in a historical blink of an eye. As it will forget me, unless I have an innovative idea that really changes lives, like many influential thinkers have before us. But I guarantee if you cling to this pet idea, you will not change anyone's life, only provide short-lived entertainment for few. You may not believe me, you may not believe the polls, but as sincerely as I can say it: you're wasting your time.

Kiless

29th June 2005, 05:55 AM

*flips lid, pokes about and finds lots of squishy*

Answer - yes.

*replaces lid, goes back to doing the washing up*

Upchurch

29th June 2005, 06:01 AM

In a related topic, I would like someone to please explain to me how a lone piston allows us to be able to drive.

Or how a single copper wire allows us to run computer programs.

Or how a single brick provides shelter from the elements.

Or how the word "in" constitutes an entire written story.

Or how a single neuron allows us to think.

Wudang

29th June 2005, 06:09 AM

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
You still haven't read up on it have you? Otherwise you would know that each half of the brain has private experiences.

Could you justify this assertion? I am not aware of 2 sets of private experiences in my own brain and neither are spit brain patients.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
Nope! There's anecdotal evidence, too. Your favorite kind!

Like the woman who habitually puts on two pairs of pants, because her right brain doesn't fancy the ones her left brain picked out to wear.

And her brain is split? Or not split? We are often in "2 minds" about whether to do something. What happens is that we initially decide to do something and then we perform those actions on "autopilot" in carrying those actions out. Then our conscious mind changes its mind and intervenes. Far as I know the conscious mind still intervenes with split brain patients with the exception of a highly artificial contrived experimental context. This is difficult to explain unless you believe in a unified self.

But yeah sometimes we can be doing something and daydreaming while we're doing it, and suddenly realise that we can't remember why we are performing the action.

So I would say putting on 2 pairs of pants is explained by habit dealt with by one half of the brain, and aesthetic considerations dealt with by the other half.

29th June 2005, 06:41 AM

There are many interesting anecdotes which circulate about split-brain patients and the difficulties they have, since they now literally possess a divided consciousness.

But more interesting - to me - are those patients who suffer various forms of what we call 'brain damage' who suffer MPD or even forms of psychosis in which they swear they have multiple inhabitants inside their heads.

Yep - without the brain, there's no consciousness at all. That's enough for me.

Atlas

29th June 2005, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Are you trying to tell me that more than one individual can exist within the brain AT THE SAME TIME?

The latter part of that question is the all-important bit. If your answer to this question is "yes", then of course it is relevant to what I have said. If "nay", then it is completely irrelevant to anything I have said.

I contend that the totality of experiences (whatever those experiences may be), is always had as and by One.
This is the basis of my earlier posts.
So, let's clear this up and then I can move on to proving that God exists.:p I think you're losing your grasp on what your One is capable of. While it may not be logical to you that your God might chose to experience simulataneous selves in the same body - what's to stop him. He chose to experience simultaneous death and simultaneaous deffacation hundreds of times a minute. He has fractured himself to do this in a delusion of multiple "selves". What makes you think that with all the crazy experiences you think he has designed for his delusion that he wouldn't give himself the two person/one body funtime.

It's his delusion after all. Or is it? Perhaps it is all about you after all. Hmmm. God can only be what Lg says. That is really the underlying assertion to your philosophy isn't it?

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 07:04 AM

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 07:07 AM

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 07:10 AM

P.S.A.

29th June 2005, 08:53 AM

So basically, from what I can gather from Zaayr and the thread afterwards, apart from II wandering by and doing his usual "I can't imagine it, it doesn't happen" with regards to neuroscience this time, is that Lifegazer didn't dare look at his own words to try and prove when he thinks he's ever expressed any remorse, yes?

quote:... And nobody can 'work' bereavement on me. I've lost everyone.

The second half of that statement is missing - "I've lost everyone, and have gained nothing in return."

This is why Gazerism is pointless.

Instead, he simply went the same old pyscho-narcissistic (Pyschosissus!) route of declaring his own emotions and needs more important than everyone else's. Deary, deary me.

Gazerism: Unable To Relate To The Living, Mourn For The Dead, Or Even Face Itself Honestly

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Amazing isn't it? Split the brain in 2 and we don't notice any difference whatsoever apart from highly contrived experimental circumstances. It seems we are compelled to conclude there must be something doing the unifying over and above the brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bodhi Dharma Zen
Oops, no! not at all! in fact it is exactly the opposite!

Oh right. So everything I've read on the subject is a lie :rolleyes:

Or might it just be you that is lying??

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by P.S.A.
[B]So basically, from what I can gather from Zaayr and the thread afterwards, apart from II wandering by and doing his usual "I can't imagine it, it doesn't happen" with regards to neuroscience this time,

I'm sorry?? What on earth are you talking about?? It was quite some time before it was acknowledged that there was something peculiar about split brain patients. This is because they appear to be normal unless one subjects them to specific highly contrived experimental protocols.

Sorry if that annoys you, but I suggest you deal with it.

Donks

29th June 2005, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is because they appear to be normal unless one subjects them to specific highly contrived experimental protocols.

You mean like a guy buttoning his shirt with one hand and unbuttoning it with the other? Yes, that is a highly contrived situation. No one ever buttons their shirt.

Beleth

29th June 2005, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm ready for conversion. I'm tired of having no mates and am ready to throw God into the garbage can.After reading the entirety of this thread, I believe that the only appropriate response to this statement, lifegazer, is:

"Stop telling porkies."

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 10:21 AM

I was just jesting about throwing God in the trash Beleth.
However, there are some real big PORKIES being thrown around this discussion, mainly by BoD.

Are you listening BoD? I told you that unless TWO INDIVIDUALS exist in the brain AT THE SAME TIME, that what you had to say was irrelevant concerning my OP.
Now I know that this is not the case. Two different individual experiences of being human do not occur simultaneously, yet you continue to propogate the lie that they do.
PORKIE HELL for you squire.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh right. So everything I've read on the subject is a lie :rolleyes:

Or might it just be you that is lying??

Education again? Please read about brain plasticity instead of calling me a liar. I thought you were not like LG.

Yahweh

29th June 2005, 10:24 AM

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Donks
You mean like a guy buttoning his shirt with one hand and unbuttoning it with the other? Yes, that is a highly contrived situation. No one ever buttons their shirt.

{shrugs}

You're telling me a different story from everything I've read. Who should I believe given the track record of people on here??

I repeat, the peculiarities associated with split-brain people only were realised with the introduction of highly contrived experiments.

It is possible however that there might have been a few anecdotes before then. In which case it's funny that anecdotes for the existence of any putative phenomenon that people on here don't like is declared not to constitute any evidence whatsoever, where as anecdotes for phenomenon which they believe supports their worldview is judged to be highly persuasive.

Actually it's not so funny. On the contrary, it's just what I would expect.

It makes no difference anyway to the point I made. The point here is that for the vast majority of the time split brain patients seem to be quite normal. This is inexplicable if the self is created by brain processes since the brain processes in the 2 hemispheres cannot communicate with each other.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I was just jesting about throwing God in the trash Beleth.
However, there are some real big PORKIES being thrown around this discussion, mainly by BoD.

Are you listening BoD? I told you that unless TWO INDIVIDUALS exist in the brain AT THE SAME TIME, that what you had to say was irrelevant concerning my OP.
Now I know that this is not the case. Two different individual experiences of being human do not occur simultaneously, yet you continue to propogate the lie that they do.
PORKIE HELL for you squire.

Then again, Ian, you two seem to me more and more like equal. Lets see, what constitutes and individual? You believe you have an answer to this, when in fact you are just ingorant about the subject. And you are willing to demonstrate it at all costs.

One has to learn, like a gentleman, when one is wrong. Dont you think?

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Think of it analogously to binocular vision: your eyes function together to give you a seemless coherent view of the 3D world, but that appearence is just product the brain superimposing the two seperate images in the eye so seemlessly that you never know the difference.

Hopefully that helps make more sense, that the Ian that we all know and love is really just all the processes of Ian superimposed in a single coherent experience.

What has this got to do with split brain patients?

Donks

29th June 2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{shrugs}

You're telling me a different story from everything I've read. Who should I believe given the track record of people on here??

I repeat, the peculiarities associated with split-brain people only were realised with the introduction of highly contrived experiments.

It is possible however that there might have been a few anecdotes before then. In which case it's funny that anecdotes for the existence of any putative phenomenon that people on here don't like is declared not to constitute any evidence whatsoever, where as anecdotes for phenomenon which they believe supports their worldview is judged to be highly persuasive.
Sorry, this is not an anecdote. This is a reported, published, case study.
Bogen, [7] in his comprehensive chapter on the callosal syndrome following surgical section of the corpus callosum for epilepsy, introduced the term intermanual conflict to refer to a dissociative phenomenon seen in the early postoperative period, in which one hand (or limb) acts at cross purposes to the other. One patient was observed buttoning up his shirt with one hand while the other hand was coming along right behind unbuttoning it. In performing the Jendrassik maneuver, the left hand pushed the right hand away rather than clasping it.
...
7. Bogen JE. The callosal syndrome. In: Clinical Neuropsychology, Heilman KM and Valenstein EV. eds. Oxford University Press, 1979: 308-359.
Source. (http://www.cjns.org/27augtoc/alien.html)

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Then again, Ian, you two seem to me more and more like equal. Lets see, what constitutes and individual? You believe you have an answer to this, when in fact you are just ingorant about the subject. And you are willing to demonstrate it at all costs.

One has to learn, like a gentleman, when one is wrong. Dont you think?

I'm sorry? Could you be specific? Are you claiming that split brain patients appear to have their consciousness split under everyday circumstances as well as these highly contrived experimental contexts??

Again I ask you, is it more sensible to trust everything I've read on the subject, or is it more sensible to trust the people on this board who, in my experience, continually lie or misrepresent any evidence which goes against their beliefs.

I'll leave you to work out the answer.

If you want to persuade me that the anomalies that split brain people undergo are as readily apparent in everyday situations as under highly contrived experimental circumstances, then send me the links.

Otherwise stop wasting my time.

Piscivore

29th June 2005, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I was just jesting about throwing God in the trash Beleth.
However, there are some real big PORKIES being thrown around this discussion, mainly by BoD.

Are you listening BoD? I told you that unless TWO INDIVIDUALS exist in the brain AT THE SAME TIME, that what you had to say was irrelevant concerning my OP.
Now I know that this is not the case. Two different individual experiences of being human do not occur simultaneously, yet you continue to propogate the lie that they do.
PORKIE HELL for you squire.

Well, since NO INDIVIDUALS EXIST AT ALL, then there cannot be TWO INDIVIDUALS IN THE SAME BRAIN, can there, squire?

As far as "differing individual experiences of being human", yes, this does happen. "In the same brain," as you say.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Sorry, this is not an anecdote. This is a reported, published, case study.

Bogen, [7] in his comprehensive chapter on the callosal syndrome following surgical section of the corpus callosum for epilepsy, introduced the term intermanual conflict to refer to a dissociative phenomenon seen in the early postoperative period, in which one hand (or limb) acts at cross purposes to the other. One patient was observed buttoning up his shirt with one hand while the other hand was coming along right behind unbuttoning it. In performing the Jendrassik maneuver, the left hand pushed the right hand away rather than clasping it.
...
7. Bogen JE. The callosal syndrome. In: Clinical Neuropsychology, Heilman KM and Valenstein EV. eds. Oxford University Press, 1979: 308-359.
Source.

The fact that one individual in the early postoperative period (emphasis added) exhibits this anomaly scarcely justifies Bodhi Dharma Zen's assertion that split brain people under everyday circumstances continually exhibit such anomalous behaviour.

Yahweh

29th June 2005, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What has this got to do with split brain patients?
First you said "Split the brain in 2 and we don't notice any difference whatsoever apart from highly contrived experimental circumstances", then I pointed out that there are already parts of the body that function in a similar way (namely, the experience of binocular vision).

It is possible however that there might have been a few anecdotes before then. In which case it's funny that anecdotes for the existence of any putative phenomenon that people on here don't like is declared not to constitute any evidence whatsoever, where as anecdotes for phenomenon which they believe supports their worldview is judged to be highly persuasive.
Are you just looking for documentation? If so, forum etiquette dictates you only need to say the word "Evidence?".

ReFLeX

29th June 2005, 10:53 AM

Besides which, Ian, where is one of these "everything I've read" papers?

Jeff Corey

29th June 2005, 10:53 AM

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What has this got to do with split brain patients?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First you said "Split the brain in 2 and we don't notice any difference whatsoever apart from highly contrived experimental circumstances", then I pointed out that there are already parts of the body that function in a similar way (namely, the experience of binocular vision).

How on earth do you conclude they function in a similar way? Are you completely daft?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible however that there might have been a few anecdotes before then. In which case it's funny that anecdotes for the existence of any putative phenomenon that people on here don't like is declared not to constitute any evidence whatsoever, where as anecdotes for phenomenon which they believe supports their worldview is judged to be highly persuasive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you just looking for documentation? If so, forum etiquette dictates you only need to say the word "Evidence?".

I want evidence that people can readily tell who is a split brain person under normal everyday circumstances.

aggle-rithm

29th June 2005, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It is possible however that there might have been a few anecdotes before then. In which case it's funny that anecdotes for the existence of any putative phenomenon that people on here don't like is declared not to constitute any evidence whatsoever, where as anecdotes for phenomenon which they believe supports their worldview is judged to be highly persuasive.

Actually it's not so funny. On the contrary, it's just what I would expect.

The way science often works is this: Anecdotal evidence spurs the interests of scientists. Scientists design a set of experiments to test the implications of the anecdotes, to see if they are true.

You have rejected the experiments as being irrelevant, so we have fallen back to anecdotes, which you have often found convincing in the past. We're just trying to be accommodating, that's all. :)

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Not at all. The only person compelled to come to that idiotic conclusion would be brain dead.

Well tell me then Jeff. In a split brain person how do the 2 hemispheres communicate with each other in order to give a unified sense of self?

Beleth

29th June 2005, 11:09 AM

Interesting Ian

29th June 2005, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
The way science often works is this: Anecdotal evidence spurs the interests of scientists. Scientists design a set of experiments to test the implications of the anecdotes, to see if they are true.

You have rejected the experiments as being irrelevant, so we have fallen back to anecdotes, which you have often found convincing in the past. We're just trying to be accommodating, that's all. :)

Which experiments?? :confused: I know about the highly contrived ones, and they are clearly interesting and support the notion of a self being an illusion.

On the other hand, the fact that split brain people appear to be normal under everyday circumstances support the notion of a substantial self unifying all ones experiences and events in the brain.

If split brain people under normal circumstances acted exactly like they did under these highly contrived experiments, then this would deal a blow to the notion of such a substantial unifying self.

Indeed materialism would not just expect this to happen, but more or less demand it I would have thought.

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 11:17 AM

Bogen, [7] in his comprehensive chapter on the callosal syndrome following surgical section of the corpus callosum for epilepsy, introduced the term intermanual conflict to refer to a dissociative phenomenon seen in the early postoperative period, in which one hand (or limb) acts at cross purposes to the other. One patient was observed buttoning up his shirt with one hand while the other hand was coming along right behind unbuttoning it. In performing the Jendrassik maneuver, the left hand pushed the right hand away rather than clasping it.

This does not constitute evidence of the existence of two individual awarenesses existing within the same brain. It just constitutes evidence of involuntary hand movement.

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 11:20 AM

Yahweh

29th June 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How on earth do you conclude they function in a similar way? Are you completely daft?
*sigh*

Let me spell it out:
* You have two eyes, they process two seperate images. But, you dont actually see these images as individual and seperate, because your brain superimposes each of the images into single experience.

* You have two hemispheres, they process seperate tasks. You brain superimposes each of these tasks into a single experience.

Thats it. Theres no trickery of language, its just an analogy because I thought it would help clarify some concerns.

I want evidence that people can readily tell who is a split brain person under normal everyday circumstances.
I dont think you'll get that evidence on a bit of a technicality, because the hemispheres are only split partially. According to Disenchanted Dictionary - Corpus Callosum (http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html?node=1852), "While the corpus callosum can be severed, there are still lower-level connections between the two hemispheres, enough so that the patient can still coordinate actions such as walking".

Or in really simple words: split-brain people are normal in everyday circumstances, because their hemispheres have not been seperated completely.

Donks

29th June 2005, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
This does not constitute evidence of the existence of two individual awarenesses existing within the same brain. It just constitutes evidence of involuntary hand movement.
I wasn't looking for evidence of two individual awarenesses, I was looking for evidence that the syndromes that appear after a split brain operation do also occur under normal circumstances.

ReFLeX

29th June 2005, 11:24 AM

The way you continue to use the words, you'd think "highly contrived" was an actual term. Where are any references to these Highly Contrived Experiments?

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Donks
I wasn't looking for evidence of two individual awarenesses, I was looking for evidence that the syndromes that appear after a split brain operation do also occur under normal circumstances.
Well all this talk about split-brains started in response to my argument about individual awareness. The response was being used to negate that argument.
If this chat about split-brains cannot establish the existence of more than one individual existing at the same time, then the discussion has zero relevance to my argument.

Beleth

29th June 2005, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
One patient was observed buttoning up his shirt with one hand while the other hand was coming along right behind unbuttoning it.

This does not constitute evidence of the existence of two individual awarenesses existing within the same brain. It just constitutes evidence of involuntary hand movement. Oh, I get it! You're jesting again!

You almost got me to point out that there's no way that a specific, precise, unnatural, repetitive act such as unbuttoning a shirt could possibly be considered "involuntary," but I realized you were joking before I did so.

Phew!

Jeff Corey

29th June 2005, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well tell me then Jeff. In a split brain person how do the 2 hemispheres communicate with each other in order to give a unified sense of self?
Who says they do? And the "unified sense of self" is a series of private events, and as such, not amenable to scientific scutiny.

Piscivore

29th June 2005, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The individual is 'he' that is aware of the totality of a specific set of thoughts, feelings and sensations.

Even when you redefine the term, you fail.

There is no "human" that is totally aware of every thought, feeling, or sensation that affects, (and indeed effects) "him."

Up the grade, squire.

Donks

29th June 2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well all this talk about split-brains started in response to my argument about individual awareness. The response was being used to negate that argument.
If this chat about split-brains cannot establish the existence of more than one individual existing at the same time, then the discussion has zero relevance to my argument.
Sorry, I was responding to Interesting Ian, not you, not your argument. It wasn't meant to have any relevance to it.

Atlas

29th June 2005, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
If this chat about split-brains cannot establish the existence of more than one individual existing at the same time, then the discussion has zero relevance to my argument. Lg,

In your philosophy a singularity fractured its consciousness into 6 billion simultaneous experiences of the delusion of being lost from itself. The delusion is elaborate with an illusion of a physical world and physical selves that are but the singularity's attempt to experience disunity in many ways.

One way is as Siamese twins, which represents the simultaneous cohabitation of two individuals sharing aspects of the same self. Why are you not trumpeting that your God could do anything. This does not surprise you that one brain/self could have two simultaneous experiences - your God excels at simultaneous experiances.

I thought you'd be saying something like, Atlas faking lifegazer "My philosophy allows for multiple experiences in any body. Things that look like Frogs to us can be a simultaneous experience of a prince and princess. A jellyfish and a carpenter can occupy the same brain as simultaneous experiences in a singularity, why should that surprise. I am part jackass. My God can fool himself with any experience or experiences He wants - that's why He's God and you aren't - (although you really are God acting through the deluded experience that you are not God. I hope that's finally clear, plonkers.)"Please explain your position on whether God is powerful enough to create any delusion of lostness He wants. I'm confused.

Iacchus

29th June 2005, 12:24 PM

And then there's this guy you see who had no brain (http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=2009) ...

jmercer

29th June 2005, 12:27 PM

Got a source with some crediblity and authority for this?

Iacchus

29th June 2005, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by jmercer
Got a source with some crediblity and authority for this? Other than the link provided? No, but I'm sure it could be Googled.

jmercer

29th June 2005, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Other than the link provided? No, but I'm sure it could be Googled.

Well, since you offered the article in support of lg, please let me know how your google goes. :D

c4ts

29th June 2005, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What a thick response.

Why? Once you've removed that soft pile of useless tissue in your head (if there is anything in there), all you would have to do is complete the million dollar challenge application, get a CAT scan or two, take an IQ test and score average or above, then send the results to Randi with the form. The power to think without a brain would easily earn you a million dollars.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 01:09 PM

Sometimes I hate to do the homeworks of others, yet some other times I find it pleasurable. This is one of those times. :)

Interesting Ian

I want evidence that people can readily tell who is a split brain person under normal everyday circumstances.

Lifegazer

This does not constitute evidence of the existence of two individual awarenesses existing within the same brain. It just constitutes evidence of involuntary hand movement.

This answer is for you both. You begged for it, being unable to do some research on your ownand stop being... well, whatever you like to be. :) Its not my job to educate you, but then again, sometimes is needed, specially since you two are so reticent in even reading something that is contrary to what you believe.

Anyway, here is an awesome quote I got from here (http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/Split_Brain/Behavior.html) I made enphasis on some relevant passages, doing your homework again! ;)

Paul's right hemisphere developed considerable language ability sometime previous to the operation. Although it is uncommon, occasionally the right hemisphere may share substantial neural circuits with, or even dominate, the left hemisphere's centers for language comprehension and production. The fact that Paul's right hemisphere was so well developed in it's verbal capacity opened a closed door for researchers. For almost all split brain patients, the thoughts and perceptions of the right hemisphere are locked away from expression. Researchers were finally able to interview both hemispheres on their views about friendship, love, hate and aspirations.

Paul's right hemisphere stated that he wanted to be an automobile racer while his left hemisphere wanted to be a draftsman. Both hemispheres were asked to write whether they liked or disliked a series of items. The study was performed during the Watergate scandal, and one of the items was Richard Nixon. Paul's right hemisphere expressed "dislike," while his left expressed "like." Most split-brain patients would not be able to express the opinions of their right hemispheres as Paul S. did, but this gives us insight on the hidden differences between the hemispheres.

These hidden differences are allowed to demonstrate themselves after a split brain operation because the two hemispheres are closer to existing independently. One hemisphere may not be able to suppress or influence differing opinions, emotions, or desires of the other because most of the communication between the two can no longer occur. As a result, conflicting hemispheric desires or opinions can cause split brain patients to exhibit some strange behaviors. One patient found his left hand struggling against his right hand when trying to pull up his pants in the morning. While the right hand tried to pull them up, the left was trying to pull them down. On another occasion, he was angry with his wife and attacked her with his left hand while simultaneously trying to protect her with his right!

Enough of this. Learn what you want.

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Lifegazer...

What?
Do you actually think that what you posted provided absolute evidence that the brain can simultaneously house two different individuals?

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned 'schizophrenia'. Lots of different personalities in the same head. But not all at the same time.

And can somebody please tell me how one goes about interviewing the left side of my head, as opposed to my right? LOLOLOLOL
Reference to Bod's quote:

"Researchers were finally able to interview both hemispheres on their views about friendship, love, hate and aspirations.

Paul's right hemisphere stated that he wanted to be an automobile racer while his left hemisphere wanted to be a draftsman. Both hemispheres were asked to write whether they liked or disliked a series of items. The study was performed during the Watergate scandal, and one of the items was Richard Nixon. Paul's right hemisphere expressed "dislike," while his left expressed "like."

Yes; I can see it now:

Interviewer: "I have a few questions for the individual above the left eyebrow, so will the individual above the right eyebrow remain quiet please.".
The interview goes well. The interviewer then turns around and says:
"I now want to ask those questions again, but to the individual above the right eyebrow, so will the individual above the left eyebrow now remain quiet please."

... Luckily, both individuals replied "Yes" at the same time.
What would have been funny would have been to listen to the guy's responses had it been an open discussion where both sides of the mind were free to answer at will:

Interviewer: "Do you like Richard Nixon?"
Response: "Nes! Yo! Nyyyeoooossssnness... eoosyssssssss..."
Interviewer: "Would you like a glass of water."

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What?
Do you actually think that what you posted provided absolute evidence that the brain can simultaneously house two different individuals?...

... Luckily, both individuals replied "Yes" at the same time.
What would have been funny would have been to listen to the guy's responses had it been an open discussion where both sides of the mind were free to answer at will:

Interviewer: "Do you like Richard Nixon?"
Response: "Nes! Yo! Nyyyeoooossssnness... eoosyssssssss..."
Interviewer: "Would you like a glass of water."

LG, like is common, you assume to much, without taking the care of investigating. Do you really want me to do your homework, again and explain you how those questions are performed?

Besides, yes. It is evidence. Something you have been unable to give, in all this years. :)

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
LG, like is common, you assume to much, without taking the care of investigating. Do you really want me to do your homework, again and explain you how those questions are performed?

Besides, yes. It is evidence. Something you have been unable to give, in all this years. :)
Let me guess: one half of the brain hears through one ear, so they stuffed cotton-wool in the opposing ear?
Well, it hardly matters. I'll take your word for it that they can do such things.
However, I think you'll find that an "open forum" interview would soon negate the idea that two individual awarenesses simultaneously exist. Unless, of course, the interviewer did ask 'them' about Richard Nixon at the same time and 'they' did try to respond simultaneously. LOL.
Apart from being funny, that would actually provide sufficient proof.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 02:41 PM

Well, what about one hand slapping her wife while the other was defending her! Talking about there is one step between love and hate... ;)

In your words, I assume you would have to take that as evidence.

roger

29th June 2005, 02:44 PM

Perhaps this (nobelprize.org/medicine/educational/split-brain/splitbrainexp.html) will get the point across?

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by roger
Perhaps this (nobelprize.org/medicine/educational/split-brain/splitbrainexp.html) will get the point across?

Amazing! Thanks for that link! it will save a lot of time!

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Well, what about one hand slapping her wife while the other was defending her! Talking about there is one step between love and hate... ;)

In your words, I assume you would have to take that as evidence.
There's conflict and doubt within every individual. There's a part of us that wants to do what's right or good or selfless and a part of us that wants to say "Stuff it, you only live once, so do what you really want to do and stop worrying about the consequences.".
And there's a part of us that doubts almost everything we think and consequently feel.
The individual himself is in self-conflict through his lack of absolute knowledge.
It's the devil on the left shoulder angel on the right shoulder scenario... shrouded in a cloud of ignorance, for good measure.

Some of the decisions we make are really tough. Sometimes we're really hard on our own self. We might even swear at ourselves as a spur to make the correct decision. People have been known to physically abuse their own bodies, such is the conflict with the self.

On a Monday, I might want to have a few drinks.
On a Tuesday, I might remind myself that drinking is not good for myself.
Who rules the roost? Me on Monday, or me on Tuesday?

The individual is a complex being. Forever changing, forever self-challenging.
There was a part of that guy that really cared for his wife. But there was a part of that guy that really wanted to slap her.
The resultant conflict was not a proof of two individuals.

Atlas

29th June 2005, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Lg,

In your philosophy a singularity fractured its consciousness into 6 billion simultaneous experiences of the delusion of being lost from itself. The delusion is elaborate with an illusion of a physical world and physical selves that are but the singularity's attempt to experience disunity in many ways.
...
Please explain your position on whether God is powerful enough to create any delusion of lostness He wants. I'm confused. About 15 posts above I asked this question. I mentioned siamese twins. Can you explain why your brainless deity is confined to experiencing only 1 individual per illusionary brain?

editted to remove extraneous clause from quote

Beleth

29th June 2005, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
There's conflict and doubt within every individual.But no individual acts out both of those conflicting actions simultaneously. In fact, I think that was your point in a post above, where you mistakenly called multiple-personality disorder 'schizophrenia'.

One individual does not simultaneously slap his wife and protect her from the slapping.

One individual does not simultaneously button his shirt with one hand and unbutton it with the other.

And yet these things have been documented to have happened. One human body, doing opposing things with different halves of the body.

Equating these odd physical actions with the mental doubt all individuals have is just transparent hand-waving. The fact of the matter is that no one with an intact, healthy brain performs actions like that.

Ryokan

29th June 2005, 03:53 PM

American style pizza or Italian style pizza. What's your thoughts?

aggle-rithm

29th June 2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned 'schizophrenia'. Lots of different personalities in the same head. But not all at the same time.

What cockamamie definition of schizophrenia is this?!?

Schizophrenics don't have multiple personalities. They have a single, fractured personality. So, in a sense, they don't have any personality at all -- it completely disintegrates under the onslaught of mental illness.

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
About 15 posts above I asked this question. I mentioned siamese twins. Can you explain why your brainless deity is confined to experiencing only 1 individual per illusionary brain?
God/existence is individual/singular. What I'm trying to negate here, is the idea that the split-brain-wotsit = more than one individual. I'm not trying to say that God cannot have more than one experience. If that's how it's come across, then I apologise.
I contend that if the split-brain-wotsit results in the manifestation of two distinct experiences, then they are had by the same individual. These experiences may be at-odds with one another in much the same way as the experience of being 'lifegazer' is at-odds with the experience of being 'Atlas', for example; but different experiences are not automatically reduced to the existence of different individuals.

I fail to see how anybody could argue against the fact that ~something~ singular embraces the totality of many thoughts feelings & sensations within itself.
The mind is not akin to a football-crowd where each individual member (of the brain) has it's own view/sensation and opinion of things, not to mention it's own feelings regarding observed events. Nay. The mind has a singular view and a singular opinion. Though this opinion is subject to change, it will not change unless the individual allows it to do so.
The mind is very-much singular. Even when schizophrenic.
Experiences change, but the singularness behind them does not.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I fail to see how anybody could argue against the fact that ~something~ singular embraces the totality of many thoughts feelings & sensations within itself.

Could it be because everybody else (except Ian of course) realize that we are actually talking about the evidence, instead of merely arguing against it?

lifegazer

29th June 2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Could it be because everybody else (except Ian of course) realize that we are actually talking about the evidence, instead of merely arguing against it?
What evidence?
At most - which you cannot substantiate anyway - you have evidence of several experiences, all embraced by one individual.

c4ts

29th June 2005, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Ryokan
American style pizza or Italian style pizza. What's your thoughts?

It's tacos all the way down.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

29th June 2005, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What evidence?
At most - which you cannot substantiate anyway - you have evidence of several experiences, all embraced by one individual.

There is a quote, somewhere, about I think Wheeler expressing that if someone believes that he could understand quantum physics, he was deluding himself. Sorry for not having the quote at hand, but Im tired of doing homeworks. ;) Anyway, point taken. It is obvious that you really cant grasp the implications of those experiments.

Maybe some day.

UndercoverElephant

29th June 2005, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Ryokan
American style pizza or Italian style pizza. What's your thoughts?

Italian style, every time. :)

Atlas

29th June 2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I fail to see how anybody could argue against the fact that ~something~ singular embraces the totality of many thoughts feelings & sensations within itself. ...
Though this opinion is subject to change, it will not change unless the individual allows it to do so. You are certainly your own poster child for that idea.
The mind is very-much singular. Even when schizophrenic. I think you are using the mind, which I accept you believe in, as being equivalent to a brain in this long interchange. You don't really accept the reality of the brain though, after all, science has proved its existence and that pretty much negates its reality. Or so it often seems. Anyway, for you, isn't it true that the physical brain is an illusion and immaterial mind is not?

Regardless, it's a distinction without a difference. A fractured consciousness is many experiences. These people are most like your God. They are lost and do not know who they really are. They are, many times, distinct personalities.

If you and I are distinct personalities (simultaneous experiences) within the singularity why aren't the schizophrenic lost also considered simultaneous experiences within their integral organism. I fail to see how anybody could argue against the fact that ~something~ singular embraces the totality of many thoughts feelings & sensations within itself.
Here is the way I argue it. There is no embrace in a fractured consciousness. If the ~something~ is unaware of its own thoughts and feelings is does not own them. In the case of the individual babbling incoherently on the floor - the external entities, the doctors and nurses, embrace more of the individual's thoughts and feelings and sensations than the individual experiencing the mental chaos.

Not that it makes any difference. In your philosophy it can't make any difference if one individual has lost his God consciousness in babbling incoherence due to mental illness and any one of us - it's all about the experience that God has chosen to give the part of himself he wishes to remain lost.

Beleth

29th June 2005, 05:10 PM

Suppose that a very unusual type of conjoined twin is born - one where the two twins share everything except their brains. Two hands, which they both control; two eyes, whose optic nerves diverge so that each brain gets the same signals from them; and so forth. One body, for all intents and purposes, housing two complete, fully functional, and fully aware brains.

Would you call these twins a single individual?

Now suppose medical science advances far enough so that one of the brains can be physically removed from the shared body and placed into another body/cyborg/whatever that will also allow the moved brain to receive full sensory input and nourishment, and exert just as much movement and influence over its environment, as a normal human. (And the remaining brain will likewise have normal functions with, and over, the original body.)

Would you call these twins a single individual now?

If your answers to those two questions are different, why are they different?

P.S.A.

29th June 2005, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm sorry?? What on earth are you talking about??

Your inability to understand what you don't wish to understand. Look, you've just done it again, in fact... So let's walk you through it slowly, shall we? Understanding however will still not occur, at least for you... But it ruins Lifegazer's thread even further, so I shall indulge myself.

apart from II

II is you, "Interesting Ian".

wandering by and doing his usual

"Interesting Ian" has quite a reputation at the JREF; and it's not a good one. But even if you did not have such a discreditted name here, you certainly have one with me. It was your own incredibly stupid claims with regards to ESP/Light which brought me out of lurking... and which got you suspended shortly after, remember? You have "past history" here, and with myself. So when I refer to your "usual", I am referring to a trait of "Interesting Ian"s I believe I have seen before, and which I consider in a negative light. You can be under no doubt that this is the case, and instead of trying to deny your own history, I suggest you deal with it.

"I can't imagine it, it doesn't happen"

Quite apart from the fact I said something similar in that other thread (which I have not had time to check yet), this is plain English. It's explains what I am saying you are doing. It is a trait of yours to assume that your own beliefs are true, and that if you do not believe it, it cannot be true. It won't take me much rummaging to find evidence of where you have personally expressed such prejudice that I have myself seen. Off the top of my head, you have so far;

* The aforementioned bringing me out of lurking by the incredibly foolish use of a visual illusion designed to explain how the brain is an imperfect judge of what it sees, but completely ignoring all of the associated details of said illusion in order to argue it shows why Ghost's are real, but their clothing might not be.

* Claimed I understood what your argument was, and then denied you'd ever said that I'd understood, because I then said your arguments were honk.

* Made claims for the properties of Light, then refused to read or experiment with anything which challenged your assumptions; and then stated you didn't have to know what RGB color was at all to know better than anyone else how light worked.

* Demanded the right to abuse "The stupidest person on earth" from the JREF moderators, accused me of enjoying cruelty to animals, amongst other things, and then stated you had never said anything at all which required an apology or even consideration on your own part.

And so on... Anything which does not fit your own inflated opinion of your "Interesting" self is clearly forgotten, brushed aside inside your mind. The above are illustrations of when I've seen you do this in the past. If you don't like the fact that you have shown this trait, I suggest you deal with it.

with regards to neuroscience this time

Shall I illustrate with a very simple example of why you talk absolutely infantile rubbish, Ian?

It wasn't until the modern era, and the development of and refinement in Neuroscience, that anyone would have been able to even diagnose a split brain, let alone understand any behavioural patterns associated with that condition.

But the fact that it took Neuroscience a long time to be developed, and then to diagnose split brain problems, does not mean that the diagnosis NOW is wrong.

Like all believers, you find the past age of ignorance more fascinating, because it allows your child like mind to play in the shadows of that ignorance, to claim that the modern knowledge isn't true because once people believed differently; and to hope that one day people will realise something different again, and that day, you'll be right.

Except just because you feel that way, it doesn't have the slightest bearing on the objective truth. You try and claim;

It was quite some time before it was acknowledged that there was something peculiar about split brain patients

But so what if it took a billion years to acknowledge the "peculiarity" of split brain patients? IS THAT OBSERVATION CORRECT OR IS IT NOT?

Let's see; on the one hand, we have Medical Science; It is researched, operated, funded by hundreds of thousands of dedicated, intelligent, objective (as far as possible) people... and has saved billions of lives, made stunning breakthroughs, and so forth. These Sciences, and the scientists working in the relevant field, in this case the Neurosciences, with access to the relevant patients, now state that they can diagnose split brain sufferers and give detailed, peer reviewed information about what this entails, and why it should be so.

And on the other, we have "Interesting Ian". Get's drunk and abusive when his spiritual safety blanket is threatened. Refused to even do any virtual finger painting to learn about color what we all did at primary school with of our first set of poster-paints. II's answer to what the majority of experts are saying with regards to split brains is to keep repeating his own ill informed opinion about;
"This is because they appear to be normal unless one subjects them to specific highly contrived experimental protocols." ... despite the fact that "Interesting"s only direct experience of split brain injury is to partake in a Lifegazer thread which is just begging for me to take the obvious cheap shot about case studies... How the patients were diagnosed as having split brains in the first place, if not by abnormal behaviour, "Interesting" has not seen fit to tell us yet. Perhaps scientists just randomly brain-scanned billions of people until they found the rare one who had this misfortune; and then stuck them in a "highly contrived" situation to bring about the observed behaviour.

Go on. Which of those opinions would you believe understands split brains better? Which one has the greater credibility?

In fact... Which of those opinions is it that anyone ACTUALLY believes in the big wide world? When was the last time anyone took a suffering relative into Ian's usual drinking hole and asked him to cure the symptoms of a split brain by explaining how one half of the brain communicated to the other via ESP?

Ian, you live in a world where the people who say you talk crap are not just more intelligent, and infinitely more interesting than you, but are the same people providing the world with the knowledge, the material things which make everyone else's life so very much better too, and that includes your own life. Just because you want to believe in your own spiritual specialness doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't provide even the slightest utility for those suffering from split brains; Just ask Lifegazer... he can't even recall what he said an hour ago, but all your wibbling has done is help to trash his thread :)

And, once more... if it makes you angry to be so impotent, so discredditted... if arguing with people better informed. more widely believed, more pragmatically useful than someone who saves endangered species by eating them if they are on special offer, I suggest you learn to deal with it.

Robin

29th June 2005, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
~Something~ singular encompasses/embraces the totality of ALL mental experiences... and perceives this totality of experiences As One
Asked you for justification for this in the last topic where you claimed it. Waiting .. waiting ... waiting.

Nobody has the experience of being anything but themselves. I don't have the awareness of being lifegazer or Upchurch or Benny_16 and as you yourself say I don't have proof of anything existing outside of my own awareness, so to be consistent you will have reject this so-called 'One'.

So why are you asking us to believe something that by your own standards you say we should not believe?

You tell us that we ought not to believe in the reality of something that we have evidence for if we don't have absolute proof of it.

But on the other hand you tell us that we should absolutely believe in something for which we have neither proof nor evidence. Strange request.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by P.S.A.
despite the fact that "Interesting"s only direct experience of split brain injury is to partake in a Lifegazer thread which is just begging for me to take the obvious cheap shot about case studies... How the patients were diagnosed as having split brains in the first place, if not by abnormal behaviour, "Interesting" has not seen fit to tell us yet. Perhaps scientists just randomly brain-scanned billions of people until they found the rare one who had this misfortune; and then stuck them in a "highly contrived" situation to bring about the observed behaviour.

People aren't born with split brains! They have to have an operation whereby the millions of nerve fibers that connects the two halves of the brain are cut so that the 2 halves of the brain can no longer communicate with each other.

P.S.A.

30th June 2005, 05:47 AM

Ian, you are an idiot. I was considering withdrawing my previous post today, because I felt I'd been too hard on you due to complications occuring in my own life (which are making me far more tetchy than I should be)... But then I saw this frankly stupid example of your usual behaviour, and I thought "No, why treat such an attitude with any respect?". Let me once more slowly walk you through why you've made yourself look so foolish again. You quote me as saying this;

Perhaps scientists just randomly brain-scanned billions of people until they found the rare one who had this misfortune; and then stuck them in a "highly contrived" situation to bring about the observed behaviour."

This is commonly known as a set up. It is designed to get you to define how you think brains are split in the first place. You see, in your case, I happen to have read a previous definition of how you think the brain works; Indeed, I wrote at great length about how I was using your past behaviour as a guideline, but in you blunder all the same.

Oh yes, Ian... you've argued that there is no link between mental states and observed behavior; In fact, you argue that the brain operates by what was it again, micropsycokinesis? (Or something equally macro-woo applied to the micro operation of the brain) Someone else can find that specific nonsensical claim if they have time, here's a good previous summary of what your own views are, for instance;

Stating that mental states are one and the same thing as brain states goes beyond any empirical data. At the very most we only have correlations (and even that's questionable). Again, at most, correlations between 2 apparent existents suggests a causal relationship. To say they are identical goes beyond any possible empirical evidence. It is stating something which cannot in principle be justified by science. It is a metaphysical stance.

You can find lots more examples using
this JREF search (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=425128&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending)... We already know what your views are, oh yes. And the point is, ahah ha ha, is that if your beliefs are correct, splitting the brain can't even occur if "materialism" is wrong... because you wouldn't be able to affect any causal change upon behaviour by influencing the preceived material of the brain, which is what people were trying to point out to Lifegazer.

*chuckle*

Can you see what's coming yet?

But baby steps Ian, baby steps! Let's see... indeed, here you are in this thread trying to argue for that opinion of yours again;

Amazing isn't it? Split the brain in 2 and we don't notice any difference whatsoever apart from highly contrived experimental circumstances. It seems we are compelled to conclude there must be something doing the unifying over and above the brain.

Over and above the brain, eh? Wow! Let's see what examples you give when pressed as to what "splitting the brain" even means, and what these differences are, shall we? Because your answer should be "None, or at least no meaningful one."... because the brain remains unified. And if that's not the case, then we all get a good laugh at your expense as you destroy your own theory by refering to material changes.

And it's not hard to get you to do that :).

Firstly, I refer to your own posting history, as above. Just a little nudge that I do in fact know what your arguments are, having butted heads with them in the past.

Secondly, I outline in extremely clear detail how I'm going to do it. I tell you that I've noticed that time and time again you will cherry pick what you want to believe, even going as far as taking a visual illusion, ignored all the information given at the original source which stated why it was built and how, and used it to try and support an entirely opposite conclusion about Ghosts. As long as it can be butchered into supporting you, you don't care what that butchery is; To use an metaphor, you would chop the arms and legs and head off a woman who despised you so she couldn't run away from you, and then declare not only that this proved she wanted to stay with you, but that the bleeding torso was still entirely the same woman overall.

Thirdly, I then mentioned the Neurosciences; now you Ian should reject them entirely. Evil materialists! But of course, if you think you can make yourself look wise by cherry picking from Neuroscience, your arch material nemesis, you bet your sweet bippy you will.

And now, the rhetorical flourish. It's absolute gold dust when it comes to exciting the self convinced; you know the sort, the kind of person who has such a blinkered, bipolar mind that they can start threads like "The Pyschology Of Rejecting God" and "What Materialists Must Believe", and they truly believe this is the case... It's obviously not white, so it must be black! Yes, also the kind who would reflexively respond in the negative when you use the same trick upon them, because if you are saying something is black, it must be obviously white!

Ho ho ho, like the Neuroscience view on what split brains are, perhaps? Let's repeat my quote again shall we?

Perhaps scientists just randomly brain-scanned billions of people until they found the rare one who had this misfortune; and then stuck them in a "highly contrived" situation to bring about the observed behaviour."

Of course, that's not what they did. It's the "Black" description. And how does "Interesting" Ian respond to this? Surely he isn't going to try and use Neuroscience selectively to argue that these are created conditions by materially changing the brain? Or is he? Or IS he? OR IS HE?

People aren't born with split brains! They have to have an operation whereby the millions of nerve fibers that connects the two halves of the brain are cut so that the 2 halves of the brain can no longer communicate with each other.

I thought the brain was unified by a higher power Ian, and here you are telling us neuroscientists can seperate them!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....

*deep breath*

... ahah ha ha ha ha haaaa!

Now I believe you revert to semantic arguing that casual relation exists, but this does not imply causal relationships, yes? Meanwhile just how many people with any mental disorder have you had brought to your wise hands, hmmm? Would you consider taking on Lifegazer as your first case? Between you and me I'm a little worried about him, he seems to be using far more exclamation marks than usual...

*disappears off into the distance, laughing as he goes...*

Jeff Corey

30th June 2005, 06:09 AM

Just one quibble. Gazzaniga and Sperry studied people whose corpus callosi were surgically cut to reduce the severity of epileptic seizures. This never occurs in nature.
(edited to say, I took too long and didn't see the previous post.)

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well tell me then Jeff. In a split brain person how do the 2 hemispheres communicate with each other in order to give a unified sense of self?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Who says they do? And the "unified sense of self" is a series of private events, and as such, not amenable to scientific scutiny.

I don't understand this. In a normal person there is one stream of consciousness. (By a stream of consciousness I of course do not mean a singular self, but rather the illusion of a singular self). More specifically, by one stream of consciousness I mean that there are psychological states, and each psychological state relates to a previous psychological state in that they share a sufficient similarity and have memories of such previous psychological states, that the illusion of a self persisting through time is created.

But in a split-brain person it is being claimed that there are two streams of consciousness. So these split brain people, even under everyday situations, have two streams of consciousness.

But how can this be claimed if both these split-brain people themselves do not realise this, nor is it readily apparent from the perspective of other people???

Thus I assumed that the 2 halves of the brain must in fact be communicating so as to unify the two streams of consciousness into one. But you say no such communication takes place. We therefore have an inconsistency.

Explain please.

Jeff Corey

30th June 2005, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...Thus I assumed that the 2 halves of the brain must in fact be communicating so as to unify the two streams of consciousness into one. But you say no such communication takes place. We therefore have an inconsistency.

Explain please.

The explanation is that you are a dullard. I never said any such thing.
Pay attention.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 07:00 AM

That's funny. The famous Sperry himself emphatically rejects materialism!

By calling myself a mentalist, I sustain that subjective mental phenomena are primary realities, causally potent, to the extent that they are subjectively lived, differently from their psychochemical elements, to which they are superior and non-reducible

SPERRY, R.W. 1986. CiÃªncia e prioridade moral. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar. pp. 109-139.

I note that materialists do not shout this from the roof tops.

30th June 2005, 07:00 AM

...Thus I assumed that the 2 halves of the brain must in fact be communicating so as to unify the two streams of consciousness into one. But you say no such communication takes place. We therefore have an inconsistency.

Actually, redundancy comes into play, if I'm not mistaken. Further, I believe, the portions that do remain connected can take up many of the trans-lobal communicative tasks normally controlled by the now severed nerve bundles, can they not? Isn't it sort of like disconnecting a main line to force data through a back-up line?

Bodhi Dharma Zen

30th June 2005, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But how can this be claimed if both these split-brain people themselves do not realise this, nor is it readily apparent from the perspective of other people???

How do you know? You would need to have your CC cutted in order to know what they feel. Besides, do I really need to point you to, again to the evidence? There is a great amount of scientific papers regarding the subject.

Do your own research. Being exposed to the evidence, should be enough to change your view about the subject, just give it sometime.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The explanation is that you are a dullard. I never said any such thing.
Pay attention.

Hmmmm . . .

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well tell me then Jeff. In a split brain person how do the 2 hemispheres communicate with each other in order to give a unified sense of self?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Who says they do?

Well if you want to be pedantic, then you did not deny that they communicate. But you certainly implied that you do not believe that the 2 halves of the brain communicate in split brain people.

But you do believe it after all. In which case my original question has gone unanswered. How do they communicate??

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
...Thus I assumed that the 2 halves of the brain must in fact be communicating so as to unify the two streams of consciousness into one. But you say no such communication takes place. We therefore have an inconsistency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, redundancy comes into play, if I'm not mistaken.

Huh?? What??? :confused: Does this have any meaning whatsoever??

Further, I believe, the portions that do remain connected can take up many of the trans-lobal communicative tasks normally controlled by the now severed nerve bundles, can they not? Isn't it sort of like disconnecting a main line to force data through a back-up line?

So you claim. But split brain experiments would seem to prove otherwise.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But how can this be claimed if both these split-brain people themselves do not realise this, nor is it readily apparent from the perspective of other people???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
How do you know?

In the same way we know the mental states of anyone; they tell us. Indeed they all emphatically deny they are now 2 streams of consciousness.

You would need to have your CC cutted in order to know what they feel.

They say they feel normal.

Besides, do I really need to point you to, again to the evidence? There is a great amount of scientific papers regarding the subject.

That's a laugh. You just ignored me when I asked you to substantiate your claim that split brain people in everyday situations can easily be identified.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

30th June 2005, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's a laugh. You just ignored me when I asked you to substantiate your claim that split brain people in everyday situations can easily be identified.

Oh, no, by any means. I believe you missed it. Its there. But besides that, I already told you that you have to make your own homework!

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Oh, no, by any means. I believe you missed it. Its there. But besides that, I already told you that you have to make your own homework!

As I keep repeating, everything I've read states otherwise. I think you're a liar.

ReFLeX

30th June 2005, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As I keep repeating, everything I've read states otherwise. I think you're a liar. What are you, immune to providing references? What have you read?!

30th June 2005, 08:34 AM

Ah, but see, Ian doesn't provide 'evidence' - he provides anecdotes.

Not that it matters.

See, here's how Ignoramus Ian's mind actually works:

Ian thinks about something. He comes to a conclusion. He then embraces whatever he feels supports his conclusions, and rejects anything that doesn't.

So providing evidence against his conclusions is going to result in him rejecting the evidence. And when you ask for evidence to support his conclusions, what you'll get will be a pile of fluff and fancy.

After all, this IS the man who rejects scientific evidence on the grounds that it is 'counter-intuitive' - in other words, that it doesn't 'feel right' to him.

I suggest simply ignoring him. If it weren't for folks occasionally quoting him, I would never reply to his nonsense at all.

Ian believes what he believes to be absolutely true, no questions allowed. If 'proof' exists against it, the proof is wrong; if 'proof' exists for it, the proof is automatically right, all other circumstances nonwithstanding. Doesn't matter if Tricky Dick Nixon said, "America is a Communist state, the moon is made of green cheese, and minds are immaterial objects, separate of brains!" All Ian heard was part III, and that a famous person said it, and that this is PROOF!!! that he is right.

Oh well. H.S. indeed. :D

Wudang

30th June 2005, 08:42 AM

Isn't it fascinating that idealists have so little interest in the study of how we think? Oh I can understand them being fairly uninspired by neurophysiology given their beliefs but surely if thought is all, then there would be some interest in other fields of psychology?

Before I put Dull Ian on ignore after another display of childish rudeness he informed us that someone he'd talked to had said he was "intellectual but of low intelligence". DI didn't understand :D

Atlas

30th June 2005, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
People aren't born with split brains! They have to have an operation whereby the millions of nerve fibers that connects the two halves of the brain are cut so that the 2 halves of the brain can no longer communicate with each other. Ian, could you comment on this observation from a subjective idealist position. This statement and that Sperry statement you quoted suggest that you are both dualists of the "I think therefore I am" variety. You both seem to admit you are very much a part of a substantial physical reality. But that immaterial ideas also exist. This seems at odds with other posts by you I've read.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

30th June 2005, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As I keep repeating, everything I've read states otherwise. I think you're a liar.

Whatever makes you feel better. You are a selective reader, or you have not done your homework.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Whatever makes you feel better. You are a selective reader, or you have not done your homework.

I've read a handful of articles and sections in books on split brain people. They've all denied that, in general, such people in everyday circumstances exhibit peculiarities in their behaviour. And I've read at least in one place that such people emphatically deny that they now have 2 streams of consciousness.

You assert everything I've read is in error. But you fail to substantiate your assertion.

I'll ask other people. Is Bodhi Dharma Zen correct in his assertion that split brain people are readily identifiable from their behaviour in everyday situations?

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
[B]Isn't it fascinating that idealists have so little interest in the study of how we think? Oh I can understand them being fairly uninspired by neurophysiology given their beliefs but surely if thought is all, then there would be some interest in other fields of psychology?

No I'm not interested in psychology particularly. I'm interested in philosophy. Especially what the self is and the mind-body problem.

Before I put Dull Ian on ignore after another display of childish rudeness he informed us that someone he'd talked to had said he was "intellectual but of low intelligence". DI didn't understand :D

She said very low intelligence and she particularly emphasised the "very". But we were discussing politics and education. Not really about philosophy per se.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

30th June 2005, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'll ask other people. Is Bodhi Dharma Zen correct in his assertion that split brain people are readily identifiable from their behaviour in everyday situations?

I believe we have a missunderstanding here. I have not looked particularly for what you mention. I wanted to bring some evidence, regarding that what is considered as "a self" is not as stable as it appears to naive approachs.

Maybe you was asking about something else, but then again, I do not consider that what you mentions is important for what I wanted to state.

Anyway, lets explore what you say, why would it be important to know that their behaviour is different or not from normal individuals? I thought we were talking about subjective feelings and the philosophical approach to that what constitutes "a self". You need "it" to be immaterial and "above" the physical, at the same time you need "it" to have causal relationships with the physical universe, without givin any kind of explanation on how that might happen.

Now, the evidence suggest that it is created and mantained within a healthy brain, and that altering the brain can even break the apparent indivisibility of the "self".

For me, this points to the brain constructing, somehow, the sensation of a unified self. It is not "a thing in itself" but a product of brain.

roger

30th June 2005, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've read a handful of articles and sections in books on split brain people. They've all denied that, in general, such people in everyday circumstances exhibit peculiarities in their behaviour. And I've read at least in one place that such people emphatically deny that they now have 2 streams of consciousness. So far as I know, with one exception you are right about the denials about 2 streams of consciousness. But there is a reason for that. Only one side of the brain, the left, has verbal abilities, and so if you ask a split brain patient that question only the left hemisphere is responding. And of course that hemisphere is not experiencing, or has knowledge of the right side, and so it reports a single consciousness. However, the experiments show that the right side *is* aware, capable of cognition, etc., but that it is utterly incapable of speech, and thus unable to say "hey, I'm in here too!".

The exception to your claim is the guy who, for some odd reason, had verbal abilities in both sides of the brain. That guy could, and did, verbalize 2 different personalities in conflict with each other.

Futhermore Ian, how does your position explain the experimental evidence?

aggle-rithm

30th June 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by roger
So far as I know, with one exception you are right about the denials about 2 streams of consciousness. But there is a reason for that. Only one side of the brain, the left, has verbal abilities, and so if you ask a split brain patient that question only the left hemisphere is responding. And of course that hemisphere is not experiencing, or has knowledge of the right side, and so it reports a single consciousness. However, the experiments show that the right side *is* aware, capable of cognition, etc., but that it is utterly incapable of speech, and thus unable to say "hey, I'm in here too!".

The exception to your claim is the guy who, for some odd reason, had verbal abilities in both sides of the brain. That guy could, and did, verbalize 2 different personalities in conflict with each other.

Futhermore Ian, how does your position explain the experimental evidence?

Very good point. Streams of consciousness tend to be verbal, and we are so focused on the verbal aspects of thought that we don't notice everything else going on. Only with careful introspection do we realize that there is a lot going on inside our heads that we don't acknowledge, either to others or to ourselves.

In Richard Restak's books about the brain, he says that calling the hemispheres of the brain "dominant" and "non-dominant" is a misnomer. Both are equally dominant, but since our conscious thoughts tend to be verbal, these are the only thoughts we notice. It's better to refer to the different hemispheres as "verbal" and "non-verbal".

30th June 2005, 11:10 AM

I had thought about this earlier, as well - how do we know that there aren't two streams of consciousness, since only one of them has access to communications? - but you guys hit the nail squarely on the head as well.

And the one split-brainer who did have dual access... had two 'selves' within him.

What was that loud, 'BOOM!'? Oh, Ian's theories getting blown out of the water again.

You'd think I'd be used to hearing that by now... :D

lifegazer

30th June 2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by roger
Only one side of the brain, the left, has verbal abilities, and so if you ask a split brain patient that question only the left hemisphere is responding. And of course that hemisphere is not experiencing, or has knowledge of the right side, and so it reports a single consciousness. However, the experiments show that the right side *is* aware, capable of cognition, etc., but that it is utterly incapable of speech, and thus unable to say "hey, I'm in here too!".

There's little point in continuing this discussion because everybody is saying different things.
Consider this, which Bod said yesterday:

Researchers were finally able to interview both hemispheres on their views about friendship, love, hate and aspirations.

Paul's right hemisphere stated that he wanted to be an automobile racer while his left hemisphere wanted to be a draftsman. Both hemispheres were asked to write whether they liked or disliked a series of items. The study was performed during the Watergate scandal, and one of the items was Richard Nixon. Paul's right hemisphere expressed "dislike," while his left expressed "like."

Clearly, each statement is at-odds with the other.

Donks

30th June 2005, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
There's little point in continuing this discussion because everybody is saying different things.
Consider this, which Bod said yesterday:

Clearly, each statement is at-odds with the other.
Arguments work better when you don't ignore information in the source:
The fact that Paul's right hemisphere was so well developed in it's verbal capacity opened a closed door for researchers. For almost all split brain patients, the thoughts and perceptions of the right hemisphere are locked away from expression. Researchers were finally able to interview both hemispheres on their views about friendship, love, hate and aspirations.
He is a special case, one where both hemispheres can communicate verbally. For most, that is not the case.

Piscivore

30th June 2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Arguments work better when you don't ignore information in the source:

He can't help it. He ignores large chunks of any post directed at him. He is evidently very dishonest or else barely literate; either he skips over the parts that counter his "philosophy" or he skips over the words he doesn't understand. Given that most of the polysyllabic words he tries to employ he completely misuses, and the apparent fact the driving force behind his interest in "philosophy" is not actual study of the subject but the need to be seen as "smart," I tend towards the latter.

Atlas

30th June 2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore
... He is evidently very dishonest or else barely literate... Solipsism means never having to say you're sorry.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I had thought about this earlier, as well - how do we know that there aren't two streams of consciousness, since only one of them has access to communications? - but you guys hit the nail squarely on the head as well.

And the one split-brainer who did have dual access... had two 'selves' within him.

What was that loud, 'BOOM!'? Oh, Ian's theories getting blown out of the water again.

You'd think I'd be used to hearing that by now... :D

How is my hypothesis getting blown out of the water? Which hypothesis are we talking about here? That there is only one stream of consciousness?

I'm not sure what's being stated here. Is it being stated that I am really 2 streams of consciousness? I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of the other. It's not just the case that I can't talk about the other, it's the fact that it's presence is simply not known to me. But this is incoherent since a stream of consciousness cannot be me, and yet for me not to know about it. The other stream of consciousness could not therefore be me.

Or are you saying that when a person's brain gets split another new stream of consciousness is created ex nihilo. Or maybe that my current stream of consciousness ceases to exist and 2 other streams of consciousness get created in its place?

Answers please.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by roger
[B]So far as I know, with one exception you are right about the denials about 2 streams of consciousness. But there is a reason for that. Only one side of the brain, the left, has verbal abilities, and so if you ask a split brain patient that question only the left hemisphere is responding.

Then request he type out his response using his left hand.

The materialist position has it that the typed response would differ from the verbal response. The spiritual soul hypothesis would have it the responses would be the same.

And of course that hemisphere is not experiencing, or has knowledge of the right side, and so it reports a single consciousness.

So what is the situation with normal people? That we only have one stream of consciousness??

Futhermore Ian, how does your position explain the experimental evidence?

I more or less agree with what this guy has written here. (http://www.newdualism.org/papers/T.Rivas/Dualismlives.htm)

Piscivore

30th June 2005, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How is my hypothesis getting blown out of the water? Which hypothesis are we talking about here? That there is only one stream of consciousness?

I'm not sure what's being stated here. Is it being stated that I am really 2 streams of consciousness? I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of the other. It's not just the case that I can't talk about the other, it's the fact that it's presence is simply not known to me. But this is incoherent since a stream of consciousness cannot be me, and yet for me not to know about it. The other stream of consciousness could not therefore be me.

Or are you saying that when a person's brain gets split another new stream of consciousness is created ex nihilo. Or maybe that my current stream of consciousness ceases to exist and 2 other streams of consciousness get created in its place?

Answers please.

As I've been trying to pound into Darren's head, there is not separate "you" apart from that series of brain events which you are calling "stream of consciousness."

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
As I've been trying to pound into Darren's head, there is not separate "you" apart from that series of brain events which you are calling "stream of consciousness."

Yes I know. I'm well aware that materialists think the self is an illusion. Look above in one of my responses to Jeff. To quote what I said:

"I don't understand this. In a normal person there is one stream of consciousness. (By a stream of consciousness I of course do not mean a singular self, but rather the illusion of a singular self). More specifically, by one stream of consciousness I mean that there are psychological states, and each psychological state relates to a previous psychological state in that they share a sufficient similarity and have memories of such previous psychological states, that the illusion of a self persisting through time is created".

Anyway I'm afraid your response is wholly irrelevant to my questions. Give it another shot.

roger

30th June 2005, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Then request he type out his response using his left hand.[/URL] That side does not have language abilities. I should have said language, not speech or verbal.

Did you read those links? They've run the tests, except not using verbal or written responses, which is of course impossible. The right hemisphere is aware, and it reponds to commands presented to it, while the left hemisphere verbalizes that it has no idea why that side of the body is doing what it is doing. There are two separate brains in there, each aware of it's surroundings, capable of complex cognition, and blissfully unaware of the other hemisphere.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by roger

Furthermore Ian, how does your position explain the experimental evidence? [/B]

Actually my response of simply giving you a link is a bit of a cop out.

Briefly I don't think this apparent splitting of ones mind into streams of consciousness has any more implications than the fact that being hit on the head can render one non-conscious.

If the self operates through the brain, then whilst it does so, and if ones brain is impaired, then ones conscious states can expect to be effected.

My best guess is that split brain people simply bring to light what we're implicitly aware of anyway. Most of our actions in our life we do not consciously think of. We go on auto-pilot to do tasks which we are familiar with eg driving a car, walking etc. When first learning these activities our conscious mind is required. Eventually we do those things on auto-pilot and we can be thinking about something else entirely whilst engaging in these tasks. Even with unforeseen circumstances we can react automatically eg brake when a child runs out in front of the car. We can even drive along a familiar route, and afterwards not be able to recall much of the journey because your conscious mind was more or less engaged in day dreaming.

My hypothesis would be that this auto-pilot activity is dealt with by one of the hemispheres. Cutting the link between the 2 hemispheres can expect to cause problems. The fact it doesn't cause problems under normal circumstances suggests there is a unified self aware of what's going on in both hemispheres. It is inexplicable how the 2 hemispheres can communicate with each other otherwise.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by roger
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Then request he type out his response using his left hand.[/URL]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That side does not have language abilities. I should have said language, not speech or verbal.

A split brain person cannot type with his left hand?? So a split brain person only uses his right hand to type?? Evidence please.

Did you read those links? They've run the tests, except not using verbal or written responses, which is of course impossible.

Because they're highly contrived.

The right hemisphere is aware, and it reponds to commands presented to it, while the left hemisphere verbalizes that it has no idea why that side of the body is doing what it is doing. There are two separate brains in there, each aware of it's surroundings, capable of complex cognition, and blissfully unaware of the other hemisphere.

Well, so it's like when I drive a car along a familiar route whilst discussing philosophy with my passenger. I drive along perfectly yet not be fully conscious of all my actions of my hands and feet as I steer and brake. My conscious mind is fully focussed on the conversation.

roger

30th June 2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My hypothesis would be that this auto-pilot activity is dealt with by one of the hemispheres. MRI scans show otherwise. All kinds of cognition, conscious and unconscious, occurs in both halves.

Your question as to whether a split brain person can type with two hands, and if so, to what extent, is good. I don't know the answer to that question. Let's try to find out....

roger

30th June 2005, 01:28 PM

Why are they contrived? All they are doing is presenting information to one side of the brain only.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by roger
MRI scans show otherwise. All kinds of cognition, conscious and unconscious, occurs in both halves.

I would have thought trying to establish the "awareness" of subconscious activities would be difficult to locate.

roger

30th June 2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I would have thought trying to establish the "awareness" of subconscious activities would be difficult to locate. I don't understand what you mean. subconscious, by definition, means not aware. So you must mean something else.

MRI, and other studies show that both hemispheres have an unconscious role. See, for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15336247&query_hl=2

roger

30th June 2005, 02:02 PM

Here's a study showing two different psychologies manifesting in split brain patients:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9742514&query_hl=2

roger

30th June 2005, 02:07 PM

Vis-a-vis typing, this study shows degradation of bimanual tasks: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9273860&query_hl=2.

roger

30th June 2005, 02:11 PM

Here's a paper showing there is not unified cognitive functioning between the separated hemispheres: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8149205&query_hl=2

roger

30th June 2005, 02:14 PM

Back to typing, or at least writing, here's a study showing massive degradation in writing skills as a result to catastrophic damage to the left hemisphere: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1723332&query_hl=2

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 02:15 PM

From here. (http://www.newdualism.org/papers/T.Rivas/Dualismlives.htm)

"according to more than one author, the theory of two conscious minds seems incompatible with the over-all unity of mental functioning in split-brain patients. This unity would include complex motor skills such as playing the piano that involve the active participation of both the cerebral hemispheres. As Wolfgang Gasser formulates it nicely: "Cutting the lines of communication between the two sides of a brain (split brain patients) has incredibly few consequences. Primarily it is the soul which continues maintaining the coordination of the two sides."

Looks like other people agree with me. Great minds think alike! :)

roger

30th June 2005, 02:19 PM

Here's a study showing differences in the level of higher level cognition occuring the right hemisphere:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3192716&query_hl=2

roger

30th June 2005, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
From here. (http://www.newdualism.org/papers/T.Rivas/Dualismlives.htm)
Titus Rivas? He is not published in the field. That is not a peer reviewed paper. He offers no citations or evidence for his claims.

roger

30th June 2005, 02:24 PM

In contrast to that dreck, here's a real study showing the effects of a commissurotomy on creativity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3226963&query_hl=2

roger

30th June 2005, 02:26 PM

Another paper showing the roll that the corpus callosum plays in integrating the brain's functions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3067226&query_hl=2

roger

30th June 2005, 02:28 PM

To be fair to Ian, here is one he may want to look at that might help support his view:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3676706&query_hl=2

roger

30th June 2005, 02:40 PM

An article showing temporal decoupling between the two hemispheres: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v5/n4/abs/nn822.html;jsessionid=A7EBB57F462627321D7634618BA2 5415

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ivrylab/pdf/kdsi_02.pdf

roger

30th June 2005, 02:41 PM

Memory imparment after a complete callosotomy: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=6&tid=4451

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by roger
Back to typing, or at least writing, here's a study showing massive degradation in writing skills as a result to catastrophic damage to the left hemisphere: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1723332&query_hl=2

We studied writing abilities in a strongly right-handed man following a massive stroke that resulted in virtually complete destruction of the language-dominant left hemisphere.

What the hell has this got to do with split brain persons?? He's only got his right brain! The one that doesn't deal with language skills.

I don't think you understand what I've been saying. I can't be bothered to repeat myself.

And BTW, I've read that when parts of the brain get destroyed other parts can sometimes partially carry out the same functions. This again is suggestive of a unifying substantial self.

roger

30th June 2005, 02:46 PM

Don't bother repeating yourself, Ian. I'm not doing this for you, but for lurkers in the forums. Anyone who replies to clinical studies with random writings of a parapsychologist is not equipped to discuss medical science.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 02:47 PM

I'm sorry, which of all these links demonstrate that outside a experimental context split brain people are easily identifiable???

Also which of these links demonstrate that split brain people cannot type with their left hand???

Quote the relevant evidence please.

roger

30th June 2005, 02:48 PM

Another study showing loss of function following Corus Callosotomy, belying the claims that people function normally following surgery.

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/1/24

roger

30th June 2005, 02:51 PM

I'm not engaging you, Ian.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by roger
Don't bother repeating yourself, Ian. I'm not doing this for you, but for lurkers in the forums. Anyone who replies to clinical studies with random writings of a parapsychologist is not equipped to discuss medical science.

Not just the random writings of a parapsychologist, but also everything on this subject I've read. Hell, it was many years before the peculiarities exhibited by split brain people was even noticed, and then they were only noticed in a highly contrived experimental setting!

So you are talking complete and utter nonsense.

Do you really imagine that for years no-one ever noticed that split brain people could not type with their left hand???

And I've noticed that nobody, including you, has answered any of my questions. Are you claiming that another stream of consciousness spontaneously springs into being ex nihilo or not??

Answer some of my questions instead of linking to abstracts of papers.

roger

30th June 2005, 02:55 PM

For those wondering about Ian's question, of course I made no such claims. Here's what appears to be a nice summary of current split-brain understanding, including yes, people who evidence normal social functioning, and yes, disparate cognitive functioning in each hemisphere.

Edited to correct the link:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jbogen/text/creat6.htm

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by roger
I'm not engaging you, Ian.

Then don't address me. Give me some evidence that split brain people in normal everyday settings are easily identifiable. Give me proof that they cannot type with their right hand. Give me proof that there are now 2 streams of consciousness in such people and let me know whether it is the left hand brain's stream of consciousness which is continuous with the stream of consciousness pre-operation, the right hand brain's stream of consciousness, or neither of them.

You're going to have to do a damn sight better than you're doing now if you wish to prove there is no unified self :rolleyes:

roger

30th June 2005, 03:00 PM

Contrary to claims by certain posters nonwithstanding, behavioral differences were noticed when the very first callosotomy was performed:

http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~birdsong/classnotes/CNFall2003/psy341K/splitbrain.htm

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by roger
[B]For those wondering about Ian's question, of course I made no such claims.

So you admit it? You admit they can type with their left hand??

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by roger
Contrary to claims by certain posters nonwithstanding, behavioral differences were noticed when the very first callosotomy was performed:

http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~birdsong/classnotes/CNFall2003/psy341K/splitbrain.htm

Quote the relevant part man!

Everything I've read in numerous sources contradicts you.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So you admit it? You admit they can type with their left hand??

If there are now 2 streams of consciousness you should get your right hand trying to type one thing, and your left hand something else entirely.

Which of your links gives evidence for this?

roger

30th June 2005, 03:17 PM

Here's a really nice paper, by one of the big names in the field, that goes into great detail the extent in which a split-brain appears normal, and does not. http://cogprints.org/920/00/critchelyf.pdf

What is not normal is covered in depth starting at page 13, though some of it is covered earlier.

Robin

30th June 2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
To my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that:
motion of bricks = mental experience.
But then it is equally ludicrous to believe that a big immobile concrete block can account for the experience of being a human. So that puts paid to your philosophy too. So maybe tiny pink elephant theory is the only option after all.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by roger
[B]To be fair to Ian, here is one he may want to look at that might help support his view:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3676706&query_hl=2

"The results indicate the coexistence of perceptual disunity and behavioural unity, and they suggest that, even when the two disconnected hemispheres receive different information, the commissurotomized brain works as a single and unified organism".

OK this has been my hypothesis all along i.e behavioural unity. This fact -- if it is a fact -- is consonant with a unifying self and is inconsistent with materialism.

Now, you have been arguing against me, and therefore you must provide evidence which contradicts the results of this research.

So where the hell is it??.

None of these links seem to be relevant.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by roger
Here's a really nice paper, by one of the big names in the field, that goes into great detail the extent in which a split-brain appears normal, and does not. http://cogprints.org/920/00/critchelyf.pdf

What is not normal is covered in depth starting at page 13, though some of it is covered earlier.

I am not looking at any more of your irrelevant links. Answer my questions.

roger

30th June 2005, 03:26 PM

You're a hoot, Ian! Don't ever change.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

30th June 2005, 03:31 PM

Ian,

Seriously, whats the problem with you? I used to think that Lifegazer was compulsive and obtuse, but now I realize you are exactly like him. Most of us are willing to look at the evidence, and then adjust what we believe according o it.

You seem uncapable of doing such a thing. You have to be right, at any cost. Why? is it frightening to believe in a world without souls? What is making you being like this?

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 03:32 PM

What would happen if you connected up someones left brain to someones right brain?

Edited to add: I mean according to your materialism. I think I know what would happen if there is a unifying substantial self.

Yahweh

30th June 2005, 03:38 PM

Roger, your links are really interesting, but unfortunately its a faux pas to spam the forum.

Jeff Corey

30th June 2005, 03:38 PM

Robin

30th June 2005, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Are you thicker than mud, or just dumb as a stump? Our right and left brains are connected.
Er... I think he means connect someones right brain with someone elses left brain.

aggle-rithm

30th June 2005, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by roger
Only one side of the brain, the left, has verbal abilities, and so if you ask a split brain patient that question only the left hemisphere is responding.

Just a little hair splitting here, because there's an interesting story behind it:

Most right-handed people use the left hemisphere for language. Most left-handed people use the left hemisphere for language, too.

The "normal" mode is to write and talk with the same hemisphere of the brain.

Left-handed people who use a different hemisphere for speaking than writing write with their hands curled awkwardly around the pen (this is most left-handed people).

Likewise, right-handed people who use the right hemisphere for speech use the same awkward position when they are writing (a very small percentage of right-handers).

Thus, you can tell by the way a person writes which hemisphere is used for speech.

(this is from Ramachandran's "Phantoms of the Brain")

Jeff Corey

30th June 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Robin
Er... I think he means connect someones right brain with someone elses left brain. Well then. the twit should have said that. And then it would still have been stupid.

Robin

30th June 2005, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What would happen if you connected up someones left brain to someones right brain?

Edited to add: I mean according to your materialism. I think I know what would happen if there is a unifying substantial self.
But as far as I can see this could not be answered except by a neuroscientist and I don't think that any here are.

I don't know that any science yet claims to fully understand the human brain so probably there would be no firm prediction.

And of course it is an impossible and therefore completely hypothetical situation.

Take case one where half a brain was taken from one and put into the head of another and connected one to the other. If such a procedure was possible and using the theory that only one hemisphere defines the self was true then it would depend on which hemisphere was transferred. In one case the self would remain with the body and in the other the self would be transferred.

But the self does not only have to do with the brain, it has to do with the whole body so it is doubtful that the resulting monster would be quite its old self.

If on the other hand we could take the function of the corpus callosum and connect it to a bluetooth device to cross connect two people without otherwise disturbing their brains then they would probably be largely their old selves with some odd anomalies.

Piscivore

30th June 2005, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are you claiming that another stream of consciousness spontaneously springs into being ex nihilo or not??

That depends. If you put a big rock in the middle of a stream of water so that it flows into two new separate channels does the second stream of water "spontaneously spring into being ex nihilo or not?"

The "stream" of water is just the collective movements of millions of water molecules. It does not exist as a separate entity in itself, and it cannot exist apart from the water molecules and the channel.

Our "selves" are exactly the same.

Jeff Corey

30th June 2005, 04:13 PM

A gedanken experiment with no point whatsoever.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Robin
[B]But as far as I can see this could not be answered except by a neuroscientist and I don't think that any here are.

No no no no no no no!

If you subscribe to materialism, then you should be able to state what happens. Empirical investigations simply will show whether this is incorrect or not. If incorrect you would need to modify your materialist position.

If I could just say at this juncture that no-one who has contributed to this split-brain issue seems remotely interested in examing the philosophical implications of the experimental data. People just seem to be looking at the data with glee because it seems to contradict the notion of a unifying self, and looking no further than that!

I don't know that any science yet claims to fully understand the human brain so probably there would be no firm prediction.

Forget the science. What does materialism predict???

And of course it is an impossible and therefore completely hypothetical situation.

Forevermore impossible? Why on earth should it be?

Take case one where half a brain was taken from one and put into the head of another and connected one to the other. If such a procedure was possible and using the theory that only one hemisphere defines the self was true

Now hang on there a sec. People on here have been arguing that there now exist two streams of consciousnesses with split brain people.

Their whole argument against my position rests on that.

30th June 2005, 04:34 PM

There's no point in arguing against Ignoramus Ian. He doesn't even understand the idea of hemispherical control of language.

None of this derail, though, really has to do with Darren's OP - so why doesn't someone who cares start a new, relevant thread?

Meanwhile, what Darren's OP boils down to is a simple absurdity. If his theories are correct, then anything and everything we observe within 'reality' is simple illusion, and can seem to be anything that The One wants it to be. If, on the other hand, his theories are wrong, then the world is what we perceive it to be, and brains obviously exist, and Darren is obviously wrong about what can and cannot happen, regarding brains.

So, to summarize, Darren can't use physical world observations to prove or disprove the existence of said world. As we've been saying all along.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
That depends. If you put a big rock in the middle of a stream of water so that it flows into two new separate channels does the second stream of water "spontaneously spring into being ex nihilo or not?"

The "stream" of water is just the collective movements of millions of water molecules. It does not exist as a separate entity in itself, and it cannot exist apart from the water molecules and the channel.

Our "selves" are exactly the same.

Yes that's fine. I was just wondering if people knew what they were talking about. I think I was originally addressing zaayrdragon, and he's hopelessly confused about what his true position is on the mind-body problem.

Edited to add: Oh! He's just replied above me! LOL

Atlas

30th June 2005, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now hang on there a sec. People on here have been arguing that there now exist two streams of consciousnesses with split brain people.

Their whole argument against my position rests on that. In another thread your OP concerned a definition of consciousness around the likes and the interior state.

States of liking ice cream and sunny warm summer days. This was all that you were concerned with in the discussion of consciousness you wanted to follow.

These split brained patients have shown simultaneous like and dislike for Nixon and putting on their clothes.

It seems very similar to the other thread - how do you see it?

Piscivore

30th June 2005, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you subscribe to materialism,

I used to, but the rates went up and it became mostly advertisments.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
then you should be able to state what happens. Empirical investigations simply will show whether this is incorrect or not. If incorrect you would need to modify your materialist position.

That's why Empirical science trumps any "materialist" dogma.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If I could just say at this juncture that no-one who has contributed to this split-brain issue seems remotely interested in examing the philosophical implications of the experimental data.

Because apart from Logic and Ethics, philosophy is intellectually bankrupt.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Forget the science. What does materialism predict???

Who cares? Materialism, if as dogmatic and rigid as you seem to need it to be as a counter for your own beliefs, is worthless. Empirical science, as I said, trumps it. No "Materialism vs. Imaterialism" navel gazing is going to get you anywhere.

Piscivore

30th June 2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes that's fine. I was just wondering if people knew what they were talking about.

So what is your answer? Does the second stream of water "spontaneously spring into being ex nihilo or not?"

Does either stream of water have an independant, isolated existance?

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
A gedanken experiment with no point whatsoever.

Scarcely Jeff. No really, should materialism be true it's a fascinating thought experiment.

Suppose your right brain was placed in my body and all the attachments were made to my left brain. And suppose also my right brain was placed in your body.

If materialism is true and if memories reside in both hemispheres this would mean that the 2 individuals would view both the totality of experiences, thoughts and emotions that you've ever experienced, and the totality of experiences, thoughts and emotions that I've ever experienced, as both being part of its history of memories. Also the resulting individuals would be a peculiar amalgamation of our current selves.

And what if my left brain was connected to a woman's right brain?? Would "I" develop an interest in talking about carpets, curtains, the royal family etc?? :eek: ;)

Would "I" turn gay?? :eek:

Robin

30th June 2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No no no no no no no!

If you subscribe to materialism, then you should be able to state what happens. Empirical investigations simply will show whether this is incorrect or not. If incorrect you would need to modify your materialist position.
There are so many things wrong with this statement that it is hard to know where to begin. Are you saying that to be a materialist you have to predict what would happen in any circumstance whatsoever? Well only immaterialists claim to be able to do that. In a previous topic you were defining materialism in terms of scientific theories, now you say:
Forget the science. What does materialism predict???
Make up your mind. As far as I know no materialist claims to be able to predict something unless some scientific theory can predict it. Non-scientific predictions are purely the prerogative of immaterialists.
Now hang on there a sec. People on here have been arguing that there now exist two streams of consciousnesses with split brain people.

Their whole argument against my position rests on that.
There is not just one theory of consciousness, there are many and none claims to be complete. I stated the particular one I was using.

As far as I can see your argument is that if the corpus callosum is severed then a unified conscious should not be possible unless the consciousness was some non physical thing. I don't see that this is the case.

Now with the two consciousness conjecture it is impossible to predict what would happen - the mind is an extremely complex thing and nobody even pretends to understand the brain fully.

But if pressed for an answer I would say that the resulting person, if able to function at all, would feel themselves to be a completely different person their previous personality having been an amalgam of both.

Incidentally, what is the prediction from your own theory (in fact what is your own theory?). Clearly the brain has something to do with the mind - if the mind is something immaterial then presumably our own brains are attuned to one particular immaterial mind - so under your theory what would happen?

Robin

30th June 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And what if my left brain was connected to a woman's right brain?? Would "I" develop an interest in talking about carpets, curtains, the royal family etc?? :eek: ;)

Would "I" turn gay?? :eek:
Well let me put it another way - under your own theory what would happen if somebody fiddled with the crystal and tuned your mind to a woman's brain and body?

Would you still remain a hetero-sexual man even though you could not function as such? Is the immaterial mind conditioned by the physical nature of the body it is attuned to?

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
So what is your answer? Does the second stream of water "spontaneously spring into being ex nihilo or not?"

Does either stream of water have an independant, isolated existance?

If materialism is true then you'd have 2 streams of consciousness, both of which are continuous with the pre-operation solitary stream of consciousness.

It's similar to a matter duplication experiment where a person is duplicated. Then you have 2 instances of one person, say of you. They would both be you at the instant of duplication, and thereafter become 2 individuals.

Likewise for both streams of consciousness if you were a split brain person. The difference here is that the 2 streams of consciousness might differ radically in their personalities (but that no more relevant than the fact that a stream of consciousness might experience swings in moods). And they would both still form a continuous sequence of experiences with the pre-operation you. Both of them would be your future selves of your pre-operation self.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Robin
Well let me put it another way - under your own theory what would happen if somebody fiddled with the crystal and tuned your mind to a woman's brain and body?

Would you still remain a hetero-sexual man even though you could not function as such? Is the immaterial mind conditioned by the physical nature of the body it is attuned to?

An excellent question! Yes the mind is conditioned by the body one is operating from. This question could do with a separate thread I think.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th June 2005, 05:05 PM

Ian said:
If you subscribe to materialism, then you should be able to state what happens. Empirical investigations simply will show whether this is incorrect or not. If incorrect you would need to modify your materialist position.
This has got to be one of the oddest things you have ever said.

Let's say you could figure out how to connect one person's left hemisphere to another person's right hemisphere in such a way that the information flow from the various modules of the left brain end up at their nominal targets in the right brain and vice versa. Let's further go out on a limb and say that the encoding of the information in the two brains was compatible. In other words, let's assume that if one brain sent the other brain information about a tiger, the other brain would have a clue that it was about a tiger and not about playing the piano. Finally, let's make the assumption that the cyclical timing inherent in the information could cohere between the two brains.

What would we end up with? Who knows? The two brain's memories are not compatible. According to you, a materialist should be able to say what sort of story we'd get if we combined two works of fiction that we had never read.

~~ Paul

Yahweh

30th June 2005, 05:12 PM

Piscivore

30th June 2005, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If materialism is true then you'd have 2 streams of consciousness, both of which are continuous with the pre-operation solitary stream of consciousness.

It's similar to a matter duplication experiment where a person is duplicated. Then you have 2 instances of one person, say of you. They would both be you at the instant of duplication, and thereafter become 2 individuals.

Likewise for both streams of consciousness if you were a split brain person. The difference here is that the 2 streams of consciousness might differ radically in their personalities (but that no more relevant than the fact that a stream of consciousness might experience swings in moods). And they would both still form a continuous sequence of experiences with the pre-operation you. Both of them would be your future selves of your pre-operation self.

I don't give a flying pig stinky about what you think "materialism" would say, or what you think would be the case "if materialism were true."

What do you think?

Robin

30th June 2005, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's funny. The famous Sperry himself emphatically rejects materialism!
I note that materialists do not shout this from the roof tops.
But on the other hand you shouldn't try to make an ally of Sperry. I doubt you will be shouting this from the rooftops:
Roger Sperry's Nobel Lecture 1981
Acceptance of the revised "causal view" and the reasoning involved, now becoming widespread, carries important implications for science and for scientific views of man and nature. Cognitive introspective psychology and related cognitive science can no longer be ignored experimentally, or written off as "a science of epiphenomena", nor either as something that must, in principle, reduce eventually to neurophysiology. The events of inner experience, as emergent properties of brain processes, become themselves explanatory causal constructs in their own right, interacting at their own level with their own laws and dynamics. The whole world of inner experience (the world of the humanities) long rejected by 20th century scientific materialism, thus becomes recognized and included within the domain of science.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
This has got to be one of the oddest things you have ever said.

Let's say you could figure out how to connect one person's left hemisphere to another person's right hemisphere in such a way that the information flow from the various modules of the left brain end up at their nominal targets in the right brain and vice versa. Let's further go out on a limb and say that the encoding of the information in the two brains was compatible.

The technological difficulties is an irrelevance! Would we not discuss whether there is intelligent life on a planet orbiting around a distant star because someone starts complaining about the difficulties in getting a spaceship there so we could look for ourselves??

Jeez!

In other words, let's assume that if one brain sent the other brain information about a tiger, the other brain would have a clue that it was about a tiger and not about playing the piano.

Huh?? Why would there be a problem here? What if a split persons brain was reconnected? So we have 2 streams of consciousness reunited once more and he'd be just like he was before the original operation. So that would pose no difficulty. So why would using half of someone else's brain make a difference? I mean yes, there'd be technological difficulties, but they're uninteresting. In principle it could be done which is the point.

Finally, let's make the assumption that the cyclical timing inherent in the information could cohere between the two brains.

What would we end up with? Who knows? The two brain's memories are not compatible. According to you, a materialist should be able to say what sort of story we'd get if we combined two works of fiction that we had never read.

No you'd just have 2 sets of memories, both of which will be of your past experiences. You used to be 2 people, now you are one. What's the problem?

Atlas

30th June 2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now hang on there a sec. People on here have been arguing that there now exist two streams of consciousnesses with split brain people.

Their whole argument against my position rests on that. I don't follow why you rebel against the two streams of consciousness in split brains. Are you convinced that Idealism dies if the brain can hold simultaneaous conscious states?

I posted this above without a link but you missed it. Here is how you were describing consciousness for that discussion. It seems obvious that the split brains simultaneously like and dislike certain conditions and situations.

From here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58847)
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... I should explain what I mean by consciousness. Basically I'm referring to phenomenology. That is to say that by consciousness I mean its subjective qualitative character. What it is like to taste ice cream; what it is like to be experiencing toothache; what it is like to experience a warm summer's day and to feel that all is right with the world, etc.

And that is all I mean by consciousness. Even if certain bodily behaviour is associated with consciousness, what I mean by consciousness is this subjective qualitative nature. ... The idea you're posting about exchanging half brains made me wonder what to expect if the language halves were exchanged between a Frenchman and an Englishman. I wonder if they'd both be able to speak fluently in both languages. Or if they'd not be able to decipher what the other half of the brain was communicating.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Robin
But on the other hand you shouldn't try to make an ally of Sperry. I doubt you will be shouting this from the rooftops:

It's a consequence of his position Robin. Inner experience, as in qualia, will be recognised as causally efficacious. This can be studied using psychology. There's nothing I disagree with in what you quoted once we accept that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. Consciousness cannot be derived from physical processes. Rather it is an emergent phenomenon. A brute fact not susceptible to reductivist science.

*I* don't of course believe it's an emergent phenomenon.

Robin

30th June 2005, 05:42 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th June 2005, 05:48 PM

Ian said:
The technological difficulties is an irrelevance! Would we not discuss whether there is intelligent life on a planet orbiting around a distant star because someone starts complaining about the difficulties in getting a spaceship there so we could look for ourselves??
An irrelevance? Were you asking what would actually happen if we did this, or what some materialist metaphysic says would happen? If only the latter, then you better ask some philosophers.

Huh?? Why would there be a problem here? What if a split persons brain was reconnected? So we have 2 streams of consciousness reunited once more and he'd be just like he was before the original operation. So that would pose no difficulty. So why would using half of someone else's brain make a difference? I mean yes, there'd be technological difficulties, but they're uninteresting. In principle it could be done which is the point.
Do you agree that information is transferred between the two halves of the brain? If so, do you agree that that information is encoded in various ways? If so, why would you think that your encoding of tiger would be the same as mine?

No you'd just have 2 sets of memories, both of which will be of your past experiences. You used to be 2 people, now you are one. What's the problem?
There is more to memory than past experience. What would my body image be like? Could I move my limbs coherently? Could I balance? What would it mean to have conflicting images of, say, the smell of strawberries? What would colors look like? What would it be like to have both perfect pitch and be tone deaf? How would my focus of attention work?

Now, many of these things wouldn't be an issue because they are stored predominantly in one hemisphere. But certainly some complex concepts are subdivided and stored in various ways in the various modules of the brain.

You really are asking to predict the outcome of combining two unknown books.

~~ Paul

Beleth

30th June 2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Suppose your right brain was placed in my body and all the attachments were made to my left brain. And suppose also my right brain was placed in your body.

If materialism is true and if memories reside in both hemispheres this would mean that the 2 individuals would view both the totality of experiences, thoughts and emotions that you've ever experienced, and the totality of experiences, thoughts and emotions that I've ever experienced, as both being part of its history of memories. Also the resulting individuals would be a peculiar amalgamation of our current selves.
RIMMER: Right, smeg brain, prepare to die!
LISTER: Eh?
RIMMER: I found the letters.
LISTER: What letters?
RIMMER: Don't give me "What letters?" The letters.
LISTER: WHAT letters?
RIMMER: You went out with Lise Yates too. I found the letters she sent you.
LISTER: Oh, smeg!
RIMMER: All the time she was going out with me she must have been seeing you as well, behind my back. And what is more, to pour salt into the wound, you used to take her to the exact same places I used to take her and do the exact same things.
LISTER: Rimmer, it's not what it looks like.
RIMMER: That woman is unbelievable. We spent a night in a hotel in Southport and made love six times. According to her letter you were in the exact same hotel and you made love six times too.
LISTER: Listen.
RIMMER: Twelve times a night? What is wrong with the woman?
LISTER: Listen!
RIMMER: It's a good job you were there. If I'd been on my own I'd have been dead within a week. But it doesn't make sense. I mean, she loved me.
LISTER: Listen, listen. She wasn't going out with us both at the same time.
RIMMER: Come on, I've checked the dates.
LISTER: She wasn't going out with you at all.
RIMMER: She ... She didn't go out with me at all?
LISTER: No, you've never even met her.
RIMMER: Is that the best you can do, Lister? That's below feeble.
LISTER: I went down to the medical suite and I gave you one of the hemispheres of my brain.
RIMMER: What?
LISTER: It was a present.
RIMMER: You gave me a brain hemisphere, as a present?
LISTER: (Nodding) Yeah.
RIMMER: That's why I was an orphan, even though my parents were alive. That's why I had my appendix out ... twice.
LISTER: I thought it was what you needed.
RIMMER: You've destroyed me, Lister. The woman I loved most in the whole world didn't love me, she loved you.
LISTER: Rimmer, listen. Rimmer! Oh Smeg!
CAT: You should have bought him a tie.

(Red Dwarf, "Thanks for the Memories." Modified from the original to be more applicable to the present conversation.)

Robin

30th June 2005, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There's nothing I disagree with in what you quoted once we accept that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.
*I* don't of course believe it's an emergent phenomenon. [/B]
In other words you do disagree with what I quoted. Why didn't you just say that?

It is significant that you never responded to my point about reductivist science, yet you are still using the term. Science deals with what is, not what it thinks should be.

Sperry also states that inner experience is within the domain of science. Is there nothing you disagree with about that?

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Robin
But fair's fair, some of us answered, now it is your turn. According to your immaterialism what would happen?

And also I assume that your immaterialist ideas predict that severing the corpus callosum would not affect memory in any way - right ?

Whilst operating through the brain the self is subject to the constraints of the brain. Severing the corpus callosum might well have deleterious effects on memory retrieval.

What would happen? If my left brain was hooked up to someones right brain then those aspects of my mind shaped by the right brain would be effected. But I would still be 100% completely the same self. Remember that I say I'm the same self whether I'm 5 years old, 35 years old, 70 years old; whether sober or drunk; or whatever. My mind states change throughout my life; they will do so if half of my brain is exchanged for someone else's half brain. I might experience different emotions, but there again I do so after a few drinks of lager. So I would remain absolutely the same self.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
I don't give a flying pig stinky about what you think "materialism" would say, or what you think would be the case "if materialism were true."

What do you think?

I don't believe that a single stream of consciousness splits into 2 streams of consciousness. Due to the fact I believe in selves, that would mean that one self becomes 2. This is inconsistent with my metaphysic.

At the very least the 2 selves must already be there prior to the operation. I suppose one could argue there is at least an apparent other self as indicated by tourette's syndrome, automatic writing, and so on. Personally I don't think there is another self operating through our bodies, but there again I have not given sufficient thought and research to these type of phenomena.

And BTW, there's no need to be rude. I haven't been rude to you.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Whilst operating through the brain the self is subject to the constraints of the brain. Severing the corpus callosum might well have deleterious effects on memory retrieval.

What would happen? If my left brain was hooked up to someones right brain then those aspects of my mind shaped by the right brain would be effected. But I would still be 100% completely the same self. Remember that I say I'm the same self whether I'm 5 years old, 35 years old, 70 years old; whether sober or drunk; or whatever. My mind states change throughout my life; they will do so if half of my brain is exchanged for someone else's half brain. I might experience different emotions, but there again I do so after a few drinks of lager. So I would remain absolutely the same self.

Just to clarify here. My post operation self would contain nothing of the self of the other person whose half brain I receive. Just thought I'd add that just in case it wasn't completely obvious.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th June 2005, 06:20 PM

Ian said:
What would happen? If my left brain was hooked up to someones right brain then those aspects of my mind shaped by the right brain would be effected. But I would still be 100% completely the same self. Remember that I say I'm the same self whether I'm 5 years old, 35 years old, 70 years old; whether sober or drunk; or whatever. My mind states change throughout my life; they will do so if half of my brain is exchanged for someone else's half brain. I might experience different emotions, but there again I do so after a few drinks of lager. So I would remain absolutely the same self.
As would the other person, presumably. What happens if you keep only 1/4 of your brain and share the other 3/4 with someone else? Does your mind stay with the 1/4 brain or go dormant with the 3/4 of your brain that you're not using? How do it decide?

Now, what aspects of your self would not be affected by creating this brain chimera?

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Robin
In other words you do disagree with what I quoted. Why didn't you just say that?

I might disagree with the notion that consciousness is emergent, but it's vastly more sensible than materialism.

Sperry also states that inner experience is within the domain of science. Is there nothing you disagree with about that? [/B]

If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon? I've already said. It wouldn't be part of reductivist science by definition. Also you would have an existent which could only be known by introspection. So whether such an emergent consciousness would be within the domain of science entirely depends on how you define science.

Interesting Ian

30th June 2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
As would the other person, presumably. What happens if you keep only 1/4 of your brain and share the other 3/4 with someone else? Does your mind stay with the 1/4 brain or go dormant with the 3/4 of your brain that you're not using? How do it decide?

Now, what aspects of your self would not be affected by creating this brain chimera?

~~ Paul

Paul,

The brain doesn't determine the self! I can't answer your question because I do not know what the process is whereby a self operates through a particular brain. I just assumed if you put someones half brain in my body, that my self would still operate through my body.

jmercer

30th June 2005, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Paul,

The brain doesn't determine the self! I can't answer your question because I do not know what the process is whereby a self operates through a particular brain. I just assumed if you put someones half brain in my body, that my self would still operate through my body.

Care to demonstrate? :D

Robin

30th June 2005, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Whilst operating through the brain the self is subject to the constraints of the brain. Severing the corpus callosum might well have deleterious effects on memory retrieval.
Why would that be? Does memory reside in the physical brain? If so then
Just to clarify here. My post operation self would contain nothing of the self of the other person whose half brain I receive. Just thought I'd add that just in case it wasn't completely obvious.
could not be true. On the other hand are you suggesting that immaterial memories cannot be directly accessed by the immaterial consciousness but have to be shipped back to the physical brain and forwarded on to the immaterial consciousness? If so then your above statement would still not be true, for how could you be sure that the altered physical brain would forward the correct memories to the correct consciousness?

If memories are immaterial and can be directly accessed by the immaterial consciousness then immaterialism would predict that severing the corpus callosum would have no effect whatsoever on memory.

30th June 2005, 07:02 PM

And what if my left brain was connected to a woman's right brain?? Would "I" develop an interest in talking about carpets, curtains, the royal family etc??

I'll give Ian the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that this was somehow a mis-quote.

Otherwise, Ian ought to be banned from any meaningful conversations until he can turn his bigoted, sexist attitudes off during discussions.

If he weren't already on my Ignore list, he'd be there for such prejudiced, 19th century comments.

...

What in the name of Bob does femininity have to do with carpets, curtains, or the Royal Family? For that matter, what does any of that have to do with homosexuality?

You are offensive, Ian. Offensive, ignorant, bigoted, hate-filled, prejudiced, sexist, and I'll not be surprised if racist as well.

Goodbye, Ian. I will no longer even comment on things others quote that you say. You are beneath contempt. You are a worm, unworthy of even the energy required to scorn you.

I hope you enjoy your next life, and I hope you learn in that life the lessons needed to move back up to the level of 'human'.

Robin

30th June 2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I might disagree with the notion that consciousness is emergent, but it's vastly more sensible than materialism.
Obviously you are using another definition of emergence than I am, as far as I know emergence and materialism are not contradictory.
If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon? I've already said. It wouldn't be part of reductivist science by definition.
You are carefully ignoring my questions about what you mean by reductivist science, and yet you keep on repeating this furphy. Every definition of science I have ever heard since I was old enough to understand the word is the opposite to what you seem to think science is. Can you give me some quote or reference by which I can understand what you are talking about?

As far as I know science attempts to understand the world as it is, and not as it thinks it should be according to some pre-existing template. They taught me that in school and college, every book or article that I have ever read about science says that.

And yet you have this odd definition of science that tries to shoehorn observations into some pre-defined formula. No I have never heard of this type of science, I have only heard of the type of science that says "if the observation definitely contradicts the theory then the theory is wrong (or incomplete)". Science only reduces phenomena to existing models when they really can be reduced to existing models. If not they create new models (for example relativity, quantum physics, string theory).

Consciousness may or may not be explicable from existing models, I cannot determine that.
So whether such an emergent consciousness would be within the domain of science entirely depends on how you define science.
Your definition of science is "the attempt to categorize all observable phenomena to a fixed and pre-defined template" I cannot think of any definition of science which gels with the definition you have of it.

I suppose the definition of science that I am working from is the systematic approach to building models or theories that predict or partially predict observable (including indirectly observable) phenomena.

Robin

30th June 2005, 07:15 PM

Atlas

30th June 2005, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Robin
So presumably you are saying that if you put someone else's whole brain in your body your self would operate through the same body? That's what I took away. And it made me wonder. If a rat was taught a maze and his brain swapped out, that rat would still run the maze with perfect memory - according to Ian.

It might actually be something science will be able to answer.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th June 2005, 07:29 PM

Ian said:
The brain doesn't determine the self! I can't answer your question because I do not know what the process is whereby a self operates through a particular brain. I just assumed if you put someones half brain in my body, that my self would still operate through my body.
However the self operates through my brain, if I bust my brain into two pieces, there's gonna be hell to pay. Forget the other person's brain. Suppose I divide my brain and put part of it in a spare body. What's up with my consciousness now?

~~ Paul

Robin

30th June 2005, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
That's what I took away. And it made me wonder. If a rat was taught a maze and his brain swapped out, that rat would still run the maze with perfect memory - according to Ian.

It might actually be something science will be able to answer.
Yes that would seem to be the logical conclusion. I wonder what percentage of body parts from the other rat would have to be transplanted into the first rat before it became the other rat and would forget how to run the maze.

30th June 2005, 07:34 PM

That's an odd thing, Atlas - seems that, according to what you're saying, if we replace a person's brain, they're still the same self. If we replace their body, they're still the same self.

So with regards to the teletrans or cloning experiments, whereby the original is vaporized and a duplicate made, this matters not - it's just 100% replacement, and the self remains the same.

Curious - this is what Ian claims that materialists should believe, isn't it? That the cloning and teletrans don't matter, because the self is the same self regardless of a 100% replacement?

In fact, a person could, according to this, be replaced with machines - with hardware - and the self would remain unchanged, as well. Cool - then human evolution has a bold, wonderful path to the future to follow. Hail, the machine age!

Of course, this isn't what Ian wants to claim. Half of the brain could be replaced, but not all. Probably he'll have to come up with some model of the brain by which a key piece contains the receiver - maybe one of the clusters of cells which never changes over the course of human life?

Logically, if you move enough of the brain from person A to person B's body, eventually you'll have person A peering out from inside person B's body. But which pieces are needed? How much, and what parts, have to be moved? Otherwise, you have neither A nor B, but a thing that - assuming full compatibility - would have a mishmash of A and B in various proportions.

Atlas

30th June 2005, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Robin
Yes that would seem to be the logical conclusion. I wonder what percentage of body parts from the other rat would have to be transplanted into the first rat before it became the other rat and would forget how to run the maze. I think the head would be enough. Cut off Ian's head, say, and mount it on a chick's body. I think he's saying he would wake up expressing chickisms.

Likewise, in a cruel irony, his body received the head of a dumb blond. The dumb blond head would wake up just as smart as Ian and immediately start to fight.

Robin

30th June 2005, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
I think the head would be enough. Cut off Ian's head, say, and mount it on a chick's body. I think he's saying he would wake up expressing chickisms.

Likewise, in a cruel irony, his body received the head of a dumb blond. The dumb blond head would wake up just as smart as Ian and immediately start to fight.
I think we need to get Ian's view of this.

What I get from it is if you were to entirely transplant Ian's head onto Brittany Spears then the Ian headed Brittany would be completely Brittany and the Brittany headed Ian would be completely Ian.

Atlas

30th June 2005, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
... Of course, this isn't what Ian wants to claim. Half of the brain could be replaced, but not all. Probably he'll have to come up with some model of the brain by which a key piece contains the receiver - maybe one of the clusters of cells which never changes over the course of human life? ... I think we need more clarification. It sounded like the self is more tied to the body than the brain for Ian.

I think the personality would follow the head in a whole head transplant operation but Ian made it sound like the self is not in the head but the body in his reply to Paul.

30th June 2005, 07:54 PM

I...

But he...

...

Oh, forget it. I'm gonna go astral-project into the ladies' locker room in a gym in Japan now.

Atlas

30th June 2005, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Robin
I think we need to get Ian's view of this.

What I get from it is if you were to entirely transplant Ian's head onto Brittany Spears then the Ian headed Brittany would be completely Brittany and the Brittany headed Ian would be completely Ian. You know, I've thought this many times. Why don't heavy philosophical discussions ever mention Brittany Spears?

Thanks Robin

Atlas

30th June 2005, 08:06 PM

Read This! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1263758.stm)

Yikes. Hey Z - it is a brave new world.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

30th June 2005, 08:11 PM

Curious. It is amazing the amount of nonsense that can acumulate in a thread like this. Zaayrdragon, dont quit on Ian, he is obtuse as humanly possible, that is correct, yet, it is good to read your arguments, like everybody else's, and then see how he, or his "twin brother" Lifegazer, try to twist things around in order for their beliefs to remain intact, ignoring every bit of evidence and logical reasons.

Its quite a show, if you ask me. Like a good soap opera. -How far would this two individuals will twist logic today? keep tuned!

Piscivore

1st July 2005, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And BTW, there's no need to be rude. I haven't been rude to you.

That wasn't rude, that was an expression of minor annoyance. When I ask what someone thinks I don't expect the answer to be what that person thinks someone else thinks.

Sorry if you took offence.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't believe that a single stream of consciousness splits into 2 streams of consciousness. Due to the fact I believe in selves, that would mean that one self becomes 2. This is inconsistent with my metaphysic.

Why do you feel this "metaphysic," or any "philosophical" conjecture, woud take precedence over observable evidence?

stup_id

1st July 2005, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Utter BS. Unless you're trying to tell me that TWO (or more) individuals are experienced by the brain at the same time, then this has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to my OP or to anything I have said since.
Whatever mental experiences are had, they are had by and as One.
I.e., the totality of all mental experiences is always had by
One, as a singular experience.

Not quite, People with sectionated corpus callosum, can perceive things as two different persons, the frontal lobe, has the task of maintining the "illusion" of individuality, (you can always research on lessons of this lobe it is very insightful).

When the operation for epilepsy is performed, a connection named Anterior Commisure, which is right behind the optic quiasma, so the front lobe can still exchange information, also the basal ganglia has interconnections between the hemispheres which may account still for the remainance of managing being "one person" (also it serves to exemplify an evolutionary matter, ahaha since the connections in lower parts of the encephalus are older in evolutionary scale, and before all surviving is the principal purpose of any living organism, which is why it seems likely that the older and lower connections between hemispheres can "hold up together" the entire organism.)

But i was going to talk about the sensation not perceived by one.

On this kind of patients rare experiments occur, for instance, if a patient is shown to his right field a word, let us say cat, he won't be able to read it, but if we pass him a pen he can write it with his left hand.

There are numerous research about this kind of "experiences" not perceived by the "conciousness" of the patient, even cases involving dressing 1 side and letting the other half of the body naked. big conflicts of decisition.. and well... i think there are far better information and research about this around...

I recommend "dragons from Eden" from Carl Sagan, for some people not familiarized with neuroanatomy and neurophisiology.

stup_id

1st July 2005, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Amazing isn't it? Split the brain in 2 and we don't notice any difference whatsoever apart from highly contrived experimental circumstances. It seems we are compelled to conclude there must be something doing the unifying over and above the brain.

Not at all, a lot of exchange of information is performed by lower sections of the encephalus, for instance the visual way of nervous impulses has a backup system that runs to the posterior cuadragemic tubercule, and from there it crosses fibers from one hemisphere to other whitoutusing corpum callosum.

The truth is that cutting all the fibers of the corpum callosum as impresive it may sound, can be performed wihtout very serious consecuences, because the conections that control ivolve some very specific ways of processing information. This means that the brain is not split in 2, just a part of it, which is not in direct control over critical activities

If the Neurosurgeons were able of separating all the fibers of the brain (which would be REALLY) splitting the brain in two, very serious consecuences will be from that.

Just to tell you somepoints of crossing:
Mesenchephalus, around Silvium Aqueduct, Westphal nucleus, locus niger, pontum, cerebellum... etc etc...

1st July 2005, 05:13 AM

Nice to have someone on here who actually KNOWS what all these neuro-terms are...

And here I thought the Silvium Aquaduct was somewhere in Italy... :D

Jeff Corey

1st July 2005, 05:58 AM

And locus niger was on a river in africa.

Jeff Corey

1st July 2005, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Profound? Well, yes. Profoundly absurd. Im very sorry LG, but the only thing you show is your profound ignorance. I dont like to call you ignorant, because you get upset. On the other hand, it is important to tell it to you, is the only way for you to grow.

Anyway, you showed to all of us that you dont have a clue on why my first answer was relevant. Let me pre digest it for you. The Corpus Callosum is what hold both hemisferes together. It is a band of nerve fibers located deep in the brain that connects the two halves (hemispheres) of the brain. The corpus callosum helps the hemispheres share information.

Why this should be relevant for your hypothesis? (yes LG, its just an hypothesis, nothing more). I suggested you to read also about epilepsy. I hope I dont need to explain what it is.

Anyway, here is the relevancy that you didnt see. I dont like to lecture you, still, it is the only way to show you this. Here are some paragraphs I got from here (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web1/sfeidt.html):

In case that you still dont get it. Why is this relevant? Because when this CC is cut, the personality, yes the ego, yes LG, the "thing" that you need to be "absolutely singular" becames divided. You should study about split brain patients.

Try harder my little apprentice.
One problem with the paper you quoted - it was by a biology undergraduate and contains some errors. For example, the left hemishere does not "see with the right eye".