Doesn't Split Personalities Prove that Consciousness is Solely Part of the Brain?

[INRM]

Doesn't split-personality disorder pretty much prove that consciousness is a part of the brain only?

Tony L

[onemind]

I used this line of reasoning with the buddhists but their reply is that the brain only facilitates conciousness. Kind of like a radio reciever. Conciousness exists outside the brain and is channeled via the brain. If something goes wrong with the brain the human animal acts a bit strange but it is still not proof concioussness is generated by the brain.

Needless to say i think buddhists are stupid.

[UserGoogol]

I was not of the opinion that Buddhists thought that. Although I have heard some new-age guys argue that, (Deepak Chopra, for instance) and it all overlaps. And of course, there's Buddhism and then there's Buddhism.

But at any rate, no. Personality and consciousness are not at all the same thing. Personality is how a person acts, while consciousness is how a person is aware of themself. Also, there are indeed weird neurological conditions which generally "suggest" the idea that consciousness is just a neurological function, (and since I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "split personalities," maybe you mean such a condition) but the problem is that consciousness is such a vaguely defined concept that it's easy to dodge absolute falsification.

[onemind]

Buddhists belief in rebirth. Death of physical brain would equall death of conciousness hence there needing to be more to a human than just its physical brain for buddhism to make sense.

[Piscivore]

Buddhists belief in rebirth. Death of physical brain would equall death of conciousness hence there needing to be more to a human than just its physical brain for buddhism to make sense.

Buddhism does not in all cases hold that what gets reborn is the "personality" of a person complete and inviolate.

[Wainscotting]

Technically it's "Dissociative Identity Disorder." 'Personality' refers to the whole mental package, with the different identities being a personality trait.

Furthermore, it's existence is controversial. Some psychologists think that it's triggered by poor counselling, while others see it more as a form of schizophrenia.

I'd say that the fact that things like schizophrenia, ADD, clinical depression, etc. can be treated by medication puts not necessarily proof, but a good deal of weight to the idea that consciousness is a neurological process.

I'm on medication that "increases volition," so that pretty much clinches it for me. If free will can be controlled chemically, I'd say it's all pretty neurological.

[onemind]

Buddhism does not in all cases hold that what gets reborn is the "personality" of a person complete and inviolate.

Buddhists believe moral actions have resluts in the next life (karma) which would mean that the next person gets previous results of past life, not personality. I didnt use personality as my example, but conciousness itself.

[Taffer]

Buddhists believe moral actions have resluts in the next life (karma) which would mean that the next person gets previous results of past life, not personality. I didnt use personality as my example, but conciousness itself.

Do all Buddhists believe this?

[onemind]

Not this again.

I shoulld rephrase that to all budhists except a few schools and 2 strange guys on jref believe rebirth.

[onemind]

And to be pedantic, the context used is that i tried to explain this to buddhists that obviously believe rebirth as i used their reply as an example so there is no need for another 26 pages of your definition bs.

[Taffer]

Not this again.

I shoulld rephrase that to all budhists except a few schools and 2 strange guys on jref believe rebirth.

You would call Theravada a minority, then?

[Taffer]

And to be pedantic, the context used is that i tried to explain this to buddhists that obviously believe rebirth as i used their reply as an example so there is no need for another 26 pages of your definition bs.

So your point is that Buddhists which believe in rebirth, believe as you have outlined?

[Mercutio]

Oddly enough, I have more often heard (while teaching psych classes) people argue that Dissociative Identity Disorder (ok, most of the people who make this argument still call it Multiple Personality Disorder) proves that consciousness cannot possibly be solely part of the brain. The argument usually goes "you have only one brain--how do you get 3 or 4 or 17 or 23 or whatever distinct selves out of just one brain?"

Not saying I agree with this question, but I would like to see INRM's analysis that leads to the OP.

[onemind]

So your point is that Buddhists which believe in rebirth, believe as you have outlined?

Yes, because i never implied the split personality example but the mind/matter argument. Obviously rebirth implies some part that is not physical brain exists by default.

[Taffer]

Yes, because i never implied the split personality example but the mind/matter argument. Obviously rebirth implies some part that is not physical brain exists by default.

Then I am forced to wonder why you blanket the statement to all Buddhists?

[onemind]

I didnt. I said i used this argument with buddhists because they were buddhists. If they were christians i would say i used this argument with christians, no sane person would think that statement implies that i personally argued with every christian.

Stop being annoying and try to keep at least one thread on topic instead of trying to find fault with me.

[onemind]

This thread is about the metaphysics of the mind/brain connection, not about me and my dislike of buddhism.

Stop being a troll and please stop stalking me.

[Taffer]

I didnt. I said i used this argument with buddhists because they were buddhists. If they were christians i would say i used this argument with christians, no sane person would think that statement implies that i personally argued with every christian.

Stop being annoying and try to keep at least one thread on topic instead of trying to find fault with me.

Really?

Buddhists belief in rebirth. Death of physical brain would equall death of conciousness hence there needing to be more to a human than just its physical brain for buddhism to make sense.

Buddhists believe moral actions have resluts in the next life (karma) which would mean that the next person gets previous results of past life, not personality. I didnt use personality as my example, but conciousness itself.

[Taffer]

This thread is about the metaphysics of the mind/brain connection, not about me and my dislike of buddhism.

No, but the accuracy of your claim is right on topic.

Stop being a troll and please stop stalking me.

I'm afraid you cannot make me do anything, onemind.

[onemind]

I said please.

You are nothing but a pedantic idiot with nothing insightful to say.

You will be ignored.

[Taffer]

I said please.

You are nothing but a pedantic idiot with nothing insightful to say.

You will be ignored.

So you don't wish to comment on my post above? Specifically, the one where you did what you said you did not?

Very well...

[onemind]

like i said, pedantic idiot.

If you would like to talk about the mind/brain connection by all means do so rather than constatly point out my political incorrectness.

[I less than three logic]

So you don't wish to comment on my post above? Specifically, the one where you did what you said you did not?

Very well...
He said he didn't, and with the very next sentence... he did it again.

:dl:

As for the OP, I'd say that Dissociative Identity Disorder doesn't prove or disprove anything. It all depends on how you want to view it, as Mercutio pointed out. People can make up a story for either side to account for the disorder it seems.

[Taffer]

like i said, pedantic idiot.

If you would like to talk about the mind/brain connection by all means do so rather than constatly point out my political incorrectness.

"Political incorrectness"? I have no problem with that. I have a problem with your strawman arguments, however.

[onemind]

Wow, you are right, 10 gold stars.

Did you guys get a bachelor of pedantry from the school of trollogy or something?

God damn.

[Taffer]

As for the OP, I'd say that Dissociative Identity Disorde doesn't prove or disprove anything. It all depends on how your want to view it, as Mercutio pointed out. People can make up a story for either side to account for the disorder it seems.

FWIW, I agree completely with this. Without a predictive hypothesis, it does not provide evidence one way or another.

[Taffer]

Wow, you are right, 10 gold stars.

Did you guys get a bachelor of pedantry from the school of trollogy or something?

God damn.

Nope. I hold a bachelor of science in Genetics, and a minor in philosophy. Not that that has anything to do with anything.

If you made a mistake, admit it. It's not really that hard to do...

[onemind]

If someone makes a minor error that everyone can plainly see but the general meaning and context of what is involved is understood keep it to yourself or blow me.

Bachelor of genetics my ass, you are a dropout that that trolls internet forums to make up for lack of intelligence.


This is a violation of your membership agreement regarding civility. Since you have done this repeatedly in the past despite moderation intervention, further actions beyond this message may be taken.

[I less than three logic]

Bachelor of genetics my ass, you are a dropout that that trolls internet forums to make up for lack of intelligence.
I'm pretty sure this is against your member's agreement. Besides, it is completely illogical. What would prevent a person that does in fact have a degree in genetics from trolling the internet anyway? Could you list the steps you took to reach this conclusion?

Anyway, his claim to his degree would appear legit. Check out most any thread involving genetics on this forum. Either he knows a bit or two about genetics or he's pretty darn good at pretending to. ;)

[onemind]

Could you list the steps you took to reach this conclusion?

My judgment was based purely on the immaturity of his arguments and his inability to answer real questions while instead resorting to pedantic nitpicking most retards thrive on.

If he does indeed have a degree then what a waste of money.

[Taffer]

If someone makes a minor error that everyone can plainly see but the general meaning and context of what is involved is understood keep it to yourself or blow me.

No, actually I will not. If you had read around the forums a bit, you will find I call anyone and everyone on logical fallacies, even if I agree with the argument being made.

Also, you might be wise to consider if a strawman argument is a "minor error" or not.

Bachelor of genetics my ass, you are a dropout that that trolls internet forums to make up for lack of intelligence.

Whatever you say, onemind. ;)

[Taffer]

My judgment was based purely on the immaturity of his arguments and his inability to answer real questions while instead resorting to pedantic nitpicking most retards thrive on.

Really? You don't think the fact that you label the whole of Buddhism as something which not all Buddhists believe in "resorting to pedantic nitpicking"?

If he does indeed have a degree then what a waste of money.

My my you're an angry one, aren't you?

[I less than three logic]

My judgment was based purely on the immaturity of his arguments and his inability to answer real questions while instead resorting to pedantic nitpicking most retards thrive on.

If he does indeed have a degree then what a waste of money.
You started early in this thread with a over generalization of Buddhists and even call all Buddhists stupid. I can see how quite a few people, even ones that are not Buddhists themselves could find this a bit offensive. Taffer called you out on this. Your response was to question his intelligence as well. If you can't refrain from the ad homs, or the numerous other fallacies you've made in this thread alone, you'll never win an argument here. You probably won't last too long either since insulting people instead of addressing the argument tends to lead suspensions and such.

[chillzero]

Taffer, onemind. Please do not bicker any further in this thread, or all your posts that do not pertain to the topic will be moved to Flame Wars and you can continue there at your leisure. Do not derail the thread further with your personal disagreement.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't think we're going to discover anything that will convince the idealists that everything is material. Or the materialists that everything is mind. Since the two ontologies are equivalent, what proof could possibly turn up?

As for dualists, well, they are just confused. :D

~~ Paul

[onemind]

Got to love agnostics :)

[Dancing David]

Technically it's "Dissociative Identity Disorder." 'Personality' refers to the whole mental package, with the different identities being a personality trait.

Furthermore, it's existence is controversial. Some psychologists think that it's triggered by poor counselling, while others see it more as a form of schizophrenia.

I'd say that the fact that things like schizophrenia, ADD, clinical depression, etc. can be treated by medication puts not necessarily proof, but a good deal of weight to the idea that consciousness is a neurological process.

I'm on medication that "increases volition," so that pretty much clinches it for me. If free will can be controlled chemically, I'd say it's all pretty neurological.


On the DID issue, the people I met who were expressing their alters were usually drunk or having a panic attack. The problem with DID is that originally there was not supposed to be communication between the alters, and no one met the definition for split personality.

It is easy to imagine it as a series of unhealthy coping skills that become habitual from repeated trauma. It seems to border very strongly with the OCD area, with instrusive thoughts and compulsions, and sometimes a history of a seizure disorder.

Dealing with it behaviorally is the best route.

[Dancing David]

Post removed after reading Chillxero's warning.

Uh, the DID shows that people have brains and that they are prone to malfunction.


:walks away slowly whistling with hands in pockets:

Nothing to see here move along ;)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oddly enough, I have more often heard (while teaching psych classes) people argue that Dissociative Identity Disorder (ok, most of the people who make this argument still call it Multiple Personality Disorder) proves that consciousness cannot possibly be solely part of the brain. The argument usually goes "you have only one brain--how do you get 3 or 4 or 17 or 23 or whatever distinct selves out of just one brain?"

Not saying I agree with this question, but I would like to see INRM's analysis that leads to the OP.

Too many engrams? Maybe a few need to be "cleared:" :rolleyes:

[Miss Anthrope]

D'oh.

[Hokulele]

Furthermore, it's [DID] existence is controversial.


Send multiple bills. See how many get paid.

[calebprime]

I don't think we're going to discover anything that will convince the idealists that everything is material. Or the materialists that everything is mind. Since the two ontologies are equivalent, what proof could possibly turn up?

As for dualists, well, they are just confused. :D

~~ Paul

yep. I mean, no.


Post removed after reading Chillxero's warning.

Uh, the DID shows that people have brains and that they are prone to malfunction.


:walks away slowly whistling with hands in pockets:

Nothing to see here move along ;)


There were therapists who strongly believe in a weak form of DID--you don't have completely separate personalities, you just space out. My point here is that they used hypnosis and persuasion to convince people they had been abused, with much suffering caused.

The once-Harvard associated Martha Stout wrote a whole book supporting DID. There were also many other feminist-inspired therapists who believed in this. I don't think this line of thought has gone away, although it wouldn't be too popular around here...

I consider myself sympathetic to feminism, just not to this.

Let's forget about the OP's wording which takes us back to the days of Bleuler and early definitions of schizophrenia.

http://www.ns.purchase.edu/psych/Psychobio_of_Schizophrenia/history/history.htm

"A Swiss psychiatrist, Eugen Bleuler, reformulated dementia praecox. In 1911, Bleuler coined the term "schizophrenia“. The word schizophrenia is derived from the Greek roots schizo (split) and phrene (mind). Schizophrenia is often misconceived as multiple personality disorder. However, schizophrenia was intended to describe the fragmented thinking characteristic of people with the disorder.

Bleuler identified four fundamental symptoms of schizophrenia, reflecting the breakdown of normally integrated functions that coordinate thought, affect and behavior: Symptoms. However, Bleuler did not emphasize delusions and hallucinations as necessary characteristics for the diagnosis of schizophrenia."


We're not talking about that.

[strathmeyer]

You're going to have to take my word for it, but I can say that there is no compelling evidence that "split personalities" exist.

[UserGoogol]

Split brain stuff might be more relevant to the issue of consciousness than DID, I think.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Buddhists belief in rebirth.
Not all Buddhists by a long shot.

[Jeff Corey]

Split brain stuff might be more relevant to the issue of consciousness than DID, I think.
How is that? Most people with a corpus callosumectomy have difficulty verbally identifying stimuli presented to their left visual fields because information ending up in their right occipital lobe can't be transmitted to their left temporal lobe, where most people have their language centers. There are others effects, but no scientist that I know of ever suggested that "split brain" people had more than one "personality".

[Darat]

I don't think we're going to discover anything that will convince the idealists that everything is material. Or the materialists that everything is mind. Since the two ontologies are equivalent, what proof could possibly turn up?

As for dualists, well, they are just confused. :D

~~ Paul
And when two things are interchangeable and behave in exactly the same way what do we normally say they are... (hint it's not in the song "One of these things is different...") ;)

I'm going to start a knew "ist" - 'stuffist', its basic premise is that there is stuff.

[Jeff Corey]

But is that stuff material stuff or immaterial stuff? Stuff me if I know. Or get stuffed if you don't.
It's gettin' a bit stuffy in here.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But is that stuff material stuff or immaterial stuff?
It's just generic stuff.

~~ Paul

[osmosis]

Split personality might not even exist, as such. It may just be someone acting in different way to express different parts of their one personality. Social reinforcement plays a role too.

[ChristineR]

The classic explanation for split personality is demon possession, so it is certainly no argument for consciousness being part of the brain.

As for scientific explanations, there isn't much doubt that there are people who appear to have radically different "modes" of behavior and often one mode can't remember things that the other mode has known. The operative point though is that none of the modes are complete personalities. They don't have multiple personalities, rather they repress large parts of their single personality under various circumstances.

We all do this to some extent, but it's a problem if they can or can't function depending on their environment.

What's in debate is whether it's meaningful to give these people their own diagnosis, as opposed to calling it a symptom of some other personality disorder.

[fuelair]

Wow, you are right, 10 gold stars.

Did you guys get a bachelor of pedantry from the school of trollogy or something?

God damn.
Wow, you do get upset easily! And, next time call it trollology. Trollogy sounds too close to 3 books, plays, movies, etc. about a specific thing.

[Dancing David]

yep. I mean, no.





There were therapists who strongly believe in a weak form of DID--you don't have completely separate personalities, you just space out. My point here is that they used hypnosis and persuasion to convince people they had been abused, with much suffering caused.

The once-Harvard associated Martha Stout wrote a whole book supporting DID. There were also many other feminist-inspired therapists who believed in this. I don't think this line of thought has gone away, although it wouldn't be too popular around here...

I consider myself sympathetic to feminism, just not to this.

Let's forget about the OP's wording which takes us back to the days of Bleuler and early definitions of schizophrenia.

http://www.ns.purchase.edu/psych/Psychobio_of_Schizophrenia/history/history.htm

"A Swiss psychiatrist, Eugen Bleuler, reformulated dementia praecox. In 1911, Bleuler coined the term "schizophrenia“. The word schizophrenia is derived from the Greek roots schizo (split) and phrene (mind). Schizophrenia is often misconceived as multiple personality disorder. However, schizophrenia was intended to describe the fragmented thinking characteristic of people with the disorder.

Bleuler identified four fundamental symptoms of schizophrenia, reflecting the breakdown of normally integrated functions that coordinate thought, affect and behavior: Symptoms. However, Bleuler did not emphasize delusions and hallucinations as necessary characteristics for the diagnosis of schizophrenia."


We're not talking about that.

True, it certainly isn't schizophrenia, I think it is an anxiety disorder or a seizure disorder.

Feminism is cool, except for when it tells people to not get treatment.

[Dancing David]

You're going to have to take my word for it, but I can say that there is no compelling evidence that "split personalities" exist.

true ,no evidence of seperate cognitive sets. There is communication between the alters.

[Wainscotting]

The man who coined the term "multiple personality disorder" had his wife develop it after he had treated a number of others for it. She said that it started as a little voice in her head and it developed as he treated her.

Sounds to me like schizophrenia, with the psychiatrist convincing the patient that there are separate characters in their mind, which are moulded and crafted into different identities vying for control.

I believe it exists, but not naturally. And causing someone to develop it should be tantamount to abuse.