Do brains really exist?

[P.S.A.]

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]

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

Or might it just be you that is lying??

 

[Interesting Ian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

 

[Interesting Ian]

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]

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]

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]

{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.

 

[Interesting Ian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Jeff Corey]

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. The only person compelled to come to that idiotic conclusion would be brain dead.

 

[Interesting Ian]

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]

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.