Split Brain Experiment and the Soul

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

This was originally a post on the 'Atheism vs. Deism' thread but because the discussion is so unrelated to the thread, I decided to put the post in its own thread so that tackattack could respond.

"This is contradicted by biology/neurology that clearly shows our mind being a product of brain activity. The latter will surely cease after death and therefore there's no life after death."
I wasn't aware that this was conclusive, please site your references.

I don't believe there is anyway to prove that there is no afterlife or soul. They are Russel's teapots floating around our universe.

---

In an article entitled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote: If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_t...ginal_text

---

I do believe that a relationship between our 'material' brain and our thought processes has been demonstrated. You ask for references; I raise you the split brain experiments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMLzP1VCANo

I chose the split brain experiment because not only does it demonstrate the dependency of thought processes on the brain, but it will also have you asking "Now that significant mental processes (which are conscious themselves of outside input) are entirely independent from his 'consciousness' , which part of his consciousness goes to heaven?" At the end of the video, the scientist explains his hypothesis on which part of the brain forms the 'theory' of our environment and memories. As you learn more and more about the relationship between our brain and our experience, slowly the distinction you make between the brain and soul will fade away.

[Scented Nectar]

Here's a page with a lot of brain disorder examples and how they relate to supernatural claims, especially the soul, http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html .

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

@scented nectar, thanks for the link

[Scented Nectar]

@scented nectar, thanks for the link

You're welcome. Someone at another forum posted it last year, I think. Can't remember which forum, but the link was a keeper for sure, and went into my favourites.

[tackattack]

Good choice to split the topic. I apologize in advance for the wall of text. I'll try and segment it.
Thanks for the link SN good read.

First let's determine what we're talking about. The secular phrase body, mind and soul is misleading. When I, as a Christian, am talking about soul I am typically reffering to the mind. They mind is a mental constuct composed of all of the inputs/ stimuli around us and in us. It is the definition of self reffered to usually. When I talk about spirit, I'm talking about the Holy Spirit which is an incorporeal entity some Christians use to communicate better with God as both a translator, instigator and receiver. The Brain is the physical construct of cells and neurons that create the mass between some people's ears. For the purpose of this conversation we're talking about the soul or the identity of "I" or the mind.


Ok, I'll work on 5 for a start, I only have a little time tonight.

premise 1- "a relationship between our 'material' brain and our thought processes has been demonstrated. You ask for references; I raise you the split brain experiments: "

point-Completly agree the the brain is segented into smaller processing centers that can act independant of each other. Theese processing centers can be manipulated physically, thus demonstrating our mind can be manipulated on a physical level. Completly agree

Premise 2- "the mind should not be dependent on the configuration of the brain that houses it. In short, there should be aspects of the mind that owe nothing to the physical functioning of the brain. "
Counter-Why are they mutually exclusive? It doesn't follow. In the instances I read (at least half) and my personal experiences with amnesia, the person still had a self-identity or multiple self-identities. I don't think the I can be absent from the definition of self-aware. As long as we are aware of ourselves as different than what we percieve outside of us I can't see when the I would go away.

Premise 3- "there is no aspect of the mind that does not correspond to any area of the brain"
Counter- He defeated this himself by the next sentence. "we know precisely which brain regions control many fundamental aspects of human consciousness". IT's an asolutest statement that begs the question. We don't know everyhing about the brain therefore we don't know all aspects of the mind to come to said conclusion.

Premise 4- "After all, if there is an immortal soul, why would it be subordinate to flawed biology? If there is a god who is fair and just, and who punishes or rewards us for our actions, he would not set things up so that these actions can be dictated or altered by brain chemistry, genes, or other factors over which we have no control. Unless he is an unjust tyrant, he would make our actions the result of the individual's free choice. This is consistent with the idea of consciousness arising from a spiritual soul not subject to the weaknesses of the physical body. "
Counter-He's assuming that the immortal trait in the soul is some grandeous thing preventing it from the effects upon it. The soul is just another way of calling the human self-identity, whether it exists beyond death or not is the question we're discussing. There have been cases of people coming out of a vegatative state, deep coma and even brain death and having perfectly normal lives, with their identiy intact. That in itself proved that the termination of brain function does not kill the identity of self, as in "my name is" or "I want/need...". Why should it be a temproary state and not eternal? The rest of the quote is just his personal bias and emotive language.

Premise 5- "Without memory, a person's identity is irrevocably altered. The effects of this condition are consistent with the materialist prediction that the mind is unified with the brain, but seem considerably more difficult to reconcile with dualism. "
Counter- Emphatically wrong. There are plenty of other cases, but I'll use my own personal case as an example. I was diagnosed with temporary anterograde amnesia following a car accident I was in. My father arrived on the scene shortly after it happened and he recounted my words . I would repeat phrases like "What happened? and "I hope he's ok, can I check on him" which is perfectly in line with my personality and shows I have a distinct identity. I repeated this phrase for as long as I was conscious. That 24 hour block of memory is blank in my mind. I have reconstructed the events logically, but it's devoid of the depth of experience needed to relate it as an experience.Ok, so you're going to say "well you still had access to your distant memories". OK I can see that, let's take my grantmother. She had Alzheimer's disease and suffered a fall that left her completely devoid of any memory near the end of her life. She didn't recognize anyone or know where she was or why she was there or events in her life. She would still ask the orderly with a "hey you, could I get a soda" which clearly defines an identy (edited for clarity).

I got a late start and that's all I have time for now, discuss.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

It doesn't follow. In the instances I read (at least half) and my personal experiences with amnesia, the person still had a self-identity or multiple self-identities. I don't think the I can be absent from the definition of self-aware. As long as we are aware of ourselves as different than what we percieve outside of us I can't see when the I would go away.

I think there is spectrum of amnesia and you experienced a temporary amnesia. Certainly you would not argue that our identity is independent of memory.

Counter- He defeated this himself by the next sentence. 'we know precisely which brain regions control many fundamental aspects of human consciousness.' It's an asolutest statement that begs the question. We don't know everyhing about the brain therefore we don't know all aspects of the mind to come to said conclusion.

Well, there is no 'brain theory' as far as I know, but there is enough evidence for the relationship between thought and matter to say that thought is dependent on matter and as someone else said here 'the mind' is high-level way of talking about very physical interactions. see 'high-level languages in Computing'

---

Premise 4- "After all, if there is an immortal soul, why would it be subordinate to flawed biology? If there is a god who is fair and just, and who punishes or rewards us for our actions, he would not set things up so that these actions can be dictated or altered by brain chemistry, genes, or other factors over which we have no control. Unless he is an unjust tyrant, he would make our actions the result of the individual's free choice. This is consistent with the idea of consciousness arising from a spiritual soul not subject to the weaknesses of the physical body. "

---

Counter - He's assuming that the immortal trait in the soul is some grandeous thing preventing it from the effects upon it. The soul is just another way of calling the human self-identity, whether it exists beyond death or not is the question we're discussing. There have been cases of people coming out of a vegatative state, deep coma and even brain death and having perfectly normal lives, with their identiy intact. That in itself proved that the termination of brain function does not kill the identity of self, as in "my name is" or "I want/need...". Why should it be a temproary state and not eternal? The rest of the quote is just his personal bias and emotive language.

There are extreme cases of memory disorders, mental disorders, or brain damage that would affect a persons idea of their identity if not strip them entirely of being aware that they have an identity. Could you name some examples of people that have survived (or been misdiagnosed with) 'brain death'?

---

Premise 5- "Without memory, a person's identity is irrevocably altered. The effects of this condition are consistent with the materialist prediction that the mind is unified with the brain, but seem considerably more difficult to reconcile with dualism. "

There are plenty of other cases, but I'll use my own personal case as an example. I was diagnosed with temporary anterograde amnesia following a car accident I was in. My father arrived on the scene shortly after it happened and he recounted my words . I would repeat phrases like "What happened? and "I hope he's ok, can I check on him" which is perfectly in line with my personality and shows I have a distinct identity. I repeated this phrase for as long as I was conscious. That 24 hour block of memory is blank in my mind. I have reconstructed the events logically, but it's devoid of the depth of experience needed to relate it as an experience.Ok, so you're going to say "well you still had access to your distant memories".

---

OK I can see that, let's take my grantmother. She had Alzheimer's disease and suffered a fall that left her completely devoid of any memory near the end of her life. She didn't recognize anyone or know where she was or why she was there or events in her life. She would still ask the orderly with a "hey you, could I get a soda" which clearly defines an self-awareness.

In the end of your rebuttal to the last 'premise', your example confuses 'identity' with 'self awareness'. Did you know that one of the unifying properties of life is 'response to stimuli'?

---

No Ghosts In The Brain by Dr. PZ Myers http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...1227813170#

[Atheist_named_Christian]

Here's a page with a lot of brain disorder examples and how they relate to supernatural claims, especially the soul, http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html .

Just read through this completely - I can only recommend reading this to anyone! It's great!
It is only the small part about free will, where I disagree (it's also not scientific but pure speculation, which is OK). In my opinion, "free will" is only a concept of humanity, that makes it easier to abolish and persecute behavior counterproductive to the survival of our species - I think this is what is finally given in the text, but what comes before that is simply unnecessary (and also not correct, IMO).

[tackattack]

---

It doesn't follow. In the instances I read (at least half) and my personal experiences with amnesia, the person still had a self-identity or multiple self-identities. I don't think the I can be absent from the definition of self-aware. As long as we are aware of ourselves as different than what we percieve outside of us I can't see when the I would go away.

I think there is spectrum of amnesia and you experienced a temporary amnesia. Certainly you would not argue that our identity is independent of memory.

Counter- He defeated this himself by the next sentence. 'we know precisely which brain regions control many fundamental aspects of human consciousness.' It's an asolutest statement that begs the question. We don't know everyhing about the brain therefore we don't know all aspects of the mind to come to said conclusion.

Well, there is no 'brain theory' as far as I know, but there is enough evidence for the relationship between thought and matter to say that thought is dependent on matter and as someone else said here 'the mind' is high-level way of talking about very physical interactions. see 'high-level languages in Computing'

Premise 4- "After all, if there is an immortal soul, why would it be subordinate to flawed biology? If there is a god who is fair and just, and who punishes or rewards us for our actions, he would not set things up so that these actions can be dictated or altered by brain chemistry, genes, or other factors over which we have no control. Unless he is an unjust tyrant, he would make our actions the result of the individual's free choice. This is consistent with the idea of consciousness arising from a spiritual soul not subject to the weaknesses of the physical body. "

Counter - He's assuming that the immortal trait in the soul is some grandeous thing preventing it from the effects upon it. The soul is just another way of calling the human self-identity, whether it exists beyond death or not is the question we're discussing. There have been cases of people coming out of a vegatative state, deep coma and even brain death and having perfectly normal lives, with their identiy intact. That in itself proved that the termination of brain function does not kill the identity of self, as in "my name is" or "I want/need...". Why should it be a temproary state and not eternal? The rest of the quote is just his personal bias and emotive language.

There are extreme cases of memory disorders, mental disorders, or brain damage that would affect a persons idea of their identity if not strip them entirely of being aware that they have an identity. Could you name some examples of people that have survived (or been misdiagnosed with) 'brain death'?

Premise 5- "Without memory, a person's identity is irrevocably altered. The effects of this condition are consistent with the materialist prediction that the mind is unified with the brain, but seem considerably more difficult to reconcile with dualism. "

There are plenty of other cases, but I'll use my own personal case as an example. I was diagnosed with temporary anterograde amnesia following a car accident I was in. My father arrived on the scene shortly after it happened and he recounted my words . I would repeat phrases like "What happened? and "I hope he's ok, can I check on him" which is perfectly in line with my personality and shows I have a distinct identity. I repeated this phrase for as long as I was conscious. That 24 hour block of memory is blank in my mind. I have reconstructed the events logically, but it's devoid of the depth of experience needed to relate it as an experience.Ok, so you're going to say "well you still had access to your distant memories". OK I can see that, let's take my grantmother. She had Alzheimer's disease and suffered a fall that left her completely devoid of any memory near the end of her life. She didn't recognize anyone or know where she was or why she was there or events in her life. She would still ask the orderly with a "hey you, could I get a soda" which clearly defines an self-awareness.

In the end of your rebuttal to the last 'premise', your example confuses 'identity' with 'self awareness'. Did you know that one of the unifying properties of life is 'response to stimuli'?

---

No Ghosts In The Brain by Dr. PZ Myers http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...1227813170#

---

1-The long term effect of my amnesia was obviously temporary. The type however, was anterograde. No I'm not arguing that our identity is independent of memory. Our identity is based off a great many sensory inputs. I am not however going to argue that our identity is based solely off of our memory which is wha your arguement infers.

2-"...enough evidence for the relationship between thought and matter to say that thought is dependent on matter.. " yes I completely agree, however the question is whether it rests solely in the material. The material is the best test for the type of evidence you're looking for. I'm assume you're a materialist. However from a materialist perspective, how would you possibly be able to accept anything other than material evidence?

3-Yes there are plenty that can affect the identity (split it, diminsh aspects of it) I'm not aware of any that would completely erradicate the identity without of course brain death (Which doesn't kill identity, imo). If you have specific examples please specify them.

4- I agree that sometimes brain death is a misdiagnosis, ony related to the higher functions of the brain.. but I don't think it's always. Here's the first one I came across http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html Many advancements have been done in suspended animation and use of the standstill operation.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

1- i think we really need agree on a useful definition for identity.

2- I think 'it' rests solely in the material. I know you believe that our memory, thoughts, mental processes, whatever may become separate from our nervous system and we disagree here. Could you make your question clearer for me please, or try to explain its meaning or where you are going with this question.

1-

4- i'll be checking out your source but superficially I see a source that profits from providing a confirmation bias.

---

your source for someone who was accused of 'brain death' who came back alive and was not misdiagnosed seems to be more of an example of 'the out of body experience' than an example of a 'dead person' coming back to life. I find the procedure performed by Dr. Michael Sabom as your example of 'brain death' to be contradictory since doctors, according to your source, consider the procedure "allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success."

"his operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. "

again i see this as an exaggeration. I'm pretty sure that if you drain all the blood out of your head, you will suffer significant brain damage.

finally if you click at the link they provide to the standstill procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest, you aren't directed to a reputable scientific or medical source; instead you're directed to another dramatized story about the procedure written in the New York Times in 1990. This doesn't look good for your source's credibility at all... sorry

[tackattack]

1-ok you go ahead and give us one, I'll critique if I see it as necessary
2-this point is about a materialist standpoint on the subject. If the most correct answer, however provable or unporvable, ends up being something immaterial, would you be able to set aside your materialist standpoint on just this matter?
4-Here's an abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9738100 I don't have access to their actual studies. It's pretty simple abstractly: Cool the body, use a machine to circulate blood wait for all brain responses (upper and lower) to be 0, fix the problem and then reverse. Albeit most are already experiencing brain problems prior to this stage.
Regardless if there was indeed a brain death clinicaly then the identity would cease at that point from your perspective. It seems very testable, if anyone's survived actual brain death with a self-identy then the identity doesn't rest solely in the physical brain. Would that be valid?

Also why'd you ignore 3?