This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Split brain patients with opposing beliefs - heard of this before?
the final bahamut 8 years ago#31
You know what I think?
Genesis 2:7 "...and the man came to be a living soul"



Why am I not surprised to learn that you have bible quotes where your thoughts should be?
E ys Bahamut! oui risyhc puna sa! Oui uvvaht sa cahcac!!!
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
8 years ago#32
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought people would be discerning enough to infer that I did not believe in a soul being separate from the body.
Just in case you aren't: "I think the soul is not even a thing, but just another way of saying "alive". Plants and Animals are also souls. Nobody has a soul, but they are souls.
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops

User Info: Josiah_Revived

Josiah_Revived
8 years ago#33
This topic made me think of something funny: a split-brain patient with this atheist/theist dichotomy goes to church and then snaps into atheist mode. "Wait... what the Hell am I doing inside a church?! Religion is bull****!"

*people stare*

*theist mode kicks in*

"Praise the Lord! Aaaaaammmmeeeeennnnnn!"

Other people: O_o

User Info: cyclonekruse

cyclonekruse
8 years ago#34
Faust_8 posted...
The example I gave was of a faulty mass air flow sensor. That too is not simply a perceived difference in behavior. That is an actual difference caused by the hardware.

Actually in your first example you were only talking about the perception of his driving style. Not what actually changed. :P

Kinda splitting hairs, I know.


Well, you only know someone's personality by interacting with or at least observing them. To say their personality changed is to say that your perception of their personality changed. Because if you didn't perceive a change, then the problem wouldn't even come up.

So, while I did talk about perception, it wasn't only about perception. It's like saying we observe objects falling to earth because of gravity. I'm not talking about the observation itself but the reason for the observation.

I suppose you can interpret it that way, but you have to admit it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence concerning the existence of the soul.

It reconciles the soul hypothesis with observation. That was my only goal. Those who aren't confident that a soul exists will not be swayed. That's clearly true.

Also, why would god do that on purpose? Why would he make your soul HAVE to go through your brain to act on your body, when the brain can be damaged? It's questions like these that make people stop believing in stuff like this.

How would I know why God did it this way? If you see him, you can ask him.

I do want to note something else and this is just my opinion, so fair warning. I don't think hard-to-answer questions are a good reason to stop believing. Just because you can't imagine an answer doesn't mean there isn't one. It might just mean you're not creative enough or that you don't know all the relevant data. It's borderline arrogant to suggest that just because you can't come up with a resolution that it must be false.

Personally, I think a much more powerful argument is the lack of evidence. Simply say there's no reason to believe X and move on. Again, that's just my opinion.
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"

User Info: hero boy

hero boy
8 years ago#35
cyclonekruse posted...
hero boy posted...
I can use the analogy because it's not really an answer so much as it is a counterexample. The challenge posed was to demonstrate how a soul could exist given that altering the brain alters personality. I gave an analogy trying to show that just because there is a shift in personality does not necessarily mean a soul cannot exist. That's all.


I suppose, but who's to say that a person's driving the car at all?
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

User Info: kirsybuu

kirsybuu
8 years ago#36

From: cyclonekruse | Posted: 5/30/2011 5:10:30 AM | #014
It could still only mean one driver. Maybe you were never in the car but controlling it remotely. And you have two controls, one for the left wheels and one for the right wheels. Your new half-cars would clearly have different driving characteristics than the whole car did.

Also, from the video it is unclear whether both these personalities are present at all times. Perhaps the "person" is jumping back and forth between the two halves and the difference in the information that each half has is causing different answers to questions.


First, split brain people have both halves active simultaneously. Second, there's a difference between acting different before and after brain damage versus each half acting different to each other. Even if you had a splittable car with two engines and the stability of a motorcycle, there's no reason for the remote driver to let one half drive legally and the other run red lights and cut people off (for example).

Well, you only know someone's personality by interacting with or at least observing them. To say their personality changed is to say that your perception of their personality changed. Because if you didn't perceive a change, then the problem wouldn't even come up.


In the case of the split brain patient, perception doesn't play a role. The different halves were answering a straight-forward question about their beliefs and giving different answers.
"sabe que no puede resistir mis encantos sensuales." ~ Poolshark128

User Info: cyclonekruse

cyclonekruse
8 years ago#37
hero boy posted...
I suppose, but who's to say that a person's driving the car at all?

It certainly feels like I'm driving my car/body. Whether "I" truly am or not is up for debate. "I" could simply be an after-the-fact construct that my brain creates after making all the decisions itself.

But I do think that carries some problems. For example, why would my brain do this? It seems like a massive waste of energy to perpetually create a state of consciousness if it doesn't do anything but observe decisions after the brain has made them already. Why can't the brain just make the decisions and act upon them? Why am "I" involved at all?

kirsybuu posted...
First, split brain people have both halves active simultaneously.

Consciously active, though? Lots of your brain is on autopilot all the time where "you" are unaware of it. That's not very significant.

Second, there's a difference between acting different before and after brain damage versus each half acting different to each other. Even if you had a splittable car with two engines and the stability of a motorcycle, there's no reason for the remote driver to let one half drive legally and the other run red lights and cut people off (for example).

You make the assumption here that the hardware is the same for both halves. That's not true. Clearly, the left half of the brain has different hardware than the right half. So even if you had the same user, s/he would still act differently because on one side s/he'd have access to language and on the other side s/he'd have access to emotional memories and so on. It would be like one side having access to brakes and the other side having access to better steering or something.

In the case of the split brain patient, perception doesn't play a role. The different halves were answering a straight-forward question about their beliefs and giving different answers.

Don't get too hung up on the word "perception." If you had kept reading what I was writing after the quoted section, you'd see that I was using "perception" like "observation." And, yes, observation always plays a role. if we hadn't observed the different behavior of the two halves, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. And again, we aren't talking about the observation itself but the reason behind the observation.
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"

User Info: Dagorha

Dagorha
8 years ago#38
Consciously active, though? Lots of your brain is on autopilot all the time where "you" are unaware of it. That's not very significant.

Define conscious. If you mean if each side is aware then yes, both are very aware it is just you can't verbalize what happens to one of the sides because only one side has language but the other side can tell you what it saw for instance if you ask it to draw it.

You make the assumption here that the hardware is the same for both halves. That's not true. Clearly, the left half of the brain has different hardware than the right half. So even if you had the same user, s/he would still act differently because on one side s/he'd have access to language and on the other side s/he'd have access to emotional memories and so on. It would be like one side having access to brakes and the other side having access to better steering or something.

Yes and no, the two sides would not act different unless you treated them as different, because it is rare for any occurrence to happen outside of a lab procedure in which only one side gets information, ergo the person would not act different because each side is still getting the same info. One side of the body doesn't just go nuts all of a sudden. It is still one brain and they still attempt to work together even though direct communication is not possible. The actual person is still just one person with one brain. All that has changed is the method in which they can communicate and relay information.
You don't get a gold star for being less bloody stupid than another bloody stupid person when you are still demonstrably bloody stupid. -the final bahamut

User Info: cyclonekruse

cyclonekruse
8 years ago#39
Dagorha posted...
Define conscious. If you mean if each side is aware then yes, both are very aware it is just you can't verbalize what happens to one of the sides because only one side has language but the other side can tell you what it saw for instance if you ask it to draw it.

You can be aware of things without being consciously aware of them. That should be almost self-evident from your own experience. You can remember things that you didn't pay attention to, say if someone jogs your memory.

And both sides have language. Or more precisely, different aspects of language. "Language" is split over many areas of the brain. There's the understanding of spoken language, the understanding of written language, grammatical processing centers, motor control for when you have to speak, etc. Just a nitpick there. And I'm just as guilty for this imprecision as you, but it must be noted that if both hemispheres didn't have language, then asking the one side without language to draw what it sees would do nothing. Language is required to understand that request.

Yes and no, the two sides would not act different unless you treated them as different, because it is rare for any occurrence to happen outside of a lab procedure in which only one side gets information, ergo the person would not act different because each side is still getting the same info. One side of the body doesn't just go nuts all of a sudden. It is still one brain and they still attempt to work together even though direct communication is not possible. The actual person is still just one person with one brain. All that has changed is the method in which they can communicate and relay information.

That seems to fly in the face of the arguments I've been getting this entire time. If it's just one person, then how can it be both an atheist and a theist? If you're arguing that personhood hasn't changed, then you seem to not be arguing against the idea of a soul.
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"

User Info: Dagorha

Dagorha
8 years ago#40
That seems to fly in the face of the arguments I've been getting this entire time. If it's just one person, then how can it be both an atheist and a theist? If you're arguing that personhood hasn't changed, then you seem to not be arguing against the idea of a soul.

Duh, there is only one person with one brain. Just because communication is down between sections doesn't mean that there is two people. The person in question though I can not say for sure what they are given what is shown here. You would need to ask the person as a whole to get the "right" answer. You don't make assumptions based on what half of the person says, you base it around what both sides say. He could be either an atheist or a theist, it all depends on what side of the brain has a more convincing argument in his own mind. This isn't any different from any of us because both sides still control how he acts and how he feels when presented with both information. The only time it ever makes a difference is when one side is presented with a stimulus the other side isn't and even then the body uses cross-cuing in order to relay some of the information over to the other side. All i am arguing is that there is only one person.

You can be aware of things without being consciously aware of them. That should be almost self-evident from your own experience. You can remember things that you didn't pay attention to, say if someone jogs your memory.

That doesn't make sense. I am fully aware of almost everything i do in my life from moment to moment but that doesn't mean i'm going to remember it all.

And both sides have language. Or more precisely, different aspects of language. "Language" is split over many areas of the brain. There's the understanding of spoken language, the understanding of written language, grammatical processing centers, motor control for when you have to speak, etc. Just a nitpick there. And I'm just as guilty for this imprecision as you, but it must be noted that if both hemispheres didn't have language, then asking the one side without language to draw what it sees would do nothing. Language is required to understand that request.

This is true but it was not my point. I was being simplistic.
You don't get a gold star for being less bloody stupid than another bloody stupid person when you are still demonstrably bloody stupid. -the final bahamut
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Split brain patients with opposing beliefs - heard of this before?
  • Topic Archived