Why splitting the brain doesn't split consciousness

Those are interesting thoughts you had.

From my perspective, several things come to mind.

1. As far as I'm aware, split-brain patients/subjects continue to exhibit just a single personality.

2. Separate from this topic, there is of course the known phenomena of Dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder (MPD). This is not associated with split-brain as far as I'm aware. It is unrelated.

3. Colloquially speaking, the idea of left-brain versus right-brain has entered popular culture, supposedly one side is creative, another side rational and so on. Personally I take that with a pinch of salt. I tend to think the division in this case may not have anything to do with the split-brain at all, but may instead be illustrating a division between the material brain and the non-physical consciousness. But, it is not possible during our present-day establishment to express things in those terms, so instead the left-right language is used, since it is more politically correct.

From what I understand, the popular theory of split brain patients was that it created two separate conscious agents in a single person which could have their own wants and personalities (as indicated by the title of this thread), though it also seems like there were issues with the idea from the start (as mentioned in that second paper I linked).  The seeming explanation for why only one personality being seen is the idea of the left brain being the talker while the right brain isn’t but can still somewhat express itself through the hand it controls (though I think I’ve seen a case of a hemispherectomy that only left the right side and the person could talk). And I’m aware of some anecdotes like the one mentioned in one of the above posts and more serious cases of alien hand syndrome. 

Regardless of the validity of the theory, the thought still got stuck in my head and I needed to follow the line to relax.

Spiritualism has some teachings that explain things like Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). Perhaps they could also at least partially explain in a non-materialistic way the splitting off or dissociating of parts of a person's psyche due to the trauma of a physical splitting of the brain.

This is the concept of soul fragments, which according to these teachings can be split off by the soul due to various causes. From http://www.spiritrelease.org/background/...gments.php:

"When the soul first connects with the body to begin the process of incarnation it is in a very pure state. Its first links are quite tenuous but as the foetus starts to develop so more aspects are able to unite with the physical and this process continues after birth. At a certain stage as the baby begins to develop the soul has within itself the capability of creating aspects of itself to hold and contain memory patterns. If these become too painful the patterns are moved away from the immediate environment of the psyche.

Each of these separate parts needs a tiny aspect of the soul's consciousness to sustain it.

If we return to the metaphorical analogy of the house then to begin the process the infant's psyche is held within one room. If problems occur then parts of the self or sub-personalities are created to hold these discordant energies. These can then be placed in their own separate room, so that the intensity of the pain does not overwhelm the psyche. They are still connected but the potency of the energy they hold is symbolically reduced by the thickness of the walls. Each of these separate parts, a sub personality, needs a tiny aspect of the soul's consciousness to sustain it. In effect a soul fragment is required to infuse the sub-personality aspect to maintain its existence.

As the infant continues to grow more sub-personalities continue to be created in response to trauma. Sometimes these aspects of the self are fully aware of each other and sometimes they become separated off and locked in their own inner world, particularly if the trauma is intense.

The Higher Self (HS) is aware of all of these divisions but does not interfere unless specifically requested so to do.

The executive self, the part that we normally associate with our conscious controlling mind can easily lose track of these different aspects of the psyche, particularly if they hold very traumatic memories. If they are holding deep pain then there will often be a fear of connecting to them. Whilst in this state they normally are still under the jurisdiction of the protection of the Soul's energy."

Spiritualism has some teachings that explain things like Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). Perhaps they could also at least partially explain in a non-materialistic way the splitting off or dissociating of parts of a person's psyche due to the trauma of a physical splitting of the brain.

This is the concept of soul fragments, which according to these teachings can be split off by the soul due to various causes. From http://www.spiritrelease.org/background/...gments.php:

Interesting. I’ve only been aware of the basic Christian idea of the soul, but I guess there are other dualist outlooks that allow the soul to be split or fragmented in some way. Though I’m not sure how I feel about using it as an explanation of multiple personalities. I did also consider that the trauma of the split brain could result in the person dissociating in a weird way.

Interesting. I’ve only been aware of the basic Christian idea of the soul, but I guess there are other dualist outlooks that allow the soul to be split or fragmented in some way. Though I’m not sure how I feel about using it as an explanation of multiple personalities. I did also consider that the trauma of the split brain could result in the person dissociating in a weird way.

I don’t think the spiritualist explanation has much if anything to do with splintered souls. More to with people being influenced by discarnate souls eg overshadowing and/or possession.

Prescott had a recent post about this:

In my post from 2017, I focused on the possibility that a common argument against survival had been undermined. But when I look at it now, it occurs to me that Pinto's study amounts to something close to positive evidence for survival. After all, if the two hemispheres of the brain still have a single locus of consciousness despite minimal connectivity, it would strongly suggest that consciousness originates outside the brain and simply uses the brain as an instrument — or at the very least, that consciousness, having originated in the brain, assumes some kind of extracerebral status that can persist even when the brain has been seriously impaired.

In other words, either consciousness originates in "the cloud" and is downloaded to the brain as needed, or consciousness originates in the brain and is periodically uploaded to "the cloud" for safekeeping. Either way, the destruction of the brain at death should not necessarily affect the content stored in the cloud.

For what it's worth, my personal view is that both of these options are correct: there is a give-and-take relationship between the brain and consciousness, similar to the back-and-forth communications between a Mars Rover and Mission Control, with data from the Rover transmitted to Mission Control, and Mission Control analyzing those data and sending back instructions. Note that the Rover has a degree of autonomy, analogous to reflex, instinct, or any learned behavior that has become automatic; it can respond immediately to certain problems without waiting for advice from Mission Control. I believe I first came across the Rover analogy in The Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton.

Additional evidence for the contention that consciousness can be extracerebral may perhaps be found in the work of John Lorber, who discovered that some people with very limited gray matter can nevertheless function normally, and Karl Lashley, who found that no matter what part of a rat's brain he excised, or how much of it, the rat could still remember how to navigate a maze.

For me, the analogy with "back-and-forth communications between a Mars Rover and Mission Control" illustrates exactly why the model is wrong. The Mars Rover and Mission Control, are never in sync. Because of the time taken for radio signals to travel (anything between 4 minutes and 24 minutes depending on orbital location), essentially the Rover has to be self-controlled, its activities governed by its own on-board computers. There is no possibility of direct control from Earth.

The analogy with the brain I'd suggest is rather different. Firstly because consciousness isn't brain-based, there is no such delay or lack of synchronisation involved. On the other hand, I accept that the body does have its own autonomous systems governing its functionality, such as heartbeat and other bodily functions. The brain is also one of these local functionalities, giving the body some autonomous capabilities. But I find the idea of periodic upload or download to be misrepresenting the way things are.

Perhaps I'm misreading things. It's just that I see a less significant role for the brain, and consider the entire body to be where we reside. I was thinking the other day, when we give someone a hug, we don't grab hold of their head and cradle their brain in our arms. We already know that isn't where the person is.

For me, the analogy with "back-and-forth communications between a Mars Rover and Mission Control" illustrates exactly why the model is wrong. The Mars Rover and Mission Control, are never in sync. Because of the time taken for radio signals to travel (anything between 4 minutes and 24 minutes depending on orbital location), essentially the Rover has to be self-controlled, its activities governed by its own on-board computers. There is no possibility of direct control from Earth.

The analogy with the brain I'd suggest is rather different. Firstly because consciousness isn't brain-based, there is no such delay or lack of synchronisation involved. On the other hand, I accept that the body does have its own autonomous systems governing its functionality, such as heartbeat and other bodily functions. The brain is also one of these local functionalities, giving the body some autonomous capabilities. But I find the idea of periodic upload or download to be misrepresenting the way things are.

Perhaps I'm misreading things. It's just that I see a less significant role for the brain, and consider the entire body to be where we reside. I was thinking the other day, when we give someone a hug, we don't grab hold of their head and cradle their brain in our arms. We already know that isn't where the person is.

Good point. Perhaps the better analogy would be a moon rover such as the original Soviet Lunokhod human-controlled robot in the 1970s. It had some autonomous functions, but was primarily controlled by the operators back on Earth. The transmission delay was short enough to allow this to work.

As to the role of the physical brain compared to the rest of the body, I think the brain has by far the most important role, with probably the heart the next most important organ. Neuroscience research is totally misinterpreted by brain-mind materialists, but I think they are right that the brain has a commanding role while in life.