Is a split brain consistent with a soul?

[Psi 5]

I have posted this elsewhere and it failed to get any response so I am trying it in its own thread.

AP wire service. June 15 20XX, Seoul, Korea.
In an historic 14 hour operation yesterday, Dr. Kim Sun Hi succeeded in transplanting the right hemisphere of the brain of an unidentified twin into the twins brother who was born anencephalic. The brother, who was born without a cerebrum, would have died if life support were removed. He is now off life support and showing signs of awareness.
This operation was only recently made possible by advances in nerve regeneration and rejection prevention. Nerve regeneration will allow the half brain to completely control the body, unlike previous experiments that severed the corpus callosum nerve bundle that normally connects the two halves of our brain together. The results of this operation are unknown and will probably provide some surprises. Anything from a dysfunctional mind to a psychic connection between the brothers has been speculated. Only time will tell.

The above is obviously fictional but it will happen someday. Nerve regeneration and rejection will be conquered soon making the above experiment inevitable.

The question is, if we have a soul. Can it be split? Would we even have a brain split in two hemispheres if we had a soul? Does the fact that we in effect have two brains prove there is no soul? Will the two halves still be connected and cause a psychic bond (quantum entanglement of the soul?)?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Why would having a soul entail having a brain?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I take it you're using definition one, which points to the brain. Definition two doesn't tho.

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

 

[Psi 5]

I guess I should have known someone would think that maybe the soul is in our fingernails or elbows. Well, I don't think I am losing my soul by clipping my nails or donating a kidney. If the soul does not reside in the brain, where then?

A thought experiment. I remove your brain and offer your 2 halves (body and brain, but I think only one will respond) a choice. I will transplant someone elses brain in your body and your brain in another body. Then I will destroy one or the other, your choice. Which would you choose (key word here being you)?

or

If I removed your brain and destroyed your body and then kept your brain alive and aware (Donovan's Brain), do you honestly think that I destroyed your soul? Would you say yes if I asked you (your brain) that?

If anyone still thinks the soul resides outside the brain start your own thread elsewhere, I am assuming that it is in the brain if it exists.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Do protists have souls? Sponges? Jellyfish? Or is it just animals that have brains? Or just humans? Even if its just humans, why would it reside in the physical if it is spiritual? Or are you identifying the phenomenon of consciousness with soul?

If we go with humans, I can see how it has to be tied to physical, or else souls wouldn't be tied to individual bodies (as you are pointing out). I wonder what astrology has to say about this (no jokes please)

 

[Sikz]

The soul is consciousness or contains consciousness, and if it stores memory it stores it seperately from the brain, in a place not accessible by the same methods as physical memory.

Even if brains can be transplanted by half, this will not disprove the existence of the soul; this is by the same principle by which faulty memory, hallucinations, and temporary unconsciousness do not disprove it. The fundamental propery of the soul-- the only premise of the soul's existence that is agreed upon by all to exist-- is consciousness. The fact that it is known only to exist in neurologically advanced animal species (namely humans) might lead to speculation that the soul is designed to store memory and/or perform other brain-like functions.

My point is this; the soul, if it exists, has no direct connection to memory or, consequently, conscious personality. The soul's inherrent consciousness would still exist in periods of unconsciousness; the brain would simply not remember it. The splitting of one fully functioning brain into two fully functioning brains would (assuming, as seems likely, that no strange psychic phenomena would take place) merely provide a new "vessel" for a soul to attach to in the transplanted portion-- or, concievably (but more frighteningly), stretch one soul out over two bodies (this would not necessitate a "psychic link" between brains because only consciousness would be shared-- not knowledge or memory).

It's equally possible, if not more, that such an experiment would prove impossible in the first place and that both halves of the brain would die or cease conscious function; which obviously has no impact on the question of the soul.

 

[Sikz]

I guess I should have known someone would think that maybe the soul is in our fingernails or elbows. Well, I don't think I am losing my soul by clipping my nails or donating a kidney. If the soul does not reside in the brain, where then?

A thought experiment. I remove your brain and offer your 2 halves (body and brain, but I think only one will respond) a choice. I will transplant someone elses brain in your body and your brain in another body. Then I will destroy one or the other, your choice. Which would you choose (key word here being you)?

or

If I removed your brain and destroyed your body and then kept your brain alive and aware (Donovan's Brain), do you honestly think that I destroyed your soul? Would you say yes if I asked you (your brain) that?

If anyone still thinks the soul resides outside the brain start your own thread elsewhere, I am assuming that it is in the brain if it exists.

The soul, by definition, is meta-physical. As such, it does not "occupy" any physical organ/location; the soul would be connected to the brain, not within the brain.

The brain is important because it allows for memory and information processing; without these, consciousness could not record information, think, or learn. Even if the soul contains redundancies of these functions, it is obvious that when connected to a body/brain, the brain's functions are experienced consciously and the soul's are not.

So it is obvious that the soul would be connected to the brain or, at least, that we would only be aware of those souls that are connected to brains. Any connection it might have to a fingernail is trivial; the fingernail does not function to enhance consciousness in any way, and thus its loss is not important. The brain, however, aids consciousness by allowing memory and personality-- the functions of the brain, when "felt" by consciousness, become the "mind". (Whether there is some separate level of "mind" peculiar to the soul that allows personality to be carried beyond death is irrelevant to the current discussion.)

 

[Psi 5]

When the experiment I outlined takes place, half the memory will be transferred with half the brain. I think experiments with people who have had the other operation I mentioned prove this. Are you saying that one of the halves, though intelligent and reasoning, will be a soulless automaton? Or are you saying the 2 independantly operating beings that are a result of the operation are sharing one soul? LOL to either of those.

 

[Psi 5]

Do protists have souls? Sponges? Jellyfish? Or is it just animals that have brains? Or just humans? Even if its just humans, why would it reside in the physical if it is spiritual? Or are you identifying the phenomenon of consciousness with soul?

If we go with humans, I can see how it has to be tied to physical, or else souls wouldn't be tied to individual bodies (as you are pointing out). I wonder what astrology has to say about this (no jokes please)

If we have a soul I have to believe it resides in anything that also has a brain. Our brain isn't much different than any other brain.

I am not saying I don't believe we have a soul. I am self-aware and it is hard to reconcile consciousness with being nothing but a bio-machine. But I look at all sides of any argument and I know that the operation I stated in the first post will happen sooner or later, there is no doubt about it. I jumped right to a human experiment but we will see this in an animal first. All it really requires is cellular regeneration and we know that is possible therefore inevitable. We can also say with fair certainty that both halves of the brain will be self aware. With those givens and the assumption of a soul, what happens to it when the brain is split into two separate beings?

 

[Pengwuino]

Whose to say your soul is in your brain if you have one? Maybe its in your nose and when you sneeze, it's your soul being sick of you and wanting to run away :P

 

[dubmugga]

I remember when I first heard about cloning and thinking if there is a soul what happens to it when you replicate yourself ?

 

[Psi 5]

Whose to say your soul is in your brain if you have one? Maybe its in your nose and when you sneeze, it's your soul being sick of you and wanting to run away :P

Mine is, maybe yours isn't.

 

[Psi 5]

I remember when I first heard about cloning and thinking if there is a soul what happens to it when you replicate yourself ?

Cloning is essentally no different than natural birth. People generally forget that identical twins are clones yet they aren't exactly the same people despite being genetically identical at birth and they obviously have their own souls. This is nothing like what I proposed which is splitting the vessel of the soul after it has already occupied it.

I assume the brain is the vessel of the soul. I assume this because we have been able to remove just about everything else from people without them ceasing to be themselves, damage the brain and they are no longer what they once were.

I don't buy into this crap that we are human at the moment of conception. We aren't, humanity requires a brain. People are born without a brain sometimes (anencephalic), the brain never develops though the rest of the body does. Is that a human being? Does it have a soul? Was it human at conception though it was destined to never develop a brain? I don't think so, it is nothing but a vegetable that looks human and was from the start.

 

[jimmie]

I don't buy into this crap that we are human at the moment of conception. We aren't, humanity requires a brain

Please define what is the "moment of conception".

Please define what we, humanity, is at the "moment of conception".

 

[Psi 5]

Please define what is the "moment of conception".
Please define what we, humanity, is at the "moment of conception".

It's when the sperm fuses with the egg, a single cell is the result.

I don't think we are anything until the brain starts to function.

To take what I have been saying even further, this can't be the time a soul would inhabit the potential human because it could turn into many humans after this, anything from twins on up. Or are souls hanging around like sharks hoping for the tell tale split that signals multiple births? I don't think so. I believe that the soul would inhabit the brain when it starts to function.

 

[dubmugga]

Cloning is essentally no different than natural birth. People generally forget that identical twins are clones yet they aren't exactly the same people despite being genetically identical at birth and they obviously have their own souls. This is nothing like what I proposed which is splitting the vessel of the soul after it has already occupied it.
I assume the brain is the vessel of the soul. I assume this because we have been able to remove just about everything else from people without them ceasing to be themselves, damage the brain and they are no longer what they once were.
I don't buy into this crap that we are human at the moment of conception. We aren't, humanity requires a brain. People are born without a brain sometimes (anencephalic), the brain never develops though the rest of the body does. Is that a human being? Does it have a soul? Was it human at conception though it was destined to never develop a brain? I don't think so, it is nothing but a vegetable that looks human and was from the start.

you assume too much...

...cos i don't buy into this soul crap

and i would beg to differ that cloning is nothing like natural birth nor is an identical twin an exact replica of each other...

so what would you say we are at the moment of conception if not human ?

 

[Sikz]

you assume too much...
...cos i don't buy into this soul crap
and i would beg to differ that cloning is nothing like natural birth nor is an identical twin an exact replica of each other...
so what would you say we are at the moment of conception if not human ?

At the moment of conception we are nothing. A human, at least in the sense of a conscious human being, does not exist until the brain begins to function.

If you don't think the brain is necessary, what is? What would you say we are at the moment the egg cell that will eventually become us is created and the sperm cell's components are floating about among various food items? What would you say we are at the moment, a few billion years ago, when the subatomic particles that would one day become our embryos were adrift in the forming universe?

At some point you must stop going back in time, if you are to differentiate a human being from the rest of the universe. Because the brain defines your memories, personality, etc etc and cannot be removed without the removal of the "self" and of your capabilities (as opposed to the removal of an arm or a hair), its development is a reasonable, if not the only reasonable, point at which to ascribe the development of humanity/consciousness.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

you assume too much...
...cos i don't buy into this soul crap
and i would beg to differ that cloning is nothing like natural birth nor is an identical twin an exact replica of each other...
so what would you say we are at the moment of conception if not human ?

I agree, having the same genes doesn't make two people exactly the same. You can have completely different experiences, and varied responses. There is evidence in a lot of studies that it's about 50/50 nature/nurture influence. Even if genes influenced/controlled you in most of your behaviors, your environment is never exactly the same which will lead to variation in thought and behavior. Physically, you can't ever be in the same place at the same time, so memories will be different. Plus, if you were cloned, you'd have the experience of being someone's clone, not of being that person.

btw, is the soul eternal? or is it temporal like the body? these should have bearing on the question of how you link humanity and soul.

another quick tidbit - http://therealastrology.com/HTML/ASKKEVIN/990223b.html" take on twins:

As far as the rest of the chart goes, and in situations when the twins have the same Ascendant and Moon signs, what usually happens is that they divide up the chart between them. One twin will express the Sun, the other the Moon; one may express the Mars, while the other expresses the Venus energy. It’s not that they don’t each have the ability to experience all of the planets in the chart; but while they are living together, they tend to stick to the planets that they "own."

When twins grow up and start living apart from each other, they begin to express the whole chart–they no longer feel the need to share it with their sibling. But when they are together, their behavior patterns tend to revert, and they will once again split the chart between them.

I think that one reason that many twins, particularly identical twins stay so close through their lives, is that they don’t fully realize that they can own and express their entire natal chart; they have gotten so used to only being responsible for half of the chart, and relying on their sibling for the other half, that they may be afraid that they would not be able to exist without the support of their twin
...
As you’ve already realized, even though your daughters share very similar charts, and an undeniable bond being twins, they are very different individuals, and already lead different lives. Remember: we have absolute free will and it’s not so much what’s in our chart that matters as it is how we’ve experienced it, and how we’re choosing to express the energies.

 

[Psi 5]

you assume too much...
...cos i don't buy into this soul crap
and i would beg to differ that cloning is nothing like natural birth nor is an identical twin an exact replica of each other...
so what would you say we are at the moment of conception if not human ?

Identical twins are identical genetically at birth, same as clones. The only difference between a clone and a twin is how the same genetic material is inserted in 2 separate people, the result is the same, 2 people with the exact same genetic makeup at birth. Until some sort of artificial womb is invented, clones will be born by natural childbirth just like a twin. Assuming a perfect clone, clones and twins are the same. A twin arises from a cell splitting and each copy has the same genes, a clone is started by a cell given the same genes as another cell, it's the same thing. A rose by any other name...

 

[Conehead]

It's when the sperm fuses with the egg, a single cell is the result.
I don't think we are anything until the brain starts to function.
To take what I have been saying even further, this can't be the time a soul would inhabit the potential human because it could turn into many humans after this, anything from twins on up. Or are souls hanging around like sharks hoping for the tell tale split that signals multiple births? I don't think so. I believe that the soul would inhabit the brain when it starts to function.

This is a good thread. I suspect most are avoiding it because it's gets complicated immediately.

Anyway, I don't have a real lock on my own opinion. But I'll just say that I think it's too messy trying to assume there's a connection between the soul and any particular part of the body. It just doesn't seem to work out right.

Psi, are you talking about a soul in the Christian, heaven, hell, kind of way or more of a spiritual soul. There are some different definitions out there.

 

[moving finger]

At the moment of conception we are nothing. A human, at least in the sense of a conscious human being, does not exist until the brain begins to function.

I think the point at which we can say "a human exists" is debatable. Some would argue it is the point at which a foetus is capable of living independently of the womb. This "point" is changing as medicine improves.

In the UK, for example, the time limit for most abortions was reduced in 1990 from 28 to 24 weeks in order to take account of the increasing ability of medical procedures to keep premature babies alive.

At 24 weeks many newborn babies, given good medical care, will survive – some in good health, some with developmental problems, some with the need for long-term support and treatment. Some babies have been kept alive from an even earlier point than 24 weeks.

As far as consciousness is concerned however - there is evidence that consciousness is still developing for the first 12 to 18 month's of life, and is certainly not fully developed at birth.

But at what stage would we say that the "soul" starts to exist? Anyone who believes in the existence of the soul care to try and answer this one (and give your reasons for your beliefs)?

MF

 

[Psi 5]

...
Psi, are you talking about a soul in the Christian, heaven, hell, kind of way or more of a spiritual soul. There are some different definitions out there.

What I am trying to say is that if the soul exists in the Christian sense, it can't be divided. What I am saying is that if it exists in the real world it can and will be split by the experiment I described.

 

[DoAPoodle]

Cool

in a book by Sylvia Browne, a psychic (Im faithful) she says that our souls in Heaven can have a double consciousness, can be in two places at once. Sorry to continue, but the only that stumps me is if there were 3 brains made from the original. The soul is immaterial, not only resides in the brain but the entire body. Perhaps only a piece of the soul would come with the piece of brain, yeah?

 

[Psi 5]

in a book by Sylvia Browne, a psychic (Im faithful) she says that our souls in Heaven can have a double consciousness, can be in two places at once. Sorry to continue, but the only that stumps me is if there were 3 brains made from the original. The soul is immaterial, not only resides in the brain but the entire body. Perhaps only a piece of the soul would come with the piece of brain, yeah?

If you believe that don't donate a kidney.

 

[DoAPoodle]

hah

due to the object that holds consciousness?wth was u talkin about?

 

[Quasarus]

I want to ask you, guys,
do you experience the 'Being of myself' as a first person perspective?
Do you feel being like a subject that sees and feels reality as object?

 

[LightbulbSun]

I have posted this elsewhere and it failed to get any response so I am trying it in its own thread.

AP wire service. June 15 20XX, Seoul, Korea.
In an historic 14 hour operation yesterday, Dr. Kim Sun Hi succeeded in transplanting the right hemisphere of the brain of an unidentified twin into the twins brother who was born anencephalic. The brother, who was born without a cerebrum, would have died if life support were removed. He is now off life support and showing signs of awareness.
This operation was only recently made possible by advances in nerve regeneration and rejection prevention. Nerve regeneration will allow the half brain to completely control the body, unlike previous experiments that severed the corpus callosum nerve bundle that normally connects the two halves of our brain together. The results of this operation are unknown and will probably provide some surprises. Anything from a dysfunctional mind to a psychic connection between the brothers has been speculated. Only time will tell.

The above is obviously fictional but it will happen someday. Nerve regeneration and rejection will be conquered soon making the above experiment inevitable.

The question is, if we have a soul. Can it be split? Would we even have a brain split in two hemispheres if we had a soul? Does the fact that we in effect have two brains prove there is no soul? Will the two halves still be connected and cause a psychic bond (quantum entanglement of the soul?)?

You're begging the question by assuming such a concept exists.

http://skepdic.com/soul.html

Work done by philosophers and psychologists based on the assumption of a non-physical entity, which somehow inhabits and interacts with the human body, has not furthered human understanding of the working of the mind. Instead, it has furthered superstition and ignorance while hindering the development of any real and useful knowledge about the human mind. More promising is the work of those who see consciousness in terms of brain functioning and who try to treat 'mental' illness as primarily a physical problem.

 

[TVP45]

Most philosophical and religious theories define soul in terms of some type of awareness, principally of self. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, describes this (put simply) as the intelligence to say "I". In this limited definition (many recent theories, particularly politicized ones, have sought to expand this scope), a brain portion that can function well enough to have an awareness of "itself" has a soul.

 

[TVP45]

Most philosophical and religious theories define soul in terms of some type of awareness, principally of self. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, describes this (put simply) as the intelligence to say "I". In this limited definition (many recent theories, particularly politicized ones, have sought to expand this scope), a brain portion that can function well enough to have an awareness of "itself" has a soul.

And, of course, fifteen minutes after I posted this, I realized I had left out the important modifier "western". Many eastern philosophies and religions (and also western ones which stress meditation) will define soul more in terms of "the breath of life".

 

[Quasarus]

Originally Posted by Sikz
The brain is important because it allows for memory and information processing; without these, consciousness could not record information, think, or learn. Even if the soul contains redundancies of these functions, it is obvious that when connected to a body/brain, the brain's functions are experienced consciously and the soul's are not.

So it is obvious that the soul would be connected to the brain or, at least, that we would only be aware of those souls that are connected to brains. Any connection it might have to a fingernail is trivial; the fingernail does not function to enhance consciousness in any way, and thus its loss is not important. The brain, however, aids consciousness by allowing memory and personality-- the functions of the brain, when "felt" by consciousness, become the "mind". (Whether there is some separate level of "mind" peculiar to the soul that allows personality to be carried beyond death is irrelevant to the current discussion.)

This point of view seems to be self contradicting.
If it is true, souls have to be passive in our world and all sentences here would be generated without souls' participation.

 

[OOO]

What I am trying to say is that if the soul exists in the Christian sense, it can't be divided. What I am saying is that if it exists in the real world it can and will be split by the experiment I described.

Of course soul can be divided ! Otherwise, how could you explain that you have your own consciousness while your mother/father/girlfriend/boyfriend/neighbour have their own ? That's a plain fact.

Similarly splitting someones brain by cutting the corpus callosum produces very strange effects in that individual and anyone with compassionate understanding has to admit that this can only be explained by the concept of two souls in one body.

On the other hand the split brain patients also give us some understanding for what holds this world together: these patients learn to recognize what the opposite hemispheres "think" by means of observing what their body halves do. The communication over the senses (especially sight and proprioception) somehow compensates the lack of communication over the corpus callosum. But this form of communication is slower than the "healthy" one and I'm pretty sure that these people feel much different from when they had a healthy brain.

So it seems quite obvious to me that the existence of "one soul" is incompatible with definitions of "individual consciousness" and "typical human timescales" (seconds to about 80 years). The only way to claim that there is one soul in this world is to loosen the definition of "soul" in the sense of things that happen within femtoseconds up to billions of years and which are not immediately accessible to our every day consciousness. But then what does this broad definition of "soul" help ? Maybe awareness of the consequences of our actions ?

 

[Quasarus]

Of course soul can be divided ! Otherwise, how could you explain that you have your own consciousness while your mother/father/girlfriend/boyfriend/neighbour have their own ? That's a plain fact.

Similarly splitting someones brain by cutting the corpus callosum produces very strange effects in that individual and anyone with compassionate understanding has to admit that this can only be explained by the concept of two souls in one body.

On the other hand the split brain patients also give us some understanding for what holds this world together: these patients learn to recognize what the opposite hemispheres "think" by means of observing what their body halves do. The communication over the senses (especially sight and proprioception) somehow compensates the lack of communication over the corpus callosum. But this form of communication is slower than the "healthy" one and I'm pretty sure that these people feel much different from when they had a healthy brain.
So it seems quite obvious to me that the existence of "one soul" is incompatible with definitions of "individual consciousness" and "typical human timescales" (seconds to about 80 years). The only way to claim that there is one soul in this world is to loosen the definition of "soul" in the sense of things that happen within femtoseconds up to billions of years and which are not immediately accessible to our every day consciousness. But then what does this broad definition of "soul" help ? Maybe awareness of the consequences of our actions ?

Can you reveal the source?

 

[OOO]

Can you reveal the source?

It's been some time since I have dealt with these matters and I'm certainly no neuropsychologist. As I remember

• Alexander Lurija (don't know the name of the book, Edit: in English it's "The Working Brain")
• Oliver Sacks - The man who mistook his wife for a hat (it's a popular book)

 

[granpa]

isnt the real question here whether the 'self' can be divided?

What I am trying to say is that if the soul exists in the Christian sense, it can't be divided. What I am saying is that if it exists in the real world it can and will be split by the experiment I described.

isnt the real question here whether the 'self' can be divided?

if your body can be composed of limbs which are composed of organs which are composed of cells then i see no reason why the 'self' can't be composed of smaller 'selfs'.

 

[OOO]

isnt the real question here whether the 'self' can be divided?

if your body can be composed of limbs which are composed of organs which are composed of cells then i see no reason why the 'self' can't be composed of smaller 'selfs'.

Exactly. And there is lots of evidence for that. We don't even have to get to so-called pathological states like "multiple personality" for that. Memory of every healthy person is context dependent. People behave differently at work from when they're at home without realizing it. And this is only the temporal aspect of being split. Even when we're talking to someone we may look at things/sensations from different angles and if this happens unconsciously it can appear like different personalities almost fighting against each other. I'd even say that this is the normal state of affairs.

So one should rather ask, from where comes the illusion of a preferred personality called "ego" ?