Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 28, 2016 21:56:55 GMT -6
Recently I discovered that not all split-brain patients are equal. It has been my assumption that they ARE equal, meaning that if you cut he corpus, then you wind up with two minds – and it was that simple. Cut the corpus, poof, two minds, and this happens in each and every case. (Spoiler: it's not.)
It turns out that it's not that simple and that's what fascinating about what I've discovered. My previous assumption was based on how split-brain cases are discussed today – with the context that the most interesting thing about split-brain patients is that they exhibit a sort of dual-mind syndrome. Within this context, it's not very interesting, and thus, it's not talked about that many split-brain patients don't develop two minds. That fact is almost so uninteresting to be taboo to speak about, in fact, I had to stumble across this fact by finding an article in some scientific journal from the late 70's which was from a time when the dual-mind syndrome had just been proven.
It turns out that it wasn't easy to prove. Why? Well, the fact that they had to find a split-brain patient which the experimenters could communicate with clearly and distinctly using a language both the experimenter and the secondary, silent brain could understand – English, so it can be asked clear questions and they can get back clear answers.
As the article spins the legend, they found just such a candidate, set up a direct line of communication with the 'silent' right brain, and whala! The idea that split-brain could develop two distinct minds was no longer an unproven possibility but it could then be said that split-brain cases CAN and DO develop dual-minds. That is now ancient history, and not really what interests me so much as to what was generally known at the time that's also been generally lost and not really considered within current research and discussion of split-brain cases:
The difference between a split-brain case that develops dual-minds and those who do not depends on the right brain's ability to process language. Like... holy... shit. Did you catch that? What this means is (explicitly said the article) is that language is necessary for a mind to form. But wait... it's not that simple.
I know of one case of someone who was born totally deaf who grew up (if I remember correctly, up until their 20's) without any understanding of language what-so-ever. It's interesting to read his recollections of his life before and during the time he “figured out language” because he speaks as if he was able to think, know, and process within his own mind, albeit all this was limited to his own head with no shared symbols to communicate these 'thoughts' to anyone else.
If we take that case as a basis for interpretation of those split-brain patients, then the real issue is merely the ability to communicate so that a mind can be proven by outside, independent researchers. It doesn't mean, as assumed in the article, that no mind develops.
Sadly, I was originally very curious about the difference, only to figure out what I wrote above as I wrote it.
So, switching gears for a second, there are some other interesting things about this article. The left brain seems not so aware of the right brain, and, further more, the left brain seems to be a bit pretentious and the right brain quite a bit more authentic. For example: when asked what the ideal job would be, the left brain verbally answered “a draftsman”. The right brain: “race car driver.” It was well known that the subject had a passion for cars, which the right brain also readily admits. In comparison, the left brain seems to be busy fooling itself.
Now, here's an open question: How does this possibly shed light on anything related to the occult or Fourth Way? Could it possibly even shed light on something like attaining “knowledge and conversation with the HGA?”
It turns out that it's not that simple and that's what fascinating about what I've discovered. My previous assumption was based on how split-brain cases are discussed today – with the context that the most interesting thing about split-brain patients is that they exhibit a sort of dual-mind syndrome. Within this context, it's not very interesting, and thus, it's not talked about that many split-brain patients don't develop two minds. That fact is almost so uninteresting to be taboo to speak about, in fact, I had to stumble across this fact by finding an article in some scientific journal from the late 70's which was from a time when the dual-mind syndrome had just been proven.
It turns out that it wasn't easy to prove. Why? Well, the fact that they had to find a split-brain patient which the experimenters could communicate with clearly and distinctly using a language both the experimenter and the secondary, silent brain could understand – English, so it can be asked clear questions and they can get back clear answers.
As the article spins the legend, they found just such a candidate, set up a direct line of communication with the 'silent' right brain, and whala! The idea that split-brain could develop two distinct minds was no longer an unproven possibility but it could then be said that split-brain cases CAN and DO develop dual-minds. That is now ancient history, and not really what interests me so much as to what was generally known at the time that's also been generally lost and not really considered within current research and discussion of split-brain cases:
The difference between a split-brain case that develops dual-minds and those who do not depends on the right brain's ability to process language. Like... holy... shit. Did you catch that? What this means is (explicitly said the article) is that language is necessary for a mind to form. But wait... it's not that simple.
I know of one case of someone who was born totally deaf who grew up (if I remember correctly, up until their 20's) without any understanding of language what-so-ever. It's interesting to read his recollections of his life before and during the time he “figured out language” because he speaks as if he was able to think, know, and process within his own mind, albeit all this was limited to his own head with no shared symbols to communicate these 'thoughts' to anyone else.
If we take that case as a basis for interpretation of those split-brain patients, then the real issue is merely the ability to communicate so that a mind can be proven by outside, independent researchers. It doesn't mean, as assumed in the article, that no mind develops.
Sadly, I was originally very curious about the difference, only to figure out what I wrote above as I wrote it.
So, switching gears for a second, there are some other interesting things about this article. The left brain seems not so aware of the right brain, and, further more, the left brain seems to be a bit pretentious and the right brain quite a bit more authentic. For example: when asked what the ideal job would be, the left brain verbally answered “a draftsman”. The right brain: “race car driver.” It was well known that the subject had a passion for cars, which the right brain also readily admits. In comparison, the left brain seems to be busy fooling itself.
Now, here's an open question: How does this possibly shed light on anything related to the occult or Fourth Way? Could it possibly even shed light on something like attaining “knowledge and conversation with the HGA?”