What is the nature of the two hemispheres of the brain? What are WE?

[Souper]

 

Once upon a time, i thought of myself not as a brain with its roots stretched far into this pile of chemicals, but a person who was only defined by a face and an arbitrary set of opinions. Then i learned this body has nothing to do with thought, that the only thing i experienced was calculated in a mass of neurons in my head. The rest of my body is nothing but an already-dead shell slaved to what i really was: A brain. The only thing tying it to who i am as a person is the fact it has my DNA. And my exact DNA sequence is what i now use to define myself. It gives me my sense of person back. If it's organic and replicates with my DNA, it's a "part" of me regardless of whether or not it's attached to the pink mass of neurons in my cranium. (not really, but it is "me" because it's my DNA.)

 

And then i found out about Split Brain Syndrome. No, i don't have it. But it told me i was not, in fact, a single brain. I was a divided mess joined only by a single conscience that resulted from their reaction.

 

This scares me because i used to think i was a single, unified brain operating a mindnumbingly complex biological machine with a SINGLE OPINION OF EVERYTHING, that could only change based on events. I used to think i was a single dictator who had total control over my body (except for the parts of me that handled involuntary actions.) Now i'm split? I'm not sure what to define myself as, with my only refuge being good ol' DNA and faces. I know, i'm still the same person; this knowledge changes nothing. But the knowledge leaves me with these many questions:

 

What am i? Am i a specific hemisphere, a neutral conscience taking charge of both or the reaction between the two? And what are the hemispheres? Do they have their own complex opinions and emotions and relations, or are they only partially sapient and need to be combined to achieve complete 'person-ness' (Me)? 

 

What is the nature of identity?

Edited February 27, 2016 by Souper

[RainDreamer]

"I think, therefore I am"

 As long as you are capable of thought, you are at least an individual entity.

[Darnok]

Quote

Do they have their own complex opinions and emotions and relations

 

Try to write using right hand and then left, but mirrored letters it does change your way of thinking.
We are taught of using mainly single "hemisphere" consciously, other one is used by our body for basic tasks.

 

1 minute ago, RainDreamer said:

"I think, therefore I am"

 As long as you are capable of thought, you are at least an individual entity.

As long as you are allowed to shape your thoughts on way you prefer, without need of satisfying views of majority, you are individual entity. Thinking in way that other people wants you to think doesn't make you individual.

And you are free man if you are aware that the only laws limiting you, are those you agreed to obey

 

[Findthepin1]

I don't know. I doubt anyone will know for a very long time.

[Bill Phil]

You're technically both hemispheres.

I can't help but think of Cygnus X-1 Book II: Hemispheres. Great song, you should check it out.

[GluttonyReaper]

22 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

"I think, therefore I am"

 As long as you are capable of thought, you are at least an individual entity.

I wish.

As humans, I personally think we naturally group things together - e.g. these planks of wood make a bookshelf, these cloth fibers make clothes, etc. Arguably, regarding anything as an individual entity is something of a failing in the way our brains work, in the sense that it might not really reflect reality. Why can't we be a collection of parts which just happen to work perfectly in sync almost all the time? 

[RainDreamer]

42 minutes ago, GluttonyReaper said:

I wish.

As humans, I personally think we naturally group things together - e.g. these planks of wood make a bookshelf, these cloth fibers make clothes, etc. Arguably, regarding anything as an individual entity is something of a failing in the way our brains work, in the sense that it might not really reflect reality. Why can't we be a collection of parts which just happen to work perfectly in sync almost all the time? 

Perhaps "we" are just a bunch of neurons firing in certain patterns, and those patterns are what make us, "us".

Although my point when quoting Descartes is that, the capability of thought is perhaps the most basic thing that an individual can use to ascertain their own existence. After all, all your senses might be lies and all your memories might be fabricated ( I could simply be a brain that just hooked up to the matrix 10 minutes ago and you are all fragments of my own imagination) , thus you cannot prove anything exists. But you can at least, prove that you exist as an entity, because you have your thoughts. Even if these thoughts might not be made by your own volition (mind control!), you are still an entity that is capable of being aware of them.

[GluttonyReaper]

3 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

But you can at least, prove that you exist as an entity, because you have your thoughts.

My main gripe with this in general is that "existing" is something which is frustrating difficult to define. It's never been particularly clear whether this is just a human invention or an intrinsic property of ... things. Like, I feel it's not a stretch to say that even if everything and everyone is figment of a person's imagination, these things still "exist", in that the idea of them, at least, still exists enough for us to think about and visualize them. But then you could just as easily say that none of these things exist at all - the idea of something existing in our minds is vastly different from an object absolutely existing. I don't know, I guess my main issue is that I don't feel being aware of my own thoughts gives me any more reason to absolutely exist than anything else, seeing as things like consciousness are so difficult to pin down - trying to prove anything exists in more than a relative sense seems somewhat futile to me, and little more than a human way of processing things.

I don't really know, I get very confused thinking about these things.

[lajoswinkler]

"You" are an emergent property of a multitude of neuron activities based on biochemical reactions. There isn't a special place in the brain where tiny Souper sits and pulls levers.

[StrandedonEarth]

It is commonly thought that the left side of the body is controlled by the right side of the brain, and vice versa. This means that left-handed people are the only people in their right minds.

Also, dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!

[magnemoe]

On 27.2.2016 at 2:27 PM, Darnok said:

 

Try to write using right hand and then left, but mirrored letters it does change your way of thinking.
We are taught of using mainly single "hemisphere" consciously, other one is used by our body for basic tasks.

 

As long as you are allowed to shape your thoughts on way you prefer, without need of satisfying views of majority, you are individual entity. Thinking in way that other people wants you to think doesn't make you individual
And you are free man if you are aware that the only laws limiting you, are those you agreed to obey

We had an professor at the university who was able to write with both hands, no he did not write the same thing on both sides, not sure how useful it was, students has to memorize / write it down anyway, but it was impressive even if mostly an circus act.
 

[Bill Phil]

56 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

We had an professor at the university who was able to write with both hands, no he did not write the same thing on both sides, not sure how useful it was, students has to memorize / write it down anyway, but it was impressive even if mostly an circus act.
 

That's actually a learned trait.

[HebaruSan]

First, you're not your DNA. How do I know this? Because if you had an identical twin, you'd both have the same DNA, but you'd be two different people. A similar argument may or may not apply to your face depending on how detailed you want to be.

On 2/27/2016 at 6:31 AM, Souper said:

This scares me because i used to think i was a single, unified brain operating a mindnumbingly complex biological machine with a SINGLE OPINION OF EVERYTHING, that could only change based on events. I used to think i was a single dictator who had total control over my body (except for the parts of me that handled involuntary actions.) Now i'm split? I'm not sure what to define myself as, with my only refuge being good ol' DNA and faces.

There are multiple ways a system could be said to have a "single opinion." The following are not exhaustive but just presented as food for thought.

One possibility is for that opinion to be the unanimous conclusion of all the sub-systems. So your amygdala agrees with your hippocampus agrees with your limbic system, and so therefore you as an entity have a "single opinion."

Second, it could be that for each kind of decision, some part of the brain is designated as the decision-making area, and whatever it says, goes. Your auditory system says it hears your mother's voice, and no other sub-system has anything to say about it, so that's your "single opinion".

Finally, there might be a diversity of opinions among the sub-systems, from which an overall system-level algorithm picks the "official version". So one part of your brain thinks you're looking at a photo and another part thinks it's a real scene, but the signal coming from the "photo" camp is stronger, so the system manufactures a sense of unanimity in accord with that view, which you call your "single opinion".

I think what we know about the brain so far points mostly to option #3. The corpus callosum is merely one of the pathways through which the signals exchange your many opinions and choose among them. This would be no less the case if those systems were thoroughly spatially intermingled instead of being grouped into two hemispheres.

We're a lot like computers with a bunch of extra survival-oriented machinery that churns out the impression constantly, "I am me".

[micr0wave]

What you perceive is already the past, we're are lagging behind.

Maybe not too wrong to assume that there's some autopiloting going on.

[Souper]

13 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

First, you're not your DNA. How do I know this? Because if you had an identical twin, you'd both have the same DNA, but you'd be two different people. A similar argument may or may not apply to your face depending on how detailed you want to be.

There are multiple ways a system could be said to have a "single opinion." The following are not exhaustive but just presented as food for thought.

One possibility is for that opinion to be the unanimous conclusion of all the sub-systems. So your amygdala agrees with your hippocampus agrees with your limbic system, and so therefore you as an entity have a "single opinion."

Second, it could be that for each kind of decision, some part of the brain is designated as the decision-making area, and whatever it says, goes. Your auditory system says it hears your mother's voice, and no other sub-system has anything to say about it, so that's your "single opinion".

Finally, there might be a diversity of opinions among the sub-systems, from which an overall system-level algorithm picks the "official version". So one part of your brain thinks you're looking at a photo and another part thinks it's a real scene, but the signal coming from the "photo" camp is stronger, so the system manufactures a sense of unanimity in accord with that view, which you call your "single opinion".

I think what we know about the brain so far points mostly to option #3. The corpus callosum is merely one of the pathways through which the signals exchange your many opinions and choose among them. This would be no less the case if those systems were thoroughly spatially intermingled instead of being grouped into two hemispheres.

We're a lot like computers with a bunch of extra survival-oriented machinery that churns out the impression constantly, "I am me".

I AM my DNA. If i had an identical twin, they would as far as i am concerned, Me#2.

[Bill Phil]

3 minutes ago, Souper said:

I AM my DNA. If i had an identical twin, they would as far as i am concerned, Me#2.

You're body is your DNA, and some other related things are also based on it, but you are a compilation of your own experiences, thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc.

[Kobymaru]

8 minutes ago, Souper said:

I AM my DNA. If i had an identical twin, they would as far as i am concerned, Me#2.

This is from a biologist speaking: No. Just because you don't have the same DNA, you're not identical. By far.

DNA is one (important) factor of a biological "state", but there are plenty of other factors too. 

One of the most important ones is Epigenetics: part of your DNA can and will be packed and  shut off, according to similar but not equal patterns. This is why even twins are not identical.
This "shutting off" of DNA depends on the enironment, on your diet, on your stress levels, one could even say on your experiences!

 

Also, the *current* level of various chemicals in the cells determine the you-ness. Lets assume two cells have completely identical DNA, and completely identical "on-off-state". Even then those two cells can behave different because of different levels of interfering RNA molecules (siRNA, Riboswitches).

So no, it's definitely not as simple as that.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Kobymaru

[Souper]

1 hour ago, Kobymaru said:

This is from a biologist speaking: No. Just because you don't have the same DNA, you're not identical. By far.

DNA is one (important) factor of a biological "state", but there are plenty of other factors too. 

One of the most important ones is Epigenetics: part of your DNA can and will be packed and  shut off, according to similar but not equal patterns. This is why even twins are not identical.
This "shutting off" of DNA depends on the enironment, on your diet, on your stress levels, one could even say on your experiences!

 

Also, the *current* level of various chemicals in the cells determine the you-ness. Lets assume two cells have completely identical DNA, and completely identical "on-off-state". Even then those two cells can behave different because of different levels of interfering RNA molecules (siRNA, Riboswitches).

So no, it's definitely not as simple as that.

 

Then what else do i use to define "me"?

... The gene that controls the specific shape of my fingerprint? Can that change? Or is there something else that gives me uniqueness?

Is it even possible to take something out of me that can't be found on another human being? I'm going to guess no. But then again, i don't have an identical twin or brother. Or surviving relative other then my father, so my DNA is unique then?

 

But then, how do people who DO have identical twins differentiate themselves using DNA? Remember, this is not just a scientific thread, it's philosophical as well.

[HebaruSan]

7 minutes ago, Souper said:

Then what else do i use to define "me"?

Personally, I don't think it can be defined; I think the self is an illusory concept. I think there's an organism with various properties (DNA, mental state, contents of bloodstream, etc.), and this organism's data processing system concocts a notion of "self" to tie everything together and motivate survival behaviors, which does not correspond to any one thing in physical reality.

7 minutes ago, Souper said:

... The gene that controls the specific shape of my fingerprint? Can that change? Or is there something else that gives me uniqueness?

Well, you're the only entity with your specific world line through spacetime. Other things may be "unique" as an accidental coincidence, such as a non-twin's DNA, or an injury you sustain playing a sport. But if you could change those things on the fly and remain conscious while it happened, you'd still consider yourself "you", so they're not really essential to your identity.

7 minutes ago, Souper said:

Is it even possible to take something out of me that can't be found on another human being? I'm going to guess no. But then again, i don't have an identical twin or brother. Or surviving relative other then my father, so my DNA is unique then?

The point of the identical-twin thought experiment is that whatever is true about you now, would have to still be true if you did have an identical twin. If one twin murders the other, they do not thereby become more defined by their DNA.

[Kobymaru]

14 minutes ago, Souper said:

... The gene that controls the specific shape of my fingerprint? Can that change?

No.

 

14 minutes ago, Souper said:

Then what else do i use to define "me"?

Or is there something else that gives me uniqueness?

Honestly, I don't subscribe to this notion of uniqueness. I don't really care if there's clones of me running around. I'm a sack of meat running around on a ball of dirt hurtling around a ball of gas. How I define "myself" is the difference between the outside and the inside of said sack. I'm me, no matter how many other "me"'s there are.

 

14 minutes ago, Souper said:

Is it even possible to take something out of me that can't be found on another human being? I'm going to guess no. But then again, i don't have an identical twin or brother. Or surviving relative other then my father, so my DNA is unique then?

But then, how do people who DO have identical twins differentiate themselves using DNA?

Again: the DNA is a pretty lame way to establish uniqueness or a sense of self. You have 70% of genes in common with a banana, but I can't  hear the banana asking "how different am I from souper?"

 

14 minutes ago, Souper said:

Remember, this is not just a scientific thread, it's philosophical as well.

Oh, then I might be in the wrong corner of the forum, sorry. I don't really enjoy philosophical threads, but I did want to point out the scientific flaws in your notion of identity.

[Souper]

Just now, Kobymaru said:

 

 

 a ball of dirt hurtling around a ball of gas.

ball of gas.

gas.

Plasma.

[Kobymaru]

1 minute ago, Souper said:

Plasma.

K.

Close enough for me. Conceptually, it's not even that much of a difference.

[fredinno]

50 minutes ago, Souper said:

 

Then what else do i use to define "me"?

... The gene that controls the specific shape of my fingerprint? Can that change? Or is there something else that gives me uniqueness?

Is it even possible to take something out of me that can't be found on another human being? I'm going to guess no. But then again, i don't have an identical twin or brother. Or surviving relative other then my father, so my DNA is unique then?

 

But then, how do people who DO have identical twins differentiate themselves using DNA? Remember, this is not just a scientific thread, it's philosophical as well.

You can actually have the same fingerprint as someone else. That happens sometimes in forsenics, even if it is unlikely due tothe huge ariey of fingerprint patterns.

[RainDreamer]

2 hours ago, Souper said:

Then what else do i use to define "me"?

The very unique configuration of matters, atoms, particles, that somehow put themselves together to become you in that very precise amount and at the exact positions they are now?

Or perhaps the neurological process of neurons firing in a pattern, as I mentioned above?

But then these views are too grounded in physics to fit a philosophical question like this.

 

[YNM]

As long as you asks, cheers. You're a better creature than most creature out there - only your kind have curiosity, critical thinking and will of experiment. Probably you'll never answer your question but be glad that you have asked.

Vague thinking of "what is me" : anything that process information from the past using some certain sensors (of the past) to predict the future. Surely my eye and my hand without anything to process incoming information and connect the two won't work.