5 ms·

You're ignoring several confounders and conflating several loosely related things that I'm not even sure what the point you're making is anymore. To begin with

You're ignoring several confounders and conflating several loosely related things that I'm not even sure what the point you're making is anymore. To begin with, the split-brain experiments don't provide clear or strong evidence for anything given the small sample size, heterogeneity in procedure (i.e. was there complete comissurotomy or just callosotomy) and the elapsed time between neuropsychiatric evaluation and initial procedures which relies on the assumption that adaptation does not occur and neuroplasticity is not a thing. The split-brain experiments are notable because the lab experiments SUGGEST the lack of communication between two hemispheres and a split conscious however this is paradoxical with everyday experience of these patients, far from providing evidence for anything. Ignoring that for a moment, how do the split-brain experiments support 'the brain has many semi-independent “interests” that are jockeying for overall control of the organism’s behavior'? How is addiction self-contradictory exactly and what does this have to do with split-brain? If your point is that different parts of the brain (e.g. the reward system and the executive function regions) have different roles this isn't really debatable, obviously different parts of the brain are all doing their individual jobs and the most widely accepted theory is that these are integrated in some unknown mechanism by a single consciousness which remains in control. Your original statement of: does the brain know what the brain is doing. The answer so far does not seem to be "yes." Suggests you're arguing that the brain has many different consciouses that are in a constant battle, i.e. there is not a unified consciousness in control of behavior. To take your addiction example, the brain is very much aware of what it is doing and addiction is not self-contradictory because short term rewards are being valued above long-term ones and health of the organism. The reward system model provides an excellent neurobiological explanation for addiction. This is not directly evidenced by either addiction or the split brain experiments and is at best a hypothetical model hence why it's a theory and my original response to your statement.

ethanbond 3y ago
I'm not "ignoring" them at all. I'm saying that they point to interesting questions that are not answered. > The split-brain experiments are notable because the lab experiments SUGGEST the lack of communication between two hemispheres and a split conscious however this is paradoxical with everyday experience of these patients, far from providing evidence for anything. It is not "paradoxical" but yes it does conflict with some reported experience. However, even healthy individuals often report being "of two minds" or struggling to "make up their [singular] mind." Why are these utterances to be dismissed while the also-subjectively-reported sensation of unitary experience is taken as fact? > Suggests you're arguing that the brain has many different consciouses that are in a constant battle, i.e. there is not a unified consciousness in control of behavior. I wouldn't characterize my position as "many different consciousnesses," but rather that consciousness is dispersed across (at least) the brain. In some scenarios (such as a corpus callosotomy) and perhaps in more everyday scenarios - perhaps all day every day - that dispersed activity can fall out of internal "synchronization." Anyway, you provided the exact same interpretation in the previously quoted section: "the lab experiments SUGGEST the lack of communication and a split consciousness." You just go one step further of prioritizing the subjectively reported sensation of unitary consciousness over also-subjectively-reported sensation of non-unitary consciousness. That's your prior taking hold, not mine, and not actual evidence. You yourself admit we do not know the mechanism (if any exists) by which the activity in various parts of the brain are integrated. We do not know if this process actually even occurs! Regarding addiction, it is very, very commonly reported that addicts will go into "autopilot" like states while satisfying their addictions and only "emerge" when they have to face consequences of their behaviors. Again, subjectively reported, but so is the experience of unitary consciousness! If we cannot trust one then we shouldn't take it as granted that we can trust the other. I get the sense you think you're arguing against some firmly held belief or a model I'm proposing as fact: you're not! We're both saying "we don't know much about how this works." And no, neurochemical mechanisms are not complete answers to how brain activity ladders up to conscious experience, similar to how a molecular model of combustion cannot explain much about urban traffic patterns.
- haldujai 3y ago
  I'm arguing against the strength of your statements based on methodologically unsound experiments that do not "very very clearly indicate" anything beyond pose a few questions for which there are several different hypothetical answers. All of which have zero evidence behind them. Similarly, the initial comment of 'does the brain know what the brain is doing. The answer so far does not seem to be "yes."' is misleadingly suggesting there is a shred of evidence supporting that the answer is 'no' or that the answer is 'not yes'. There are no answers so far, just questions. If anything, there are more unified consciousness hypotheses than otherwise, although if you refer back to my original reply I did not make this assertion: 'I think the correct statement is "so far the answer is we don't know"' > It is not "paradoxical" but yes it does conflict with some reported experience. Rather than belabour the experiment results and implications here is a great peer-reviewed article by experts in the field: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7305066/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7305066/ > Regarding addiction, it is very, very commonly reported that addicts will go into "autopilot" like states while satisfying their addictions and only "emerge" when they have to face consequences of their behaviors. Again, subjectively reported, but so is the experience of unitary consciousness! If we cannot trust one then we shouldn't take it as granted that we can trust the other. The dopamine reward system understanding (which by the way is probably the most well-validated and widely believed model in neurobiology) provides a rational explanation for addiction. You haven't explained what is self-contradictory, that a few case reports exist of patients claiming they went in and out of consciousness? That's not a contradiction.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    The split brain experiments clearly indicate exactly what I said they clearly indicate. To refresh: "that different parts of the brain can independently conduct behavior and gain knowledge independently of other parts". From your own linked article: "In short, callosotomy leads to a broad breakdown of functional integration ranging from perception to attention." If the dopamine reward system is the full answer, then what explains drug addicts anguishing about their addiction while simultaneously actively seeking out their next hit? What part of the brain is producing the anguish if the whole behavior is conclusively described by the dopamine reward system?

ethanbond 3y ago

I'm not "ignoring" them at all. I'm saying that they point to interesting questions that are not answered. > The split-brain experiments are notable because the lab experiments SUGGEST the lack of communication between two hemispheres and a split conscious however this is paradoxical with everyday experience of these patients, far from providing evidence for anything. It is not "paradoxical" but yes it does conflict with some reported experience. However, even healthy individuals often report being "of two minds" or struggling to "make up their [singular] mind." Why are these utterances to be dismissed while the also-subjectively-reported sensation of unitary experience is taken as fact? > Suggests you're arguing that the brain has many different consciouses that are in a constant battle, i.e. there is not a unified consciousness in control of behavior. I wouldn't characterize my position as "many different consciousnesses," but rather that consciousness is dispersed across (at least) the brain. In some scenarios (such as a corpus callosotomy) and perhaps in more everyday scenarios - perhaps all day every day - that dispersed activity can fall out of internal "synchronization." Anyway, you provided the exact same interpretation in the previously quoted section: "the lab experiments SUGGEST the lack of communication and a split consciousness." You just go one step further of prioritizing the subjectively reported sensation of unitary consciousness over also-subjectively-reported sensation of non-unitary consciousness. That's your prior taking hold, not mine, and not actual evidence. You yourself admit we do not know the mechanism (if any exists) by which the activity in various parts of the brain are integrated. We do not know if this process actually even occurs! Regarding addiction, it is very, very commonly reported that addicts will go into "autopilot" like states while satisfying their addictions and only "emerge" when they have to face consequences of their behaviors. Again, subjectively reported, but so is the experience of unitary consciousness! If we cannot trust one then we shouldn't take it as granted that we can trust the other. I get the sense you think you're arguing against some firmly held belief or a model I'm proposing as fact: you're not! We're both saying "we don't know much about how this works." And no, neurochemical mechanisms are not complete answers to how brain activity ladders up to conscious experience, similar to how a molecular model of combustion cannot explain much about urban traffic patterns.

haldujai 3y ago
I'm arguing against the strength of your statements based on methodologically unsound experiments that do not "very very clearly indicate" anything beyond pose a few questions for which there are several different hypothetical answers. All of which have zero evidence behind them. Similarly, the initial comment of 'does the brain know what the brain is doing. The answer so far does not seem to be "yes."' is misleadingly suggesting there is a shred of evidence supporting that the answer is 'no' or that the answer is 'not yes'. There are no answers so far, just questions. If anything, there are more unified consciousness hypotheses than otherwise, although if you refer back to my original reply I did not make this assertion: 'I think the correct statement is "so far the answer is we don't know"' > It is not "paradoxical" but yes it does conflict with some reported experience. Rather than belabour the experiment results and implications here is a great peer-reviewed article by experts in the field: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7305066/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7305066/ > Regarding addiction, it is very, very commonly reported that addicts will go into "autopilot" like states while satisfying their addictions and only "emerge" when they have to face consequences of their behaviors. Again, subjectively reported, but so is the experience of unitary consciousness! If we cannot trust one then we shouldn't take it as granted that we can trust the other. The dopamine reward system understanding (which by the way is probably the most well-validated and widely believed model in neurobiology) provides a rational explanation for addiction. You haven't explained what is self-contradictory, that a few case reports exist of patients claiming they went in and out of consciousness? That's not a contradiction.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  The split brain experiments clearly indicate exactly what I said they clearly indicate. To refresh: "that different parts of the brain can independently conduct behavior and gain knowledge independently of other parts". From your own linked article: "In short, callosotomy leads to a broad breakdown of functional integration ranging from perception to attention." If the dopamine reward system is the full answer, then what explains drug addicts anguishing about their addiction while simultaneously actively seeking out their next hit? What part of the brain is producing the anguish if the whole behavior is conclusively described by the dopamine reward system?