Information

What would happen if we cut the corpus callosum?

What would happen if we cut the corpus callosum?



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

How would a two-halved brain work? If it would, could we still control things like motion, and would hearing, vision, and other senses still function?


Basically the same as a normal two-halved brain. Circumstances in which function is altered are fairly limited. For details, see case reports on Wikipedia's split-brain page, and this episode of Scientific American Frontiers that features Mike Gazzaniga's research, as mentioned here. Gazzaniga's research was reviewed in a Nature news feature (Wolman, 2012), which you may also find helpful.

Also, yes to all questions of control, except maybe hearing… not sure how we control that normally, other than in terms of attention (see "Do we only hear what we want to hear?"), which still operates normally AFAIK. Control breaks down unusually in mostly special circumstances where stimuli are presented to only one side of the brain. Both ears usually hear most sounds, and both eyes' fields of vision overlap quite a lot, so these circumstances need to be created experimentally to demonstrate really clear effects.


I've asked this question about dominance of brain hemispheres. in the question there are examples of drawings made by split brain patients using only one hand and eye at a time. I don't know if using both eyes while drawing produces different results, but the images suggest that the ability to process memory of objects is impaired:


Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divided into the composing parts or not?

Neurocluster Brain Model is the brain model based on neuroscience which demystifies, reveals and explains all religious and occult phenomena.
Millions of people have experienced various religious and occult phenomena however skeptical scientists deny even the existence of such phenomena. The denial of the phenomena is not the solution because the denial provides no explanation why so many people claim to have experienced various religious and occult phenomena. Instead of denial the scientific explanation of underlying mechanisms is needed.
Neurocluster Brain Model provides the scientific explanation of underlying mechanisms of religious and occult phenomena. Neurocluster Brain Model succeeds where other scientific models fail.
For the first time ever all religious experiences (communication with Gods, angels, demons, etc) and psychic powers (mediumship, psychography, telepathy, etc) are revealed and explained in the scientific way.

Brief summary of Neurocluster Brain Model

When a man sees new unknown object for the first time then finite number of neurons in the brain (cluster of neurons) stores information about object's model (how the object looks, how the object moves, how the object behaves, etc).
Information about that object is saved not in the whole brain, but only in the finite “piece of the brain” – the evidence for that are experimental data about brain damage – if the brain is damaged in some local area then brain loses information only about some classes of objects, but not about all objects.
The model of the object is stored inside the “piece of the brain” (cluster of neurons) and this neurocluster acts not only as passive “data file” but also under special conditions this neurocluster can act as “executable file” which can simulate the behavior of stored object for the main personality – this is the underlying mechanism of how religious adepts communicate with spirits/angels/Gods/etc and also the underlying mechanism of other religious and occult phenomena.

The human brain contains billions of neural cells however the man perceives himself as having only one(1) personality, one(1) consciousness, and people who believe in the existence of the soul perceive themselves as having only one(1) soul. Human brain contains billions of neurons however vast majority of people strongly believe that all these billions of neurons contain only one(1) personality, one(1) consciousness, one(1) soul. This “one human body contains one consciousness” model is sufficient to explain the majority of events in casual normal routine life and this is the reason why this model has become de facto accepted model in all human cultures and societies without ever doubting its validity. Medieval scholars were debating the question “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?” (a.k.a. “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”), however nobody has ever raised the question “how many souls can be contained in one human body?” assuming by default that one(1) human body contains only one(1) soul.
However let’s raise a simple question: does this “one human body contains one consciousness” model really can explain all phenomena which happen with human consciousness?
The answer is: “one human body contains one consciousness” model actually fails to explain the vast range of phenomena which happen with human consciousness as it will be shown in this website. Let’s begin with the simple example.
All religions claim that the soul is immortal and indestructible, the soul is unbreakable, and the soul can not be divided into small pieces.
Some religions (like for example Hinduism) claim that besides humans all living creatures have a soul – all animals, plants, trees do have a soul.
What is the source of these claims about soul properties? All religions claim that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired.
Let’s analyze these claims a little bit.
Hinduism claims that every plant has a soul and that the soul is unbreakable and can not be divided into small pieces (Bhagavad-gītā. 2.23-24).

However let’s analyze a simple phenomenon like plant propagation from cuttings. Plant cutting (a.k.a. as striking or cloning) is a technique for vegetatively (asexually) propagating plants in which a piece of the stem or root of the source plant is placed in a suitable medium such as moist soil, potting mix, coir or rock wool. The cutting produces new roots, stems, or both, and thus becomes a new plant independent of the parent.
Using plant cutting technique we can divide one plant into many pieces and every such new piece now has become a separate plant. Since every plant has a soul, this means that one soul of the original plant was divided into many souls using such primitive technique as plant cutting.
As we can see from this very simple example, religious knowledge (which is claimed to have been originated from divine and supernatural sources) about soul properties contradicts very simple well known experimental facts like plant propagation from cuttings.

Now let’s go to the animal kingdom. The male paper nautilus (a.k.a. argonaut octopus) possesses a specialized, extended tentacle, called a hectocotylus, where packets of sperm are stored. When a male paper nautilus detects a female, the hectocotylus detaches from the octopus body and swims towards the female under its own power. The hectocotylus inserts its load into the female’s mantle and can remain active, depositing sperm in her even as its owner goes on his way. The male, essentially, has sex in absentia. The first scientists to observe the hectocotylus in action actually misidentified it as a parasitic worm attached to the female paper nautilus.
Let’s raise a simple question: has hectocotylus a separate soul or not? Religious sacred texts fail to answer such question.

Those were examples about plants and animals, but what about humans? Anyway, there are many people who believe that only humans have souls and these people believe that plants and animals do not have any soul whatsoever.
Let’s raise a simple question: how many souls are contained in conjoined twins (a.k.a. Siamese twins): one or two souls? Religious leaders get very confused when being asked such a simple question because the fact of multiple human souls residing in one physical body contradicts their religious doctrines.
However let’s raise a simple question: how many souls can be contained in one human body? Humanity did not possess tools and technologies which would allow to investigate this question up until the twentieth century. However in the late 1950s things has dramatically changed when neurosurgeons began experiments with the human brain. Some people have epilepsy. Epilepsy is a phenomenon when a small number of neurons in the brain excite themselves via positive feedback neural circuits which leads to the excitation of nearby neurons and this excessive hypersynchronous neuronal activity spreads through large areas of the brain. There are many ways to treat epilepsy however all these treatments share the same common working principle – in order to eliminate the epileptic seizures you need to suppress the excitement of neurons and you need to suppress the spread of the neural excitement through the large areas of the brain. However in some patients all known treatment methods fail and the patient continues to have frequent and strong epileptic seizures. In the late 1950s neurosurgeons decided to try out new drastic method for dealing with such extra hard epilepsy cases. The hypothesis of new treatment method was the following. Human brain consists of two hemispheres which are connected via link which is called corpus callosum. During the epileptic seizure the synchronous neuronal activity originates in one hemisphere and then via corpus callosum it reaches the another hemisphere thus spreading through the whole brain. If we would cut corpus callosum then synchronous neuronal activity which originated in one hemisphere would be stopped from spreading into another hemisphere and this would eliminate epileptic seizure. Several patients with hardest epilepsy cases were chosen to test out the hypothesis and corpus callosum was cut in these patients. Such patients who have their corpus callosum cut are called “split-brain patients”. The hypothesis of neurosurgeons was confirmed to be correct – the cutting of corpus callosum eliminated or greatly reduced epileptic seizures in split-brain patients. However experiments with split-brain patients revealed very interesting side effect of corpus callosum cutting. The left hemisphere controls the right side of the body and the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body. When interconnection between hemispheres (corpus callosum) is cut then both hemispheres begin to act autonomously from each other. For example, when split-brain sits near his wife, the left hand of the patient hugs and fondles the wife, however at the same time the right hand of the patient angrily beats the wife – different hemispheres of the split-brain patient have made different judgments towards the wife and both hemispheres act independently from each other. In other words, the cutting of corpus callosum created two(2) autonomous personalities, which think differently and make different decisions on the same subject and these decisions might be even diametrically opposite. Experiments with split-brain patients revealed that the cutting of corpus callosum produces two(2) autonomous personalities, two(2) autonomous consciousnesses, and for those who believe in the existence of soul – two(2) autonomous souls. Split-brain experiments revealed that one(1) human consciousness can be artificially divided into two(2) consciousnesses by simple cutting of corpus callosum.

When two hemispheres of the (healthy) brain are connected via corpus callosum link then such man is unable to accomplish two different independent tasks with two hands simultaneously because one hemisphere hinders another hemisphere by sending commands via corpus callosum link. For example, if a man takes a pencil into each of two hands and tries to draw two independent pictures with both hands simultaneously (for example a circle with one hand and a square with another hand) – the man will be unable to cope with such task. You can try doing that yourself and see if you will succeed. However when corpus callosum link is cut then after such surgery the man has no troubles to accomplish two different independent tasks with both hands simultaneously – as for example, drawing a circle with one hand and a square with another hand is an easy task for split-brain patient.

Here is the documentary movie which shows experiments with split-brain patient.

Severed Corpus Callosum.
Length: 10 minutes

For some scientific articles about split-brain experiments please click here.
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/split_brain_articles.html

More detailed description of Neurocluster Brain Model is at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com

Max_B

Jim_Smith

Neuroclusterbrain

Atheists use the word “consciousness” instead of the word “soul/spirit”.
The term “consciousness” is exactly the same pseudoscience as the term “soul/spirit”.
Below is the explanation.

In psychology and psychiatry one of the most heavily used terms is “consciousness”.
However let’s raise a simple question: is there any laboratory test which can determine if the concrete object X (man/animal/etc) has consciousness or not? What is the exact list of features which would prove that object X has consciousness? How can we be sure that object X has consciousness or not? As for example, does the amoeba have consciousness or not?
The inconvenient truth is that psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to provide the exact list of features which prove that object X has consciousness, psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to provide any experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not.
If you don’t believe that this is true then here is a little exercise for you personally: where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness.
Below is the definition of “agent” from Wikipedia, a good example of “agents” are computer game characters. The agent can interact with environment while being without any consciousness, for interaction with environment the consciousness is not needed. When agent without consciousness interacting with environment is observed by the outside observer, the observer might incorrectly conclude that this agent has consciousness.

People usually think that it is very easy to prove that “I have consciousness” and they provide a whole bunch of “proofs”, however it is very easy to show that all these “proofs” are incorrect and contain multiple errors.
Here are several typical examples of such erroneous “proofs”.

1) “I can feel pain and I respond to pain, as for example when my finger is cut, I remove the finger and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s rephrase this argument in more scientific way: “my reaction to stimulus proves that I have consciousness”. Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does reaction to stimulus really prove that object has consciousness? We will remind how the fire alarm system works. Fire alarm system has sensors for detecting fire, and when these sensors detect fire or smoke – the fire alarm system reacts instantaneously by sprinkling the water, sounding the alarm and/or accomplishing some other actions. I.e. the fire alarm system has a property of being able to respond to stimulus. However does this mean that fire alarm system has consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with fire alarm system, “reaction to stimulus” is not the proof consciousness.

2) “I can play music and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“The playing of music” – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about people who are unable to play music – are these people without consciousness or not?

3) “I can recognize myself in the mirror and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“Recognizing yourself in the mirror” (a.k.a. mirror self-recognition test) – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about blind people/monkey/etc who are unable to recognize themselves in the mirror – are they without consciousness or not? And what about robots who are able to recognize themselves in the mirror – does this mean that robots have consciousness?

4) “I have goals and I achieve my goals and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does “having goals and achieving goals” really prove that object has consciousness? Artificial intelligent agents, like for example computer game characters, have goals and they are achieving goals too. However does this mean that computer game characters have consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with computer game characters, “having goals and achieving goals” is not the proof consciousness.

5) The list of “proofs” might be endless, however in every case it is very easy to show that every “proof” is incorrect.


The truth is that you cannot provide any evidence which would prove that you have consciousness. There is no experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not. In other words, there are no scientific criteria to determine if object X has consciousness or not, which means that the term “consciousness” is totally useless unnecessary ballast for describing and modeling of the behavior of living organism.
People who use term “consciousness” are unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”, they are unable to provide the list of criteria (the list of features) which would allow to determine if object X has consciousness or not. When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.
The term “consciousness” is unscientific and has nothing to do with science. The term “consciousness” is pure pseudoscience and has no scientific basis whatsoever – you do not agree with that? Ok, in case if you disagree then please go back to our little exercise – where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness. And please do not come back until you have at least one evidence that you have consciousness.
It is important to note however that pseudoscientific term “consciousness” is so deeply rooted into society that this makes almost impossible to avoid it when discussing the functioning of the brain. In Neurocluster Brain Model we use pseudoscientific term “consciousness” only for legacy reasons in order to simplify comprehension of material for the reader – sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.

And by the way, if speaking about tests – in computer science there is such thing as “Turing test”.

However let’s raise a simple question: and what about human who fails to pass the Turing test (like for example man with Down's syndrome, an infant, etc)? How we should call a human who fails to pass the Turing test? What word/term we should use for denoting a human who fails to pass the Turing test? If a human fails to pass Turing test then this raises a simple question: “does such human have consciousness or not?”. As we can clearly see from the above examples, the Turing test is unable to determine if the object has consciousness or not. There is not a single scientific tool which would be able to test for the existence of consciousness which means that the term “consciousness” is 100% pseudoscientific term.

We will explain in more detail the essence of the problem.
Suppose we are sending a probe to a distant planet and the task of the probe is to find out whether there are any objects which have consciousness on this distant planet. In order to solve this problem the onboard computer of the probe needs to contain an algorithm/program, which would test the objects on this distant planet for the presence of the consciousness. We need a detailed list of diagnostic features which would allow determine whether the object X has consciousness or not.

Wikipedia provides the summary of the endeavors of the pseudoscientists trying to define the term “consciousness”:
1) Question: what is the “consciousness”, how can we detect if object X has consciousness or not? Answer: object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness.

David Bailey

Atheists use the word “consciousness” instead of the word “soul/spirit”.
The term “consciousness” is exactly the same pseudoscience as the term “soul/spirit”.
Below is the explanation.

In psychology and psychiatry one of the most heavily used terms is “consciousness”.
However let’s raise a simple question: is there any laboratory test which can determine if the concrete object X (man/animal/etc) has consciousness or not? What is the exact list of features which would prove that object X has consciousness? How can we be sure that object X has consciousness or not? As for example, does the amoeba have consciousness or not?
The inconvenient truth is that psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to provide the exact list of features which prove that object X has consciousness, psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to provide any experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not.
If you don’t believe that this is true then here is a little exercise for you personally: where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness.
Below is the definition of “agent” from Wikipedia, a good example of “agents” are computer game characters. The agent can interact with environment while being without any consciousness, for interaction with environment the consciousness is not needed. When agent without consciousness interacting with environment is observed by the outside observer, the observer might incorrectly conclude that this agent has consciousness.

People usually think that it is very easy to prove that “I have consciousness” and they provide a whole bunch of “proofs”, however it is very easy to show that all these “proofs” are incorrect and contain multiple errors.
Here are several typical examples of such erroneous “proofs”.

1) “I can feel pain and I respond to pain, as for example when my finger is cut, I remove the finger and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s rephrase this argument in more scientific way: “my reaction to stimulus proves that I have consciousness”. Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does reaction to stimulus really prove that object has consciousness? We will remind how the fire alarm system works. Fire alarm system has sensors for detecting fire, and when these sensors detect fire or smoke – the fire alarm system reacts instantaneously by sprinkling the water, sounding the alarm and/or accomplishing some other actions. I.e. the fire alarm system has a property of being able to respond to stimulus. However does this mean that fire alarm system has consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with fire alarm system, “reaction to stimulus” is not the proof consciousness.
2) “I can play music and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“The playing of music” – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about people who are unable to play music – are these people without consciousness or not?

3) “I have goals and I achieve my goals and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does “having goals and achieving goals” really prove that object has consciousness? Artificial intelligent agents, like for example computer game characters, have goals and they are achieving goals too. However does this mean that computer game characters have consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with computer game characters, “having goals and achieving goals” is not the proof consciousness.

4) The list of “proofs” might be endless, however in every case it is very easy to show that every “proof” is incorrect.


The truth is that you cannot provide any evidence which would prove that you have consciousness. There is no experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not. In other words, there are no scientific criteria to determine if object X has consciousness or not, which means that the term “consciousness” is totally useless unnecessary ballast for describing and modeling of the behavior of living organism.
People who use term “consciousness” are unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”, they are unable to provide the list of criteria (the list of features) which would allow to determine if object X has consciousness or not. When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.
The term “consciousness” is unscientific and has nothing to do with science. The term “consciousness” is pure pseudoscience and has no scientific basis whatsoever – you do not agree with that? Ok, in case if you disagree then please go back to our little exercise – where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness. And please do not come back until you have at least one evidence that you have consciousness.
It is important to note however that pseudoscientific term “consciousness” is so deeply rooted into society that this makes almost impossible to avoid it when discussing the functioning of the brain. In Neurocluster Brain Model we use pseudoscientific term “consciousness” only for legacy reasons in order to simplify comprehension of material for the reader – sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.

And by the way, if speaking about tests – in computer science there is such thing as “Turing test”.


A lot of scientists write a computer programs which try to pass a Turing test, as for example one of the best human chat simulating program is “A.L.I.C.E.”.


However let’s raise a simple question: and what about human who fails to pass the Turing test (like for example man with Down's syndrome, an infant, etc)? How we should call a human who fails to pass the Turing test? What word/term we should use for denoting a human who fails to pass the Turing test? If a human fails to pass Turing test then this raises a simple question: “does such human have consciousness or not?”. As we can clearly see from the above examples, the Turing test is unable to determine if the object has consciousness or not. There is not a single scientific tool which would be able to test for the existence of consciousness which means that the term “consciousness” is 100% pseudoscientific term.

We will explain in more detail the essence of the problem.
Suppose we are sending a probe to a distant planet and the task of the probe is to find out whether there are any objects which have consciousness on this distant planet. In order to solve this problem the onboard computer of the probe needs to contain an algorithm/program, which would test the objects on this distant planet for the presence of the consciousness. We need a detailed list of diagnostic features which would allow determine whether the object X has consciousness or not.

Wikipedia provides the summary of the endeavors of the pseudoscientists trying to define the term “consciousness”:
1) Question: what is the “consciousness”, how can we detect if object X has consciousness or not? Answer: object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness.
2) Question: what is the “awareness”, how can do we detect if object X has awareness or not? Answer: object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness. In other words: 1) object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness, 2) object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness. It is obvious that these definitions are circular/recursive definitions. However circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition and have nothing to do with science, here is one practical example of such meaningless circular/recursive definition: “To define recursion, we must first define recursion.” And now let’s raise the question: do such “definitions” of “consciousness” provide any help in making of the algorithm/program which would be able to test the objects for the presence of the consciousness? Obviously, the answer is “no”. It is obvious that such “definitions” have nothing to do with science such blabber is simply the claptrap. It is important to note that many people have no clue whatsoever about what the word “scientific” means. This is due to the simple reason. Universities have huge number of faculties which actually have nothing to do with science. As for example, many universities have “faculty of theology” or “faculty of literature”, and so on. And these “faculties” issue diplomas with academic degrees like “master”, “doctor”, “professor”, etc. And what is the activity of such “professors of theology”, what do they do? They study the superstitious writings called “sacred scriptures” and then debate each other about what did Jesus/Muhammad/Krishna/etc said and who is superior over whom – Jesus is superior to Muhammad or vice versa. They can debate whatever they want, however that is not science, this activity does not meet the scientific criteria. And then such people from universities with academic degrees write books, give lectures, talk on TV/radio, etc – they simply flood the society with their claptrap material. When average common people read/listen to this claptrap material they get the false impression that this material is “science” – and this is due simple reason: the authors of that claptrap material have scientific academic degrees. As the result of this, majority of the population are totally incapable to distinguish science from pseudoscience. As the result of this, they are totally incapable to detect circular/recursive definitions and they are totally incapable to understand that circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition. That is a huge problem in society.

I think this absolutely hits the mark!

I started off being very keen on the idea of AI. To me, it seemed obvious that there would be no difference between (real) artificial intelligence, and artificial consciousness, and I was intrigued by the idea that a computer could be conscious. The idea that digital circuits could shuffle bits, and become conscious in that way, seemed superficially absurd, but then, so did the idea of curved space-time - so I was prepared to suspend judgement! However, I gradually realised that there was no grand theory behind classical AI - just a concerted effort to produce a program that would look as if it were conscious. A program that faked AI was essentially the same as one that exhibited it!

I suppose this was for me the start of my move towards a suspicion that there was a lot more to consciousness than is normally recognised. As you point out repeatedly, physical science has absolutely no grip on the phenomenon of consciousness, all it can ever hope to do is correlate certain things in the brain to conscious phenomena. Even in that limited domain, I suspect it is easy for science to find correlations that aren't real:

Indeed, I have become fairly sceptical of a lot of scientific claims, as you may have noticed from my posts!

I have had very few experiences that I could honestly call psychic - maybe one, and we also had a cat that seemed to anticipate us coming home (like Sheldrake's dogs) so I think my main reason for leaning towards the concept on a non-material realm of consciousness, is the realisation that consciousness doesn't fit in the physical world. Sheldrake's work, NDE's, and various other experiments serve to strengthen my conviction.

I also agree about conventional religion. I don't want to 'believe' in the religious sense, I am happy to have what I consider strong evidence for a non-material world/possible consciousness after death etc without requiring to have the absurd certainty that religious people claim. IMHO, this form of bogus certainty also fuels a lot of the hatred between religions.


Lecture 7- Vision II: Central processing Flashcards Preview

What are the characteristics of the M ganglion cells?

-magnocellular=large cells -large receptive fields -make up about 10% of ganglion cells -motion detection, flicker and analysis of gross features -can tell if sth is moving or not, not good at fine detail

What are the characteristics of the P ganglion cells?

-parvocellular= small cells -more numerous (about 80% of ganglion cells) -provide fine detail (visual acuity) and colour vision

What is this picture showing?

-this pic shows the AP of a P ganglion cels as reacting to different frequencies of light -one ganglion cell, it responds best to one wavaelength= black it is important for carrying info for colour

What is the output region of the ganglion cells?

-many brain regions -mainly the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) in the thalamus

What is the visual pathway?

-starts in the retina= the axons of optic nerve then synapse with the thalamus (LGN), then the LGN neurons have optic radiations (white matter) goes all the way back to the visual cortex V1

Where is the optic chiasm and what happens there?

-lies at the base of the brain, anterior to the pituitary

-the fibres from right and left optic nerves combine to form the optic chasm


Brain

The brain is a mass of nerve tissue located in an animal ’ s head that controls the body ’ s functions. In simple animals, the brain functions like a switchboard picking up signals from sense organs and passing information to muscles. The brain is also responsible for a variety of involuntary behavior, including keeping the heart beating, maintaining blood pressure, and temperature. In more advanced forms, particularly vertebrates, a more analytical brain coordinates complex behaviors. In higher vetebrates, the brain coordinates thinking, memory, learning, and emotions. The brain is part of an animal ’ s central nervous system, which receives and transmits impulses. It works with the peripheral nervous system, which carries impulses to and from the brain and spinal cord via nerves running throughout the body.


What would happen if we cut the corpus callosum? - Psychology

Contents:
1) aggression solutions that don't work
2) solutions that do work
3) aggressive triggers/cues
4) mitigating information
5) sources of aggression

First, some quick definitions:
This post deals with anti-social aggression: aggression which violates social norms. There are two types.

There is also pro-social aggression , which is aggression required by social norms (what the police do), and sanctioned aggression which is allowed by the social norms, such as aggression while playing a sport, or in self-defense. Neither of these will be addressed here.

Provocation is anything which is an event which is irritating or offensive and makes the person want to respond similarly (be irritating or offensive back). In order to provoke someone, the provocation must be perceived as deliberate. If the person legitimately thinks you didn't mean to piss them off, they'll still be pissed, but will not act aggressively. Note that it does not have to actually be deliberate, all that matters is that the person PERCEIVE it that way.


1. Aggressions solutions that don't work.
When you are angry, do NOT punch the wall. This is a huge misconception that has spread like wildfire.

This was based on the idea of catharsis that an emotion must be expressed and let out to relieve it. This may be true of things like sadness, suggesting that when you are sad, bawling your eyes out will help. However, this is not the case for all emotions, such as anger.

When you are angry, studies have demonstrated time and time again that attempting to relieve your aggression through catharsis only increases it. Punching a wall or your pillow, screaming, playing an aggressive sport all of these will only serve to make you more angry and increase your chances of acting out aggressively in the future. If getting it out actually helped, then wouldn't football players and hockey players almost never get in fights off the field? Of course, they might be naturally more aggressive, which draws them to the sport, but despite this the studies still show an increase in their aggression levels. (Bushman, Baumiester, & Stack, 1999).

Another non-solution is punishment. Even Skinner, the man who insisted that we are ruled by a system of punishment and reward, admitted that punishment will not reduce levels of aggression. If your child throws a tantrum, or won't share, or skips school, throw their ass in time out. If they punch the shit out of another kid, you're going to need to find a different solution. As a parent, you might choose to punish them simply on principle (I know I would), but know that that alone will not reduce their aggression levels. They need to learn how to regulate their aggressive emotions more properly, and punishment simply does not do that.

2. Solutions that do work
The solution: incompatible responses. There are certain emotions you can feel at the same time, like happy and sad. We all know that as the experience referred to as 'bitter sweet.' However, some cannot happen at the same time, such as anxiety and calm. You cannot feel them both instead one wins out over the other.

Aggression has three incompatible emotions: sympathy, humor, and mild sexual arousal.

Baron (1983) did the coolest study ever. Through a series of people with walkie talkies watching the approaching vehicles, he managed to get a car first in line at a stop light, containing a researcher, where a single car with a male driver in it and no passengers would pull up behind them.
The picture depicts what happens when a male with no other passengers drives by the assistant. If the car contained a female driver or a number of people then the assistant did not tell them to go.

When the red light turned green, the person in the first car (researcher) would not drive forward until the person behind them (participant) honked, or until it had turned red again and then back to green, meaning you either honk or sit through one entire green light and both red lights. This was done in a less busy part of town, so that only the 'participant' would be behind the researcher.

In the control condition, where this is all that happened, 90% honked their horn.
In the first experimental condition, a woman in rather non-descript, non-provocative dress crossed the street just before it turned green. 89% honked at the car.
In the second condition, a woman in a full leg cast crossed the street before it turned green. Only 57% honked. That means 43% sat through an entire green light, and let it turn back to red, without honking once at the car who had not moved.
In the third, a man in a clown suit ran across the intersection throwing confetti before the green light. Only 50% honked.
In the fourth, a woman in an extremely provocative outfit crossed the street. 47% honked.

Over HALF of the men did not honk through an entire green light because they could not get angry while feeling other emotions.
Can you imagine sitting through a green light and not honking?

Now there's a reason why I said mild sexual arousal.
Baron and Belle (1977) found that higher levels of arousal actually increase male aggression.
They brought participants in and had them write an essay. They claimed that another participant was writing an essay as well, and that they would grade each other's papers. In reality that 'other participant' was a confederate (someone who's in on the experiment).
The participants wrote their essay, and then went to a waiting room. Then they were brought into a different room with the confederate. They pick a number to see who goes first, but it's set up so the confederate goes first. The confederate then critiques the participants essay most harshly. They are down-right rude in their response. Also, they have the ability to shock the person for every grammar error and spelling error they find, and other poor writing skills they demonstrated, and they do so often. Naturally the participant is now pissed. The participants then get to do the same to the confederate while grading their essay.

In the control, the participants read boring magazines in the waiting room. The severity of shock they administered to the confederate was about 4.6 volts.
In the first experimental condition, they looked at the Sports illustrated swimsuit issue in the waiting room. They issued a shock of about 3.4 volts.
In the second, they saw pictures of naked women. They delivered a shock of 3.4 volts.
The third group saw pictures of couples having sex. They averaged 2.8 volts.
The fourth group read erotic passages (detailed descriptions of people having sex) which is known to be one of the most erotic forms of stimuli (better even than pictures). They averaged 4 volts.

Being a little turned on negates anger. Being massively turned on brings you right back to where you started.

So, if you need to calm down, try watching a funny movie, talking to someone who had a shitty day, or looking at some playboy (don't start master-baiting, then you'll get really aroused and get aggressive again haha)


This is the only solution I know about. I know nothing about anger management therapies and classes and how effective they are. This is just what I learned about in social psych. My apologies if you were hoping for that.


3. Aggressive triggers/cues

Berkowitz and LePage (1967) showed that guns can serve as a cue to aggression.
They used a similar procedure to the study above. However, in one condition the participants were given harsh criticism (provoked), and in the other they were given mild criticism of their essay (unprovoked).
In the waiting room, some sat in a room with nothing to look at (no cue), some had badminton equipment on the shelves (non-aggressive cue), and others saw guns on the shelves (aggressive cue). The results looked like this:
(number of shocks participant gave confederate was the dependent variable)

provoked unprovoked
aggressive cue: lots of shocks very few or no shocks
non-aggressive cue: a few shocks very few or no shocks

no cue: a few shocks very few or no shocks

As we can see, seeing a gun did not automatically make the person aggressive. However, seeing a gun and then being provoked made them more aggressive than when they were simply provoked without a cue, or with a neutral cue. (This is called an interaction effect)

The same exact results were found in a study where participants in the waiting room saw a movie with pirates or a movie about a track star. While seeing the violent pirate movie didn't make them more aggressive when unprovoked, it did make them more aggressive when provoked.

Conclusion: guns, violent movies, etc. do make you more aggressive, but either way you need to be provoked. They're not going to make you lose your shit over nothing.

4. Mitigating information

Johnson and Rule (1986) conducted a similar experiment where participants met the confederate before grading the essays. They then wrote their essays and the confederate was a harsh grader. Then they took a break and talked, and then the participants got to grade the confederate.
In one condition the confederate told the participant that they were having an awful day right when they first met them. The story was that they had just failed their MCAT's meaning they would not be able to follow their dream of going to med. school. During the break they discussed random things or nothing at all.
In the other condition, the confederate told the participant nothing of consequence when they first met them, and then told them about their bad day during the break AFTER he had already provoked them by grading their essay harshly.

The participants who knew their confederate was having an awful day BEFORE being graded were much less aggressive, when provoked by the confederate, than those who had been given no mitigating information until AFTER the provocation.

Conclusion: if you've had a bad day, tell people. If you were to say something nasty to someone and then apologize and say you're having a bad day, they're still going to be angry. If, on the other hand, you tell them you're having a bad day and then snap at them, they are much more likely to be forgiving. Turns out the emo kids actually have a good life strategy going haha

Zillman (1983 1988) came up with the excitation transfer theory.
The graphs below shows the person's physiological arousal level over time. Note that arousal does not mean sexual arousal here, but emotional arousal, such as faster breathing, higher blood pressure and bpm, etc. (This is just an example story to illustrate the point, not the actual studies). In one case, the person has a near-miss accident, goes to the grocery store and then gets behind an old woman in line who's paying her bill in pennies. In the other, all the same things happen, minus the near miss accident.

As you can see, even though the person in the first graph is not consciously aware of their increased levels of physiological arousal, and were therefore unable to note that as the cause of their increased aggression, it actually was still high enough to cause it.

It has also been found that when you are prevented from reaching a goal, resulting in frustration, it increases the likelihood of aggression arising (Dollard, et al., 1939). However, not all frustration results in aggression, and not all aggression comes from frustration (Berkowitz, 1989).


Please take one thing away from this:
STOP RECOMMENDING TO PEOPLE THAT THEY PUNCH SOMETHING OR THROW SOMETHING WHEN THEY'RE MAD. IT DOESN'T WORK.

Of course, some people are statistical anomalies and that actually will work for them. However, the existence of a single anomaly does not prove that this isn't true for the majority of people, so please do not comment on here that 'i punch walls and feel better so stfu you're wrong.' Beyond the fact that nothing is true for everyone, eliminating the evidence power of a single example, without studying it in the lab, there's no way to know if you actually get less aggressive or if you just think you do.


Split brains and functioning consciousness

I’ve written before about split-brain patients, those who, due to severe epilepsy, had the connections between the two hemispheres of their brain severed, yet were subsequently able to lead normal lives without themselves even noticing any cognitive change, which has profound implications for how consciousness works.

It turns out that there are people who are born with no connections between their brains, and one recently discovered patient still led a normal life: This Elderly Man Was Born With His Brain Hemispheres Disconnected. Did It Affect His Life? Hardly | Science Blogs | WIRED.

A new paper reports on an elderly gentleman, referred to as H.W., who aged 88 presented at a clinic complaining of recent intermittent problems controlling his left hand and some mild memory difficulties. Preliminary tests found him to be high functioning. He scored 30 out of 30 on the “mini mental state examination”, which is used to pick up signs of dementia or confusion. But when the researchers – a team led by Natalie Brescian – scanned H.W.’s brain, they made a surprising discovery. He had no corpus callosum. The main channel between his two brain hemispheres was completely missing.

The medical name for H.W.’s rare condition is agenesis of the corpus callosum, meaning that he was born with this structure missing. Given the importance of the callosum for connecting the bicameral brain, you’d think this would have had profound neuropsychological consequences for H.W. In fact, a detailed clinical interview revealed that he’d led a normal, independent life – first in the military and later as a flower delivery man. Until recently, he appeared to have suffered no significant psychological or neurological effects of his unusual brain. The problems with his left hand, H.W. said, were new.

When reading about split-brain patients, I always wondered if their ability to function might not have been reliant on functionality developed while their brain hemispheres were still connected. In other words, whether it was possible for a segmented brain to function if it had always been segmented.

According to the article, many patients who are born congenitally this way are not high functioning, but this man’s story indicates that it is often possible. In other words, our “self” can be split and still function as a unified self. Which just further confirms that our brains are not a centrally controlled mechanism, but one with information processing and decision making distributed throughout its structure.

And consciousness is a central information gathering mechanism, one that gathers information in any way it can, including observing the self’s actions and concocting an explanation of its actions, even when it’s not privy to the actual information processing that led to those actions, as would be the case when the other half of a split brain initiated those actions.

This seems to indicate that consciousness is not in control. The information it provides influences the brain’s actions, otherwise we couldn’t discuss it, but the initiation and execution of those actions appear to take place outside of consciousness.

Consciousness seems to function similar to how a city newspaper functions, gathering information about what is happening within the city and making its information available to the rest of the city, influencing what the city does, but not controlling it.

Until the newspaper reports on an activity, say a spike in crime, within the city, we could say that the activity is not yet in the city’s public consciousness. Parts of the city may respond to the activity, but the city as a whole doesn’t yet know what is going on. It is in the city’s collective subconscious. Once the newspaper has reported, it is in the city’s collective consciousness, and affects what the parts of the city, the citizens, the police, the mayor, etc, do.

The newspaper gathers information in any way it can, including sometimes interpreting the public actions of portions of the city for which it may not have direct access to the inside story. In my mind, that’s what the consciousness machinery in the brain of a split-brain patient is doing, and it’s why they can remain functional without themselves even noticing the difference.


Neurocluster Brain Model – scientific basis of Hearing Voices

Brief summary of Neurocluster Brain Model

When a man sees new unknown object for the first time then finite number of neurons in the brain (cluster of neurons) stores information about object's model (how the object looks, how the object moves, how the object behaves, etc).
Information about that object is saved not in the whole brain, but only in the finite “piece of the brain” – the evidence for that are experimental data about brain damage – if the brain is damaged in some local area then brain loses information only about some classes of objects, but not about all objects.
The model of the object is stored inside the “piece of the brain” (cluster of neurons) and this neurocluster acts not only as passive “data file” but also under special conditions this neurocluster can act as “executable file” which can simulate the behavior of stored object for the main personality – this is the underlying mechanism of Hearing Voices and how religious adepts communicate with spirits/angels/Gods/etc and also the underlying mechanism of other religious and occult phenomena.

The human brain contains billions of neural cells however the man perceives himself as having only one(1) personality, one(1) consciousness, and people who believe in the existence of the soul perceive themselves as having only one(1) soul. Human brain contains billions of neurons however vast majority of people strongly believe that all these billions of neurons contain only one(1) personality, one(1) consciousness, one(1) soul. This “one human body contains one consciousness” model is sufficient to explain the majority of events in casual normal routine life and this is the reason why this model has become de facto accepted model in all human cultures and societies without ever doubting its validity. Medieval scholars were debating the question “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?” (a.k.a. “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”), however nobody has ever raised the question “how many souls can be contained in one human body?” assuming by default that one(1) human body contains only one(1) soul.
However let’s raise a simple question: does this “one human body contains one consciousness” model really can explain all phenomena which happen with human consciousness?
The answer is: “one human body contains one consciousness” model actually fails to explain the vast range of phenomena which happen with human consciousness as it will be shown in this website. Let’s begin with the simple example.
All religions claim that the soul is immortal and indestructible, the soul is unbreakable, and the soul can not be divided into small pieces.
Some religions (like for example Hinduism) claim that besides humans all living creatures have a soul – all animals, plants, trees do have a soul.
What is the source of these claims about soul properties? All religions claim that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired.
Let’s analyze these claims a little bit.
Hinduism claims that every plant has a soul and that the soul is unbreakable and can not be divided into small pieces (Bhagavad-gītā. 2.23-24).

http://vedabase.com/en/bg/2
2.23: The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.
2.24: This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.
(Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. 2.23-24)

http://vanisource.org/wiki/Lecture_on_BG_7.1-3_--_Stockholm,_September_10,_1973
<. > Don't think that the plants and trees, they have no life. They are also living entities. We do not accept this theory that the animals have no soul. No. Everyone has got soul. Even the plants, trees, everyone has got soul. They have got different bodies only. It is not that only human being has got the soul, not others. No. Actually if we make analysis what is the symptoms of possessing soul, you will find everywhere. Even in plants' life you will find. Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, one of the greatest scientist of the world, he has proved by machine that when you cut the trees or the leaves, they feel sensation, pain, and that is recorded by machine. So everyone has got soul. <. >
(A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. Lecture on BG 7.1-3. Stockholm, September 10, 1973)

However let’s analyze a simple phenomenon like plant propagation from cuttings. Plant cutting (a.k.a. as striking or cloning) is a technique for vegetatively (asexually) propagating plants in which a piece of the stem or root of the source plant is placed in a suitable medium such as moist soil, potting mix, coir or rock wool. The cutting produces new roots, stems, or both, and thus becomes a new plant independent of the parent.
Using plant cutting technique we can divide one plant into many pieces and every such new piece now has become a separate plant. Since every plant has a soul, this means that one soul of the original plant was divided into many souls using such primitive technique as plant cutting.
As we can see from this very simple example, religious knowledge (which is claimed to have been originated from divine and supernatural sources) about soul properties contradicts very simple well known experimental facts like plant propagation from cuttings.

Now let’s go to the animal kingdom. The male paper nautilus (a.k.a. argonaut octopus) possesses a specialized, extended tentacle, called a hectocotylus, where packets of sperm are stored. When a male paper nautilus detects a female, the hectocotylus detaches from the octopus body and swims towards the female under its own power. The hectocotylus inserts its load into the female’s mantle and can remain active, depositing sperm in her even as its owner goes on his way. The male, essentially, has sex in absentia. The first scientists to observe the hectocotylus in action actually misidentified it as a parasitic worm attached to the female paper nautilus.
Let’s raise a simple question: has hectocotylus a separate soul or not? Religious sacred texts fail to answer such question.

Those were examples about plants and animals, but what about humans? Anyway, there are many people who believe that only humans have souls and these people believe that plants and animals do not have any soul whatsoever.
Let’s raise a simple question: how many souls are contained in conjoined twins (a.k.a. Siamese twins): one or two souls? Religious leaders get very confused when being asked such a simple question because the fact of multiple human souls residing in one physical body contradicts their religious doctrines.
However let’s raise a simple question: how many souls can be contained in one human body? Humanity did not possess tools and technologies which would allow to investigate this question up until the twentieth century. However in the late 1950s things has dramatically changed when neurosurgeons began experiments with the human brain. Some people have epilepsy. Epilepsy is a phenomenon when a small number of neurons in the brain excite themselves via positive feedback neural circuits which leads to the excitation of nearby neurons and this excessive hypersynchronous neuronal activity spreads through large areas of the brain. There are many ways to treat epilepsy however all these treatments share the same common working principle – in order to eliminate the epileptic seizures you need to suppress the excitement of neurons and you need to suppress the spread of the neural excitement through the large areas of the brain. However in some patients all known treatment methods fail and the patient continues to have frequent and strong epileptic seizures. In the late 1950s neurosurgeons decided to try out new drastic method for dealing with such extra hard epilepsy cases. The hypothesis of new treatment method was the following. Human brain consists of two hemispheres which are connected via link which is called corpus callosum. During the epileptic seizure the synchronous neuronal activity originates in one hemisphere and then via corpus callosum it reaches the another hemisphere thus spreading through the whole brain. If we would cut corpus callosum then synchronous neuronal activity which originated in one hemisphere would be stopped from spreading into another hemisphere and this would eliminate epileptic seizure. Several patients with hardest epilepsy cases were chosen to test out the hypothesis and corpus callosum was cut in these patients. Such patients who have their corpus callosum cut are called “split-brain patients”. The hypothesis of neurosurgeons was confirmed to be correct – the cutting of corpus callosum eliminated or greatly reduced epileptic seizures in split-brain patients. However experiments with split-brain patients revealed very interesting side effect of corpus callosum cutting. The left hemisphere controls the right side of the body and the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body. When interconnection between hemispheres (corpus callosum) is cut then both hemispheres begin to act autonomously from each other. For example, when split-brain sits near his wife, the left hand of the patient hugs and fondles the wife, however at the same time the right hand of the patient angrily beats the wife – different hemispheres of the split-brain patient have made different judgments towards the wife and both hemispheres act independently from each other. In other words, the cutting of corpus callosum created two(2) autonomous personalities, which think differently and make different decisions on the same subject and these decisions might be even diametrically opposite. Experiments with split-brain patients revealed that the cutting of corpus callosum produces two(2) autonomous personalities, two(2) autonomous consciousnesses, and for those who believe in the existence of soul – two(2) autonomous souls. Split-brain experiments revealed that one(1) human consciousness can be artificially divided into two(2) consciousnesses by simple cutting of corpus callosum.

When two hemispheres of the (healthy) brain are connected via corpus callosum link then such man is unable to accomplish two different independent tasks with two hands simultaneously because one hemisphere hinders another hemisphere by sending commands via corpus callosum link. For example, if a man takes a pencil into each of two hands and tries to draw two independent pictures with both hands simultaneously (for example a circle with one hand and a square with another hand) – the man will be unable to cope with such task. You can try doing that yourself and see if you will succeed. However when corpus callosum link is cut then after such surgery the man has no troubles to accomplish two different independent tasks with both hands simultaneously – as for example, drawing a circle with one hand and a square with another hand is an easy task for split-brain patient.

Here is the documentary movie which shows experiments with split-brain patient.


Two brains are connected via brain bridging, a futuristic technology that permits neurons to directly and reciprocally influence each other, acting as an artificial corpus callosum. If its bandwidth exceeds a threshold, IIT predicts, the two minds associated with each brain will cease to exist.

A cut corpus callosum can’t send seizure signals from one side of the brain to the other. Seizures still occur on the side of the brain where they start. After surgery, these seizures tend to be less severe because they only affect half of the brain.


What Happens If the Corpus Callosum Is Damaged?

Different types of damage to the corpus callosum cause different symptoms however, all types of damage to the corpus callosum cause a disconnection between the brain's hemispheres, according to the National Institutes of Health. The corpus callosum is a part of the brain that connects the left and right hemispheres.

Dr. Jeffry Ricker cites a case in which a police officer suffered from a brain tumor located in the middle of the brain. Upon removal of the tumor, it was discovered that the patient was suffering from odd symptoms such as being unable to identify common objects in his left hand without looking at them.

The brain contains two cortical hemispheres that work together to process information. In the case cited by Dr. Ricker, the two hemispheres of the patient's brain had experienced a disconnection, which resulted in neurological symptoms ranging from the inability to identify objects with the left hand to being unable to write letters of the alphabet with his left hand.

Common symptoms of interhemispheric disconnection include left visual field dyslexia, left upper limb ideomotor dyspraxia, left hand anomia, left visual field dysnomia and left ear suppression during dichotic listening tasks. The National Institutes of Health postulates that the posterior body of the corpus callosum is a particularly important connection point for visual-motor responses.


Newest 5 Comments

What, there is no answer, i belive if the brain is split into two ou are going to die. It's very obvious! Totally

Re #13 (Jenny K.) - Epileptic siezures, if I remember correctly, have something to do with the firing of neurons in response to each other. This is true for most thought processes, such as the ability to say the name of an object we see. In epileptics, the firing becomes erratic, and siezures are the result. In the case of Joe, firing in one hemisphere triggered firing in the other and back again, so splitting the corpus callosum seemed like a reasonable way to disrupt the problem.

The down side is that he cannot name objects perceived only by his right brain (left eye). In his (and most people's) brain, the language center is in the left hemisphere, and the artistic skills are in the right hemisphere. (Keep in mind that these hemispheres control the opposite sides of the body, which is why his right brain perceives what his left eye sees, and why he can draw the objects with his left hand. I'm also using "artistic" in a very broad sense his drawings are purely functional. In a true artist, the artistic abilities are less compartmentalized in the brain than in non-artists.)

Strobe lights can trigger siezures in both epilleptics and non-epilleptics (although the strobing frequencies required to do this are different), which is why it is prudent to warn audiences if a strobe light is to be used in a performance. I still have no idea what's happening in a whole sequence near the end of the original "Alien" film, because of the strobe light that accompanies the ship's auto-destruct. After about three seconds of the flashing, I get serious migraine and have to cover my eyes. I wonder if there are plans to release some "ultimate" DVD of the movie with a strobe-free version of that scene as an extra feature.


Watch the video: SPLIT BRAIN. What Happens When You Sever The Corpus Callosum u0026 Separate Two Brain Hemispheres? WLB (August 2022).