This article is a refutation of Dr V.S. Ramachandran’s argument that severing the corpus callosum in a split brain patient produces 2 separate and distinct consciousness. He argues that since the right side of the brain believes in God while the left side does not that therefore, these brains must have taken on two separate identities since these two counter claims can not both be true. I will attempt to show that not only is this view absurd purely on a conjectural level (you assume the definitions of what God means to this person and jump to an improper rationalization) but that not even the science itself gives us permission to even assume that a unified consciousness is still not present after the operation. Here is the video below where he makes his argument below.
First I would like to write a list of about five really nice people (if you don’t want to write that’s fine, just imagine) that you have interacted with leaving a space underneath their names to take notes.. Next I would like you to write underneath each name the most nice quality about them. Now write a list of five really mean people and do the same for their names (but instead writing the meanest quality of course). Now I ask you to imagine if someone could take all of the nice things about the five nice people and created a new person with those attributes. Imagine they could do the same with the five mean people and create a new person with all of the mean attributes. This first new person then would be the complete culmination of the five people but only with their nice qualities and the second the culmination of all of the mean qualities. Let’s take it a step further and go throughout history and find the nicest people who influenced the world for what we feel to be the most good and combine them into one as well. Do the same with the most evil. Pretty heavenly right? Pretty sinister right? Lets now imagine a maximally good being and a maximally evil being. The first being is capable of only doing good and the second one is only capable of doing evil. Let’s call the first one God and the second one Satan. God is a representation of all that is good, right, holy and divine and Satan is a representation of all things evil, wrong, unholy and wicked and if we view these beings in this sense (mythological archetypes built upon the construct of human psychology and imagination) we can believe in a God that both exists and does not exist simultaneously.
(I ask the reader to take a moment and view
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/09/11/carl-jung-christ-as-an-archetype/#.YKVwYOjYrrc
to have a firmer grip of some of the things I am going to discuss).
God then could be viewed as Christ is in Jungian psychology the manifestation of everything Kingly, Noble, Good, Holy and Pure. Satan could then be viewed as the manifestation of everything dishonorable, unholy, impure and unclean. If we view God and Satan then in terms of the collective good or evil rooted in the collective unconscious, then the idea of God would be very real and in a sense He would be real but in a different way.
Take a brief look below at some of what Jungian psychology teaches in terms of what the collective unconscious is as it will help you to understand a bit better what I am describing above.
Complex Beliefs
Deep-seated beliefs regarding spirituality and religion are explained as partially due to the collective unconscious. Jung was convinced that the similarity and universality of world religions pointed to religion as a manifestation of the collective unconscious.
Similarly, morals, ethics, and concepts of fairness or right and wrong could be explained in the same way, with the collective unconscious as partially responsible.
Phobias
Jung used his theory of the collective unconscious to explain how fears and social phobias can manifest in children and adults for no apparent reason. Fear of the dark, loud sounds, bridges, or blood may all be rooted in this collective unconscious, which is proposed as an inherited genetic trait.
For example, a study found that one-third of British children are afraid of snakes at age six, even though it’s rare to encounter a snake in the British Isles.1 The children had never come in contact with a snake in a traumatic situation, but snakes still generated an anxious response.”
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-collective-unconscious-2671571
With Carl Jung’s view then, I would not have to believe in a literal God (such as a man in the sky ready to strike down the wicked followers of Apophis with the mighty bolts of Odin for example) but simply as a manifestation of that cultures embodiment of their own moral ethic projected onto the divine landscape (their moral imaginations). In other words, if I care for the sick, love the outcast, take care of the widow, keep the ten commandments and obey Torah, am I really living out the words of Yahweh or am I living out the Jewish conceptualization of who God is? If I travel to Mecca, fast at Ramadan and follow the 10 pillars of Islam am I really serving Allah or the God concept invented by Muhammad? Lets put it another way in a hypothetical example.
Suppose I am walking down the street and see a homeless man in need of food, clothing and a place to stay. As I see him the words of Jesus fire in my mind
32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Luke 12:32-34
Because I believe that Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead I go into 7/11, buy him some food, give him a shirt that has been sitting in the back of my truck and take him to a homeless shelter for the night.
Lets reimagine this scenario now but its in the future and now I am homeless and a Muslim sees me wearing a cross around my neck and I clearly am in need of help. The moral law convicts him to help me and he almost is ready to do it when suddenly he remembers a verse in the Quran,
Quran (9:29): “Fight against Christians and Jews until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”
In order to obey his god he leaves me to suffer and walks away fearing what Allah might do to him if he helps me.
Now imagine that Muslim is homeless in the future (lots of homeless people!) and in need of help and a Hindu comes by and sees him needing help. He almost helps but lets pretend that he saw him refusing to help me when I needed it as he was driving by. He decides that is better ethically to let him suffer for his choices and hopefully by not helping him and feeling what it is like to need help and not receive it it might put him on a better life path and he will reincarnate into something better. He tells the Muslim,
“Serves you right. Karma has come back to you! Learn your lesson and help someone next time!”
Now imagine I see the Muslim homeless man, the same one who refused to help me and I remember the words of Jesus again.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:43-48
I bow my head and despite my hurt I choose to love this person and feed him, clothe him and take care of him.
Now lets imagine an atheist who ascribes to the view of God as a projection of human psychology saw all three scenarios (what a coincidence! For the sake of argument please just got with it). Imagine him saying with a smile on his face,
“It seems like Jesus, Allah and lord Vishnu are alive and well and still influencing the earth!”
Would he be incorrect? If we take the view that God is merely a human creation, a representation of what humans agree upon as what the Ultimate is then no, he would not be since the concept of God would then be merely an idea of humanity and all He or any god really is is an idea acted out in the actions of humanity.
Communism is an idea that has killed millions…
How many homeless were taken care of with the idea of Jesus? How many people attempted to live better lives striving to attain enlightenment? How many Muslims needed to needlessly sacrifice themselves over the idea of a god that promised eternity for doing so?
Lets suppose the atheist that witnessed this “homeless feeding scenario” suddenly starts having seizures in the right side of his brain. In order to stop the seizure from spreading to other hemisphere S.V. Chandaram decides a corpus callosum is in order!
BRAIN BREAK!!!
Tim: “Hey brain ready for a quick science lesson!”
Brain: “Dun da dun dun da!”
Tim: “Why do you always have to play seek and destroy when we are about to talk about science stuff and put info together!”
Brain: “Because its epic?”
Tim: *sigh* “Just do your job brain!”
Brain: “Aren’t we unqualified?”
Tim: “Does 2 plus 2 equal 4?”
Brain: “Not everyone will get it Timmy.”
Tim: “Maybe they could use more of you then?”
Brain: “Oh ho ho Tim! Good one! Shall I do it for you or do you want to do i-“
Tim: “Ba dum tish!”
Brain: “I saw that coming!”
Tim: “Do you think they get us brain?”
Brain: “I DON’T EVEN GET US!!”
Tim: “Fair point lets go!”
END BRAIN BREAK!!!
The corpus callosum is a bundle of nerve fibers connecting the right and left hemispheres of the brain. The two sides of the brain send signals to each other to communicate. What would happen if we severed these connections? If the two sides of the brain can not communicate would we essentially have two people? In a corpus callosotomy these nerve fibers are severed in order to prevent seizures from spreading throughout the brain. It seems intuitive to think that we would end up with two separate people but intuition is not always correct.
Consider quantum mechanics. Intuitively we might think that the particle is really there but according to the data, prior to measurement it only existed as a series of probabilities. You can argue that decoherence solves the measurement problem but regardless, prior to the disruption of the quantum system the reality is it was not physically there until measurement with bigger and bigger objects demonstrating this strange phenomenon.
Wave-particle duality seen in carbon-60 molecules – Physics World
It is the same logic with objects of different masses falling to earth. Intuitively we assume the object with a heavier mass will fall at a faster rate than the one with a lighter mass but that is simply not true as in the absence of air resistance, objects falls at the same rate regardless of mass.
Why do things with different masses fall at the same rate? | IOPSpark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMvVAfZcU1s
Dr Ramachandran asserts that two consciousness arise after the process of cutting the brain in half and assumes that based on the responses from each hemisphere, two separate beings must have emerged without asking any further questions.
(5) Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist – YouTube
Around 3:30 to 4:15 he mentions a split brain patient who was asked whether he believed in God or not. The right hemisphere says yes and the left hemisphere says no so clearly we have a case of two separate consciousnesses each residing in the two different hemisphere of the now two brains. But what if that isn’t the case? What if we assume that the consciousness is still in tact in a disconnected brain?
Think like Galileo for moment. If we drop a 5 pound rock in the air and split it open midair into a 3 pound part and a 2 pound part and if before it were falling at a constant rate at what point does gravity start to pull more on the 3 pound part over the 2pound part when it was falling at a constant rate prior to when we split it? Since clearly the acceleration in the same for all objects (it just takes more force to get a heavier object into motion) they will always fall to the earth with no air resistance exactly at the time. Lets take his reasoning and apply it here.
If he assumed the acceleration is the same, lets assume the person is still the same. If the acceleration does not change splitting the rocks, lets assume the person does not change when splitting the brain. We will assume that two rocks don’t lose their “rockeness” in the same way a split brain patient does not lose their personhood. What are we left with? Take a look with me in the thought experiment below.
Remember our atheist friend? Lets recap his belief in God for a moment
– he does not believe in a literal God or any literal gods or goddesses
– he believes they are the projection of the human psyches imagination
– he is a carl jung fanatic
– he is what I would have become if I were not convinced of the resurrection of Christ (minus the Carl Jung fanaticism)
S.V. Chandaram does the procedure and then asks the left hemisphere,
“Do you believe in God?”
To which he replies
“No.”
S.V. Chandaram asks the right hemisphere,
‘Do you believe in God?”
To which he replies
“Yes”
Then S.V. Chandaram makes a silly youtube video in front of a bunch of free thinkers who blindly accept what he says without a second of critical thought or questioning and we all go home disproving theism right!? Or did we?
In their book “Why God won’t go away” neuroscientists Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’ Aquil give a brief lesson on how the corpus callosum works. I will use their language example as it is the easiest I feel to grasp.
When someone tells you to “Get out of here” are they being literal? Lets add some context
Jack: “Hey man, Mark is late for work again.”
Matt: “Get out of here! That dude is always late!”
Should Jack go home? Usually that’s used in most contexts as a joke. Lets try it again.
Jack: “Hey man, Mark is late for work again.”
Matt: “Get out of here Jack! I am tired of you always trying to excuse your lateness by using Mark as an excuse!”
A little more difficult isn’t it? Suppose that Matt has furrowed eye brows, an angry vocal tone and is pointing towards the door in the second scenario. Imagine in the first scenario Matt had a laugh with a friendly smile.
The right side of the brain is more concerned with vocal tone, expressions and the like while the left side is more concerned with syntax and grammar. You would need proper communication between both hemispheres to determine if the phrase,
“Get out of here!”
Were a mere joke or a literal command. The syntax and grammar are the same in both contexts but it is the signaling between both hemispheres of the brain agreeing that tell you if you should take the command literally or not.
The point is if we were to ask the left side if you should leave it would say yes. The right may just be confused. Similarly in the same book split brain patients were asked about Hitler. The left side could tell you what he did and facts about his life while the right side would only get angry and not be sure why or tell you who he is but both would be in agreement about who he was but unable to properly express that view because of the difficultly communicating the idea.
Consider the following study
“To the researchers’ surprise, the patients were able to respond to stimuli throughout the entire visual field with all the response types: left hand, right hand and verbally. Pinto: ‘The patients could accurately indicate whether an object was present in the left visual field and pinpoint its location, even when they responded with the right hand or verbally. This despite the fact that their cerebral hemispheres can hardly communicate with each other and do so at perhaps 1 bit per second, which is less than a normal conversation. I was so surprised that I decide repeat the experiments several more times with all types of control.’
According to Pinto, the results present clear evidence for unity of consciousness in split-brain patients. ‘”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.htm#:~:text=Instead%2C%20the%20researchers%20behind%20the,conscious%20perceivers%20in%20one%20brain.
If the evidence suggests one unified consciousness in a split brain patient (and they drive cars so…) then it is simply a matter of a severed brain not being able to properly communicate the persons ideas effectively and not a case of two separate entities living in different hemispheres.
Perhaps then the patient that Dr. V.S. Ramachandran was interviewing had a similar view to the view of our atheist. Perhaps he believed not in a literal God, but in a Carl Jung type of God. Not a real Being exactly, but real in the sense of the idea of that Beings affect onto the world. If we were to severe such a persons Corpus Callosom it would not be so much that one side of his brain now believes in God and the other side does not but that he could not communicate his view on God as his brain would have believed prior to the surgery in an abstract God of the human imagination, not a literal God.
It would simply be the case then of a paper cut in half. One side of the paper (left hemisphere) does not make sense without the tape (corpus callosum) binding it to the other side (the right hemisphere). It may appear to be two separate topics at first glance as you try to reconstruct the meaning from what little you have to work with but pieced together the paper can properly express the persons thoughts and feelings on the subject matter it is writing about.
I mostly am curious if Dr. Ramachandran bothered to find out this persons religious beliefs prior to surgery. Like the rock analogy above, does he not realize his fully functioning brain already had pre-existing beliefs prior to the surgery? If I severe the brain does the information stored on the right just disappear? Does it lose its “rockness”?
If there were only one consciousness creating memories at what point does that information disappear into new memories? Doesn’t it make more sense with the scientific data that you are asking one person to retrieve information from one side of the paper?
Either way I explained why one side believes in God and the other doesn’t even if you take Dr. V.S. Ramachandran’s view but in combination with the scientific evidence I think the data supports one consciousness unable to articulate a complex idea correctly because his “pages were torn in two” so to speak.
I think Dr. V.S. Ramachandran’s view is a view that does not follow the evidence where it leads and must conclude that what he claims to be a huge objection to theism is actually a strong supplemental argument for a theistic world view (the soul compensates for the damaged brain).
More to say in part 2