Das Gehirn kann geteilt werden, Aber der Geist kann nicht

Review of the new book, “Der unsterbliche Geist, Heute erhältlich – Das Gehirn kann gespalten werden, aber nicht der Geist” von Denyse O’Leary und Michael Egnor.

Although this is essentially a review of a review, it is no less fascinating. Tatsächlich, it may be one of the most devastating critiques for those who consider the brain to be the origin or seat of consciousness.

In the late 20th century, researcher Michael Gazzaniga conducted a study with patients undergoing surgical treatment for epilepsy. This surgery involved severing the connection between the two brain hemispheres and appeared to result—here’s the fascinating part—in two independent centers of consciousness. This seemed to support the physicalist neuroscience model, which holds that consciousness is a function of the brain and nothing more.

Later studies, Jedoch, cast doubt on that interpretation. In the 1980s, DR. Egnor performed the same surgery on a patient. Jedoch, the patient reported feeling no different after the procedure:

Despite having his brain split, he moved his arms and legs normally, his vision and speech were unaffected. Tatsächlich, the only thing different about Sam—aside from the bandage on his head—was that he no longer suffered from severe seizures. He clearly seemed like a single, unified person… He knew the surgery had permanently divided his brain in two, but the only real effect he noticed was the absence of seizures…

Since operating on Sam, I’ve treated several patients who have undergone split-brain surgery. Like other neurosurgeons, I found no evidence—either through routine clinical exams or life experiences—that suggested their minds were divided, even though their brains were.

If the brain causes consciousness, and the brain has been split, why does consciousness remain unified?

Wenn, on the other hand, consciousness remains unified even when the brain’s hemispheres are no longer connected, then it seems likely that the brain does not create consciousness—it merely receives it, filters it, and gives it form, thereby creating the sensation of subjectivity tied to a body.

This model of the brain and its relationship to consciousness is neither original nor new. We find it explicitly in Bergson, and more or less explicitly in thinkers like William James or even Plato.

Ironisch, a treatment intended to prove that the brain causes consciousness may well serve as strong evidence against that very hypothesis.

ÒScar llorens i garcia

Aktie

In anderen Nachrichten

NTEs sind keine Halluzinationen

NTEs sind keine Halluzinationen

In dieser Vorstudie, funktionelle Magnetresonanztomographie (fMRT) wird zu einem wichtigen Werkzeug zur Erforschung der Unterschiede zwischen Nahtoderfahrungen (NTEs) und Halluzinationen, Dies führt zu klaren und überzeugenden Schlussfolgerungen zu diesem Thema.
Weiterlesen →
Filomena Araújo

End-of-Life-Support: Die Erfahrung einer Palliativpflegeschwester

Filomena ist fest davon überzeugt, dass der Tod nicht das Ende ist. Diese Überzeugung rührt von ihrer Erfahrung her, Patienten in ihren letzten Momenten ihres Lebens zu begleiten, durch diese Begegnungen, Sie haben ihr erlaubt, es zu verstehen..
Weiterlesen →
DR. José Alonso

Beweise für Nahtoderfahrungen (NTEs) Sind keine Halluzinationen

Wissenschaftliche Forschung unter der Leitung von Dr. José Alonso Ruiz und kürzlich in der renommierten Fachzeitschrift Resuscitation Plus demonstriert, außer Zweifel, dass Nahtoderfahrungen (NTEs) sind weder Halluzinationen noch Produkte der Fantasie. Zusätzlich, Die Studie liefert Einblicke in den psychischen Zustand derjenigen, die sie erlebt haben.
Weiterlesen →
Nach oben scrollen