Home
Are conjoined twins one person or two? That's easy. They have two minds, so they are two people. A person is defined by his or her brain. Your limbs, hair, lungs, heart, and all the rest of your parts can be transplanted, conjoined, or in some cases deleted, yet you remain the same person. You are your brain.

Now consider regular identical twins. Their brains have the same DNA, yet they are considered two people because their brains operate independently. I think we'd all agree that having the same DNA doesn't make twins one person.

Now what about the individual whose two halves of the brain are separated either by an accident or by surgery? Do you end up with one person or two? The two halves can operate independently, as shown by so-called Alien Hand Syndrome, where half of your brain is telling your hand to do one thing while your other half is wishing it didn't. In my opinion, that's two people occupying one skull. If you went into a voting booth, I expect that the alien hand could vote for one candidate while the other side could make a different choice.

Now I make the leap from something mildly interesting to something totally ridiculous. You should leave now if that sort of thing bothers you.

It seems to me, based on observation, that what we think of as one person is always two, even if the two halves of the brain are communicating. You wouldn't label twins as one person just because they communicate before they make decisions. It's the independent thought that defines a person, not the degree of their communication. If twins made a deal with each other to always make the same decisions, effectively acting as one, we would still know them as two individuals because they can think independently.

Sometimes when I'm alone in the house at night, I am certain the place is haunted while simultaneously certain that ghosts do not exist. Perhaps the right side of my brain is generating the thoughts of imaginary ghosts while the left is being rational. I realize that the human brain is a bit more fluid and complicated than the left-brain-right-brain model suggests, but I'm guessing that any time we hold two contradictory views at the same time, the two hemispheres of the brain are thinking independently.

Sometimes you might have three or more choices and you can't decide which one you prefer. But I'll bet your brain needs to consider them one at a time, in a serial fashion, if they are all rational choices. That's different from the ghost example, in which the sensation is that you believe the ghosts exist while simultaneously knowing they do not. It takes two brains to simultaneously have two contradictory beliefs.

I also think the two brain theory explains why people who are smart in general can hold irrational world views. In my experience, people who hold irrational views are almost always aware of their own irrationality. They simply have two brains, and the rational one doesn't always get to make the final decision.

Now suppose you could do a brain scan and determine which side of a person's brain is most active while pondering a particular political question. If the scan shows that the rational hemisphere is clearly in charge, you allow that individual to vote on the issue. If the irrational side is overly active, you politely explain to that person that he or she has to sit out this vote.

No, it's not a practical idea. But the cool thing is that I know it's a bad idea while simultaneously imagining it could work.

 
 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +73
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Feb 13, 2011
Scott,

You are a strange individual in that you are the only person I know smart enough to figure many of these things out for himself, who is not also well-read enough to be familiar with them. You often waste your brainpower rediscovering concepts that are familiar to most super-smart people. I suspect you either don't read enough, or are reading things aimed at much duller people..
 
 
Feb 13, 2011
A report of a study came out recently that showed people with damage to their left brain (stroke, bullet, etc.) became more creative. The thinking is that the right side of the brain is the creative side but is being kept under control by the left (logical) side. So people who are creative have poor logic. This is consistent with so many movies where the laws of physics are violated. You need to be creative to make a movie but then you don't understand simple logic.
 
 
Feb 11, 2011
In his 1976 work The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Jaynes proposed that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep (USWS) is sleep in which one half of an animal's brain is at rest, while the other half remains alert. During USWS, only one eye is closed, allowing the animal to remain alert to activity in its environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unihemispheric_slow-wave_sleep
 
 
Feb 10, 2011
Another - more practical - solution would be to weight votes by IQ. This wouldn't only apply to voters but to politicians, too. The Definiton of relevant items and their weight into the over all IQ won't be easy, but it could be done the first time by voting - you need to start somewhere. If a voter wants to have more weight for his vote he "only" needs to train his brain. Same for a member of the House. IQ scores need to be public of course - at least for people who want to be elected for a public job. I know that intelligence as measured by IQ tests isn't a solution for all problems of human mankind but it is an important factor.
 
 
Feb 8, 2011
I posit that many of the modules of our minds (such as Minsky models thought) are contained mostly on one side or another. This means your left brain has its modules, and the right its. Each side has its own "bag of tricks." And one's corpus callosum's (and the other commisures') size probably has a lot to do with how well integrated we are. Having no knowledge of my own brain anatomy, and because of an episode of TV's "House," lately I have decided it might be a good idea to talk to myself out loud more often. Tell my other half what I'm thinking.

Re. the voting, I suspect both aspects of me have different ways to identify a liar, and the liar's motives. I wouldn't disqualify anyone's right brain from participating in politics.

And Scott - which side of your brain forgot you got this whole idea from me in the first place? LOL!
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 7, 2011
WTF is all this !$%* about showing nipples, AnnoDomine? Jeez, that would be worse than six ugly, withered "old farts" taking !$%*s all over their chests and rubbing it in, then vomiting into each other's mouths as well as violating the virginity of several different breed of dog for some sort of stinted sexual pleasure. And is AnnoDomine a man or a woman, or neither?
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 7, 2011
So...is AnnoDomine some weird stalker who is bugging Scott Adams? What's all that garbage she's been spewing? All I know is that GlagtropX is smart, and should be elected vice president (of course, you should all elect ME U.S. President). And what my utterly unfailing and flawless reasoning tells me is that AnnoDomine should be locked up in prison, or, better yet, thrown to the lions. The rest of you people can be part of my Cabinet, because you're all smart and are very good at arguing with AnnoDomine, whoever the heck she is. So...how did this argument start?
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 7, 2011
Hey, AnnoDomine, you're crazy. And so is your mom.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 7, 2011
Um...did I miss something?
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 7, 2011
There are a few problems with the rationality test. First off, isn't hyper-rationality often just as bad as craziness? They often present themselves the same way. Second, it would matter what values the rational voter had. It could be perfectly "rational" to push for, say, harsh population-control measures, but it doesn't make it right (if, for example, you start from the assumption that people own their own bodies).
 
 
+6 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 6, 2011
I always get antsy when people start talking about "a brain" as something that can exist independently.

"A mind", as we know it, involves a brain *and* a body - either one by itself is not enough. The body provides all sorts of input to the brain - nervous stimulation, various chemicals, even some direct electrical interference. Without that input - what would the brain be? If you had no way of experiencing (say) hunger, cold, lust, comfort, fatigue - then what exactly would you think about?

Since this is an experiment that's not yet been conducted, it's not something we can know. But it means I'm not quite ready to accept even that conjoined twins are, meaningfully, "two people". Obviously they're "more than one person", but equally obviously they're not "independent" of one another, not in any meaningful sense of the word.
 
 
Feb 6, 2011
OK, AnnoDomine. You're crazy. You have NO idea WHO the HELL I am. I have NO idea WHO the HELL you are. So why are you accusing me of doing something I have no idea WHAT the HELL you're talking about? What the hell do you mean? Will you just get out and tell me what I did? Because apparently I did something really bad to you. Knock, knock, woman. I didn't. Frankly, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You just need to start your own blog where you can post your own crackpot theories about what me and the rest of the world did to you. That or just SHUT THE #*$@ UP. What lies am I telling? You're crazy. Now please leave me and Scott alone.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 6, 2011
The brain is not a duopoly. It is a republic. I believe that much of it functions modularly, and that what we call "person" or "self" emerges at a high level from the cooperation and conflict of the modules that were created by evolution in the brains of reptiles, apes, and early man. Experiments show that the "unconscious" is not only real and complex, but that it often makes decisions for us, and then we rationalize them when we hear them. Maybe this is why some people don't know what they think until they hear what they say.
 
 
+6 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 6, 2011
Why assume that the rational side of the brain is a better voter than the imaginative and emotive side? We judge other people more often by "irrational" intuition. This tells us whether they seem "normal", "honest", "sane, etc. That side of the brain plays a very important role and it may be just as good at choosing a leader as the rational side of the brain, which, although it is logical, may act on faulty data and thus be just as wrong, if not more so. Scott is thinking like an engineer, and it is only a step from thinking like an engineer to thinking like a Communist or a Fascist, two political camps which are disproportionately common among engineers and doctors and other people who think that they can think when in fact their expertise is more narrow and biased by professional quirks and prejudices.

A philosopher said "logic never convinces". There is a reason for this: logic is not very useful in dealing with information which can not be broken down into syllogisms and premises. The right brain is able to deal with this sort of thing. It will be closer to your evolutionary instincts, and thus to your interests than the logical, mathematical brain, which is constantly being fed lies and data so incomplete and imperfect that drawing logical conclusions from it might well be insane, irrational, and purely a matter of unconscious irrationalities.

It might be useful to do a triage of voters, but it would be just as useful to apply some more traditional test, such as land ownership or literacy. But in a democracy, this type of discrimination is often the wrong kind of discrimination. The people don't have the wealth, but they have the right to vote, to debate, to think for themselves, whether they are well or badly equipped. And the wisdom of crowd theory shows that in some cases they do better than experts because their different bits of information add up, rather than cancel out the way expert opinions so often do, provided they don't engage in "group think" due to the influence of leaders or experts or journalists, etc.
 
 
Feb 6, 2011
I'm confused. And I have NO idea WHO the hell you're talking about. Hell, I have no idea who YOU are. I'm just trying to get you to go away so that Scott's blog can be normal again.
 
 
Feb 6, 2011
The three of who? Am I in there? Because I sure as hell didn't do ANYTHING to you.
 
 
Feb 6, 2011
I have NO idea WTH you're talking about, AnnoDomine.

@webgrunt: I agree.
 
 
Feb 6, 2011
It might be worthwhile to someday have a blog entry encouraging discussion on the morality and feasibility of requiring people who are clearly mentally ill to undergo treatment.
 
 
Feb 6, 2011
NO! Only you could think that was anti-semitic. It indicated complete shock, confusion, and overall confusement. I have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Scott, your stalker is pretty crazy.
 
 
Feb 6, 2011
Whaaaaat???
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog