Free will

Hello

For people who still believe in the free will or something like soul
I am reading in these days the book

"Who's in charge " by Michael Cazzaniga

The right side of the brain is specialized in perception while the left side is the "interpreter"
However both parts have also reduced properties
The right side is also poor interpreter ( let's say it is almost an idiot) the left side is also a poor artist

You know that the left eye is connected to the right brain and vicersa
Some people have had their brain cut in two hemispheres i,e no more connections between the left and right brain

you show a metal and a plastic spoon to the right brain ( left eye )
The person provides a corect answer
You show the two spoon to the left side ( right eye)
I see two spoons, there is no difference

You show a spoon and a cup of coffee to the right side
They are not related items , he answere
You show them to the left brain
Well of course spoon and cup of coffe get along

It is the same person giving such answers:)

The soul....where is it ?

Before this topic goes any further, I would like to see your source on this.

I already quoted the source the "Who's in charge ?" book
The brain split is necessary in some case of epilessy

The brain split is/was not necessary, and is not done anymore as far as I know. People who had it done, were usually a potato after it. The just sat in a room all day and couldn't do anything.

maybe someone turns into a vegetal after the operation but not all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMLzP1VCANo

The behaviour of a split brain person is more or less normal as long as he gets inputs from both the right and left body but it drammatically changes if the inputs come from one half body only

Again from the book

Consider the following cases

Mary pours a white powder in her husband's coffee
Marry assumes it is sugar but it is poison
Mary's husband dies

Jane pours a white powder in her husband's coffee
Jane assumes it is poison but it is sugar
Jane's husband does not die

Split brain persons who gots above inputs through the right brain only ( via the left body) declared that Mary is a bad person while Jane is a good one

They stuck to the results without making any interpretation
The same persons changed their mind when the got the above inputs also through the left brain ( right body )

Consider me very skeptical on most of these accounts, but it's still an interesting topic. One question:

How do you give these people that kind of input only to the right brain? You're saying that the same persons changed their mind later when they got the input through the other brain, so clearly, there has to be some black vodoo magic at work so that these scientists were able to numb one half of the brain. How did they do that?

Also, when judging someone to be bad or good, then doesn't the act of judging require some interpretation as well - after all, I have to correlate actions with results and then somehow assign "moral points" to that.

This is what it is written in the book

"Who's in charge " by Michael Cazzaniga

Unless mr Gazzaniga is a charlatan
But I read similar things also in other books
Also the book was attached to the italian version of " American Science " magazine
I suppose they select the authors

Coming to your questions

The right brain is a good "perceptor" but a poor "interpreter"
The left brain is good "interpreter" but a poor " perceptor "

All the inputs from right eyes/ears/hands go to the left emisphere and viceversa
The two emisphere are normally connected so , in general , it does not make any differece

For a split brain the difference is drammatic

If the subjetc gets inputs only via the left body then he behaves like a child viceversa he can provides wrong but somehow logic answers to simple questions
The reason being that the left brain is smart but his perceptions are confused

In the book there many examples

Heaps of documented cases for sure about this particular subject but what or where is the byline?
Interested to see where your thoughts are roaming on this as 'Free Will' implies we dont have it to begin with.....
Then if this is not the scenario, it stands to my way of reasoning that 'We are not in control of ourselves in any measure at all but rather subject to 'Anothers will' and therefore without a will of our own....
In which case perhaps it can be considered that we are biological robots (mindless slaves)set to discover and determine what 'Free Will' actually is....maybe :)and that we only think we are intelligent and thusly 'Willful" so answering the question with some justified aplomb!

The title of the book "who is in charge ?" is self explaining
Actually we are robots

If you are interested in the soul try studying meta-physics.

I am interested in serious subjects only

Aha.

It gets far more complicated than that actually, because even for the individuals themselves the brain will naturally try to justify all kinds of actions or choices in hindsight. For rapid evolution it is actually vital not to follow along only the known or safe paths and for that reason the brain justifies all kinds of strange choices. Opportunity makes a thief, quite literally at times, but it obviously also has positive benefits for example; blindly jumping in front of that bus that's about to hit the kid that runs across without looking, stopping the bus and saving the child's life. Who in their right mind would justify the risk involved? Well, your brain really has no problems with that, ..or at least will try very hard to convince you it was the right thing to do.

It goes much much deeper than just right or wrong too, all the stuff with no or little moral implication is actually bound by the same stuff. From your choice of clothing, big icecream or no icecream, all the way to your choice of future wife.

This also means that while in a random discussion someone might have a good set of morals or even clear idea of what he or she is going to do with his or her future life, someone's actions might speak quite differently and yet still the brain might not even make you feel 'bad' about it at the end of the day!

When it comes to free will, there's probably simply no way of really putting your own freedom to the test.

What would qualify as an act of pure free will any way? I mean, I do belief quite strongly in a free will, but if actions can only be judged in hindsight, there's nothing you can deduct from that as far as free will goes.

We're holographic copies observing our own reality originating from a 2D plane on the surface of the nearest black hole.... ;-)

Generally speaking, I can agree but this was not the point

See the Mary / Jane example in my previous post

I suppose that every body agree that Mary is a good person
while Jane is not
There is no room for " ethical relativism " or phylosophical subtilities in such a simple example

However a split brain guy may be of a different opinion
Not only
The same guy :
If ( right ear ) then Mary = good && Jane = bad
If ( left ear ) then Mary = bad && Jane = good

How can some people seriously speak of "free will" ?