Essay Sample: What Split Brain Studies Suggest for the Problem of Personal Identity

Split-brain studies have for many reasons presented information on personal identity in different perspectives, but a closer look at the facts underlain in the theory's mainstream is that persons do not exist as separate entities. In as much the split brain theory advocates for many problems that come along as a result of personal identity, many emerging studies arise in the process of capitalizing on the main subject. Divergent opinions cannot, in any case, get a rejection just as it is welcome to views from scholars and independent researchers that are in agreement with the theory (Pinto, Yair et al., p1233). In light with the proposition, the most important thing is that it is primarily the same person at all times. Being the same person at all times is also explained in the psychological continuity and connectedness.

We cannot, however, come to a full prove about the notion that an individual being one person is not very important. The theory is a combination of contradicting ideas that call for rational thinking. The complexity of the concepts of split-brain theory requires that concepts in relation to it be given self-concern. The summary of the argument, however, insists on a person existing in two. It is possible in this case for the theory impounds heavily on the existence of the left part of the brain and the right part of the brain. The coordination of the two parts of the brain, in that case, makes one exist into two (Pinto, Yair et al., p1235). The agreement between the left part of the brain and the right part of the brain is what constitutes to normal functioning of the brain. Any failure of the counterpart portions of the brain to interact results to dire consequences to the affected.

Connection of Split Brain Theory with Bimanual Tasks

In light of the split brain theory, researchers are still underway over the subcortical communication for the case of coordinated movement of hands. During the observation of patients with problems related to "bimanual tasks," it is worth noting that split-brain theory is in control. It is challenging for such patients to handle tasks that require the coordination of the two hands. Each of the patient's hand in most cases during observation is seen to work in constant opposition (Kajal, Diljit Singh, et al., 2017). Every side is independent of the other as well as the brain.

Few patients with such conditions can manage to do a task that requires the use of both hands, for instance, driving a car.

It is challenging for such patients to work on threading a needle. They may end up being hurt in the process. Various studies like the one carried out by Franz came to a conclusion that bimanual skills can as well be subject to practice for the case of people affected by the condition for correction. This is one of the explanations that split-brain theory has for choreographed smooth hands. Split brain theory on the bimanual tasks is self-explicit and nature of the explanation is open that one can practically observe the impact of the argument.

The split brain theory has some sections that have been studied nut all independently leads us to one sovereign explanation for the split of the brain into two parts. The left hemisphere of the brain also explains the split-brain theory. The theory of the mind on insisting on the right and left parts of the brain arguably supports the split-brain theory. This part of the brain is used for higher functionalities in as far moral reasoning processing.

The brain theory forms the framework for the explanation of the split brain theory despite their emphasis on different complexities about the brain. The fact that the split brain theory tries to be exhaustive of factors underlay for the functionalities of the left and right hemispheres of the brain; there is a fact that personal identity can be tempered easily when coordination between the left and right parts of the brain fails to coordinate. The right and left part of the brain can be taunting to ones' identity about objects and self if there is the lack or say less coordination (Kajal, Diljit Singh, et al., 2017). Ordinary cases can reveal that the brain is a solid block not unless experimental designs as those put in place for the split brain theory and the observation of individuals with the problem are confirmed. The summary of the argument, however, insists on a person existing in two. It is possible in this case for the theory impounds heavily on the existence of the left part of the brain and the right part of the brain. The coordination of the two parts of the brain, in that case, makes one exist into two.

Discussion of Theories of Personal Identity

The Bundle-Theory

The bundle theory was postulated by David Hume, an 18th-century Philosopher from Scotland; to the influence that the mind is merely a bundle of perceptions with no low cohesion or unity, associated only with succession, resemblance, and causation. Hume also suggested in this theory that an object is made up of just a bundle (collection) of properties and anything else. The reasoning, therefore, follows that no existing object lacks parks and no one can conceive of an object without its features. For instance, a ball isactually an assortment of the properties color (green), size 50cm in diameter), weight (5kg), and so on, the properties of which if they lack; the ball ceases to exist.

David Hume in this theory also suggested that there exist no substance in which the properties inhere; and according to him even, the notion of an enduring self is an impression. At a given time, an individual is just but a collection of mental states; no distinct subject of the said mental states that are over or say above the mental states themselves. The theory endeavored to explain that when the spiritual state diminishes and replaced by other countries, the creature too subsides and then it is replaced with the different animal.

The split brains theory supports the validity of the bundle theory based on the apparent reasons explained by a Philosopher by the name Parfit. Parfit claims in the Bundle Theory that no person involved Diverse awareness of events happening at the same time, and not dissimilar egos True for patients with split-brain and individuals with healthy brains alike. Split-brain patients and people with healthy minds always are aware of possessing various experiences at once. For example, a both individuals mentioned above can hear a car as they watch it drive down the road. Just as persons have a single memory of two arrays of experience so too there can be a separate state of awareness of both seeing and hearing. Therefore, a patient of split-brain does not have a single state of knowledge but two streams of their consciousness. The statement above does not entail that there are two separately actual persons, but instead, there are two distinct bundles of perception and not one.

The same Brain Theory

The theory advocates for a different course unlike what the split brain theory talks about. When the divided brain theory emphasizes the existence of two parts of the brain working together in a mutual relationship to bring about coordination as well as running factors about personal identity, the same brain theory takes another course and explains that the brain works courtesy of a combination of processes. The processes that are triggered in mind are independent of the partitions that the split brain theory refer to as right and left hemispheres. The same brain theory is rigid that the brain is a complex compound that is solidified together and for any case works towards achieving a common goal through well-coordinated processes (Scharp, Kristina M and Clair, p1120. All the mind processes according to the theory are as a result of the experiences that the mind goes through.

On personal identity, the theory is explicit in that it associates all the activities of the brain towards recognition of items as well individual character to the coordination that is internally triggered by a series of events. The events are also privately controlled but work out to bring a standard result unless part of the brain is affected by malwares for instance brain tumors and other brain-related diseases. The malwares, in this case, are distractors and for that matter may cause harm to the brain, therefore, affecting the standard brain processes.

The condition of the same brain theory in explanation of the split method is contrary. For this case, the split brain theory is contradictory to the ideas brought to light by the same brain theory. The two theories do not match over issues they articulate in as far as advocating for the brain processes are concerned.

The Same-Body Theory

The same-Body Theory is also a personal identity theory and is described an individual possesses a secret identity if and only if he has the same body. At a particular moment, a person is the same person just as they will be at a later date if and only if they possess the very same living body material. If Aristotles actual account of identity substance to individuals is applied, then an explanation follows that for an individual to be the same person as they were before, they have to contain the same matter acquired from that former person by steady replacement prearranged into the form of a person (Scharp, Kristina M, and Clair, p1120). For Aristotle, essential properties which result in the kind of a person would encompass, not just shape and biological properties, but the form of way of behaving and a capacity for a mental life of feeling and thought.

The condition of the split brain theory supports the same-body theory in reasons that the body are the theory of personal identity. The theories talks of the same person at a particular time whom after a given period remains the same person only and only if the person possesses the same properties. What makes a person the same is the same property as an earlier property is that the matter in that substance/person remains the same. Or the property is acquired from the previous person by slow replacement while continuing to possess essential features which constitute the form of that person (Thomas, William, et al., p516). A pertinent of the split brain contains the same matter as the former person only that the left and right hemisphere of the patient seems to object each other. We cannot deduce that the person changes into another person merely because they have suffered split brain. They instead remain the same, and hence the same-body theory is heavily supported by split-brain theory.

Works Cited

Kajal, Diljit Singh, et al. "Learned control of interhemispheric connectivity: Effects on bimanual motor performance." Human brain mapping (2017).

Pinto, Yair, et al. "Split brain: divided perception but undivided consciousness." Brain 140.5 (2017): 1231-1237.

Scharp, Kristina M., and Clair Canfield. "Irreplaceable: Exploring identity and relationships through the discussion of invaluable personal objects." Communication Teacher 31.2 (2017): 107-111.

Thomas, William E., et al. "Social Identification in Sports Teams: The Role of Personal, Social, and Collective Identity Motives." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43.4 (2017): 508-523.