Re: [asa] Otherness

From: Jack <>
Date: Wed Mar 14 2007 - 18:22:27 EDT

Roger Sperry won a Nobel Prize studying this phenomenon. He did experiments
in people that had undergone a corpus callosotomy, which prevented the two
hemispheres from talking to one another.

It led to some bizarre responses. For example the subject would be shown a
different object in each visual field (left visual field goes to the right
hemisphere, and right goes to left). If a pineapple was in the left visual
field, and a rabbit in the right they would get responses such as, if asked
what they saw they would say "rabbit" (since speech is mostly localized to
the left), but if asked to point to the object with the left hand (which is
controlled by the right hemisphere) they would point to the pineapple.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Armstrong" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: [asa] Otherness

> Since the matter of a bicameral brain has come up, it seems to me that one
> of the byproducts of the development of a bicameral brain must be a sense
> of "otherness" at some level, even if not necessarily conscious. The two
> halves process pretty independently, and then "talk" about the results.
> Just to make this short, I wonder if the tensions and communication
> between the two hemispheres, and such an accompanying (though not well
> articulated) sense of otherness might reflect a continuing development of
> an historic emergent sense (or awareness) of external otherness. I'm not
> trying to explain away God, but poke at a possible way that emergent sense
> of a deific presence might unfold in an evolutionary context.
> It would seem that a sense of "self" and "other" are necessarily
> intertwined. If there is no sense of "other", then there can be no sense
> of God. ...or so it seemeth to me. JimA
> wrote:
>> I will say if that is about that. The bicameral mind results in
>> "handendness". Glenn has evidence of handedness well back in the past,
>> so this would support his view.
>> But language is also dependant on the bicameral mind. I am saying that
>> there is something about language, and it would likely be a later
>> development, that eventually leads to true humaness. In other words a
>> bicameral mind is necessary but not sufficient.
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:54:46 GMT
>> "" <> wrote:
>>> Jack wrote: "I have been reluctant to accept Glenn's idea for two
>>> reasons, the first being that the indicators of the bible are clear I
>>> think, that Adam was Neolithic, and secondly because he has not
>>> convinced me that ancient evidence for burial, etc is the same as being
>>> made in God's image."
>>> Of course Glenn has many more "human-like evidences" on his web site -
>>> - grave goods is just one of these. As for what scripture says, I cannot
>>> agree that the "indicators are clear." That seems to be quite a stretch.
>>> Jack continues: "I have been kicking around the idea in my head that
>>> being made in God's image means capacity for abstract language." An
>>> interesting idea. There is some evidence that some chimps have this
>>> capacity also. But it is not persuasive (to me).
>>> There is an interesting book by a Jaynes, a Yale(?) professor, The
>>> Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind -
>>> something about consciousness coming into being when the mind split into
>>> two halves. How to fit the good professor's thesis into the question is
>>> something I have not thought through.
>>> Burgy
>>> The conversion of CS Lewis
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 14 18:23:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 14 2007 - 18:23:00 EDT