|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 18, 2014 9:33:08 GMT -5
In In Search of the Miraculous Ouspensky reports that Gurdjieff decided to show them an experiment concerning the separation of personality and essence. Ouspensky leaves out all indications as to how this was done. The account goes in to a couple of pages so I'll hit the highlights. Two men are described before the experiment. "One was no longer young and was a man who occupied a fairly prominent position in society. At our meetings he spoke much and often about himself, his family, Christianity, and about the events of the moment connected with the war and all possible kinds of "scandal" that had very much disgusted him. The other was younger. Many of us did not consider him a serious person. Very often he played what is called the fool; or on the other hand, entered into endless formal arguments about some or other details of the system without any relation whatsoever to the whole. It was very difficult to understand him. He spoke in a confused and intricate manner even of the most simple things, mixing up in a most impossible way different points of view and words belonging to different categories and levels".
They were seated in a big drawing room and conversation went on as usual after the not-reported means of separation.
"Now observe," Gurdjieff whispered to us.
"The older of the two who was speaking heatedly about something suddenly became silent in the middle of a sentence and seemed to sink into his chair looking straight in front of him. At a sign from Gurdjieff we continued to talk without looking at him. The younger one began to listen to the talk and then spoke himself. All of us looked at one another. His voice had become different. He told us some observations about himself in a clear, simple, and intelligible manner without superfluous words, without extravagances, and without buffoonery. Then he became silent; he smoked a cigarette and was obviously thinking of something. The first one sat still without moving, as though sunken into a ball".
"Ask him what he is thinking about," said Gurdjieff quietly.
"I"? ........."About nothing".
They tried to engage him about the topics he had been discussing, about the war (WWI), about making peace with the Germans, "I don't know" about having definite opinions, about the consequences of everything happening, "Did I say that?" the result for Russia, for the whole of civilization. "I do not know what you are talking about at all, it does not interest me". He kept declining to offer any opinion, continued to say all this has no interest for me. They continued to try to press him, what about your concerns for your family? What do you think about you and them? "Again, a wondering glance--I do not want anything".
"But think, what would you like?"
"On the table beside him there stood an unfinished glass of tea. He gazed at it for a long time as though considering something. He glanced around twice, and then looked at the glass, and said in such a serious voice and with such serious intonations that we all looked at one another: "I think I should like some raspberry jam."
"Why are you speaking to him?" said a voice from the corner which we hardly recognized. This was the second "experiment". "Can you not see that he is asleep?" "And you yourself?" asked one of us. "I on the contrary have woken up." "Why has he gone to sleep while you have woken up?" "I do not know."
With this the experiment ended. Neither of them remembered anything the next day". (pages 251-253) In Search of the Miraculous, Fragments of an Unknown Teaching, PD Ouspensky, 1949
For many years after I first read that I didn't consider what Gurdjieff had done to separate essence from personality in these individuals. I probably first learned about the two hemispheres of the brain, right and left brain, from reading Robert Ornstein. I poked around for years, reading here and there about the split mind. As things I read added up, I began to suspect that essence lived in the right hemisphere of the brain and personality lived in the left brain, that, looking back on this episode, Gurdjieff knew some means, possibly some drug, that incapacitated the left hemisphere of the brain leaving essence active in the right hemisphere.
Everything I subsequently read added to this opinion. One of the first things you learn upon studying hemisphere influence is that language comes from the left brain in the majority of people. There are exceptions, if the language area of the left brain is damaged in some manner, the right brain can take over. And it naturally occurs in the right brain for about 35% of left-handed people.
So, it's clear to me that meditation and all types of interior spiritual practices of the ATA-MT type access the right brain, the silent, whole-patterned, spatial, perceptual, wordless, language-less right brain. The left brain is verbal, linear and analytical. The left brain sees the parts, the trees, the right brain sees the whole, the forest.
Saturday I stumbled upon this book, Return to the Brain of Eden, Restoring the Connection Between Neurochemistry and Consciousness by Tony Wright and Graham Gynn, 2007, 2008, 2014. It's quite interesting. In the book the authors do indicate that certain psychotropic drugs do in fact effect the left brain and the right brain differently. Bingo. "It has been found that there are chemical and pharmacological asymmetries between the hemispheres. E.A. Serafetinides, working at the Guy-Maudsley Neurosurgical Unit in London, administered LSD to patients who had undergone left or right temporal lobe removals. He found that the typical perceptual responses to LSD--psychedelic hallucinations and "mind-expanded" states--disappeared after right--but not left temporal lobotomy. This suggests that the drug does not have any affect in the left hemisphere. This is perplexing". (pages 11, 12)
From split-brain research done on individuals who have had the right and left brains separated by the cutting of the corpus callosum, it looks as if there are two people, living in one organism. It seems not unreasonable to assume, as in Gurdjieff's experiment, these two people, two aspects of self, lives in everyone.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2014 23:20:30 GMT -5
Subsequent to this thread I found a new book at a Barnes & Noble last weekend.
Sam Harris is an atheist neuroscientist. He discusses the work of Roger W Sperry who won the Noble Prize in 1981 for his work in split-brain research. The following are pertinent to the OP. (And, anyone who didn't make it through the OP I highlighted the related paragraphs).
"What is most startling about the split-brain phenomenon is that we have every reason to believe that the isolated right hemisphere is independently conscious. It is true that some scientists and philosophers have resisted this conclusion, but none have done so credibly. If complex language were necessary for consciousness, then all nonhuman animals and human infants would be devoid of consciousness in principle. If those whose left hemispheres have been surgically removed are still believed to be conscious-and they are-how could the mere presence of a functioning left hemisphere rob the right one of its subjectivity in the case of a split-brain patient?"
"Much of what makes us human is generally accomplished by the right side of the brain. Consequently, we have every reason to believe that the disconnected right hemisphere is independently conscious and that the divided brain harbors two distinct points of view. This fact poses an insurmountable problem for the notion that each of us has a single, indivisible self-much less an immortal soul. The idea that a soul arises from the feeling that our subjectivity has a unity, simplicity, and integrity that must somehow transcend the biochemical wheelworks of the body. But the split-brain phenomenon proves that our subjectivity can quite literally be sliced in two".
"The philosopher Roland Puccetti once observed that the existence of separate spheres of consciousness in the normal brain would explain one of the most perplexing features of split-brain research: Why is it that the right hemisphere is generally willing to bear silent witness to the errors and confabulations of the left? Could it be that the right hemisphere is used to it?
'An answer consistent with the hypothesis of mental duality in the normal brain suggests itself. The nonspeaking hemisphere has known the true state of affairs from a very tender age. It has known this because beginning at the age of two or three it heard speech emanating from the common body that, as language development on the left proceeded, became too complex grammatically and syntactically for it to believe it was generating; the same, of course, for what it observed the preferred handwriting down in school through the years. Postsurgically, little has changed for the mute hemisphere.....Being inured to this status of cerebral helot, it goes along. Thankless cooperation can become a way of life' (Puccetti)
"Take a moment to absorb how bizarre this possibility is. The point of view from which you are consciously reading these words may not be the only conscious point of view to be found in your brain. It is one thing to say that you are unaware of a vast amount of activity in your brain. It is quite another to say that some of this activity is aware of itself and is watching your every move".
Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris, 2014 pages 67-73
...................
Maybe this non-volitional thing discussed often here is about the helpless silent watching right hemisphere playing second fiddle to the verbal left hemisphere? ("Being inured to this status of cerebral helot".......I had to look it up, helot, in ancient Sparta, a class between citizen and slave).
Point of the quotes, of course, they support the OP.
sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2014 0:17:11 GMT -5
Subsequent to this thread I found a new book at a Barnes & Noble last weekend. Sam Harris is an atheist neuroscientist. He discusses the work of Roger W Sperry who won the Noble Prize in 1981 for his work in split-brain research. The following are pertinent to the OP. (And, anyone who didn't make it through the OP I highlighted the related paragraphs). "What is most startling about the split-brain phenomenon is that we have every reason to believe that the isolated right hemisphere is independently conscious. It is true that some scientists and philosophers have resisted this conclusion, but none have done so credibly. If complex language were necessary for consciousness, then all nonhuman animals and human infants would be devoid of consciousness in principle. If those whose left hemispheres have been surgically removed are still believed to be conscious-and they are-how could the mere presence of a functioning left hemisphere rob the right one of its subjectivity in the case of a split-brain patient?" "Much of what makes us human is generally accomplished by the right side of the brain. Consequently, we have every reason to believe that the disconnected right hemisphere is independently conscious and that the divided brain harbors two distinct points of view. This fact poses an insurmountable problem for the notion that each of us has a single, indivisible self-much less an immortal soul. The idea that a soul arises from the feeling that our subjectivity has a unity, simplicity, and integrity that must somehow transcend the biochemical wheelworks of the body. But the split-brain phenomenon proves that our subjectivity can quite literally be sliced in two". "The philosopher Roland Puccetti once observed that the existence of separate spheres of consciousness in the normal brain would explain one of the most perplexing features of split-brain research: Why is it that the right hemisphere is generally willing to bear silent witness to the errors and confabulations of the left? Could it be that the right hemisphere is used to it? 'An answer consistent with the hypothesis of mental duality in the normal brain suggests itself. The nonspeaking hemisphere has known the true state of affairs from a very tender age. It has known this because beginning at the age of two or three it heard speech emanating from the common body that, as language development on the left proceeded, became too complex grammatically and syntactically for it to believe it was generating; the same, of course, for what it observed the preferred handwriting down in school through the years. Postsurgically, little has changed for the mute hemisphere.....Being inured to this status of cerebral helot, it goes along. Thankless cooperation can become a way of life' (Puccetti) "Take a moment to absorb how bizarre this possibility is. The point of view from which you are consciously reading these words may not be the only conscious point of view to be found in your brain. It is one thing to say that you are unaware of a vast amount of activity in your brain. It is quite another to say that some of this activity is aware of itself and is watching your every move". Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris, 2014 pages 67-73 ................... Maybe this non-volitional thing discussed often here is about the helpless silent watching right hemisphere playing second fiddle to the verbal left hemisphere? ("Being inured to this status of cerebral helot".......I had to look it up, helot, in ancient Sparta, a class between citizen and slave). Point of the quotes, of course, they support the OP. sdp Independently conscious hemispheres is a conclusion based on the false assumption that the brain is the source and seat of consciousness. Rather, brains, and likewise separate hemispheres, are merely different filters through which consciousness experiences. There are not two consciousnesses in the person, there are none. Consciousness is not in the person, the person is in consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 19, 2015 13:42:45 GMT -5
I just watched the Ted talk by Jill Bolte Taylor that zd linked about her stroke of insight. This thread is related as it discusses the verbal chattering person who resides in the left hemisphere of the brain. I thought I'd pull it back up.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2017 9:37:39 GMT -5
I just watched the Ted talk by Jill Bolte Taylor that zd linked about her stroke of insight. This thread is related as it discusses the verbal chattering person who resides in the left hemisphere of the brain. I thought I'd pull it back up. .....bumped, as someNOTHING! has started a similar Split Brain vs Split Mind thread...........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 10:12:18 GMT -5
Subsequent to this thread I found a new book at a Barnes & Noble last weekend. Sam Harris is an atheist neuroscientist. He discusses the work of Roger W Sperry who won the Noble Prize in 1981 for his work in split-brain research. The following are pertinent to the OP. (And, anyone who didn't make it through the OP I highlighted the related paragraphs). "What is most startling about the split-brain phenomenon is that we have every reason to believe that the isolated right hemisphere is independently conscious. It is true that some scientists and philosophers have resisted this conclusion, but none have done so credibly. If complex language were necessary for consciousness, then all nonhuman animals and human infants would be devoid of consciousness in principle. If those whose left hemispheres have been surgically removed are still believed to be conscious-and they are-how could the mere presence of a functioning left hemisphere rob the right one of its subjectivity in the case of a split-brain patient?" "Much of what makes us human is generally accomplished by the right side of the brain. Consequently, we have every reason to believe that the disconnected right hemisphere is independently conscious and that the divided brain harbors two distinct points of view. This fact poses an insurmountable problem for the notion that each of us has a single, indivisible self-much less an immortal soul. The idea that a soul arises from the feeling that our subjectivity has a unity, simplicity, and integrity that must somehow transcend the biochemical wheelworks of the body. But the split-brain phenomenon proves that our subjectivity can quite literally be sliced in two". "The philosopher Roland Puccetti once observed that the existence of separate spheres of consciousness in the normal brain would explain one of the most perplexing features of split-brain research: Why is it that the right hemisphere is generally willing to bear silent witness to the errors and confabulations of the left? Could it be that the right hemisphere is used to it? 'An answer consistent with the hypothesis of mental duality in the normal brain suggests itself. The nonspeaking hemisphere has known the true state of affairs from a very tender age. It has known this because beginning at the age of two or three it heard speech emanating from the common body that, as language development on the left proceeded, became too complex grammatically and syntactically for it to believe it was generating; the same, of course, for what it observed the preferred handwriting down in school through the years. Postsurgically, little has changed for the mute hemisphere.....Being inured to this status of cerebral helot, it goes along. Thankless cooperation can become a way of life' (Puccetti) "Take a moment to absorb how bizarre this possibility is. The point of view from which you are consciously reading these words may not be the only conscious point of view to be found in your brain. It is one thing to say that you are unaware of a vast amount of activity in your brain. It is quite another to say that some of this activity is aware of itself and is watching your every move". Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris, 2014 pages 67-73 ................... Maybe this non-volitional thing discussed often here is about the helpless silent watching right hemisphere playing second fiddle to the verbal left hemisphere? ("Being inured to this status of cerebral helot".......I had to look it up, helot, in ancient Sparta, a class between citizen and slave). Point of the quotes, of course, they support the OP. sdp Independently conscious hemispheres is a conclusion based on the false assumption that the brain is the source and seat of consciousness. Rather, brains, and likewise separate hemispheres, are merely different filters through which consciousness experiences. There are not two consciousnesses in the person, there are none. Consciousness is not in the person, the person is in consciousness. How do you know the person is in Consciousness isn't a false assumption?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2017 11:15:03 GMT -5
Independently conscious hemispheres is a conclusion based on the false assumption that the brain is the source and seat of consciousness. Rather, brains, and likewise separate hemispheres, are merely different filters through which consciousness experiences. There are not two consciousnesses in the person, there are none. Consciousness is not in the person, the person is in consciousness. How do you know the person is in Consciousness isn't a false assumption? Well....I agree with enigma, but one does not negate the other. For a maybe bad example. A radio tower broadcasts radio waves through the atmosphere. Take the station to-be Consciousness. Take the brain to be a radio. The radio waves exist in the atmosphere, whether or not there is a radio that receives them. Take AM to be the left brain, take FM to be the right brain. We can call the manifestation of the radio program in the brain, consciousness. But we can debate where the program arises, whether from the brain itself or from the Broadcasting Station. But we cannot debate that a brain is necessary for the manifestation. [source question can only be answered individually, subjectively-objectively, consciously, ("concretely"); not abstractly, not communally].
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 8, 2017 2:11:15 GMT -5
SDP sez: "Are you in your right mind? (or left mind)"
Depends on the definition of 'you'.... are we talking about a) the sheepish EWE b) the magnetic U or c) the real YOU?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 9:31:59 GMT -5
SDP sez: "Are you in your right mind? (or left mind)" Depends on the definition of 'you'.... are we talking about a) the sheepish EWE b) the magnetic U or c) the real YOU? The definition of 'you' depends upon which hemisphere of the brain, right or left, ~you~ are in (at any one time). The real YOU would be a ~ blended~ Whole (but don't assume meaning/understanding as to what that means).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 8, 2017 9:54:18 GMT -5
SDP sez: "Are you in your right mind? (or left mind)" Depends on the definition of 'you'.... are we talking about a) the sheepish EWE b) the magnetic U or c) the real YOU? The definition of 'you' depends upon which hemisphere of the brain, right or left, ~you~ are in (at any one time). The real YOU would be a ~ blended~ Whole (but don't assume meaning/understanding as to what that means). The brain (both sides) is in YOU, not the other way round.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:49:35 GMT -5
The definition of 'you' depends upon which hemisphere of the brain, right or left, ~you~ are in (at any one time). The real YOU would be a ~ blended~ Whole (but don't assume meaning/understanding as to what that means). The brain (both sides) is in YOU, not the other way round. ~We~ are a set of Russian dolls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 12:55:04 GMT -5
Subsequent to this thread I found a new book at a Barnes & Noble last weekend. Sam Harris is an atheist neuroscientist. He discusses the work of Roger W Sperry who won the Noble Prize in 1981 for his work in split-brain research. The following are pertinent to the OP. (And, anyone who didn't make it through the OP I highlighted the related paragraphs). "What is most startling about the split-brain phenomenon is that we have every reason to believe that the isolated right hemisphere is independently conscious. It is true that some scientists and philosophers have resisted this conclusion, but none have done so credibly. If complex language were necessary for consciousness, then all nonhuman animals and human infants would be devoid of consciousness in principle. If those whose left hemispheres have been surgically removed are still believed to be conscious-and they are-how could the mere presence of a functioning left hemisphere rob the right one of its subjectivity in the case of a split-brain patient?" "Much of what makes us human is generally accomplished by the right side of the brain. Consequently, we have every reason to believe that the disconnected right hemisphere is independently conscious and that the divided brain harbors two distinct points of view. This fact poses an insurmountable problem for the notion that each of us has a single, indivisible self-much less an immortal soul. The idea that a soul arises from the feeling that our subjectivity has a unity, simplicity, and integrity that must somehow transcend the biochemical wheelworks of the body. But the split-brain phenomenon proves that our subjectivity can quite literally be sliced in two". "The philosopher Roland Puccetti once observed that the existence of separate spheres of consciousness in the normal brain would explain one of the most perplexing features of split-brain research: Why is it that the right hemisphere is generally willing to bear silent witness to the errors and confabulations of the left? Could it be that the right hemisphere is used to it? 'An answer consistent with the hypothesis of mental duality in the normal brain suggests itself. The nonspeaking hemisphere has known the true state of affairs from a very tender age. It has known this because beginning at the age of two or three it heard speech emanating from the common body that, as language development on the left proceeded, became too complex grammatically and syntactically for it to believe it was generating; the same, of course, for what it observed the preferred handwriting down in school through the years. Postsurgically, little has changed for the mute hemisphere.....Being inured to this status of cerebral helot, it goes along. Thankless cooperation can become a way of life' (Puccetti) "Take a moment to absorb how bizarre this possibility is. The point of view from which you are consciously reading these words may not be the only conscious point of view to be found in your brain. It is one thing to say that you are unaware of a vast amount of activity in your brain. It is quite another to say that some of this activity is aware of itself and is watching your every move". Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris, 2014 pages 67-73 ................... Maybe this non-volitional thing discussed often here is about the helpless silent watching right hemisphere playing second fiddle to the verbal left hemisphere? ("Being inured to this status of cerebral helot".......I had to look it up, helot, in ancient Sparta, a class between citizen and slave). Point of the quotes, of course, they support the OP. sdp Independently conscious hemispheres is a conclusion based on the false assumption that the brain is the source and seat of consciousness. Rather, brains, and likewise separate hemispheres, are merely different filters through which consciousness experiences. There are not two consciousnesses in the person, there are none. Consciousness is not in the person, the person is in consciousness. Wow, why didn't I think of that...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2021 15:25:12 GMT -5
......bumped, as the subject has come up recently......
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 18, 2021 21:46:43 GMT -5
......bumped, as the subject has come up recently...... To me your Gurdjieff story sounds like hypnosis. I agree with enigma 's point that our conscious isn't in the brain, but the brain is a creation of our subconscious. Surely, we rely on what we perceive and what we believe, but both of those are fallible. Although we see the Sun circling the Earth, we "know" not to be so because of what we believe. from "Le Petit Prince", Antoine de Saint-Exupéry I believe that each one of us has only one "conscious" that shifts between various states of consciousness, its experiences varying accordingly (awake, dream, sleep, hypnotized, "dead", ...). Besides the major states, normally, the "conscious" is in a state that is a mixture of those above. Science observed and hypothesized certain correlations between parts of our physical bodies, and functions and states of our minds. But, I think that consensus is that a synchronization between the two brain hemispheres is necessary for an optimum functionality of the mind. On the same lines, our evolvement implies a conscious shift of the ratio of the various states of consciusness according to whatever we intend. Leonardo Da Vinci used to write from right to left, and the consensus is that he did that to prevent smudging because he was left handed, and / or to hide his secrets from others. I believe that both hypotheses are incorrect, and that he chose the writing style as an exercise to stimulate his creativity. This is based both on the right/left hemispheres differences, and on the observation the at mind level the time moves from right to left, from idea to concrete.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 3:06:52 GMT -5
Subsequent to this thread I found a new book at a Barnes & Noble last weekend. Sam Harris is an atheist neuroscientist. He discusses the work of Roger W Sperry who won the Noble Prize in 1981 for his work in split-brain research. The following are pertinent to the OP. (And, anyone who didn't make it through the OP I highlighted the related paragraphs). "What is most startling about the split-brain phenomenon is that we have every reason to believe that the isolated right hemisphere is independently conscious. It is true that some scientists and philosophers have resisted this conclusion, but none have done so credibly. If complex language were necessary for consciousness, then all nonhuman animals and human infants would be devoid of consciousness in principle. If those whose left hemispheres have been surgically removed are still believed to be conscious-and they are-how could the mere presence of a functioning left hemisphere rob the right one of its subjectivity in the case of a split-brain patient?" "Much of what makes us human is generally accomplished by the right side of the brain. Consequently, we have every reason to believe that the disconnected right hemisphere is independently conscious and that the divided brain harbors two distinct points of view. This fact poses an insurmountable problem for the notion that each of us has a single, indivisible self-much less an immortal soul. The idea that a soul arises from the feeling that our subjectivity has a unity, simplicity, and integrity that must somehow transcend the biochemical wheelworks of the body. But the split-brain phenomenon proves that our subjectivity can quite literally be sliced in two". "The philosopher Roland Puccetti once observed that the existence of separate spheres of consciousness in the normal brain would explain one of the most perplexing features of split-brain research: Why is it that the right hemisphere is generally willing to bear silent witness to the errors and confabulations of the left? Could it be that the right hemisphere is used to it? 'An answer consistent with the hypothesis of mental duality in the normal brain suggests itself. The nonspeaking hemisphere has known the true state of affairs from a very tender age. It has known this because beginning at the age of two or three it heard speech emanating from the common body that, as language development on the left proceeded, became too complex grammatically and syntactically for it to believe it was generating; the same, of course, for what it observed the preferred handwriting down in school through the years. Postsurgically, little has changed for the mute hemisphere.....Being inured to this status of cerebral helot, it goes along. Thankless cooperation can become a way of life' (Puccetti) "Take a moment to absorb how bizarre this possibility is. The point of view from which you are consciously reading these words may not be the only conscious point of view to be found in your brain. It is one thing to say that you are unaware of a vast amount of activity in your brain. It is quite another to say that some of this activity is aware of itself and is watching your every move". Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris, 2014 pages 67-73 ................... Maybe this non-volitional thing discussed often here is about the helpless silent watching right hemisphere playing second fiddle to the verbal left hemisphere? ("Being inured to this status of cerebral helot".......I had to look it up, helot, in ancient Sparta, a class between citizen and slave). Point of the quotes, of course, they support the OP. sdp Independently conscious hemispheres is a conclusion based on the false assumption that the brain is the source and seat of consciousness. Rather, brains, and likewise separate hemispheres, are merely different filters through which consciousness experiences. There are not two consciousnesses in the person, there are none. Consciousness is not in the person, the person is in consciousness. Nice... Consciousness is in the left an right side of the 2 Brain as well as outside the sensory system Possibly self may only operate in the right hemisphere (like a Muso) but consciousness be the jack out of the box. Blowing the Brain reveals that consciousness is free of the Cranium 'I thinks.'
|
|