Neuroscience in Psychiatry - The Science of Law

 

© 5GL Software, Australia

IMAGINE as well as you can the same setting as in the prior presentation.


Presentation 14 - Laboratory Work: An Example of Distortion of Reality


Ladies and Gentlemen. Before we are in a position to be very clear, exactly and precisely, how to define laws, we need to avoid distorting reality. Let us formulate, for now, some building blocks of how to go about this. This convention presented is known as the "I theory". The notation is like this:

I(left) means the overall focus or consciousness or decision making of the left cerebral hemisphere
I(right) refers to the overall focus or consciousness or decision making of the right brain

Optionally, we can have I(left)(explanation).

An I(God) refers to the overall appreciation or understanding of God. An I(mathematician) would left to the brains mathematical language ability or knowledge.

Let us use these building blocks to try an explain or rationalize some real life situations. Recall the split-brain patient who was cooking soup, and her right hand was stirring and the left hand kept putting in more pinches of salt and would not stop? Let us try to define what is taking place using our building blocks.

Now, the corpus callosum has some estimated 20 million neural cells. Each neuron can connect to 10,000 others. Each connection can be a unique communication path or channel. If we try to work out how many communication paths does the corpus callosum form, the number would be so large we would not be able to write it down in a thick book. Clearly, there is a massive amount of information continually flowing across the collosum, this being the communication between the I(left) and I(right). If the corpus callosum is severed surgically, our split brain patient can only facial muscles to coordinate the I(left) and I(right), There is another structure besides the corpus callosum that can be used but that structure is used for very different flows between the two brains so the facial muscles are the only practical means

How many variations of tension, each such a distinct communication path, can either brain form with facial muscles? Perhaps as many as 10,000 - but this is a drop in the ocean compared to the paths the corpus callosum makes possible. Out of these 10,000, most of these would be used for vital information - body temperature coordination, gait and balance, hormone balance, etc. What we are left with might be a couple of thousand paths available. Not many. How do you avoid congestion on these paths? The right brain, or left, is used to using what is an infinite number of paths in the corpus callosum, not a handful. The right and left brain is used to flowing a huge volume of information to its companion, not a slow sequence.

One way the brain can coordinate this is to use some of the available channels formed from facial muscles as freeways. A can gets on when there is room, travels to where it has to get off. So, say the I(spatial perception) in the right brain now wants to inform the right brain as so: I(spatial perception) (have added another pinch of salt into the soup). This then has to be scheduled to flow across the facial muscles ("flow" so to speak, to make it easier to follow this argument). Fine if there is a channel available, but what if all are carrying traffic already? This communication has to wait. Problem with the right brain is that it does not know days of the week or numbers in the same was as the left, because it stores its information in order of what is most important. So, Sunday might be the first day of the week in its thinking, Friday may be next, Saturday may be the third, and so on. Now, given this brain is into "more important", it is not such a clever mechanism for scheduling in sequence. So, we have a message waiting from the I(spatial perception) but this might be considered of such a low priority that if our female is thinking about the dinner date that night and what she is going to wear, chances are any of these thoughts are "more important" than the routine of cooking soup, and these would receive first priority on the communication channels. Consequently the message that a pinch of salt has been added is delayed and delayed and could be delayed indefinitely. The I(will) becomes aware of the situation, or perhaps the I(right) is informing the I(will) (I am not sure, but I feel I am adding much more salt than is required, but the left has not told me to stop as it usually does once five pinches are added. I don't know how to count but I feel I may have added enough salt already).

Is this theory we just put together plausible? Let's look at an experience of another split-brain patient. In his case, sometimes when he puts on his shirt, his right hand start doing the buttons, but his left hand immediately starts undoing the button he just did. The solution of the I(will) might be something like (forget it, wear a t-shirt).

Why does this happen? The researcher who documented this failed to ask some questions, but my guess is that this begins if the person buttons the wrong button, puts in in a hole it is not supposed to, and then unbuttons and does it right. So the right brain that is controlling the left hand had to undo a button. Only the right brain sees the picture and can tell if a button is in the right hole. So, this brain informed the other hand to undo a button in the incorrect whole, but the signal that this has been done has not come across, has been lost or is waiting to go across to the other brain. Consequently, each time one hand does a button, the other hand undoes it because it has not been informed to stop. Think carefully. The 2-dimensional left brain can not see the picture as a whole, it does not know which button exactly is in the wrong hole, but its "logical" masterly tells it that if one button is in the wrong hole than all the buttons have to be undone to repair the situation.

In this example, even if the signal has gone across that a button has been undone, it may not have found its way to the I(logic) or I(reason) of the left brain which is determined to correct this situation by undoing all the buttons and only then letting the other hand do the buttons again. The other brain, however, is not into "sequences" but "importance", and may be forgetting to inform the other brain to stop undoing the buttons.

And my apologies if I confused anyone by using left and right when sometimes this clearly should be the other way around. In these kinds of examples that is easy to do.

Assertion: A human system of laws will eventually distort reality. A continual check on this has to be made by governments which then, to repair, would need to compensate victims and alter the laws. That is due to the fact that legal decisions of courts are forced on people by a para-military force called police, this regardless of how improper, bizarre, grotesque, or corrupt, or evil, a decision actually is. The Science of Law does not apply to legal systems that clearly distort reality (or "truth" in this sense). A legal system based on some form of religious laws or precepts, is not acceptable as a legitimate system of law under our science unless the basic reality is established (eg: a Christian church that accepts the commandments of Jesus as "law" in the heart of the worshippers, and then creates laws claiming these are extracted from how Jesus might have set a law, laws which can not be absolutely confirmed from the commandments, is not a valid system of law. By far a more difficult example is Islam. The opening phrase at every section of the Koran tells that God is merciful and compassionate. That means any Islamic law which contradicts this basic assertion of Mohammed, is in fact invalid-in-law. Consequently, it is unlikely any existing Islamic system of justice would satisfy the Science of Law which means it is a distortion of truth under our laws)