PART 3

MULTIPLE BRAINS / SINGLE IDENTITY

The Homo multifarius concept at its essence is that a single or common identity can exist for a group of brains given adequate communication among the individual brains. Is this concept reasonable? The answer is yes! In fact, a manifestation of multiple brains sharing a common identity already exists. Normal Homo sapiens are multiple brained, single identity beings. We accept without question that each of us possesses a single identity. If we have more than one identity (or personality) existing within one person, we consider that person to be abnormal. The characteristic which we usually do not describe ourselves as having is multiple brains. However, this is exactly the case. The organ which we usually describe in the singular as the human brain is actually a collection of brains located within one skull.

The human brain is composed of several distinct, separable parts or brains. Evolutionary theory describes the human brain as being result of a developmental path from the reptilian brain to the mammalian brain to the human brain. At each stage in this evolution, the older brain was retained and the newer brain added. Thus it is reasonable to describe each human individual as having three brains. Each of these brains is composed of separable parts in themselves; for example, the mammalian brain includes the hypothalamus, hippocampus and amygdala. The human brain stage of development includes the addition of the neocortex. The neocortex is divided into the right and left cerebral hemispheres. Each of these brains communicate with each other through numerous nerve connections. The two cerebral hemispheres communicate with one another through a massive bundle of nerve fibers known as the Corpus Callosum.

Human intelligence is believed to be largely located within the two cerebral hemispheres. The two hemispheres do not share equally in the control of our intelligence. For example, in the typical, right-handed person the left hemisphere is the principal seat of analytical thought and speech and the right hemisphere is the seat of intuition and spatial abilities. Aside from the programming differences between the hemispheres there are physical differences in the nerve connections with the rest of the body. Most nerves on the right side of the body are connected to the left hemisphere, while the right hemisphere is connected to the nerves on the left side of the body. This is why a person undergoing an injury or stroke to the left hemisphere usually experiences some degree of loss of motor control and feeling on their right side. Also, persons with left hemisphere strokes often suffer difficulty with speech.

The nerve connections between the eyes and the cerebral hemispheres are more complex. Each eye has nerve connections with both hemispheres. The right side of each eye's retina is connected to the right cerebral hemisphere and, conversely, the left side of each retina is connected to the left hemisphere. This means that the right hemisphere receives or "sees" the left visual field and the left hemisphere sees the right visual field. Further, each hemisphere sees its half of the visual field in stereo since it receives inputs from the retinas of each eye. In actuality, sight is a mental concept formed through combination of the outputs from the four retinal sectors of the two eyes. This complex connection between the eyes and the cerebral hemispheres means that a variety of sight impairments may result from injuries to the cerebral hemispheres or the optic nerves. For example, a person experiencing complete impairment to the optic nerve from the left eye will be blind in that eye. But a person experiencing injury or stroke to the visual portion of the left hemisphere will have impairment to sight in their right visual field.

The specific ways in which nerves are connected to the cerebral hemispheres is important to this discussion because its understanding has allowed ingenious researchers to communicate separately with each cerebral hemisphere. Such communication is most clearly seen in patients who have undergone severing of the major direct nerve connections between the hemispheres (the Corpus Callosum). These experiments and others in which persons have lost portions of their brains demonstrate that major parts of our brains can function independently within a single body. Conversely, our normal experience demonstrates these independent parts can function to form a single identity. Also, it follows that if we could connect additional brains to our brains we would still form common identity. At present, these brains must be connected by nerve tissue. However, given the pace of technology, it is not unreasonable to expect that telepathic connections between brains can be engineered. If these telepathic connections are of sufficient quality (that is, conveying information similar to that conveyed by the Corpus Callosum) a common identity will emerge among the connected persons. These persons would compose a multifarian human.

MULTIFARIAN CREATURES ALREADY IN EXISTENCE

Multifarian creatures already exist. They are probably the most successful, non-microscopic creatures on Earth. These are the social insects. Ants and termites are the pinnacles of social insect evolution. Most researchers of these insects recognize that it is erroneous to consider colonies of these insects to be collections of individuals. Among myrmecologists the concept of the "superorganism" has been used to describe the collective creature. When applied to ants the concept of the "multifarian creature" is inclusive of the "superorganism."

Within neurons the information is transferred by electro-chemical pulses. However, communication between neurons is accomplished by the transference of chemicals, called neurotransmitters, from one dendrite to another. Neurons also release other chemicals affecting body response, such as neurohormones.

In most animals, special hormones called pheromones can be passed through the air from one individual to another. The transference of pheromones from one individual to another is a form of chemical communication and control. For example, in cattle the bull senses hormones emitted by a cow in estrus which prompts him to mount her and copulate. Insects carry communication through pheromones to far greater achievements. In certain species of moths, the ability of the male to sense receptive females over miles of separation is phenomenal. Insects have antennae as their principal mechanism for receiving pheromonal signals.

Modern studies of ant colonies have shown extensive pheromonal communication. Pheromones are passed from one individual to another by touch and air transference. Phermonal communication is generally associated with behavior control. For example, different pheromones may induce sexual activity, alarm, aggressive behavior, or feeding. The differentiation between a pheromone and a neurotransmitter is largely semantic when applied to insects. A neurotransmitter is a chemical which acts internally to an individual to stimulate other neurons. A pheromone is a chemical which acts externally to an individual to stimulate neurons in other individuals.

There is a practical reason why we currently discussion communication within an ant colony only in the context of the limited concept of behavior control rather than the broader concept of information transfer. It is very easy to observe changes in the behavior of ants, but difficult to measure the knowledge of ants. Thus our science currently is at the stage of isolating various pheromones and recording the changes in behavior induced by exposure to these pheromones. We are beginning to tackle the question whether ant colonies can learn from experience. The study of whether information can be transferred from one individual to another is largely overlooked at this time.

There is a compelling example of social insect information transfer that has been well documented. It is known that honey bees communicate the direction of nectar supplies to other bees by performing "dances." These dances, which consist of turning and vibrating, apparently serve to transfer information about distance and direction from the scout bee to other bees. Gaining this information, the other bees can locate the nectar source without having to be lead by the scout bee. (This example of insect information transfer is quite remarkable. To realize just how remarkable, see how many other clear-cut examples of information transfer you can think of that involve animals other than humans.)

(Additional discussion of Homo multifarius will be added in near future.)