Re: To Be or to be. That is the question, really.

I had not heard of the differentiation of the "person" residing in which side, but it makes sense to me. You knock out the vision center of the brain, and the "person" remains, nonetheless. Et cetera.

But my point still is: once both halves of the brain have decided to disintegrate into mush, a person does not dis-corporate, neither partially nor entirely; a person does not exist. There is plenty of evidence to support this conclusion and none at all to support otherwise. (There may be conjectures here and there, but they are but opinions. And as we've heard the simile about "opinions" before, everybody has "one".)

Of course, we can get into the semantics involved with "The Grey Area" concept of existence, too. For example, take a thousandth of a person's brain out: does the person still exist? Take a hundredth of a person's brain out: does the person still exist? Take a tenth out: still exist? How about a fifth out? A third? A half? Three quarters? Ninety percent? When does Grandpa stop being Grandpa as he goes through the horrible decline of Alzheimers? This question suggests the next question: if half of Grandpa is missing, where's the other half that is supposed to go to heaven (or hell)? If all of us good boys and girls all meet up in heaven, and Grandpa is presumed to be a good boy enough to make it in with us, what will Grandpa be like? Will he still grumble and gripe about things or will he be like he was 10 years before his death where he had such "joie de vie"?