28 May 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI was hoping no one would ask that. I guess there are a variety of ways you could describe what happened to her. There was a "born again" quality to her story. You might way she is a person of "the way." Or you might say she understands what it is "really about." That's probably not helpful, but the best I can do.
What do you mean by it in "get it"?
28 May 08
Originally posted by kirksey957I did notice the 'born again' slant but she went through 8 years of hell for sure. Remember she lost all her language skills. I think part of it was she lost function of the left hemisphere which is the logical part and she was left with the spacy artist side which was her Lala land.
I was hoping no one would ask that. I guess there are a variety of ways you could describe what happened to her. There was a "born again" quality to her story. You might way she is a person of "the way." Or you might say she understands what it is "really about." That's probably not helpful, but the best I can do.
I would like to ask her what she though might have happened if the other side were bleed instead. The logical part would seem to me to be unaffected and she would not have access to the spacy artsy part so she might never have seen life with that part of her brain. The bit where she described trying to get help on the phone, her left hand would have been useless instead of the right (cross brain functioning and all that) but I suspect it would have been a completely differant experience for her internally. I would really love to corner her and question her on that.
29 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHi Sonhouse,
I posted this in both forums, about a neuroscienist who analyzed her own stroke, very good video. Please watch this!
http://www.ted.com:80/talks/view/id/229
Took me a while to get to it, but I thought this was a great video! The lady, whilst perhaps overly dramatic, is certainly a good orator, and captivating to listen to.
I felt her talk was very strongly reminiscent in Julian Jeynes book Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Essentially, he suggests that in the past the language hemispheres of both sides of the brain were more equally balanced, with the left "me" side hearing 'voices' supplied by the right "god" side. The experiences that the lady had during her stroke sound very much like the religious revelations that have been had by many people - often invoked by ritual or drug use. As a result of the "here-and-now"-ness of the right hand side of the brain, bicameral men were not flexible in their response to environmental changes, since they had little ability to plan ahead. A shift in climatic conditions about 3000 years ago coincided with distinct changes in human culture and literature (for example, in the Iliad, everyone has their own internal god, which is very normal in the tale. These gods seem to have a great deal of influence over their hosts. Later literature show a distinct shift away from this individual god - even the lack of modern day miracles, which were so common in the Old Testament, suggest this.). It is supposed that non-bicameral men were better able to respond to immediate concerns in a rapidly changing environment. The balance between the two sides of the brain is key.
A fascinating subject, and may well explain abject religiosity in many people.
29 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzAre you saying that Julian Jeynes believes that human brain functioning changed about 3000 years ago? If so, I disagree.
I felt her talk was very strongly reminiscent in Julian Jeynes book Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Essentially, he suggests that in the past the language hemispheres of both sides of the brain were more equally balanced, with the left "me" side hearing 'voices' supplied by the right "god" side. The experiences that the ...[text shortened]... rapidly changing environment. The balance between the two sides of the brain is key.
29 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWouldn't that be a kick in the butt to the religious. I have a feeling they would die in a burning hell before they would believe such a thing though. Part of the problem is when confronted with contrary evidence, they tilt their swords even lower and continue as if nothing happened.
Hi Sonhouse,
Took me a while to get to it, but I thought this was a great video! The lady, whilst perhaps overly dramatic, is certainly a good orator, and captivating to listen to.
I felt her talk was very strongly reminiscent in Julian Jeynes book Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Essentially, he suggests that in t key.
A fascinating subject, and may well explain abject religiosity in many people.
As if they are confronting personal demons, eh. So what kind of conditions would change everything around in the brain like that? If that is so, there must be throwbacks to the old bicameral brain ways. That may expain modern day prophets, like Jim Jones or David Coresh, or Billy Graham. What do you think?
29 May 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI wouldn't consider those three "modern day prophets" much less prophets and I wouldn't put Graham with the other two. But that may be a discussion for the spiritual forum.
Wouldn't that be a kick in the butt to the religious. I have a feeling they would die in a burning hell before they would believe such a thing though. Part of the problem is when confronted with contrary evidence, they tilt their swords even lower and continue as if nothing happened.
As if they are confronting personal demons, eh. So what kind of conditio ...[text shortened]... expain modern day prophets, like Jim Jones or David Coresh, or Billy Graham. What do you think?
29 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are right, I think. He was talking largely about changes in language, including the ability of the human mind to build a narritive. I'm not sure how much that would involve changes in mechanistic brain functioning.
Are you saying that Julian Jeynes believes that human brain functioning changed about 3000 years ago? If so, I disagree.
29 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you're interested, this talk is a good start. It's definitely worth a read.
Are you saying that Julian Jeynes believes that human brain functioning changed about 3000 years ago? If so, I disagree.
http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/jaynes_consciousness-voices-mind.pdf
I don't think he means that the brain functions differently, but just that our personal interpretation of the brain's output has changed.
29 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut we do not all share common genes from 3000 years ago, so any such theory would imply that the South American Indians either developed the same independently or developed in parallel. Or am I misunderstanding something?
You are right, I think. He was talking largely about changes in language, including the ability of the human mind to build a narritive. I'm not sure how much that would involve changes in mechanistic brain functioning.
29 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadJeynes believed that the South American Indians (Aztecs et al) were largely bicameral, ruled over by their King-Gods. It takes some extreme pressures (and there were a number of fairly large catastrophies at that time, especially in Sounthern Europe and the middle East which Jeynes points out) to illicit the shift from bicamerality to consciousness. Jeynes believed that the Aztec bicamerality was one reason that the conscious Spanish so easily overcame the South Americans (although, of course there were many other factors too, as pointed out by Jared Diamond).
But we do not all share common genes from 3000 years ago, so any such theory would imply that the South American Indians either developed the same independently or developed in parallel. Or am I misunderstanding something?