26 May '08 15:19>
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
http://www.ted.com:80/talks/view/id/229
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"?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?