majka@ubc-vision.CDN (Marc Majka) (04/17/85)
> From: aouriri@ittvax.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) >... > The human brain is functionally divided into two lateral parts: The > left part handles mainly the sequential, rational and "scientific" > thoughts, while the right part handles the artistic, emotional > and philosophical thoughts. Schematically speaking, the left > part is the scientific/computer part, while the right part is the > artistic/philosophical part. >... I have been trying to track down any research that indicates that this is true, and as yet, I have failed. It is true that areas of the brain have specific functions. In many cases, the same areas in the two hemispheres have the same function. For example, motor control for most parts of the body. In some areas, the function of similar areas is different. This seems to be the case for some of the "cognitive" functions. However, there is to my knowledge no evidence anywhere for the statement above. There certainly are functional differences in the hemispheres. For example, in some cases of epilepsy, the main connective channel between the two hemispheres has been cut to control the seizures. The two hemispheres act more independently. These people react differently to stimulii directed to the different hemispheres. Nothing as extreme as a computer/philosopher dicotomy has ever been observed. The Left/Right brain theory is just too pat. No one yet understands much about how the brain works, except to know that it is exceedingly complex. The Left/Right brain theory is better left in the pages of the National Enquirer or the Journal of Irrepreducable Results. --- Marc Majka - UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (04/19/85)
In article <921@ubc-vision.CDN> majka@ubc-vision.CDN (Marc Majka) writes: >The Left/Right brain theory is just too pat. No one yet understands much >about how the brain works, except to know that it is exceedingly complex. >The Left/Right brain theory is better left in the pages of the National >Enquirer or the Journal of Irrepreducable Results. > >--- >Marc Majka - UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision I agree that the Left/Right brain theory has been used to account for many many things without much basis in observation, but to say that it is better left in the pages of the National Enquirer goes too far. Recently, DISCOVER ran a few articles on left/right brain disparity. The greatest disparity is that verbal skills seem entirely located on the left side of the brain. This has been detected by EEG readings (which half of the brain is working when you're talking) and by tranquilizing half the brain (when you conk out the left half, you can't talk, even though you can sing). Since logic is so heavily bound in with verbal skills, the left half of the brain tends to be more active when you are involved in logical thinking. The left/right brain disparity has produced many fascinating results. One interesting fact noted in the Science Column of The Toronto Globe & Mail several years ago was related to the fact I mentioned earlier: that singing appears to be a right brain rather than left brain activity. They reported that in people with little musical training, the right brain was more active when singing and listening to music. In people with a good deal of musical training, the left brain was more active. This suggests why a good deal of symphonic music is less accessible to untrained listeners -- it appeals to a different mental set than simple melodic stuff. One interesting book on the left/right brain difference is The Rainbow and the Sphinx (sorry, I can't remember the author). For those with more outre tastes, you might check out The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Jaynes has an interesting theory about what the right brain used to do while the left brain was busy talking. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (04/23/85)
[] In the referenced article, Jim Gardner writes: > ... For those with > more outre tastes, you might check out The Origin of Consciousness > in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Jaynes has > an interesting theory about what the right brain used to do while the > left brain was busy talking. I read Jaynes's book and found it interesting, but *very* unconvincing. He seems to be of two minds (ooops) about the nature of the "breakdown" - did the "right" brain get pushed aside altogether, or does it now co-ordinate its functions with the "left" brain so well that normally the difference is imperceptible? And he is quite incoherent about the causes of the change. It was a decent science-fiction idea, and somebody used it recently in _Analog_. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288
rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (04/24/85)
In article <499@petsd.UUCP>, cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) writes: > I read Jaynes's book and found it interesting, but *very* > unconvincing. He seems to be of two minds (ooops) about the > nature of the "breakdown" - did the "right" brain get pushed > aside altogether, or does it now co-ordinate its functions > with the "left" brain so well that normally the difference is > imperceptible? And he is quite incoherent about the causes of > the change. > > It was a decent science-fiction idea, and somebody used it > recently in _Analog_. > UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh As someone who has devoted roughly 10 years to brain research (including a Ph.D. doing neuroanatomy), most of the right-left brain stuff to pass through this group has a low factual content, about on a par with that provided by Jaynes. I also found his arguments about the brain unconvincing and there were some clear factual errors on the neuroscience side. But to write off this book as science fiction is a mistake. It makes an very valuable contribution to understanding the origin of consciousness as an epiphenomenon of language evolution. The definition of consciousness, and historical and linguistic analysis related to that definition were insightful. Language remains one of the most mysterious cornerstones of human evolution, and if you can ignore some of the places where Jaynes clearly exceeds the realm of his expertise, it is a profound book. Rich Goldschmidt {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax,allegra,seismo} !cbosgd!rbg ARPA: cbosgd!rbg@seismo or cbosgd!rbg@ucbvax -- Rich Goldschmidt {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax,allegra,ulysses} !cbosgd!rbg ARPA: cbosgd!rbg@ucbvax