Strange Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Left-brain right-brain myth: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/right-brainleft-brain-right-2017082512222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkE Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, Strange said: Left-brain right-brain myth: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/right-brainleft-brain-right-2017082512222 Point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 9 hours ago, MarkE said: Point? You supported the left-brain/right-brain argument, and Strange cited a paper suggesting it's a myth. I thought it was extremely clear, and gently pointed you to some more current information. I think he was hoping you'd actually read the link before commenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkE Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Phi for All said: You supported the left-brain/right-brain argument, and Strange cited a paper suggesting it's a myth. I thought it was extremely clear, and gently pointed you to some more current information. I think he was hoping you'd actually read the link before commenting. No I didn't support the left-brain/right-brain argument, the suggested myth in the article is that people are “left-brained” or “right-brained". I totally agree with that! But our two hemispheres still possess different tasks and have their own specialties. Edited February 4, 2018 by MarkE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gees Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Phi for All; 3 hours ago, Phi for All said: You supported the left-brain/right-brain argument, and Strange cited a paper suggesting it's a myth. I thought it was extremely clear, and gently pointed you to some more current information. I think he was hoping you'd actually read the link before commenting. Well, I did read the link and came away with the same conclusion that MarkE made. I did not see the point. Following are some excerpts from that link. The underlining is mine. Quote "These notions of “left and right brain-ness” are widespread and widely accepted. But they may also be wrong." "There is truth to the idea that some brain functions reside more on one side of the brain than the other. <snip> So, location does matter." "So, is the idea of “thinking with the left side of your brain” a myth? Maybe." "The bottom line If you’ve always thought of yourself as a “numbers person” or a creative sort, this research doesn’t change anything. But it’s probably inaccurate to link these traits to one side of your brain. We still don’t know a lot . . . " Please note that the underlined words, may, maybe, and probably, are not conclusive terms and not conducive to good Science. On the other hand, the word, truth, has veracity and is very conducive to good Philosophy. This is the Philosophy forum. If I did not take issue with his words for being so wishy-washy, I would still be skeptical of his critical thinking skills, because he started his paper with the idea of left-handedness and right-handedness. Then he proceeded to state that left-handedness could be "overcome" in some circumstances. It was the word "overcome" that bothered me, as if left-handedness were some form of defect. Many of us know that "overcoming" left-handedness is strongly linked to dyslexia, which would be why our public schools no longer try to "overcome" left-handedness. So I was not impressed with the link and did not see any point -- or at least any valid point. Gee MarkE; 2 hours ago, MarkE said: No I didn't support the left-brain/right-brain argument, the suggested myth in the article is that people are “left-brained” or “right-brained". I totally agree with that! But our two hemispheres still possess different tasks and have their own specialties. The really crazy part of this whole argument is that in the link, the author agreed that location does matter, so the argument makes no sense. On the other hand, the point that I made and you seemed to understand is that feeling/emotion does not work or activate the same way as knowledge/thought. It would be a natural progression of that idea, to think that feeling/emotion and knowledge/thought might come from different areas of the brain and/or from different chemistries. Freud obviously thought so, and tried to map the brain failing rather miserably, but his mapping of mind has been upheld as valid and been supported by clinical studies. Of course, he did not have access to MRI's and the technology that we have today. Even so, I think there is much more to learn before we can pinpoint many of the mental aspects and associate them with specific parts of the brain, even if they tend to be on one side or the other. But we are getting off topic. I have no idea who that emperor was, but find the idea interesting, and even see the value that could be associated with this type of thinking. If you figure it out, let me know. Thanks. Gee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielMB Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 On 13/6/2017 at 12:50 PM, The Almighty said: And do other animals have sense of Art too? Yes, there are, as an example we can see that male Bower birds seduce females decorating nests as you can see in the picture, On 13/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Bender said: It could have started out as a side effect of creativity and evolved further to impress the other gendre. The bowerbird is a clear example of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowerbird Sorry, I haven't seen it before sending my post .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now