[Snorkles]

I just completed Betty Edwards book Drawing on the right side of the brain. Great book! It made me thinking...
Lobotomized people only have access to their left half of the brain, yes? Wouldn't it be possible to emancipate the right half of the brain from the left through surgery of some sort? That would be cool.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Snorkles ]

[balistic]

A lobotomy destroys the frontal lobe on both sides of the brain. It is not, however, the removal of a hemisphere.

There are people who only have one hemisphere, either by birth, or through surgery. The interesting thing about the brain is that it can re-map itself . . . I would imagine that the functions of thought previously assigned to the missing side would take up residence in the remaining one.

There isn't much physical difference between the two hemispheres, they're just mapped with different functions and information.

Undoubtedly though, if you take half of someone's brain, you're taking a part of their personality and a chunk of their memories that may never return. Information is stored redundantly, but the two halves are never going to be exact data mirrors of each other . . . in essence, you're creating a new person by removing such a sizable portion of their mental experience.

Its kind of frightening to think that your entire concept of self, of who you are, exists as a pattern of electrical discharge in an organ on top of your shoulders. Alter the medium that carries the self, and the self is changed as well.

That's one of the main reasons I have a hard time seriously considering the notion of an eternal soul . . . we have a mountain of experience showing us that who we are is tied inseperably to our brains . . . however, I do expect that we will eventually be able to replicate a self, electronically. Once you can create a new medium in which a self can operate, you could theoretically upload to it, gaining virtual immortality. Perhaps the procedure would involve cloning one's body, and then transfering a stored conciousness into it.

Feh, now I'm getting all Masamune Shirow . . .

At any rate, I don't think creativity is confined to the right hemisphere, that's just where it naturally develops.

*edit* corrected Shirow's name

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: balistic ]

[Rob Why?]

Well put ballistic, mah man!
I haven�t read the book you (Snorkles) read, but I�ve got this to say about right-brain/left-brain theory: WHO CARES. (aside from Neurosurgeons) seriously, how many great artists practice her theory? Sides, what does that daffy broad know about neurology that qualifies her to make the statements that she does? I don�t see a PhD in her name anywhere�s. I�ll tell you what she DOES know, is how to coerce people into attending her seminars for obscene amounts of money, and how to make cashola offa her dumb book.

�Learning to draw, then, turns out not to be "learning to draw." Paradoxically, "learning to draw" means learning to make a mental shift from L-mode to R-mode. That is what a person trained in drawing does, and that is what you can learn.�

Durrrrr huff. gonna draw like a pro now. Just you watch.

(An art teacher of mine used to swear by her book, he was a tool)

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Snev ]

[Coaster]

one thing I can agree is with the languages being on the side of my brain that I never use (left), so I normally like to express myself through drawing, math, and stuff because I can't with words. Thats Rat's job.

One thing I really don't agree with is the logic and resoning being on the left side, because... I seem to use them too much.

My short term memory is REALLY short (less then half a second) so I agree with that, and I normally memorize things.. when I look at a license plate I won't know the number for my life, but I'll know what it looks like, I think this goes back to relating symbols like when you do that trick with the word grean written in red and you need to say the word, because the right brain supposedly will reconize the image (red) over the symbol (green).

Don't you just hate it when you can't communicate your ideas?

[balistic]

There is some merit to what Edwards talks about, in that generally, the right hemisphere receives raw data and then passes it on to the left side for labeling. Most people draw poorly because they draw icons instead of images . . . they draw the idea of a face instead of what a face actually looks like.

By being more aware of "seeing" instead of labeling, you can in fact draw from observation in a much more realistic manner. You need to see edges and values instead of ears and noses.

But become "right brain" dominant and all you're doing is acting as a human photocopier . . . there is just as much left-brained logic and symbolism in good art as there is observational purity.

[Rat]

I've got that book...haven't gotten farther than chapter 3 though.

Yep...I'm Coaster's communicator...

[a_sh]

Last thing i heard about this is that scientists recently cast aside the theory of left = ordered and logical, right = chaotic and creative...

they now believe that there are no such differences at all.

there are different areas in the brain that deals with logic, language, visual form and so on... but those areas are not nicely sorted between the two halves in any percievable way.

what this means is that all the stuff, such as lefthanded people being more creative, is moot (which is a good thing since i'm righthanded)

not too sure about this though, so if anyone could confirm it i'd appreciate it

[edible snowman]

i read somewhere that either side can learn to do both things, but i also read that autism is thought to be the result of damage or underdevelopment to the left brain, so the right brain overcompensates. or maybe the autism thing was the other way around, i kind of forget.

[Justin Kramer]

The "logical left brain", "creative right brain" thing is pretty much hooey. See Right Brain or Left Brain - Myth or Reality?

One theory that's getting tossed around lately says that the hemispheres focus either "globally" or "locally" -- i.e. on generalities or details. But which hemisphere does what and when is still up in the air.

[Rob Why?]

I read somewhere that billy likes suzy. >Boys bathroom, west wall<
horray for reading something somewhere, it makes all the difference.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Snev ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

You're right Snev, it's all in WHO writes it. For instance, your example: we don't know the source, so the statement becomes next to meaningless.

However, if a team of accredited scientists publish a paper, you can bet your ass they made damn sure of their facts first... so it becomes somewhat more reliable than writing on the shithouse wall.

[Rob Why?]

Thats another way of putting it.
... I like my way better. Nyaaaaaaah

>What the hell is wrong with me?<

Wow, you've got a really spanky web-page there Mr.Stahlberg!

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Snev ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

Thanks!

Ok never mind my comment then.

Hm, I'll take the chance to go off on a tangential rant and explain my comment some more anyway.
Many of us tend to think of scientists as half-mad weirdos, or space-cadets, and who wants to trust people like that?
We often don't appreciate how competitive the scientific world is, how incredibly smart and motivated you have to be to even have a chance of becoming one. Most of those guys are as eager to score points and kick ass as NHL players. Nothing would please them more than to discover an error in a colleague's paper, and nothing scares them more than being caught making one. They care less about money than peer-esteem.
So I'd say, out of the many things you can read in this world, a scientific paper would be one of the very few things you can take at (almost) face value. Just my .2 $

[jr]

to study science is to study the mind of God. -snoop dog.

[edible snowman]

steven stahlberg- i kind of agree with you. sometimes, scientists may be some of the most honest guys out there. but the problem is, science is becoming increasingly commercialized, and it is easy to manipulate statistics and clinical data. the problem is, when scientists do this it can take the public a while to catch on since many areas of research are pretty specialized so its hard for most people to understand what's they're saying, let alone argue about it(well, at least intelligently). although if you stick to reliable sources you're probably doing good most of the time. anyway, this has nothing to do with the thread. back to the topic, i think this whole line of thinking is pointless. to say that anyone really understands what the human brain does would be folly. there's so much complexity to the brain and so much we don't know, making claims about what's going on with absolute certainty will probably do more harm than good. it seems like all the teachers at my shcool who have read drawing on the right side of the brain think they're practically neurosurgeons. we even took 40 question tests that told us which side of our brain we used. it's kind of like that taste chart they made for the tongue. even though it was proven incorrect a while ago, we were still using it in biology as recent as last year.

[balistic]

"Skinny niggas throw the dick well." - Snoop Dog

[Rob Why?]

"Bitch you better not have the crabs yo, I's payin you outta mah chronic budget" - Snoop Dog.

Honest!

[Gangleri]

I'd just like to agree with Steven Stahlberg on his comment about scientists. I�m not very good at biology, because I find the whole area to be extremely boring. I am a scientist, but in the field of particle physics with lots of math. So from what I know of the classical views of right brain left brain I should be one lousy painter...And that fits, so maybe there's something to it after all.

Anyway, what I was agreeing with is that in our community, scientists, it's a lot about ego. It is true that science is commercially driven. However, this is nothing new... or even a growing phenomenon. In the western world it almost always had needed to be big money behind research. Sadly, the two big motivators of development and scientific progress are business and war. But, rarely do a scientist work solely for the money. It is true that it need a huge effort to become a scientist. First of all, you need to be a top student, more or less all trough grade school. When everyone else is off working in ordinary jobs like car mechanics, carpenters, and painters and so on, we usually have 6 years of school to go.

Also, as he said, the best thing in life is to manage to screw up someone else�s neat theory. Or even better, make a superior solution. hehe

Obviously, all sciences are built on empirical theories except math, so there's a big chance that this matter of left and right brain won't be "solved" within our lifetimes. Especially since the brain is still relatively unknown territory for the biology guys and girls.


Oh, and lastly... The thing on the bathroom wall is as good as a statement will ever be.
If you read something, especially when it comes to such shaky sciences as biology (and physics too by all means) you can pretty much know that it will be broken somewhere in the future.
Scientists are often more wrong that you can imagine. Still, taking the worlds population, I would say that a scientist opinion would be the safest bet in matters like these since he or she have probably spent 10 years more on the subject than Joe Average.


//Gangleri

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Gangleri ]

[Rob Why?]

Field and particle physics are some of my favourite topics in science, I loves them gooood. I'm actually planning to be a MD type guy. I can't wait to go to university for 10 years! BAWOOOOHOOOOOOO! (at least when I'm old and fat and bald people will finally be calling me Dr. Rob)
however, since I haven�t even started university yet, I'm keeping my big trap shut as to whether you's guys is all right or wrong, what I will say is that its a non issue. I don't think knowing what half of our brain does what will help us do anything.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rob Why? ]

[Nilwort]

quote

Quote:

I don't think knowing what half of our brain does what will help us do anything.

I completely disagree with you there...by any chance have you read a book by carl sagan called the dragons of eden? In that book he talks about an organ called the corpus callosum which connects the left and right hemispheres, he also discusses the problems of being a purely Left brained society or a purely right-brained society, the key is to have both hemispheres and mindsets in perfect balance. He said something like "the path to the future is thorugh the corpus callosum"

[Rob Why?]

that last post... kinda makes you sound crazy nilwort.

[Nilwort]

yeah, after reading it again it does sound kinda wacky...oh well...