Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (11833)	5/3/2002 1:12:04 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

IMO, the gang here is overwhelmingly left brained. Therefore it comes as little surprise to me that when I post right brained notions they are met with ridicule and incomprehension. I read an interesting article some time back, written by a prominent neurologist, claiming that the whole notion of tangible left/right brain differences is impossibly simplistic and does not stand up to serious inquiry. The entire notion that a certain part of the brain controls a certain type of thinking is apparently fading away under modern research, which indicates that even very simple cognitive and imaginative tasks require synchronized activity in sectors all over the brain. I don't remember the details; I will try to dig it out. It was actually on paper; that's how long ago it was. In any event, I've noticed many times that the accusation of "left-brained thinking" tends to be trotted out when fuzzy and ill-defined feelings masquerading as thought are identified as what they are. The assumption seems to be that if an idea doesn't stand up to methodical examination, all you have to do is label it "right-brain", and declare that it doesn't have to stand up. I don't buy it. Sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking, no matter what part of the brain it comes from, and the idea that the human race can be neatly divided into "left-brain" and "right-brain" types is risible. If you, as is the case with many others here, can't apprehend the concept that there is a metaphoric level of physics that corresponds to human affairs, while many respected scientists (including Nobel Laureates) can, that's not my problem. And even if it were, I don't think I could solve it--closed minds are notoriously difficult to penetrate with new ideas. We are fully capable of apprehending the concept. We are also capable of apprehending the clear truth that this metaphoric correspondence is far too vague and inconsistent to be of any practical use at this point. It does make good prattle material, but does it have any practical application to human affairs? If you, or these respected scientists, would like to put forth a set of recommended policies for the management of human affairs based on quantum physics, with a reasonable account of their derivation, I'd be delighted to consider them. Until that time I must continue to persist in my deluded mechanistic notion that an understanding of the social, political, economic, and historical context of a given set of human affairs is more likely to produce intelligent policy than reliance on the confluence between physics and metaphysics. I am sure that your delusion of "right-brained" superiority gives you immense satisfaction. Aren't you glad, though, that those dull old "left brainers" have provided you with electricity, a computer, and the Internet so that you can tell the rest of us how superior you are?