'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[Alien]

 

And anyway why would a scientific explanation be automatically better? What is wrong with the arts and humanities approach when appropriate? You say that empirical science is the most accurate form of understanding - as a longstanding observer of psychiatry I can tell you that humanity is the last thing that 'science' understands, and the best psychiatrists are in fact fully fluent in their right brain, giving full importance to the emotional, lived experience of a person. It's their humanity that makes them good psychiatrists as much or often more than pure scientific knowledge of brain chemicals or drugs.

 

.

 

Which gets us back on track regarding the op. It's a measure of a person or not (critic or offended) to be able to communicate to the point of near balance. It seems the opposing left brain view of the "critic" and the right brain view of the "offended", or vice versa is difficult to compliment, unless it's from the perspective of my 'left and right' work in pure harmony, but my left and your right are just not communicating. As you say psychiatrists have..not so much a knowledge, but an instinct through empathy even though they may not agree through their scientific left, are able to communicate in harmony rather than resentment and/or conflict. It's why their so bloody expensive.

[six45ive]

I was right, you don't understand what I was saying at all.

 

I think the issue is that I understand only too well.

 

You appear to need to see me as somehow anti-science, which I'm not at all.

 

If your view is that the empirical understanding somehow diminishes certain emotional experiences rather than enhances them then I would have to disagree with you.

 

You actually proclaim the left brain superior and that it's the left brain that makes the right side better understood.

 

The highlighted part of your statement I agree with but I don't think the left brain is superior. I think the right side of people's brains is much more dominant in the respect that most of the power in the world politically and religiously is in the hands of people who understand this to be the case and is fundamental in reinforcing this mindset by helping to keep people ignorant. Once the left side of the brain is given the same importance as the right side and people understand that it doesn't diminish their lives in anyway then that achievement of attaining a state of 'prickly goo' will be achieved to the betterment of society in general.

 

Yet you cannot credit the right brain with anything valuable to increase understanding of the left brain.

 

No because as I pointed out above the imbalance goes the other way.

 

They inform each other, any distortion or assumed supremacy of one over the other is not a position that results in wisdom but prejudice.

 

I agree, as you see in many examples world wide every day. Here's why I think there's the imbalance I mentioned above.

Let's take religion/belief in god/spirituality as being a feature of the right brain and secularism as the means of promoting rational, critical and scientific thinking as a feature of the left brain and then look at the effects on societies around the world.

In every case you find a society that's dominated by religiosity and pseudo religiosity (political system having a man as a god like figure at the helm) as opposed to a society that has a low religiosity having much more inequality, bigotry, prejudice, human rights abuses and a general lower standard of living

 

You have made quite contemptuous remarks about right side experiences of whatever kind, here and elsewhere over time. I recall, for instance, that you dismissed some variety of right-brain activity as 'pretentious nonsense', which as I said would be more due to its inherent indescribability than its being worthless.

 

No. The context of this discussion was specifically about the idea of metaphysics as a mechanism for enabling people to imply that their beliefs (mainly in the area of religion) are as worthy as widely understood knowledge as 'pretentious nonsense'. In no way do I think that enjoying art/music/literature purely on a personal level is 'pretentious nonsense' as you seem to be implying so I apologise if you have that impression. I simply argue that these phenomena have a scientific explanation as well as a personal meaning.

 

You evidently think the right brain is intrinsically inferior, which as I also mentioned, is like an echo of the age old attitudes which viewed traditionally feminine functions as inferior.

 

No. The problem is that, as I've said above, I feel the right side of the brain is too dominant in society in general.

 

You claimed that science could explain to anyone the qualitative experience of right brain activity and meanings. How would science measure and explain the total experience of all the meanings and feelings I get when reading a favourite poem, for instance, and why would that be better than simply being within the experience itself and savouring it for its own sake? Some analysis and knowledge certainly does enhance appreciation, but that's still no replacement or explanation of what it feels like as a lived experience.

 

I never said it was. That's simply the projection of your mindset onto what I said. I was talking about understanding what the 'right brain' experience is, why it's there and the effect it has on individuals and society in general so that it has, as far as possible, a positive and not a negative effect on society. I wasn't necessarily talking about measuring or explaining it in a mathematical sense but that's still an option if it's going to help mankind.

 

And anyway why would a scientific explanation be automatically better?

 

Even you understand that to be the case when you said; 'Some analysis and knowledge certainly does enhance appreciation' but my standpoint is that it's always better to make decisions in life when you have a knowledge and understanding of what it is you're deciding about than a decision made through nothing more than instinct.

 

What is wrong with the arts and humanities approach when appropriate?

 

Nothing.

 

You say that empirical science is the most accurate form of understanding - as a longstanding observer of psychiatry I can tell you that humanity is the last thing that 'science' understands, and the best psychiatrists are in fact fully fluent in their right brain, giving full importance to the emotional, lived experience of a person.

 

As a 'long standing observer of psychiatry' you obviously have very little knowledge of what science understands and you provide no evidence that backs up your claim therefore committing the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

 

It's their humanity that makes them good psychiatrists as much or often more than pure scientific knowledge of brain chemicals or drugs.

 

This sentence fails on so many counts it's unbelievable.

I never said that scientific knowledge is about brain chemicals or drugs. You're showing your ignorance of science with that statement. For most of this thread I've been arguing for a scientific understanding of the 'mind' from an evolutionary standpoint which has very little to do with neuroscience. However neuroscience and related human biology research is still valuable in understanding these right brain issues.

 

The arts and humanities are the counterbalance to the sciences. They represent the two symbolic sides of the brain. Even if things can be empirically measured, it doesn't mean that that type of knowledge is the superior form of understanding, as you claim. Or at least not across the board in all situations as you seem to imply. They each have their role to play in life, or at least they do in healthy societies/families/individuals.

 

My bold.

It's not about superiority although that may very well be the case. It's about the equalibrium of the two brains you were talking about before. You seem to think it's balanced one way whereas I've provided evidence it's balanced too much the other way. We both obviously want this balance but I can only think of one way to achieve it and that's through an understanding of why it's there, what it's for and what effect it has on individuals and society in general.

 

Also you're once again assuming that somehow when we completely understand the right brain then that will magically make it disappear.

As somebody who gets just as much enjoyment out of my right brain experiences as I do my left brain ones I'm living proof that's not the case.

 

Somebody once asked me why I revered science so much. I disagreed with his word revered but the soundbite answer he got was; 'because it's the best bulls**t detector I know'.

[morTvika]

I see it like this

If you can see in colour you can not explain adequately the experience to someoene who can only see in black and white.

That is until they also see in colour

[metaphoria]

I see it like this

If you can see in colour you can not explain adequately the experience to someoene who can only see in black and white.

That is until they also see in colour

 

How true.

 

*high five*

[flamingjimmy]

How true.

 

*high five*

 

If it were true then no-one would ever lose their religion.

 

When people go blind they don't suddenly stop believing in the existence of colour.

 

The fact that atheists who used to believe in god like me exist is testament to it being a bad analogy.

 

*intercepts high five*

[Grahame]

If it were true then no-one would ever lose their religion.

 

When people go blind they don't suddenly stop believing in the existence of colour.

 

The fact that atheists who used to believe in god like me exist is testament to it being a bad analogy.

 

*intercepts high five*

 

They were talking about the difficulty of explaining colour to someone who cannot see. Even more difficult is explaining colour to someone who can see but is colour blind. They may well turn round with good reason and say "I don't believe you."

 

As for someone loosing faith that happens in all walks of life and the Lottery is an example where people fully believe they are going to win even perhaps a small amount, but after time they become disillusioned. The fact remains that people are winning every week and the problem is not with the Lottery which gives out millions of prize money every week but with your relationship and faith in the Lottery which you have lost.

[six45ive]

I see it like this

If you can see in colour you can not explain adequately the experience to someoene who can only see in black and white.

That is until they also see in colour

 

And science and technology is the only thing that's going to achieve that.

[six45ive]

They were talking about the difficulty of explaining colour to someone who cannot see. Even more difficult is explaining colour to someone who can see but is colour blind. They may well turn round with good reason and say "I don't believe you."

 

As for someone loosing faith that happens in all walks of life and the Lottery is an example where people fully believe they are going to win even perhaps a small amount, but after time they become disillusioned. The fact remains that people are winning every week and the problem is not with the Lottery which gives out millions of prize money every week but with your relationship and faith in the Lottery which you have lost.

 

And people can make a rational, informed decision as to whether they wish to play the lottery or not but if people don't have the rational, informed mindset to make those decisions regarding certain 'metaphysical phenomena' then how can they judge if they've made the right decision or not?

 

Answer.........they can't.

 

Result.........they spout nonsense like grahame.

[Phanerothyme]

And science and technology is the only thing that's going to achieve that.

All the science and technology in the world is useless unless someone has the will to use it. Otherwise it just sits there, gathering dust. Science and Technology never achieved anything, because they are abstract nouns.

[Grahame]

And people can make a rational, informed decision as to whether they wish to play the lottery or not but if people don't have the rational, informed mindset to make those decisions regarding certain 'metaphysical phenomena' then how can they judge if they've made the right decision or not?

 

Answer.........they can't.

 

Result.........they spout nonsense like grahame.

 

It helps if people genuinely seek God, and if you really want to find him, then you will.

 

Otherwise you speak of that of which you know not (which is what you do) and when you speak out of ignorance you will talk nonsense, guaranteed.

 

 

 

.