Quote:The Two Hemispheres of the Brain.

The prism through which McGilchrist explains his ideas is that of the difference between the two sides of the brain. As in his previous and widely acclaimed book, The Master and his Emissary,[2] he demonstrates how the two halves perform in distinct though complementary ways. For example, ‘from the left hemisphere’s point of view, imagination […] is a species of lying, from the right hemisphere’s point of view, it is […] necessary for access to the truth’ (p. 767).

McGilchrist’s thesis is that the left hemisphere has come to dominate in our society; he maintains for instance that ‘the left hemisphere [is] being used largely for paying narrow-beam, sharply focussed attention to the world, for the purpose of manipulation’ (p. 21). It is also the hemisphere ‘devoted to re-presentation’ (p. 105), hence our attachment to maps and models of reality. The right hemisphere, by contrast, is characterised by ‘paying open, sustained, vigilant attention to the world, in order to understand and relate to the bigger picture’ (p. 21). It is, therefore, he argues, ‘a more important guide and a more reliable one to the nature of reality’ (p.134).
https://besharamagazine.org/newsandviews/iain-mcgilchrist-the-matter-with-things-review/

Quote:McGilchrist’s chief argument is that, over the last three and a half centuries, we have developed a worldview that draws almost entirely on the propensities of the LH side of the brain, ignoring for the most part the contribution of the RH side. This means that our apprehension of the world focuses largely on the particular, with a view to controlling and manipulating it. It is driven by a search for certainty, which is achieved by a kind of “divide and rule” strategy, favoring the fragmentary and all that can be measured and analyzed, while ignoring or deeming “subjective” all that which cannot be subjected to this regime.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/beyond-our-delusions-on-iain-mcgilchrists-the-matter-with-things/

Quote:McGilchrist concludes The Matter with Things with an epilogue which is nothing less than a cri de coeur. ‘We have unmade the world’, he writes, ‘This is entirely new in the history of humanity and it is impossible to exaggerate its significance’ (p. 1310). He continues:

We would appear to be engaged in committing suicide, intellectual and moral – if not indeed literal; excluding whole aspects of reality, resulting in a version of the world that ‘computes’ as far as the left hemisphere is concerned, but is grossly impoverished and lacking in meaning. One that is, in sum, more fit for a computer than a human being. (pp. 1314–5)

(10-05-2024, 02:09 AM)midicon Wrote: That was interesting but not really surprising. I wonder if that too can somehow account for the differences between men and women to some degree. I say that in the sense of how some studies have shown that the corpus callosum in females might be a little thicker.

We also have intuitively always separated the left from the right, even the words themselves suggest differences.

My thirteen year old granddaughter is autistic and completely trapped in the left hemishere. There is real panic and anxiety when she cant control or understand something.
I have had conversations with her explaining how the left and right hemispheres differ and why one is regarded as feminine and the other masculine.

(10-05-2024, 03:05 AM)Maxmars Wrote: I never connected the idea of brain physiology being substantially different between the sexes.  Each brain may be tuned to the physiological differences between sexes, but in function each seems quite analogous and almost eerily similar.  I always thought that sex is not much of a determinant of mental function, since humans share most every known weakness in normal brain functions.  Perhaps brains are a homogenous organ.  Not in function, but in physiology.

It makes me question if the left/right organization of mental processing is really related to sex. 

Not disagreeing with you, just noting that's new to me. 
(And I recognize that there is a difference between brain and 'mind'... another wrinkle in my understanding.)

And since I'm not ego driven, I can freely admit I could be wrong.

(10-05-2024, 04:57 AM)midicon Wrote: ...

I saw a study suggesting that an explanation for the thicker corpus callosum in women might be due to the smaller brain size. I'm not sure why that would be though.

(10-05-2024, 05:05 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Perhaps it's as straight forward as skull 'total volume' .. but I bet that's overly simplistic.  I've never really dug into this before. I had heard that there is considerable variation between people in exactly how the brain "sits" in the brain pan, some have use more room, others are not so jam packed - and all that without significantly impacting mental function.  But I'm really only recounting what I may be misremembering.

(10-05-2024, 02:09 AM)midicon Wrote: That was interesting but not really surprising. I wonder if that too can somehow account for the differences between men and women to some degree. I say that in the sense of how some studies have shown that the corpus callosum in females might be a little thicker.

We also have intuitively always separated the left from the right, even the words themselves suggest differences.

My thirteen year old granddaughter is autistic and completely trapped in the left hemishere. There is real panic and anxiety when she cant control or understand something.
I have had conversations with her explaining how the left and right hemispheres differ and why one is regarded as feminine and the other masculine.

(10-05-2024, 12:16 PM)midicon Wrote: Hi, Ultra

I once asked a fellow on ATS 'if Descartes had been a woman would she have said 'I am therefore I think'?

He replied, 'If Descartes had been a woman, she would have said thank God I'm not a man!

Jung once described the Anima as being  fickle, capricious, moody and bitchy! I always wanted to use those words in a poem!

(10-05-2024, 01:16 PM)UltraBudgie Wrote: oh my goodness theres a whole paper on it https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/ijps/article/download/4967/3234/26670 hahaha the universe provides, fertile maya indeed!

so about the density of neurons and brain differences theres lots of factors like how foldy the brain is an how dense the neurons are but one thing i found interesting was when they measured how far the little traily bits on the neurons went, how localized the connections were, in the neural net or connectome as they call it. the right hemisphere turns out to have a measurably more spread out connectome, the neurons draw information from a spatially wider range than the left hemisphere.  This makes intuitive sense to me, as the left hemisphere excels at tasks that quickly respond to definitive similar things, whereas the right hemisphere is better at drawing together seemingly unconnected signals into new models and ideas.

oh and for those who like videos here is mcgilchrist giving a summary at cambridge along with his accent and beard you have to go to youtube to view it for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuQ4Hi7YdgU