The contemporary negation of subjectivity

[The Johnny]

Some experiments with people that had an injury to certain parts of their brains and testing them at different tasks come to mind. Ive also heard of certain experiments where numbing agents were administered to certain parts of their brain so they couldnt be used, to see how the person acted.

If you're interested in right/left brain lateralization, look up information on people who've had some damage to or completely lack the corpus collosum. Truth is, we've got two brains (or three, if you count the gastro-intestinal one) which are barely connected to each other. People can live without the cc, it's not ideal, but it's not absolutely necessary either.

Yes indeed.

Kai, by any chance could you comment on if that article talking about primates saying they dont have right handed and left handed preferences in general? My perception is that Scientific American is reliable, but thats not my field of expertise.

[The Johnny]

Do you think it is likely that alienation (either in the Marxist or social conception) arises from the socially structured repression, or lack out of outlets, for the "right hemisphere" of the brain or the traits associated with it (putting aside the questions of the validity of this model) to express itself through? 

My idea is that the "right side of our brain" contains "higher and more complex" processes than the "left side of our brain". But mentioning that, the left side of our brain contains the mechanisms that were most needed for survival and development as a species. But its a matter of balance, because human life (according to what i think) shouldnt just be about "survival"; survival is related to efficiency and efficiency is related to economics... perhaps thats why economics is over idealized.

And evolution to a higher more balanced state is in biological terminology a "mutation". Mutations can be either an improvement or abominations, and it seems to me that the average joe's of the world view any sort of mutation/deviation as an abomination because their lack of perspective and intellect.

In other words, fear.

(I have a bus ride to catch, ill chew on these thoughts while im on it)

P.S. Im gonna read the totality of my essay, perhaps theres a lot of holes in my arguments due to it being fragments of the big one...

[Golden Applesauce]

Leaving aside for the moment whether what you ascribe to the brain hemispheres in terms of different kinds of reasoning actually occurs in specific hemispheres, on what do you base your claim that some kinds of reasoning are "higher and more complex" than others?  What makes you say that verbal, logical, and analytical abilities are of a lower order than qualitative interpretation of the quality of speech and sound?

It seems like a kind of dualism to say that there is a low way of thinking and a high way of thinking.

[The Johnny]

Do you think it is likely that alienation (either in the Marxist or social conception) arises from the socially structured repression, or lack out of outlets, for the "right hemisphere" of the brain or the traits associated with it (putting aside the questions of the validity of this model) to express itself through? 

My idea is that the "right side of our brain" contains "higher and more complex" processes than the "left side of our brain". But mentioning that, the left side of our brain contains the mechanisms that were most needed for survival and development as a species. But its a matter of balance, because human life (according to what i think) shouldnt just be about "survival"; survival is related to efficiency and efficiency is related to economics... perhaps thats why economics is over idealized.

And evolution to a higher more balanced state is in biological terminology a "mutation". Mutations can be either an improvement or abominations, and it seems to me that the average joe's of the world view any sort of mutation/deviation as an abomination because their lack of perspective and intellect.

In other words, fear.

It seems like a kind of dualism to say that there is a low way of thinking and a high way of thinking.

A very valid observation. That is just my personal opinion and lets leave it at that for the moment.

Now here comes the stuff i managed to think up while on my bus ride (This time i chose to think in spanish - Translation in progress...)

[The Johnny]

I wont get into philosophers, economists, my own nor subcultural notions of alienation, because i think its a very relative term and i would just drown in definitions. Also, because choosing one definition over the rest would be limitating. Although i will try to adress what i think it is you are questioning. I also felt that the question was loaded as to just involve economics, sociology and neurology primarily. I dont say any of this with malice nor with the intention of easing up what ill try to express.

When i speak of the left hemisphere of the brain, i speak basicly on the foundations of rationalism: (this would be a chart shaped in a square, but, just pretend it is)

Neuroanatomically: right hemisphere / basic functions of survival
Philosophi-scientifically: rationalism / objectivism / enlightenment / order
Artistically: Classicism / renaissance / realism / top chart pop / top chart rap
Psychologically: Conscience (Ego) / Superego

By contraposition (imagine another chart):

Neuroanatomically: left hemisphere / complex functions (higher on the evolution scale of the psyche)
Philosophy-scientifically: irrationalism / discordianism / Zen / disorder
Artistically: modernism / romanticism / dada / surrealism / fringe music (lets not get into that)
Psychologically: Unconcious

So dealing with each area independently:

Neuroanatomically: we owe much to "hard science" that uses a lot of precise numbers, engineering, medicine, logic, etc. These are all quantitative based stuff, and thats fine, because its dealing with objects and stuff for our own purpose, even do qualitative methods are pushed to a side, which are essential to the "social sciences".

Philosophy-scientifically: taking objectivism as an example. Its ridiculous, other than with numbers one cannot be objective, unless that by a rare chance you have the same definitions and perspective. Everything else is relative and subjective. The utopias that rationalism/enlightenment influenced people have all failed because they dont take into account human vice/feelings.

Artistically: Surrealism expresses freely what is experienced psychically, in opposition to Realism that expresses what is perceived and is "real". Rennaissance and Classicism are kind of in opposition to Romanticism which speaks of subjective experience. One could say Dada shares much with Surrealism.

Psychologically: So ok, i think that the Freudian abstract separations of the psyche are correct, and that the unconscious does exist. Unconscious/Id is what deals with our dreams and our psychic world, it can be argued that the mayor part of our psyche is unconscious and it can manifest thru "mistakes" such as lapsus, stuttering, tripping, forgetting... it also is the manifestation of our hedonistic desires. The Ego/ Consciousness is the field of battle between our hedonistic desires and that which is our personal moral rules and ideals (superego).

Just the characteristics of the unconscious and the right hemisphere are, what to call it... taboo? But now its not about hunting down those manifestations, its about ignoring those manifestations and hoping it dissolves in the seas of semi-comftable burgeous, ignorant lower class, and pillaging higher class.

I say in brief words i guess: rationalism has led most of the world to think that there are values that are objective by putting efforts into deying there are way more issues that rely on personal taste and denying the inconscious forces that are the basis for those personal tastes.

[Cramulus]

interesting thesis, to be sure.

reminds of Robert Pirsig's notion of Quality (as described in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence)

when something is of High Quality, it is because it has unified the rational and aesthetic worlds. He thinks that culture is suffering from a war between the rational mind and the aesthetic mind, and this causes all sorts of Low Quality experiences.

[Golden Applesauce]

Perhaps I wasn't being strong enough.  When I say that your system of the human mind seems dualistic, I meant to imply that you took a very complicated system, much of which is fundamentally unknown at this point, drew an arbitrary line down where you place the middle, and declared arbitrarily that one side was better than the other.  (You say they should be "balanced," but it's clear that you take "balance" to mean more right-side and less left-side.)

So dealing with each area independently:

Neuroanatomically: we owe much to "hard science" that uses a lot of precise numbers, engineering, medicine, logic, etc. These are all quantitative based stuff, and thats fine, because its dealing with objects and stuff for our own purpose, even do qualitative methods are pushed to a side, which are essential to the "social sciences".

Are you saying that thinking with precise numbers is justifiable, but only if it deals with objects to fulfill a human purpose?  In other words, that precise thinking is only a tool and not something that can be its own end?  If so, why?

Philosophy-scientifically: taking objectivism as an example. Its ridiculous, other than with numbers one cannot be objective, unless that by a rare chance you have the same definitions and perspective. Everything else is relative and subjective. The utopias that rationalism/enlightenment influenced people have all failed because they dont take into account human vice/feelings.

I don't see why one can't be objective with definitions (e.g., analytical reasoning.)  And when you say that "everything" else is relative and subjective, are you including statements like "This barstool is a solid object" in your "relative and subjective" division?

Psychologically: So ok, i think that the Freudian abstract separations of the psyche are correct, and that the unconscious does exist. Unconscious/Id is what deals with our dreams and our psychic world, it can be argued that the mayor part of our psyche is unconscious and it can manifest thru "mistakes" such as lapsus, stuttering, tripping, forgetting... it also is the manifestation of our hedonistic desires. The Ego/ Consciousness is the field of battle between our hedonistic desires and that which is our personal moral rules and ideals (superego).

Do you have any evidence that the unconscious manifests itself through mistakes (the so-called "Freudian Slip") ?  I don't deny that there are many things about my own mind of which I am unaware - I often don't realize what my true motivations are, or what precisely causes me to like or dislike something, or just about anything relating to my dreams.  But be aware that modern psychology has essentially completely moved away from Sigmund your-son-has-autism-because-you're-a-terrible-mother Freud, and his ideas about just about everything have been completely discredited.  I am unaware of any controlled, scientific study which supports the idea that slips of tongue and lapses of speech reflect unconscious desires, as opposed to swapping phonemes or trying to think about two things and once and saying the wrong word out loud.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

I won't lie, this is a long (probably interesting thread), that i haven't read yet, but I have a question...

Do you think that maybe, possibly, our predisposition towards right-handedness (left-brained ness) could be due to the fact we are a highly social species and the left side seems to cover the basics of communication?

though i suppose that doesn't explain why other primates have the same phenomenon.

also, to say the left of right-handedness is not genetic is just silly, it could well be a gene expressed in a similar way to height, you are predisposed but nurture can change that, otherwise what would make someone left-handed?  if it was purely down to ideological effects on the brain and this worship of rationality is so widespread then everyone would be right-handed, and left-handedness would almost certainly not occur in westernized countries.

if this has been covered or is otherwise irrelevant then apologies and all that.

x

[Cramulus]

I can't find a higher citation, but I generally trust Pinker on these things:


"...one hand is dominant, owing to the asymmetry of the brain..." (Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works, page 278)

[The Johnny]

Perhaps I wasn't being strong enough.  When I say that your system of the human mind seems dualistic, I meant to imply that you took a very complicated system, much of which is fundamentally unknown at this point, drew an arbitrary line down where you place the middle, and declared arbitrarily that one side was better than the other.  (You say they should be "balanced," but it's clear that you take "balance" to mean more right-side and less left-side.)

Its not an arbitrary division im making, its according to neuro-anatomic findings, and im sure there are a lot of things that we do not know, but there are a lot of things that are indeed known. And let me explain about the right side of the brain, i meant to speak more of its value in terms of it being unusual traits, in the context of this predominantly rational world we live in, that are needed for balance. I hope this makes my stance clearer.

Are you saying that thinking with precise numbers is justifiable, but only if it deals with objects to fulfill a human purpose?  In other words, that precise thinking is only a tool and not something that can be its own end?  If so, why?

Precise thinking as its own end? I do think it is only a "tool", and of course, if we didnt need it for survival or practical needs we could/should do without it. The first wording of the "same" question you made i couldnt quite understand.

I don't see why one can't be objective with definitions (e.g., analytical reasoning.)  And when you say that "everything" else is relative and subjective, are you including statements like "This barstool is a solid object" in your "relative and subjective" division?

Definitions and perspective... words are just metaphors, and you can come close to expressing what you mean, but never a solid 100%... If i say "cat", do you think of the animal, the shoe brand or the computed axial tomography scan? There is an inmense array of possible "barstools" that come to mind, and how "solid" it is has a very wide range of "solidity".

Do you have any evidence that the unconscious manifests itself through mistakes (the so-called "Freudian Slip") ?  I don't deny that there are many things about my own mind of which I am unaware - I often don't realize what my true motivations are, or what precisely causes me to like or dislike something, or just about anything relating to my dreams.  But be aware that modern psychology has essentially completely moved away from Sigmund your-son-has-autism-because-you're-a-terrible-mother Freud, and his ideas about just about everything have been completely discredited.  I am unaware of any controlled, scientific study which supports the idea that slips of tongue and lapses of speech reflect unconscious desires, as opposed to swapping phonemes or trying to think about two things and once and saying the wrong word out loud.

The unconscious doesnt manifest itself "just" thru mistakes, it would be a horrible task to enunciate every single one way it expresses itself. Explaining that it does manifest thru mistakes is much empirical and a "per case" thing to do. Freud still has certainly an ammount of theories and ideas that have been discredited and others that havent, but to say lightly what percentage of each we are at today i would say its an arrogant posture. Ill look around for examples for the lapsus and stuff, i for sure know theres some within "Psychopathology of Everyday Life", but i wonder how solid you think those are.

[The Johnny]

Do you think that maybe, possibly, our predisposition towards right-handedness (left-brained ness) could be due to the fact we are a highly social species and the left side seems to cover the basics of communication?

also, to say the left of right-handedness is not genetic is just silly, it could well be a gene expressed in a similar way to height, you are predisposed but nurture can change that, otherwise what would make someone left-handed?  if it was purely down to ideological effects on the brain and this worship of rationality is so widespread then everyone would be right-handed, and left-handedness would almost certainly not occur in westernized countries.

Actually, intonation and accentuation seem to be more "basic communication skills", if you couldnt make intonation with a "primitive grunt" which was the basic form of language, then how would you, lacking a language that does rely on vocabulary and grammar?. And by basing your argument on we being "highly social species", then you are saying it might as well could had been the left hand that turned out to be dominant.

coming up with a geneticist reductionism is what i think to be silly. Even do i go along with it as far as to say it might have SOME PART in the causes.

And tell me, how often left handedness does occur? 5-30%, dont you find that to be at least a minority to what could even could be named "rare" occurrance?

[Golden Applesauce]

Perhaps in the interest of clarity, you could explain what you mean when you say "holistic" as opposed to "rational" ?  I think part of what prevents me from understanding your reasoning is that I see no conflict between something being holistic and rational at the same time. 

Perhaps I wasn't being strong enough.  When I say that your system of the human mind seems dualistic, I meant to imply that you took a very complicated system, much of which is fundamentally unknown at this point, drew an arbitrary line down where you place the middle, and declared arbitrarily that one side was better than the other.  (You say they should be "balanced," but it's clear that you take "balance" to mean more right-side and less left-side.)

Its not an arbitrary division im making, its according to neuro-anatomic findings, and im sure there are a lot of things that we do not know, but there are a lot of things that are indeed known. And let me explain about the right side of the brain, i meant to speak more of its value in terms of it being unusual traits, in the context of this predominantly rational world we live in, that are needed for balance. I hope this makes my stance clearer.

Are you saying that thinking with precise numbers is justifiable, but only if it deals with objects to fulfill a human purpose?  In other words, that precise thinking is only a tool and not something that can be its own end?  If so, why?

Precise thinking as its own end? I do think it is only a "tool", and of course, if we didnt need it for survival or practical needs we could/should do without it. The first wording of the "same" question you made i couldnt quite understand.

That's what I meant by arbitrary division - you cannot claim that neurological research supports your judgment that precise thinking "should" be discarded if it is not needed.  I am not sure where you are getting this statement - I personally love precise thinking as a purely intellectual exercise.  Perhaps you personally dislike it and are confusing your personal tastes with normative judgments?  And I don't see how you can claim that you're seeking "balance" if you believe that precise reasoning should be kept to "as little as necessary."  You can say that there should be this much precise thinking and that much other thinking, but by what reasoning are you making the claim that this much is balanced with that much?  (By analogy, if I say that killing humans should be kept to a minimum, and that peaceful methods of conflict resolution should be used more than they are, I am not seeking a balance between murder and peace.  I'm seeking more peace and less murder.)

And while neurological research does support a some of your claims (location of verbal language as opposed to intonation, etc.)  I see no evidence that modes of thinking - if indeed there are distinct modes of thinking - are lateralized.  The fact that parts of the brain which are necessary for grammatical language are (usually) located in the left hemisphere does not imply that literal thinking occurs in the left hemisphere and that whatever is the opposite of thinking literally occurs in the right hemisphere.  I would like to see evidence for your claim that "holistic" and "rational" modes of thinking can be distinguished, and that each mode of thought occurs principally in one hemisphere or the other.

I don't see why one can't be objective with definitions (e.g., analytical reasoning.)  And when you say that "everything" else is relative and subjective, are you including statements like "This barstool is a solid object" in your "relative and subjective" division?

Definitions and perspective... words are just metaphors, and you can come close to expressing what you mean, but never a solid 100%... If i say "cat", do you think of the animal, the shoe brand or the computed axial tomography scan? There is an inmense array of possible "barstools" that come to mind, and how "solid" it is has a very wide range of "solidity".

Suppose the International Prototype Kilogram (the one stored in France) were moving towards your solar plexus at 10^40 Planck lengths per second (which is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom), relative to the inertial frame of reference of your solar plexus.

Tell me this will not result in a deformation of your body.

If you don't buy this, I WILL start copying precise proofs directly from my Abstract Algebra and Number Theory textbooks.

Do you have any evidence that the unconscious manifests itself through mistakes (the so-called "Freudian Slip") ?  I don't deny that there are many things about my own mind of which I am unaware - I often don't realize what my true motivations are, or what precisely causes me to like or dislike something, or just about anything relating to my dreams.  But be aware that modern psychology has essentially completely moved away from Sigmund your-son-has-autism-because-you're-a-terrible-mother Freud, and his ideas about just about everything have been completely discredited.  I am unaware of any controlled, scientific study which supports the idea that slips of tongue and lapses of speech reflect unconscious desires, as opposed to swapping phonemes or trying to think about two things and once and saying the wrong word out loud.

The unconscious doesnt manifest itself "just" thru mistakes, it would be a horrible task to enunciate every single one way it expresses itself. Explaining that it does manifest thru mistakes is much empirical and a "per case" thing to do. Freud still has certainly an ammount of theories and ideas that have been discredited and others that havent, but to say lightly what percentage of each we are at today i would say its an arrogant posture. Ill look around for examples for the lapsus and stuff, i for sure know theres some within "Psychopathology of Everyday Life", but i wonder how solid you think those are.

I actually agree with you for once - it was an arrogant statement when I said that Freud's ideas about just about everything are discredited.  Let me rephrase that in a more humble way: Of all the psychology professors, psychologists, and psychology students I have heard discuss Freud, all of them have made the point that none of Freud's major theories are still accepted by mainstream psychologists.  Rather than contributing theory, they say, Freud's real contribution was the popularization of the idea applying psychological principles to therapy, even though Freud's principles were mostly wrong.

I'd appreciate some examples of studies of lapses.  I have to warn you that "Psychopathology of Everyday Life" isn't going to convince me, if only because it was, y'know, written by Sigmund Freud.  In the scientific method we have a tradition that empirical claims should be independently verifiable; that is, if I do experiment X and get result Y, and you or any scientist also does experiment X, then they should also get result Y.  If the only person who can get result Y is me, and everybody else who does the experiment gets Z, then my result of Y is not considered valid; perhaps my equipment is defective and I am not measuring what I think I am measuring, or maybe I have some bias that prevents me from getting the objective result, or perhaps I have simply lied about my results.  For Freud's theories to be considered correct, other scientists who conduct controlled studies on lapses should have the same empirical results.  The fact that Freud found support for his own theory is not very convincing; what would be convincing would be a rigorous study conducted in, say, the last 20 years or so.  (The time restriction is because psychology is a field in which new things are discovered and old assumptions invalidated on a fairly regular basis.  A study done 100 years ago would very likely assume things to be true that turned out to be false.)

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Actually, intonation and accentuation seem to be more "basic communication skills", if you couldnt make intonation with a "primitive grunt" which was the basic form of language, then how would you, lacking a language that does rely on vocabulary and grammar?

That may be true, and perhaps millions of years ago more humans were left-handed, but in todays society for the majority of the populations' right brain communication skills are foremost and as we are talking about todays society I think my point is still relevant.

coming up with a geneticist reductionism is what i think to be silly. Even do i go along with it as far as to say it might have SOME PART in the causes.

And tell me, how often left handedness does occur? 5-30%, dont you find that to be at least a minority to what could even could be named "rare" occurrance?

well if its occurance is between 5-30% then is could simply be a recessive allele, mendels ratios would give 3:1 (right:left) which seems to fit with your rare occurence.  I'm not really a fan of genetic determinism normally, but the fact that you completely wrote it off at the beginning is something I found difficult to accept.

also, thanks for taking the time to reply.

x

[Golden Applesauce]

Actually, intonation and accentuation seem to be more "basic communication skills", if you couldnt make intonation with a "primitive grunt" which was the basic form of language, then how would you, lacking a language that does rely on vocabulary and grammar?

That may be true, and perhaps millions of years ago more humans were left-handed, but in todays society for the majority of the populations' right brain communication skills are foremost and as we are talking about todays society I think my point is still relevant.

coming up with a geneticist reductionism is what i think to be silly. Even do i go along with it as far as to say it might have SOME PART in the causes.

And tell me, how often left handedness does occur? 5-30%, dont you find that to be at least a minority to what could even could be named "rare" occurrance?

well if its occurance is between 5-30% then is could simply be a recessive allele, mendels ratios would give 3:1 (right:left) which seems to fit with your rare occurence.  I'm not really a fan of genetic determinism normally, but the fact that you completely wrote it off at the beginning is something I found difficult to accept.

also, thanks for taking the time to reply.

x

JohNyx: If you make the claim that handedness is determined by brain development, then saying that handedness is not influenced by genetic factors is also making the claim that brain development is not influenced by genetic factors.  The last claim is certainly false; you cannot say with a straight face that all of the differences in brain structure between a gorilla fetus and a human fetus are due to nurture rather than inborn genetic factors.

ETA: Quick question, are you making the claim that left-handed people primarily think with the right sides of their brains (and vice versa) ?

[The Johnny]

Perhaps in the interest of clarity, you could explain what you mean when you say "holistic" as opposed to "rational"

I need to review this.

And I don't see how you can claim that you're seeking "balance" if you believe that precise reasoning should be kept to "as little as necessary."  You can say that there should be this much precise thinking and that much other thinking, but by what reasoning are you making the claim that this much is balanced with that much? 

Seeking balance in the sense that we have so much of a rational thinking process already, that the means to achieve balance is to reduce it or focus more on the other kind. Lets say that you have 100 of "Type A" and you have 50 of "Type B", to reach a more balanced state you either need to double up on Type B or lessen on Type A.

And while neurological research does support a some of your claims (location of verbal language as opposed to intonation, etc.)  I see no evidence that modes of thinking - if indeed there are distinct modes of thinking - are lateralized. 

Im gonna look for information on brain laterallization, and i know you are on the "corrosion" role, but it would be much appreciated if you could look up information too. Previous mentions of what to look for in this thread can be useful.

Suppose the International Prototype Kilogram (the one stored in France) were moving towards your solar plexus at 10^40 Planck lengths per second (which is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom), relative to the inertial frame of reference of your solar plexus.

Tell me this will not result in a deformation of your body.

I can still imagine many kinds of "deformations", nothing you say will come thru at 100% what you originally meant. Its not just about the definitions you are using, its about language itself. Did you ever play "broken telephone" during elementary or middle school? Have you ever done translations from one language to another? Jacques Derrida goes into great detail about these issues.

I'd appreciate some examples of studies of lapses.  I have to warn you that "Psychopathology of Everyday Life" isn't going to convince me, if only because it was, y'know, written by Sigmund Freud.  For Freud's theories to be considered correct, other scientists who conduct controlled studies on lapses should have the same empirical results. 

I know about the "scientific method", the "hard science approach", the "quantitative methods" (no need to be condescending).... but there are also "qualitative methods"... im gonna look thru my books and see if i find something good for you.