Here are a few examples of data that should not exist!
The observations and data these articles discuss seem to imply that the perceptually dominant hemisphere in all of us is by varying degrees hormonally retarded and exhibits symptoms of severe perceptual limitation. It may therefore be wise to differentiate between the data and the interpretation, assessment or explanation of the data by the authors or yourself. The hemispheric data predicts (somewhat obviously) that the dominant hemisphere plays a major role in assessing that same data, the data alluding to its functionality, a perplexing conundrum. So if at all possible just look at the repeating patterns in the data without buying into the self-referencing explanations. If you are still convinced by the explanations of ‘evolutionary adaptation' or ‘specialised functions' etc rather than the idea that we may just be blindly buying into our own delusory bullshit (BTW exactly what the data predicts) then perhaps all is well and good. On the other hand the data predicts it would take the least deluded minds to see through the perceptual blindness and come to the only sane conclusion, a classic catch 22. of epic proportions.
Is there any evidence that the development of the left side of our brain is being retarded by the action of our own hormones?
Professor Simon Baron-Cohen amongst others seems to think so
Is there any evidence that the left side of our brain is dysfunctional?
This recent summary and these articles by Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran and this article by Dr Darold Treffert suggest that there might just be a problem? (Royal Society version, also see Uncommon Genius)
Is there any evidence that the left side of our brain is not as advanced as the right?
These summaries of Dr Allan Snyder’s research seems to hint that something is not quite right.
These two videos provide a basic introduction to Dr Snyder's research.
Is there any evidence that we may be lying to ourselves?
These summaries and video links highlight what we see in everyone else, while the explanations vary there seems to be no shortage of evidence for self delusion by degrees in everyone, whether you agree or not is quite another matter.
A selection of papers highlighting the extent that delusion is endemic in the ‘normal’ human population. Inevitably the reference points used for defining the degree of delusion ‘we’ (our left brain) can currently recognise are primarily a product of our left brain. The very same piece of kit that the neurological and psychological data identifies as being extremely deluded and completely unable to recognise the severity of its condition.
These videos confirm that the extensive data and evidence that has emerged from research into cerebral dominance support the following conclusions;
The left side of our brain is perceptually and cognitively impaired with the result that it is severely deluded.
The left side of our brain is perceptually and cognitively dominant with the result that we are seriously deluded.
The scientists studying this phenomena like everyone else have no choice but to use the side of our brain that has no possibility whatsoever of accurately diagnosing its self.
The neurological and psychological data perfectly predicts that this simple conundrum will be completely missed. The accuracy of the prediction is beautifully demonstrated in that they all miss the obviousness of their own perceptual trap while confabulating explanations for the incongruities this creates.
Interesting that the verbally dominant 'left self' is not so very different even when split from the right, this might give some idea of how much our normal perception is dominated by the left side of our brain.
Split brain research part 2 with Professor Michael Gazzaniga.
The left side is perceptually in charge, by definition it has developed an astounding theory to explain why it is no good at recognising even simple patterns 'the right side is specialised for recognising patterns'. OK so far so good, I wonder what astounding theory it can come up with to explain its inability to solve the complex block-arranging puzzle at the end of the video, anyway moving on...
Severed corpus callosum with Professor Michael Gazzaniga.
The concluding statement "Don't leave home without your left hemisphere" really does speak for its self. The learned professor has done exactly what his studies predicted he would do. He has neglected to account for a conceptually very simple yet subjectively imperceptible conundrum. According to his own research his own severely dysfunctional, deluded and confabulating left hemisphere which he acknowledges is perceptually dominant is therefore inevitably responsible for assessing the data and performing what is in effect a self diagnosis. The result, his subjective left hemisphere conclusions, despite his meticulous observations re the patients left hemisphere is that his own left hemisphere, and everyone elses left hemisphere generally pass with flying colours and nobody at all ever seems to notice, (or at least nobody’s left hemisphere.) This is exactly what the objective data he is assessing predicts will happen. An astonishing proof that we are all lost in a perceptual hall of mirrors where the left hemisphere is studying the brain and it is almost impossible for us to see the simplicity let alone accept it.
Look carefully again, can you spot this trick of your mind that our ancestors alluded to for millennia as the cause of our insanity?
Split Brain Patients with Professor Michael Gazzaniga.
More tea vicar?
This video with Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran demonstrates the potential for two diametrically opposed perceptions of reality residing in the same skull, two distinct senses of self, one left hemisphere version, and one right hemisphere version. Intriguing, however like all neurological/psychological studies the subjects neural system is no longer 'designed' built or fuelled by the highly complex transcription modifying and neuro-active biochemistry that it was known to have evolved in for millions of years.
"I Am Not Sick" pt 1 With Dr. Xavier Amador.
"I Am Not Sick" pt 2 With Dr. Xavier Amador.
Dr Amador states that self-deception, delusion, anosognosia and confabulation typically follow brain injury. There is well documented evidence of species wide brain injury, congenital and developmental retardation caused by excess activity of our own steroid hormones (See links above to Professor Simon Baron-Cohen). One side of our brain seems to be much more affected than the other, any idea which side it might be???
Two versions of a very simple and fun excercise that tests your perceptual ability, while you may not be caught out, quite clearly many people are.
The neurological data is remarkably consistent and conclusive, our left hemisphere is hormonally retarded, our left hemisphere cannot accurately perceive reality, our left hemisphere continually lies, our left hemisphere is perceptually dominant, ergo ‘it’ therefore ‘we’ do not accurately perceive reality, we only think we do.
This perceptual loop affects absolutely everyone including those who are engaged in researching the human mind. The human brain is studying the human brain or more precisely according to all the evidence, our/yours/my/their left hemisphere is studying the human brain. This is a seriously flawed situation and would be a complete no-brainer to spot if we weren’t so totally and unavoidably lost in it.
Can you do better than the ‘experts’ below? It really is very very simple, have you got it yet?
Click on images to enlarge
Typically a theory, hypothesis, belief or philosophy is an attempt to explain data and observations. In the case of human perception it is the neurological data that explains the multitude of distinct or conflicting and mutually incompatible theories and explains why they will be generally inaccurate in that they fail to fully accord with or take account of the data.
The binoculars represent the left and right cerebral hemispheres and varying degrees of
anosognosia, delusion, denial and how that in turn limits our conception and perception of reality.
If as is generally presumed our neural system and its associated state of mind are more or less fully functional then it should present no threat whatsoever to consider the possibility that there may be a problem. The case for species wide severely retarded neural development would in a neurologically functional species attract virtually no support. It would be no more than an interesting exercise to imagine the possibility that we are so neurologically/perceptually retarded we cannot easily recognise the depths of our dysfunction. Yet amazingly there can be a great deal of resistance to even consider the possibly that we and the instrument we are obliged to use to self assess are dysfunctional. Checking out the mountain of objective data that must exist if the condition is real also meets with varying degrees of resistance, what does this imply?
So, how much resistance do you have to contemplating such a scenario, at the very least eliminating even the remotest possibility of such a scenario is the sane option?
The following ‘slightly exaggerated’ scene from John Carpenter’s ‘They Live’ demonstrates the kind of dichotomy that could not exist if our neural system was fully functional, yet it would exist if we were by varying degrees severely dysfunctional and deluded. Some people can spot it quickly, some resist even looking as if their very lives depend on it. History tells us that many simple ideas that initially evoked fierce opposition were eventually accepted as blatantly self evident yet the pattern remains the same.
They live fight scene. The protagonist is attempting to demonstrate the limits of his friends perception of reality by suggesting he try on some 'reality glasses'.
Dr Iain McGilchrist has recently published an excellent and very scholarly book on the subject (The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World) In it he cites endless examples of how the hemispheres contribute to our perception. His conclusions can be summarised in this quote below, of course whether he has factored his conclusions into his conclusions during his assessment of the data remains to be seen…