Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#51

Post by sago »

ZeroFries wrote: post #49
sago wrote: post #11

It seems rather intuitive to me. Our brain is composed of neurons. Different subsets seem to have more or less specialised functions. Any subset can be seen as it own 'thinker'. We think of them as larger units based mostly on the amount of communication / how independently they can function. Sometimes it is helpful to think of our mind as been made of many smaller 'thinkers'. Though there is no crisp boundary, every…

This works to some extent, but does not account for consciousness. A mind, at the very least a moment of experience, is a coherent whole. Your left and right visual fields are bound together. Thinking of neurons as entirely discrete units makes the binding problem insoluble.

> This works to some extent, but does not account for consciousness.

True, although consciousness itself is rather poorly defined. There are also other related issues like qualia. But I'm not sure it needs to 'account' for those things. To observe that there are certain mental phenomena that are evident at different scales.

> A mind, at the very least a moment of experience, is a coherent whole.

That rather assumes your conclusion. In the example of a divided brain, a stimuli may be presented to only half the brain. How would one know whether one's experience of 'coherent whole'ness was accurate?

> Thinking of neurons as entirely discrete units makes the binding problem insoluble.

No more than thinking of base pairs in your DNA as discrete units makes higher order phylogenesis insoluble. To recognise that discrete units are simple does not mean that large aggregates of them cannot display fundamentally different dynamics.

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#52

Post by pygy_ »

vanderZwan wrote: post #47
pygy_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and you lose a hemi-field in both eyes if you have a stroke in the visual cortex on one side of the brain. Central vision is preserved though, because the fovea projects to both hemispheres.

> Yes, and you lose a hemi-field in both eyes if you have a stroke in the visual cortex on one side of the brain. In my case the aura of my migraines (that I thankfully only had during puberty) were limited to the left hemi-field. Which I guess suggests that the migraine was "centered" in the right brain hemisphere.

Correct!

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#53

Post by PixyMisa »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #32
725686 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any references?

Did you not look at any of the criticisms included on the wikipedia page? "Debunked" may have been overly strong, but it certainly lacks evidence and there are some good arguments against it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#Issu...

I'd say "debunked" is putting it mildly. "Vacuous nonsense fuelled entirely by cherry picking and special pleading" is the phrase I'd use. See for example his response to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#55

Post by knome »

corysama wrote: post #12
Waterluvian wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll check out those titles, but put simply, are you referring to how I talk to myself in many voices in the shower, having a narrative about a problem I'm picking away at?

TLDR of HBTM is that there is a nonverbal, background thread of consciousness in your mind. It has the advantage of a larger working set (short term memory) compared to the verbal, foreground thread. Therefore it can more easily integrate more complicated observations over time than your foreground thought process. It has the disadvantage that it is non-verbal and does not work quickly, on command or under pressure.…

Sounds a lot like the gods in "Origin of Consciousness". Occurs as well, that for those that have seen the MBTI and Jungian stuff, that the introvert/extrovert duality they posit could be described as a tortoise/talker-affinity.

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#56

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

akvadrako wrote: post #40
solipsism wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common human behavior is a lot more schizophrenic than any of us are comfortable with understanding. How presumptive. Speak for yourself.

Indeed. I basically consider myself a corporation, with the conscious part playing the role of elected CEO.

I think that's wishful thinking, actually. We like to believe there's a singular being in charge that we can label 'self', but I don't buy it. It seems to me that our minds operate more like a society or, at a higher abstraction, a committee, and it only seems like there's a singular entity in charge because the rationalization portion of our brain does its thing after decisions are made, making it seem as though there were a singular will determining our behavior.

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#57

Post by mpa000 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #56
akvadrako wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I basically consider myself a corporation, with the conscious part playing the role of elected CEO.

I think that's wishful thinking, actually. We like to believe there's a singular being in charge that we can label 'self', but I don't buy it. It seems to me that our minds operate more like a society or, at a higher abstraction, a committee, and it only seems like there's a singular entity in charge because the rationalization portion of our brain does its thing after decisions are made, making it seem as though the…

Like Minsky, who I've been waiting to be referenced in this subject but haven't seen yet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#58

Post by theWheez »

ZeroFries wrote: post #49
sago wrote: post #11

It seems rather intuitive to me. Our brain is composed of neurons. Different subsets seem to have more or less specialised functions. Any subset can be seen as it own 'thinker'. We think of them as larger units based mostly on the amount of communication / how independently they can function. Sometimes it is helpful to think of our mind as been made of many smaller 'thinkers'. Though there is no crisp boundary, every…

This works to some extent, but does not account for consciousness. A mind, at the very least a moment of experience, is a coherent whole. Your left and right visual fields are bound together. Thinking of neurons as entirely discrete units makes the binding problem insoluble.

This question is considered in Sam Harris' Waking Up. Although I don't know how well Sam Harris is received here on HN, I finished it last night and thought it very thought provoking, especially when considering this relationship between the physical brain and our resulting subjective conscious experience.

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#59

Post by vanderZwan »

pygy_ wrote: post #52
vanderZwan wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, and you lose a hemi-field in both eyes if you have a stroke in the visual cortex on one side of the brain. In my case the aura of my migraines (that I thankfully only had during puberty) were limited to the left hemi-field. Which I guess suggests that the migraine was "centered" in the right brain hemisphere.

Correct!

Do we know anything about migraines based on their symptoms? As in, has there been any research where people with different migraine symptoms have been put in a scanner during the migraine to locate which parts of the brain display weird activity?

Re: How researchers discovered we have “two brains” [video]

#60

Post by corysama »

dwighttk wrote: post #46
corysama wrote: post #2

Common human behavior is a lot more schizophrenic than any of us are comfortable with understanding. I recommend the book "Hare Brain Tortoise Mind" to everyone who will listen. It explains one form of multi-mindedness that leads to you getting your best insights while in the shower --what it's good at and what it's not. "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat" is another classic.

Does Hare Brain Tortoise Mind talk about the same things that Thinking, Fast and Slow calls system one and two?

I've not read Thinking Fast and Slow. But, I'm convinced Malcolm Gladwell read Hare Brain, replaced most of the research stories with funny anecdotes and sold 1000x as many copies of Blink.
Post reply on HN