Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!tank!staff_bob@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
From: staff_bob@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Left vs. Right Brain <==> Reason vs. Mysticism ?
Message-ID: <1470@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 89 17:38:36 GMT
Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
Lines: 79

> 
>Jaynes was referring to a two-chambered brain, literally the left and
>right hemispheres.  His theory was, until further evolution of the
>corpus callosum (which he supposed to have happened, oh, after _The
>Odyssey_, but before completion of _The Iliad_) early man "heard"
>voices from his right hemisphere, and interpreted these to be the
>voices of gods.
> 
I believe that Jaynes explicitly states that he believes that most of the
evolution was social, while at the same time leaving open the possibilty
of bio-physical evolution. I do not recall him ever discussing evolution
of the corpus callosum. This is not so far fetched. In many so-called
mystical writings, one sees admonitions to 'unlearn' or 'relearn' 
perception. This is manifest in Bhuddism, and for that matter, explicit
in the works of Carlos Casteneda. This is consistent with Jayne's position,
insofar as he holds that as civilization progressed, became more rational
and left brain dominant, it became more and more difficult for right
brain (read mystical) activity to occur. He goes into great detail explaining
how rituals became more and more a part of the oracular experience, because
they were requisite to breaking down socially established barriers. He
points out that the best oracles were almost exclusively uneducated
peasant girls, not so much because their brains hadn't evolved, but
because they were less acculturated into the left brain dominant world.

In article <7301@venera.isi.edu>, smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) writes...
 
>Granting that you HAVE
>the sort of right hemisphere you want to "clean up" (and I tend to agree
>with Minsky that one should be suspicious of such brain division), 

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call you (and Minsky) out on this one.
Exactly what do you mean, 'that one should be suspicious of such brain 
division'? Left/Right brain laterality wasn't invented by Julian Jaynes.
There's a very extensive body of research, approaching 20 years in age,
that effectively *proves* differences between left and right hemispheric
processing. Sperry, the researcher who 'discovered' the phenomenon while
examining fomer epileptics who had had their corpus callosum cut, was
recently awarded the Nobel prize in biology. It might be convenient for
Minsky to ignore this sound, scientific research, just as it's convenient
for him to ignore the fact that he hasn't made a significant contribution
to the field of AI since it was in its infancy, and most of the trails
he blazed have turned out to be dead ends, but that makes it no less 
valid.

The fact is that there *are* differences between the operations of the two
hemispheres. We have a somewhat better understanding of the left brain
than the right, but I would point out that this is most probably because
it is much easier for us to create a verbal description of the properties
of the verbal side of the brain. Certainly, we are far from knowing
all that there is to know, but we are well beyond the point where it is
prudent to be 'suspicious of such a brain division'.

(What follows has no sound basis in the above mentioned research, it is
mere speculation/hypothesis on my part.)

It seems to me that such suspicions have their origin in the age old
polemic of 'reason' vs. 'mysticism' which quite probably has a biological
origin in the different natures of the two hemispheres. Three thousand
or so years ago it is quite probable that mysticism dominated reason,
and this is not inconsistant with Jayne's hypothesis. Since then, we
have seen left brain mediated processes, such as the use of symbolic
logic and mathematics, rise in prestige until science has for some people
completely supplanted the need for religion. History tells us that the
rise of science included a long and difficult struggle against religious
elements. One of the charges against Socrates was 'preaching false gods',
and the travails of Galileo and Copernicus are well known. Mysticism
in its heyday resisted science, and it is obvious from this newgroup
that science in its heyday resists mysticism. 

As a trained Computer (MS) and Behavioral (AB) scientist, I too am inclined
to respect the works of science vs. the mysteries of religion, but I
am not prepared to reject something simply because I have no respect for
it and do not understand it. It almost seems that the more scientific
(left brained) one is, the less mystical (right brained) he *can* be,
and vice versa. Thus the scientist cannot understand the mystic, nor 
can the mystic explain himself to the scientist. Is it not possible that
the modern day scientist is just as prejudiced against the claims of
right brain mediated knowledge as the priests of the Middle Ages were
against science?