Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!nprdc!meadors
From: meadors@nprdc.arpa (Tony Meadors)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Left vs. Right Brain <==> Reason vs. Mysticism ?
Message-ID: <1392@arctic.nprdc.arpa>
Date: 27 Jan 89 00:14:35 GMT
References: <1511@tank.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@nprdc.arpa
Reply-To: meadors@nprdc.arpa (Tony Meadors)
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego
Lines: 103

In article <1511@tank.uchicago.edu> staff_bob@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I do not feel that Minsky is in any way writing off Sperry's observations in
>>this passage.  I think he is only cautioning us against interpreting them too
>>simplistically.  Much of THE SOCIETY OF MIND is concerned with similar
>>messages--that we should not be seduced by simple answers to complicated
>>issues.  
>
>To begin, I would like to apologize for appearing to cite Casteneda and
>Jaynes. My mention of Casteneda was intended to demonstrate that mystics
>often seem to explicitly cite abnegation of reason as a prerequisite to
>understanding their own, mystical 'truths'. One need not look so far
>afield to find similar critiques of reason. 

 So, you have something against "reason." When one gives up reasoning
as religion and mysticism often requires then 'truths' needn't be. 
 
>We do often observe brain damaged children to do a much better job of 
>compensating for their injuries than similarly disadvantaged adults.
>Minsky has seized upon this fact and used it to support his own wishful
>thinking. He would like us to believe that this compensation implies
>an initial equivalence of hemispheric capabilities.
>....
>Moreover, when there is compensation for damaged areas of the brain, it
>is not clear that this compensation is achieved by the mirror region in
>the other hemisphere. What is clear is that 
 
  It would seem to me, the fact that other, non-mirror areas can adapt
to perform the neccesary processing, strengthens not weakens an argument
for brain equipotentiality.
 
>>My own theory of what happens when the cross-connections between those brain
>>halves are destroyed is that, in early life, we start with mostly similar
>>agencies on either side. Later, as we grow more complex, a combination of
>>genetic and circumstantial effects lead one of each pair to take control of
>>both.
>
>An interesting theory, which has been disproven any number of times. See,
>for example, the chapter entitled "Infant Cerebral Asymmetry", by Dennis
>Molfese, which appears in the book "Language Development and Neurological
>Theory" (Academic Press 1977). The fact is that we can find evidence of
>hemispheric specialization in very early in life. 

 He did not deny a predisposition measurable early in life. 
 You evidently didn't notice the word "genetic" above.

>Hemispheric asymmetry a very complex subject, and not only is Minsky guilty 
>of gross over simplifications, his position contradicts a large body of 
>established research. The hemispheres *are* different from the start. Is it 
>not Minsky himself who wishes to seduce us with simplistic arguments? Is he 
>not misleading us in order to discourage us from wondering about the 
>irrational component of the human mind ? Jaynes and Casteneda both raise
>far more questions than they answer. There seem to be quite a few
>people who, like Minsky, wish to dismiss these questions out-of-hand,
>as somehow being beneath them. That is the simple path. The difficult
>path is to leave them open and examine them, to construct hypotheses and
>to test them experimentally. The simple path is the self serving pop-logic
>exhibited here by Minsky. The difficult path is the path of science.

  Minsky is being cautious. Neither he (nor I) am calling for blanket
generalizations concerning the localization of "types of analysis"
betwixt the hemisheres.
  Minsky is one of the most repected AI researchers and theorists of mind
of our age. To dismiss his "path" as "pop-logic" in favor of Jaynes and
(you've got to be kidding) Casteneda is a grave injustice. The pop-path
here is to take the evidence of "somewhat polarized behavioral deficits" 
from damage to either side of the brain and turn it into some sort of
holy grail of organization: postulating a rational/irrational or
logical/emotional tug of war. The pop notion is that one hemisphere
provides an logical analysis and the otherside provides a wholistic
analysis of any given situation. This is not supported by the evidence.
 
>The point is that the focus of what is now called 'Artificial Intelligence'
>is today almost exclusively upon the logical, rational, symbol processing
>aspects of human intelligence, while it is clear that a considerable part of
>the human mind seems to be thus excluded from consideration.

I agree. This is the point. The point is that some 
would take the laterlization evidence as "clearly" showing that the
"right" hemisphere is doing some "special, non-logical, intuitive" processing
that is distinct from a more "analytic kind." More to the point, the
finding that damage to the left causes a greater decrement to languange
and reasoning skills while damage to the right to spatial-temporal skills
does not show that "a considerable part of the human mind" is devoted
to some analogical or irrational aspect of human intelligence. It doesn't
even show that those activities are "largely performed by those regions."
To interpret a deficit as indicating that those activities impaired are
performed "there" is the most common mistake of all in interpreting the
data of neuroscience. They usually alert students to this, over and over,
in those courses. 
>
> [no name provided]
>
  If I didn't make it clear enough, I object to the claim that
  the hemisheres are doing different and complementary types of
  analyses as well as the idea that some fundamentally "irrational"
  component need be added to models of intelligence. While the 
  traditional AI approaches are of course early and crude attempts
  at capturing our processing character this is not a fundamental
  failure to capture some "artistic half" as some would have it.  
  AI is in need of a new paradigm (perhaps pdp control systems),
  not an "irrational twin" theory. 

tonyM