> >Krimel: > >We know that emotions are localized in the brain in the evolutionarily > >significant parts of the midbrain where they are found in most mammals. > >We also know that humans have evolved large areas in both hemispheres of > >the brain that give us rational thought. Those areas in the neo-cortex > >work for us by combining inputs from all over the brain. They allow us to
> >access our senses and our memories and to compare the past with the > >present. The net effect is to help us rationally decide whether to go > >with our automatic habits or our emotional inclinations or to come up > >with something completely novel. It isn't emotions or rational thought > > broken into pieces that matters it is the integration and synthesis of > > this different modalities that get us through the night. > >Marsha >I am curious about your use of the word 'We'. Who is this 'we'. In >what group are you including yourself? Do you mean you, a >neuroscientist, and your colleagues, or you, a plumber, and your >barber? Where did you learn this information? Unless you've been >conducting the actual experiments and can give a firsthand account, >maybe you can point to the source of the information. > > >[Krimel] >We? >I thought I was talking about the human family. By "we" I mean anyone with >a brain sufficiently complex to access the intellectual level via the >internet. > >If you need references: > >Here is a great place to start: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5nMsXg1Lk > >For more detail >http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-01Fall-2003/Course H >ome/index.htm > >These lectures are extraordinarily rich in information but the lecturer >takes some getting used to. He has a boring voice but if you get past that >his explanations of brain lesion study is quite good. > > >From the Teaching Company Robert Sapolsky has a set of lectures on >neuroscience and behavior that are quite good. He is an excellent lecturer. >These would be better to start with. But the MIT lectures are free, > >Also, as always, it is hard to beat Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" > >Right now I am reading Jonah Lehrer's "How We Decide" it is easy reading and >somewhat like "Blink" > >There is a great series from the BBC call the "Secret life of the Brain." >You can maybe find parts of it on Youtube. Also while you are looking there >is a series by Robert Winston from BBC called "The Human Brain" which is >good and he also has a longer series on "The Human Body" which is >extraordinary. > >V R Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain is really good. I would say mind >blowing. Here is Part 1 you are on your own for Part 2. >http://www.guba.com/watch/2000937292 Marsha: I've complained to you about this in the past. You talk as if you have great knowledge backed by the authority of Science. As if the implication of your scientific point-of-view lends automatic credibility to your stories. It does not. Just like in the field of QM there are most likely opposing views which you never mention. And, as the Science Wars brought to light, there are some inherent problems with the scientific method and scientific knowledge in general. Both The Teaching Company's course, 'Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It' and the CBC's IDEAS Series "How To Think About Science" document many of the problems. Because of the technical nature of science, which is constantly changing and being challeged, you should definitely site sources so the validity of such claims may be checked and alternative evidence and views may be investigated. There's also the fact that you are an anonymous avatar with nothing to lose. You can say whatever and if called on it, there's no skin off your back. So have some consideration for we mere mortals who actually have "skin in the game". Thank you for the additional information. I'll check it out. [Krimel] I was trying to think of a word that captured my reaction to this comment of yours. Ludicrous was the only thing that came to mind. This is not an academic forum. Are you proposing hence forth that everyone here submit an annotated bibliography with every post? I really don't think there was anything in my original comment that is even mildly controversial. If you do, then either ask a specific question or frickin' Google it. Look it up for yourself. This is a forum about ideas, concepts. Those ideas and concepts either work for you or they don't. You can say why they don't work or propose alternate concepts but those ideas do not stand or fall on the basis of who said them. As far as I can tell there is no skin and no game here. Everything is entirely in black and white, shapes on a white screen; unless of course you have your default fonts set to some other color. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
