There is actually an argument that our brains are three due to the way the frontal cortex works. (not the "triune brain" which is a different idea)

The frontal part can exercise control over the two hemispheres and is about as close as we have gotten to identifying where free will comes from. Certainly, in people who have had frontal brain damage there appears to be a direct link to lack of impulse control.
Almost every serial killer in history appears to have had some manner of frontal brain trauma at some stage in their lives and the link to delinquency is fairly well documented by this stage.

The latest research suggests consciousness itself is a fractal programme running co-operatively across the brain, but it remains pretty obscure none the less. The frontal cortex is split between left and right hemispheres, but it certain appears to behave as one in healthy brains.

The best way I could describe it is that the left and right represent the animistic unconsidered side of our behaviour and desires as we see in most animals (interacting via the corpus callosum that connects them). With the frontal cortex seeming to represent the higher functions that allow us to harness the rest of our brain in more considered and abstract ways (presumably also split into left and right).

I think of it like the foreman directing the other divisions of the factory but staying largely hands off when considered decisions don't need to be made.

All of the above is a gross oversimplification though. We can guess at the basis for free will, but it remains elusive.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
There is always going to be religion and group-think. There are going always be people who are less intelligent and less independently-minded. The only problem is when you've got someone who will manipulate those mindless masses for their own agenda. Let's be real. The power structure behind Christianity isn't actually interested in advancing faith...they want power...otherwise there wouldn't even be a power base in the first place and religion would be restricted to just the local churches.
There is nothing inherently wrong with religion and faith. You just gotta reign in their power base and influence to more tolerable levels. I do believe in freedom of religion even though I don't practice any myself. People should be free to believe whatever they want..just as long as those freedoms don't encroach on other people's freedoms.
Wanting Christianity eliminated because the zealots are guilty of oppressing people makes you no better than the oppressors

What horseshit. Do you realize Christians make up over 1/3 of the worlds population? Do you seriously think you can pigeonhole that many people? There are Christians in every walk of life, every kind of profession, intellectual or otherwise, at all ranges of IQ. The bible says only a fool doesn't believe in God. When I was agnostic, I truly was a fool because I had no spiritual discernment. That is why atheists believe the bible is nonsense. Without any awareness of the spirit, or the fact that they have one, they're no better than robots executing some program with a tacit self-awareness. Logic is nothing in and of itself..


I won't go too far here, but this is dangerous thinking. It's full-on vitriolic, bigoted, and hate filled. I don't know how you can read that to yourself and sleep at night soundly, willfully going out of your way to hate and dismiss a large part of the population. (Which you complain about...)

I'm an atheist and I've never meet you. I do no great evils (other than not believing in your God). Please tell me logically why I deserve your hate and specifically why you are certain that my "smarts" are faulty; as to this day I've heard the opposite from others about myself (people I know, not this Internet hogwash).

Your dipping into zealotry and from there it is a short journey to become the thing you hate; whether that seems likely or not, it has been fairly well defined, and a time-tested adage. What you're saying is exactly the same you complain about: pigeonholing.

/Zealotry is dangerous as it causes you to fall into the condition, "You can't see the forest for the trees.". Or, I would say it also causes "tunnel-vision".

//I'm not trying to provoke you as your fine to believe as you wish, but when you expect others to see things ONLY your way you will suffocate yourself socially as people HATE to be meddled with. Which is perhaps the reason many atheists are as vocal as they are; they've been meddled with.

P.S.--

Lastly, atheists don't follow spirituality as it has no logical or scientific basis (instead we usually follow neurosciences' and psychologies' term 'psyche'). If you define "the soul" via science it makes literally no sense; as we understand the brain to be more of a "compartment" like system. You have the left and right hemisphere, then the neo-cortex which is a glorified search engine that makes Google look like a baby in diapers, you have your perception based areas, your emotion based centers, and memory storage. When they work together you gain your perception and that is arguably where you find sentience. The brain is very complex, but it is being understood more and more each day. So what happens when one day we create a true, sentient A.I.? What if they are smart enough to understand the power of community and become more gracious than mankind? What exactly IS a soul at that point? One day religion in general may need to explain things that truly it's prophets may never of foresaw and it's followers will be hard pressed to explain (except for 'faith').

P.S.S.--

I hope you don't think this is an outright attack on you, as this isn't my intention. I merely wish to show you the differences in thought and secondly let you know that what you said is not "helpful" it's very negative in nature. It sounds as though you need to bury the hatchet with something.

No problem. My Mom is very religious and my Dad has Asperger's so I tend to be a great diplomat. But, these type of scientific insights into psychology are awesome when they come out. Especially, in my case where I can see that it hit's the nail dead on.

I think we underestimate our physical imposed mental limitations too much. Everything we've learned about modern psychology tells us that our psychology is in a "ready" state when we're born; to the extent that you could say one person uses "ATI" to see and the other "Nvidia" if you know what I mean.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Sweet, thanks for the info.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^westy:
I think what this video inadvertantly highlights is that Education is directly tied with atheism the more intellectual/educated sum-one is the harder it is for them to believe in bullshit and the more likely it is they will do things based on facts of reality to improve reality.

You should check out this study, which basically shows that isn't the case. The high proportion of atheist scientists compared to the general population seems to be a function of upbringing (i.e. they were raised in homes that didn't place much importance on religion). The increased education seems to have little effect on those who enter the field with religious convictions. In other words, those raised in non-religious households seem to self-select disproportionately highly into the sciences. The study states that more investigation is required before coming to any conclusions as to why, but they didn't see any indication of people giving up their religious beliefs as they advanced in their education or career.


One interesting aspect coming out in psychological studies versus genetic backgrounds shows one interesting aspect of people that have Asperger's being unable to relate to religion and are constantly looking for a more rational explanation for any event. Likewise, some people may show an inclination to be religious via their genetics.

Most likely this is due to a preference in the way the brain decides to use information. Such as: the right hemisphere versus the left; or even to the extent of specific areas on one side--like math over chemistry.

This is VERY new information. Their was another study out on Friday I believe (look for it at physorg.com) that showed that people that were religious tended to be more healthy both mentally and physically. However, the study (from what I could find) doesn't really say whether they took the disparity of between population numbers into account. Also they never took into account situations like autistic savants, Asperger's, bi-polar, and other conditions that tend to "create" extremely smart people (I'm guessing this might happen as they tend to favor the left hemisphere and also have a very different perspective than a normal healthy average human--giving them "fresh eyes" and a new perception intrinsically), comparatively.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^westy:
I think what this video inadvertantly highlights is that Education is directly tied with atheism the more intellectual/educated sum-one is the harder it is for them to believe in bullshit and the more likely it is they will do things based on facts of reality to improve reality.

You should check out this study, which basically shows that isn't the case. The high proportion of atheist scientists compared to the general population seems to be a function of upbringing (i.e. they were raised in homes that didn't place much importance on religion). The increased education seems to have little effect on those who enter the field with religious convictions. In other words, those raised in non-religious households seem to self-select disproportionately highly into the sciences. The study states that more investigation is required before coming to any conclusions as to why, but they didn't see any indication of people giving up their religious beliefs as they advanced in their education or career.


One interesting aspect coming out in psychological studies versus genetic backgrounds shows one interesting aspect of people that have Asperger's being unable to relate to religion and are constantly looking for a more rational explanation for any event. Likewise, some people may show an inclination to be religious via their genetics.

Most likely this is due to a preference in the way the brain decides to use information. Such as: the right hemisphere versus the left; or even to the extent of specific areas on one side--like math over chemistry.

This is VERY new information. Their was another study out on Friday I believe (look for it at physorg.com) that showed that people that were religious tended to be more healthy both mentally and physically. However, the study (from what I could find) doesn't really say whether they took the disparity between population numbers into account. Also they never took into account situations like autistic savants, Asperger's, bi-polar, and other conditions that tend to "create" extremely smart people, comparatively(I'm guessing this might happen as they tend to favor the left hemisphere and also have a very different perspectives than your normal healthy average human--giving them "fresh eyes" and a new perception intrinsically).

This video is definitely made to provoke. I don't necessarily like how it does it and I'm atheist. While I disagree with religion in any capacity where it wants to use faith/belief to solve a situation instead of the logical tried and true method, that is where I draw a line in the sand (like Creationism; it's useless to us in every aspect: it explains nothing, is useless in practice, and assumes everything). Religion doesn't necessarily bother me when it's used in a social setting. The only time this isn't true is when it crosses the "religion/state" barrier and rights of others; as is the case for many gay people. I know a lot of religious people that sit on a logical side of the fence and many that sit on the other side and try to (in my estimation) usurp the rights of others for poor reasons and in fact religious ones (state vs. religion again).

Lot's of the religious people (I'm in Utah so I know my situation is semi-unique) I know that refute many logical tenets, like evolution, tend to do so in a way that shows they are INCREDIBLY insecure when it comes to "smarts". I've had some people tell me they belong to MENSA and in the same sentence tell me evolution is fraud and it should be obvious as to why this is true (they usually have no "logical" reason to explain why this is true other than faith; I have yet to hear a good reason...). This may also be an indication that even in religion there is a disparity between other religious people and that it may even be a psychological/physical condition that causes it via genetics.

It would be a new world if you could wager whether someone is religious or not, before they are even born. To me that is a game changer, but to others I know they will not see why that is true.

/edit

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
>> ^rougy:

One of the findings from this study was that a certain amount of intoxication prohibited people from seeing the illusion, which would imply that they see the truth.
He jokes about it, referring to a colleague who was tipsy, but later he notes a study that suggested that cannabis use prohibits the left and right hemispheres of the brain from communicating--not unlike the way that people prone to grand mal seizures are cured, by cutting the membrane between the two. (corpus collosum?)
What I suggest...and clearly there is ample argument against this...what I suggest is that marijuana users are less susceptible to illusion than are non-marijuana users.
And in keeping with that thought, that is why it is so dangerous to the status quo.
promote

One of the findings from this study was that a certain amount of intoxication prohibited people from seeing the illusion, which would imply that they see the truth.

He jokes about it, referring to a colleague who was tipsy, but later he notes a study that suggested that cannabis use prohibits the left and right hemispheres of the brain from communicating--not unlike the way that people prone to grand mal seizures are cured, by cutting the membrane between the two. (corpus collosum?)

What I suggest...and clearly there is ample argument against this...what I suggest is that marijuana users are less susceptible to illusion than are non-marijuana users.

And in keeping with that thought, that is why it is so dangerous to the status quo.

*promote

@cybrbeast:

I think you're mixing up the meaning of dominance. The paper you quoted use dominance in the context of which side of the brain has more activity as measured by EEG. Whereas in the vast majority of cases in neuroscience dominance refers to which side of the brain contains the language centers: Wernicke's and Broca's areas in the case of language dominance, and of course motor dominance in terms of handidness.

Anyways, thanks for the link. I have to say though, the paper you provided had a pretty poor experiment design. Ie: It had a small sample size, no control group, and some significant confounding factors (some of which are mentioned in the discussion) which is probably why the paper was published in s small journal like "Brain and Cognition". Seriously, biased experimenters asking all the questions WTF. In any case, it's interesting to see some evidence even if the evidence (in the paper you linked) is rather weak and quite old. It'd be nice to see a recent systematic review on the topic. Also, EEG readings are quite crude and it'd be interesting if someone can do some fmri studies and see exactly what parts of the brain are activated instead of the incredibly vague localisation to each hemisphere.

>> ^cybrbeast:
>> ^mentality:
The brain doesn't alternate dominance between the two halves or else you'd wake up one day left-handed and another day right handed. As Raaagh said, it'd be nice to see the study as this sounds like another case of the media and journalists coming up with false conclusions by mis-interpreting scientific data.
mentality, that's a baseless assumption that's completely wrong.
From: Asymmetrical Hemispheric Activation and Emotion - The Effects of Unilateral Forced Nostril Breathing
"Changes in nostril breathing efficiency, known as the nasal cycle, were first described by Kayser (1895) and have been well documented since (Keuning, 1968). The relative engorgement of nasal mucosa in each nostril changes over a period ranging from 25 to more than 200 min, resulting in a rhythmic shift of nasal dominance from left to right. Werntz et al. (1983) demonstrated a lateralized rhythm of cerebral hemispheric activation that is associated with the nasal cycle. The relative EEG activity in the left and right hemispheres shifts back and forth with a periodicity comparable to the nasal cycle. The phases of the cerebral and nasal rhythms are tightly coupled and there is a correlation of the dominant nostril with increased EEG activity in the contralateral hemisphere. In two-thirds of the subjects, the cerebral rhythm was an actual shift in dominance between the hemispheres. In the rest of the subjects, the relative changes were comparable but one hemisphere remained dominant throughout."
Also:
"Werntz, Bickford, and Shannahoff-Khalsa (1987) showed that this relationshop between increased air flow in one nostril and actication in the contralateral hemisphere is maintained during unilateral forced nostril breathing (UFNB). When either nostril was blocked so that subjects were forced to breath through the other, there was a shift toward relatively greater EEG activity in the hemisphere contralateral to the open nostril. When forced breathing was changed to the other nostril, the relative EEG activity between the hemispheres shifted as well."
which is why they used the tissues in QI.
Finally
"When the right nostril was dominant, subject performed relatively better on verbal tasks for which the left hemisphere is specialized and during left nostril dominance subjects performed relatively better on spatial tasks for which the right hemisphere is specialized."
I'll have to try that on my next exam

>> ^mentality:
The brain doesn't alternate dominance between the two halves or else you'd wake up one day left-handed and another day right handed. As Raaagh said, it'd be nice to see the study as this sounds like another case of the media and journalists coming up with false conclusions by mis-interpreting scientific data.

mentality, that's a baseless assumption that's completely wrong.

From: Asymmetrical Hemispheric Activation and Emotion - The Effects of Unilateral Forced Nostril Breathing
"Changes in nostril breathing efficiency, known as the nasal cycle, were first described by Kayser (1895) and have been well documented since (Keuning, 1968). The relative engorgement of nasal mucosa in each nostril changes over a period ranging from 25 to more than 200 min, resulting in a rhythmic shift of nasal dominance from left to right. Werntz et al. (1983) demonstrated a lateralized rhythm of cerebral hemispheric activation that is associated with the nasal cycle. The relative EEG activity in the left and right hemispheres shifts back and forth with a periodicity comparable to the nasal cycle. The phases of the cerebral and nasal rhythms are tightly coupled and there is a correlation of the dominant nostril with increased EEG activity in the contralateral hemisphere. In two-thirds of the subjects, the cerebral rhythm was an actual shift in dominance between the hemispheres. In the rest of the subjects, the relative changes were comparable but one hemisphere remained dominant throughout."

Also:
"Werntz, Bickford, and Shannahoff-Khalsa (1987) showed that this relationshop between increased air flow in one nostril and actication in the contralateral hemisphere is maintained during unilateral forced nostril breathing (UFNB). When either nostril was blocked so that subjects were forced to breath through the other, there was a shift toward relatively greater EEG activity in the hemisphere contralateral to the open nostril. When forced breathing was changed to the other nostril, the relative EEG activity between the hemispheres shifted as well."

which is why they used the tissues in QI.

Finally
"When the right nostril was dominant, subject performed relatively better on verbal tasks for which the left hemisphere is specialized and during left nostril dominance subjects performed relatively better on spatial tasks for which the right hemisphere is specialized."

I'll have to try that on my next exam

I was enthralled and taken aback all at the same time watching this. She definitely had an experience that was sincerely genuine and life changing. However, I fear that the euphoric and spiritual way she describes it is more than just a metaphor for her. I get the impression she truly believes some of the "we are spiritual beings" pseudoscience after her experience. I can equate it mildly to what some of the Apollo Astronauts experienced on their trips. They experienced feelings of "one-ness" and euphoria when they connected with what was happening to them. Some of them returned as die-hard Christians and believers in God, while others came back understanding the way in which all things are connected in the Universe, that we are all made of the same "Star Stuff", and should be kinder and more caring towards each other and our planet.

I'm not sure, I'd had to do some more research on her and her work, but I do fear that she's taken something very literally "spiritual" from her experience, and does not equate that to what was actually happening to her. Since it was all occuring inside her own mind, all be it, on the right hemisphere. It certainly is an interesting anecdote, and case study, on the affects of having no communication between the two hemispheres, where you are only receiving information from the right, no aware of what the left is experiencing.

And I upvote almost purely for "Then I finally thought, wait a minute, I'm having a stroke! This is so cool!"

"NOOOOW1? Yall' kin sang louder n' that!?, Here;s the words t' foller' aloooong!"
BRAINSTEM (Episode P3)
Lyrics by Tom Minton.

Sung to Camptown Races by Stephen Foster.


Pinky: And now, the parts of the brain, performed by The Brain!
Brain: Ye-e-s!

Brain: Neo-cortex, frontal lobe
Pinky: Brainstem! Brainstem!
Brain: Hippocampus, neural node
Right hemisphere.

Brain: Pons and cortex visual
Pinky: Brainstem! Brainstem!
Brain: Sylvian fissure, pineal
Left hemisphere.

Brain: Cerebellum left!
Cerebellum right!
Synapse, hypothalamus
Striatum, dendrite.

Brain: Axon fibers, matter gray
Pinky: Brainstem! Brainstem!
Brain: Central tegmental pathway
Temporal lobe.

Brain: White core matter, forebrain, skull
Pinky: Brainstem! Brainstem!
Brain: Central fissure, cord spinal
Parietal.

Brain: Pia mater!
Menengeal vein!
Medulla oblongata and lobe limbic
Micro-electrodes...
Pinky: Naaarf!
P+B : THE BRAIN!!!

Brain: That ought to keep the little squirts happy. Ye-e-s!