Chilaxe,
It's fascinating stuff. Neurophysiology and pharmacology have advanced significantly, but perhaps not as far as some might think. PET scans and metabolic MRIs give us clues as to increased activity in certain brain structures during different types of cognitive and motor activities. That's very generalized information. Excess and deficiencies of neurotransmitters result in well described pathology. While we know cognition and abstract thought is performed in the cerebral cortex, we have very little information on the specific biochemistry and neuronal synaptic pathways that allow it to happen.

Some of the most interesting clinical cases I get to be involved with are awake craniotomies to resect brain tumors. Carrying on a conversation with a patient and witnessing real-time neuro/cognitive dysfunction with manipulation of the brain is something I can't begin to describe.

I'm also fascinated by brain development that is time limited and dependent. For instance, the areas devoted to language. If not stimulated during those crucial first few years of life, development is stunted and the full capacity for language skills is lost forever. I'm getting off topic, but it's fascinating stuff.

It's obvious that all consciousness, thought, and awareness is produced thru biochemical means. Thus, all concepts, precepts, abstracts, etc. are of anatomic and physiologic origin.

However, I'm still waiting to hear a good explanation of how a collection of inanimate atoms coalesce, begin replication, and eventually gain the capacity to look on themselves and determine their own essence.

One of my favorite aspects of videosift are the substantive debates that usually occur in the comments. I actually hear well thought out reasoned points to which I can disagree civilly. By answering a reporter's questions you agree to their framing of the issues. If your book is to point out how totalitarian states arise you have nothing to gain by using your four minutes to discuss an alternative to Guantanomo. That's not what her book is about and she gains nothing by going down that path.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE. Life is not like 24. How many military interrogators do you need to tell you that torture is counter-productive before you realize that opposing torture IS PATRIOTIC. I don't oppose torture because Susan Sarandon & Rosie O'Donnell say it's bad. I think it's a bad idea because the military says it delivers us shitty intelligence.

Intelligence so shitty that if we are to believe that the government acted in good faith in the runup to Operation: Iraqi Freedom that it directly caused us to be there. Much of that misinformation was obtained by torture. Why is everyone who opposes this shit supposed to go on TV & explain the last 6 years in minute detail. I can't keep track of all the malfeasance off the top of my head. I need a fucking pocket guide to fully and accurately detail the lies, various misdeeds, innocent people tortured, and counterproductive strategies employed.

I for one am tired of dealing with two sets of facts. I can handle a completely diametrical position, even on Fox News, but I can't handle two completely different versions of reality. Especially when the jingoistic, faux-patriotic version is not only so dangerous to citizens, it SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. Why bother torturing people if you haven't even secured the borders? The bullshit neocon argument isn't even fucking safe. What use is increasing electronic surveillance if you don't have the manpower with the language skills to analyze the data? FUCK THE SHEEPLE WHO ALLOW THESE DANGEROUS SYCOPHANTS TO SCARE YOU.

<pant pant> /rant

Maybe speaking in a higher tone may be recognized as positive reinforcement that conveys affection and encourages the development of language skills in babies. Why else would we do it? Maybe it's just learned who knows. The real important question is: why the hell would you talk gibberish instead of using an actual language?

If you believe this "motherese" then I think "Sweet Sweet Satan" is calling you from the song "Stairway to Heaven"

from my brother-in-law, who does research in cognitive psychology:

As far as I can tell, it's an optical illusion that is in the same class as the necker cube, an illusion that I'm sure you are all familiar with, even if you don't know it by name. Both of these are "bi-stable images" (or, in the case of the ballerina, a bi-stable movie, I guess), that your brain can interpret in one of two ways. If you are looking at the cube, with a little practice, you can force it to switch between the two interpretations pretty easily. I suspect that a forced switch will be harder with the ballerina because it's a moving image, but it should be possible. I've found that if I focus just on her planted foot, I can get the rotation to change directions almost at will.

How does it work? The key is that what you are looking at is essentially a two-dimensional image (I was going to say it was a flat image, but that's clearly not the case...) of the ballerina. There are no depth cues and no 3D shading. It is as if you are looking at the projected shadow of a twirling ballerina, if that makes sense. With that in mind, think about it this way: Imagine the ballerina is facing exactly sideways (right or left, doesn't matter). Then imagine that she spins, say, 45 degrees. First, think about what she would look like if she was spinning toward you. Then think about what she would look like if she was spinning away from you. Remember that all you have to look at is a shadow - you can't see a face or any other front/back distinctions. What you should realize is that if she spins 45 degrees "away" or 45 degrees "towards" you, the resulting image is exactly the same. Spin her another 45 degrees (so she's now rotated 90 degrees), and she will either be facing you or she will have her back to you, but again, since it's just a shadow, the image is exactly the same... What it boils down to is that with a 2D projected image (of a ballerina, of a motorcycle, anything, really, there's nothing special about the image they chose), you do not have enough information to tell the direction of rotation. They add the shadow of the feet to make the image more interesting, but again, there's no real rotational information there.

Since you don't have enough information, your mind could choose between two equally likely interpretations (hence the "bi-stable image" name). So when you look at it, your brain picks one interpretation, and then typically sticks with it until it is pushed to reinterpret the image (either by looking away for a while, or really trying to convince yourself that the image is going the other way or, I don't know, whatever else works).

As far as the right-brain, left-brain stuff goes, I don't put any real scientific faith in that terminology. Yes, certain functions like language skills and spatial processing are more localized to one side of the brain than the other. However, calling someone "left brained" or "right brained" should be viewed as an easy label to use to indicate if someone is more creative or more analytical, but it's more like saying that they are "introverted" or "extroverted" than it is a statement about their neuroanatomy.

Does the spin direction of the image reveal your brain-sidedness? I highly doubt it. I can't think of any reason that such a test would be diagnostic.

-- He's way smart.

his language skills and body character make it seem like he may be developmentally disabled, as in mild or moderate mental retardation.

well forgive my lithuanian language skills, i think there might have been something more to it... like he was reported by a woman who walked past or something. i think they are checking if he is an escaped mental patient. i don't think there really is a lithuanian masturbation patrol

the "massive police response" is just TV magic. Don't you just love "reality" shows.

choggie lol lapvian.

I love this place. It seems to me most of the people here have a very funded opinion, yet they are polite enough to discuss it in a very intelligent way, not just throwing insults as we witness at many other places in the web.

It is really really a shame that my poor language skills prevent me from joining your mostly wonderful discussions.

I enjoy sifting so much, thank you all!