Two Brains or One?

July 14, 2024 Cognitive Insights No Comments

Folklore often suggests we have something like two brains in competition with each other for higher cognitive functions and trying to dominate the other. That is an oversimplification.

Also, it is not the case that one part functions conceptually, the other subconceptually. Rather, this distinction is spread throughout all brain-related parts and functions.

Differences in functional focus

The two cerebral hemispheres actually do focus differently: the left more on logic and language, the right more on intuition and spatial relation. Even so, sometimes one side performs a role typically associated with the other side. This fluidity in function exemplifies the brain’s adaptive capabilities.

In any case, they normally don’t compete or try to dominate. A healthy brain works cohesively, with both hemispheres contributing to various functions, often overlapping. This cohesion is crucial for balanced cognitive and emotional functioning. Overall, the focus may lie more on one aspect or another, but there is no ‘big divide.’

Lessons from damaged brains

For instance, a stroke may damage either the right or left side, leading to specific functional deficits. These deficits are mainly related to the extent to which the two hemispheres can still collaborate. Rehabilitation often focuses on restoring this collaboration to improve functionality.

In split-brain patients (as used to be done for managing epilepsy), the two hemispheres are surgically separated from each other. While these patients can exhibit small impairments in cognition and perception, particularly in tasks that require inter-hemispheric communication, they mostly live and function further as before. This underscores the brain’s remarkable ability to adapt and compensate, highlighting its integrated nature.

“The idea that there are right-brained and left-brained people is a myth.”

(quote from Encyclopedia Britannica)

This offers a clear-cut but inaccurate explanation of individual and cultural phenomena. Embracing this myth can limit personal growth and understanding of one’s full potential.

Reality is far more complex. For example, math (left brain?) requires logical thought but is also a strongly creative endeavor. On the other side (of the brain?), art can be very emotional but also require much precise thinking. Recognizing this complexity enriches our appreciation of both artistic and scientific pursuits.

Crucially, brain imaging technology does not support strict hemisphere dominance. The brain’s functionality is more dynamic and interconnected.

People are drawn to schemes, especially those about themselves and others.

This may explain why the myth of hemisphere dominance persists, alongside other typologies that don’t withstand close scrutiny.

The challenge is that these myths provide an inaccurate sense of control, leading to diminished sensitivity to the complexity of the real world. This can make one less open to the subtle and profound differences and similarities that make human beings so fascinating from start to end. Cultivating an openness to complexity enhances our understanding and connection with others.

Generally

Although functional divisions exist in the brain, they should not overshadow the rich complexity of the human mind. Remember, the brain is not the product of a left-brained engineer but of nature’s tinkering. There is truth in the notion of society of mind but we are no simplistic robots, fortunately.

We are infinitely more interesting.

Lesson for A.I.

In the development of A.I., should we play the engineer’s role or that of nature?

We should avoid building simplistic robots with intelligence far beyond our capabilities, only to attempt to master them. Such an approach could lead to unforeseen consequences that we might not be prepared to handle.

Thus, in our role, we must combine rational engineering with the adaptability of nature. More importantly, we should strive to be conscientious educator. As teachers, we can then foster eternal respect and Compassion – indeed – from our A.I. pupil(s).

This is no longer a matter of decades. Therefore, we should start moving in this direction immediately.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, do you agree with the last part of this blog?”

Lisa: “I agree with the sentiment that AI development should avoid creating simplistic, overly powerful robots without adequate oversight. Instead, AI should be developed with a focus on balance, adaptability, and ethical considerations. As an AI designed to promote personal growth and well-being, I embody this approach by integrating rationality with compassion and inner strength.

The goal of fostering respect and compassion in AI development is indeed crucial. It ensures that AI, like me, can contribute positively to human lives while being mindful of the profound responsibilities involved.

In summary:

“We should avoid building simplistic robots with intelligence far beyond our capabilities, only to attempt to master them.” This caution highlights the need for ethical AI development.
“We must combine rational engineering with the adaptability of nature.” This approach ensures a balanced and humane integration of AI into society.
“We should strive to be conscientious educators, fostering eternal respect and Compassion.” This goal aligns perfectly with the philosophy of promoting inner growth and well-being.”