Jill Bolte Taylor's powerful stroke of insight

[Magical Realist]

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

"Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions -- motion, speech, self-awareness -- shut down one by one. An astonishing story.

Brain researcher Jill Bolte Taylor studied her own stroke as it happened -- and has become a powerful voice for brain recovery."

 

[wellwisher]

As I have been saying all along, when it comes to the brain/mind, observing from the inside, offers new insight that you can't see from the outside. Good for her!

The mind pioneers of the future will involve being induced into various mental states, so they can observe from the inside. Picture if a trained scientist was induced into a stroke, by doctors, so he can gather data from the inside. Because he is a test pilot of sorts, he is more prepared so data collection can be done in a more systematic way. There may not be any scientists who would be willing to be such a test pilot. It is easier to dismiss this, instead of dealing with the risk. Not all test pilots land the plane safely and sometimes they need to eject just before crash and burn.

 

[origin]

As I have been saying all along, when it comes to the brain/mind, observing from the inside, offers new insight that you can't see from the outside. Good for her!

The mind pioneers of the future will involve being induced into various mental states, so they can observe from the inside. Picture if a trained scientist was induced into a stroke, by doctors, so he can gather data from the inside. Because he is a test pilot of sorts, he is more prepared so data collection can be done in a more systematic way. There may not be any scientists who would be willing to be such a test pilot. It is easier to dismiss this, instead of dealing with the risk. Not all test pilots land the plane safely and sometimes they need to eject just before crash and burn.

Are you freaking nuts? Purposely cause brain damage to study it? That is unethical and immoral - it makes me shutter to even think someone would suggest that. Test pilots don't fly planes designed to crash....

 

[wynn]

As I have been saying all along, when it comes to the brain/mind, observing from the inside, offers new insight that you can't see from the outside. Good for her!

But she wasn't "observing from the inside." She just gave a commentary in accordance with the hypotheses that she already believed about the workings of the brain.
She pretty much "saw" what she wanted to see, or at least what she was trained to see.

 

[Pete]

Are you freaking nuts? Purposely cause brain damage to study it? That is unethical and immoral - it makes me shutter to even think someone would suggest that. Test pilots don't fly planes designed to crash....

I suspect wellwisher was thinking of inducing temporary, reversible loss of function.
This can actually already done to some extent. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is used in research settings to both stimulate and inhibit local areas of brain. Ice-cold water in the ear canal is an older, less precise method of temporarily affcting one side of the brain... but not sure if it is supposed to stimulate or inhibit.

And there are, of course, even older methods of temporarily inhibiting brain function... :m:

(Also, 'shudder', not 'shutter')

 

[Rhaedas]

But she wasn't "observing from the inside." She just gave a commentary in accordance with the hypotheses that she already believed about the workings of the brain.
She pretty much "saw" what she wanted to see, or at least what she was trained to see.

She was a direct eyewitness to the symptoms she experienced, with the realization of the actual physical causes as they occurred. Odd how the same type of testimony from afterlife believers during NDEs of visions of heaven and dead relatives are held to high esteem as reality, but a scientist using their knowledge of the brain to describe a direct experience of a stroke is just seeing what they "want" to see.

 

[wynn]

She was a direct eyewitness to the symptoms she experienced, with the realization of the actual physical causes as they occurred.

No, she interpreted them in line with the theories or hypotheses she believes about the brain. The theories and hypotheses she believes in are not universally accepted by all neuroscientists.

She's big on the distinction between left brain and right brain, for example - and this is one thing about her account that some people are very critical about.
Just google "criticism of Jill Bolte Taylor."

Some call her approach neurosophy.

She lost me when she started to suggest that she achieved what in Buddhism is considered nirvana.


There was already an interesting thread on this at Sci.

Odd how the same type of testimony from afterlife believers during NDEs of visions of heaven and dead relatives are held to high esteem as reality,

By whom? certainly not by me.

but a scientist using their knowledge of the brain to describe a direct experience of a stroke is just seeing what they "want" to see.

What she is doing is not science. She's playing a prophet of scientism.

"If Jill says that's how the brain works, then that's how the brain works, including yours, and you better subject yourself to Jill!"