作者jodawa (jodaway)
看板Cognitive
標題Re: [請益] 問題請教 有關split brain分裂半腦的手 …
時間Wed Feb 16 16:39:08 2011
The effect, in the words of one surgeon, was the creation of "two separate
spheres of consciousness".(註:Sperry,p229.)
This effect was revealed by various psychological tests. These made of
two facts. We control our right arms with our left hemispheres, and vice
versa. And what is in the right halves of our visual fields we see with
our left hemispheres, and vice versa. When someone's hemispheres have been
disconnected, psychologists can thus present to this person two different
written questions in the two halves of his visual field, and can receive two
different answers writtenby this person's two hands.
Here is a simplified version of the kind of evidence that such tests
provide. One of these people is shown a wide screen, whose left half is red
and right half is blue. On each half in a darker shade are the words,
'How many colours can you see?' With both hands the person writes, 'Only
one'. The words are now change to read, 'Which is the only colour that you
can see?' With one of his hands the person writes 'Red', with the other he
writes 'Blues'.
Derek Parfit,<Reasons and Persons>, p.245.
以上是這位哲學家的書中的一段,第一句是他說有一位外科醫生所提出的對這個手術
的結論:'產生兩個不同領域的意識'。(這個外科醫生是Sperry?)
第二、三段是他認為有些心理實驗證明此事,以及他自己提出的這些心理實驗的簡化版本
(依照他對這個手術結果的理解)。
請問各位大大這樣的理解是否恰當?但是這本書有點久了,198幾年的書,所以我想問問
這樣的看法是否正確?到現在有沒有更進一步的研究結果?
謝謝
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.119.121.96
1F:推 guare:學科學的人得分清楚什麼是實驗結果,什麼是對結果的解釋。結 02/16 17:00
2F:→ guare:果除非是出了錯,或者控制條件不同,應該都有一定可靠性。至 02/16 17:01
3F:→ guare:於解釋就眾說紛紜了。你與其問板友這個看法是否「正確」,不 02/16 17:02
4F:→ guare:如講講你「自己」的看法。你也可以建立你自己的解釋呀!何必 02/16 17:03
5F:→ guare:都聽別人的說法。 02/16 17:03
6F:→ jodawa:抱歉,或許我解釋得不夠清楚,我有兩個問題。第一個問題是 02/16 17:41
7F:→ jodawa:Parfit所提出的心理實驗簡化版本其原版為何?是否真的發生過 02/16 17:42
8F:→ jodawa:Parfit自己提出的簡化版本的涵義是否符合原版實驗的涵義。 02/16 17:43
9F:→ jodawa:第二個問題則是這樣的實驗大家認為對其恰當的解釋為何? 02/16 17:44
10F:→ jodawa:我也有自己的想法,但是也想聽聽大家的意見,謝謝。 02/16 17:45