Iain McGilchrist Matter & Consciousness

My favourite philosopher discusses one of this forums favourite topics.

Hey Wooley!  

Long time no speak, hope all is well with you - and all the other beautiful human beings on this forum, it's been a while!

Somehow, I can't remember where exactly, I came across Iain McGilchrist's new book "The Matter with Things" in the early hours of last night/this morning, and I found the blurb so fascinating I did a quick youtube search.....and ended up watching a 90 min lecture in 1 sitting - to be honest I don't have too much of an interest in the scientific, philosophical side of things nowadays, but this was such a brilliant talk by a delightful speaker I was unable to stop watching it!

The subject matter reminded me of this forum as I thought some may appreciate it, did a quick search........and you posted about Iain just yesterday - it just had to be you or the Super Sci(borg_Patel) didn't it?  

Anyway, I'll still post a link to the video I watched, I'll probably watch the one you linked at some point, cheers Stan......and the blurb for the book too. Take care Stan and all!:

https://channelmcgilchrist.com/the-matter-with-things/

Is the world essentially inert and mechanical – nothing but a collection of things for us to use?
Are we ourselves nothing but the playthings of chance, embroiled in a war of all against all?
Why, indeed, are we engaged in destroying everything that is valuable to us?"
"In this landmark new book, Iain McGilchrist addresses some of the oldest and hardest questions humanity faces – ones that, however, have a practical urgency for all of us today:
Who are we?
What is the world?
How can we understand consciousness, matter, space and time?
Is the cosmos without purpose or value?
Can we really neglect the sacred and divine?
In doing so, he argues that we have become enslaved to an account of things dominated by the brain’s left hemisphere, one that blinds us to an awe-inspiring reality that is all around us, had we but eyes to see it. He suggests that in order to understand ourselves and the world we need science and intuition, reason and imagination, not just one or two; that they are in any case far from being in conflict; and that the brain’s right hemisphere plays the most important part in each. And he shows us how to recognise the ‘signature’ of the left hemisphere in our thinking, so as to avoid making decisions that bring disaster in their wake.
Following the paths of cutting-edge neurology, philosophy and physics, he reveals how each leads us to a similar vision of the world, one that is both profound and beautiful – and happens to be in line with the deepest traditions of human wisdom.
It is a vision that returns the world to life, and us to a better way of living in it: one we must embrace if we are to survive.

it just had to be you or the Super Sci(borg_Patel) didn't it?

Hi Manjit, always a pleasure to see your posts and hear your thoughts.
When it comes to producing posts for this forum, I’m a mere fly on Sci’s windscreen, but I do somehow think Iain McGilchrist is a very important messenger. 

Here’s a bit I transcribed from one of his vids, possibly the one that you watched? I looked for one around an hour and a half long and this was it, I hadn’t listened to it before. It reinforces something I wrote here recently about my being sceptical of using the scientific method alone for getting ‘closer to truth’.

“Very            quickly, it's like, which, which…we talked about the portals or the, the, the, the entry points on reality. What about the powers so we will follow the longer term powers towards some truth about reality. Well I think everyone would agree that science is going to be one of them a very important one. And another is likely to be reason, I think most people would accept that, not everybody but most people will probably accept that intuition is another important way in which we arrive at certain understandings of truth. And I would argue the imagination too, is very important. I think actually that we misunderstand what is meant by imagination what is meant by science, what is meant by reason, but that’s another story. But when you look at them as they are most valuable again, each of them is required, they're not necessarily in conflict. And the best part of them is provided by the right hemisphere, not the left and this is true of science, and it's true of reason.I spent a lot of time rehearsing (researching?)how it was that scientists and mathematicians made their great discoveries and great leaps forward. And as has been recognised by a number of important 20th century scientists, they never or very rarely made their great advances by following the scientific method, by testing to exhaustion all sorts of possibilities. Instead, they saw something that…they saw a gestalt, a new form that answered something and it often came in a flash. It doesn't mean that they didn't have to do a lot of hard work before that flash would come, but he didn't come from the left hemispheres procedural plodding, it came from the right hemisphere and there is absolutely incontrovertible evidence that those aha moments of intuitive insight come from the right Superior Temporal sulcus.”
(My bolding)

That's all good stuff, though personally I take the term "right hemisphere" as a poetic or metaphorical use of language to represent certain things which I would connect with soul or spirit. My words too may be taken as metaphor, it is just my preferred way of viewing these things.

That's all good stuff, though personally I take the term "right hemisphere" as a poetic or metaphorical use of language to represent certain things which I would connect with soul or spirit. My words too may be taken as metaphor, it is just my preferred way of viewing these things.

I don’t think McGilchrist himself would disagree with this opinion. 

I think he’s just trying to pull the balance towards the centre. 
As I’ve just attempted to express on another thread, I think both sides of our brains (and many other things besides) are equally important, for without its opposing brother, neither could flourish.