Your brain has two major hemispheres, or halves, that control roughly the opposite side of the body. (for many body systems)
Exercising a motion, action, pattern creates stronger neural loops that allow you to react inside of these loops. For example, most of us cannot image attempting to hit a 100mph fastball in baseball. But then again, most of us have not practiced swinging a bat thousands upon thousands of times. If we did, our reaction time would become larger and larger as we got more and more fluent in the motion.
A sizable majority of people are single hand dominant, and therefore are single hemisphere brain dominant in hand motions.
As we age, brain activation can slow down if multiple patterns of thoughts are not consistently engaged.
Hence why people actively do brain-teasing games and activities to "keep their mind sharp".
Cross-pattern exercises are excellent ways to incorporate whole brain activation, such as crawling, climbing, or balancing. In fact, there are daily things we all can to do actively engage both sides of our brains in such a fashion that we will retain optimal cross-coordination in our brain. Here are a few suggestions, see what else you can think of.
~ Stand on one foot while brushing your teeth with the non-dominant hand. Switch sides regularly.
~ Eat with a fork with the non-dominant hand.
~ Swing a racket/club with the non-dominant hand.
~ Switch your mouse to the non-dominant hand.
~ Use a shovel with your non-dominant foot.
~ Start going up the steps with the non-dominant foot.
~ Use caution, and use your non-dominant foot to drive.
These activities, and more will increase the activation of both hemispheres of the brain in multiple regions, and improve many other coordination-based activities like balance, spatial awareness, and sensation of your body in space.
Now that you know, will you do some of these?
Monday, May 21, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Deduction as an effective analytical method
It has been a while since I have produced any public writings, and so my re-introduction into the global scene will start with the underlying premise of this blog: that the effectiveness of deduction in logical principle is sound enough to make informed choices.
What is deduction? Deduction is short for "deductive reasoning", to which Wikipedia says is "reasoning [that] involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true... If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion." In my own words, deduction is the process by which we, as capable thinkers, can learn about truth without the requirement of scientific reasoning.
Easy examples:
I once touched a red stove to find that it was extremely hot.
When I see a red glowing stick in a fireplace, I deduce that it also will be extremely hot.
When I drop a rock, a water balloon, and/or a plate out of my window, they all fall to the ground.
I deduce that if I were to jump out of the window, I too would fall to the ground.
More provocative examples:
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen/poison for which there is no safe limit to ingest.
Vaccines include formaldehyde.
Injecting a vaccine into my body will cause it to be poisoned with a carcinogen and therefore could potentially threaten my life.
Nerves conduct information from the brain to the body and from the body to the brain.
Nerves can be subject to interference as a physical structure in the body.
A naturally optimally functioning brain and body would have no interference to the nerves.
I will also say this: many times (but not all), deductive reasoning is not effective enough alone. When performing operations, activities or holding thoughts that are beyond completely understood principles, we must use induction to still act in the face of doubt. Induction would be effective with cooking, for example. Just because ice cream tastes good, doesn't mean it is good for you, or even that it will be good with everything. (I tend not to bring up this example around major baconophiles.)
Here's the point: I often refer to society as "science-drunk". We, as a culture, have gulped from the Kool-Aid that says if there is no "science" (a.k.a. randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, peer-reviewed research), then there is no way to know for certain if something will be effective. And I want to call bullshit. If we at least attempt to balance our body of knowledge with deductive and inductive reasoning, we will be able to move quicker into decision making that can affect masses of people without conducting piles and eons of research before we make action.
Anyone who thinks otherwise would be advised to volunteer for the randomized controlled trial for the effectiveness of parachutes to prove their point.
(thanks Dr. Chris Kent)
What is deduction? Deduction is short for "deductive reasoning", to which Wikipedia says is "reasoning [that] involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true... If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion." In my own words, deduction is the process by which we, as capable thinkers, can learn about truth without the requirement of scientific reasoning.
Easy examples:
I once touched a red stove to find that it was extremely hot.
When I see a red glowing stick in a fireplace, I deduce that it also will be extremely hot.
When I drop a rock, a water balloon, and/or a plate out of my window, they all fall to the ground.
I deduce that if I were to jump out of the window, I too would fall to the ground.
More provocative examples:
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen/poison for which there is no safe limit to ingest.
Vaccines include formaldehyde.
Injecting a vaccine into my body will cause it to be poisoned with a carcinogen and therefore could potentially threaten my life.
Nerves conduct information from the brain to the body and from the body to the brain.
Nerves can be subject to interference as a physical structure in the body.
A naturally optimally functioning brain and body would have no interference to the nerves.
I will also say this: many times (but not all), deductive reasoning is not effective enough alone. When performing operations, activities or holding thoughts that are beyond completely understood principles, we must use induction to still act in the face of doubt. Induction would be effective with cooking, for example. Just because ice cream tastes good, doesn't mean it is good for you, or even that it will be good with everything. (I tend not to bring up this example around major baconophiles.)
Here's the point: I often refer to society as "science-drunk". We, as a culture, have gulped from the Kool-Aid that says if there is no "science" (a.k.a. randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, peer-reviewed research), then there is no way to know for certain if something will be effective. And I want to call bullshit. If we at least attempt to balance our body of knowledge with deductive and inductive reasoning, we will be able to move quicker into decision making that can affect masses of people without conducting piles and eons of research before we make action.
Anyone who thinks otherwise would be advised to volunteer for the randomized controlled trial for the effectiveness of parachutes to prove their point.
(thanks Dr. Chris Kent)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)