In the light of eye-witness reports going astray with "normal" healthy brains, I wonder how such vivid accounts might not be an abstract reconstruction subject to the same type of distortion, especially by a brain in the throws of damaging activity. I found it very much conforming to the paradigm of extreme lateralization that has become culturally popular in the last decade, but I fear that the abstraction has gone too far in the direction of making particles out of waves. It was certainly, however, vivid and entertaining, even if it seemed to me to cater to the stereotypical level of popular brain structure. It certainly is not "scientific", since it does not provide any reports that are repeatable by independent observers. There is no way to test or disprove any of her claims - such "falsifiablity" being the hallmark of scientific hypotheses. Nevertheless, it certainly was entertaining, and the reconstructed, after the fact, account - undoubtedly edited and polished - connected with all the watchwords of the theory. Until we have a few more of these, however, I reserve judgement as to the "truth" of the theories.

Hi Milton,

You just described the process of attempting to fit what you understood you heard into your own map. Some seek to be more precise than others; some use logic; some require more connectedness than others; etc.; each assimilates and accommodates according to his or her own (private) experience (into his or her own private semantic reactions - non-verbal and verbal).

The word 'anecdote' (its variations or synonyms) was was not used in this thread prior to your phrase "dismissing ... as 'anecdotal'". Your sentence construction seem to suggest that you interpreted some prior remarks as "dissmissal as anecdotal" when you contrasted that with your professed action. What earlier remarks do you consider or evaluate as a "dismissal as anecdotal"?