Is bicamerality bullshit?

I agree with that. For all I know, perhaps arachnophilia might also agree. However, I share arachnophilia's view on the qualities of Jaynes' thesis. Call me a cynic if you wish, but I tend to think of Chomsky as, by sheer force of personality, derailing the field of linguistics for 40 years. I never could make sense of the "metaphor" explanation of consciousness, though it's one that George Lakoff is pushing. My experience is that a conscious mind is prerequisite to having metaphors, so I don't see how metaphors could explain consciousness (unless you like circular reasoning). I can't speak for arachnophilia, but I most certainly do not buy into that.

---

Let's end the political smears

Same here. I find quantum consciousness and other contemporary theories making no more sense than Jaynes. I suppose it depends on what one means by "mechanical". I don't find mechanical explanations to be at all convincing. Yes. I don't doubt that her conscious experience was greatly enriched by language, but that's not the same as whether she had human consciousness.

---

Let's end the political smears

That's presented in the form of a logical argument. But I am not finding any logic."Consciousness" is a vague term. People disagree on what it means. How can a specific gene be responsible for something so non-specific? Why do you treat consciousness as a thing that you have or don't have? Surely there can be degrees of consciousness.I wondering what you mean by "bicameral". What you are saying doesn't match what I take to be the usual meaning.

---

Let's end the political smears

I would be inclined to call that schizophrenia or self-delusion, though in some cases it is probably a matter of lying by the person who claims that experience.

---

Let's end the political smears

Jaynes was using the term to refer to the alleged separation between left brain and right brain.

---

Let's end the political smears

I doubt that.Most people who talk of "hearing God talk to them" are using that phrase metaphorically, and will admit that they are using it metaphorically if asked.

---

Let's end the political smears

You seem to be using "bicamerality" to mean something like "religiosity." And, sorry, that is not at all similar to schizophrenia.

---

Let's end the political smears

When people are praying, they are "talking" to God on faith, hoping that somebody is listening at the other end. They don't hear any responses.If Mother Teresa was actually hearing voices of God, why would she have gone through a crisis in faith?Try a google search on "teresa crisis faith" (without the quotes). As I indicated previously, most people who say they hear God's voice are speaking metaphorically, and will admit to that when asked. A few are liars. There might be an occasional schizophrenic, but that is not the norm.

---

Let's end the political smears

I cannot find any support in the gospels, for running torture chambers. I likewise cannot find any support for taking from the poor and giving to the rich (tax policy). I think you have the issues confused. Dubya is an agent of big oil, not an agent of God. An atheist who was an agent of big oil might have engaged in the same folly, particularly if that atheist agent is ignorant and stupid. No. They get us into deep doodoo because they are beholden to big corporations and to laissez faire economics.

---

Let's end the political smears

I expect there are some critiques of Weber, if you look for them. On the other hand, there is more support of Weber's ideas than there is for those of Jaynes. I can't find much to support that view. Jesus worked at the grass roots to change people. I don't find him proposing that his ideas be imposed through government authority.

---

Let's end the political smears

Arachnophilia and I have both had some religious experience, and perhaps that's why it is so obvious to us that you are on a wrong track. They are as fully conscious as anybody else. Some people fear death; others don't.I doubt that there is any greater fear of death among religious fundamentalists than there is among other people.I drive my wife to the commuter train station most weekday mornings. Usually the train stops on the north platform. But occasionally it stops on the south platform, and there is an announcement informing riders.I guess I could drop off my wife at the north platform, where she could check the announcements. But, in practice, I look at where the people are waiting for the train, and drop my wife off there. Instead of getting the facts and making a rational decision, I trust that the other passengers have made a rational decision, and play "follow the leader". I happen to think this is still rational behavior, a sensible way to act when the information is not readily available.A religion is like a club. The members of the religious group trust other members of their club more highly than they trust those outside the club. They mostly haven't tried to follow the esoteric theological arguments, and they are left trying to make a decision based on incomplete information. So they play "follow the leader". That is, they do what other members of the club is doing.The effect is a kind of "group think" or "mob psychology." But I think it a mistake to characterize it as non-rational. The decision to join the club in the first place was perhaps non-rational. Or perhaps it, too, was a matter of following what trusted friends are doing as a way of handling lack of information.

---

Let's end the political smears

Well, they really aren't being taught that - at least not in the way you think they are. The children are mostly repeating that as a mantra, without thinking of what the words mean.

---

Let's end the political smears

Then, later, probably referring to religion If we were to reach that state of full consciousness, would algebra also be rendered inoperative?Don't both algebra and religion depend on same ability at abstract thought? And why would "full consciousness" be incompatible with abstract thought?

---

Let's end the political smears

No, bicamerality is not also known as religiosity. You are misusing the term "bicamerality". If what you mean is "religiosity" then you should use that word. The question is based on the false premise that there is such a thing as "advancing from bicamerality to consciousness."If anything, consciousness is prerequisite to religiosity.

---

Let's end the political smears

Am I supposed to take a highly speculative hypothesis published in "WIRED" as truth? Or is your point that somebody else has strange ideas after reading Jaynes?From the Wired article:

quote:

---

Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use - Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit.

---

This sure seems to suggest that the religion comes from the culture, rather than from the genes.

---

Let's end the political smears