Is bicamerality bullshit?

If bicamerality=schizophrenia by reason of praying to God expecting to get answers, 95% of the founders and signers of the Constitution were dillusional schizophenics as were a good percentage of our presidents and congressmen over the centuries.So the world's most blessed nation got that way by efforts of dillusionals and schizophrenics. Do you believe that?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

First, I would like to say, having read Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that I can state without reservation that it is completely unsupported by history, literary analysis, physiology, psychology, or indeed even theology, as has already been pointed out in detail by Arachnophilia. I am at a loss as to why Hoot Mon thinks this book amounts to anything more than wild speculation, however provocative and mildly interesting the thesis may be.Second, I think you should be less cavalier about changing the subject and going off-topic just to make some debatable pronouncement concerning the religious beliefs of any 'founding fathers' or supposed blessing of any god upon this particular political division of the planet. Create a PNT if you would like to support this assertion.Third, you should just allow us to bask in this rare occasion where we actually agree on something, namely that Jaynes' book is full of crap, instead of always trying to find some way to pick a fight, regardless of common ground.Be patient, I'm sure we can find something to disagree on in this forum soon enough. Edited by anglagard, : Messed up book title, can't find my copy at moment, cats may have placed in litterbox

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

er, yes, in government. the issue we're talking about in neurology is somewhat analogous -- that the two lobes of the brain essentially fought for control.

---

it's tempting to think that, as "schizophrenia" literally means "of two minds" as bicameral, but the actual causes are nothing like what jaynes proposes. it is not caused by problems with communications between hemispheres. do you hear yourself? you honestly think that every religious person in the country is a schizophrenic? that's a medically diagnosable problem -- not just shit you can make up to attack people. you might as well claim that 40% of americans are walking around with undiagnosed ebola. *sigh* look, we've been over this. for all intents and purposes, i have read jayne's book. and i am not letting anyone form my opinions for me -- i just happen to know enough psychology, biology, and ancient literature to refute his hypothesis myself. understand? i've considered his idea, and it's just not sound. i didn't need anyone to tell me this: my bullshit detector works.now, perhaps you should consider the biological, neurological, psychological, historical, and literary information for yourself, and stop letting jaynes form your opinions.

---

i'm starting to believe that you have not read the book. so far, you haven't commented any of the substance of my counter-evidence against the book's claims, and you have grossly abused what jaynes actually wrote to levy attacks against modern religion. which is not the subject of jayne's book at all, as i recall. he talks about ancient religion a lot, but views modern religion as a sort of vestigal remnant, based largely on the now absent gods. jaynes refers to schizophrenia as a "vestige" or "partial relapse to the bicameral mind." they're not the same thing, but jaynes procedes to conflate the two throughout the chapter on the subject. so i can understand your confusion. but he does not assert that modern religious people are all schizophrenics.the problem is that, while we may not have known the causes of schizophrenia in the 70's, when jaynes wrote, we now know that it is most certainly not caused by anything remotely like jayne's bicameral mind. i don't think you really understand what the discussion is about. you are misusing the term in rather ridiculous ways -- jaynes was a bit on the fringe, but you've taken totally over the edge.Edited by arachnophilia, : typos etc

---

your misrepresentations of history aside (offtopic), yes. he's essentially asserting that all religous people are crazy in a very clinical way. this is neither supportable by evidence, nor is it julian jayne's point.basically, he's taking a faulty idea and running to extremes with it.

---

at least i know i'm not crazy. it's been about 12 years since i read any of this book, so i might have been a little fuzzy on the details of the argument. if hoot were actually interested in discussing it, i might be tempted to give it another go and carefully critique points as i come to them. but it looks like that's far more debate than we're actually going to have here. instead, he's just ignoring the fact it doesn't match reality, and running with it to extents that jaynes himself would have disagreed with (and rather explicitly does, in his book, if memory serves).

---

arachnophilia, anglagard, nwr, and Buz”thanks for your critical reviews of my position.All right, my adversaries seem to be winning this argument, but only by popular consensus. Almost everybody here is saying that Jaynes is wrong, wrong, wrong about bicamerality. But I’m a sucker for a losing argument, and I have empirical proof of that. I’m stubborn for the cause of understanding. Nevertheless, I will declare defeat is someone can convince me that:1. Prayer is not a form of bicameralism, schizophrenia, or audio-hallucination, but instead a normal, healthy, and redeeming activity of a human mind. My position is that speaking to God falls short of what consciousness enables a human to do wrt problem solving. Why isn't prayer self-evident of bicameralism?2. People who claim to hear God’s voice and get answers from Him about their problems are entirely normal and are only exercising the attributes of what a conscious human mind is capable of. My position is that such mental exercises go on at the expense of human consciousness. G. W. Bush said he asked God for His wisdom about invading Iraq. God said, “Tell them to ”Bring it on!’” And now everybody knows what a great idea that was. Bicamerality can get you into a whole lot of trouble and drag everybody else down with you.3. Something besides bicamerality accounts for the behavior of true believers who claim to hear the voice of God. I’m giving them credit for that; I’m taking their word for it. So, OK, it isn’t bicamerality. Then what is it? Give me a name for it.I know this much: I am not bicameral. I do not speak with God, nor do I ever hear His voice. I am fully conscious, and that seems to bother a lot of people who say I will burn for an eternity in hell because there are no bicameral voices in my head to save me. But I don't have a bicameral bone in my body, nor a guiding voice a in my brain. I guess I didn't get the God gene. Therefore I must be suffering from extreme consciousness.”HM

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

Without even being bicameral I can hear the music very well as it arises from the White House to the tune of Onward Christian Soldiers:

quote:

---

"Freedom is on the march in this world. I believe everybody in the Middle East desires to live in freedom. I believe women in the Middle East want to live in a free society. I believe mothers and fathers want to raise their children in a free and peaceful world. I believe all these things, because freedom is not America's gift to the world, freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world.

​

...Americans do not presume to equate God's purposes with any purpose of our own...."[Prayer] teaches us to trust, to accept that God's plan unfolds in his time, not our own.

---

So Bicameral George is the appointed Agent of God.Here's a test. Suppose an atheist occupied the White House (which of course is impossible) instead of president Bush. As such, I don't think we would have preemptively attacked Iraq. What a huge margin of difference bicamerality made in that regard! Bush's prayers and his so-called "freedom" principle (i.e., in the name of God) would not have been operative in the Executive Branch. Many precious lives and much precious treasure was wasted on what Bush believed to be God's purpose as reveled by prayer.Please! We need to probe the hell out of this bullshit! I'm calling it bicameral bullshit. You guys are calling bicamerality bullshit. Meanwhile, presidential candidates rise and fall on their claims to speak with God and have a "personal relationship with Him." Those are the people I don't trust. I have empirical evidence that they get us in to deep doodoo because of their _____________ (aka "biacmerality"). And yet ya gotta be one to get elected. Holy smoke! Something is wrong here. I'm calling it "bicamerality." I could use a better word, if there one.”HM

Stand eye to eye with a born-again Christian and tell him or her that while this hymn is playing:I come to the garden alone”
While the dew is still on the roses”
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
”The Son of God discloses.””

​

And He walks with me,
and He talks with me,
”And He tells me I am His own;”
And the joy we share as we tarry there,”
None other has ever known.””

​

He speaks, and the sound of His voice,”
Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,”
And the melody that He gave to me”
Within my heart is ringing.

​

””I’d stay in the garden with Him”
Though the night around me be falling,”
But He bids me go; through the voice of woe
”His voice to me is calling.””Whatever captures a person's mind with that beautiful hymn is real, I think, and I'd like to know what it is. It”"bicamerality," "religiosity," "benevolent schizophrenia," "immaculate metaphor," "divine lying"”needs to be named and examined for it value to civilization, IMO.”HM

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

Well, maybe not. But Max Weber found plenty of evidence that "the Protestant Ethic" haunts "the Sprit of Capitalism." Capitalism in the name of God or oil is still an economic belief system that causes us and the world a great amount of suffering. If Christianity were true to the principles taught by Jesus, Christians would eschew capitalism and embrace communism.”HM

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

er, no. not by popular consensus. by fact. the facts disagree with jaynes's hypothesis. it's falsified, end of story. so many people disagree with your position because it's wrong. it's not wrong because people disagree. bicamerality and schizophrenia are about hearing voices, not prayer. most people who claim to hear god's voice don't, and are simply using a kind of code-language i've come to call "jesus-speak." most of it is largely meaningless. the people who actually hear voices while they are conscious are schizophrenic.there is some middle ground here, too. there are people who claim to have visions during episodes of fainting in pentecostal churches. these visions typically bear the hallmarks of dreams -- something i promise that your mind does. social pressures and extreme preoccupation with religious imagery produce religious imagery in visions. they certainly interfere with rationality. but somehow i don't think that's what you mean. and it's not possible that he was simply using religion to manipulate people? just like it's been used for the last.... always? i've pointed out several times in this thread the sort of things that produce the sensation. do you really need a catchy name for it? i think you're missing the point. nor is any other eutherian mammal. i don't believe you. prove it.

---