Is bicamerality bullshit?

...and fertility icons. and frankly, any number of other things.

---

... look, go back and read jaynes again so you can at least get his argument straight. you can't learn bicamerality. it was a hypothetical state of neuro-anatomy, the physical shape of the brain. and it's been disproven.

---

Has it occurred to anyone that Hoot Mon is trolling? That he's just posting junk to see how people are going to respond?

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

it has indeed, the moment he indicated that he was probably wrong but was going to keep using his ideas anyways.but personally, i don't think it's trolling, in the same way the creationism isn't trolling. he doesn't know how to respond to a good argument (or five) that says his ideas are bunk, and so he keeps sticking to his guns with one-liners, misrepresentations of his own support, invented strawmen of the opposition's boogeyman, and just general religious adherence to faulty dogma.he says he can't possibly think like a religious person, but he sure argues like one.

---

No, I'm not trolling. I'm just trying to get things straight. arachno says he/she has defeated my, and Jaynes', position on bicamerality. But he/she hasn't even read the book. I'm seeing Hebrew and Greekie stuff in his/her posts, but nothing substantially useful to me to help me with my OP inquiry. I'd like to know what religion is about if it is not about bicamerality. aracno has nothing to contribute in that regard. All he/she is doing is saying over and over again that bicamertality is bullshit.Look, if religion is not about praying to God and getting holy advice from the hallucinated voice of the Lord, then what is it about? What is prayer about? What on earth is it about? Give me something else besides bicamerality to explain it by. Then I'll go away happy.”HM

What a bunch of unsubstantiated crap! I don't think you even understand the give-and-take principles of constructive debate. And I think I have been more than fair and flexible about my position on bicamerality. So instead of spitting paper wads at me give me something I can use to correct my faulty dogma. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ”John 1:1And it was a bicameral Word, indeed!”HM

What little I know of this theory seems to be incredibly specious. But since I have not read Jaynes, I won't presume to know how exactly he came to his conclusions.I will say that they appear to be held together completely by anecdote. Its as if he wants to know why people of ancient times report visions of God, so he assumes that everyone was schitzophrenic. As insulting as it is by itself, its also lofty to assume that everyone was basically "crazy" because there brains were underdeveloped.How he could possibly know that with any actual veracity seems impossible, since a biopsy of the brains of these people is no longer possible -- decay tends to do that.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

I have never heard an audible voice of God, and indeed, the Scriptures of any given religion seems to indicate that it is an incredibly rare occurrence, not a normal, everyday thing that Jaynes seems to indicate.Praying to God is about fellowship with the spirit that binds all things together.I'm sorry you have never experienced a communion with Him, but there is the distinct possibility that God actually exists. Does Jaynes ever entertain that possibility, or does his own lack of experience drive him to assume that everyone that does experience this is just crazy?

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

In all sincerity, NJ, I don't understand this. But I do know that many people hold what you say as true. I'm asking what that means, specifically, in terms of consciousness, unconsciousness, and/or bicamerality. Is it a brain function to pray for the binding of human spirits? Doesn't prayer require something in the brain or in the mind to happen that is different from fully conscious activity? What is that thing? What is that voice? If He does, and if I am a fully conscious person, then what hasn't He spoken to me? He ought to have the power to do that. He's alleged to be pretty goddamn powerful, you know. I doubt if Jaynes was a True Believer. And I happen to like the idea that people who speak with God are crazy. It sure helps me to feel better about myself.Life would be so much easier for me if I could find communion with the human spirit, or with that of God. It would be nice to have a bicameral voice in my head to talk to, like cell-phone implant. Maybe then I wouldn't need virtual ones to talk to on my computer.”HM

That's sincere, and anyone could hardly fault you for it. Let me phrase it this way: If you were to ask someone what love is, you'd likely receive different answers. Some say its just an emotion generated in the brain. Placing a person in an MRI, and showing them pictures of loved ones, you would notice specific parts of the brain lighting up, indicating activity.But is that actually what love is? Is it just chemicals and synapses? Some people would say, absolutely! But I submit that this is not what love is, its merely the physiological response to love, not love itself.Now, along those lines: What is this innate desire to pray to God? Is it loneliness? Is it schitzophrenia? Why is it so pervasive? Why in a really bad situation, like a life-threatening moment, do people cry out to that which, in their mind, doesn't even exist?Where does this concept of God come from? Either people are uniquely delusional, or we misunderstand what things like God/love really is. And in an attempt to rationalize it, we look at physiological responses to explain the phenomenon.I think any non-believer should be mystified at how and why such a God meme can transmit via evolution, if we were to make purely naturalistic assumptions.What Jaynes seems to forget is the fact that the concept of God has not left us. So why he refers to the ancients seems like a good place for him to foist upon us anecdotal evidence. That why no one will ever really be able to debunk his hypothesis. The hypothesis itself may be appealing to someone because it offers for them a reason why it is anything but God itself. Heh... There are two lingering questions about God that stump me. One is that since He could manifest Himself in whatever He chose, at least hypothetically, why would He have chosen not to directly manifest Himself?My understanding of it is that it is for a grand reason -- namely, that the search for God is far more effective than direct contact. Its kind of like watching a movie. Knowing the end before you go through the progression leaves this world to a drab existence devoid of any real meaning.Its that aha! moment that we find the most satisfaction. Its like adversity in many ways, I have surmised. The only reason you derive any sense of pleasure or accomplishment was for the sole fact that it was not handed to you on a silver platter. The fact that you struggled, and erred, and came up short again and again, but through the trials and tribulations, you finally succeed. Its only then when the profundity is understood.The second is why God would choose us at all. The only thing I can surmise is that if you were an all-knowing, all-capable Being, totally self-sufficient within itself, what is the one thing you could give yourself? You can make beings in your image that have the ability to love or to reject. After all, does love really exist without the possibility of hate? Do mindless automatons love you?Beyond that, I'm stumped. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

NJ, good post! There's a lot there to be considered. I'm still thinking about it. Well, here's another possibility. Maybe that emotion comes from another "brain," vertically aligned with the regular one (i.e., in the stomach). Researches have called it "the second brain":

quote:

---

Researchers believe this belly brain may save information on physical reactions to mental processes and give out signals to influence later decisions. It may also be responsible in the creation of reactions such as joy or sadness.

---

Yes, and maybe love, too. Could that "brain" also be involved with "the human spirit" or "the holy spirit"? If so, maybe that is what I have been confusing with bicamerality.”HM

Thanks buddy! Well, it is all speculation at the end of the day. But hey, as the adage says, life's not a destination, its a journey. Well, this sounds like it at least somewhat coincides with the Chi of eastern philosophy. My own inclinations is that concepts of soul and spirit are not material objects, just as thoughts are not material objects. Though they don't have a body, they exist. Is there a part of the body that is able to harness such things, like the brain processes thoughts? I don't know.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Fixed quote html

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

er, i did. all of that information that utterly contradicts jaynes' hypothesis, upon which your even wilder ideology is based. i believe if you ask more christians here, they will decribe god as tri-cameral.

---

it suffers from the same basic flaw as creationism:jaynes assumes that ancient (religious) texts are 100% honest and accurate appraisals of things that actually happened. just a brief analysis of one of these texts should immediately tell us that this is just not the case.

---

if you were interested in actual debate of the subject, i'd be tempted to go over the points he makes in excruciating detail. but since you haven't even addressed the basic and general problems with the hypothesis... it seems you're not interested. it's been about 12 years since i had the book read to me. why is that an important distinction? hell, i went and grabbed it off the shelf the other night to specifically and carefully spell out what jaynes said about schizophrenia and its relationship to his supposed "bichameral mind." and as i said, if you were interested in debating the book, i'd be very tempted to go over it point by point. but you're not -- you skipped all the general information that runs against the hypothesis. all i ever said was that bicamerality is bullshit. that's all i'm trying to demonstrate. in this case, i don't especially need an opposing hypothetical construct to know that this one is wrong on a great many counts. scientific ideas can and are falsified from time to time without better ideas.the hebrew above was to demonstrate conscious thought, including self-relfection, the analog i, and even empathy, in the old testament. to similarly ignored it. every point i make about jaynes ideas, you ignore. you're content to go on about how religious people are just crazy. as i mentioned very early in this thread, religion is most likely a social construct. you will find more explanative power in group-think and conditioning than in falsified ideas about neuro-evolution. and the source of religion is not jaynes's point. the source of consciousness is. religion is part of his argument, not his conclusion. thus the title of the thread. and because it is. perhaps this is the real issue in this thread:

quote:

---

And I happen to like the idea that people who speak with God are crazy. It sure helps me to feel better about myself.

---

and academic discussion of the subject is therefor useless.

---