Is bicamerality bullshit?

What would satisfy you, arachno? Maybe if I simply declared bicamerality bullshit and walked away. I would be a liar if I did. Because I don't know what human consciousness really is, and neither do you. And I don't know what bicamerality is, and neither do you. I don't even know where either one is located. In the head? In the nerves? In the heart? In the guts? Whaddya got to help me out? You still admit that prayer happens, but you don't know what's going on in there with it. Neither do I. I suggested bicamerality. And I would love to have an alternative to turn to in my honest reasoning. Now that is bullshit! I'm open to any good explanation that doesn't include "group-think" and "social construct" in it. Those notions don't carry any explanatory value.”HM

Good points. The same thing could be said about algebra. Where would a surgeon go inside a human body to specifically excise his learned algebra? It's not a very good question. And it's not even about souls and spirits.Maybe arachnophilia is right all about bicamerality. Maybe it is nothing more than "group think" for the sake of mass manipulation. Maybe it's an infra-biological tool. Maybe it's a preposterous fantasy. And maybe man invented God to serve his needs, not His. But if that's the case then many, many humans have not yet evolved to a state of full consciousness where such corruption is rendered inoperative. It still infests humankind in unspeakably bad ways. Is the Islamniac fully conscious when he straps a bomb around his daughter's waist for the sake Allah Akbar? When I watch those frenzied Muslims on TV running around in their sweaty nightshirts I see extreme bicamerality. Or the pope blessing the crowds in his immaculate gown; same thing. Maybe I should see "extreme peer pressure" instead, and be done with this bicamerality bullshit.”HM

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

it doesn't matter. this particular explanation violates everything we know about mammalian evolution, neurology, anatomy, psychology, neural development, linguistics, archaeology, ancient literature and religion. for something that is wrong on so many counts, we shouldn't have to provide another explanation just to drive that last little nail in its coffin. it's dead. sure i do. because apparently, as much as you indicate otherwise, i'm the one in this conversation that has read jaynes's book, where he goes to great lengths to describe it. and based on that description, i know it's also bullshit, because it violates all of those things above. then you don't understand anthropology and human pyschology.

---

Hoot, with all due respect it appears you don't have a clue as to how Christianity works and what has caused the Bible to be the world's all time best seller for scores of decades. Do you even know, Biblically, why the sin offering of God's son Jesus was necessary?One must experience bonafide Biblical Christianity and have the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit permeating the lobes of his brain in order to really experience the "witness of the Holy Spirit that Paul teaches in the epistles and that Jesus spoke of when he said something like that which is of the spirit is spirit and that which is of the flesh is flesh to Nicodemus. Paul also said "....the spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of God." Again it's a memorized text and I can dig it up if you want it.I see this as what one could think of as bicameral, but that doesn't make us mentally deficient. It actually gives us knowledge and insight that the "natural mind" doesn't comprehend. When one receives Christ as saviour and lord, things begin to happen and changes come about as one begins as a "babe" to "desire the sincere milk of the word. God then begins to reveal himself to his new spiritually born child in quite wonderful ways.Your thread is particularly interesting to me because it looks like a lot of this has to do with introduction in the right frontal lobe to be processed by the left lobe. Perhaps this could be considered bicameral which folks like you and Jaynes, having not had the experience, see as abnormal but which we who have experienced see as enlightment of the existence of metaphysical realms of existence around us and in the cosmos, both good and evil.We don't hear voices. We get results from those prayers by which Jehovah God reveals that he is the existing one, i.e. Jehovah (the I am).

---

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

This has got to be one of the most hilarious, pathetic, and revealing statements I have ever seen in this forum.You clearly have absolutely no idea what Jaynes' meant by the term 'bicameral mind.' Clearly you have either not read his book or are not capable of understanding what he said. I think your only exposure and knowledge of what Jaynes' meant by the term is filtered through Hoot Mon's and maybe a few others posts, although you clearly do not understand even second-hand explanations of Jaynes' work.In a nutshell, the bicameral mind means that all people prior to some earthshaking event (like Thera) had no real consciousness as we understand the term, they only obeyed the voices in their head, a condition that is comparable to the worst cases of auditory hallucination present in hebephrenic schizophrenia today. This proposed ancient condition is supposedly due to the hyper-specialization of each hemisphere and an inability to coordinate thoughts between hemispheres, conditions that do not exist now, nor to anyone who has truly examined the thesis, plausibly existed in the past in any but an extreme minority of the clinically insane, if even that. Yet here you are, using the term bicameral, when you clearly know nothing about what it means and even worse, implying Christian salvation lies within the confines of a rubber room. Arguing that Christians, at least the christians you demand to characterize and judge, are clinically insane has got to be the greatest subversion of a religion from within I have ever encountered. You have embarrassed Christianity, it's devotees, and yourself. Yet the worst thing is, you don't know, and may indeed never know, how you have done such damage to your argument and your cause.But I find it revealing. I see the thought process at work:I read AIG/ICR/Hovind/Baugh, ad nauseaum therefore I know more about physics, chemistry, biology, and geology than anyone who ever lived.I read Hoot Mon's posts in EvC, therefore I know more about the bicameral mind than the originator of the concept, Jaynes, or anyone who actually bothered to either read his book and/or the critiques of his work.How often have I seen such absurd and egomaniacal claims torn to shreds. Yet how often do I see such claims endlessly repeated by those who evidently don't know or care just how stupid they appear.Go, and sin against your own professed religion, and indeed your own personal integrity, no more.Sheesh Buz Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Edited by anglagard, : extra quote

---

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

or political science or sociology...

Not to mention Dianetics/Scientology, Christian Science, phrenology, astrology, and Sheldrakean morphogenic fields. If all of those "sciences" are hard enough to stiffen a soft concept like the religious mind then we should know by now what moves a true believer to prayer. I don't think even true believers know what moves them to prayer. And so I suggest bicamerality and take a load of bovine wastes products over it. Well, excuuuuuse me!brennakimi, you didn't mention sociobiology. I particularly like that one because it leaves a open the possibility that bicamerality (aka religiosity) is genetic predisposed (like schizophrenia).Question; If advancing from bicamerality to consciousness is NOT an evolutionary thing then why do educated people consistently show less and less interest in a bicameral sport like religion?”HM

That's true. Buz, in Message 101 I suggested that bicamerality might be vertical rather than horizontal. What do you think of the possibility that, say, love and the religious experience could be partially rooted in the guts, which mighty close to the heart? The "the second brain" is an interesting angle on the topic. No?”HM

bicamerality does not mean religiousity. stop conflating terms. bicamerality refers ONLY to the separated hemispheres which has been demonstrated to be false.that's nice. i'm unconcerned. you still are downplaying groupthink which is a demonstrated human social phenomenon recognized in multiple fields. in the mean time, you're touting old, disproven theories and then trying desperately to tie them into current theory. why don't you read the current theory and stop using your old, disproven terminology. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This is the kind of thing that must fester like a boil in the bicameral mind, causing its victim to blame good and honest people like Buz for 'damaging the cause of Christianity.' No, it is Christianity that has embarrassed Christianity. And I think you have been bicameralized so severely that you might break out any moment in acute schizophrenia.”HM

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

nwr, you are wrong. Check out this 1999 article in WIRED: This is your brain on God:

quote:

---

I'm taking part in a vanguard experiment on the physical sources of spiritual consciousness, the current work-in-progress of Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities.

---

Did he actually say "bicameral"? You see, Jaynes and I are not the only fools who have looked at "the religious experience" this way.”HM

OK. I never made any claim of knowing or having read the book. I thought I made that clear when I asked a couple of times how I was doing.I see that my terminology was incorrect in that the normal fully developed brain is integrated unicameral and not bicameral, bicameral meaning that the two frontal lobes are not integrated as we know them to be.The logical left lobe is where language, logic, ideas and commands are generated . Jaynes hypothesises that the right brain lobes of the ancients viewed these ideas and commands etc as coming from the gods.Is that correct or does he actually take the position that the thecorpus collosum connection between the left and right lobes was not yet developed?

---

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

ah, trying to use debunked science to disguise a personal attack. that's quite enough, thank you.