Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 03-14-2013, 10:00 AM

Just came across this

Quote:

In 1976, Julian Jaynes hypothesized that as recently as 2,500–3,000 years ago, human beings were non-introspective. Jaynes said that while we are acculturated from infancy on, to understand our mental life as a narratized interior mind-space in which we introspect in a ceaseless conversation with “ourselves,” our ancestors were acculturated to understand their mental life in terms of obedient responses to auditory prompts, which they hallucinated as the external voice of God. Although these “bicameral” people could think and act, they had no awareness of choices or of choosing — or of awareness itself. Jaynes claimed that one could trace this cultural transformation over the course of a scant millennium by analyzing the literature of the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament,” OT). Jaynes himself, however, was not skilled in Hebrew or cognate languages, and was forced to rely on translations and secondary sources. This project tests Jaynes’s assertions by examining the OT text in Hebrew, as seen through the lens of the Documentary Hypothesis and modern critical historical scholarship. Examination shows that the writers of the oldest texts had no words in their cultural lexicon to correspond to our words such as “mind” or “imagination” or “belief.” Translations into English that employ such mentalistic words are shown to be incorrect and misleading. By sharp contrast, in the later OT texts, a lexicon of rich interiority appears. The writers have become acculturated to experience mental life as a rich introspective consciousness, full of internal mind-talk and “narratization,” and perceiving their own actions as the result, not of obedience to an external voice, but of self-authorized, internal decisions. This study includes observations about emerging understandings of the neurology of auditory hallucinations, and supports Jaynes’s idea that while the brain’s structure has changed little in three millennia, culture can and will determine whether a child’s mental life is bicameral or introspectively conscious.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Minds-Bibl.../dp/B00B5LWV82

Barbarian · 03-14-2013, 11:50 AM

The very first time I heard about the bicameral mind theory, I was sure the author must have been a YEC, because only a YEC could be so blissfully unaware of the length of human prehistory and what does it mean for this sorry theory. I don't actually know, though: was he a YEC?

His biggest stumbling block is this: where are the bicameral humans today? How were the Tasmanians, the Inuit, the aboriginals of Tierra del Fuego etc. replaced with conscious humans? Or maybe they weren't, and only those humans within the original sphere of Abrahamic religions are conscious today?

See, if the discovery spread so easily, leading to a complete coverage of our entire species in, say, 2000 years - I know he says it's 3000, but to my best knowledge we have no history of conscious people actually meeting and describing those primitive bicameral people, so the spread of the innovation must have been either complete before the age of great explorers or orchestrated by phenomenal luck to get everywhere just in time to prevent explorers from encountering the bicamerals. This unparalleled spread, both in terms of speed and breadth, of the innovation suggests that populations of bicameral people were in an unstable state, ready to be flipped over at the merest touch. So how come such an unstable state characterized the entire species? Because if it was a common heritage, then it must have been around for up to 100,000 years in every single population, without tipping over or disappearing. That stretches the imagination beyond all limits.

Clivedurdle · 03-14-2013, 02:57 PM

The rabbi in the OP is arguing the Hebrew Bible is very poorly translated - the intro is on Amazon read me.

And my understanding is this is probably very unstable, see his intro that discusses the use of the word "I".

The point is we are so used to talking to ourselves we probably would not notice its absence, and it would not take many iterations before the other has begun to learn these ways. It has always puzzled me what people are complaining about with colonisation, or cameras capturing souls.

Maybe there is a real change happening.

I also read recently how teenagers have to spend a long time in dreamy states to compensate for the formality of schooling and learning to think.

Chili · 03-14-2013, 08:44 PM

I see this just opposite actually, since they also wrote that "an evil age will come when old men shall have dreams," (or close to this), and they were not talking about dreaming as an evil for old people, but that the state of Mind called is-ra-el ('of one mind' like the minotaur) is wherein intelligence is the enemy to overcome.

See here also where Joseph in Matthew was a dreamer while in Luke he was not and hence the different endings that are opposite in these two Gospels.

So it is fair to say that rational stimulation, that we call learning, is a liability in the end regardless of how well is serves as human being (while outside of Eden).

Clivedurdle · 03-15-2013, 01:26 AM

I wonder if there are more examples of this around than we realise. Autism is said to be related to concepts of theories of mind. Is it about how strong an "I" someone has?

Might "I am that I am" actually be evidence of this change towards a conscious self? Monotheisms are results of changes in how we understand ourselves?

"I'm going to kill myself" is an example of a very complex meta-analysis. That type of complexity must have evolved. Maybe the fossils are out there, for example in the Hebrew Bible...

Chili · 03-15-2013, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I wonder if there are more examples of this around than we realise. Autism is said to be related to concepts of theories of mind. Is it about how strong an "I" someone has?

Might "I am that I am" actually be evidence of this change towards a conscious self? Monotheisms are results of changes in how we understand ourselves?

"I'm going to kill myself" is an example of a very complex meta-analysis. That type of complexity must have evolved. Maybe the fossils are out there, for example in the Hebrew Bible...

"I am going to kill myself" is evidence of dualism wherein the ego wants to kill the self to solve the problems the ego can see, while in a properly designed religion the self must kill the ego to set the self free that we call Christ in Christendom.

So a death is needed, yes, from which follows that is an act of cowardice to kill the self instead of the ego . . . which in the end is why we must be courageous sinners, that so also appears to be the hallmark of all saints in heaven.

wordy · 03-15-2013, 11:23 AM

I actually bought the book and then sadly gave it away.
I don't know what to think. That which support him is
that even today we are so blind to the bias that our culture
give us are so hard to break out of. Sure one can try to be
totally immersed in another culture. To talk like them to think
like them to see the world like them and so on.

it is very difficult. It easily is just a shallow mimicking
of their culture. Takes very many years to really be 100%
a natural member of that culture.

What he maybe stress too far is to base his ideas
on the written stories and see them from our knowledge now.

they did not have the practice to express themselves in ways
that allow us to recognize them to be like us?

Or what if he is correct that would explain how them so easily
believed in a lot of things. Maybe the modern project did allow us
to see the world from a more individualistic way. It is interesting
but what kind of research could find evidence?

We had a link to some research recently that say that different persons
really are different not just having different preferences. If I find it
then I give link later. Just now my brain fail to find the key word that
would help me find it.

could be this one but not that text but maybe same research
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/diffdx/geneticvariance.html

so logically if humans are different now then we could have been different
way back in time too. Them much less individualistic and them more
collective minded and having Tribal loyalty that we seldom have.

Cheerful Charlie · 03-15-2013, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I wonder if there are more examples of this around than we realise. Autism is said to be related to concepts of theories of mind. Is it about how strong an "I" someone has?

Might "I am that I am" actually be evidence of this change towards a conscious self? Monotheisms are results of changes in how we understand ourselves?

"I'm going to kill myself" is an example of a very complex meta-analysis. That type of complexity must have evolved. Maybe the fossils are out there, for example in the Hebrew Bible...

The voices still speak today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Man_factor

Cheerful Charlie

Clivedurdle · 03-15-2013, 04:08 PM

Quote:

. In Ancient Greek culture there is often mention of the Logos, which is a very similar concept. It was a type of guiding voice that was heard as from a seemingly external source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

wordy · 03-16-2013, 12:23 AM

Very good finding that one

Quote:

The Third Man factor or Third Man syndrome refers to the reported situations where an unseen presence such as a "spirit" provides comfort or support during traumatic experiences. Sir Ernest Shackleton in his book South, described his belief that an incorporeal being joined him and two others during the final leg of their journey. Shackleton wrote, "during that long and racking march of thirty-six hours over the unnamed mountains and glaciers of South Georgia, it seemed to me often that we were four, not three."[1] His admission resulted in other survivors of extreme hardship coming forward.

In recent years well-known adventurers like climber Reinhold Messner and polar explorers Peter Hillary and Ann Bancroft have reported the experience. One study of cases involving adventurers reported that the largest group involved climbers, with solo sailors and shipwreck survivors being the second most common group, followed by polar explorers.[2] Some journalists have related this to be the source of the guardian angel belief and children's imaginary friends. Scientific explanations consider this a coping mechanism for stressful situations or an example of bicameralism.[3] The concept was popularized by a book by John G. Geiger The Third Man Factor, that documents scores of examples.

Charles Lindberg told about his similar experience.

I had something in that direction but not that strong 1983.
or maybe I called it to come instead of getting it unknowingly?

My guess is that Michael Gazzaniga is talking about some less dramatic
expression of this when he refer to the "Interpreting Module" Process. IP

I often refer to it as the Autopilot but that maybe is misleading.

To name it Guardian Angel gives it too supernatural attributes
I trust it is absolutely natural and only delusional in how it has
been attributed. Factually it should be an evolved natural process
to allow us to see hope in hopeless situations? To get other perspectives
when one are too few to come up with other perspectives. A kind of
survival kit built in.

Could one name it "The Internalized Other"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2013, 11:50 AM	#2
Barbarian Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Hungary Posts: 1,666	The very first time I heard about the bicameral mind theory, I was sure the author must have been a YEC, because only a YEC could be so blissfully unaware of the length of human prehistory and what does it mean for this sorry theory. I don't actually know, though: was he a YEC? His biggest stumbling block is this: where are the bicameral humans today? How were the Tasmanians, the Inuit, the aboriginals of Tierra del Fuego etc. replaced with conscious humans? Or maybe they weren't, and only those humans within the original sphere of Abrahamic religions are conscious today? See, if the discovery spread so easily, leading to a complete coverage of our entire species in, say, 2000 years - I know he says it's 3000, but to my best knowledge we have no history of conscious people actually meeting and describing those primitive bicameral people, so the spread of the innovation must have been either complete before the age of great explorers or orchestrated by phenomenal luck to get everywhere just in time to prevent explorers from encountering the bicamerals. This unparalleled spread, both in terms of speed and breadth, of the innovation suggests that populations of bicameral people were in an unstable state, ready to be flipped over at the merest touch. So how come such an unstable state characterized the entire species? Because if it was a common heritage, then it must have been around for up to 100,000 years in every single population, without tipping over or disappearing. That stretches the imagination beyond all limits.

03-14-2013, 02:57 PM	#3
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The rabbi in the OP is arguing the Hebrew Bible is very poorly translated - the intro is on Amazon read me. And my understanding is this is probably very unstable, see his intro that discusses the use of the word "I". The point is we are so used to talking to ourselves we probably would not notice its absence, and it would not take many iterations before the other has begun to learn these ways. It has always puzzled me what people are complaining about with colonisation, or cameras capturing souls. Maybe there is a real change happening. I also read recently how teenagers have to spend a long time in dreamy states to compensate for the formality of schooling and learning to think.

03-14-2013, 08:44 PM	#4
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	I see this just opposite actually, since they also wrote that "an evil age will come when old men shall have dreams," (or close to this), and they were not talking about dreaming as an evil for old people, but that the state of Mind called is-ra-el ('of one mind' like the minotaur) is wherein intelligence is the enemy to overcome. See here also where Joseph in Matthew was a dreamer while in Luke he was not and hence the different endings that are opposite in these two Gospels. So it is fair to say that rational stimulation, that we call learning, is a liability in the end regardless of how well is serves as human being (while outside of Eden).

03-15-2013, 01:26 AM	#5
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I wonder if there are more examples of this around than we realise. Autism is said to be related to concepts of theories of mind. Is it about how strong an "I" someone has? Might "I am that I am" actually be evidence of this change towards a conscious self? Monotheisms are results of changes in how we understand ourselves? "I'm going to kill myself" is an example of a very complex meta-analysis. That type of complexity must have evolved. Maybe the fossils are out there, for example in the Hebrew Bible...

03-15-2013, 11:23 AM	#7
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	I actually bought the book and then sadly gave it away. I don't know what to think. That which support him is that even today we are so blind to the bias that our culture give us are so hard to break out of. Sure one can try to be totally immersed in another culture. To talk like them to think like them to see the world like them and so on. it is very difficult. It easily is just a shallow mimicking of their culture. Takes very many years to really be 100% a natural member of that culture. What he maybe stress too far is to base his ideas on the written stories and see them from our knowledge now. they did not have the practice to express themselves in ways that allow us to recognize them to be like us? Or what if he is correct that would explain how them so easily believed in a lot of things. Maybe the modern project did allow us to see the world from a more individualistic way. It is interesting but what kind of research could find evidence? We had a link to some research recently that say that different persons really are different not just having different preferences. If I find it then I give link later. Just now my brain fail to find the key word that would help me find it. could be this one but not that text but maybe same research http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/diffdx/geneticvariance.html so logically if humans are different now then we could have been different way back in time too. Them much less individualistic and them more collective minded and having Tribal loyalty that we seldom have.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.