Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Fiach · 04-02-2003, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psychic
Fiach, Arthwollipot, your contributions are very appreciated, thank you.

Mike, do you know anywhere on the web where i can find that book, or any informative material on the subject?

Since I live near the edge of the known world, I get my books from amazon.co.uk or the American equivalent which I think is
"amazon.com". You don't need to put "us" if you are in america?

Fiach

Doubting Didymus · 04-02-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
You don't need to put "us" if you are in america?

Fiach

America owns the web. The rest of us are just tenants. Didn't you know?

Fiach · 04-02-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
America owns the web. The rest of us are just tenants. Didn't you know?

Don't you think that as gesture of good will you folks could put something like [email protected]?

Fiach

mike_decock · 04-03-2003, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psychic
Fiach, Arthwollipot, your contributions are very appreciated, thank you.

Mike, do you know anywhere on the web where i can find that book, or any informative material on the subject?

I just found this site where someone did a chapter by chapter summary of the book. I haven't read through it, but it looks fairly thorough without being too long.

-Mike..

mike_decock · 04-03-2003, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
It is somewhat of a chicken or the egg argument. We may never know. I myself am not at all sure.

I'm not sure, either. I think evolution of consciousness will always be speculative.

Quote:

Generally I agree, but the voices never went away for most people. That inner voice is now God, as when Pat Robertson hears God talk to him, and tell him to run for president of the US.

Jaynes was describing the hallucinated voices as audible, much like modern schizophrenics which he sees as a vestige of the bicameral mind.

Quote:

We likely agree on the mechanism but not sure if the two mechanisms happened in parallel or one developed faster.

Is it possible that the two mechanisms developed in different orders in different areas of the world depending on the structure of the society?

-Mike...

Fiach · 04-03-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
I'm not sure, either. I think evolution of consciousness will always be speculative.

All we know is that both mechanisms likely occurred and probably overlapped. Which had the lead in the race is probably lost in history.

Jaynes was describing the hallucinated voices as audible, much like modern schizophrenics which he sees as a vestige of the bicameral mind.

Sometime the inner voice is audible, hallucinatory. Other times it is a feeling, or emotional process that the person may verbalise as an inner voice or a God "leading me" to such an action. It might be considered a non-auditory, non-visual but emotional-intuitive hallucination.

Is it possible that the two mechanisms developed in different orders in different areas of the world depending on the structure of the society?

I'm sure that is a reasonable hypothesis. I am not sure how one would test it. Perhaps a study of the recently stone age peoples of the upper Amazon and the Philipines might shed light on that.

-Mike...

Fiach

philechat · 04-03-2003, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
[B]I. Basically, fundamentalism is an inability to accept complexity. People who tend toward fundamentalism have a particularly weak ego that cannot sustain any difference, any challenges to its own identity, since any affront to their established beliefs is capable of destroying their ego. Therefore they must bind themselves together under a strict ideology--insisting that all people in their group must share the same opinion with them on all matters.

On the other hand, those with a strong mind usually drift apart from one another, form their own opinion on most matters in accordance to their own experiences, and change as they see fit. They are willing to pick and choose what is good for them from a variety of ideas, without relying on any universal authority to legitimize their viewpoint. These characteristics are what thinkers and creationists are made of.

Okay, you are plagerizing someone else's opinion over here. And you misquoted me. "Thinkers and creators", Fiach, do you think the creationists are to be lumped together with what I considered positive examples for humanity? Go ahead and use it, but please don't mis-quote again.

(just a little clarification here, no bad feelings)

Fiach · 04-03-2003, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by philechat
Okay, you are plagerizing someone else's opinion over here. And you misquoted me. "Thinkers and creators", Fiach, do you think the creationists are to be lumped together with what I considered positive examples for humanity? Go ahead and use it, but please don't mis-quote again.

(just a little clarification here, no bad feelings)

I didn't honestly plagiarise. The second paragraph doesn't seem like my style. I may have included that as a post. If you could post what you said, I would like to see it. I do try hard not to plagariarise, but could have done so without realising it. I apologise if I did, but this is the first I heard of it.

I can ask the moderator to delete the post that you find offended. If you could notify him/her, I will not object.

Fiach

Please report this post to a moderator.

philechat · 04-03-2003, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
I didn't honestly plagiarise. The second paragraph doesn't seem like my style. I may have included that as a post. If you could post what you said, I would like to see it. I do try hard not to plagariarise, but could have done so without realising it. I apologise if I did, but this is the first I heard of it.

I can ask the moderator to delete the post that you find offended. If you could notify him/her, I will not object.

Fiach

Please report this post to a moderator.

It is from this thread. I think the similarity to it is quite striking. The part II of your argument so far is yours, but part I are my ideas. And the major reason for me to inform this is to prevent misunderstandings in the others' part. A misquote might alter the meaning of my arguments quite dramatically.

Fiach · 04-03-2003, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by philechat
It is from this thread. I think the similarity to it is quite striking. The part II of your argument so far is yours, but part I are my ideas. And the major reason for me to inform this is to prevent misunderstandings in the others' part. A misquote might alter the meaning of my arguments quite dramatically.

After thinking it over, the fact that I did plagiarise casts a shadow on any post I make here in future. So I am leaving the forum permanently.

Goodbye and sorry for this problem.

Fiach

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.