29 May 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI would probably suggest that the most religious amongst us perhaps are slightly more bicameral than others, and that the trance like euphoria seen in many fairly fundamentalist American congregations, notably in the deep south of the US, do actually have a neurological mechanism. Perhaps that' contentious, but there you go.
Wouldn't that be a kick in the butt to the religious. I have a feeling they would die in a burning hell before they would believe such a thing though. Part of the problem is when confronted with contrary evidence, they tilt their swords even lower and continue as if nothing happened.
As if they are confronting personal demons, eh. So what kind of conditio ...[text shortened]... expain modern day prophets, like Jim Jones or David Coresh, or Billy Graham. What do you think?
I don't really buy into the whole "modern day prophet" thing though. These people are, I think, clever scammers, rather than "real" prophets.
30 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think ALL the prophets were 'clever scammers' as you say. What else could they be in the absence of some god link?
I would probably suggest that the most religious amongst us perhaps are slightly more bicameral than others, and that the trance like euphoria seen in many fairly fundamentalist American congregations, notably in the deep south of the US, do actually have a neurological mechanism. Perhaps that' contentious, but there you go.
I don't really buy into t" thing though. These people are, I think, clever scammers, rather than "real" prophets.
BTW, That woman, Jill Taylor, was featured quite heavily on the Oprah radio show, four interviews in all. I have XM radio and the O has a channel there I just found out, chan 165 I think. Anyway the interviews are all online. I wonder if Dr Taylor ever got back her Phd knowledge, she was pretty well erased and she says she is not the same person anymore, lots of memories gone. I wonder if the right brain had to be trained to recover language and math skills or if the left brain healed enough to start functioning again.
If you remember, I brought up the idea of what experience she would have had if the right brain had the stroke. Oprah brought up that same question so it must have been on a lot of peoples mind too.
Dr Taylor agreed with the assesment she would have been forced to pay attention to details and egoistic assesments and such and the spacy lala land she went to would have dissapeared.
Of course it would have been her left arm to be paralyzed. She also took up the guitar and wrote a little dittie she played on Oprah.
The world of singers is in no immediate danger of her competition for sure but it showed the change in her creative aspect, having no interest in music before her stroke. I hear a lot about people who gained a lot of creativity when the stroke cut out the left brain and the right brain could express itself, being dominated by the ego world of the left brain for so long. So now I wonder what drugs like LSD or Mescaline do, inhibit the left brain and let the right brain dominate for awhile, besides the visual effects? Do you know of any drugs that does that exactly, suppress the left brain and allow the right brain to be dominant without the hallucinations of LSD and the like? Maybe yoga can do that? Not sure, any ideas?
30 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzSounds like mumbo jumbo nonsense to me. Either we are talking about something genetic or every human being is born without it and it is part of the culture, and we would still observe this bicamerality in the amazon tribes or rural African villages etc.
Jeynes believed that the South American Indians (Aztecs et al) were largely bicameral, ruled over by their King-Gods. It takes some extreme pressures (and there were a number of fairly large catastrophies at that time, especially in Sounthern Europe and the middle East which Jeynes points out) to illicit the shift from bicamerality to consciousness. J ...[text shortened]... ricans (although, of course there were many other factors too, as pointed out by Jared Diamond).
30 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou know, I had exactly the same feelings before I read the book. To be honest, there are some parts I still don't buy, but I agree with his general thrust. I do reccommend the book - it is one of the most interesting books I have ever read.
Sounds like mumbo jumbo nonsense to me. Either we are talking about something genetic or every human being is born without it and it is part of the culture, and we would still observe this bicamerality in the amazon tribes or rural African villages etc.
30 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI found a review of the book here:
You know, I had exactly the same feelings before I read the book. To be honest, there are some parts I still don't buy, but I agree with his general thrust. I do reccommend the book - it is one of the most interesting books I have ever read.
http://www.cosmoetica.com/B103-DES58.htm
Scott, if you read it, give me your opinion of this review. He comes down pretty hard on Jaynes.
31 May 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI have to admit that whilst some of what the reviewer says is true - there are many gaps, and perhaps Jeynes does oversell his ideas in places (personally, I would be happier with a mere shift in bicamerality around 3000 years ago, rather than its complete abolition. Indeed, Jeynes actually alludes to that by pointing out that 1/3 to 1/2 of people will hear voices in their heads at some point in their lives - people still ARE bicameral, to some extent).
I found a review of the book here:
http://www.cosmoetica.com/B103-DES58.htm
Scott, if you read it, give me your opinion of this review. He comes down pretty hard on Jaynes.
However, many of the reviewers points lie in his own misunderstanding of his apparently weak understanding of the psychology of what Jeynes is saying. For example, he points out that many greta apes are able to recognise themselves in the mirror. He postulates that this would be impossible, unless they were conscious. But consciousness is like a faucet (to use the American) rather than a light switch! Partial consciousness is possible - it's not an all or nothing state of affairs!! One of the key points that Jeynes makes is that truely conscious beings, like humans, have the ability to build a narrative of our lives - we are constantly telling ourselves the story of our lives inside our heads. There is no indication that the great apes can do or are doing that.
Yes, I'll be the first to admit there are weaknesses in Jeynes theory, and some of it is wrong, to be sure. However, we could have easily said the same about Darwin's theory were we writing 30 years after its publication. New data will always lead to new ideas, and prove some parts of others wrong. Personally, I think Jeynes book is worth a read - it will definitely set you thinking - although it's wise to evaluate it critically as you read.
On a side note, I felt the reviewer was particularly condescending in points, which does little for his credulity.