Bicameralism

This is the biggest red pill you might ever take. Highly recommended if you have the courage.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BOo4sjtkZpM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
quora.com/Do-deaf-schizophrenic-people-particularly-those-deaf-from-birth-hear-voices
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>psychology
>science
lol

Sum it up ya dildo.

At least give us a basic gestalt of your book, Jules.

>political science
>

i heard of this years ago, it seeems to be pretty old
youtube.com/watch?v=BOo4sjtkZpM

>At the heart of this classic, seminal book is Jaynes's controversial thesis that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but instead is a learned process that came about only 3,000 years ago and still is developing.

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

interesting. Might give it a read

Jaynes wants to claim that philosophical/psychological consciousness is a recent emergent property. Bu recent he means about 3000 years ago. Before that human brains fabricated and reacted to imaginary god-voices that informed/commanded human behaviour. No thinking, no self reference for decision making. All ideas came to them as if from elsewhere.

>3000
lmao

>that came about only 3,000 years ago
into the trash it goes

...

I saw some recent studies involving hooking up schizos and normal people with throat mikes. What they discovered is when we form words in our minds our throats and vocal cords actually go through the motions but without forcing air through to actually make much noise externally, but it can be enough for the vibrations to pass through flesh (rather than air) to the ears.
Most people filter out these noises automatically but the self recognition in schizophrenics is broken. So auditory hallucinations involve them actually hearing their own words in their throats but not recognising the source as themselves so they attribute them to a fictional other (as opposed to the voices being purely within the mind).
Which strongly goes against the bicameral mind hypothesis.

That book quoted in westworld

consciousness can be raised or lowered

most people would rather be NPCs than in control

>bicameral mind hypothesis.
It's not scientific, it's based on shoddy reasoning derived from looking at the past. It's an interesting idea, though.

That only implies that we form what we say in our physical being, it doesn't account for all the 'thoughts' we have.

quora.com/Do-deaf-schizophrenic-people-particularly-those-deaf-from-birth-hear-voices

It's much more than that. Some threads are very easy to pull, but the hypothesis is very robust. Hard to prove as the experiment would be very long and expensive, and unlikely to get ethics approval

You all need to stop saying the phrase basic gestalt. It is a contradiction. Say 'summary.'

What if that is still how non-whites function?

They are literally unconscious as we know it and are controlled by the magic voices in their head who tell them to rape/steal/kill infidels, etc

Hallucinations are not limited to voice hearing and are actually relatively uncommon in schizophrenia

It’s complete bunk with not a shred of science to it, just /x/-tier pseudoscience.

WE WUZ CAMELS N SHIET

Here’s a basic gestalt for you: quit being such a sad little cuckold and buy yourself an alexopure nascent iodine water filtration system and some Brainforce Plus to get your IQ back up where it needs to be.

..and plenty of whites. But point taken

That sounds like bullshit, but I might read it later.

Very wrong. I worked (for 6 years) with a former colleague of Jaynes. A genius. Weird guy and became an alcoholic. If you understand psychology and philosophy of mind, or are at least open to them, the book is a revelation. It's Darwin tier. If you're closed minded, then all you will see is pic related tier.

You worked with a cultist groupie.

funny, i keked a little

Today, OP was not a faggot.

I read this book six months ago and I haven't looked at religion, politics or civilisation in general the same way since.

I think it's time for a re-read.

the only book recommended by HLI user

To be clear, it's an elaborate hypothesis. But very intriguing.

Read it 20 years ago. And same. Throw in a little post modernism and mix.

>HLI
Help me out?

Your heart's in the right place.

Do you think we are fully awake? Got anything interesting to tell us ?

Until faggot OP returns, this is a Redpill thread.

...

...

...

I think none of us is aware or awake as they could be.
The timing in Jaynes' model is crucial. In Trojan Greece there was no mind. By the time of Socrates, the mind had dawned on humankind, and philosophy was born

You think so? I to think we awoke from the slumber much much more earlier in time.

What do you think of the Internet? couldn't it be a Third Cameral minds for us anons?

Fucking newfaggot
High level insider
Greatest of all LARPs

...

I find the interplay between philosophy, art, and architecture to be a neglected element of political thought.

Thanks. And up yours.

neat thanks op

That depends on what you mean by slumber. What do you mean? When then?

The internet surely plays a role in the contents and architecture of our minds. Time will tell what we become because of it, just don't get the implants too early.

Neglected by us, Subverted by them. They know what it means.

You will never go back in time to 3000 years in history, nor can you make any current observations in the brain to determine such a hypothesis. Meaning you cannot create a plausible and falsifiable test for the hypothesis. Hence it's not scientific and should be taken with a grain of salt.

>What do you mean? When then?

The Pre flood civilization. Our minds are older than we think.

it seems that his work coincides with my experience and barry long's on some points.
Recommend listening to barry's tapes by the way.
He can show you the actual biggest redpill.
But it is up to you to realise it.

Post link or Screencap you useless fag.

Except the fitness regimes in the military are superior now, especially for elite units like the seals or SAS.

Aka the only reason 99% of these weebs know of its existence.
It seems like a stupid theory on its face. If the guy had any sense he would've said 10,000 years ago so it could never be proven or disproven. It seems like all the rising and falling Empires and exponential growth of the era is a little hard to explain with just "voices" and "god commands" in place of reason and consciousness.

...

And does he base that assertion on anything at all?

Should I hold your hand too, gayboy?

There are conceivable experiments for testing if the software architecture can be re-instantiated. But if your so hung up on falsifiability, why do you even come to Sup Forums? It can't be for political theory.

evidence?

We could have a Third Mind trying to wake up still. What is Intuition? what gives us a Hunch?

For all we know we could still be dreaming. Maybe as individuals we have woken up, and the next level is to do it at a Volk state. dunno.

Falsifiability is the core pillar of empiricism. What if the moon landing was faked to cover up the fact that it's actually made of cheese? What if my cat is telepathically communicating with God right now as we speak? What if my car turns into a sassy teenager while everybody is asleep and goes out gambling?
That's what you get when you stray from empircism: ABSOLUTE FUCKING PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL GARBAGE.

It's more than a political theory. That hypothesis should rest in the realm of science, hence it has to be falsifiable.
I'm also not sure why you are presupposing falsifiability has no place in politics. Of course it does. Implement a policy, if it does not do what you intended, then it's wrong.

get that hair under control

Jaynes' book is amazing, if reductionist - meaning he treats the brain as the physical repository of sentience (which he calls "consciousness"), and slices it up for treatment like any normie biologist. Sheldrake is right to criticize mechanistic models - the watch contains no "hope" gear, after all, so it's impossible to have such piece replaced.

Blind acceptance of Hebrew historicity aside, he's right that we learn to talk to ourselves. Practical info at first, then more sophisticated strings of code. Soon, these concurrent streams become collected into one codified, cerebral thread, as we pick which inner voice to attend with each passing second (Dennett). The Cartesian Theater duality is hard to escape but the model works - and so does Jaynes'.

1st our inner voice is that of w/e authority shaped our earliest behavior; but then we slowly assume/become that authority, ourSelves. We become God!

It's the theosophy of HP Blavatsky and the theurgy of Iamblichus!

Hammurabi had it going on 1st, by placing a few carved stele, depicting He and His awesome voice (the Voice of God) describing how to carry water, and soon the peasants were muttering these instructions to themselves. Then the Magna Carte.

Pity that Jaynes insists on including the Jewish oral language's early lack of personal pronouns as evidence, but the thesis stands. Opposition has been anecdotal - usually some neurosurgeon's scalpel having probed a patient's ailing brain without soliciting the exact same verbal responses as Jaynes cites. It's the bane of a mechanistic world view. You can't restore hope by having your watch spring replaced.

This whole idea for a 'self-occasioning self' is the same one described in Neal Stephenson's seminal cyberpunk novel "Snow Crash". Trust the source code.

This is the essence of meme magic. Maybe of all magic.

The more you listen to those voices in your head, the more they'll listen to you.

What reddit boards do you frequent?

this. Popper rolling in his grave

consciousness precedes the physical realm

Pseuds should be shot on sight.

Greentext doesn't appear on the wiki page.

It says:

"Jaynes built a case for this hypothesis that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3000 years ago by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. He took an interdisciplinary approach, drawing data from many different fields.[2] Jaynes asserted that, until roughly the times written about in Homer's Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today. Rather, the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods" — commands which were recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems: the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry."

>Consciousness only came into being after we began to read, write, invent the wheel, and agriculture

Peak retardation

But they are still using human brains. It does not preclude ideas. It's just that the ideas seem to be god-given.

If I'm not mistaken Homer? claimed to have been told the story of Atlantis, placed the catastrophe 1200 years ago. At the right time for the claimed flood made by an asteroid impacting north america Ice sheet.
>Legends all over the world of a worldwide flood
>Same Building and designs of Ancient Wonders.
> No one can replicate constructions of old ( see Cusco stones)

pic related

>Peak retardation

Like not checking the link and just trusting user?

Can you hit me a up with a link famalam

>people used to write about Gods
>but nobody writes about Gods anymore.
Well there's only one logical conclusion.
>*SHITS OUT DEEPLY PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL HYPOTHESIS*

If it can't be disproved it's not a scientific theory I think

A robust hypothesis is typically one which has skipped Ockham's razor.
Now KYS for being a pseud.

I don't necessarily agree with it, just pointing out the actual hypothesis instead of blindly believing greentext.

There's more to it than that. Try actually reading the wikipedia page. The biggest piece of supporting evidence is probably the fact that the brain is literally split in the middle, connected by a small region of white matter.

On heaps. It's a proper scholarly work. Mostly comparing the language used in ancient texts. Older texts use no mentalistic language, just descriptive. Like the Iliad. Newer texts are about people with minds. Like the Odyssey.

Checked

He is using a different definition of consciousness to what we think colloquially. Academics always do this. Especially bullshit artists.

that pic is full of shit

But that can be simple explained by a different literary style, it's a different type of poem. There are tons of different literary styles, are we supposed to assume all them are the consequence of some profound change in consciousnesses on the level of a civilisation?

The red pill this book gives is that there "was" something able to control and influence one on the individual level. After its breakdown a different mechanic took grasp of the void of power so to speak leading what we know as the "ego" being able to control us while it tries to enlarge its influence and circumference.


TL;DR you have lost the connection to god and now being held hostage by a parasitic entity, claiming you eternal soul for its sinister purposes.

Then why do you even come to Sup Forums. It's almost all hand waving and opinion here. Jaynes Hypothesis stands, waiting for a suitable test or set of smaller tests. I'm not claiming it's true, but you should read it with an open, critical mind. Have the maturity and courage to do so.

Yes, excellent book

>Within 10 years, all forms of racism, homophobia, and bigotry will be extinct, present not in a single mind.

Except
But I'm not even going to add my own two cents.
I come to Sup Forums because I fucking feel like it. This isn't fucking reddit. So go back to fucking reddit you reddit piece of shit. Go neck yourself if you think you can just saunter into here and play armchair moderator you fucking piece of shit.

I prefer to think of it as a dense hypothesis, not a theory.
Your example re policy isn't close to a fair test.

OK, lets settle this
>dubls -> this theory is 100% bullshit
>singles -> this theory is true, KEK told me

>dense hypothesis
>let me make a slight semantic adjustment here and double down on the gout of existential horseshit spewing out of my mouth.

nothing is a red pill if it doesn't change your life drastically, most books are nothing but pointless intellectual exercises (e.g. kybalion)

It is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Learn the basics before participating. Maybe you wouldn't be as easily triggered if you understood people are speculating rather than believing.

Full of shit? Its happening patrick.
If they manage to keep steering the wheel And dominate the World Narrative you bet.

Also this. Even if this faggy pseud tome is correct it changes absolutely fucking nothing.
Read fucking Walden
Or the Unabomber manifesto
or some faggy lolbertarian fictional shit show.
They are thought provoking in a way that challenges the reader's present state of being.
This pseud drivel is "thought provoking" in a way that doesn't matter one way or another to your present state of being.

It seems to me there is evidence irrefutable that there was some sort of prehistory civilization. The preIncan Stonework, the huge base stones at Baalbek. The possibility that the pyramids were already there during Pharoic Egypt.

It occurs to me that we are limited in our thinking to the words we understand with which we use to “think”. We literally can not have some thoughts because our vocabulary limits our thinking. Many philosophers, IIRC, grapple with this. Some version of “we create our reality by applying names to things and in so doing ‘control’ them.”

So in a real sense what we know as history is the creation of larger, hopefully “better”, more accurate realities which are the best we can do inside the limitations restricted by our understanding of the “words we control” which limit our thinking.

It seems to me likely that humanity has reached certain heights of culture at least almost equivalent to what we have attained in the past which was lost through some sort of calamity.

Which leads to “where do we go from here” which is the real motivation for the divisions we see in politics. Different visions driven by varying distortions of understanding of reality.

What we need and what we are awaiting, seems to me, is an improvement in our descriptions of reality in a larger consciousness of new words that can improve our thinking.

In a Jungian sense what we await is a new Zeitgeist which is why Sup Forums is such an important place because it is only here that any idea can be brought forth and either die or flourish.

Even a hypothesis requires ideas that are subjectable to empiricism. An untestable hypothesis is just a nugget of bullshit.

So your big problem, the reason you've been in this thread tirelessly rebutting people, is because the hypothesis is one that doesn't personally effect you?

Fine, fuck off then.