Bicameral mind

Post Reply New Topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mind

A year ago, when I was researching the history and causes of human sacrifice and infanticide (as you do), I came across this theory. I find it intriguing and I would like to write a story based around it. Has anyone ever read Jaynes's book? I've read extracts, should I get the whole thing?

Does anyone else have a theory as to why ancient societies were the way they were? The idea that we all collectively had split minds and schizophrenia-like symptoms explains a lot of things when you look into it. Is it too elegant, though? It can't be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

If we look at Aztec religious practices using the Bicameralism theory, then why did Aztec society, and other societies in the Americas have a religion that still relied on bicameral attitudes long after humans stopped being bicameral en masse?

I've read parts of the book, and I can't say it was particularly persuasive. A very interesting idea, but it sounds like the sort of thing that someone would very much like to believe, rather than like something with a real factual basis.

It identifies the time when the bicameral mind broke down as just about the start of recorded history -- which, conveniently for the theory, is the place where records get really fuzzy.

At the end of the wikipedia article, it says that there have been a number of interesting-sounding sci-fi books/stories published that were based on the idea. That seems to be about the best use you could really make of the idea.

I've read the book. Sounds like total crap to me.

Bicameralism (psychology)

In psychology, bicameralism is a hypothesis which argues that the human brain once assumed a state known as a bicameral mind in which cognitive functions are divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys.

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

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateraliza ... n_function

---

Have not read the book but there have been ideas about the conscious/the subconscious which work around the idea that one part of the brain can ask a question (to itself) and another part of the brain can provide the answer (sometimes by sleeping overnight on the topic so to speak) to the question.

That question and answer process is considered to be normal.

Regarding consciousness, there is a lot of information which comes from areas such as:

Brain injuries/concussions
Coma
The epilepsies (Petit mal/absence/complex partial, TLE, and so on)
ADHD Inattentive - ADHD - ADD - Hyperactivity - Hyperkinesis
Central auditory processing disorder (CAPD)
and so on

http://www.sportsconcussions.org/
http://www.biausa.org/
http://www.headinjury.com/
http://www.givebackorlando.com/

---

Puzzles

Let the weak say, I am strong vs Let the weak say, I am weak.

(KJV)

Lemon vs Lemonade

Grain of sand vs Pearl

Words

A rose is a rose is a rose

Poetry - Stories

he's onto something, but not in the way he presents it.

i enjoyed reading the book, halfway through it finding my own objections getting in the way though.

personally i think we can only make progress in defining the word "consciousness" 16 ways according to which Jungian type you are. this may well be too simple: why not 256?

and of course dualistic thinking, separating the "ego" & the "unconscious" so strictly, prevents recognizing their subtle & essential interplay; much of our experience occurs in twilight states that are like trance or concentration (the yoga philosophy of Patanjali has many more useful distinctions).
we need to think harder about the preferred tools of conceptual model-making, & how this contaminates our insights. consciousness is surely a harder nut to crack than meteorology, & look how primitive our prediction/control is there--even with computers.
if modern psychology can recognize autism-spectrum as itself a valid point of view (or way of life), & others, then there will be a better beginning than to assume only one kind of human exists & anything different from it is pathological.

m.

I always wonder about others' experiences of consciousness, even within my own culture today. Their differences in behavior, opinion, and outlook seem to imply that there is at least some difference to how their sense of consciousness would "feel." It intuitively seems implausible, though, that whole cultures would just shift over a few hundred years from this "bicameral mind" to a more self-aware one. A difference like that would seem to be at least as much neurological as it would be cultural.

Certainly some people are less self-aware and introspective, though. Children, cognitively disabled individuals, highly impulsive people, and those with psychotic disorders will be lacking in self-awareness. Perhaps these constituted a larger share of the population in earlier times; I don't know.