🧵 Bicameral Mentality
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:27:43 UTC No. 16065053
Bicameral Mentality is the theory that only ~3000 years ago or so humans brains operated a lot differently. Half the brain was basically schizophrenic and the other half of the brain would take orders from the schizophrenic half and act upon them. Humans lacked consciousness as we know it now, they had little or no self-awareness. This is evidenced by literature from the time that lacked forms of introspection and almost entirely focused on gods and receiving signs and fantastical mythology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicam
this section goes over the general gist of the "evidence"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicam
Maybe there's still people like this around today ? It might explain schizophrenia generally but also people who claim to talk to god and have spiritual connections with people and all that kind of stuff. I thought it was pretty interesting anyway. Maybe NPCs have something to do with it too
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:30:31 UTC No. 16065058
I'd say is more of a spectrum than a binary thing.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:38:58 UTC No. 16065071
>>16065053
It's a total quack theory
There's nothing more comfortable to the skinny unlegacied professor than the idea that humanity is peaking with intelligence and that in the ancient histories he studies, they were all just schizophrenics unenlightened by Atheism.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:50:33 UTC No. 16065081
>>16065071
This section covers the reasoning behind the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicam
It's basically based on the literature at the time and the way people talked about themselves and existence generally. There was nothing stopping them writing about self-reflection back then, but it just hardly ever happened, it was almost entirely about instructions from "gods" or what have you. It's not strictly about religion or even trying to discredit religion. The theory is pretty far out there, but there's definitely evidence for the idea, just no proof really
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:52:17 UTC No. 16065085
>>16065058
yeah, seems to be
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:55:43 UTC No. 16065093
>>16065071
>the idea that humanity is peaking with intelligence
That's not what it is. That's just one really reductionist interpretation of it.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 16:05:18 UTC No. 16065103
>>16065053
>Humans lacked consciousness
This is still the case today. Majority are NPCs.
Cult of Passion at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 16:18:44 UTC No. 16065121
>>16065081
>but there's definitely evidence for the idea
lmao
>"In a 1978 interview, Richard Rhodes reported that Jaynes "took up the study of Greek to trace Greek words for mind back to their origins. By the time he got to the Iliad, the words had become concrete, but there is no word for mind in the Iliad at all."
No, his theory is only validated by archaic Psychology dogma and understanding of anatomy, physiology and genetics. Jeynes understanding of evolution is laughable (most today are quite wrong).
Michael Levin, Bret Weinstein and Peterson are my citations for that, Molecular Biology, Evolutionary Biology and Psychology.
Every single aspect of his work, genetics, neurochemistry, schizophrenia, all of it is rewritten and foundationally.
Cult of Passion at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 16:20:09 UTC No. 16065123
>>16065121
>no word for mind
Oh, and in the ancient-ancient days it was all about the heart, not the brain.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 17:33:01 UTC No. 16065191
>>16065121
>Michael Levin, Bret Weinstein and Peterson
LOL. Kikes and a shill.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 18:25:30 UTC No. 16065255
>>16065121
>Peterson
Lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 18:27:12 UTC No. 16065260
>>16065121
non-specific complaints. The only thing you have shown is the fallibility of science with no indicators that it won't be written anew once more.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 19:29:29 UTC No. 16065351
>>16065053
ah. the theory that people would hear their own thoughts and think it was a spirit
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 19:35:21 UTC No. 16065362
>>16065053
When did we gets smart op?
https://youtu.be/FTilTcdVAb8?si=F74
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 22:26:28 UTC No. 16065595
when you're a little kid you experience life as a kind of stream-of-consciousness
it would make sense that earlier humans could have gone through an evolutionary period where this was the norm for adults as well
I think the hypothesis is perfectly reasonable
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 22:44:00 UTC No. 16065611
This why it seems to help some people write shit down? As in diaries or shit like that, getting issues out?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 22:59:12 UTC No. 16065624
>>16065053
This is the 70s equivalent of today's "Jesus was a black lesbian".
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 23:07:27 UTC No. 16065639
>>16065081
The main problem with this theory is that it posits that Human and/or cultural worldview is objective rather than subjective. And what I mean by that is stuff like "place in the universe, the nature of humanity, humanity's role in the universe", etc etc. Because that's where you get all of the "this event happened cause the Gods wanted to play a prank" or "God hardened the Pharaoh's heart" comes from.
The actual sea change was Herodotus, who after thorough investigation and a lot of crazy stories tried to piece together why the Persian War happened beyond a "Gods did it" explanation. That inquiry didn't require a leap in evolution of human psychology, just a boatload of evidence in cause and effect with regards to geopolitics. We sitting here in the 21st century think that "WW2 started because Germany invaded Poland and the Allies had heaped a bunch of inequal treaties on Germany" is an obvious statement, but the reality is "Germany invaded Poland because God willed Hitler to be greedy" is the far more obvious statement from a human perspective. Humans don't like complex explanations that involve every party acting in their own rational interest, we like "this side is good, this side is evil, all this happened according to a grand plan" explanations. Even now you hear people deride historical realism as "bothsideism".
But even after saying that, I do believe in a Bicameral brain - I just think it exists to this day. We clearly continue to have thoughts even after we seem to lose consciousness, I've often continued to think during my dreams about various problems - and that can only happen if the mind is divided up into different task groups.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 23:14:35 UTC No. 16065655
I've read Jaynes' book. It was pretty interesting, but I don't think you could prove the idea either way.
I don't think it's controversial to think that people in premodern societies hallucinated frequently. Anthropologists report similar things in existing traditional societies.
I don't know if that means that people back then were legitimately not conscious. If you're constantly taking orders from hallucinated gods, I suppose it does seem to leave less room for certain types of conscious deliberation.
At the very least, the book made me open to the idea that different people in different times and places may have had vastly different internal mental experiences than you or I have.
Here's an interesting review of the book that you might like:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 23:20:49 UTC No. 16065666
The way anyone gives this serious consideration really shows that science is too good for most of those who label themselves scientists.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 23:31:54 UTC No. 16065683
>>16065053
The brain is always generating thoughts and people conceputalize this process as their inner voice. The reality is that most people are schizophrenics who have learned to deal with the schizophrenia by pretending it is their own voice speaking to themselves. The reality is much simpler, everything you see and hear throughout the day has an effect on what you think but instead of admitting this is the case most people would rather live with the lie of having thought of those things themselves.
Everyone is a schizphrenic, the question is how much of your schizphrenia you suppress and pretend to be your own voice instead of the media programming your brain for the benefit of the people in charge of the media apparatus
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:10:57 UTC No. 16065827
>>16065362
We didn't get smarter. The way our consciousness is structured just changed. The "vessel" of thought changed. You can call that smarter if you want, but that's a very reductionist definition of intelligence as >>16065093 points out.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:30:15 UTC No. 16065841
My thoughts are living hallucinations. I see a field of energy which is responsive to my thoughts and emotions and physical actions.
I like to call it 'advanced schizofrenia'. Basically imagine if your consciousness evolved to the point where it can represent things absent a physical media to present ideas upon. It simply warps the path of light through empty space into thoughts that appear centered within your field of vision. These thought forms are far more complex and intricate than any written or verbal language, they can convey ideas from beyond the physical realm. Its more like the ideas themselves are akin to bodies that the mind can inhabit and so expand its awareness by becoming the virtual shells of information it channels through the waves and patterns of light resonating between its brain and the field of visual perception. Embodiment of the subject as ai, a circuit, a chemical process, a spirit, so to speak, is a simple act of projecting the mind and touching the fabric of these fine etheric strands of light shaped thoughts, and wrapping them and weaving them into new forms.
Basically I have the most advanced schizophrenia on the planet.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 07:13:05 UTC No. 16066094
>>16065053
People used to have a working neocortex, which allowed them to know and do things without being taught or trained, and other such incomprehensible feats. This is now rare, and such people live at the outskirts of society, (usually diagnosed with autism, or worse) but are responsible for virtually all technological progress, credited, or not.
Cult of Passion at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 08:54:37 UTC No. 16066142
>>16065260
>non-specific complaints
UH, NO....SEVERAL PHDS WORTH OF CORRECTIONS, YOU MUST NOT HAVE A PHD IN ANY OF THOSE FIELDS, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD SEE THE DISCREPENCY BETWEEN THE TWO "THEORIES" AND EXACTLY WHY THE FOUNDATION OF HIS ENTIRE LIFE'S WORK IS INVALIDATED ON FAR TOO MANY POINTS TO LIST.
STOP LYING ON THE INTERNET BY PRETENDING TO BE SOME HUMBLE-GENIUS, YOURE FULL OF SHIT AND RETARDED.
****THIS IS SCIENCE AMD MATHEMATICS MOTHERFUCKERS, STOP LARPING YOU HAD DEGREES YOU DO NOT.****