Can "god" just be bicameralism?

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Jay Bee, Nov 9, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    IDK if this topic has been made already so I'll make it.

    I was wondering how yall felt about the possibility of god simply being the mindset of people thousands of years ago?

    if you are not familiar with a bicameral mind i'll give it to you in a nutshell. julius jaynes theory of a bicameral mind states that a couple thousand years ago our brain's cognitive functions were divided between one part which spoke (as a master) and one that listened (obeying the commands)

    before you think "wtf thats just a scitzo" its not because a scitzo would have a hyper-conscious reflective mind. if your also wondering why people aren't like that anyway it may be because of self-awareness (an upgrade of consciousness you could say). which in turn due to the loss of these "gods" literally talking to them they began to PRAY for instruction as they no longer could hear any threw auditory hallucinations. there is much more but i wont expand for now.
    test
  2. Tre Tru

    Tre Tru Da Tru'th

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    70
    hmm i would say no..unless my mind somehow did not develop with modern times..i've never actually heard Voices ..but i've felt and experienced things that were more than imagination and unexplainable by all party's present..and i dont mean a Pot Party either.real talk i've been to church, and baptized more than 1 religion..but it was the real experiences i had that made me stop questioning it already..i mean we may have some of the details wrong but i think most religions that recognize one creator, or Source of creation have the right idea...
    test
  3. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i think i heard about this b4

    but i dont really know about it

    i have a quick question about this now tho

    how does it explain the existence of relatively complex math throughout human history; how can a bicameral mind do math

    Mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    math is the king of abstractions, so, how could a bicameral mind do it
    test
  4. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    i think you misunderstood the theory. the theory is that in ancient times it was normal for people to hear voices because self actualization didn't exist. as hard as it is to believe that people where that stupid, it was quite a long time ago so bare with me.

    what im saying this that maybe this is where religion comes from. most atheist see it as people not understanding science and they needed a meaning to life and a way to explain the universe. but perhaps those people from the old testament REALLY DID hear voices that told them these things and afterwards they pray and created this story (religion) while they didn't realize they were the beginning adaptations.

    i know most atheist will tell you that what you felt and experienced were ur imagination, but isn't it possible that you are reaching into whats left of your bicameral mind evidenced by other experiences such as hypnosis, possession, and psychotic states???
    test
  5. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    what does a bicameral mind have to do with the ability to do math in prehistoric times since that is the theorized only era to have this state of mind. we are talking pre-self actualization here which is pretty much B.C. (before consciousness lol)

    can you imagine being a slave to your own conscious? this is just a theory so dont take it as me defending its integrity as i see it does have its holes. but this is one of the most interesting theories on why religion is instead of just when it started or who.

    #SIDENOTE# counting is not that difficult. my guess is multiplication, division, and more difficult mathetical problems came after this mindset faded
    test
  6. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,669
    not trying to put words in your mouth.

    so those who understand science know the meaning of life, and can explain the universe?

    i haven't really read up on this issue, but i will when i have time.

    :numaan:
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    to do any kind of math, you have to possess an ability to create abstractions inside of your brain that represent things that are happening in physical reality. you then take those abstractions about physical reality and build them out, creating new and different abstract structures inside of your brain, and then apply that abstract structure back out to physical reality as something novel

    i am using math to represent a history of complex abstraction in humanity.

    this is going against the bicameral mind theory, to the extent that bicameral minded humans had dumber kinds of society that were instinct driven vs reason driven

    thus i make a case for reason, dating back to as early as we can go by using the example of math

    i think your job now is to show how a purely instinct driven bicameral mind can do something as complex as math
    test
  8. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    no u misunderstood i was saying that which you quoted is what atheist say to religious folk and laugh at the possibility of a god talking to them. what im now proposing threw juilians theory is that maybe they really DID hear those voices and maybe this is why
    test
  9. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535

    my bad i didnt see your edit

    math actually has a very deep and interesting history. i know that ive heard some mathematicians argue that math actually pre-dates language from the reasoning that it was necessary to abstract objects before you could actually speak about them

    but anyway here is a quick link about math throughout human history w its pre history segment quoted out

    History of mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    i am now going to ask you 2 show what points in humanity that its argued that bicameralism was prominent

    then using these numbers from the quoted block we can start comparing the complexity of math to the points in human history where bicameralism was thought to be prominent

    this way we can create a ceiling of bicameralism and know where to put it (eg early humans had more primitive math suggesting a stronger case of bicameralism vs humans that had more complex kinds of math that then suggests a weaker case for bicameralism)

    but quickly i leave w this tho:

    i know that that guy who created bicameralism theory uses greek gods and homer as a way to show the effects of a bicameral brain. but doubly, i know that the ancient greeks had extremely complex math

    at the very surface it would seem really weak to accuse the ancient greeks of bicameralism
    test
  10. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    i dont think that someone with a bicameral mind is THAT stupid. compared to now of course they are, but not to the point they are purely instinct driven. "bicameral" is only a metaphor to desribe how memories and experiences are transmitted to the left side of the brain threw auditory hallucinations.

    take this into account. say I have a bicameral mind and my dad is my idol. when i have life decisions or am reminded of something i will hear is voice in my head LITERALLY. so when i have kids i will talk about how my dad said blah blah blah. and when they have kids they will tell their kids how dad's dad said blah blah blah. and 15 generations later my dad is eventually seen as a god figure in a society that is mostly isolated as nobody knows how big the world is. but jaynes theorizes that a bicameral mind was seen as normal and societies went about as they usually would without major problems. it is only when NATURAL DISASTERS developed when those with a bicameral mind went extinct as they could not adapt to what we see today as good problem solving

    your case for purely instinct driven bicameral mind is actually not that at all since a bicameral mind is only a theory without historical accuracy so unless you can tell me exactly when mathmatics began to arise then i can't argue pro or con.
    test
  11. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    a bicameral brain supposedly cant abstract tho

    that is, instead of abstracting its own thought, a bicameral brain would seem that its had its thoughts beamed down to it from somewhere externally (god and gods, ghosts, demons, magic)

    this is why i think the existence of math in pre history is so noteworthy: to do math, you must possess an ability to abstract your own thought.

    so to that end, examples of human society w math are, equally, examples of human society w an ability to abstract its own thoughts (and therefore not bicameral)

    i think my major point is that it cant be both (eg a society that uses math, yet believes in ghosts, does not show a precedent for bicameralism, just because it believes in ghosts; its ability to do math/abstract overrules that possibility)

    but in more primitive human society w more primitive versions of math i think this correlation is harder to show. thats why i asked you to show what points in human history are thought to be bicameral because you could actually then take that and compare it to what we know about the kind of math they were using. it would be harder for example, to show an ability for abstraction for a group of early hunter-gatherers, than it would be for the ancient greeks - who clearly possessed it by evidence of the kind of math they were using.

    if you could provide that info we could then create a bicameral ceiling and apply it. my guess is that it would be be pretty low say, 15k-20k years ago vs very high say, 5k years ago
    test
  12. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    @Radium - I don't think we should assume that if this played a role that it either was bicameralism or it wasn't, but that it may have come at a later time in our evolution when we were detaching from that mind state. I think that maybe what Jay Bee is getting at, and just didn't hit the mark right on. Not that I agree with what he's saying, I'm clueless.
    test
  13. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    what you are supposing is all one man's theory (julius jaynes). jaynes theory claims its about 3,000 years ago which i found quite odd but this was 1972. the funny part though is that recent studies support his theory about both sides of the brain communicating.

    the concept of "god" was not created yet until after bicameral minds faded. at the time everybody had their own personal "god" as they were listening to their own mind only.

    its hard to provide the info when this is just one mans theory outlines in his book. i have not read the book in its entirety
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah that quickly striked me as strange too

    3000 years ago was not that far back and by that point humanity was already pretty complex

    its hard to imagine any big evolutionary changes starting so soon ago

    just searched for this

    Human History - Archaeological Guide to Human History

    the kind of technology and infrastructure that they had by then could have only been necessitated by a certain amount of intellectualism. the art, poetry, and math are not vastly different to what we can do today, and i think are really just extensions on the same things.

    i understand that they may have had different belief systems, but i dont understand how they could have had radically different brains.

    i feel like theres something i have to be missing
    test
  15. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    I would say no, simply because the times the bible was being written is no different today in anything other than technology. Its not like these people were mentally less capable than you or I.
    test
  16. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    would the timeline be the only thing stopping you from believing this theory?
    test
  17. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yes and its a huge hurdle

    this theory is suggesting physically different brains
    test
  18. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    If this is true and our brains evolved then what is the foreseen next stage of function we can predict outta -uh-pure scenario based made hypothesis's?

    if our brains were dualist at one point and ended up one.. then why did we start as a single cell and end up as many. why does one case of evolution say we started as one and advanced and in this case. we had two brains and now we have one. how could having one brain be more necessary then two? but this is very interesting. i wonder if the next step will be to not have a need for a brain at all.. and i wonder if before we used 2 brains did we use 3 brains. one for rationalizing, one for experience, and one for emotion.
    test
  19. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Well i dont know how much truth is in this theory to begin with but if we considered it to be true than the timeline would be among the issues with it.
    test
  20. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    no there are no 2 different brains yall are getting caught up in the word BIcameral and the 2 functions. the hypothesis is that the right hemisphere and left hemisphere where communicating with each other in a different way than they do now.

    is it true? i dont know yet im still trying to do the research to understand the same questions yall are asking since i just started the research the day before i posted this.

    as far as LP goes by saying maybe we would need no brain at all, it reminds me of i believe einsteins theory that one day we would not need bodies at all as we will be complete energy.

    on another note im sure you all know that we only use about 10% of our brain, could this ability be one of the things we no longer needed as we developed? could other things like hypnosis and possesion be other skills that was once thought of as normal?

    i have a problem with the timeline myself but he was only guessing, think of the first humans who were mostly isolated, maybe due to their isolation (which is known to cause hallucinations in isolation cells and be a root cause of schizophrenia) that these bicameral minds had their beginnings and later faded.

    just throwing out ideas guys
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)