Can "god" just be bicameralism?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Well if were talking "first humans" perhaps but we still dont know anywhere enough about them to be able to confidently say ok it sounds plausible. Id deff say its more likely than humans from biblical times
    test
  2. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    people back then believed in many gods correct? Maybe this is why. The bicameral minded people mostly died off and the few survivors passed on the stories of them. Eventually it becomes what some see as a gene abnormality
    test
  3. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    according to yall everyone of the "prophets" are in the same bloodline right? Maybe this "gene abnormality" is so dormat that it only came out in these few so called prophets
    test
  4. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i don't know much about the brain so it's hard for me to really grasp how human intellect could function through internal verbal commands. i'm not saying it's not true but its hard for me to picture. i guess what i find troubling about it is that it seems it would hinder decision making and would seemingly be no different from living by pure instinct.

    either way, i think its possible that people have heard voices and attributed them to divine sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all gods are derived from hallucination. the concept of 'god' is a powerful one and is valued for more than just commands or prophecy.

    personally i like the explanation of gods as symbols of tribal power that manifested from inherent human spirituality and grew more powerful as civilizations emerged.
    test
  5. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    i've thought about spiritual awareness in the genetic sense a lot, it would make sense regardless of whether it's just bicameralism or actual "otherside contact"

    i also sorta think down syndrome is a recessive neanderthal gene

    but, as for what "god" could be in relation to mundane mind states, i think of it as animals and autistic children before they develop speech think, it's all in pictures, but they are limited to what they have directly experienced, instead of abstract connections made able through language.

    i think "god" was a collection of all of everything, and decided to split into individual consciousnesses in order to experience everything in the form of physicality, our experiences, and the reason we are here, is to rebuild god
    test
  6. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,097

    Sorta resembles what happens right now as we live.. evolve into adulthood and die.. and become energy (spirits) not only that but our bodies are recycled into the earth.. another form of energy.. so what einstein determined was what evidence was already there to begin with.
    test
  7. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    the concept of god is really just commands and prophecy. the auditory hallucinations are the same. everything else has been added on and thats when religions start to branch away from each other.

    i hate 90% about the concept of god/gods
    test
  8. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    what do you mean by this?
    test
  9. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    then, something like that would be easier to argue in very early humans. i think its really hard to show in any way that humans from c antiquity had different kinds of brains than you and me would have; given the kinds of art, math, and technology they were using. these are pretty strong benchmarks for reason as we would know it - and seems like a strong counter to any argument suggesting they were using different kinds of brains (or the hypothesis is that the right hemisphere and left hemisphere where communicating with each other in a different way than they do now)

    but alternatively trying to argue that this was true in very early humans would be hard to show because the kinds of myths and folklore they were using wouldnt have been as efficiently documented, given the extent of their technology. so there is a big barrier to what we can even know about the kind of religiosity they had.

    so it seems the guy that started this theory would have to had known that he was boxed in by this too. to qualify his theory he would have been forced to move up to more modern kinds of humans as a way to use the better documented myths and folklore they had as proofs.

    but then, the more modern you go, the more similar to us these ancient humans get.



    to me theres 1 thing that i think is sort of disturbing about this theory. its seems dangerously near implying that theres a difference between religiosity and reason - like they are exclusive somehow.

    that, a person cant believe in god and gods through some faculty of reason, but instead had to be hallucinating.

    i think this is wrong. and it seems part of a trend from psychology and its attempts at taking its knife and cutting out pathological behavior from non-pathological behavior where it thinks its found it.

    eg its ok to pray to god

    but, if god ever talks back to you - you have schizophrenia

    there has to be a great amount of caution here from the psychologist community and psychologists like the guy who is putting forward this bicameral theory. it may not be this cut and dry. sir isaac newton was an intensely religious man -- and arguably the greatest scientist that ever lived. if god ever said something to him - does that make him bicameral or schizophrenic? is it a pathology?
    test
  10. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    ^it sounds like you're implying one can't be a great intellect and also pathological. like the fact that isaac newton was a brilliant scientist somehow negates the possibility that the hypothetical voice he thought was god was a hallucination.

    i disagree. like i said i think gods have historically been a symbol for national and tribal power. polytheism had its hey day at a time when each region had its patron god which represented its people and its culture. this way people had a divine source to thank for their fortune and pray to in their misfortune. monotheism presented itself as the ultimate form of spiritual conquest and unity, and was utilized as such first by the roman empire and then by the ottomans. now science is what peoples and nations pay homage to for power and thus as nietzsche put it, god is dead.
    test
  11. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535

    is that bad?
    test
  12. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,097
    you want beef i can put a slug in ur hat!
    test
  13. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    seems a bit flawed

    like you're criticizing the psych community for needing to separate the normal from the pathological, for needing a strict this or that, black or white approach

    but then you base your argument on the same type of approach.
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    my 1st argument is that reason and religiosity arent exclusive tho; they can mix

    not like bicameralism, that cuts the two in half

    my 2nd was that hallucinating might not be bad

    this is a different argument tho
    test
  15. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    :funny: Psychos are all quacks who have no capacity for reason?
    test
  16. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i see. cause i think religious arguments can come from reason, i.e. the "prime mover" philosophical arguments, fine tuning, etc.

    but hallucination is another ballgame. it seems to be almost by definition something that is pathological. whether it is always necessarily 'bad' or not is another topic.
    test
  17. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    The thing about delusions is that you can give someone all the reason that they need to let go of it, and have them understand exactly why it's wrong, but, they may be capable of picking apart every bit of your argument in a mere instant and still follow the deluded path. That's not so different from a normal person, is it? I guess I wouldn't know.
    test
  18. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah i feel u and its hard to say, its very blurry

    socrates said he was followed around by a daemon who would appear suddenly and reveal truths to him. you might say this man was just crazy but digging deeper he was a man who some would credit as being the father of logical discourse and of western enlightenment

    maybe theres more to it, and what we might think of as being hallucinations can co exist w greater reason too. this mix might actually be a hidden and possibly necessary element to genius.

    it can be pathology too. its hard to say i guess
    test
  19. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    word, i don't think it's either or

    like just hypothetically based one the idea of a daemon who follows you around reveals truths(fucking awesome trait to have btw)

    was socrates crazy? yes

    was he genius? yes

    do the two always have to coalesce like that? i don't know, but it seems that you're much more likely to find genius and crazy together than you are to find one pure example of either element.
    test
  20. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

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