4 ms·

I really like this idea. However, i've had lots of conscious experiences with a quiet mind

toupeira 10y ago
Read more closely, the hypothesis is that bicameralism was an evolutionary stage in human consciousness that broke down at some point in antiquity. So it would entirely be expected that you don't experience it anymore :)
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  That would imply that everybody on earth "evolved" away from bicameralism at the same time.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Not necessarily. It's conceivable that a cultural or linguistic change swept quickly through the population, but it wouldn't have to happen instantaneously, and might even continue in some way (see my other comment).
    - azakai 10y ago
      Perhaps, but it wouldn't explain isolated human populations, of which we have several in the relevant time frames.
  - azakai 10y ago
    Indeed, and that's one reason why the theory is considered discredited. Still, it lives on. Not many incorrect ideas do. Perhaps it's because it is a more concise and elegant answer to several unresolved questions (why did self-awareness arise? why did religions change at that particular time?) in ways we don't have any other good answers for. It's a brilliant idea, that sadly happens to be wrong.
    - ColanR 10y ago
      > why did religions change at that particular time? Wait, what? Sounds cool and I'd love a source on that.
      - azakai 10y ago
        The Wikipedia article summarizes it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#The_Origin_of_Consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#The_... Basically, before 3,000 years or so, it was common for people to hear the gods talk. Somehow, that changed and it became far more rare, with only a few (prophets and such) claiming to actually hear the gods' voices. The bicameral theory is that there are still such people today, schizophrenics, and it is one half of their brain talking to the other - but they perceive it as an external agency. And that somehow this was the common state of humanity in the past, but changed. We became self-aware - we recognized the internal voice as part of ourselves. This does actually fit many historical facts well. Still, it is likely wrong for other reasons.
        ColanR 10y ago
        Thanks. That's fascinating.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Bicameralism, if it was ever real, might still occur under some religious settings. When I was much younger, still religious, and hadn't heard of the bicameral mind, I noticed that in a certain spiritual frame of mind my internal monologue became more of an internal dialogue, where I could pose questions and perceive a subvocalized answer within my thought stream as coming from "elsewhere". I'm not sure how to reproduce the effect, but it wasn't necessarily useful as I couldn't get any information I didn't already know.
  - benevol 10y ago
    > I noticed that in a certain spiritual frame of mind my internal monologue became more of an internal dialogue, where I could pose questions and perceive a subvocalized answer within my thought stream as coming from "elsewhere". That was almost certainly one of your spiritual guides talking to you. Don't give that treasure up, you don't need to be "religious" to continue it. You just need to accept your spiritual dimension (that we all have), which is usually much easier for us when we're kids. Once we grow up, we develop our ego further, which acts like a barrier between ourselves and our spiritual dimension (i.e our guides). Btw, a substance like LSD or psilocybin can break down the ego temporarily and thus open you up further to experience your (natural) "link" to the "other side". And this is the reason why a lot of people report experiences of spiritual nature when they consume such substances (in the correct set and settings). Daily meditation practice is also a very good idea to keep it going.
    - ColanR 10y ago
      > it wasn't necessarily useful as I couldn't get any information I didn't already know Don't forget to read to the end...this isn't a 'spiritual' thing.
sp332 10y ago
Yeah I don't think the idea is taken seriously for humans. But it's an interesting way to program a robot.

Read more closely, the hypothesis is that bicameralism was an evolutionary stage in human consciousness that broke down at some point in antiquity. So it would entirely be expected that you don't experience it anymore :)

lobster_johnson 10y ago
That would imply that everybody on earth "evolved" away from bicameralism at the same time.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Not necessarily. It's conceivable that a cultural or linguistic change swept quickly through the population, but it wouldn't have to happen instantaneously, and might even continue in some way (see my other comment).
  - azakai 10y ago
    Perhaps, but it wouldn't explain isolated human populations, of which we have several in the relevant time frames.
- azakai 10y ago
  Indeed, and that's one reason why the theory is considered discredited. Still, it lives on. Not many incorrect ideas do. Perhaps it's because it is a more concise and elegant answer to several unresolved questions (why did self-awareness arise? why did religions change at that particular time?) in ways we don't have any other good answers for. It's a brilliant idea, that sadly happens to be wrong.
  - ColanR 10y ago
    > why did religions change at that particular time? Wait, what? Sounds cool and I'd love a source on that.
    - azakai 10y ago
      The Wikipedia article summarizes it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#The_Origin_of_Consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)#The_... Basically, before 3,000 years or so, it was common for people to hear the gods talk. Somehow, that changed and it became far more rare, with only a few (prophets and such) claiming to actually hear the gods' voices. The bicameral theory is that there are still such people today, schizophrenics, and it is one half of their brain talking to the other - but they perceive it as an external agency. And that somehow this was the common state of humanity in the past, but changed. We became self-aware - we recognized the internal voice as part of ourselves. This does actually fit many historical facts well. Still, it is likely wrong for other reasons.
      - ColanR 10y ago
        Thanks. That's fascinating.
nitrogen 10y ago
Bicameralism, if it was ever real, might still occur under some religious settings. When I was much younger, still religious, and hadn't heard of the bicameral mind, I noticed that in a certain spiritual frame of mind my internal monologue became more of an internal dialogue, where I could pose questions and perceive a subvocalized answer within my thought stream as coming from "elsewhere". I'm not sure how to reproduce the effect, but it wasn't necessarily useful as I couldn't get any information I didn't already know.
- benevol 10y ago
  > I noticed that in a certain spiritual frame of mind my internal monologue became more of an internal dialogue, where I could pose questions and perceive a subvocalized answer within my thought stream as coming from "elsewhere". That was almost certainly one of your spiritual guides talking to you. Don't give that treasure up, you don't need to be "religious" to continue it. You just need to accept your spiritual dimension (that we all have), which is usually much easier for us when we're kids. Once we grow up, we develop our ego further, which acts like a barrier between ourselves and our spiritual dimension (i.e our guides). Btw, a substance like LSD or psilocybin can break down the ego temporarily and thus open you up further to experience your (natural) "link" to the "other side". And this is the reason why a lot of people report experiences of spiritual nature when they consume such substances (in the correct set and settings). Daily meditation practice is also a very good idea to keep it going.
  - ColanR 10y ago
    > it wasn't necessarily useful as I couldn't get any information I didn't already know Don't forget to read to the end...this isn't a 'spiritual' thing.

sp332 10y ago

Yeah I don't think the idea is taken seriously for humans. But it's an interesting way to program a robot.