4 ms·

I thought it had been debunked already?

jumping_frog 2y ago
Richard Dawkins called Julian Jaynes’s 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind “either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between”
- nabla9 2y ago
  Idea or theory can be great, well constructed and intellectually interesting without being true. Aquatic ape hypothesis is similar. It's a initially a great theory and explains many things. Only when you start to investigate other explanations, the theory starts to fall a apart. Endurance running hypothesis on the other hand seems to hold. Incidentally it explains many of the same things as aquatic ape hypothesis, and there is more supporting evidence.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mensetmanusman 2y ago
With a Time Machine?
jerf 2y ago
It's really a non-scientific idea, in the Popplerian sense. How would you debunk it? How would you confirm it? It's not in that class of idea. A lot of people have been taught to read that as "therefore it's false" or "therefore it's true" or "therefore it's unimportant", but really all it means is that it is not amenable to scientific confirmation or debunking. That, and nothing more. Many things are not amenable to scientific confirmation or debunking that are true and false and important and unimportant and everything else.
- swayvil 2y ago
  It is false and unimportant, thus it deserves no attention, thus we withdraw our attention from it, thus it fades and disappears. Thus reality is carved away, leaving only the important part. Which we call "reality" of course.
  - jerf 2y ago
    Oh, you've debunked it? That's pretty cool. I look forward to your published interviews with people from the time. You have an opinion that the hypothesis is false. I share that opinion. We probably have fairly radically different reasons for our opinions, though. Either way, they are just opinions, however well informed. We don't have proof.
    - swayvil 2y ago
      That isn't a debunking, it's a description of the mechanism. For good and ill. Read it again.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    Walk me through how you concluded it is false, please
    - swayvil 2y ago
      By "it" I refer to reality. Not the model. (Gotta underline everything for you people, I swear.)
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Go on..

Richard Dawkins called Julian Jaynes’s 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind “either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between”

nabla9 2y ago
Idea or theory can be great, well constructed and intellectually interesting without being true. Aquatic ape hypothesis is similar. It's a initially a great theory and explains many things. Only when you start to investigate other explanations, the theory starts to fall a apart. Endurance running hypothesis on the other hand seems to hold. Incidentally it explains many of the same things as aquatic ape hypothesis, and there is more supporting evidence.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mensetmanusman 2y ago

With a Time Machine?

jerf 2y ago

It's really a non-scientific idea, in the Popplerian sense. How would you debunk it? How would you confirm it? It's not in that class of idea. A lot of people have been taught to read that as "therefore it's false" or "therefore it's true" or "therefore it's unimportant", but really all it means is that it is not amenable to scientific confirmation or debunking. That, and nothing more. Many things are not amenable to scientific confirmation or debunking that are true and false and important and unimportant and everything else.

swayvil 2y ago
It is false and unimportant, thus it deserves no attention, thus we withdraw our attention from it, thus it fades and disappears. Thus reality is carved away, leaving only the important part. Which we call "reality" of course.
- jerf 2y ago
  Oh, you've debunked it? That's pretty cool. I look forward to your published interviews with people from the time. You have an opinion that the hypothesis is false. I share that opinion. We probably have fairly radically different reasons for our opinions, though. Either way, they are just opinions, however well informed. We don't have proof.
  - swayvil 2y ago
    That isn't a debunking, it's a description of the mechanism. For good and ill. Read it again.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Walk me through how you concluded it is false, please
  - swayvil 2y ago
    By "it" I refer to reality. Not the model. (Gotta underline everything for you people, I swear.)
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      Go on..