4 ms·
I remember really being blown away by this book when I first read it. Since then, it has come up many times in other scenarios, when learning about other things
by asimpletune 12y ago
I remember really being blown away by this book when I first read it. Since then, it has come up many times in other scenarios, when learning about other things. For example, the origin of King Alfred's original Saxon laws. They read totally differently if you've read Jaynes's work first.
Recently though this theory has come back in a new way for me. I'm very interested in gamma waves and how they are by products of our brains synchronizing it's many disparate compartments to create a single coherent experience.
Also, a couple of weeks ago there was an article on HN about extreme isolation. I saw many details in there that made me think of this book.
So king Alfred and Saxon law, gamma waves, and isolation are all interesting things that have resurfaced for me with respect to this book. It's a great theory, pretty sound argument if you read the whole thing and try to understand it. It's just so unbelievable no one else has really taken a stand. Someone famously once said (I'm paraphrasing) "Jaynes is either incredibly wrong or is stupendously right but we don't know".
- da02 12y agoCan you briefly summarize the Saxon/Bicameral connection? This is all new to me. I first remember reading about the bicameral mind on a online book called "Saturnian Cosmology". But I had no idea it could overlap with Saxon law.
- m0nty 12y ago"is as strange as its title suggests. It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets." -- Richard Dawkins