Was ancient man schizophrenic? Voice of God and Jayne's "bicameral mind"

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


That's another topic altogether that vectors off into discussions of transhumanism where we then have the looming prospect of a neurological/cognitive cliff.

This cliff would equate to us reaching our peak, but developing too much dependence on our technologies such we slide/devolve into idiocracy before we leap the technological hurdle of self directed improvement/evolution (whether biologically, or mechanically).

I'm personally all for transhumanism, and look forward to when/if I can ever 3D print a replacement, custom body.

That, as said, however, is another topic altogether.

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by KellyPrettyBear

 

That's another topic altogether that vectors off into discussions of transhumanism where we then have the looming prospect of a neurological/cognitive cliff.

This cliff would equate to us reaching our peak, but developing too much dependence on our technologies such we slide/devolve into idiocracy before we leap the technological hurdle of self directed improvement/evolution (whether biologically, or mechanically).

I'm personally all for transhumanism, and look forward to when/if I can ever 3D print a replacement, custom body.

That, as said, however, is another topic altogether.

Idiocracy was a documentary not fiction as far as I'm concerned.

I have no problem with 'transhumanism' by any means; but if we
decide to do that as a species, and it's either that or perish,
I hope we do it with love and wisdom.

I don't see any functional difference between so-called ascension
or technological 'ascension' so long as it's entered into knowingly
and equitably.

Or humans go extinct like all the other species..

KPB

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


just,,that the guy in the picture,, said he heard,, voices,,,and the children killed,,were,,special. in the way u have , put forth.

by the way, yes he is still alive,, and doing ,well.

u know Lobotamies were once in Vouge,,i wonder if ,,it should applie in his case.?

At times in this excerpt it seems that "conscience" might be a more appropriate term than "consciousness."

reply to post by Metaphysique


I don't know who you are...but i'm glad you're here. Now don't get yourself banned...you have some very interesting ways of putting things.

On Topic: i have read up on bicameralism before, and have my own thoughts related to it, but won't derail this thread with that. It is an outstanding concept to think about. It really gives you a boost in thinking about consciousness.

Our biggest problem, I think, is that we can't even define what our consciousness is.

Well, since its label in 1911, we are no closer to understanding SCHIZOPHRENIA. I am not sure if its a mental condition or a damn spiritual or supernatural condition. Its all about guessing nowadays, and people thinking they understand mental health also. I do not agree with Freud what so ever with his idea behind Sexuality being our purpose, etc. Carl Jung, seemed to be more down to earth.. Yet the problem with mental health, is we do not fully understand the MIND.. So until we understand that, we will never know the truth.. If we ever learn how to unlock the mind, I think our reality and what we think we understand will be like stacking blocks in pre-school..

Bicent76
Well, since its label in 1911, we are no closer to understanding SCHIZOPHRENIA. I am not sure if its a mental condition or a damn spiritual or supernatural condition. Its all about guessing nowadays, and people thinking they understand mental health also. I do not agree with Freud what so ever with his idea behind Sexuality being our purpose, etc. Carl Jung, seemed to be more down to earth.. Yet the problem with mental health, is we do not fully understand the MIND.. So until we understand that, we will never know the truth.. If we ever learn how to unlock the mind, I think our reality and what we think we understand will be like stacking blocks in pre-school..

Very astute.

I'm not saying that this is a total answer, but as has been said
before, if you strip out language from a human, the human
mind is reduced to a pittance of what it was before. On the
other hand, turning all the world's resources into piles of
used diapers and old iphones would also stop.

KPB

Lol. I guess all you God-bashers would know if they were "hearing voices" or not, because you were all there, right?

The arrogance. Starting from the assumption that communication without sensory stimuli is impossible, they draw the conclusion that everyone was just crazy.

See the logical flaw in that whole process? And you guys call yourselves scientists. Jesus Christ...

NthOther
Lol. I guess all you God-bashers would know if they were "hearing voices" or not, because you were all there, right?

The arrogance. Starting from the assumption that communication without sensory stimuli is impossible, they draw the conclusion that everyone was just crazy.

See the logical flaw in that whole process? And you guys call yourselves scientists. Jesus Christ...

Well, lets be honest here: the things that happened to biblical characters just doesn't happen today. So you are left looking for reasons. On one side you can just say its a miracle, and declare that phenomena never witnessed by a live person, and observed by a second independant person, is real and supporting God.

On the other side, you can look for mundane, understandable explanations to dispel the belief in miracles.

Take your pick.

reply to post by poet1b


Well, it's definitely something to think about.

Where do thoughts come from? External and internal?

This is what really stood out for me.

Between the second and first millenium B.C., man eventually lost his "contact with the gods" and gained contact with himself

Maybe we have evolved spiritually whereas we once looked outward for answers and a connection to the spirit world to looking within for answers/connection.

Jesus and other teachers taught seeking within, so it's no surprise we have evolved this way.

reply to post by JayinAR


Didn't know crows were so intelligent. I once worked at a place where there were crows everywhere. Large numbers of them like pigeons. And pigeons are supposedly good at math.

www.cracked.com...

Crows have been known to change their entire migration pattern to avoid farms where even a single crow has been killed in the past. Generations upon generations later, they still remember specific houses where one measly bird has died. Sure, they're only avoiding those houses for now -- those houses that they remember, those houses that they know have taken one of their own -- but there's just something deeply unsettling about the possibility that there are millions of crows out there right now that know your address.

And pigeons are supposedly good at math.

news.discovery.com...

There is a guy who has a theory that intelligence does not reside within the mind, that the mind is more like a radio, that receives the signals, not the vessel of intelligence.

NthOther
Lol. I guess all you God-bashers would know if they were "hearing voices" or not, because you were all there, right?

The arrogance. Starting from the assumption that communication without sensory stimuli is impossible, they draw the conclusion that everyone was just crazy.

See the logical flaw in that whole process? And you guys call yourselves scientists. Jesus Christ...

That is because some people like to live in an idol view of "everything that is" and not accept things that do not fit their ideas. The Christian church used dogma to say that earth was in the middle of the solar system. Science religion dogma today will not agree with mind over matter even if you can sometimes prove that it exists for instance placebo effect. And if you want scientist materialistic religion to really test chi/light effect on the physical/synchronicity to possibly improve placebo effect then the ones who do not want to see "what is" will ignore data that disproves their understanding. Some of them have negative feelings towards the placebo effect and would not like it to exists since it contradicts their view/idol of "what is".

And to make it clear I am one of those who see beyond one view religious view. Love the description of Jesus from the apostles except Paul:s version. Think Paul either is or is made to be the wolf in sheep clothing.

I want to know "what is" on all levels. No idols of "what is".

MamaJ
reply to post by poet1b

 

Well, it's definitely something to think about.

Where do thoughts come from? External and internal?

This is what really stood out for me.

Between the second and first millenium B.C., man eventually lost his "contact with the gods" and gained contact with himself

Maybe we have evolved spiritually whereas we once looked outward for answers and a connection to the spirit world to looking within for answers/connection.

Jesus and other teachers taught seeking within, so it's no surprise we have evolved this way.

When you look within for my point of view you look beneath the ego self to the unconscious soul that seem to be a couple of times smarter than the ego/mind. Sometimes I think we are incredible advanced spirits playing a game thinking like ants compered to what we truelly are and our potential to be.

Seems a lot of people are sensing the light now days.

reply to post by LittleByLittle


What this makes me wonder, is if, we went through some change, that disconnected us from our higher selves.

In ancient tales, the gods were once amongst us, and then they were gone.

The internal dialogue is still there. We just control both aspects of it now.

As mentioned previously, in this line of thought you can see how speech could have forced a change in our brains. Once speech was the mechanism of the internal dialogue, there was a schizm in the mind that became apparent.

But that aside, we still have our internal dialogue.

An excerpt from something I wrote on my blog awhile back:

In this vein, I declare that dogs are highly intelligent beings. Just not in the way we would normally classify. But their ability to process the massive inputs of sensory data related to smell and hearing (standing out among their other 3 normal senses), combined with the increased snesory input from organs such as whiskers, and organs on their paws, increases the workload on a brain that is notably smaller than ours.

I think the key difference here is that dogs are not prone to abstract thought. They are very concrete. The difference being, concrete thought is “here and now”, whereas abstract thought involves conceptualizing the future and making plans around it. This is not something a dog is prone to, although you will see it on occasion.

A good example of this is that most dogs (not all) are very poor at identifying human intent while pointing. If you point at something, they tend to just look at the end of your finger. Some hunting breeds, when in rural areas, may develop such abstract thinking skills (as a by product of rural, hunting life).

I say all of that to get to my point: i have been pondering this difference in thinking, trying to understand a dogs mind more. Trying to figure out how to think like a dog, if you will I think it would be a great exercise in probing my own consciousness.

Today it occured to me what the difference is: the internal dialogue.

All animals have communication. One form or another, they communicate with each other. However, in most animals it is a mix of noise meant to convey a concept, or a scent conveying some information, or maybe a flashy visual cue. The point is, the communication does not provide for deeper concepts. Everything is kind of precanned, with maybe only a couple thousand different expressions possible.

Language, however, allows intricate expression of varied concepts. You don’t have to know a whole lot to start stringing words together.

This is key in how humans thinking differs from other animals. Maybe not all other animals, as dolphins seem to have a well developed language too. But this language skill gives us an ability to take our penchant for abstract thought and apply a linear framework to it.

When you think, you think by “talking” to yourself with an internal dialogue. Maybe its your voice, maybe its not even a voice. Some people think in words that are spelled out visually. Like, instead of listening to an internal narrator, they are reading an internal ticker tape.

Regardless, this is the key difference. This internal dialogue allows a concentration on a linear thought process. Of course, tangential thought has some benefits. But it just does not allow you to think and plan, nor to delve deep topics that require logic.

And logic, truly, is the creme de la creme of linear thought. If you have the ability to think in a linear manner, you have the ability to apply logic to problems, and find solutions.

This is also the key “thought module” that allows for mathmatical skill. And the scientific method.

bigfatfurrytexan
The internal dialogue is still there. We just control both aspects of it now.

As mentioned previously, in this line of thought you can see how speech could have forced a change in our brains. Once speech was the mechanism of the internal dialogue, there was a schizm in the mind that became apparent.

But that aside, we still have our internal dialogue.

An excerpt from something I wrote on my blog awhile back:

In this vein, I declare that dogs are highly intelligent beings. Just not in the way we would normally classify. But their ability to process the massive inputs of sensory data related to smell and hearing (standing out among their other 3 normal senses), combined with the increased snesory input from organs such as whiskers, and organs on their paws, increases the workload on a brain that is notably smaller than ours.

I think the key difference here is that dogs are not prone to abstract thought. They are very concrete. The difference being, concrete thought is “here and now”, whereas abstract thought involves conceptualizing the future and making plans around it. This is not something a dog is prone to, although you will see it on occasion.

A good example of this is that most dogs (not all) are very poor at identifying human intent while pointing. If you point at something, they tend to just look at the end of your finger. Some hunting breeds, when in rural areas, may develop such abstract thinking skills (as a by product of rural, hunting life).

I say all of that to get to my point: i have been pondering this difference in thinking, trying to understand a dogs mind more. Trying to figure out how to think like a dog, if you will I think it would be a great exercise in probing my own consciousness.

Today it occured to me what the difference is: the internal dialogue.

All animals have communication. One form or another, they communicate with each other. However, in most animals it is a mix of noise meant to convey a concept, or a scent conveying some information, or maybe a flashy visual cue. The point is, the communication does not provide for deeper concepts. Everything is kind of precanned, with maybe only a couple thousand different expressions possible.

Language, however, allows intricate expression of varied concepts. You don’t have to know a whole lot to start stringing words together.

This is key in how humans thinking differs from other animals. Maybe not all other animals, as dolphins seem to have a well developed language too. But this language skill gives us an ability to take our penchant for abstract thought and apply a linear framework to it.

When you think, you think by “talking” to yourself with an internal dialogue. Maybe its your voice, maybe its not even a voice. Some people think in words that are spelled out visually. Like, instead of listening to an internal narrator, they are reading an internal ticker tape.

Regardless, this is the key difference. This internal dialogue allows a concentration on a linear thought process. Of course, tangential thought has some benefits. But it just does not allow you to think and plan, nor to delve deep topics that require logic.

And logic, truly, is the creme de la creme of linear thought. If you have the ability to think in a linear manner, you have the ability to apply logic to problems, and find solutions.

This is also the key “thought module” that allows for mathmatical skill. And the scientific method.

"The internal dialogue is still there. We just control both aspects of it now."

An excellent observation.

I myself like to use religious metaphor to say something similar. Language
is the tree of good and evil. The 'good' can be logic. The 'evil' is the
proliferation of symbols in the mind, which eventually choke out
all useful communication with the portions of the brain/mind
which don't use those particular symbols.

KPB

poet1b
reply to post by LittleByLittle

 

What this makes me wonder, is if, we went through some change, that disconnected us from our higher selves.

In ancient tales, the gods were once amongst us, and then they were gone.

Any good mystic, shaman, or whatever you want to name them
knows exactly what happened; they spend their entire lives
counteracting the damage that was done.

There was a time when mankind was inspired by the beauty
of nature, and that beauty built patterns in the brain. The
stars too.. it could even be argued that the stars so entranced
early humans, that just this beauty helped cause the 'great
leap forward' (caused brains to evolve new capabilities via
the Baldwin effect.

en.wikipedia.org...

The exact mechanism is that those who were most struck
by the 'non-earthly patterns' of the stars, and unconsciously
attempted to 'solve the riddle of the stars' (that's what
brains do) formed neural connections which gave them
a survival advantage.

Ok, well maybe not all mystics know this.. but this one
knows it.. now you do too.

When mankind was exposed to natural electromagnetic
rhythms AND when their minds were not filled to
overflowing with human culture (memes), humans could
'hear the gods' (sense the electromagnetic patterns in
nature).

Yes, there was a personification of the non-human into
more human forms (thus hawk headed deities.. when
at first it was just the hawk).

Now I know that people want physical gods walking
the Earth in the ancient past... that is an entirely
different subject.

My 2 cents.

KPB

reply to post by poet1b


You asked the question.

Quote. This is something I always wondered about. God seemed to have talked to a lot of people back in the day, but for some reason, went silent long ago.

I can give you the biblical answer to that. The first century Jews managed to so offend their God he slapped the world with a 2000 year Leviticus 26 curse that's still running. Simply put in the first century or the 69th week of the Daniel 9 prophecy what they did was to kill Elijah the Prophet. Which according to the book of Malachi was one of the four messiahs the Jews were expecting. So according to Malachi 4 KJV (different bibles have different ways of numbering this chapter) they triggered a curse. Also see Matthew 17 verses 10 to 13.

So working out the details led me to Leviticus 26 and the book of Hosea. Where I found the details of the curse. And to put it simply the world got cut off from God.

There is also the reality, that as we domesticated ourselves, we lost touch with nature.

As we created these artificial environments in which we now exist, as we became separated from the natural world, we lost our ability to communicate at that level, we no longer speak the language.

When we hear the birds, we hear noise, but maybe at one time, we understood the language.

I know plenty of people who love nature, but it is something they only experience visually, they do not wander off of the path.

I think we need to make something clear here...


It was not a cataclysm. That occurred....


It was our awareness of SELF..

We left the gods...


However you want to portray that sentence...

We left them...


They did not leave us..

We are the ones that wish to become the gods...


The same folly as before.

I have enough distortion on this forum, to where my words are getting washed out..

So be it, but I still have this blood running thru my veins, and I still see, what I see, the cracks in the walls, and the disdain in the hope we emit, as we climb up the long life....


Do not look at my light, let it be skewed by my vice....