Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

functionalneurology.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#91

Post by michaelmrose »

starbeast wrote: post #56
michaelmrose wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting between 1% and 84% with differently phrased questions with different people doesn't mean that we can mash the results together and get some number in between. There being an acceptable way to do so doesn't mean it tells you anything meaningful about the world. Getting widely divergent numbers means to me that we don't have any accurate understanding.

>Getting between 1% and 84% with differently phrased questions with different people doesn't mean that we can mash the results together and get some number in between. First stating the range within the existing literature is useful and common practice, at least within academic article writing. It also doesn't generally mean that any numbers mentioned in the article thereafter are derived by the author mashing the re…

In the prior race between almost nobody and almost everybody voted democrat. Not too useful.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#92

Post by goto11 »

rjplatte wrote: post #69
coldtea wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jaynes was a professor at Princeton University, so he must've built up enough credibility to get this appointment Well, Pauling got two Nobel prizes, but still had crackpot theories about Vitamin C

Both Jaynes and Pauling are extremely intelligent and not gullible people. Why are we so quick to dismiss their "Crackpot" theories, simply because they don't fit with the dominant paradigm?

It is quite possible for intelligent people to be wrong, especially when they venture outside their area of expertise.

And the cliche about "dominant paradigm" ignores the actual reasons the theory is rejected. Quantum Theory shows that a theory will be accepted even if fundamentally breaks with the dominant paradigm - as long as it can be confirmed by evidence. So that is not really the issue.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#93

Post by starbeast »

michaelmrose wrote: post #91
starbeast wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Getting between 1% and 84% with differently phrased questions with different people doesn't mean that we can mash the results together and get some number in between. First stating the range within the existing literature is useful and common practice, at least within academic article writing. It also doesn't generally mean that any numbers mentioned in the article thereafter are derived by the author mashing the re…

In the prior race between almost nobody and almost everybody voted democrat. Not too useful.

If you cannot work out by yourself why an academic article would include that the historical range of the subject under discussion is all over the place, then I am not sure that any attempt of leading you to it is going to help. Perhaps just have a bit more of a think about it. Have you read any of the referenced papers?

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#94

Post by michaelmrose »

starbeast wrote: post #93
michaelmrose wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the prior race between almost nobody and almost everybody voted democrat. Not too useful.

If you cannot work out by yourself why an academic article would include that the historical range of the subject under discussion is all over the place, then I am not sure that any attempt of leading you to it is going to help. Perhaps just have a bit more of a think about it. Have you read any of the referenced papers?

If the range is that large either some or all of the studies were poorly done or too different to compare.

It seems that much of what passes for social sciences isn't really science.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#95

Post by starbeast »

michaelmrose wrote: post #94
starbeast wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you cannot work out by yourself why an academic article would include that the historical range of the subject under discussion is all over the place, then I am not sure that any attempt of leading you to it is going to help. Perhaps just have a bit more of a think about it. Have you read any of the referenced papers?

If the range is that large either some or all of the studies were poorly done or too different to compare. It seems that much of what passes for social sciences isn't really science.

So, you do understand why they included the wider historical review then. At least you have got exactly the point they were trying to make by including it in the first place. The literature here historically has been shit and all over the place. Which is the kind of point you might want to make if you are putting forward some other papers based on more recent studies that both opens out the field and narrows the error bars somewhat.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#96

Post by scarcely »

WaddyJones wrote: post #87
hliyan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be a counter-example. I frequently dream lucidly. But I never hear voice or see anything even remotely resembling hallucinations. I'm also one of those individuals who are not susceptible to hypnosis (I've had a professional try and fail repeatedly).

There is no such thing as an individual who is not susceptible to hypnosis because all hypnosis is self hypnosis. In fact you had to hypnotize yourself into believing that you’re not susceptible to hypnosis, which proves that the opposite is true. On another note— Actually, you do hear voices. You just don’t notice them because you assume that they are your “inner voice.” If you just gave the process of thinking your…

Agreed. It's not for nothing we talk about "thinking out loud". That suggests that there is some kind of vague awareness that thinking and speaking are not fundamentally different activities (compare: "feeling aroused/jealous out loud" which doesn't even make sense)

Sometimes I wonder if human acquired the ability to "silently" think thoughts only recently. That the ability to silently think evolved much like how the ability to silently read evolved (even today I sometimes run into country folks who have little ability to read without audibly reading, or cannot transfer their password from phone to computer without broadcasting it to everyone around)

Presumably audible thinking and audible reading were the original forms. Then silent thinking and silent reading evolved because of their obvious utility (it's fitness enhancing to be able to hide your thoughts from your enemy blah blah)

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#97

Post by WaddyJones »

scarcely wrote: post #96
WaddyJones wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as an individual who is not susceptible to hypnosis because all hypnosis is self hypnosis. In fact you had to hypnotize yourself into believing that you’re not susceptible to hypnosis, which proves that the opposite is true. On another note— Actually, you do hear voices. You just don’t notice them because you assume that they are your “inner voice.” If you just gave the process of thinking your…

Agreed. It's not for nothing we talk about "thinking out loud". That suggests that there is some kind of vague awareness that thinking and speaking are not fundamentally different activities (compare: "feeling aroused/jealous out loud" which doesn't even make sense) Sometimes I wonder if human acquired the ability to "silently" think thoughts only recently. That the ability to silently think evolved much like how the…

Fascinating comment all around. I fully agree. It never occurred to me that “silent thinking” and “silent reading” are relatively new phenomena. But after reading this comment it’s so obvious that they are.
Post reply on HN