Is bicamerality bullshit?

Here's what I googled up on The Consciousness Gene:

quote:

---

We humans assume that our consciousness is something more than just the sum total of all our senses, as integrated by our brains. In other words, consciousness is something "special" that makes us more than automatons. Other animals may be automatons, but not us!

​

D. Jones speculates in Nature that if consciousness is a definite, inheritable characteristic, it must have had survival value for it to have evolved. It then follows that consciousness must be en-coded somewhere in our genes. Only a single gene may be enough, for consciousness seems to be an uncomplicated phenomenon. Why? Because just a few simple molecules, such as those found in anesthetics, can disable it completely without affecting other bodily functions.

​

Eventually, Jones continues, the gene (or small number of genes) responsible for consciousness will be identified. Then, we can determine for certain if any of the lower animals are also conscious. We think chimps and dolphins might be, but we're not really sure until we see if they have the necessary genes. In fact, the old-time behaviorists could be right, and all the other animals really are merely automatons. That would definitely make us "special"!

​

Once we have the consciousness genes in our labs, we can introduce them into those other species, such as Rover and Kitty, upon whom we would like to confer the boon of consciousness. Many interesting experiments could be per-formed, including, of course, the elimination of consciousness genes in certain selected human subjects!

​

(Jones, David; "States of Non-Mind," Nature, 403:263, 2000.)

---

Makes me wonder if a bicameral (god) gene actually does exist. And if there is indeed a god gene then there would be the predictable alleles: Christian, Jew, Islam, Hindu, Voodoo, etc.”HM

what about people who were genuinely one belief and then switched? do they have a dual gene?this is all so ridiculous. consciousness is nothing more than fuses and chemistry.

Would that mechanical explanation also apply to the voices heard by those who claim to speak with God?”HM

why aren't you asking about the imagination that makes people see unicorns? it's the same. there's nothing special about "supernatural" experience that makes it any different from any other thing that does or does not happen. if god exists, then they might be hearing him. whether he does or doesn't, they might also be using their imagination or hallucinating. this is not a special variety of hallucination, just the same old ordinary variety.

That's presented in the form of a logical argument. But I am not finding any logic."Consciousness" is a vague term. People disagree on what it means. How can a specific gene be responsible for something so non-specific? Why do you treat consciousness as a thing that you have or don't have? Surely there can be degrees of consciousness.I wondering what you mean by "bicameral". What you are saying doesn't match what I take to be the usual meaning.

---

Let's end the political smears

it means "the whole of the brain." as opposed to half of it. but, like i said, we don't need to understand precisely what does give rise to consciousness to know that certain ideas about it are wrong. and yet, you do not refute my points. as i stated above, i got basically the audiobook version. i wasn't doing the reading, but i sure got the information.my "crackpot" opinion is gathered from the information above, none of which you cared to even try to refute: he's wrong on a whole plethora of topics. it's also gathered from talking to psychologists -- that's what they think of him. like i said, you bring him up in psychological circles and you'll get same groans as if you talk about feduccia in paleontological circles, and the same groans you'll get if you bring up ron wyatt in biblical archaeology circles. he's a crackpot. it was a creative idea in the 70's, but it's been disproven. and, to my knowledge, he kept pushing it to the day he died. and gained a lot of followers who didn't seem to care that all of the supporting arguments were wrong. i think it's fairly easy to understand that some people do not think in words. and i'm really not sure what your point is anyways -- jaynes does not argue that consciousness is linguistic. in fact, he argues that a lot of people with written language were preconscious. clearly this is not jayne's definition -- what's your's?further, it's a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? people capable of language misinterpretting their own language centers? either they're in conscious control of their linguistic faculties, or they are not.

---

ask hoot mon. he seems to think consciousness is linguistic (but that some language doesn't count).i would say that symbolic representation of ideas is a conscious act. admittedly, i don't have a good argument for it. if you'd like to submit a counter argument, i'd be more than willing to consider it.

---

I've never seen one, nor have I heard godly voices. What am I lacking then? Imagination? No, I have a good imagination. What I am lacking is bicamerality. I lack what Jerry Falwell has: the ability to hear God's voice and to communicate with Him. Are you ready to say that Jerry Falwell is only having an imagined experience when he talks to God? What would Rev. Falwell say about that?If Jerry Falwell speaks to God then I would say he fits the description of being bicameral.”HM

quote:

---

Would that mechanical explanation also apply to the voices heard by those who claim to speak with God?

---

Yes, the body's increase in production of dimethyltriptamine during the "religious experience".

quote:

---

What would Rev. Falwell say about that?

---

Nothing, he's dead.

helen keller had a human brain that functioned normally. consciousness is an artifact of the operation of the human brain. the only "consciousness genes" are the ones responsible for the brain.now, we might argue over coma patients. people with inactive frontal lobes may not be conscious. significant brain damage does disrupt consciousness. you're still using "bicamerality" in an especially bullshit way. jaynes was not arguing that this is the source of modern religion. as i stated above, you will find far simpler explanations in classical conditioning and group think -- no brain damage needed. if you ask a believer. ask a recovering christian next time. (where's crashfrog when we need him?) once again. truly bicameral minds, the ones with fully or partially severed corpus callosums, do not have audible hallucinations. auditory hallucinations are caused schizophrenia (which does not actually mean "bicameral" as much as it sounds like it does), improper balances of neuroreceptors, and in some cases poor blood flow to the brain.that's called "completely falsified." not only does the supposed state not cause the effects, but we know that the effects are caused by other factors. this is a very poor excuse for logic. besides the above hole, it's jumping to conclusions, incredulity, and false anecdotal evidence. you do not certainly know that you cannot have auditory hallucinations -- otherwise conscious and rational people have them as the result of various medications or brain injury. if we did either of those things to you, it's very possible that you would hear voices. and all with a perfectly working corpus callosum.

---

you and every other eutherian mammal.

---

are you then suggesting that you're more evolved than the religious? that's an awfully self-righteous assumption for you to make.

Shouldn't be too much trouble for a bicameral person like, say, Benny Hinn, to simply ask God to ask Jerry the question and then get back to him. We all could know within day.”HM

Yes, I have strayed somewhat from the usual meaning. I'm doing that because I don't know what else to call "hearing God's voice and speaking with Him." I'm calling it "bicameral." What would you call it? Just more Tinkerbell foolishness?”HM