Slashdot Mirror

I must admit that I am very confused by your post. Are you trying to say that people do not experience hallucinations?

No, what I'm saying is that every person would go through this transition where they would have auditory/visual hallucinations, and its clear that not everyone at the time, centuries ago, did.

I do not believe that Jaynes' theory implies that exactly. As I understand it, there are particular social conditions that were once widespread that encouraged hallucinatory experiences. I would expect people to still experience hallucinations today, and they do: imaginary childhood "friends", dead relatives, and "god".

but I haven't seen anything that can be used to dismiss it today

I have, see the following;

Block, N. (1981). Review of Julian Jayne's Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Cognition and Brain Theory

Implying that consciousness is a cultural construct?!

I believe Ned Block's criticism was that culture somehow changed to reflect what humans were doing all along. With what we understand about the role of language in thought, this now looks like nonsense. Broadly speaking, yes, consciousness is a cultural construct, but so is agriculture, and the Internet.

Asaad G, Shapiro B. What about the bicameral mind? Am J Psychiatry 1987

Dennett, Daniel (1986). "Julian Jaynes's Software Archeology". Canadian Psychology

That auditory hallucinations played such a major role in human human mind and history is somewhat difficult to believe.

An audio hallucination sounds just like the real thing to the brain. It can be pretty mysterious if you experience it, and do not know what it is. I do not find it at all difficult to accept that a group of people could adopt a "useful" interpretation of such an experience, such as attributing it to "god" or some other relation. In fact, I've met people who currently have these experiences, and attribute them to "ghosts" or "god" or whatever. It would seem that such talk is readily dismissed as nonsense. I tend to have some respect for the experiences of others, though perhaps not their interpretations.

Though I have been quite a fan of Dennett over the years, I am not familiar with his latest views, if they have in fact changed.

As for the transition from a bicameral world to the one we inhabit today, Jaynes discusses his idea in detail, perhaps you've forgotten it?

Well if your talking about religion, schizophrenia and the general need for external authority in decision-making as being the "left overs" of bicameralism, I would argue schizophrenia is a real chemical imbalance that has nothing to do with religion, but might have more in common with creative genius, http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/byrd.html

I do not find "a real chemical imbalance" to be very illuminating, even if it does imply a neurotransmitter deficiency. There are a few interesting associations with schizophrenia, but Jaynes proposes a far more useful way of looking at the condition.

And a need for external authority in decision-making, that's not a real strong argument in itself, as there are plenty of other reasons for this from even an evolutionary perspective.

I do not understand this criticism at all, please elaborate.

I must admit that I am very confused by your post. Are you trying to say that people do not experience hallucinations?

No, what I'm saying is that every person would go through this transition where they would have auditory/visual hallucinations, and its clear that not everyone at the time, centuries ago, did.

but I haven't seen anything that can be used to dismiss it today

I have, see the following;

Block, N. (1981). Review of Julian Jayne's Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Cognition and Brain Theory

Implying that consciousness is a cultural construct?!

Asaad G, Shapiro B. What about the bicameral mind? Am J Psychiatry 1987

Dennett, Daniel (1986). "Julian Jaynes's Software Archeology". Canadian Psychology

That auditory hallucinations played such a major role in human human mind and history is somewhat difficult to believe.

As for the transition from a bicameral world to the one we inhabit today, Jaynes discusses his idea in detail, perhaps you've forgotten it?

Well if your talking about religion, schizophrenia and the general need for external authority in decision-making as being the "left overs" of bicameralism, I would argue schizophrenia is a real chemical imbalance that has nothing to do with religion, but might have more in common with creative genius, http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/byrd.html

And a need for external authority in decision-making, that's not a real strong argument in itself, as there are plenty of other reasons for this from even an evolutionary perspective.

It's as inconsistent as genetics. Dominance isn't an act of opening one's mouth - it's interpersonal.

There's a whole *science* of how people work, that's developed far beyond arm-chair philosophising. You can't use wishful thinking to change the human condition.

The problem is, how do you know its the parents making that decision?

You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's.

So, the government is either allowed to make laws in this regard or they are not. You can't say that it's OK to put age restrictions on purchasing arms, which is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution by NAME, but not on video games, which are not mentioned. And before you say "freedom of speech", the speech the founders were referring to was political speech, as in, you are allowed to criticize the government. Freedom of expression is not mentioned. For that matter, neither is freedom of commerce. The only way a video game can considered free speech is if it's free, as in beer.

Also, here is what Judge Richard A. Posner said:

'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"

Sounds to me like HE (speaking for the state) is making the final say, not the parents. Do you agree that the state should decide when my children can be exposed to violence?

No, the judge did NOT say that, nor did any of the other judges who shot down these laws. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
I didn't. I evaluated what the ruling meant. You said that parents have the final say. The result of this law is the exact opposite. Parents do NOT have the final say. The judge himself said parents making that decision would be would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. Now, if the laws were banning these games completely, he would have a point, but
that was not the case. These laws forced the parents to decide, and he thought parents would over shield their children. That's MY decision, not his!

Unlike you, I comprehended it all. Which is why, for your convenience, I've changed the emphasis to show why it doesn't even approach the conclusiveness you need to be taken seriously on a forum, let alone successfully defend a law in court.
Funny, when I list an article that was written in the '90's, you say it's too old. When I list an article that says the same thing, from 2003, you say it doesn't mean anything. YOU set up the rules by saying that "Rational people do not ignore scientific research". I provided that research. Research, btw, only suggests. Research doesn't "prove", especially when dealing with something as fluid as psychology. For there to be laws in psychology, all people would have to act the same to stimuli, and they don't.
I'm sorry if those with doctorates disagree with what you "think", but a rational person wouldn't let their personal opinions interfere with the years of research that went into these studies.

But, if you don't like my sources, I'll even offer a few more.
HERE (PDF warning)
HERE (update of above, also pdf)
HERE (Last edited 11/9/05)
HERE
and HERE

Of course, there are several more, but a "rational person" would get the idea. Besides, from the looks of the judges

discussion here.

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/kooijman s.html
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abst racts/2000-2004/01AB.pdf
http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/familyresources/a /vidgameviolence.htm

Yea... nobody confuses the two.

Spearman, the statistician, came up with the original IQ term. You can google or read a little about it http://www.personalityresearch.org/intelligence/sp earman.html at that link.

Wexler came up with the most commonly used IQ test.

Both are male, BTW.

I don't believe that one number adequately describes a person's cognitive ability.

Most athletes are considered "dumb" by stereotype. Yet, look at what the announcers say when a player makes a mistake or a good move. In a mistake, we ask "What was he thinking?" "Is he stupid?" In a good move we say "What a brilliant move", etc. Ever seen a good basketball player that always seems to be in the right place at the right time? Is it because he physically overcome the others, or because he "knows" where to be?

Athletics, besides something like powerlifting, are primarily cognitive tasks, not physical ones. That is why they practice. That is why they have a coach. That is why the coach yells at them, and not asks them why they do not have physical abilities to do something.

However, I would imagine that most athletes would score lower on IQ tests than some other subset of the population. Feel free to fill in the blank.

From what I understand the evidence for multiple intelligences comes from the fact that they don't significantly correlate. Improving one aspect will not improve another and you can't make yourself more intelligent overall by practising one specific thing. However, this is only one theory and there are others which suggest otherwise (this is just the one that i feel is most accurate)

You can dig a fair amount of info up on google. Information from universities and their lecturers is probably the best place to start

Here's one website that discusses intelligence: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/paik.htm l