Bicamereal mind

How many of you have heard the theory of the Bicamereal Mind?
For those who don't know it, it is basically this….
Consciousness is a CULTURAL invention and basically a tool, like any other for humans, and not something that inherently sprung up out of human evolution.
The idea that human consciousness, as we know it and practice it, is something spawned as early as 1000 B.C. and that before then we were basically operating like animals.
My own spin on this is that we operated akin to ants..only on a LARGER scale.

The thing about this theory, since it's not an evolutionary theory but a cultural and perhaps, more importantly, a linguistic one…there is a chance that "consciousness" is not taught the same in every culture…or perhaps that maybe people in the same culture have the same sort of consciousness experience that you do.
This could have loads of implications when it comes to politics, especially when it comes to the tribal nature of political parties.

My proposal, perhaps some people are LESS conscious than others and are simply going along with their tribe because certain "gods" give them reason to?

Attached: there-is-no-spoon-there-is-also-no-hallucination.png (2040x1200 49.07 KB, 1.04M)

Other urls found in this thread:

booksdescr.org/ads.php?md5=88E361629764BF75BE011B90AE9E4B0C
youtube.com/watch?v=1FD5lReqe64
youtube.com/watch?v=UAnySx2lHC8
andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/08/cowabunga-origin.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Edwards
aimeeknight.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/edwards-the-new-drawing-on-the-right-side-of-the-brain-viny.pdf
eurocanadian.ca/2018/07/the-higher-cognitive-fluidity-of-white-origins-consciousness.html
youtube.com/watch?v=lgnMyF-o0sQ

Consciousness is not what separates us from the animals. Neither is culture to a large extent.
It's our highly developed language which allowed for abstract thinking and the passing of that thinking across generations, your "conscious" mind is nothing more than a logic filter, seeing if your unconscious thoughts make sense in your languages logical framework, that's why you "think" in a language.
Most people are less conscious, didn't you see the study that gooks have no internal monologue?
But if you start thinking of yourself as just your internal monologue you have lost connection to the rest of being alive, you are still an animal.
And free will doesn't exist.

Define consciousness and levels thereof. Fact of the matter is the IQ is absolutely different between "tribes". I've known people with very high IQs who were great at learning, but total shit at thinking. And there's a massive difference between the two. You don't qualify as a thinker because you lack the "conscious" to apply logic to some bullshit you just "learned".

Consciousness is enternal, and your theory is kike drivel.

I'd wager it has something to do with IQ. Most of pol is higher than average IQ, and I seem to remember a lot of people in in those threads saying they also didn't think with language because it was too slow of a process (including me). I can think in language, but grouping certain chains of logic (truth) into certain feelings and being able to compare those feelings to others quickly is why I'm personally able to figure out solutions to a lot of things very quickly. Hard to explain, but it's like quickly remembering why something wouldn't or would work in a chain in logic. Suddenly reasoning appears in your brain and you're like, "oh yeah, that's why."

consciousness is basics to everything. There is nothing else. There is only mind and this reality is our dream. We came here to grow through experience. When we die, we will remember our true self that is total of all lifes we have lived.There is nothing you can observe beyond consciousness so it is definitely most fundamental to existence.

Close your eyes, that is where you are always been, all that you feel, hear, smell is your dream that you have decided to experience. These rules that we live by, that makes duality, matter, our matrix.. is created by our higher consciousness.

The brain is a wet Quantum computer. When you hear stuff from other people, it's because your minds have become partially entangled.

think i read there's racial and linguistic influences on measurable brain functions(?), meaning we don't perceive the world the same

consciousness is infinity, nothing, there cant be nothing beyond it. Everything is imagined by it.

As for the tribal stuff. Tribalism is the only logical conclusion to reality.

kek'd

I'm talking about consciousness as we tend to claim to experience it.
The "I" that is both analog and metaphorical. This internal theater of mind, be it images, dialogue, or both.
The idea that what we consider our "selves" is a learned behavior that is more akin to a technology than a birthright.


Jayne's theory doesn't seem dependent upon IQ and in fact may even rail against it.
In fact, the idea of Jayne's theory where reasonings and such appear more readily would push more towards the bicamereal ideal than the conscious. Consciousness seems more of a buffer that slows things down.


"gods" in this theory is a mechanism of bicamereal experience.


You know, i'm beginning to think that nobody that's replied to this thread has even been even remotely exposed to this theory.

Attached: jbareham_190618_ply0921_0214_2.0.jpg (1200x675, 103.33K)

Brain is just tool for duality, to make us feel separate to other life. This is safe sandbox for our little consciousness to grow. Its all law created by our higher consciousness.

Interesting book, but the only evidence offered is bronze-age literature. Would explain NPC phenomena very.

Ebook for anyone who actually cares: booksdescr.org/ads.php?md5=88E361629764BF75BE011B90AE9E4B0C

OP is definitely onto something here. I'm convinced that all sandniggers have bi camel minds.

I am even more allergic to bullshit than I am to this site's constant faggot invasion.

This is something hinted at but never gone full bore into in any respectable way.
There have been studies that talk about multiple lingual people and what talking/thinking in the different languages do to their personalities.
There does not seem to be something dealing with it on a level of society though.
What do multiple lingual societies view as virtues vs single languages? individuals? etc etc.

It would seem like the mainstream of people have this idea that their language has no effect on their self or their society. But the language is as much of a tool and cultural mold as anything else.
Imagine a nation of people that never learned to invent sharp tips at the end of spears yet they were able to kill animals all the same. Imagine that going through the ages…what that might look like as other technologies developed?
Language can be kind of the same way.

Also look at something….I have never seen any spanish people complaining about gender. Their language has gender built in, unlike english. In spanish language every day objects have male and female attachments.
"latinX" I propose is the invention of those who speak english as their primary language and is promoted by those who are at the very base are loose second to third generation children of spanish origin immigrants to english speaking countries.

Read the book but didnt understand it. But intresting. So gods voice is just some brain function that slowly disapears?

youtube.com/watch?v=1FD5lReqe64
youtube.com/watch?v=UAnySx2lHC8

There is nothing that can be beyond consciousness, so it has to be most fundamental and "matter", this world created by it.

Why I refuse to learn whatever that shit Mestizos speak.

I don't want to be associated with them whatsoever. The leftists constantly try to say I am Hispanic, but haven't a drop of non Germanic DNA anywhere in me.

No, not exactly. IIRC, it's more like cross-chatter between the different hemispheres of the brain getting picked up by whichever part of the brain processes audio signals. For whatever reason (not well explained in the book) this voice which originally manifested as that of a distinctive entity disappeared by the end of the bronze age (axial age) and became consciousness/internal dialogue.

That could be true. I've noticed that a lot of people on the left and right hold beliefs that they don't necessarily know why they have on a conciously. Rather people have to figure out ways to rationalize and articulate their viewpoints that seem "natural" to them. The difference is when people hear something with better reasoning than themselves and don't change their opinion, then they really are a slave to their "God."

On halfchan Zig Forums, High Level Insider's LARP introduced Julian Jaynes' ideas.

To the public, the recent Westworld TV series did the same with a simple version of the theory.

So people who are schizophrenic have still this "voice" from the old ages or is this not related?
Is this all related to the subconsciousnes and that it is much faster in processing then the normal conscisnes?

Was a good larp thoug. Enjoyed the contend

I believe you're referring to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. It's an interesting one. Supposedly it's been disproven. But from memory, the study design didn't look all that convincing, and in either case, social science research generally isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

...

Something that kind of took a back seat over time but it was culture, not so much biological evolution, that did this reorganization of how we think.
The later parts of the book go into some peculiarities about schizophrenia and even some brief musings on to early children.

The central idea being that early man, for everything they built and that we know, was basically going through the motions. Moving their dirt around like ants do to make their cities and behaving sort of like apes that can get remote commands but not really.

Gods in the sense of the bicamereal man is basically an authoritative voice that commands one to do things. As populations expand and things get more complex this becomes less of a direct person and more of a concept that is embodied. The breakdown that leads to consciousness is when these different cultures (gods) clash as people are forced together.
Bicamereal man didn't "imagine" things as we do but basically experienced them. So any "god" that talked to them they considered it outright.
The way I've conceptualized it is consider your pet dog trying to discern the difference between commands you are giving it in person vs commands it is seeing/hearling from you on a TV or something like that. There might be some weird perceptual differences to the dog itself but ultimately it's seeing and hearing what you want it to do and it is compelled to do these things.


I found it well explained if given the time the theory was made in the 60's and 70's.


The idea of schizophrenics are touched on and they're treated as possible evidence of the bicameral theory but are also treated as malfunctions.
Severe schizophrenics apparently dealing with the dissolution of what they consider themselves as a prime example.

The schizophrenia connection is possible, my memory of the book is a bit fuzzy but I don't think Jaynes really explores it. It's definitely plausible though. For starters, schizophrenics in non-western countries often do not experience their schizophrenia as negative. Many experience the voices as ancestors or spirits, which is interesting. I also recall reading something about the prevalence of schizotypal traits in various shaman types and full-blown schizophrenia in relatives of such shamans. Highly suggestive. As for the subconscious/conscious divide, the idea accoridng to Jaynes is that what we call the subonscious is really more like the default operating mode of humanity, whereas consciousness is more like a very recent innovation needed for solving more complex problems, like how to survive in a rapidly aridifying desert full of savages who want to kill you.

That sounds like your caricature of what the study actually said

I've very recently went through his book at you do have some correct points…
But there is this point where it seems like there is unprecedented cruelty towards the conquered and he seems to describe that as the conscious basically clashing with those that are still bicameral and wiping them out.

There is also this idea that the reason why the Aztecs and others rolled over so readily is that they were still bicameral and couldn't really deal with conscious man really fucking their shit up.

The theory on the whole was well explained. But it's been a while since I read it, and I'm a fuzzy bit on exactly how he proposed the god-voice morphed into conscious thought. I mean I guess it kind of makes sense that over time more and more people heard the voice, people became more used to it and it became more integrated as a result. Alternatively/concurrently, it seems possible that very few people heard it to begin with.

Didnt he describe it as evolution, that the brain changes like the rest of the body in a Evolutenary way?

From what I understood, it springs forth from a few things.
So examining apes and chimps in the wild they have some crude grunts and such but they're mostly watching body language for cues as to what to do in the group. being as we are a form of these same social animals, we must do some of the same. However, as we develop language as part of however we've come to be, the functions now become less dependent upon direct line of sight view of the leader of the group.
The "god" is now some hallucination that the human has of the leader's most-likely will but also of just some random chance of problem solving. Human brains are pretty damn special and so you have this entire hemisphere dedicated to solving problems and this other hemisphere dedicated to just doing the functions needed to keep alive. You feed the working hemisphere with the "intellectual" ideas of the other and that's how you build things.

The idea is that basically everyone heard it but as populations boomed things got more complex and the whole breakdown that creates consciousness comes from meeting others from other "gods" and also from the complexity of the internal hierarchies breaking down.
There is this idea that the "god" portion of the brain was already supposing this idea of "others" and "self" as these tribes of people clashed into eachother and observed, on a surface level, other cultures and methods of doing things.


he describes a model of the brain for the time (1960s/70s) that seems to account for his theory but he's mostly railing against the idea that consciousness is JUST an evolutionary outcome. That the human brain just so happened to construct in a way that re-organization of thought into what we now call consciousness is a function of culture and learning, a technology (like the spear, fire, or the brick house) and not a given from breeding.

You're talking about the part describing the akkadians and other such savages? I do recall this, it's an interesting point. What's especially interesting is that it all takes place around the end of the bronze age, which is fair we find a very abrupt introduction of materialism (in the philosophical sense of holding thought and matter to be distinctive entities and matter to be fundamental or at least co-fundamental with thought) into the philosophies of that time. This also ushered in a period of brutal, brutal warfare that lasted well into the common era. It does seem plausible that these things could have been caused by a bumpy transition from a situation om whoch whole societies transition from a fairly non-differentiated sense of self (that is to say identifying oneself with one's kin-group) being the norm, to an even less differentiated sense of self (identification with city-state, state religion, loyalty to god-king) and then abruptly to a totally differentiated sense of self (individuality as defined in relatively modern terms).

Right…
and since I came across this theory some other things started to have a bit of a different clarity to them.
To which I think this process isn't complete and that we're still fighting the fights of those old ancient days of first awakening but perhaps we still have some old gods kicking around in our heads.

I use the inclusive plurals here as a blanket term and not to say any one or ones in this forum specifically but to implicate humanity as a whole.

Ah yes. This makes a lot of sense. Although my understanding is that one of the hemispheres is primarily devoted to managing social relations and the other to logical reasoning and whatnot.

Also, I never really thought about it, but the ape thing is a good point. I remember reading jaynes talk about the role statues of ancient kings/gods, perhaps these serve a sort of similar function that the image and body language of the alpha male serves in ape societies, though the exact nature of this connection is uncertain to me.


Indeed, part of the problem is that when we look at the ancient gods, we assume that the ancients must have believed that these were things that actually existed in the real world in the same way that you and I do. But if consider, for example, Mars, the God of War, not as something with physical existence but the passion of war and violence itself. Then it makes sense to say that a) Mars exists. b) Mars compels people to do his will. c) Mars is immortal and very, very powerful.

This also explains why ancient peoples didn't have much issue with mixing and matching their gods. A practice that would be utterly heretical for christians, and one that I always found exceedingly odd without this context.

Is there any current scientific work i can look into?

“Send Her Back” lacks the requisite FREEDOM of choice and self-determination.

“She Can Leave”, on the other hand, puts the choice back on her.

I think consciousness is a intrinsic property based on entangled states of information. More specifically (with brains at least) neurons would share non-local correlations with other neurons resulting in synchronicity. In a sense when a neuron fires an action potential, it can possess entangled information regarding non-local correlated peers, not just locally upstream ones. This would be important because asynchronous/stochastic sub-networks would need a way to represent all their data into one seamless experience, robust to errors/latency in local spiking behavior.

It's likely the development of consciousness itself was due to pressure to increase this level of synchronicity of sub-networks, so more information can be comprehended "simultaneously". Language would have been perfect fuel for its advancement, as language demands abstracting fragments of information from many sub-networks to build a singular representation of it.

When viewed like that, it sounds to me the Bicameral mind was a side-effect of this developing.

Huh, id+ one yid and the thread empties. Pottery.

Dont get it

Not bad though.

Still pissed at these fucking kikes, they still haven't paid what is owed.

Getting money from a damn Jew that facilitated a commercial exchange with a Government agency is proving to be the most difficult thing I have ever tried to do. I know they have the money already, they spent 4 million of it to fight me already.

Even worse the agency knows they fucked me over, and even the damn President is aware.

What the fuck?

I've read something some time ago about Christianity being a way to shake oneself out of "learned helplessness"
It's about the battle of Covadonga, the northenmost point of muslim invasion in Spain, where the tide turned because everybody fought back against the forces of the cult of death and slavery
andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/08/cowabunga-origin.html

Emergence of "individual responsibility", with its pendant of "individual rights"
Christianity was the first religion to say "you, yes you, will be judged by how good you have been in your life, with everything you did taken into account"
All the other before were about "predestination", or everybody will go to the "kingdom of the dead", or "spirits of your ancestors", or "the worthy will dine with the gods"

This would place the emergence of the conscious mind at the end of the Roman Empire

More likely the Moors ran into French archers, and then realized that the archers were raised as hunters and could actually hit their targets.

...

The word you guys are looking for is not 'consciousness' it's 'awareness'. Being aware of the self and what that means is what separates us from animals. Learn some Buddhism, it was created by Aryans after all.

what the fuck are you talking about you moron?
it's not because a thread is diferent from "commies/lefties/drumpf
/government bad" that it's not Zig Forumsworthy
go be an alt-righter on reddit


nope, they can't if they're jews, "christian's individual rights and responsibilities" and stuff, not "chosen race"


the hypothesis is that the underclass of slaves actually got motivated to act constructively, making use of this newfangled "self-consciousness" thing brought by christianity, and participated in the victory
"hunters who got promoted to archers in the regular army" is different from "the herd of slaves considered as cattle who will belong to the victor"
the slaves gained awareness due to christianity, as suggested by

Triune Brain plus Bicameral Mind, git gud

Utter and complete fantasy.

Being a Christian, I am not that delusional.

There were these people that didn't act like slaves well before Roman even existed. They were called the Keltois, and then later the Germans.

The Spanish got rolled over more than once. The Romans fucked themselves by killing off the Iberians and Hispanics. That left only the Celtic farmers in Spain.

Git lost faggot. It's a hypnotic alter than was implants by faggots and Jews.

Interesting, but conscious thought is at least as old as Plato. Rather I think it more likely that Christianity was a sort of response of to this emergence of consciousness and individuality. A kind of ad-hoc social engineering technology (athenian philosophy mixed with jewish law) that could make societies of individuals function effectively, as well as being a system in which people could make sense of themselves as individuals (lots of saints and martyrs (typically portrayed as ordinary people except for their faith) for people to model themselves on).

This would explain at least two things. First is the extreme emphasis on choosing to be saved. As far as I'm aware, no other religion emphasises this at all, let alone to the degree that christianity does. If you have a situation in which people are gradually waking up to a consciousness in which they can make decisions for themselves (as opposed to group consensus or obeying a god-king/priest), then this makes sense.
I forgot what the second thing is though.

An imperative, a demand in other words.
A declarative, nothing more than a statement of fact.
We all know she can leave, but she won't, so the crowds are chanting a collective demand to their god-emperor.


/thread
But seriously, if you want to have a discussion about Julian Jaynes, start a book club thread where people can actually read the book, or recommend it to the guys that do the Zig Forums book packs for the next month's edition. Also recommend the works of Marcel Kuijsten and the others of the Julian Jaynes Society who promote the theory. Ignore all the cockamamy on the Internet; I'm confident that Westworld did nothing more than to trash the reputation of an already disreputed idea by inviting a bunch of knownothings to start speculating about that which they know nothing about. Also ignore many of the criticisms of psychologists, such as that the theory doesn't account for the development of consciousness around the world at one and the same time—which is an unproven and unlikely idea, and not something that Jaynes says happened nor does his theory predict that such a thing happened. Perhaps consciousness is a function of demographic growth and not just the movement of peoples in the Mediterranean Bronze Age. Perhaps, for example, the uncontacted tribes of the world are still in a bicameral state. There's a similar idea with regard to recursion and its spread (see the Piraha language) in the field of linguistics, but that's neither here nor there.

The main criticism I personally have of the theory is the neurology of the whole thing, but on the other hand, mainstream psychology has no convincing alternative as yet to explain what consciousness is, or how it came about—except to say that humans 'evolved' it, which is precisely what Jaynes' theory refutes. Jaynes does provide in his book a convincing explanation of the nature of consciousness, in my opinion. But as to the neurological aspect of the hypothesized breakdown of the bicameral mind and how it occurred, probably more research on the minds of schizophrenics would be needed before strengthening this part of the theory.

Attached: 100324_Consciousness_accoring_to_Julian_Jaynes.jpg (1600x1200, 283.24K)

...

I have. Even read his book. What shall I contribute to this thread? Nothing. Just bump.

thanks for these books
I first read about bicameral mind (somewhat more in depth than tv-documentary level) in >>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Edwards book about drawing
(pdf too big for H8chan) >>aimeeknight.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/edwards-the-new-drawing-on-the-right-side-of-the-brain-viny.pdf

Eventually you reach absolute individualization and go a full circle, becoming very tribal because you understand that you need a proper tribe and racial consciousness in order to be truly conscious yourself and that race-mixing and globalization is essentially an attack on the higher consciousness itself. We are white supremacists because the white race is the highest expression of nature on earth, not because it's "ours" Other races should be white supremacists for the very same reason, since it's the only way for them to eventually evolve and have a decent life. Otherwise they will sacrifice everything for short term benefits, but subhuman animals are not good at strategic thinking anyway (with few rare exceptions)

Proper genetic pool (race) => Proper national pool (ethnicity) => Proper culture (racial and national collective consciousness) => Proper knowledge base => Proper inner circle (of wise, creative, high IQ people for example) => Proper consciousness/individualization/self-realization

This is the natural, generative, physical/metaphysical chain of being/becoming. Kikes are trying to sever each of it's links so people essentially devolve and go back to being slaves to their (((god))). If you destroy the genetic and cultural pool by flooding a country with niggers, you have in effect destroyed the rest. And there is no cheating, no skipping of steps when it comes to this. You can't "abridge" this, you will only create abominations and ruin everything. Of course, kikes will never understand that.

So the npc meme from an anthropological perspective?

Anyone who has ever read the Iliad in Greek knows that it's wrong. It's just moderns projecting on something much more easily explained by misunderstood extrapolations from traditionally oral (and therefore mnemonic, repetitive) literature being transferred into writing, coupled with the degenerated, semitic-Christianized mind failing to understand how ancient pagans communicated their knowledge.

History is much, much older than 3,500BC. Glaciers destroyed the evidence of them, and without evidence, the modern brainlet scientist refuses to even hypothesize, no matter how much more sense something so obvious seems to make.

I assume you've read the part where Jaynes discusses the original Greek of the Iliad. Does it sound inadequate?

Feel free to provide literature on your version of history BTW.

I'll read through the rest as I'm sure it has interesting elements but wanted to not how far off you are on your timeline of history.
Civilization dates back to at least 7,000 B.C. and documented synergistic cohesive elements have been found in archaeological dig sites throughout Mesopotamia.
It is thought that, before that, other civilizations existed before the great flood the least of which is known as Atlantis.

Hail Victory for Grammar and spelling abilities.

Attached: d08170d6e2e9ed1ec99ce617beb0330b977f715600bb174383c2cfae52c0c1a1.jpg (255x159, 10.18K)

as if it would be so easy to just say the jews dont let us become a higher self. every religion on this planet thinks they are the best and only their way is the right one.
But first when all religions can sit together and open their secrets to each other, first then we will probably know what is going on.
Or it was all a scam from the beginning. But this will not happen since the world is and was in conflict from the beginning from all times.
Except maybe the Atlantis time, when it ever existed.

Imagine if the Vatican would open the apocrypha for everyone and let the whole world share their secrets. That would probably mean that from that point on the Christian religion would die but would be reborn completely free.

We also can from a todays view probably never knew what the bicameral mind was or is when we dont know the whole history that is buried in egypt and in the middle east.

The first part of the book goes into reasons why consciousness as we know it isn't exactly needed for civilization.
And it sort of makes sense, if you consider humans as a creature who's primary survival features are social bonds and tool making and thus are geared towards solving the problems those two features create then it can work out that way.


Yeah basically. Reading through the book had me reflecting on that very point.
Perhaps people that we would consider "NPC" function in some similar or derivative way.
A bicamereal minded person would operate in a way where they hallucinated a voice of some authority figure and then they would just operate on whatever that hallucinated voice would "say". This would happen mostly when the authority figure wasn't around (gods, kings, etc) and his how they were supposed to be able to operate without constant line of sight to the alpha as apes tend to do.
A person who has consciousness as we know it has this internal theater of time and place and a conceptualization of themselves as beings that exist within a time and place and the further conceptualization that others around them have or should have the same thing. Consciousness, I believe, would be the roots of empathy in this regard.

What if, though, some people are a sort of mix? Or perhaps they are conscious as we know it but are still very much susceptible to that authority figure voice basically telling them what to do and how to act and very rarely will they deviate from this. This of course is part of how tribes (or as we call them today, parties) form and are enforced and perhaps why there is a checklist of traits/beliefs that must be adhered to.
It's also sort of the reason why I am starting to think that humans are hardwired for worship and that there are very few, if any, true atheists. Most western atheists seem to just sort of replace religion as it colloquially known (god, church, book of rules and stories, priests, etc) with something else that seems to function in every way the same as a religion with the "atheist", now no longer embarrassed culturally by the affiliation with a real "religion" can now freely dive straight into the deep end of all the practices and behaviors that one would expect from a religious zealot.

Attached: 1559865320460.jpg (4032x3024, 1008.71K)

I read and quoted from this work during a stretch of academic debt programming. It was heavy lifting and I expect noticeably boring. My motives for using this work were purely practical. It mitigates against the 'schizophrenic' appellation that institutions like to project onto its dissenters. In the oncoming lane, it has an unseemly use value for kikes since their 40% likelihood of NDST3 gene mutations results in inordinate schizophrenic features in their tribal function. At the time, I was also a rather smug venture into the Atheist affectation; so Jayne's was useful, since one could be loosely conflated with the other code in the NPC oeuvre, while kikes would be rubbing their mitts, pleased at the devaluation of their schizoid traits. Finally, because the theory has saggy tits, it leaves one in a grey zone of nihilistic apathy which is great fog while being surveilled as to whether one is chiming in with corporate globo-homo psychoticism. Champagne trust-fund socialism, really really smart bourgeois judensau biches and ultra-aesthetic faggots. Plus Niggers, Poos and a black mop throng of yerro Chankoro. Considering these ethnic vectors as a manner of cultural and conscion noise, it remains from history that their tool making, knowledge building and culture refinement are so relatively dysfunctional relative to Occidental action that the category of 'human' is not the right sized wrench. I would be willing to consider a bicameral aspect in the Occident, which has been lost. Which has been genocided, extorted, ethnocided and subverted into mere altruism.

Attached: 4e84d635d0d4258a4a56358e6d77ac8f.jpg (768x612, 126.11K)

I have heard of this theory before. I don't really understand it but it is interesting to think about. And I wonder how much the races differ in this regard.

Ricardo Duchesne talks about this in this article on the Council of European Canadians:

eurocanadian.ca/2018/07/the-higher-cognitive-fluidity-of-white-origins-consciousness.html

youtube.com/watch?v=lgnMyF-o0sQ
if anyone needs a further explanation of what bicameral mind theory is

tl:dr OP is a faggot that cant write as a human but wants to give lectures on neuroscience.

Did you post the book? I didn't see it
I'm most curious as to who the author is.
Trying to disprove consciousness and revert everything to possess non-animistic characteristic sounds awful jewy

Wish I could say I was surprised to find this one out.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-07-19 Julian Jaynes - Wikipedia.png (510x159 16.56 KB, 14.65K)

I screencapped Houghton Mifflin because they will not publish anything that aint kosher.

Yes. Yes it does sound jewy!

Attached: harry paul.jpg (477x270, 34.41K)

In his book he goes over a few of the ways the bible stories are written.
He does the same with the iliad and the odyssey and other ancient writings.
The purpose is to show a contrast in the way things are handled and ideas are conveyed and when it seems like introspection kicks into the writings of ancient people.
Towards the end of his book he has a bit about the differences between shame and guilt. Shame being an in-built thing for the social animals such as humans but guilt being more of something that springs up from having consciousness as we know it now.


The book is called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

Very relevant book. I've read the whole thing and it was entertaining and original.

Attached: 16532612395_787f96c282_b.jpg (1024x768, 149.53K)

based user

Attached: orion nebula.jpg (2875x1512, 370.03K)

I read this book. Good read, but not sure how accurate.
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes

Jaynes argues that human consciousness started as a form of schizophrenia where a persons actions were dictated by a voice separate from themselves. That’s how I read it. Highly recommend.

Sorry, not my photo just something I found on google. I guess I should look into snow crash?

Yes, you should. The protagonist is an autistic nigger who lugs around a katana but the subject matter is pretty relevant to this thread and it had a huge impact on both the world wide web's development and terminology.

I recognized the author from "In the Beginning was the Command Line", which I have also read, so I'll look into that book. Thanks.

If you want anything that even represents honesty, read a book by a jew and assume the opposite to be true.
- Dr. Noose

Srs

stopped reading right there

Idiot.

Hey jew,
ever think that if you were a fish and somone asked you, "Do you believe in water?" you would be the dumb fucking fish saying "Water doesn't exist! Hurrr!! If there's water, show me that it exists!!! Hurrrr! hiiiissssss!!!!"

You fucking jews are a disgusting vermin.

rock solid analogy there retard

I'm the retard says the jew who can't see what's right in his face.
You're just mad that your bloodline is cursed and you have no internal dialogue. you think I dont know you but I can understand you by dumbing myself down and removing everything that is human. You act on fear and instinct alone. Simple. I get it, you're nothing more than a simple animal.
You should be scared. What's coming is awful and I really don't want to be a part of it, but you brought this on yourself.
what's coming is pain.

I'm the retard says the jew who can't see what's right in his face.
You're just mad that your bloodline is cursed and you have no internal dialogue. you think I dont know you but I can understand you by dumbing myself down and removing everything that is human. You act on fear and instinct alone. Simple. I get it, you're nothing more than a simple animal.
You should be scared. What's coming is awful and I really don't want to be a part of it, but you brought this on yourself.
what's coming is pain.

This shouldn't even have to be explained but I'll explain it anyways. Existence literally means "to be outside of itself". Existence relies entirely on consciousness, for in order for there to be existence there has to be an observer. A subject and an object.

We should no longer call it a culture. Whoever planned out calling a colony of bacteria a culture was an evil man.

You're not operated like ants. Your brains are being hijacked by AI.

The voices in your head are not god. It's an imposter.

Well, while you're busy pondering idiotic theories and comparing yourself to a fucking ant, I'll be over here trying to elevate my mind, body, spirit, and soul to new heights in order to help my race.

Your body has a spirit with its own needs. The behavior of many vehicles on a road may be simple looking but there's a richer inside. If the car were intelligent it would be limited by it's apparatus to experience it's surroundings. The vehicle may or may not be aware of it's driver, but the driver is having a new experience through it's body by moving in a way he couldn't before.

So like a spirit of many different origins, we all gain something useful by what may look as simplistic from a disassociate point of view.

All I want to know is how to I achieve CHIM and leave this gay earth and reality behind.

Attached: Vivec.jpg (240x240, 10.29K)

You heard this from High Level Insider didn't you?

You are by far the dumbest person posting in this thread.

Exactly. There is no possible way that free will could ever exist. It was one of the most stupid thought patterns/memes humans ever came up with.

Nope it was an OP from a while ago on Zig Forums. Most people are NPC's but bugs are complete NPC's (this is why they are so materialistic).

This essay is fine reading. Clarifies the academic corruption in technical discussions of ancient consciousness and more recent turns. Consciousness is definitively Europid. You walk among bicameral zombies.