/siberia/ - Off-topic

the autistic lad who made this video drops a huge plot twist at 46:07

>>772776
He should wash his hair + this idea is utter bullshit.

>>772781
>this idea is utter bullshit.
he teases out the kernels of truth from it while discarding what is overstated or wrong. i enjoyed the treatment of it. i also like when people are wrong in interesting ways. bullshit ideas can be useful sometimes. science was born out of proto-scientific natural philosophies which were often full of shit

I wonder what these schizos will think will happen with consciousness under glorious communism

>>772775
Where do I need to get checked out for not having a startle response at that? A psychiatrist? I'm a psychiatrist.

>>772775
>I don't know what color my toothbrush is, do you?
I don't have a toothbrush.
Fucking normie.

>>772776
You notice how he keeps saying "most historians believe X, but this guy believes Y"? If you replaced Julian Janes with Jordan Peterson I don't think this video would even seem even half as credible. This is the quintessential video essay: a laymen making a long meandering video based on razor thin "makes you think" level evidence from some non-credible dude with a degree outside the topic.

the book snowcrash is about this theory

>>772775
>will we ever go full circle and go back to having bicameral minds?
Isn't that pretty much what the AI assistants are meant to do to us? Make us unthinking and reliant entirely on an external voice telling us what to do? Granted it's not 1:1 the same concept but like it's really fucking close.

>>773749
if society becomes simpler due to ai handling everything then we should regress to bicameral thinking and turn into schizos.
ai psychosis is perhaps the beginnings of this

Bicameral minds weren't a thing in the first place, that's just evopsych cope.
>>772776
Ah okie, might give it a watch later.

>>773745
Well they're clearly noobs to essays as a concept to be making a video essay. If they knew what they were doing it'd be called an audiobook and there'd be a link to an HTML page with with the content in text form.

>>773745
i mean he just found a fringe theory interesting and wanted to present it, that being said he is a liberal who just makes videos about weird shit

>>772775
Saw this historical materialist youtuber is doing a series about historical development of ideologies and has a video where he talks about bicameralism.

>>773773
>evopsych
what
the premise is that the bicameral -> modern transition happened around the bronze age collapse, not paleolithic times

Whats a bicameral brain?

>>774057
it's when humans are automatons commanded by gods

>>774060
Nah it's more like, the subconcious is a tulpa that people make sense of as being a god.

>>774057
From what I got from video, basically primitive humans didn't interpret their thoughts as coming from themselves, but as communication with some sort of supernatural entity, like gods and spirits, akin to schizophrenia. That is why in the Iliad, for example, Homer asks for the Muses to speak through him; it wasn't a metaphor, but he actually thought that the Muses were actually speaking to him. When these early humans weren't speaking with the gods, they come off as empty and without individuality, because that side of the mind wasn't fully developed
As societies became more complex, people developed consciousness and were unable to speak with the gods; that division between the sides of the mind eroded. Even still, there are still people with some degree of the bicameral mind, like isolated people of the Amazon, evangelicals that "speak" with god, and actual schizophrenics.

>>774065
Yes, this is basically the idea. It's the idea that individual subjectivity was a social innovation and before that people understood themselves and each other more as a multitude of forces pushing and pulling their organism. Remnants of that kind of thinking survived in Europe with things like the theory of the four humours. Jaynes' idea was more tied specifically to the idea of personal gods fulfilling that role because he was drawing explicitly from classical antiquity in Europe and the near East. There wasn't really a notion of free will or personal choice in the equation, more that people are puppets moved by supernatural forces.

It sounds extremely alien to modern people, but the ideas we have of individual will and personal responsibility are in fact things we have to be taught to believe. They are not simply matters of fact, but an ideological lens we use to make sense of the world. And it mostly has its roots in Abrahamic morality, with the whole concept of sin and virtue and personal redemption. It might be more accurate to speak of the origin of conscience, not consciousness. The bicameral worldview/reality is still a form of consciousness, just one that lacks a sense of personal agency or culpability.

>>772775
>>773981
I watched both these videos and what jumped out at me during the second one where he actually quotes the book is how weak the evidence sounds. Couldn't that just have been the literary style at the time? Especially the Illyad, which is supposed to have been written down from oral tradition. A real classicist could have looked into Plato's Dialogues and see how they're written as it regards describing what people do vs their inner life. People still say that Jesus gives them strength.
The idea is very cool and it feels like there's a lot to it, but you need evidence to make claims.

>>774096
Plato (born in the 420s BC) lived at least 200 years after the Iliad/Odyssey were composed (700s to mid 600s BC), so it wouldn't make sense for his work to fit a model that was replaced around the origin of those poems.

>>774065
That is materialist view of thoughts isnt it? Our thoughts are a reflection of reality or something

>>774075
>it has roots in abrahamic morality
No le it has le roots in le private le property

>>774201
Not everything has roots in private property. Society existed before capitalism, and capitalist society retains characteristics from before capitalism.

>>774302
private property existed under slavery and serfdom though? or am i stupid

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#private-property

>Private property is the right of an individual to exclude others use of an object, and predates the rupture of society into classes.

marxists dot org says that it even predates class society

one big hole in the bicameral theory is that many people lack an internal monologue, and the bicameral theory discusses whether people think of their internal monologue as the god's voice or their own, right?

>>774462
>marxists dot org says that it even predates class society
This has been deboonked by modern anthropology, warrior classes emerged before private property and likely had a lot to do with the emergence of a class society per se.
>private property existed under slavery and serfdom though? or am i stupid
The relations around property are different in different systems and condition different superstructural features. Plus before capitalism relatively little was held as private property, so not really applicable in this sense. Regarding the shift in ideological systems, the development of individualist morality doesn't originate with the appearance of property. For instance, slaves used to be thought of as in some sense an extension of their master and the master could be held responsible for the slave. The moral systems are a bit unmoored from the means of production, since they are mainly a post-hoc justification for the system rather than some load bearing substructure. It does affect things like law and criminal justice systems, but these attitudes changing had a lot to do with cultural shifts like the adoption of religion or the enlightenment. There's an underlying class basis but it is also rooted in philosophical traditions which are entwined with religion and the availability of knowledge (like how the printing press led to a boom in literacy).

>>774463
I don't think an internal monologue is really necessary to that model of consciousness (the post-bicameral part) though. Granted, the bicameral mind part does rest really heavily on speech in particular, at least in the specific way Jaynes formulates it. He objectively got some of those details wrong though, like how the speech centers work exactly. The more broad strokes version has to do with attributing intention and agency internally vs externally though, and you (probably don't need language at all to do that.

>>774541
>. The more broad strokes version has to do with attributing intention and agency internally vs externally though
then it just starts to approach the older and more abstract question of nature versus nurture, free will versus determinism. it seems that without internal monologue the bicameral mind theory simply states that people saw themselves more as products of their environment, then their environments as products of themselves.