Lumifer comments on Open Thread May 9 - May 15 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (85)
Some notes from my LW meetup lecture on book of Julian Jaynes: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Not sure if legible for someone who wasn't there. May serve as a motivation to read the book.
Human brain has two hemispheres, relatively loosely connected, each of them is relatively independent (look up experiments when one hemisphere was disabled by e.g. injecting amytal into neck artery). Both can listen and see, but only the dominant hemisphere can talk. The corresponding part of the non-dominant hemisphere, when stimulated by electric current, creates super-realistic auditory -- and sometimes even visual -- hallucinations, similar to schizophrenia.
What is the evolutionary purpose of having a schizophrenia center in the brain? (This is just a speculation, skip this paragraph if it annoys you.) Julian Jaynes supposes that something similar to today's schizophrenia was actually an evolutionary precedessor of consciousness. Hallucinating voices of their fellow apes allowed our ancestors to create tribes of larger sizes than other primates. Belief in afterlife emerged as a side effect of hallucinating voices of dead tribe members. Obeying dead tribe leaders became a basis of religion. The hallucinations of specific people later evolved into hallucinations of culturally shared gods.
When the society becomes so complex that mere knowledge of rules and pattern-matching is not sufficient to solve existing problems, people have to develop theory of mind instead (first the theory of other minds; later, applying it to themselves, the consciousness), which made them lose the ability to see gods. Jaynes believes the switch from interacting with gods to consciousness happened during the "fall of Atlantis", which was a series of vulcanic eruptions in the Mediterranean sea, dramatically changing life in all local civilizations except for Egypt. In the absence of gods, "religions/superstition as we know it today" emerged. People started praying to absent gods, and making rituals to appease them; they also invented various forms of divination. Even then, a high level of stress can invoke the hallucinations again. The threshold of stress required seems to be genetic. People who retained the ability to speak with gods were called prophets. They were often uneducated people.
Some evidence: In ancient Egypt seeing hallucinations of other people was perfectly normal; the hallucinations were called "ka". In Iliad, people interacted with gods all the time; pretty much all thinking was outsourced to gods. (The later Odyssey already depicts humans with modern psychology: they make decisions, invent tricks, lie.) The Oracle of Delphi used illiterate teenage girls from peasant families to channel the god Apollon.
The Old Testament (a collections of books written and edited in different eras) also reflects the process. At the beginning, humans regularly interacted with gods; the latest of them was Moses. Then the interaction with gods was limited to prophets; often uneducated people, sometimes prophesizing against their wills. Sometimes they were killed either because their prophecies failed, or for political reasons when they prophesized for the wrong god. Gradually they were eradicated.
Relevant Biblical quotes:
"The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa — the vision he saw concerning Israel … He said: The Lord roars from Zion and thunders from Jerusalem … This is what the Lord says: … This is what the Lord says: … This is what the Lord says: …" (Amos) He speaks while hearing the hallucinations.
"Amos answered Amaziah, “I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. But the Lord took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’" (Amos 7:14-15) Prophet explains to a professional priest why such a nobody as him is speaking for the mighty God.
"But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?”" (Exodus 3:11) Moses tries to avoid the role of prophet, because he doesn't feel high-status.
"Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young." (Jeremiah 1:6) "You persuaded me, Lord, and I was persuaded; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me. Whenever I speak, I cry out proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the Lord has brought me insult and reproach all day long. But if I say, “I will not mention his word or speak anymore in his name,” his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot." (Jeremiah 20:7-9) Jeremiah also tries to avoid this role, but to no end. Hallucinations come involuntarily, and they require to be acted upon; resistance is futile.
Related interesting phenomenon is hypnosis. That's something that Vulcan rationalists try to avoid, because it works differently in different cultural settings and for different people, so it seems to avoid scientific approach. Jaynes's explanation is that the non-dominant hemisphere hears the hypnotist's voice and decides to obey (usually because the person believes that this is how hypnosis really works, hence the cultural dependence), overruling the dominant hemisphere. How is hypnosis different from voluntary compliance? People who try faking it by conscious compliance provide worse results. For example, if you convince someone in hypnosis that they are a chicken, they can spend fifteen minutes happily clucking, while a person who fakes being hypnotized will become visibly bored.
Here is something that wasn't mentioned in the book, but I think it fits the pattern: In Zen Buddhism, priests used paradoxical puzzles called "koans" to make students "enlightened", and to verify that they really are "enlightened". If Jaynes's theory is true, it could have been a historical tool to turn off the bicameral (hallucinatory, pattern-matching) thinking, and turn on the consciousness. In other words, if you are a modern human interested in Buddhism, studying koans is probably just a waste of time: the abilities they promise you already have; and no, they aren't supernatural. (Also many koans are based on puns in languages you don't know, so you actually can't solve them.)
This is just my speculation: This theory could explain why it is useful to debate your thoughts with other people (e.g. in therapy; most obviously Rogerian therapy), or to accompany your decisions with rituals, as opposed to just thinking rationally about them. It is how the dominant hemisphere explains its intentions to the non-dominant hemisphere, which in turn can later provide the necessary willpower. This could also provide a hint to why highly intelligent people suffer so often from akrasia.
This implies that contemporary hunter-gatherer societies (Amazon Indians, Bushmen, Aboriginals, Andamanese, etc.) did not do this and still are "bicameral". Is there evidence that this is so?
Koans originate around IX century AD in China -- the implication is that the Chinese mind before that was mostly bicameral. Again, any evidence of this? In Japan koans were important much later, e.g. Hakuin lived in the XVIII century.
I have no idea if someone made a research about how many members of the contemporary hunter-gatherer societies hear "voices" and see "spirits". But it seems to be a standard trope.
The part about koans is just my idea; it's not from the book. Actually, I later realized it could easily be the other way round. High stress induces bicameral thinking, and giving someone an unsolvable puzzle and saying his future incarnations depend on it could be quite stressful. The non-dominant hemisphere is supposed to be the one that matches patterns, so it could just as well be an exercise to activate it. And the "enlightement" could mean activating the inner voice. (In other words, it could be a culturally different way to achieve what charismatic Christians are achieving by "speaking in tongues".) Well, if you can easily argue either way...
The thing is, it's not limited to primitive tribes. Try a Pentecostal church in a XXI century first-world country :-)
Yeah, that shows that even a modern mind can be temporarily switched into the bicameral mode under a proper combination of circumstances and beliefs (i.e. a ritual).
Ancient Greeks used rituals to initiate illiterate girls into speaking prophecies. Some African tribes use rituals to create zombies (unconscious slaves). Modern Christians use rituals to initiate believers into speaking gibberish, or falling on the floor. Hypnotists use rituals to make volunteers on the stage believe that they are chicken.
These are all different cultutal variations of the same thing: high social pressure can activate the bicameral mode in a modern mind. There are differences in how easily a mind will succumb to such pressure; and the difference probably has a biological component. In schizophrenia, the bicameral mode can activate spontaneously.
It seems to me you're putting too many equal signs between things like schizophrenia, religious (in particular, mystical) experiences, altered states of consciousness including the drug-mediated ones, and the bicameral mode of thinking.
Not all unusual mind states can be fit into the bicameral mold.
To make me understand your model and objections, please tell me which statements specifically you agree or disagree with; or rather how much likely or unlikely you consider them. (So that I don't argue for a statement we both happen to agree with.)
My point is that if we happen to agree on these points, then I think that proposing this mechanism as an explanation for seeing or hearing unusual things or feeling compelled to do things in situations of high social pressure is a reasonable explanation.
(Kind of like learning that humans have legs, and then concluding that legs are probably responsible for walking and running and jumping. The accusation of "putting too many equal signs" between walking, running, and jumping doesn't feel fair. And the statement that "not all long-distance movement can be fit into the leg movement" is technically true -- one could also walk on hands, or crawl -- but it still makes sense to consider legs as a prime suspect.)
We agree on these points (in their literal interpretation), but I don't think that proposing this mechanism is a reasonable explanation. For one thing, the causal chain is really weak. For another, you're ignoring all alternate hypotheses.
For example let's do this:
...Profit? X-)
Have you considered the implications? For example, would you agree that members of stone-age tribes are literally schizophrenics by DSM criteria and would be diagnosed as such by competent psychiatrists? Effective anti-psychotic drugs exists -- would you agree that medicating such people would force their minds into a "contemporary" mode and out of the "bicameral" mode? Is meditation nothing but teaching yourself schizophrenia? Were all mystics throughout the ages just mentally ill people?
This reminds me of debates about IQ, whether stone-age tribes would be diagnosed as mentally retarded.
Seems like on one hand, if we could use a time machine and somehow convince the stone-age people to do our IQ tests, they would probably score low. On the other hand, they wouldn't be the same kind of people as a random selection of people who have the same value of IQ today. I guess the conclusion is that there are many factors that can lower the IQ, some one of them would be problematic in the ancient environment, and some of them not.
Analogically, the idea that the members of stone-age tribes would be diagnosed as mentally ill using today's criteria seems quite unsurprising to me. And analogically, there could be various variants of schizophrenia, some of them widely present among the stone-age tribes, and some of them absent. I have no idea whether the anti-psychotic drugs would target those historic variants.
It seems like the goal of the most serious meditators is to have hallucinations of your previous reincarnations, which is supposed to give you the hard evidence that your faith is the true one. (Conveniently ignoring the alternative explanation that your faith may actually have shaped the content of the hallucinations.)
But most people in our culture seem to meditate merely as a way of relaxation. That means, not giving it enough time and effort to make the hallucinations appear. (Literature seems to suggests that it is usually necessary to spend weeks meditating several hours daily to achieve the "enlightenment".)
Well, unless you believe in the supernatural, I am curious what other explanation there is...
(Connotational disclaimer: "Mentally ill" is not the same thing as "dysfunctional at everything". Just because a person has weird hallucinations once in a while, they can still be a great person, even a great scientist.)
I'm talking about people living now. Amazon Indian tribes, Andamanese, maybe remote communities of Bushmen, Aboriginals, etc.
The question was much more specific: diagnosed with schizophrenia by DSM standards. And should we medicate them? The life of schizophrenics noticeably improves when they take their drugs.
I don't know about that. Meditation is not limited to the Hinduist or Buddhist religious context. And, by the way, enlightenment is usually thought to require many years of meditation, not weeks.
They are normal :-P