ChristianKl 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 theory seems the prediction that you shouldn't get a similar hypnotic effect if the sound get's processed by the left and by the right ear. How strongly do you believe that?
Plenty of people I know have internal family systems type hallucinations that speak to them. Given different cultural norms they likely also coud be called "ka" or do you have an argument for why what the Egyptian hallucinate was something different or why you think that their society had more people having those hallucinations?
Furthermore internal family systems voices often have a clear direction from which they are coming. When some come from the right and others of the same person come from the left, why should we believe that they come from the "non-dominate hemisphere" (which probably is either left or right).
I don't think you get to the purpose of koans. Koans often point to phenonomogical primitives that the student doesn't has access to and provide a tool to learn the new primitives.
I don't know how the sound is processed in brain. For example in vision, each hemisphere gets half of input from each eye. So "which eye" doesn't matter, but "left or right from where you are looking at" does.
This would suggest that inputs from both ears are processed by both hemispheres. If not, then I admit this is a serious argument against Jaynes's theory.
Where did you get that idea? A quick googling gives me http://changingminds.org/explanations/brain/parts_brain/left_right_brain.htm:
Skeptics question : http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/32988/does-the-right-eye-feed-information-to-the-left-brain-hemisphere-while-the-left
If you look e.g. at the start of the Wikipedia article on the visual cortex you will find:
Or take a look at this diagram from a book about the visual field. Or this online book.
I thought this was very widely known -- which I say not in order to make you feel bad (there's no shame in not knowing things) but to suggest why Viliam didn't find it necessary to provide references when he said that each hemisphere gets input from both eyes' view of one half of the visual field.
Thanks.
I don't ask for reference to claim that it was wrong for Viliam that he didn't provide references. I rather ask because the belief I had in my mind conflict. Likely because sources like the ChangingMinds website making a wrong claim (if I take your link to be trustworthy).
But if it's the visual field that's link that doesn't raise my basic confidence in the claim that hypnosis focuses on a single hemisphere. Timeline therapy would be a good example. Some people orient their timeline in a way that if you ask them to visualize an event that happend in the past it will be on the left side and if you ask them to imagine an event of the future it will be on the right side.
Different people have a different spatial layout for this but it generally doesn't happen that someone visualize both his past and future in the same direction. Generally entities accessed by hypnosis do have a location and there are effects of moving that location around but they are not all located to one side, and if I would meet a person for whom everything is on one side I would hypnotize that the person has a pathology.
I'm personally wary of drawing strong conclusions about underlying neuroscience when thinking about hypnosis, particularly because I'm exposed to hypnotists talking about neuroscience who might have access to empiric experience of what hypnosis does but who don't have real neurosicence knowledge.
I can't quickly find a source for each hemisphere receiving only a part of the visual field, but the optical nerves coming from each eye cross before reaching the brain, so it's not "one eye, one hemisphere". (That doesn't mean "the left one goes right and vice versa", but "they join, and then they split again".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_nerve
The nerves cross in the ChangingMind descriptions. That's how the left eye surplies the right hemisphere and vice versa. I don't see how they join in the sense of sharing information while the cross.