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...
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.)
the brain has two hemispheres;
the hemispheres communicate with each other;
each of these hemispheres separately is capable of intelligent behavior;
each of these hemispheres separately is capable of listening and seeing;
the non-dominant hemisphere can send visual or auditory hallucinations to the dominant one;
sometimes hallucination can force people to feel certain way or do certain things;
hallucinations are among the typical symptoms of schizophrenia;
high stress increases the probability of hallucinations.
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.)
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.
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:
Prolonged starvation can cause visual or auditory hallucinations;
sometimes hallucination can force people to feel certain way or do certain things;
hallucinations are among the typical symptoms of schizophrenia;
high stress increases the probability of hallucinations.
...Profit? X-)
The accusation of “putting too many equal signs” between walking, running, and jumping doesn’t feel fair.
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?
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?
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.
Is meditation nothing but teaching yourself schizophrenia?
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”.)
Were all mystics throughout the ages just mentally ill people?
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 idea that the members of stone-age tribes would be diagnosed as mentally ill using today’s criteria seems quite unsurprising to me.
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.
It seems like the goal of the most serious meditators is to have hallucinations of your previous reincarnations
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.
Amazon Indian tribes, Andamanese, maybe remote communities of Bushmen, Aboriginals, etc.
I remember reading somewhere that Incas received commands from statues when the Spanish conquerred them. Not sure how reliable this information is, but I would count “hearing voices from statues” among the symptoms of schizophrenia, if that’s true.
diagnosed with schizophrenia by DSM standards. And should we medicate them? The life of schizophrenics noticeably improves when they take their drugs.
The map (even a high-status one such as DSM) is not the territory. Asking “are they schizophrenic according to DSM” and “are they the kind of schizophrenic who is unable to function normally in their daily life” are two different questions. If someone hears voices which are completely benign, I’d say “live and let live”. It’s only the voices that make people cause harm to themselves and the others that should be treated by medication.
In the bicameral era, I can imagine that most people heard the relatively benign voices, and only a few ones heard the harmful voices. In other words, the actual problem of schizophrenia could be not hearing voices per se, but having those voices become dangerous. (Or hearing the voices so often that it makes normal functioning difficult; but how much that is would probably differ in the ancient times and now, especially when it’s a social stigma now.)
The life of schizophrenics noticeably improves when they take their drugs.
Removing the dangerous voices improves life.
Removing rare and benign voices… I am not sure about that one. Actually, I could imagine this being the other way round, for example sometimes hearing the voices could manifest as increased “willpower” (e.g. it’s easier to exercise every morning, if an irresistable voice of God keeps reminding you). Maybe akrasia correlates positively with atheism.
Meditation is not limited to the Hinduist or Buddhist religious context.
Then I’d cynically guess that people in those other contexts, if they meditate hard enough, usually receive hallucinations that confirm their contexts (e.g. instead of their previous reincarnation, they will see Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit or Allah coming and speaking to them).
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.)
the brain has two hemispheres;
the hemispheres communicate with each other;
each of these hemispheres separately is capable of intelligent behavior;
each of these hemispheres separately is capable of listening and seeing;
the non-dominant hemisphere can send visual or auditory hallucinations to the dominant one;
sometimes hallucination can force people to feel certain way or do certain things;
hallucinations are among the typical symptoms of schizophrenia;
high stress increases the probability of hallucinations.
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:
Prolonged starvation can cause visual or auditory hallucinations;
sometimes hallucination can force people to feel certain way or do certain things;
hallucinations are among the typical symptoms of schizophrenia;
high stress increases the probability of hallucinations.
...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
I remember reading somewhere that Incas received commands from statues when the Spanish conquerred them. Not sure how reliable this information is, but I would count “hearing voices from statues” among the symptoms of schizophrenia, if that’s true.
The map (even a high-status one such as DSM) is not the territory. Asking “are they schizophrenic according to DSM” and “are they the kind of schizophrenic who is unable to function normally in their daily life” are two different questions. If someone hears voices which are completely benign, I’d say “live and let live”. It’s only the voices that make people cause harm to themselves and the others that should be treated by medication.
In the bicameral era, I can imagine that most people heard the relatively benign voices, and only a few ones heard the harmful voices. In other words, the actual problem of schizophrenia could be not hearing voices per se, but having those voices become dangerous. (Or hearing the voices so often that it makes normal functioning difficult; but how much that is would probably differ in the ancient times and now, especially when it’s a social stigma now.)
Removing the dangerous voices improves life.
Removing rare and benign voices… I am not sure about that one. Actually, I could imagine this being the other way round, for example sometimes hearing the voices could manifest as increased “willpower” (e.g. it’s easier to exercise every morning, if an irresistable voice of God keeps reminding you). Maybe akrasia correlates positively with atheism.
Then I’d cynically guess that people in those other contexts, if they meditate hard enough, usually receive hallucinations that confirm their contexts (e.g. instead of their previous reincarnation, they will see Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit or Allah coming and speaking to them).