It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Aislin
What are your thoughts on why your great grandfather renounced Buddhism after experiencing Satori?
Originally posted by drew hempel
Yeah we had to read Julian Jaynes for a graduate class I took. I thought and still think the book is a bit sophmoric.
Originally posted by drew hempel
It's interesting but he's blatantly wrong.
Originally posted by Kandinsky
His sample is skewed. It's anecdotal. Plural of anecdote is not data. The sample is English-speaking. If the sample was from the Middle-East, his conclusion would reflect Moslem values.
[7] Jaynes had an excellent behaviorist heritage, going back to Watson via Lashley and Beach. Yale, where he worked on his Ph.D. was also the home of Hull -inspired symbolic behaviorism, e.g. Osgood, 1953.
Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Life and death is about conciousness. Conciousness which still after billions of years baffles us. What is conciousness and does our spirit need a body to work?Upon death, will our soul be set free, or will we be judged? Will we reunite with other dead people, and will we see their impression and hear their voice? In ancient Egypt the afterlife was a journey and a quest. In ancient Tibet the afterlife is expressed as a further venture which ends with rebirth. In Hebrew tradition the dead'd go to Sje'ol, or Hades, translated Hell i KJV, but is far from it, where we will meet with Allfather Abraham, and sit and prepare ourself for the ressurection and the judgement and the new world.
Originally posted by miriam0566
it amazes me that people dont see the general flaw with these "accounts"...
the people who gave them are still alive. their acoount cant really prove anything because they werent really dead. if they were dead then they would be able to tell us about it.
Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by Lilitu
This is the hypothesis of Jaynes:
"The preposterous hypothesis we have come to … is that human nature was split in two, an executive part called a god, and a follower part called a man. (Jaynes, 1976/1990, p. 84)
This is how it was disproven:
pubpages.unh.edu...
By this fellow:
[email protected]. Julian Jaynes' "Prposterous hypothesis". Paper presented at Cheiron conference, University of Southern Maine, June 27, 2000.
I think John Hamilton’s work on auditory hallucinations of congenital quadriplegics who have never spoken in their lives may put a strong constraint on the feasible theories of auditory hallucinations not easily reconcilable with the claim by Peter Bick and Marcel Kinsbourne that auditory hallucinations are silent talking to oneself, the stand embraced even by Dennett, the most Jaynesian of the presently prominent philosophers of mind.
Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by Lilitu
Sorry but Jaynes' book is silly.
Ilkka Kallio's review of the book you hold up:
www.imprint.co.uk...
I think John Hamilton’s work on auditory hallucinations of congenital quadriplegics who have never spoken in their lives may put a strong constraint on the feasible theories of auditory hallucinations not easily reconcilable with the claim by Peter Bick and Marcel Kinsbourne that auditory hallucinations are silent talking to oneself, the stand embraced even by Dennett, the most Jaynesian of the presently prominent philosophers of mind.
The problem for the HOT perspective is that it is part of the idea of it that putting together ingredients that are not in themselves conscious (thought, aboutness, and representation) automatically exhibits consciousness. The most neuroscience can do is explain thought, explain aboutness, and explain representation. But there is no reason to expect— and it is not part of any HOT perspective—that neuroscience will find some magic glow that occurs when those things combine.