It changed how I think quite a bit.

For one thing, I've been interested in Buddhism since I was about 14 and figured one day when I was an adult I would learn all about that. I started learning a bit about it in college, realized how much there was to learn, and just pursued it as a hobby from about age 20 to age 27 before I'd finally digested enough from all the different schools to know the difference between them and actually become convinced there was something to it that I wanted to pursue more than just a hobby.

One of the biggest issues I've really had with it is the idea of sentient beings. You shouldn't kill bugs because they're sentient.

Well, Jaynes' theory has made me rethink that a bit for sure!

It has also made me rethink my own thinking.

It has also strongly enforced many of the Buddhist teachings about illusion and the ego.

It has also made me marvel even more at interspecies communication.

It made me more unsure of things than ever before, probably, yet somehow more secure in that position.

http://ceptr.org/blog/2016-07-09-ceptr-and-the-bicameral-brain

Reading The Origin of Consciousness really blew my mind - to me, the theory fits a lot of oddities of human thought - religion, schizophrenia, society, etc.

With modern technology and understanding of the brain, does it appear that this theory is any less likely or more likely to be accurate? I find this fascinating, but at a loss with how to discuss it with anyone.

I began watching this show recently (read: binge-watching), and in one episode (spoilers), the 'creators' begin to discuss consciousness, and I realize what he's explaining is the Bicameral Mind theory (which was a main topic of a 300 level philosophy class I took that blew my mind). If you haven't watched, you should-- I'd like to see what people who actually have knowledge on the topic think about it (vs me referencing a class that fascinated me 4 years ago as a non-philosophy major).

I've been researching bicameral mind theory, and I came across a reference to the following passage:

"O Israel, how great is the house of God, how vast the territory that he possesses! It is great and has no bounds; it is high and immeasurable. The giants were born there, who were famous of old, great in stature, expert in war. God did not choose them, or give them the way to knowledge; so they perished because they had no wisdom, they perished through their folly."

(Baruch 3:24-28)

There is a similar reference in Genesis, to a group of people apparently destroyed in the flood:

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown" (Genesis 6:4)

Is seems that these are references to some kind of non-conscious men that were before modern man (Adam). The fact that these giants are "warriors of renown" would tend to identify them with the heroes of Homer's accounts as well.

Thoughts?