Bicameralism, a possible explanation for hypnosis.

[Jeshi]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)]So I found this theory in psychology called Bicameralism and it's a really long but interesting read.[/url]

It basically supposes that prior to some time around the writing of Illiad and the Odyssey, humans thought processes worked completely differently. Rather than having a conscious mind with an inner monologue and an unconscious mind doing the other things, humans had a listening mind and a speaking mind. So you wouldn't think "I should go pick up that stick" you would instead hear a voice tell you "Pick up that stick" and then unquestionably obey it.

The theory posits that the reason all early societies developed some form of god or ancestor worship was as a reaction to these voices that everyone heard. Nobody questioned the concepts because they experienced it. They never thought, they only obeyed. Humans back then were incapable of introspection. Some of the evidence for the theory is that in older pieces of literature characters don't come upon self-realizations, but are rather told by gods what to do to save the day. And why old poets claimed to just be copying poems sung to them by poets, because they couldn't think of the poem themselves, they just heard a voice saying it to them.

The theory also suggests that while bicameralism is no longer how anyone thinks, that there are still artifacts of the system buried in the mind. Possible evidence of this is schizophrenia, which the theory suggests is someone living with bicameralism either instead of or at the same time as introspective narrative.

But the part of the theory that's most relevant to us at WMM is that it also suggests that hypnosis is a remnant of bicameralism. The idea being that when someone is hypnotized, you have somehow regressed them to at least a partially bicameral state. So the hypnotist's voice is perceived as the "speaking mind" which the subjects "listening mind" then hears and obeys.

You aren't necessarily speaking to the unconscious mind, but rather the unconscious mind's ancestor which is even more susceptible to suggestions.

Of course this theory is not entirely accepted by the scientific community yet, it is still in the process of being researched and tested, but it has enough weight right now to not dismiss it and at least have fun considering the implications.[/url]

[HypnoCactus]

I had heard of the theory as an explanation for godly encounters earlier in human history, that there are even forms of epilepsy which can create an extreme feeling of 'religiousness' and so on. So obviously the structure of the brain and the signals within it are important. That we have tended to develop as a race by adding to, rather than taking away from, the brain, it doesn't surprise me to see this as a rather tidy explanation. I just hadn't considered it in the realm of hypnosis before now.

[KIY]

It is an interesting theory. (I first heard about the explanation for "deity encounters" a while back, but not for hypnosis, and not as in depth. It was more like a couple lines in a periodical somewhere.)

The question(s) it raises for me is/are: What made the thought process change, and how did it apparently occur across the world-- esp., more or less, at the same time? The next step, it would seem to me, is to figure what could have caused such a change and then look for evidence.

Just my $0.02.

[HypnoCactus]

This is just a personal thought, with no basis in anything I've read, but more of a general understanding. The mystery surrounding the appendix is that it must have had a purpose. Now, many generations later it lies inactive. Also in the digestive tract, we have changed, as a whole, to be able to digest foods that once were perceived as indigestible. Some of those foods are now an accepted part of the diet. One example, arguably, is cows milk (I'm not getting into a discussion about cows milk and the pros and cons thereof.)

So, since the body develops and adapts to include a change in diet, as it grows more complex and incorporates new items, maybe it was a cultural shift that changed our brains. Maybe it was through simple experiences as a whole, the philosophizing and exploration of science. Introducing new ways of thinking and then passing these new ways onto those around us and to our offspring. The cultural development changing our brains, causing the more logical pathways to open up. Now the interesting thing to note if these ramblings are towards accurate, is that we don't lose what we don't use, but we keep what we gain. Any thoughts?

[KIY]

Well, what I was getting at is that, if it was a cultural shift, how would it have reached an isolated, stone age tech. level, tribe in the middle of the Amazon jungle also change in how they thought? Particularly if this shift came about relatively recently (i.e. after writing was developed, if old poets were hearing "voices")? Or are members of isolated tribes thinking the old way?

[Fjm]

Interesting theory! :)

[homerj1620]

Bicameralism was being discussed on Reddit today:

[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n4x7a/is_the_phenonemon_of_childhood_imaginary_friends/c36b6tu[/url]

[Jeshi]

I highly suggest reading the wikipedia article about this. For a wikipedia article, it is very well written and comprehensive, with plenty of citation. It features both sides of the issue.

What I read is that the shift came from society itself becoming more complex. There were plenty of catastrophes around the world that eventually getting by became more complex than "Go do this" and "Go do that." You started having to think really complexly and formulate long plans and consider the reactions of others around you to things that you do. Eventually, it became too complicated to be easily formed as commands in the second person, so those who began to think introspectively and think in a narrative did better off, so then evolution takes place and those who thought in this new complex introspective manner had more offspring than the old kinds of people who could only do as they were told (by themselves, it get's kind of confusing.)