[Shankalu] Re: Julian Jaynes again

[Aditya Mishra]

Adrian van der Meijden wrote:

> > I had not read him earlier but the references that I gave relate as much
> > to
> > his own work as to the more recent research by neurobiologists like
> > Ramchandran.
>
> Probably following in the Sperry, Gazzaniga model, which fits rather nicely
> with western, binary thinking, but only theoretically.

As I said before, this topic is very new but very impressive to me.
Could you give some reference to
Sperry model and how does it relate to the research done by Ramchandran?

> NO assumption can be supported, ANY assumption can be contradicted, since
> they are undecidable propositions first, and made decidable  or singular in
> meaning by election or choIces BEFORE one gets logical. Beside it is a
> theory that decides what are facts and not the other way around.

I did not get that impression with the little reading that I have done
so far.

>"Scholars"
> on average are biased, already walking their pet dogs. In a complex world
> there's no way to be simple, other than by bias.

So do you intend to rule out all researches by all scholars because they
are biased?
Does it not expose your own bias?

>  one could contrive dozens and oodles of theories of the world not supported
> by the establishment. The establishment  is into consensus opinions which
> are of the singular opinion kind: ie: 'everybody knows that....'> In a
> comppex world any theory can be found "FACTS" ro support it. The point is to
> find that explanation which accounts for ALL of it, at once and together,
> which, sad to say, can hardly be fitted in a packet of words. .

I could not get the intent of your above paragraph.
Do you mean to say that Jaynes' ideas are purely irrelevant and no facts
can ever be found to support them?
Which is the explanation that you say fits ALL of the facts.

I had already mentioned that about 90% of the people who reviewed his
work at amazon.com are very supportive of him and have given his book 5
star rating. You seem to have some other reason to resist any further
discussion of his ideas. Personally, I do not like the idea of bicameral
mind but would prefer a different model.
Being a computer scientist, I could better relate to a model that
separates functioning of brain into hardware and software analogs. We
are seeing that a lot of functions that used to be done by software
(programs) are now being incorporated in the next generation of Intel
processors. This could apply to the process of learning and training by
the human brain. Just like the evolution accepted today is far different
from what was conceived by Darwin, we still acknowledge his contribution
to current knowledge.

> IF continuous then it yoyos up and down, bounces sideways, grows and decays,
> etc. THE genes are now accepted as containing far more information than
> needed to make up, say, the human body, so, perhaps it is more a case of
> activating certain parts of the library unto certain intents, purposes,
> environmental pressures, take your pick.  Since there is 'nothing'
> observable inside the particle and ditto 'nothing' observable outside the
> universe, what supports it? The physical is unable to explain how come only
> a given kind of body emerges from any DNA, see above. Besides they don't
> have all the genes mapped either, so wait for it,  they'll change their
> minds at least 3 to 4 times.

I think that is the way science works and consistency in no virtue when
it comes to science.
It is only in theology and religion that dogma and absolute truth is the
rule.
One has to be ready to change his opinion as and when new evidence
becomes available.
I for one, am always willing to change my views without any hesitation
or loss of face.

>
> All this being "with it" nonsense amounts to neither more nor less than
> being with the local village gossip. Fads in theories come and go at a rate
> of knots. Hang around and they are contradicted, out of date, false, etc,
> regularly. IF the brain operated binary fashion we'd need a head the size of
> a house, at least, and that would slow us down to standstill.

I find your attitude very unscientific. I find nothing wrong in being
contradicted, proved false etc.