Has anyone created a setting based on the bicameral mind theory? How would such a setting work?

Has anyone created a setting based on the bicameral mind theory? How would such a setting work?
>In short the bicameral mind theory is that people used to be like schizophrenics and guided by command hallucinations which they interpreted as gods, eventually they learned to think in a more modern way

It has the bicameral mind alright.

Is there any actual proof of this or is it just more Ancient Aliens bullshit?

>people used to be like schizophrenics
>used to be

Pretty sure that's where OP first heard the term.

I haven't got allot of time so ill just ninja a post.

My experience in debating has led me to belive that people can get stuck in a sort of loop self referential reasoning.

The key word is self referential. The evidence it uses to prove itself is itself. This can be modelled in a number of fallacies but its core is this.

I have come to understand fully that all ideologies behave this way. Yes, even the ones you probably believe in, like socialism and capitalism. They first sart off by elevating a fact above all other facts as prime. This then necessitates all other facts simply orbiting around this prime fact, otherwise they'd be in danger of switching between them. Cant have that if your fact is the bestest now can we?

The antidote to this is obviously logic. To only stick with a certain fact as long as it pays its rent and earns its keep. Logic is the only system which actually proves you need to switch facts to properly describe the universe. Because of this reason it is not like other ideologies, and i personally say that it is not an ideology actually.

It's an idea from the early early early days of mind theories. Like all starting scientific fields, you start out with 1% proof and 99% philosophy and then work your way up to 99% proof and 1% philosophy.

OP here, never seen Westworld is it any good?
Yeah it's very speculative and is basicaly unable to be tested, but it isn't aliens did the pyramids level of wackiness

>Yeah it's very speculative and is basicaly unable to be tested, but it isn't aliens did the pyramids level of wackiness
Oh, yes it is.

Not that differently from how people actually work today. If you sever the corpus callosum, what you essentially end up with are two brains controlling the same body. Sometimes the two halves disagree on things, but only one side is capable of speech production and thereby declarative thought, so the person is led to believe or feel there's someone else in there with them at times.

I'd say it's more on "Woah man, what if everyone saw colors DIFFERENTLY, dude?" than "ALIENS DID IT".
It's important to have these scales.

Considering the implications, I'd say it's definitely closer to "ALIENS DID IT" on the scale. I mean, seeing colors differently is weird, but it doesn't have any real implications for the history or the nature of reality.

Everyone is user

Having your thoughts told to you by what appears to be a third person for a large portion of history doesn't have any real major implications either, other than perhaps a higher incident of religion.

Imagine a campaign based on John partaking in a traditional fantasy adventure
>basically would be the Odyssey

No.

I see this "it's so sad that people don't use REASON and FACTS to make their decisions, why can't they be more LOGICAL?!?!" Shit all the time. It completely misses the whole point of politics.

The reason different people care about different things isn't because they focus on different facts. It's because they care about different things. I'm a socialist because I believe that all humans should have a basic standard of living. I'm well aware of the Laffer curve, and the free rider peoblem, and all the rest of it, but I view those as acceptable tradeoffs. Similarly, neocons care most about keeping the coubtry safe, so they view killing muslims as acceptable, and investment bankers are libertarians because they care most about making a lot of money.

Facts aren't some magical "cure". What would they cure? Opinions? The universe just is. It needs no reason. Only humanity can give it that. And THAT'S what politics is about.

>it doesn't have any real implications for the history or the nature of reality.
Neither does bicameral mind. The theory is just about how ancient humans perceived reality. It was an attempt to bridge between how we assume animals think, where the survival instincts are an overt "voice" that tells them what to do, and our modern brains, where those instincts still exist but are "silent".

The theory isn't perfect, and it's near impossible to prove, but it's certainly not ancient-aliens grade "ignore all the evidence so I can advance my pet theory" nonsense.

I don't really see how a game based on it would work though.

You're giving people a lot of credit, user. I mean, you're right, the "holier-than-thou because I've got facts" crowd are obnoxious. There are absolutely many valid, conflicting points of view.

But there's also a large population of sheeple whose political views are based almost completely on misinformation - like a poor rural farmer who consistently backs a political party with policies mainly benefiting the Fortune 500, just because their candidate is from the same region or class or whatever.

>OP here, never seen Westworld is it any good?
Are you a fan of robots, cowboys, and/or robot cowboys

If I was a shitty tagline writer, I would say IT'S CLINT EASTWOOD MEETS JURASSIC PARK

>decartian theater
0/10

You're probably more on the money than you realise, since one of the early (now discredited) hypotheses for the paucity of colour vocabulary in the earliest written works (Homeric epics, the Bible, the Vedas) is that colour vision hadn't yet evolved.

Though in that example, it's not really misinformation, just differing priorities. If your priority is "I want somebody who I can relate to based on religion or ethnicity in office", then voting for somebody who shares your religion or ethnicity but doesn't represent your financial interests isn't really misinformation.

They probably would have, if Westworld hadn't come out before Jurassic Park. As it was, people pitched Jurassic Park as "It's Westworld, but with dinosaurs instead of robots!"

Michael Crichton had a niche, and he filled it completely.

Good posts.
>The universe just is. It needs no reason.
Just do as you say and everything will be fine, amirite? Without facts you don't have a phone to shitpost with, nor a forum to shitpost on, nor the knowledge to shitpost.
Without 'facts' you cannot live. But, hey! Sure! Ideologies are fun too...

I would argue that the "misinformation" is less of a true deception and more one of directing attention. That hypothetical candidate would shy away from discussing how party policies will continue to fuck over the perpetually fucked over, in favor of talking to "hot button" issues that rile the emotions but have little practical impact on the ground.

An example of actual misinformation would be falsifying scientific data to make it look like planetwide environmental destruction will somehow magically not completely screw our descendants.

* ducks *

It's been background fluff for one of my science fiction games. People can have neurosurgery to adjust their personalities, government spies can have multiple personalities for a cover and the actual spy, stuff like that.

The root of ideological conflict isn't a failure to apply logic, it's a fundamental difference in experiences which makes it difficult to agree on what is true.
Reasonable people all over the spectrum of ideologies apply perfectly reasonable logic to their beliefs, they just disagree on what's fact and what's another group pushing their agenda.

>Not posting the superior version

you seem to be mistaking scientific knowledge with facts.

is stating that facts are discreet pieces of information that are evaluated and prioritized for decision making.
for example: a fact is there are 2 smartphones and one is better than the other. the fact that one is better is predicated upon the criteria that one uses, which is truly subjective. neither phone is objectively better( unless you are talking about 2 phones generations apart in tech development.)

Wait, are there people which don't do what Lord Zugan says?

user, I hate to tell you this, but there is no Zugan only Zuul!

And in some fields, like feminism, it actually goes into negatives.

Philosophy != ideology.
Think of feminism as if it was a religion, with tenets and shit. Any ideological doctrine doesn't care whether it corresponds to reality, regardless whether it's commies, ancaps, trumptards or feminazis.
Now back to the /pol/ with me.

This is a good post. All politics is value preference, whether conscious or not. Authoritarian-libertarian; communitarian-liberal; traditional-cosmopolitan. All ideologies spring from varying permutations on those axes as starting points.

>*action*
I take solace in the fact that when the planet dies, you'll die along with it.

>Has anyone created a setting based on the bicameral mind theory?

I ran a game where the theory came up, but it wasn't a major feature. Pic related. One of the PCs was a quadricameral mind, with the 4 voices combining to form a coherent whole (most of the time).

Would that not be Everyone is John? That's what it sounds like.

Already been mentioned

Phones Don't just spring into existence you retard. Humans need to take the facts of the universe (quantum tunneling, general relativity, etc.), figure out what they want to accomplish, and then exploit it to an effect, in this case making a phone.

There are plenty of places for ideologies in there. The scientific method is an ideology too.

No, the Scientific Method is a process. "The Scientific Method is good" is a belief, and a major component of several ideologies.

Like seriously, do people not get what the Scientific Method is?

>what happens when X?
>has anyone done something related to X before I can learn from?
>I bet Y will happen when X because Z
>do X
>what happened when X, was it Y?
>hey everybody, when X, Y

That's the process that is the Scientific Method in basic terms.

Logic has nothing to do with the validity of premises.

>No, the Scientific Method is a process. "The Scientific Method is good" is a belief, and a major component of several ideologies.
Absolutely. More specifically, the scientific method is a process for correctly identifying causality in systems by isolating variables.

I don't have any problem with alternate logical forms or with other methodologies for truth-hunting (although few have proven as effective). It's the outright rejection of logical thought and truth-seeking as valid that makes me a little nuts.

I mean, I get where it comes from. If you can't survive without your belief system, and your belief system can't hold up to rigorous examination, you've got to do SOMETHING, right?

Whatever helps you sleep, I guess...

>one eternity later
>actually less than 30 minutes

It seems less that you care if a setting has ever been made, more that you wanted to discuss bicameralism on the board you most frequent (thus, feel most comfortable) and threw in the setting just to try to give it a semblance of suitability.

But fuck it, let's just cut through and talk about it. I'm leaning towards bicameralism as being a valid explanation of human cognitive manifestations of divine beings, only because there is a process in place that behaves similarly, which we've all probably experienced before.

You know when you're trying to think of the name of something but you can't get it at all, but then hours later, out of nowhere, it suddenly pops into your head. You weren't thinking about it, there was nothing suggestive of it, but there it is. You have no conscious reference to how you arrived at the name and, for all intents and purposes, it was just "spoken" in your head. Well, I wager that same subconscious process is at work with religious people who hear/feel what their deity wants of them, but just backfiring. It probably evolved as a benefit, initially, where unpredictable or new situations could get us killed if we couldn't react appropriately, so a subconscious process is set in motion to guide our behaviour and try to keep us out of harm's way. After all, evolving a back-up plan to when our conscious mind fucks up will not just keep us alive, but will also allow the conscious mind to keep developing down unexplored avenues without risking the whole system. Coupled with our natural social hierarchy, where a group will seek a leader, that "voice" was tied up with authority, because it helped us survive.

Now, we don't really need it. It's there and not being used as often as it probably evolved to be, which results in misfiring and mistakes and other deformations of old survival mechanisms. Reduce the workload that the system is taking, it will try to find ways to fill that void to keep running. A bug in the code, so to speak.

>poor rural farmer

All 10 of them?

Fuck off retard. You have no idea what demographics this country is even comprised of in 2017.

>farmer
>poor

You obviously don't know this, but you've just revealed that you are economically illiterate. Not to mention unfamilar with rural areas and/or trapped in weird 1940s era economic stereotypes.

I'd guess that to you, it's actually a class stereotype. But in real life, you should know that farmers are upper middle class at minimum.

No, no, you don't get it. Those farmers, with all that land that none of us could ever afford, must be poor because... because... reasons...

Because they keep saying they need government handouts to stay afloat

Nice try, subtly making your preferred ideology look better than the others.

Except ideologies aren't magic machines that work out in reality just as they do on paper, if investing in any of those ideologies promptly resulted in them transforming reality as they desire you assertion that people choose ideologies based solely on personal preferences would be correct, except that all ideologies aren't "just the same bro", for instance socialist politics have the tendency to stray on their way to construct the society where "all humans have a basic standart of living" and end up creating something far less desirable.

This can have several causes, maybe its bad influence by exterior agents, maybe its a fundamental incompatibility with the material reality of the world and the biological nature of humans, but the reason that people aren't socialists isn't just because "they don't care about le poor", but mostly because they don't believe that the ideology itself can work in the way it claims to work.

>big corporations and bankers are libertarians meme
This could not be further from the truth, libertarianism goes against the very institutions and norm that create and sustain such entities, they are incompatible.

user, not a single system we've tried hasn't collapsed.

Poor rural farmes vote democrat now?

>An example of actual misinformation would be falsifying scientific data to make it look like planetwide environmental destruction will somehow magically not completely screw our descendants.

Another would be falsifying scientific data to make it look like nationwide demographics change will somehow magically not completely screw our descendants.

Good morning, /pol/. How'd you sleep?