Talk:Bicameralism (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merge
what do you think about the merge? Spencerk 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think there should be a redirect. The Origin of Consciousness is notable enough that it warrants having its own page with a link to the article on bicameralism. A person looking for information on The Origin of Consciousness may not want all the information on bicameralism; he may just want the information about the work. – Mipadi 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- hi mipadi. there was alot of repitition in the two pages. does origin of conciousness discuss more than bicameralism? or is bicameralism a more general idea than those expressed in origin of conciousness? i dont think so, my impression is that they are just discussing the same thing. maybe in the bicameralism article the section titled Julian Jaynes could be changed to origin of conciousness and the redirect could use a # or whatever. ? Spencerk 20:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- This article, as of now, talks almost solely about The Origin of Consciousness. Personally, I think the redirect should go the other way (Bicameralism (psychology) to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind), if at all. – Mipadi 23:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I only know bicameralism from the book. I don't think there are that many other uses of the word outside the book by Jaynes. patrickw 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Who heere has really read Jaynes?
it seems like there is singnifcant confusion about Jaynes' theory. Some editors have either not really read Jaynes or maybe they did so a long time ago and forgot. Not having read Snow Crash I don't know how Stephenson reworks the theory but I suspect reading Jaynes through stephenson may be the culprit.
Anyone else here read Jaynes recently or is it down to me to fix it all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cratylus22 (talk • contribs).
- Go ahead and fix! I heard the guy give a talk sometime in the 80's and he was amazing. I've been wanting to read the book ever since, but I looked at it once or twice and it seemed too deep for me. Phr (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've read the book within the last year. I can get a copy of it from the Library and work on any issues that need working. Let me know of anything specificly.149.165.90.22 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've loaned my copy out (as I do with any book I want to disseminate) and when I get it back I should be able to do this article justice. I want to put in a few hours and rewrite the whole thing to eliminate errors and condusion and clearly summarize the theory. There are only two or three secondary authors who have directly used Jaynes, but I think there is also some pop-cultural residue that can be covered. But Jaynes' theory is clearly the core of the topic.
- It is quted extensive in the works of Frank R. WallaceSochwa 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
