|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2007 : 13:09:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ocheewah
and my favorite book ever (I'm not kidding, it really is. Mostly due to personal experiences when my children were young) is written by Taro Gomi and entitled Everyone Poops. |
The Washington Post has a regular contest every Sunday, The Style Invitational, with a different theme each week. One week, many years ago, the theme was "Children's Books You'll Never See." One of the winners was "Nobody Poops but You" (long before Family Guy). My favorite was "Daddy Drinks Because You Cry." Partial results can be found on the Web, but the full results don't appear to be online. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 08:14:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
So I've seen some talk about this book....but no additional 2 cents, if you will. Are people buying this hypothesis? What do you all think about this concept? I have a LONG way to go.....but from what I have read so far......I'm skeptical to say the least.
Anyone?
|
I, too, am curious. Interested in the book after seeing it's endorsement here, I read some reviews on Amazon.com. Not only does the book's hypothesis seem highly unlikely, if not outright preposterous, but it seems supported only by the flimsiest of evidence. Even most of the book's proponents seemed to recommend the book in spite of the shaky and unprovable nature of the book's hypothesis. A compelling "what if? tale, but nothing more. Am I missing something?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/26/2007 08:15:26 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 10:17:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I, too, am curious. Interested in the book after seeing it's endorsement here, I read some reviews on Amazon.com. Not only does the book's hypothesis seem highly unlikely, if not outright preposterous, but it seems supported only by the flimsiest of evidence. Even most of the book's proponents seemed to recommend the book in spite of the shaky and unprovable nature of the book's hypothesis. A compelling "what if? tale, but nothing more. Am I missing something?
|
I must concur....although I'm not even sure it's all that compelling. I would say at the VERY LEAST his time frames are WAY OFF. That's assuming there is anything (anything at all) to his hypothesis....which I'm really starting to doubt (the more I read). |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 10/26/2007 10:21:19 |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 13:11:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I, too, am curious. Interested in the book after seeing it's endorsement here, I read some reviews on Amazon.com. Not only does the book's hypothesis seem highly unlikely, if not outright preposterous, but it seems supported only by the flimsiest of evidence. Even most of the book's proponents seemed to recommend the book in spite of the shaky and unprovable nature of the book's hypothesis. A compelling "what if? tale, but nothing more. Am I missing something? |
I must concur....although I'm not even sure it's all that compelling. I would say at the VERY LEAST his time frames are WAY OFF. That's assuming there is anything (anything at all) to his hypothesis....which I'm really starting to doubt (the more I read).
|
You'll have to check it out from the library or just peruse it at a bookstore before making sweeping conclusions. The website doesn't really give a clear impression and only presents review quotes and a glimpse of the central thesis. I am not at all advocating Jaynes' hypothesis as the answer to the problem of consciousness. I included it on my list of recommended books because I simply enjoyed reading it. The craft of writing and his use of language is superb, and there are multilayered meanings to it. (Language itself is part of the central thesis.) Though I'm not as versed in such large expanses of history as Jaynes was, the time frames presented are many, annotated and chronologically accurate and the bibliography and annotations are impressively large. It is more likely his interpretation of historic events and influences that may be what you'll question.
For me, the main value of the book is not the central thesis but rather the many analogies and insights into human psychology. I don't think main stream physiology has "bought" this hypothesis at all, though one of Jaynes' conclusions, that consciousness is not necessary for learning, seems generally accepted without attribution to his bicameral mind hypothesis.
Years ago I was fortunate enough to have a brief conversation about this book with Carl Sagan. It was at a time when sloppy, silly mumbo jumbo books by Velikovsky and Von Daniken were more in vogue, and Sagan was battling those ideas. As with Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid," the Jaynes book was way to intellectual and of a more rarified subject to appeal to mass market sensibilities, but I recall that Sagan was only critical in general of books that present hypothesis as fact or non-falsifiable theories, and did not address the Jaynes book directly. I don't believe Jaynes tried to do that.
Many of the same hallucinations described and explored by Jaynes are also found in Oliver Sacks' recent book "Musicophilia" (recommended) and Sacks does not mention Jaynes nor does he need too, as Jaynes hypothesis stands separate, and can be disconnected from his many interesting insights and experimental results.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
20 books to die for
