The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

[ahi]

I heartily recommend Julian Jaynes' The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

The main theory presented in his book is revolutionary and suggests a fundamental reassessment of early human history.

Richard Dawkins remarked, "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."

Without trying to very clumsily sum up his theory, let's just say it has implications on the very nature of (still historical) early humanity, the cause/meaning of mental illness, and even the nature of God/religion among other things.

Let me encourage more articulate recommendations of the book to be also posted in this thread by other Jaynes enthusiasts.

- Ahi

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

It's a shame that the suppositions in the book are based on largely unproven (though maybe not unprovable) suppositions about hominid anatomy and psychology, which would seem to render it as more of a complex "what if?" book. As I don't recall hearing about discoveries of any significant anatomical differences, specifically in brain functions, of humans pre-3000BC and humans today, I'm not sure how far a theory like this can go. But it may be a hint at other psychological aspects of humans that have are as yet poorly understood.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's a shame that the suppositions in the book are based on largely unproven (though maybe not unprovable) suppositions about hominid anatomy and psychology, which would seem to render it as more of a complex "what if?" book. As I don't recall hearing about discoveries of any significant anatomical differences, specifically in brain functions, of humans pre-3000BC and humans today, I'm not sure how far a theory like this can go. But it may be a hint at other psychological aspects of humans that have are as yet poorly understood.

Well, keep in mind I do believe the author died shortly after the book's publication...

The Julian Jaynes Society has some information though. Among other things, I believe (I cannot check it from where I am) some information about what has and hasn't been called into question by subsequent research.

But yeah, even as a "what-if" it's pretty fascinating.

- Ahi

[Gideon]

I think 'what-if' is just fine. What-if has gotten us a long way as a species towards understanding things we might not have even approached. Look at Freud... generally speaking, a lot of rubbish (check out his explanation of the Eucharist, for example)... but he hit upon some VERY important ideas that were later fleshed out more sensibly.

I have this book myself. I've only skimmed it, but it's high on my reading list - Dawkins recommendation not withstanding.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Gideon

I think 'what-if' is just fine. What-if has gotten us a long way as a species towards understanding things we might not have even approached. Look at Freud... generally speaking, a lot of rubbish (check out his explanation of the Eucharist, for example)... but he hit upon some VERY important ideas that were later fleshed out more sensibly.

I have this book myself. I've only skimmed it, but it's high on my reading list - Dawkins recommendation not withstanding.

Some people after reading TOOCITBOTBM feel the book calls both the existence of God and the value of religion into question. Personally--whether it is because Jaynes himself didn't share this view, or whether he was simply cautious in how he wrote to not needlessly alienate religious readers--I rather perceived his theories and arguments as (having the potential to) taking rational thinkers (in however unorthodox a manner) a step closer to acknowledging the reality and significance of both.

I'll be curious to hear what you thought, Gideon, once you are finished with it.

My first paragraph above is aimed primarily at Gideon, who I believe is a co-religionist, and is not meant to evoke/incite any unproductive debates.

- Ahi

[pshrynk]

There are some interesting correlates to Jaynes' conjectures in human psychology. I haven't read that literature for quite some time, but the construct of super ego can be relatively easily mapped to the communication between the two sides of the brain.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

There are some interesting correlates to Jaynes' conjectures in human psychology. I haven't read that literature for quite some time, but the construct of super ego can be relatively easily mapped to the communication between the two sides of the brain.

I think what makes Jaynes' theory so strange that he (I felt) makes a fairly convincing argument that the Superego correlate was not always a subconscious process but a (vaguely) separate entity-of-sorts responsible for many aspects of early history, from muses to Gods, from magnificent civilizations to civilization-breakdowns, from higher level thinking to reading and writing... and much more.

By comparison the more traditional notion of the superego seems like a relatively minor influence on the individual human mind.

- Ahi

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by ahi

I think what makes Jaynes' theory so strange that he (I felt) makes a fairly convincing argument that the Superego correlate was not always a subconscious process but a (vaguely) separate entity-of-sorts responsible for many aspects of early history, from muses to Gods, from magnificent civilizations to civilization-breakdowns, from higher level thinking to reading and writing... and much more.

By comparison the more traditional notion of the superego seems like a relatively minor influence on the individual human mind.

- Ahi

Hence the "Origin of Consciousness" part of the theory. As the brain halves started to coalesce, the Super Ego became less of a conscious thing and more of a "shared meme".

[ahi]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Hence the "Origin of Consciousness" part of the theory. As the brain halves started to coalesce, the Super Ego became less of a conscious thing and more of a "shared meme".

Quite right.

Although part of me wonders--in part spurred on by the sometimes uncooperative or even downright aggressive behavior of the "uncontrolled" limb in patients whose connective tissue between the brain-halves is damaged/destroyed/severed--if the God-part of the brain isn't simply a still-present and (in its subjective reality) conscious prisoner within "another's" body that it normally can affect no control over.

But now I've really crossed over into pure fancy!

- Ahi

Ps.: An interesting article on meme theory. Although I suspect you used the word in a slightly different sense... so don't take the link for criticism.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Personally, I think the very idea that people would not have known the "voices in their heads" were coming from themselves, as opposed to an outside source (Gods), seems to belittle human intelligence itself, suggesting we were at the time too stupid to properly evaluate the evidence presented to us. From what I've read about humans of 5000 years ago, that's a disproved assumption. At the very least, I would expect most people in that situation to believe they were somehow possessed by a second independent consciousness, as opposed to believing those voices were coming from an external source (just my theory).

On the other hand, it's always possible that only some people interpreted those voices as Gods, but those few were able to convince others, probably aided by some psychological aspect of the situation that made the notion sit well with those others. That does jibe with documented aspects of human civilization, modern psychology and group behavior.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Personally, I think the very idea that people would not have known the "voices in their heads" were coming from themselves, as opposed to an outside source (Gods), seems to belittle human intelligence itself, suggesting we were at the time too stupid to properly evaluate the evidence presented to us. From what I've read about humans of 5000 years ago, that's a disproved assumption. At the very least, I would expect most people in that situation to believe they were somehow possessed by a second independent consciousness, as opposed to believing those voices were coming from an external source (just my theory).

On the other hand, it's always possible that only some people interpreted those voices as Gods, but those few were able to convince others, probably aided by some psychological aspect of the situation that made the notion sit well with those others. That does jibe with documented aspects of human civilization, modern psychology and group behavior.

My understanding is that a (very bluntly oversimplified) view of Jaynes' theory is that everybody suffered from intense schizophrenia if you go back far enough.

In that light, I don't think a schizophrenic (or a bicameral) not knowing that a heard voice comes from what another external observer might term another aspect of his self (but what he/she himself/herself feels as "other" as anything spoken by another human being) necessarily has implications on human intelligence.

Did you read/interpret things differently?

- Ahi

[pshrynk]

Jaynes' assumptions are made from the observation that schizophrenic patients cannot determine if the voices in their heads are real or products of brain malfunction. His theory is that the brain was initially much more seperated in earlier evolution than it is now and that the exixtence of two independent halves caused the dominant left side of the brain to "hear" the voice of God, which would not be interpretted any other way than that of reality, since the brain has not abilty to filter out stuff that originates within the matrix of the brain.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ahi

Some people after reading TOOCITBOTBM feel the book calls both the existence of God and the value of religion into question.

Don't you think that's something that ought to be questioned? Given the important role that religion has played in the development of civilization, I certainly feel personally that we should question it, rather than merely making an arbitrary decision one way or the other.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ahi

My understanding is that a (very bluntly oversimplified) view of Jaynes' theory is that everybody suffered from intense schizophrenia if you go back far enough.

In that light, I don't think a schizophrenic (or a bicameral) not knowing that a heard voice comes from what another external observer might term another aspect of his self (but what he/she himself/herself feels as "other" as anything spoken by another human being) necessarily has implications on human intelligence.

Did you read/interpret things differently?

- Ahi

I'd say I interpret it differently. For one thing, I wasn't aware that modern schizophrenics often, usually, or ever, interpret their "other voices" as Gods speaking to them, which is why I have some doubts about the theory in the first place (not completely dispute it, but have doubts).

The unstated but implicit supposition being made is that, if pre-3000BC humans had essentially modern schizophrenia, however intense, they would all or mostly assume that their inner voices were divine in nature, unlike modern humans with essentially the same affliction who seem to assume the voices are simply other sides of themselves, or "other people" trapped inside them.

Maybe it is the terms and definitions that are in question, but if Jayne's theory suggests pre-3000BC humans had our modern schizophrenia, but interpreted their inner voices differently than we do today, that seems to suggest a lesser pre-3000BC base intelligence... a modern conceit that has been largely disproved.

On the other hand, if Jayne is suggesting the pre-3000BC affliction was only similar to schizophrenia, but had some significant difference(s) about it, it removes the implicit assumption that pre-3000BC humans were not smart enough to understand what was going on inside them as well as modern humans could... their affliction was indeed unique, and so a unique perspective on it would be reasonable to assume.

Of course, with so little evidence to work with, it's a fine line either way, and I realize that. I'm just voicing my concerns about the theory as stated to my understanding, which I admit may not be complete.

(Whew. I think I'm gonna go get a beer and scratch my a$$.)

[ahi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't you think that's something that ought to be questioned? Given the important role that religion has played in the development of civilization, I certainly feel personally that we should question it, rather than merely making an arbitrary decision one way or the other.

Religion is a complex issue, and I suspect little would be achieved by a discussion between two people who both feel they are already right on the issue. So let's agree not to try to convert one another.

Having said that, I used the phrase "call into question" in a colloquial sense. I've known several people that read this book who basically saw it as definitive proof (colloquially speaking) that there is no god and religion is bunk. (A condition as unconstructive to further questioning as unconditional faith is.)

And, to answer your question: I neither see myself as having jurisdiction over nor have any desire to influence other people's opinions a religion or most other things. Assuredly, however, if you felt compelled to ask the question you did as a result of what I said, we doubtless disagree on the specifics of what sort of questioning is productive and worthwhile.

That's alright though. A diversity of views is not only healthy, it's fundamentally human!

- Ahi