The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

[pshrynk]

Modern schizophrenic patients quite often interpret their voices as being that of God or Satan. A very common phenomenon. Without medicaitons, it is not possible to convince them otherwise, either.

Jaynes' correltations of modern schizophrenia and his proposed 3000BCE state are that the 3000BCE state was common and the modern version is not. Current physiologic research is actually showing that the modern schizophrenic state is one where there is minimal filtering of flow of messages from one hemisphere to another, which is a similar state to that which Jaynes postulated.

It could be that the state of schizophrenia is, in fact a throwback to a time before a genetic drift took hold and those without the God-mind became the normal population.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Modern schizophrenic patients quite often interpret their voices as being that of God or Satan. A very common phenomenon. Without medicaitons, it is not possible to convince them otherwise, either.

This is something I did not know. (The rest I believe I did.) Obviously, if modern schizophrenic humans often come to the same conclusions as pre-3000BC humans, there is no intelligence question, and I withdraw the observation.

The genetic drift equation would also explain a lot of the differences between the past population and the modern population. Now, how any of that relates to the development of consciousness, civilization or religion is certainly another matter...

[ahi]

Also, modern schizophrenics were at one time or another non-schizophrenic non-bicameral human beings.

Imagine a person born with schizophrenia (whose auditory hallucinations would presumably begin at the same time they learned to talk in the first few years of life) who lived in a society populated entirely by schizophrenics. And where the established societal interpretation about the voices is "they should/must be obeyed".

Add to that the fact that they were obeyed in part because they did in fact give useful advice on a regular basis. (An important part of Jaynes theory is that only the God-part of the bicameral mind was capable of advanced/abstract problem-solving, things like Math, things like writing and reading.)

And I think a schizophrenic-like--but in some ways probably very different--mentality suddenly starts to seem rather reasonable/likely.

- Ahi

[Gideon]

Generally I think things that "call into question" religion don't really. It's like finding in neuroscience or evolution... it only impacts it if your faith hinges on such matters. I actually ran across this text in one of my religious studies courses (around our discussion of neuroscience, actually) and my mentor suggested it (who is an irreverent presbyterian minister).

But it really is an interesting idea. I'm looking forward to finally having enough time to read it.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Gideon

Generally I think things that "call into question" religion don't really. It's like finding in neuroscience or evolution... it only impacts it if your faith hinges on such matters.

My feeling precisely, Gideon.

Please post your impressions--or, if you'd rather not, PM me--once you've read the book.

- Ahi

[Gideon]

Oh I will.. I'll move it up my list. I'm going to read one more fiction book (Hogan and Del Toro's new one) and then I'm back to some non-fiction.

And for the record - I'm very much for being critical of religion. But to be successfully critical of something really entails knowing something about it beyond caricature. This is why Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. fail so miserably at it.

For some good criticism (from atheists) of religion you need people who can do more than create strawmen. I'd suggest (thoroughly, it's one of my favorite books) Walter Kaufmann's Critique of Religion and Philosophy (he was one of the top Nietzsche scholars at Stanford, I believe), many books by Bertrand Russell, and Terry Eagleton wrote an atheist response to the 'New Atheists' called Reason, Faith and Revolution which is very good and does a good job pointing out what the problems are with the New Atheist arguments and why its largely rubbish, while still being critical of religion itself.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Gideon

Generally I think things that "call into question" religion don't really.

Well, I might say this theory in itself may not directly call religion into question. But it could be a significant addition to the body of other theories and information that do.

[wayrad]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

It could be that the state of schizophrenia is, in fact a throwback to a time before a genetic drift took hold and those without the God-mind became the normal population.

I haven't read the book, but it seems difficult to imagine a world in which schizophrenia would be conducive to survival. I mean, I've never heard anyone who has it say anything about the voices telling them anything particularly useful, and it tends to preclude other activities. And even in a nontechnological world, you have to get the crops planted on time...

[ahi]

Originally Posted by wayrad

I haven't read the book, but it seems difficult to imagine a world in which schizophrenia would be conducive to survival. I mean, I've never heard anyone who has it say anything about the voices telling them anything particularly useful, and it tends to preclude other activities. And even in a nontechnological world, you have to get the crops planted on time...

Jaynes theorizes that the part of the side of the brain responsible for the voices was the only part, way back when, capable of adjusting habitual behavior to fit novel situations. Along with being also the seat of reading and writing, among other things.

It is incorrect to think of the bicameral state as being a healthy person's mind subjugated by schizophrenia-induced voices. Think of a bicameral man being more like a person devoid of free will acting only ever on either habit or command... the command of the God-side of their brain most often. The God-side basically being the higher level function... the only form of "will" or "motivation" the dual-person possessed.

- Ahi

[Gideon]

You're just making me want to read it more! Okay, screw Del Toro's book..

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ahi

Think of a bicameral man being more like a person devoid of free will acting only ever on either habit or command... the command of the God-side of their brain most often. The God-side basically being the higher level function... the only form of "will" or "motivation" the dual-person possessed.

Wayrad has a point: I have a hard time seeing this as particularly conducive to survival or civilization-building, either. And I especially don't see how minds that functioned like this would be able to consciously pass on learned information to others, meaning civilization couldn't have even started until this physiological trait was bred out of the gene-pool...

[Gideon]

Really wish it was available as an ebook. I'd buy it all over again.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Gideon

Really wish it was available as an ebook. I'd buy it all over again.

You mean... it's not?!? Then why are we even discussing it?!?

[Gideon]

Isn't this the antique section of the forums? I've stocked up on varnish...

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Wayrad has a point: I have a hard time seeing this as particularly conducive to survival or civilization-building, either. And I especially don't see how minds that functioned like this would be able to consciously pass on learned information to others, meaning civilization couldn't have even started until this physiological trait was bred out of the gene-pool...

I must confess I do not understand why. (i.e.: I am confused as to why you feel the way you stated--no disrespect meant.) Have you read the book? You should, as it explains everything far more elegantly than I possibly can.

But imagine the will-less slave-self as an incredibly complicated stimulus-response machine, literally a creature of habit (and nothing else) that is able to learn (learning is not a matter of consciousness, as Jaynes painstakingly demonstrates in the first dozen or so pages of the book) anything that involves sufficient routine. And the God-self guides the slave-self to making the "right" decision whenever there is a decision to make... but while perhaps not chattering away incessantly, the God-self is ever-present and it also learns from all the experiences of the body it shares with the slave-self, and in fact it learns far more from each experience for having higher level analytical skills that the slave-self lacks. If and when the slave-self does the wrong thing or is so blatantly confronted by a decision that he/she is paralyzed, the God-self advises and the slave-self obeys.

Learning both through experience and also through observation and/or instruction is perfectly reasonable even for such a (to us) unusual mentality.

- Ahi