- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 12,269
- Reaction score
- 7,223
The name of the book is The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976). Pretty cool title, and the contents measure up.
Julian Jaynes’ proposal is that what is so familiar to us as conscious awareness did not arise amidst anatomically modern humans until the 2nd millennium BCE! What’s more, it only arose as a substitute for the kind of mind we had previously. Jaynes cites mostly literary evidence and inscriptions to argue that before the “breakdown of the bicameral mind” each hemisphere of the brain treated the other as though it were an altogether separate person. Specifically, the “voice” of the right hemisphere was interpreted as coming from a god in the case the ancient Greeks, or from God in the case of the ancient Hebrews.
This would be positively amazing if this hypothesis turned out to be true!
Alas I was disappointed that in the many decades after the book’s publication, Jaynes never nailed down the neuropsychological mechanisms that could support his theory. However, I still find it provocative. This is one of the few books I’ve read more than once, and I’ve come across a pretty good audiobook version which I’m currently listening to.
I’d probably place Jaynes’ ideas in a similar category as Freud’s. Not to be regarded as scientific truth, but as nonetheless thought-provoking and as possibly pointing to some interesting facts. Maybe think of their work as literature, or perhaps simply as the musings of brilliant minds.
In the Introduction, I’m enjoying his synopsis of the prominent theoretical approaches to the problem of consciousness up to that time.
Has anyone here read Jaynes? What did you think?
Also, what do you think of the idea of taking theories that haven't measured up scientifically as nevertheless having interest or value in a non-science context?
If you want to read the book, it is freely available to read online from the Julian Jaynes Society. Archive.org also has a copy that can be freely downloaded.
Julian Jaynes’ proposal is that what is so familiar to us as conscious awareness did not arise amidst anatomically modern humans until the 2nd millennium BCE! What’s more, it only arose as a substitute for the kind of mind we had previously. Jaynes cites mostly literary evidence and inscriptions to argue that before the “breakdown of the bicameral mind” each hemisphere of the brain treated the other as though it were an altogether separate person. Specifically, the “voice” of the right hemisphere was interpreted as coming from a god in the case the ancient Greeks, or from God in the case of the ancient Hebrews.
This would be positively amazing if this hypothesis turned out to be true!
Alas I was disappointed that in the many decades after the book’s publication, Jaynes never nailed down the neuropsychological mechanisms that could support his theory. However, I still find it provocative. This is one of the few books I’ve read more than once, and I’ve come across a pretty good audiobook version which I’m currently listening to.
I’d probably place Jaynes’ ideas in a similar category as Freud’s. Not to be regarded as scientific truth, but as nonetheless thought-provoking and as possibly pointing to some interesting facts. Maybe think of their work as literature, or perhaps simply as the musings of brilliant minds.
In the Introduction, I’m enjoying his synopsis of the prominent theoretical approaches to the problem of consciousness up to that time.
Consciousness as a Property of Matter (basically, panpsychism, all matter has some consciousness)
Consciousness as a Property of Protoplasm (that all living matter has consciousness)
Consciousness as Learning (perhaps, to be capable of learning is to be conscious)
Consciousness as a Metaphysical Imposition (apparently, appeal to some sort of bestowal)
The Helpless Spectator Theory (aka, epiphenomenalism, that consciousness is causally impotent)
Emergent Evolution (nervous tissue at a certain level of complexity brings about consciousness)
Behaviorism (better to focus on concrete behavior than consciousness)
Consciousness as the Reticular Activating System (it plays an important role in attentiveness and being awake)
Consciousness as a Property of Protoplasm (that all living matter has consciousness)
Consciousness as Learning (perhaps, to be capable of learning is to be conscious)
Consciousness as a Metaphysical Imposition (apparently, appeal to some sort of bestowal)
The Helpless Spectator Theory (aka, epiphenomenalism, that consciousness is causally impotent)
Emergent Evolution (nervous tissue at a certain level of complexity brings about consciousness)
Behaviorism (better to focus on concrete behavior than consciousness)
Consciousness as the Reticular Activating System (it plays an important role in attentiveness and being awake)
Has anyone here read Jaynes? What did you think?
Also, what do you think of the idea of taking theories that haven't measured up scientifically as nevertheless having interest or value in a non-science context?
If you want to read the book, it is freely available to read online from the Julian Jaynes Society. Archive.org also has a copy that can be freely downloaded.
