On the origin of consciousness

I have been slowly reading 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' by Dr Julian Jaynes, a Princeton psychologist. In it, he explains his theory on how most all human societies, in different places, at different times but close enough geologically, created gods as an aspect of the rise of consciousness in their minds. Gods manifested as voices in their heads that they must obey or face their wrath (hence the bicameral mind part, one side their own, one side the voice of the gods), with this trait dying off over time as mankind became 'fully conscious' in different areas at different times, but arising first in the second millennium B.C. in Greece and Mesopotamia.

The main four hypotheses of his work are:

1. 'Consciousness — as he carefully defines it — is a learned process based on metaphorical language.
2. That preceding the development of consciousness there was a different mentality based on verbal hallucinations called the bicameral ('two-chambered') mind.
3. Dating the development of consciousness to around the end of the second millennium B.C. in Greece and Mesopotamia. The transition occurred at different times in other parts of the world.
4. The neurological model for the bicameral mind.'

Anyway, I have found it fascinating thus far, and will probably check out 'Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness' next, an analysis and review of Dr. Jaynes work and hypotheses.

SEE ALSO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/104894-jesus-christ-was-invented (related)
http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/104879-the-nature-of-the-mind (also related)

Sounds pretty in depth. Good luck.

While academia mostly ignores Jaynes' book, I found it immensely interesting. When you are done reading it and want another take on the origins of consciousness, I recommend: The Mind in the Cave by David Lewis-Williams.

"Yet it seems to me that Upper Paleolithic people could attend to inner voices without, as Jaynes contends, being semi-automatons, unable to think for themselves. I therefore prefer to think in terms of primary and higher-order consciousness, the development of the second having taken place much earlier than the Iliad - at the emergence of Homo sapiens in Africa. Thereafter, it was culturally specific definitions of altered consciousness that determined whether people heeded their inner voices or not (Lewis-Williams, 287).

I noticed that; there did not seem to be much in the way of peer review or analysis on Dr jaynes' theories, which did not bode well for it when I first started reading them. But agreed, its a fascinating theory. Its major drawback is that it cannot ever be conclusively pproven correct, as there is no way to directly study humans of that time period. This is the main reason I think there is less peer review than something like this would ordinarily command.

I started a TED convo asking for further input/ opinions on the bicameral mind theory, and have hadonly 2 responses in a week. It just is not widely known, despite being around for decades. I'm on my phone and still in bed (late sleeping houseguests preventing me moving around) or I would link it.

In the absence of more scientific analysis of the people who lived back then, perhaps another avenue for exploration might be an investigation of the evidence 'found' in other forms of human expression. While Jaynes compares the way the characters in the Iliad related to their inner voices to those of the Odyssey, perhaps other literary sources might fill in some of the gaps for us. Ancient liturgy, prayers, odes, dedications or myth. What about painting, sculpture or architecture? They might provide some insight. I dunno. Too bad all these projects are so beyond my skill set. It would be fun.

Another book for your consideration: Bruno Snell, The Discovery of the Mind: in Greek Philosophy and Literature, Dover Publications, New York, USA, 1982.

Maybe . . just maybe . . .the reason other psychologists don't join in his theory has to do with differing definitions of consciousness?

Not so much the definitions, as to whether human consciousness evolved at all, was it always like this, that kind of thing. I think psychologically speaking, there is a fairly uniform definition from which to start, as it has been discussed for over a century now.

The final frontier... It's difficult to find a solid definition of consciousness so I think finding it's origin might be tricky. My own theory is that the executive function of the brain has to decide what's important to remember and what's not... out of all the sensory input information. So as the brain gets more and more memory-ability, the more it can decide. It eventually can recognize other people and communicate, decide what's socially acceptable, cooperate, etc. One indication of an advanced brain is the ability to cooperate on higher and higher levels of interaction. Anyway, all of this requires consciousness and arises in nature.

Philosophers posit theses regarding the origin and nature of consciousness with the intention that their arguments will be seen as cogent and their conclusions compelling. Seeking general agreement across the discipline is not an expectation. It is the discussion regarding how the theories differ that drives the debate. Definitions vary in the details and the evidence set diverse. Interpreting their evidence to show how consciousness developed, Jaynes compares the Iliad to the Odyssey, Lewis-Williams Paleolithic cave art, and Snell Greek philosophy and literature. Authors, artists, dramatists, and philosophers each have their own assumptions and intentions making the interpretation of the evidence even more diverse.

“Tragedy is not a faithful mirror of the incidents of myth; instead of accepting them as historical reality, as they are accepted in the epic, tragedy traces the ultimate causes in the actions of men, and consequently often pays but little attention to concrete facts…Aeschylus was the first to show clearly that when a man acted some mental process was involved, and as is usually the case with fundamental discoveries, he started out by greatly emphasizing the essentials of the process” (Snell 106).

First . . Thank you all for joining in this thread ..

---

Desolous: “was it always this way”

Consciousness

By this I am assuming you mean “consciousness”. The most popular generalized definition of human consciousness that I am aware of IN psychology is awareness of self in relationship to external objects.

Using that definition of consciousness, it seems safe to say . . “no humans were not always like this”.

One critic of Jayne’s theories of consciousness and the bicameral mind says he: “confused the emergence of consciousness with the concept of consciousness.”

---

Bicameralism is a termed coined by Jayne. Although, “two chambered” mind theories pre-date Jayne but refer (as appears in Freud’s work) to . . . two MEMORY chambers each STORING a different type of memory.

So the idea of “two chamberedness” as memory storage, pre-dates the rise of self awareness AND also speaks to “memory storage” in humans today.



The question of when did the origin of “subject space object” awareness occur also fascinates me. Perhaps subject object relativity IS the rise of human consciousness? Perhaps the subject object split is the origins of the dualistic nature of man?

But I would say the other “objects” were first “nature” and “other men”
with the “god” as other
coming later in evolution as explanations