Is bicamerality bullshit?

This topic comes from Message 37: anglagard agreed to set me straight. So I propose to discuss the merits and demerits of Julian Jaynes' theory of the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicareral mind.I am not prepared at this moment to write a treatise on Jaynes, as it is getting late and I have a cold and my medication is just taking hold. But I would like to read what anglagard has against the bicamerality concept. It addresses an area that interests me: How much of a role does language play in this thing we call consciousness? I'd say it's nearly the whole damn thing. I'll get something together, though, if the admin gods are patient enough, which I cannot guarantee.In the meantime, please, anyone, talk me out of Julian Jaynes.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : Thanks, Ringo

It's the medicine, damn it!

Well, then, doesn't that explain your bias? No, Jaynes' theory is not friendly to God and religion. Read his book first and then we can discuss him.”HM

I agree. This is where he gets entangled in brain mechanisms. I'm not so daunted by this, because I don't think a squishy mechanism needs to be at the root of human consciousness. I think we can find it in the symbolic aspects of human language. Why does human consciousness need to be a new wart on the brain? Why can't it be more of a way metaphors and anologies are used by language to create new mental images of reality?I'll admit that my interest in Jaynes stems from a suspicion that human consciousness is more of a consequence of symbolic language than it is a new area of the human that took over. Yes, Gould's "exaption" is a good bet. Maybe the evolution of our symbolic language has more to do with human consciousness than the evolution of our brain tissue.”HM

I realize now that this thread will be hard to manage, or even to participate in. This is the case because the topic necessitates a fairly good familiarity with Julian Jaynes’ book “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.” So I made be riding a lead balloon here. But I’ll mention one thing about Jaynes that got me hooked in his general thesis. He impressed me with his argument of what consciousness is not. He argues these points quite well, I think.1. Consciousness in not a copy of experience: “I think you will be surprised how little you ca retrospect in consciousness on the supposed images you have stored from so much previous attentive experience.”2. Consciousness in not necessary for concepts. “If fact, one of the great functions of language is to let the word stand for a concept, which is exactly what we do in writing and speaking about conceptual material. And we must do this because concepts are usually not in consciousness at all.”3. Consciousness is not necessary for learning: “ . consciousness is not a necessary part of the learning process, and this is true whether it be the learning of signals, skills, or solutions.”4. Consciousness in not necessary for thinking: “Thinking, then, is not conscious. Rather, it is an automatic process following struction and materials on which the struction is to operate.”5. Consciousness in not necessary for reason: “But then the actual process of reasoning, the dark leap into huge discovery, just as in the simple trivial judgments of weights, has no representation in consciousness.”6. Consciousness does not have a location. “Let us not make a mistake. When I am conscious, I am always and definitely using certain parts of my brain inside my head. But so am I when riding a bicycle, and the bicycle riding does not go on inside my head.”7. Consciousness is not even necessary: “Consciousness is not only unnecessary; it can be quite undesirable.””HM

Jaynes argues that consciousness in not located in the corpus callosum, even those it may be a necessary part of the brain.What do you think of my take on this?: If consciousness has any location at all it is in the symbolic language.”HM

Chomski argues that a symbolic language must necessarily have a synatx, and I'm not sure chimps can deal with syntax.”HM

I'm talking about generative syntax, not just word order.”HM

arachnophilia,Thanks for your response. Most of what you say is correct, more or less, if structuralism and functionalism are what you want to see as the true “roots” of consciousness. But I’m not yet ready to buy those paradigms, maybe because I am not as up-to-speed on brain mechanics as you are.But mechanical things that go on inside the human brain can offer only part of an explanation of what consciousness really is, at least that’s how it seems to me. Instead of mechanics I am interested in metaphors as the missing part of the C puzzle. This is where Jaynes comes in. He may be way off on a lot of things that are important to you, mechanical things, but I like his pursuit of the metaphors and analogs of language as a way of getting a better handle on the big C.I have read some of Chomsky, too”his arguments on syntax. And I am not yet ready to believe that chimps can build syntax out of metaphors and analogs taught to them by scientists. But some of those experiments with Coco the gorilla were impressive. Still, they’d have to write in a symbolic language to qualify as being either bicameral or conscious, IMO.All of this comes around to my argument that bicamerality, mechanical or linguistic, is what infects people’s minds when they become religiously absorbed by the spiritual presence and audible voice of God. One cannot easily dismiss the fact that most religious people claim to have conversations with God. How could they do that without a symbolic language. Indeed many claim to have personal relationships with God, whatever that means. How do you suppose all that goes on in a mechanical brain?I don’t think consciousness has any special mechanical gears turning inside the human brain, but there is obviously enough squishy equipment in there to get to the metaphor part of the explanation of consciousness. That requires the act of writing, more than just speaking.And if you buy my idea that consciousness is fundamentally “in” the language, which I doubt you do, then I’ve got a meme to sell you that says consciousness and bicamerality are fundamentally digital, just like a written, symbolic language.”HM

And I've never been comfortable with microtubules, nerve junctures, and brain layers as explanations for consciousness. If there really is something especially mechanical about human consciousness then what is it? Please tell me what consciousness is mechanically to settle my my mind about this bicamerality bullshit?Question (the answer of which may not be too friendly to my position on bicamerality): Did Helen Keller have human consciousness before she met Anne Sullivan?”HM

What does "the whole of the brain" mean? This seems to me to be as nebulous as bicamerality.from Message 5: Wow! "Crackpot"! Such claims without having read Jaynes' book. Are you sure you know what you're talking about then?Please, arachnophilia, help me out and tell what consciousness really is if it is not a linguistic thing. You seem to cling to structuralism, so throw me a bone. And please don't tell me it's the "whole brain" unless you know what that means wrt human consciousness.”HM

If Helen Keller or anyone else is born with human consciousness, then he or she must get it genetically. And if that's the case then there must be a consciousness gene. Then I could understand how Helen Keller possessed human consciousness before she met Anne Sullivan, or even before she was born. Then again maybe human consciousness and bicamerality are learned, not inherited (although there are those who suspect a god gene). Do religions teach their followers to have vocal communications with their gods? If so maybe they invoke bicamerality as a means of mass control. But it's still real either way to those who claim they have conversations with their gods. Come on! If you really do hear a voice claiming to be God's something must be going somewhere in your mind to allow for such profound audibility.Can someone do that without having bicamerality? I don't think so. I certainly do know that I cannot do that. Therefore I know that I do not carry the bicameral trait, heritable or otherwise. Whew!”HM

Here's what I googled up on The Consciousness Gene:

quote:

---

We humans assume that our consciousness is something more than just the sum total of all our senses, as integrated by our brains. In other words, consciousness is something "special" that makes us more than automatons. Other animals may be automatons, but not us!

​

D. Jones speculates in Nature that if consciousness is a definite, inheritable characteristic, it must have had survival value for it to have evolved. It then follows that consciousness must be en-coded somewhere in our genes. Only a single gene may be enough, for consciousness seems to be an uncomplicated phenomenon. Why? Because just a few simple molecules, such as those found in anesthetics, can disable it completely without affecting other bodily functions.

​

Eventually, Jones continues, the gene (or small number of genes) responsible for consciousness will be identified. Then, we can determine for certain if any of the lower animals are also conscious. We think chimps and dolphins might be, but we're not really sure until we see if they have the necessary genes. In fact, the old-time behaviorists could be right, and all the other animals really are merely automatons. That would definitely make us "special"!

​

Once we have the consciousness genes in our labs, we can introduce them into those other species, such as Rover and Kitty, upon whom we would like to confer the boon of consciousness. Many interesting experiments could be per-formed, including, of course, the elimination of consciousness genes in certain selected human subjects!

​

(Jones, David; "States of Non-Mind," Nature, 403:263, 2000.)

---

Makes me wonder if a bicameral (god) gene actually does exist. And if there is indeed a god gene then there would be the predictable alleles: Christian, Jew, Islam, Hindu, Voodoo, etc.”HM

Would that mechanical explanation also apply to the voices heard by those who claim to speak with God?”HM

I've never seen one, nor have I heard godly voices. What am I lacking then? Imagination? No, I have a good imagination. What I am lacking is bicamerality. I lack what Jerry Falwell has: the ability to hear God's voice and to communicate with Him. Are you ready to say that Jerry Falwell is only having an imagined experience when he talks to God? What would Rev. Falwell say about that?If Jerry Falwell speaks to God then I would say he fits the description of being bicameral.”HM