Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is bicamerality bullshit?
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 1 of 126 (438709)
12-05-2007 9:34 PM


This topic comes from Message 37:
HM writes:
anglagard, maybe you're the one who can talk me out of Julian Jaynes. I've read his book three times and I can't find any good reason to dispute the whole of his theory, even though parts of it are weak. Should I make a proposal the admin gods?
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.
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : Thanks, Ringo

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by ringo, posted 12-05-2007 9:39 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 12:25 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2008 7:27 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-21-2008 11:04 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2 of 126 (438711)
12-05-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fosdick
12-05-2007 9:34 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
How much of a roll does language play in this thing we call consciousness?
Since you ask, it doesn't play a "roll" at all, though it might play a "role".

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fosdick, posted 12-05-2007 9:34 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Fosdick, posted 12-05-2007 9:42 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2007 9:52 PM ringo has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 3 of 126 (438712)
12-05-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by ringo
12-05-2007 9:39 PM


Thank you, Ringo
It's the medicine, damn it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by ringo, posted 12-05-2007 9:39 PM ringo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 126 (438713)
12-05-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by ringo
12-05-2007 9:39 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by ringo, posted 12-05-2007 9:39 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 12-06-2007 4:29 AM RAZD has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 126 (438726)
12-06-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fosdick
12-05-2007 9:34 PM


from the other thread. my original post:
quote:
I also agree, so far as biological evolution goes. But if the evolution of human consciousness is at all biological we'd have to say that morality is an atavism of the primitive bicaremal state of mind (per Julian Jaynes). Simply put, science became the necessary tool for humans to evolve beyond bicamerality in order to gain our advanced form of consciousness.
no. julian jaynes is a crackpot. he is to psychology what alan feduccia is to paleontology and what michael behe is to biochemistry. highly controversial, against all the known science, and skipping the peer review process to sell books right to the public. not to mention pissing off literally everyone in his field.
there has not been a major biological change to the human brain of that order in the last 2,000 years. what he proposes is essentially is an evolutionary shift about as major as the difference between a reptile brain and a human brain, and that prior to say, jesus christ, all human beings were schizophrenic. this is just sheer lunacy, and completely unsupported by evolutionary biology.
his case rests on the supposition that corpus callosum, the structure that joins the bicameral brain, evolved very, very recently. this is completely obliterated by the fact that all eutherian mammals have one. that includes mice, cats, dogs, cows... pretty much everything but kangaroos, echnidas, koalas, and possums. monotremes and marsupials -- but they lack a few other commonly mammalian features too.
and just to be extra specific, yes, that list of animals that have a fully functioning corpus callosum includes chimpanzees and hominids. further, chimpanzees exhibit the same sorts of moral behaviour that humans do.
edit: in order for all these eutherian mammals to have a corpus callosum, and jayne's "theory" to be right, it would have to be convergent to such an absurd degree that it challenges the rationality of the person making such an argument. not only would humans have to have evolved it in the last 2,000 years, but every other eutherian mammal would have to have evolved IDENTICAL structures completely separately. further, it is never adequately explained why a truly bicameral mind with isolated hemispheres would exist in the first place, having evolved from a brain more like reptiles' with a single lobe
and your reply:
quote:
spider lover, have you actually read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? Or are you using other peoples' opinions of Jaynes? Sure, there are plenty of people who don't like his theory. They all have their own theories to peddle. Nobody really knows for sure what human consciousness really is. For me, Jaynes' model of human consciousness is the only one that actually works. That's because he uses metaphorical and analogical aspects of symbolic language to show how consciousness grew out of a bicameral state of mind”when hallucinations and hysteria gave way to self-referential decisionmaking. But I'm way OT. Bye.
I have not technically read the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind but i had a very, very significant portion of it read to me many years ago. my mother was convinced it was "the answer to religion." i made her listen to the bible, she made me listen to julian jaynes.
i was unequipped to argue effectively against it when i was 13, but even then the idea that human brain was nonfunctional to the degree that people walked around hallucinating seemed a tad bit on the "bullshit" side of the argument. since learning some more biology and psychology, it has only cemented the idea that this is sheer and adulterated drivel.
frankly, the other thing that i could tell at 13 was that his literary opinions were also flawed. my mother was a classics major, and thought his ideas jived pretty well with the iliad and the odyssey but even herself noticed a major, major flaw in his argument. odysseus, in his argument, would have to be the first rational human being, as the poem bearing his name is essentially about a man who rebels against the gods (voices in his head). but as she knew from studying the mythology -- the literature and the reality of ancient greece were two very different things.
actually reading "origin" back-to-back with ancient literature (of decent translation) alone should be enough to completely obliterate his argument. it's the same basic fallacy we often hear about the bible: that the people are primitive. they're not, they're quite modern. such an argument comes from unfamiliarity with the text, and the assumption that it need be accurate in some way -- jaynes seeks to explain the voice of god with schizophrenia. but had people walked around hearing the voice of god, there would be no need for such a text. instead, what the bible (and other ancient literature) often depicts is a very different picture. gilgamesh describes introspection, as does the old testament. there are bouts of atheistic thought in the bible, and homer. there are descriptions of essentially modern cosmopolitan societies. jaynes fatally mistakes mythology about gods for facts that need to be reinterpretted. it's like reading today's comic books and trying to explain the superpowers.
further... that's not actually the symptoms of bicameral mind. having a "divided brain" is not actually schizophrenia as the etymology would have us believe. we have people today who have non-functioning corpus callosums. they have had them cut medically as a treatment for epilepsy, and their condition is quite well studied in the lab. it does not cause them to hear voices. corpus callostomy patients are generally unable to say the names of things they see or hold with only their right eye/right hand, but able to write the name, and other similar problems... the sort of things where one side of the brain can't communicate with the other. you know, like neurobiology would predict.
auditory hallucinations are caused by problems with or damage to the speech center of the brain, and a few other similar factors. signals from one side of the brain to the other are not perceived as speech, ever. these sorts of auditory hallucinations would be dangerous in the wild, for higher-order mammals.
basically, it's a completely untennable idea speaking in terms of biology, evolution, neurology, psychology, literature, history... etc.
Edited by arachnophilia, : omitted word, signature
Edited by arachnophilia, : scientifically inappropriate usage of "schizophrenia"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fosdick, posted 12-05-2007 9:34 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jaderis, posted 12-06-2007 6:07 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 11:41 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 1:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 126 (438759)
12-06-2007 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
12-05-2007 9:52 PM


I'm going to burn all of my D&D books and start playing Home & Hearth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2007 9:52 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 7 of 126 (438763)
12-06-2007 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
12-06-2007 12:25 AM


Ok..don't completely attack me because I am trying to read more of the classic lit and history, but
frankly, the other thing that i could tell at 13 was that his literary opinions were also flawed. my mother was a classics major, and thought his ideas jived pretty well with the iliad and the odyssey but even herself noticed a major, major flaw in his argument. odysseus, in his argument, would have to be the first rational human being, as the poem bearing his name is essentially about a man who rebels against the gods (voices in his head). but as she knew from studying the mythology -- the literature and the reality of ancient greece were two very different things.
But why would the popular literature of ancient Greece have anything to do with the reality of ancient Greece? (would the philosophy have more to do with the mythology? Although the literature/plays had a lot to do with the religion.)
actually reading "origin" back-to-back with ancient literature (of decent translation) alone should be enough to completely obliterate his argument. it's the same basic fallacy we often hear about the bible: that the people are primitive. they're not, they're quite modern. such an argument comes from unfamiliarity with the text, and the assumption that it need be accurate in some way -- jaynes seeks to explain the voice of god with schizophrenia. but had people walked around hearing the voice of god, there would be no need for such a text. instead, what the bible (and other ancient literature) often depicts is a very different picture. gilgamesh describes introspection, as does the old testament. there are bouts of atheistic thought in the bible, and homer. there are descriptions of essentially modern cosmopolitan societies. jaynes fatally mistakes mythology about gods for facts that need to be reinterpretted. it's like reading today's comic books and trying to explain the superpowers.
I think that denotations of "modern" and "primitive" are quite culturally confined. What is "primitive?" Is it the concept of an anthropomorphic god/s? In that case is YHWH a "primitive" god?
In that case, is Jesus a "modern" god? Probably more than Christians think, but less than Christians'd like.
I'd like to hear more, but the "god" of the NT is quite different from the "god" of the OT. Are they different aspects? Or different gods?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 12:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 1:41 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 126 (438785)
12-06-2007 9:42 AM


The first exposure I had to Jaynes' idea was a science fiction story I read in Analog. It did interest me enough that I bought a copy of Jaynes book (used) and read it.
I admit, it is an interesting book and an intriguing idea. But Jaynes seems to be a bit unclear about the mechanism for the switch from the bicameral state to the fully conscious state. At some points he's describing how the switch occurs in a single individual due to psychological stress, and at others he's talking about an evolutionary change in the physical structure of the brain.
The evolution part is pretty easy to dispose of, and I don't think Jaynes really understood how evolution works. It's pretty hard to see how the physical change could occur in such a short time as he claims; furthermore, since different parts of the world were exposed to the "civilization" stress at different times (some due to colonialization), this process would have occurred at different times, and I don't see how different populations would have experienced exactly the same physical changes.
A purely individual psychological change would be easier to see, especially for someone like me who doesn't really know that much about psychology. I could see how the human brain might be already structured for consciousness (what Gould calls exaptation) and needs only the right stresses to push it over into that mode. However, again, different parts of the world would experience the necessary civilization stress at different times; in fact, I would expect that certain places, like remote parts of Indonesia or the northern fringes of North America, there should still be people in the "hallucinatory/schizophrenic" state. Unless this state is so fragile that mere exposure to the White Man and His Ways is enough to destroy it, in which case I would expect this state to have disappeared very early on before literacy, and so Jaynes would not have a record of its occurrence.
I really enjoyed the book, and it really is an interesting idea. However, like all descriptions of the real world, it needs actual real data to confirm it, predictions made on the basis of the theory, and then confirmatory observations. Simply saying stuff like Myths and legends about talking gods -- that's the bicameral mind in action! or Schizophrenia -- that's just like the bicameral mind! or Hypnosis -- that's just like the bicameral mind! is too much like the creation science where one simply tries to fit individual phenomena into the framework without looking at the overall picture.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 12:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 9 of 126 (438822)
12-06-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
12-06-2007 12:25 AM


arachnophilia writes:
I have not technically read the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind but i had a very, very significant portion of it read to me many years ago. my mother was convinced it was "the answer to religion." i made her listen to the bible, she made me listen to julian jaynes.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 12:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 1:28 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 10 of 126 (438833)
12-06-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
12-06-2007 9:42 AM


"Mechanisms" of consciousness?
Chiroptera writes:
I admit, it is an interesting book and an intriguing idea. But Jaynes seems to be a bit unclear about the mechanism for the switch from the bicameral state to the fully conscious state. At some points he's describing how the switch occurs in a single individual due to psychological stress, and at others he's talking about an evolutionary change in the physical structure of the brain.
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.
A purely individual psychological change would be easier to see, especially for someone like me who doesn't really know that much about psychology. I could see how the human brain might be already structured for consciousness (what Gould calls exaptation) and needs only the right stresses to push it over into that mode.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 12-06-2007 9:42 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 11 of 126 (438877)
12-06-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
12-06-2007 12:25 AM


What consciousness in not
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 12:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 1:36 PM Fosdick has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 126 (438878)
12-06-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Fosdick
12-06-2007 11:41 AM


Well, then, doesn't that explain your bias?
er, no. where exactly in my actual argument did i make any appeals to bias? my problem with his hypothesis is that it goes against everything we know about evolutionary biology, neurology, psychology, and ancient literature. not that it goes against god(s).
having been a member of several evangelical and pentecostal churches, i have no problem with the notion that god is largely and invention of the deranged human mind. but i see no reason historically or scientifically to think that anything has changed.
Read his book first and then we can discuss him.
as i said, i am not exactly totally unfamiliar with the book. how about you address my actual arguments instead of finding cop-out ways to ignore them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 11:41 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 126 (438882)
12-06-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fosdick
12-06-2007 1:25 PM


Re: What consciousness in not
as i understand it, this thread is more about "the breakdown of the bicameral mind" part than the "origin of consciousness" part.
consciousness itself is something of a mystery, yes, and generally poorly understood. the best explanation is a gradual one -- not a sudden shift from a bicameral mind. all eutherian mammals have a fully working corpus callosum. i'm not entirely sure what a monotreme's brain looks like, but i suspect it's something like a reptile's. reptiles, dinosaurs, and birds have single lobes. while our brains still often have competing impulses, at no point in the evolutionary lineage is there an animal with two separate and complete brains that talk to each other auditorily.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 1:25 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Fosdick, posted 12-06-2007 1:53 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 126 (438885)
12-06-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jaderis
12-06-2007 6:07 AM


a side note:
I'd like to hear more, but the "god" of the NT is quite different from the "god" of the OT. Are they different aspects? Or different gods?
the god of the NT and the god of the OT are, in fact, not all that different. there is something of a gradual progression, starting with a strongly anthropomorphic, petty, and violent god in the torah, heading into the abstract and loving in the prophets, and back to an anthropomorphic "son of" the abstract and loving in the NT. it's a slow evolution of cultural ideas, not a completely separate tradition.
this is probably where the answer to this thread is. slow evolutions of human philosophy -- not sudden biological changes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jaderis, posted 12-06-2007 6:07 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by rapiertwit, posted 03-24-2008 9:29 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 15 of 126 (438895)
12-06-2007 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
12-06-2007 1:36 PM


Re: What consciousness in not
arachnophilia writes:
consciousness itself is something of a mystery...all eutherian mammals have a fully working corpus callosum. i'm not entirely sure what a monotreme's brain looks like, but i suspect it's something like a reptile's. reptiles, dinosaurs, and birds have single lobes. while our brains still often have competing impulses, at no point in the evolutionary lineage is there an animal with two separate and complete brains that talk to each other auditorily.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 1:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2007 2:28 PM Fosdick has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024