The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

Product Information

McVeigh, Brian (2020). The Psychology of the Bible: Explaining Divine Voices and Visions. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-1788360371. Jaynes notes that the nature of divination changed over time and that the favoured practises seemed to ever more closely reflect the modern structure of consciousness, with humans edging closer towards a full experience of self-agency. This process ultimately brings us to The Odyssey, and it is in the narrative of The Odyssey that, according to Jaynes, we can see this proto-agency becoming a more fully-fledged self-agency. For example, the role of the gods has shifted, from centre-stage protagonists to bit part players in the theatre of human agency. We also see the more prominent role of divination, with frequent referencing of seers and omens. Jaynes'] proposal is too interesting to ignore." — David Eagleman, in Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain Der Ursprung des Bewusstseins durch den Zusammenbruch der Bikameralen Psyche (German edition of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind)

Frontiers | “They Were Noble Automatons Who Knew Not What

It is mentioned in Richard Dawkins's 2006 work The God Delusion as "one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets." El Origen de la Conciencia en la Ruptura de la Mente Bicameral (Spanish edition of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind) Jaynes, Julian (2000) [1993]. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-14-017491-5.Walter J. Ong noticed that the Homeric Iliad is a structurally oral epic poem so, in his opinion, the very different cultural approach of oral culture is sufficient justification for the apparent different mentalities in the poem. The contention of changes in oral vs written forms of both the Odyssey and Iliad were in fact a main point of Jaynes argument. Jaynes uses these structural changes to expand his thesis and through philology of the Homeric poems. [32] Similar ideas [ edit ] Regarding Homeric psychology [ edit ] To explain this abandonment, humans invented heavens and underworlds—places to which their deities retreated. And in the absence of these gods, a new psyche emerged, one that we too would now recognise. This is the conscious mind that we are familiar with, where decisions and actions are issued from within. Jaynes believed that it was at this point in human history that consciousness emerged. Contrasting The Odyssey with the earlier Iliad, Jaynes writes: Larsson, M., Larhammarb, D., Fredrikson, M., and Granqvist, P. (2005). "Reply to M.A. Persinger and S. A. Koren's response to Granqvist et al. "Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of transcranial weak magnetic fields" ". Neuroscience Letters. 380 (3): 348–350. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.03.059. S2CID 54348640. {{ cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)

Bicameral mentality - Wikipedia Bicameral mentality - Wikipedia

a b "Did the Bicameral Mind Evolve to Create Modern Human Consciousness?". HowStuffWorks. 2021-02-01 . Retrieved 2021-12-07. W. T. Jones, a sociologist who has been described as "one of Jaynes's most thoroughgoing critics", asked in 1979, "Why, despite its implausibility, is [Jaynes's] book taken seriously by thoughtful and intelligent people?" [30] Jones agreed with Jaynes that "the language in which talk about consciousness is conducted is metaphorical", but he contradicted the basis of Jaynes's argument – that metaphor creates consciousness – by asserting that "language (and specifically metaphor) does not create, it discovers, the similarities that language marks". Jones also argued that three "cosmological orientations" biased Jaynes’s thinking: 1) "hostility to Darwin" and natural selection; 2) a "longing for 'lost bicamerality'" (Jones accused Jaynes of holding that "we would all be better off if 'everyone' were once again schizophrenic"); 3) a "desire for a sweeping, all-inclusive formula that explains everything that has happened". Jones concluded that "... those who share these biases... are likely to find the book convincing; those who do not will reject [Jaynes's] arguments..." [30]

References

a b Mitchell, T. C. (1988). The Bible in the British Museum. Cambridge University Press. p.70. ISBN 9780521368674. According to Jaynes, the shift from god-directed automata to self-determined agents can be seen in certain fundamental narrative differences between The Iliad and The Odyssey. He first points out that our modern concept of the will is entirely absent from The Iliad (the older of the two texts), noting that “there is... no concept of will or word for it, the concept developing curiously late in Greek thought. Thus, Iliadic men have no will of their own and certainly no notion of free will” (Jaynes, 1993, p. 70). At another point in his book, Jaynes describes the soldiers of the Trojan war as being “...not at all like us. They were noble automatons who knew not what they did” (Jaynes, 1993, p. 75). Here is the startling claim that up to this very recent point in human history, there was no experience of self-volition. Human will was “outsourced” to the gods.

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral

The philosopher Daniel Dennett suggested that Jaynes may have been wrong about some of his supporting arguments – especially the importance he attached to hallucinations – but that these things are not essential to his main thesis: [22] "If we are going to use this top-down approach, we are going to have to be bold. We are going to have to be speculative, but there is good and bad speculation, and this is not an unparalleled activity in science. ... Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative enterprise will just have to stay in the trenches and do without it, while the rest of us risk embarrassing mistakes and have a lot of fun." — Daniel Dennett [23]Despite this criticism, there have also been notable defenders of Jaynes' theory, or at least certain aspects of his theory. For example, Dennett (1986) defends what he calls Jaynes'“top-down” approach to the problem of consciousness. Dennett is also sympathetic to Jaynes' ideas on the emergence of consciousness, namely that it may have happened relatively recently and that social/environmental factors were the driving force behind its emergence.