The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007) • Hacker News Board

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#61

Post by unstyledcontent » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

hliyan wrote: post #23

akvadrako wrote: post #5

Regardless of the historical evidence (or lack thereof) for his theory, I found his book very enlightening. It really helped me understand religion, schizophrenia and the split brain, showing why it would be so important to early human society and how it could came about, biologically and culturally.

I read this over 20 years ago as a teenager. Looking back, now I feel the evidence for the bicameral mind is sketchy (evidence for the bicameral brain , i.e. left-brain/right-brain even more so). However, I'm still enamored by the idea that consciousness is somehow related to (if not generated by) a mental model of the real world: while animals can only contemplate things that are within their senses and in the prese…

I only read the article so my understanding of Jayne is limited to that, but he doesn't seen to be saying that a mental model of the world is what gives us consciousness. I think many animals have a mental model of the world, with some of the most intelligent animals having a very sophisticated model. My understanding (of Jayne) is that humans have consciousness because they are able to use language to further contemplate and analyze a mental model of the world using metaphors and analogies.

One of the things that actually struck me about this theory was that it really boosts the idea that we should respect the minds of non-human animal mind because they may not experience the world differently than we do.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#62

Post by freeflight » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #26

hliyan wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have been better if you had included the reasons for your opinion...

bicameral mind is based solely on historical books. "Achilles didn't hear the gods, he heard his other mind!" etc.

Tbh Achilles hearing his other mind is a much more plausible, and realistic, explanation than pretending that invisible and all-powerful gods and deities spoke to him in "thoughts" with their psychic abilities.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#63

Post by Apocryphon » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

armitron wrote: post #35

Apocryphon wrote: post #7

Like the phantom time hypothesis, bicameralism is a sort of massively revisionist theory that relies on wild interpretations of historical information. And both are pretty entertaining, regardless.

Unlike the phantom time hypothesis, you can find actual non-historic evidence for the bicameral theory of mind. The strongest of which you can actually experience yourself by triggering psychotic states (through the use of psychedelics or other practices). There were times where I fully regressed into a psychological state perfectly described by Jaynes in his book, voices and all.

Perhaps there is stronger physiological basis for the non-historic evidence for the bicameral theory, but the historic evidence sure sounds like phantom time/New Chronology jury-rigging accounts to fit a wacky thesis.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#64

Post by k__ » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

freeflight wrote: post #62

k__ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bicameral mind is based solely on historical books. "Achilles didn't hear the gods, he heard his other mind!" etc.

Tbh Achilles hearing his other mind is a much more plausible, and realistic, explanation than pretending that invisible and all-powerful gods and deities spoke to him in "thoughts" with their psychic abilities.

The only plausible explanation is that the author of the story just made it up.

Someone started the trend and others followed.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#65

Post by Apocryphon » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

karpodiem wrote: post #49

apk-d wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we even prove whether a modern person is conscious? If so, shouldn't we be able to occasionally encounter such unconscious people, either occurring randomly by natural variation (especially given how recently the breakdown is claimed to have happened), or in people who had very little contact with language (hard but not impossible to come by)?

The recent NPC meme provides an interesting answer to this question.

Isn't that just solipsism

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#66

Post by angstrom » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

unstyledcontent wrote: post #61

hliyan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this over 20 years ago as a teenager. Looking back, now I feel the evidence for the bicameral mind is sketchy (evidence for the bicameral brain , i.e. left-brain/right-brain even more so). However, I'm still enamored by the idea that consciousness is somehow related to (if not generated by) a mental model of the real world: while animals can only contemplate things that are within their senses and in the prese…

I only read the article so my understanding of Jayne is limited to that, but he doesn't seen to be saying that a mental model of the world is what gives us consciousness. I think many animals have a mental model of the world, with some of the most intelligent animals having a very sophisticated model. My understanding (of Jayne) is that humans have consciousness because they are able to use language to further contem…

The bias about intelligence modeling on human intelligence is certainly one of familiarity. Other intelligence models that we can observe like cephalopods are about as foreign as you can imagine on the animalia tree of life. Who can say if some cephalopod aren't capable of more diverse communication via color fluctuations/rhythms and postures than we are with our vocal cords and body language?

At some point a human form of self awareness could have formed, but I think the key is not triggered by physiology alone. Feral humans exist and it's important to understand that there is an observed malleability of the mind which tapers with age. Such individuals have been found and in some cases rehabilitated into what we consider functioning, self-aware, cognitively capable humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child#Documented_cases_o...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period

Edit: It reminded me of this story I saw recently about a girl neglected until age 7. Today she is like a 2 year-old in a 20 year-old's body. Keep in mind there is nothing physically wrong with her other than neglect. Consciousness is emergent behavior. Having the physical elements alone is not enough.

http://www.tampabay.com/projects/girl-in-the-window/neglect-...

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#67

Post by thanatropism » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

theoh wrote: post #44

thanatropism wrote: post #34

Science aside, the breakdown-of-bicameral-theory has intriguing parallels to Lacan's theory of the mirror stage. In this (nonscientific - but we're learning the limits of scientific psychology) theory, infants are born unarticulated, a mass of limbs with no wholeness to them. In the mirror stage they discover they have a body which is articulated and which is subject to the gaze of others. This begins the split betwe…

Isn't the mirror stage really about discovering the unity of the body (as a kind of closed contour), thus permitting entry into the Imaginary? Then the Symbolic is initiated when these entities (of which the body's image is supposedly the first) start to be thought of in relation to each other, as in language. In that sense, I don't think you can have language without the Symbolic, so the analogy with Jaynes fails. J…

About entering the Imaginary: you're in the right.

That said, there are a number of stages in the development of Lacan's thought (Malcolm Bowie counts three); he starts out ostensibly as a clinician but gradually expands his concepts outwards until they're a generalized theory of subjectivity.

From this point we can argue whether societies have structures somehow resembling subjectivity - as an economist I've spent a lot of time on the clock doing this. The thing is that as a clinical theory Lacan is way out there in the sophistic hallucination scale, even for the tiny minority that wants to resurrect psychodynamic therapy. Yet that's not what draws people to him, is it?

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#68

Post by posterboy » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

phylomortis wrote: post #28

david_ar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some sense you could say the vast majority of people hear voices, it's just that we conceptualise this as the "inner voice". It seems somewhat plausible that people could conceptualise this differently if there were a sufficiently strong cultural pressure. Perhaps when we hear words in our heads that we describe as talking to ourselves, ancient people would describe the same experience as gods speaking to them?

Not only ancient people. The concept of a “foreign” inner voice exists in islam and is called vesvese in Turkish. It is commonly attributed to being deceit from satan and as a child you get taught to actively repress it.

I tried to record myself, to capture my inner monologue, and found it really painful to listen to. I'm also not very good at role play or impersonation. But a professional performer, like a priest or entertainer, has to do it more than just habitually, and their manners become adapted and people might affect a whole dialectic. Whereas children rather randomly babel and come up with unique manerism that are uncommon and consequently deemed unfit. Further, if you grant that deus ex machina could be a bodyless voice in plays and earlier temple ceremonies, it stands to reason that people would consequently spin these messages further and reanalyse their inner monologue as word of god, not the least to shift responsibility, e.g. to the uber-ich, in Freud's terms.

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#69

Post by rjplatte » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #38

friendstock wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jaynes was a professor at Princeton University, so he must've built up enough credibility to get this appointment. I was a student at Princeton and actually sat in on his class for a few sessions.

> Jaynes was a professor at Princeton University, so he must've built up enough credibility to get this appointment Well, Pauling got two Nobel prizes, but still had crackpot theories about Vitamin C

Both Jaynes and Pauling are extremely intelligent and not gullible people. Why are we so quick to dismiss their "Crackpot" theories, simply because they don't fit with the dominant paradigm?

Re: The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: A reappraisal of Jaynes’ hypothesis (2007)

#70

Post by goto11 » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 7:18 PM UTC

freeflight wrote: post #62

k__ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bicameral mind is based solely on historical books. "Achilles didn't hear the gods, he heard his other mind!" etc.

Tbh Achilles hearing his other mind is a much more plausible, and realistic, explanation than pretending that invisible and all-powerful gods and deities spoke to him in "thoughts" with their psychic abilities.

It doesn't make it a good theory that you can come up with an even more ridiculous theory. It is not even clear if any of the events of the Iliad are historical beyond there probably was some kind of war. You can explain Gods talking to Achilles with this theory...but can you explain Achilles literally fighting a river-God and winning? Even if this is based on historical events, the Homeric epics are centuries removed. And the Iliad is even fairly realistic compared to the Odyssee.