From: markg@county.lmt.mn.org (Mark Gilbert)
Subject: Re: Julian Jaynes: The Origin of Consciousness . . .
Organization: LaserMaster R&D, Minneapolis, MN  USA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:13:12 GMT

In article <6316@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute) writes:

>I would be interested, if you could summarise the book's main arguments
>in a paragraph or two.  I'm sure that others would welcome it too.

>Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all



Julian Jaynes
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind


I will try to summarize his arguments, with apologies for a poor job to 
Mr. Jaynes, and apologies for running on more than a few paragraphs to 
readers.  The book is well written and well argued, and I recommend it 
even if you are sure you will not find the main argument convincing.  Jaynes 
discusses in depth what consciousness is and what it is not.  In pursuing 
his argument, he discusses topics ranging from language to the history of 
psychology to halucination.  He presents interesting facts and fresh 
insights into many areas.

Jaynes' definition of consciousness is narrower than the model used by most 
people.  For example, he enumerates many things we do without the aid of 
consciousness.  Consider the involvement of consciousness in driving a car.  
We are often consciously aware of our driving, but we also commonly drive a 
car "on auto-pilot".  We carry on a conversation or think to ourselves while 
we drive.  Driving is quite a complicated function, and yet it does not 
require consciousness.  If something unusual arises in our senses, our 
consciousness can be quickly pulled to the task of driving, but until that 
happens it is quite disengaged.

After compiling an interesting list of things that consciousness is not, 
Jaynes discusses what it is.  Part of this discussion depends on his theory 
about how it developed, which is presented later, but he does associate 
consciousness with language.  He associates consciousness with "thinking to 
yourself".  He does not associate consciousness with logical problem solving, 
but he associates it with the identification and preparation of problems to 
be solved.

Jaynes next discusses the development of language.  Language developed in 
early humans and proved evolutionarily successful.  Its main benefit is that 
is allows the organization of larger communities, since it allows more 
complicated social hierarchies than are present without language.  For 
example, language would be extremely useful for a chief to direct the 
activities of his tribe.  With language the human animal developed an 
ability to direct vocally and to receive vocal direction.  But, Jaynes 
postulates that this was an immediate ability.  That is, the direction was 
only present when the voice was present.

The development of the bicameral mind extended this ability.  Jaynes suggests 
that the brain developed the ability to repeat to itself language that it had 
heard before, or to construct similar language.  Now directions could be 
given at one time and followed much later.  This is the bicameral mind, a 
mind that hears voices that it generates itself.  When in need of direction 
or when faced with a problem, voices would be recalled or generated to 
provide guidance.  Jaynes presents many different kinds of evidence that this 
is the way our brains worked until about four thousand years ago.
Jaynes discusses the way that speech is generated in only one hemisphere of 
the brain.  He suggests that the corresponding areas in the other hemisphere 
were responsible for the generation of internal speech.

He describes the existence of audio halucinations in the modern mind, 
especially in conditions such as schizophrenia.  This halucination is far 
more vivid and more common than visual halucination.  He discusses the unique 
reaction we have to verbal orders; there is something almost unnaturally 
compelling about verbal orders, even to the modern mind.  These facts about 
the modern mind suggest that our brain developed to facilitate the bicameral 
organization.

Perhaps the argument that I find most interesting is Jaynes' description 
of how the bicameral mind gave rise to religion.  There is a common practice 
in ancient civilizations of treating the dead as though they were still 
alive.  The tradition of burial with objects from life was quite common, and 
the veneration of dead chiefs seems to be most important.  Jaynes suggests 
that these practices made sense because the voice of a leader would continue 
to be heard by bicameral people after the leader's death.

Once you accept that people are hearing voices of people not present, it is 
easy to understand the invention of gods, those speakers of messages to 
guide their people.  I have always believed that the usual explanations of 
the origins of religion (a need for explanations of natural phenomena, a 
need for assurance of life after death, etc.) were inadequate to explain 
religious beliefs, which contradict the evidence presented to our senses.  
To me Jaynes' argument is a more plausible explanation of the origin of 
religion. 

Jaynes discusses early writings and carvings in Egypt and mesopotamia, which 
he believes are the work of bicameral people.  He carefully analyzes the 
Illiad, believing it to be a bicameral story, passed on by oral tradition 
before eventually being recorded.  In this story, the characters never 
deliberate (a trait of conscious people).  They sometimes become uncertain 
about what to do, but in these times a god speaks to them and gives them 
direction.  There are a few exceptions to this pattern in the story, but 
Jaynes argues, apparently with good support from literary historians, that 
these sections are later additions to or modifications of the original story.
So what about consciousness?  Jaynes believes that the bicameral mind 
eventually broke down.  This was caused by a massive mixing of peoples that 
occured around the second millenium BC.  As trade and interchange between 
peoples increased, people were more often presented with situations for which 
their inner voices were unprepared.  This breakdown lead to the development 
of a modern, deliberative consciousness, with its expanded ability to 
understand problems.

The transition period to modern consciousness was an interesting one.  As 
conscious thought become more prevalent, the inner voices started to fade.  
As they faded, they were only present in the most dire times of uncertainty.  
(Interestingly, audio halucinations in moderns are more prevelant that you 
would think, and in people who report having them, they are most common in 
times of stress.)  The idea of an oracle arises in Greece at this time, an 
oracle being a person who can still hear the voices, perhaps by entering a 
trance-like state.

In writing about the origin of consciousness, Jaynes tackled a difficult 
problem.  He painted a vivid picture of the development of consciousness 
during a period in history about which we have only fuzzy knowledge.  It is 
likely that his theory is not an exact description of how consciousness 
developed, but I believe that there is a good deal of truth in it.

There is little in the way of alternatives to Jaynes' theory.  Most students 
of the mind ignore its history.  I believe that this is due in a large part 
to our natural tendency to anthropomorphize.  We do it often enough with 
animals and with other non-human entities.  We find it almost irresistable to 
assume that other humans think like we do, even though they are long dead.  
When we read the Illiad or study the history of civilization, we project our 
ways of thinking onto the ancients that we are studying.  It seems stranger 
to me to suggest that the mind has not evolved in four thousand years than to 
suggest that it has developed this thing that we call consciousness during 
that same time.



Mark Gilbert	10/4/92
-----------------------
markg@county.lmt.mn.org

Xref: sparky alt.consciousness:529 alt.psychoactives:1239