Anyone familiar with bicameral mind theory?

  • GnomeGodsGnomeMasters [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I’m not gonna watch this long ass video, but bicameralism has kind of waxed and waned in popularity over the years. I read Julian Jaynes’s book many many years ago. There are pdfs readily available on the high seas. I believe it was called “the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind” or something along those lines.

    Been a long time since I’ve really looked into this stuff, but if you think of consciousness as existing on a continuum rather than a binary yes/no proposition, then the idea that ancient civilizations weren’t “as conscious” as we are now might hold some water.

    I believe most modern cognitive scientists are fairly in agreement that our consciousness is in part defined by language, but not solely by language, and there’s also different kinds of consciousness (phenomenal, access, and so forth). Higher Order Theories (which when I was last into the subject were kind of the prevailing theories) basically are in agreement that higher order consciousness requires being able to have a thought about a thought about an experience.

    Actually I’m typing this and realizing I’m way out of my element and maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself can hop in here.

    Edit: as I recall, jaynes’s theory was basically derived from writings and whatnot. I think he basically said that consciousness emerged due to mass migrations of people post Bronze Age “collapse” and that the linguistic exchange was largely responsible for forcing the emergence of the self? Maybe? It doesn’t sound too out there to me. If I recall it’s how he arrived at his conclusions that I didn’t like… not that jaynes has a monopoly on bicameralism, he’s just the only one I was ever kinda sorta familiar with.

  • insurgentrat [she/her, it/its]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s deeply controversial and not really good science. Proponents presenting sources as supporting it are almost entirely not experts in the traditions of the cultures (e.g. originator was a psychologist not a historian).

    Unfalsifiable without a time machine or child abuse, I wouldn’t call it a serious or useful idea.