Agnostic.com

11 5
Pretty good summary of Julian Jaynes' theory of the human evolution of consciousness, which he labeled the "breakdown of the bicameral mind."

I am perpetually intrigued by this theory, because it offers an explanation for human kind's widespread affinity for religious belief. Not only does fear of mortality and lack of control motivate many; we may just also be wired to hallucinate voices that then may be interpreted as spiritual beings.

So far his theory remains unprovable, but also very intriguing, because it may explain some of the aspect of religion that involves the individual person's mystical experience and perception of having otherworldly communication, ie---god(s) speaking to him or her or them. That is separate from the aspects of religious motivations such as social control, desire for reassurance in the face of mortality, etc. But it may be the key to humans' remarkable vulnerability to the notion of a god, angel, or demon personally communicating with them. This theory also suggests a viable explanation for psychosis. Perhaps psychosis results from damage to the connective tissues between the brain's hemispheres the are essential for a fully integrated sense of self.

MikeInBatonRouge 8 Sep 30
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Interesting! I have been thinking psychosis relates to some extremist jutjobs dedication to religion for a long time. I can think of examples that seem that way to me.
Despite that I have had real spiritual, or un-human experiences that defied physics and laws of the natural world. Witchcraft offered the only answers I could find. Still curious... I guess I'm still looking for explanations. (I am certain It was not "mental health" related)

1

This theory is new to me - the explanation of driving made a lot of sense.

HOWEVER ... I think that most animals and some insects and arthropods are conscious. Look at a dog while the dog is looking back at you, waiting for you to respond. You can see in his eyes that he is conscious. Dogs express emotions like love, anger and empathy. Those don't happen in an unconscious mind.

I think that many people believe humans are "above" animals with respect to mental abilities, and I don't believe that is true. We may have developed civilization, but that is only through writing - compiling, aggregating and safeguarding prior knowledge and adding to it.

I think that the base emotions of fear, anger, and love are all core to all animals and their drive for survival. When any animal realizes it has been targeted by a predator and is now running for its life, do you think its fear of death is different from ours? If so, how?

Your thoughts?

I agree about the minds of animals such as dogs being underappreciated. I suspect octopi are very aware and perhaps very individual in their reasoning and perspectives, not merely responding by instinct.

However, in Jayne's full written works, he lays out a case for consciousness being a phenomenon in different stages of deveolpment. In the bicameral mind stage, humans would have been much more similar inour perceptions and outlook to very clever animals.

Dogs, for example, equivalent to two year old children, are certainly perceptive and clever at striving for what they want. But they still tend to be easily manipulated by reward systems, stiil predictable in their reactions to stimuli. They live largely for the moment and, as far as we know, don't worry themselves over things like life goals, self-image and self-improvement, or integrity. Their instinctual drives seem more broadly to dictate their responses, unless countered by deliberate training.

We certainly have instincts, too. But to the extent we are aware of them, we can consciously choose to alter our course. Modern consciousness is perhaps most distinguished by our ability to be mindful, that is, reflective about ourselves

That last bit is by no means a perfect skill, nor do we exhibit it from birth. That capacity seems to develop at different rates and to differing extents in different people.

I wonder about the role of language itself in conscious thought. There are many concepts that, without language, would never see expression or outlet that anyone could adequately convey to others.

1

Followed his work back in the 80s, when I also read "Atheism, a case against god", by George Smith, these are a couple that got me started toward atheism, I have never regretted taking the turn.

1

I love this kind of stuff. And I have appreciated Jayne's work for decades, in particular, the ubiquitousness of hallucinations in early humans. It makes a lot of sense to me, and I suspect that consciousness rose slowly, and not uniformly, out of our preconscious origins. More recent developments in neuroscience suggest that so-called "magical thinking", or belief in divine providence, is a kind of default setting in the human brain, which can be overcome, but is likely to resurface, especially during periods of stress.
One of Jayne's apparent blind spots, though, is this notion of "king" and/or "chief", which is very common in those who attempt to peer into prehistory. Think of Sir Arthur Evans, the Brit who explored the ancient ruins on Crete, looking so hard for evidence of a godking, in spite of its apparent lack, that he eventually invented it himself, to support his own theory. Kings and chiefs arose in tandem with the development of large settlements, and were not likely very common when early humans lived in smaller groups. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the leader of a small group was an alpha male, or that leadership in general resided in a single individual. Also, the original deity around the world was most likely female. This detail is important, and should not be overlooked. The development of language, and written language in particular, almost certainly cemented the overthrow of the goddess, and the inevitable rise of patriarchy and kingship.
I am inclined to believe that early humans did hallucinate, probably a lot, and that they were listening to the voices of dead ancestors, mostly mothers and goddesses. Women probably invented ritual and horticulture: men turned them into pageantry and agriculture. As human settlements became larger, and agriculture, war and writing developed, the male voices of kings, chiefs and wargods, subdued and drowned out the female voices of mothers and goddesses.

Excellent insights, especially re. The bias toward social elements of agricultural and post-ag societies, including autocratic leaders. Hunter gatherers, who are now a minisculr minority but for millenia represented all of humanity, never had such a thing as kings or chiefs, survival was, of necessity, a communal efforts, and gathering was more successful when group members spread out over a territory then shared the finds, so that no matter who had a banner haul on a given day, all shared in the spoils. Storage and hoarding were impractical to impossible, and therefore, so was wealth disparity.

I am most of the way through an excellent book that talks about this: Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Human Sexuality, by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, 2010. This book is about far more than human sex; is has a ton to say about human social order, patriarchy vs matrifocal social structures, the phenomenon of wealth accumulation with the rise of aggricultural societies, and the subsequent subjugation of women and growth of violence as a social tactic among men. It also draws on zoology findings about humans' closest primate cousins to shed light on the fact that many of our assumptions about what is inherent for humans stems from cultural prejudices.

@MikeInBatonRouge Sex At Dawn is another wonderful book, and its implications are vast. One of the most significant, IMO, is the uncoupling of female libido from the estrus cycle, allowing females to enjoy sex whenever, not just when they are fertile. That book also makes the case, if not directly, then implicitly, that before patriarchy, women probably enjoyed group sex, and/or coupling with several men in an afternoon, possibly because a single male lover wasn't enough to satisfy the average horny female completely. Remember, the policing and control of female sexuality is one of the key features of patriarchy all around the world. Who knows what sexuality was really like in the age of the goddess?

@MikeInBatonRouge Another really good book along these same lines is The Alphabet vs the Goddess, in which Leonard Schlain (a practicing neurosurgeon) argues that historically, the development of the written word had a lot to do with the subjugation of women, because men wrote first, and often for many generations before women were allowed to write, and men wrote the laws which circumscribed female behavior, especially in the area of sex and procreation. Lots of other ideas in that book too, having to do with the functions of the two cerebral hemispheres.

@sunhatpat I will have to look for that one. So many books, so little time, (sigh, lol)

1
1

Thanks for posting this. I'm going to archive a copy of it over in the Religious Naturalism Group.

skado Level 9 Sep 30, 2020
0

It would seem to me that "something " communicating to a person in their mind by what is often labeled as a "God" could not be ruled out.

If there be something "God" that is all powerful enough to evade scientific discovery, then nothing scientific could prove it non-existent. If "religion" then is something perpetuated by a God thingie by its above scientific all-powerful capabilities, "religion " would not go away unless God thingie changes its mind communication tactics or secretness that causes this "religious " thing people hold to.

Word Level 8 Sep 30, 2020

Sure. That would be a basis for agnostic theism. The bicameral mind "breakdown" theory of development of consciousness proposes an explanation for the personal impression of god speaking to one that does not resort to claims of actual supernatural forces. Reasonal and yet seemingly unprovable. It appeals to my own agnostic atheism.

1

Familiar with this theory, and it is intriguing.

1

I read that as “béchamel” mind lol 😂

Mvtt Level 7 Sep 30, 2020

Tastes good on lasagna and broccoli!

1

I am currently reading his book, and I agree -- his ideas are very compelling, if a bit speculative. As a former christian and a current schizoaffective, I can also say that his theory fits in many ways with how I experienced christianity and how I currently experience psychosis. While hallucinated voices aren't a big problem for me personally, I do get christian-themed command delusions. There are times I do feel like an automaton, controlled by the right-hemisphere. On the other hand, something I don't think he addresses but which I do experience is a heightened sense of personal presence - it's like I can sense people's minds or spirits telepathically.

1

and on the seventh day, god created wind ... pull my finger.

Not sure your intent by that comment. Psychosis is a scientific fact. More than just schizophrenia, it also occures from prolonged sleep deprivation, injestion of verious chemicals, acute stress, and grief. The questions are:How does the brain do it? And is that a component of religious experience? The theory is intriguing, extensively developed, and as I said, probably untestable.

@MikeInBatonRouge Have you never heard someone say just before they fart, "pull my finger", then they fart?

@jlynn37 Sure. Still, your intended implication in this post's context is unclear to me.

@MikeInBatonRouge It's a joke!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:539309
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.