|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Quote:Epiphileon wrote:
I agree we shouldn't have to make his argument for him; however, I do think the argument is there and is sound.
LeonAzul wrote:
Would you please walk me through this subsection from your perspective, because I admit I just don't get it. Well from my perspective, I saw this entire chapter as his attempt to validate the plausibility of the bicameral hypothesis, from a physiological point of view, and stripped of assumptions on the readers knowledge, and hyperbole, I think he (with the readers unwarranted assistance) accomplishes this. I will once again emphasize before going on, that ceding plausibility, does not constitute endorsement of complete accuracy. For example... Jaynes p105 wrote:Consider the evolutionary problem:
billions of nerve cells processing complex
experience on one side and needing to send the results over to the
other through the much smaller commissures. Some code would
have to be used, some way of reducing very complicated process-
ing into a form that could be transmitted through the fewer
neurons particularly of the anterior commissures. This, in my opinion, is an unsubstantiated WAG, (wild ass guess), and really is not necessary, we have no idea what goes on beneath the level of words, obviously a huge amount of cognitive tasks are carried out non-verbally, and I just don't see this as qualifying as an evolutionary problem. But then I do not think it is necessary to establish that earlier humans heard voices and saw visions as a matter of course, the behavior didn't materialize out of no where. When he goes on to say... Jaynes p105 wrote:auditory hallucinations exist as such in a linguistic manner because that is the most efficient method of getting complicated cortical processing from one side of the brain to the other. This may not have been the first cause, it may be true; however, language may have been the method to allow for complicated cortical processing to be realized in behavior to begin with. That brings us to this... Jaynes p106 wrote:The central feature of both is that the amalgamating of admonitory experience was a right hemisphere function and it was excitation in what corresponds to Wernicke's area
on the right hemisphere that occasioned the voices of the gods. This is perhaps the weakest point in this section, as we know that there are left hemispheric functions that contribute to the formation of behavioral strategies, so why would these not be heard as well; however, it may be that linear thinking (supposedly the hallmark of the left hemisphere), does not cross the complexity level that would require conscious mediation. The reason I am willing to let this slide is that there may be another scenario wherein all this voices business, did serve an actual evolutionary role in the eventual development of consciousness, elucidating this at this point however would be completely distracting.(getting this notion out of my head to be able to go on with the contextual argument is what delayed this response so long) Besides I have to give it considerable more thought to even be able to present it intelligently. The point is, that the role the voices play in the evolution of consciousness would be largely the same, and therefore, I am willing to go along with the bicameral hypothesis at this point because, if I recall correctly the psycho-archeological argument he makes a little further on, has some compelling aspects. Jaynes then presents his five observations of brain behavior, he feels support support his hypothesis. Jaynes p106 wrote: (I) that both hemispheres are able to understand language, while normally only the left can speak; This is clearly demonstrated by the experimental evidence presented. Quote:
(2) that there is some vestigial functioning of the right Wer-
nicke's area in a way similar to the voices of gods;
You quoted, in reference to this section... Quote:The important thing about almost all these stimulation-caused
experiences is their otherness, their opposition from the self,
rather than the self's own actions or own words. The two points I think are relative about this is that, one, the voices were heard as physical events, and two, they were not in the persons own voice. The first point I think is significant because this is more than just remembering something that was said. The reason that it may mark a vestigial event of the hypothetical voices of the gods, is that for the most part, people reported voices but with no discernible meaning. One of the things Wernicke's area does is the translation of sound into recognized speech, (it does not supply the lexical content),unless this was also once done in the right hemisphere, stimulation there should not cause such a reaction. I regard that some of the examples cited vague associations with memories as incidental, the one thing we seem to know about memory is that it is vastly distributed function, so this is not surprising at all. So within the context of Jaynes hypothesis, was there an area of the right hemisphere that could cause voices to be heard? Yes. Quote:(3) that the two hemispheres under certain conditions are able
to act almost as independent persons, their relationship
corresponding to that of the man-god relationship of bicameral times The subheading he uses when he addresses this point is far better I think than the above. Quote:That the two hemispheres can act independently I very much doubt that it was necessary to describe this as "independent persons", this I think is an example of his hypothesis leaking into a supportive point, why make the god an independent person? In my opinion it obviously is not. Not good, but not disqualifying of his attempt to establish the plausibility of an underlying physiology for bicamerality. Quote:(4) that contemporary differences between the hemispheres
in cognitive functions at least echo such differences of
function between man and god as seen in the literature of
bicameral man This is evident; however, I would say that the bicameral separation of linear and spatial reasoning may have been developing before the advent of the gods. Quote:
(5) that the brain is more capable of being organized by
the environment than we have hitherto supposed, and there-
fore could have undergone such a change as from bicameral
to conscious man mostly on the basis of learning and culture.
Obviously an essential point to his argument, as within a strictly biological evolution the timeline is impossible. The rapidity of the spread of consciousness within Jaynes hypothesis, has always been one of the sticking points with me. Recent studies of the physiology of consciousness though, have put be back to being more open to the possibility of what Jaynes says here. Hopefully that answers your question Leon, let me know if I didn't.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 546
Points: 1,634
Location: United States
|
leonAzul wrote:
Forgive me, but I need to call you on moving the goalposts here. You originally critiqued Jaynes for using contemporary subjects as part of his evidence for brain function in prehistoric humans. Now you critique my response for not making a direct comparison in behavior between the two, something which Jaynes himself concedes is impossible to do definitively. Can you see how this might make conversation difficult?
Forgive me, but I don’t think I moved the goalposts at all. I did originally critique Jaynes because he used contemporary subjects as part of his evidence for brain function in prehistoric humans. I did so because I did not believe there was a great difference between the two. Early humans, in my opinion, had conscious awareness just as we do; perhaps only slightly less developed.
I saw irony in your statement because you essentially said as much yourself when you stated, “…there is little reason to assume that contemporary h. sapiens are significantly different morphologically from their ancestors.” This struck me as saying there was no bicameral mind. This contradicts the position Jaynes has laid out, a position to which, I believe, you have conditionally, or probationally if you prefer, accepted for the sake of the argument. My attempt at humor in pointing out that irony, however, failed. It wasn't until after I posted that I realized you were speaking morphologically, not psychologically. Anyway, moving on.
leonAzul wrote:
This is faulty reasoning. It is very possible that other minor premises are in fact true and could lead to a better thesis, even if this one turns out to be a bust. This is, in fact, the whole point of this exercise in critical reading of Jaynes. While he might well have made a misstep in his consideration of the relationship between language and consciousness, thus torpedoing this version of his bicameral theory, that has no bearing on the validity of the rest of his claims nor the validity of the methodologies which he applied to support them.
Excuse me? If the original premise, that humans had a bicameral mind as early as six thousand years ago, is false, what then is the purpose of the book? Granted, I haven’t read the whole of it, but if the point is to convince us that this premise is a true and accurate portrayal of early humans, how, if that premise is false, can anything that follows have any validity? It seems to me that if I say the sun revolves around the Earth, every statement I use in support of that must be false, as the original is not true.
In reverse, if every statement I make attempting to prove a hypothesis fails to be factually convincing, then the hypothesis fails to convince also. So far, Jaynes has pointed at interesting tidbits in human behavior, but failed to prove bicamerality, in my estimation.
Also, a foundational idea of bicamerality rests in humans having language without consciousness. If Jaynes made a misstep in this, and torpedoed this version as you say, then, again, I don’t see how his premises can be true.
The most profound question, in my mind, is: Which hemisphere developed language, and did that hemisphere require consciousness in doing so?
A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Jan.29-Feb.5
Chapter 6
pages 126 thru 137.33
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
FounDit wrote:
Forgive me, but I don’t think I moved the goalposts at all. I did originally critique Jaynes because he used contemporary subjects as part of his evidence for brain function in prehistoric humans. I did so because I did not believe there was a great difference between the two. Early humans, in my opinion, had conscious awareness just as we do; perhaps only slightly less developed.
I saw irony in your statement because you essentially said as much yourself when you stated, “…there is little reason to assume that contemporary h. sapiens are significantly different morphologically from their ancestors.” This struck me as saying there was no bicameral mind. This contradicts the position Jaynes has laid out, a position to which, I believe, you have conditionally, or probationally if you prefer, accepted for the sake of the argument. My attempt at humor in pointing out that irony, however, failed. It wasn't until after I posted that I realized you were speaking morphologically, not psychologically. Anyway, moving on.
Then please accept my apology for misreading your tone. Otherwise, shifting the context from anatomy to psychology would be an example of what is commonly called "moving the goalposts". FounDit wrote:leonAzul wrote:
While he might well have made a misstep in his consideration of the relationship between language and consciousness, thus torpedoing this version of his bicameral theory, that has no bearing on the validity of the rest of his claims nor the validity of the methodologies which he applied to support them.
Excuse me? If the original premise, that humans had a bicameral mind as early as six thousand years ago, is false, what then is the purpose of the book? Granted, I haven’t read the whole of it, but if the point is to convince us that this premise is a true and accurate portrayal of early humans, how, if that premise is false, can anything that follows have any validity? It seems to me that if I say the sun revolves around the Earth, every statement I use in support of that must be false, as the original is not true.
In reverse, if every statement I make attempting to prove a hypothesis fails to be factually convincing, then the hypothesis fails to convince also. So far, Jaynes has pointed at interesting tidbits in human behavior, but failed to prove bicamerality, in my estimation.
Also, a foundational idea of bicamerality rests in humans having language without consciousness. If Jaynes made a misstep in this, and torpedoed this version as you say, then, again, I don’t see how his premises can be true. This line of reasoning is what I do not follow. Despite the histrionics, Jaynes is following a methodical presentation of his larger hypothesis as a collection of supporting claims, some of them dependent on each other, some of them based on independent observations. Each of these claims has a validity of its own regardless of how well he applies it in support of the overall hypothesis. For the last two weeks of our inquiry, we have been looking at the anatomical evidence that falsifies the counterclaims that there is no functional support for Jaynes's claims. This could be described as a defense of the explanatory value of the bicameral hypothesis. I suspect that in subsequent chapters he will return to the questions which trouble us concerning the emergence of language with arguments based on tests of the predictive power of his theory. These are the two essential attributes of a successful theory: Its ability to explain observations within a defined scope with clarity, and its ability to make specific and testable predictions. Please keep in mind that we are not even a third of the way through this essay at this point. The way he's playing, it's a bit like a game of five card draw, and he's got the jack of hearts and the seven of hearts showing. Are we willing to bet that he isn't holding the nine of hearts or the jack of spades, or is it just the three of clubs?  FounDit wrote:
The most profound question, in my mind, is: Which hemisphere developed language, and did that hemisphere require consciousness in doing so?
That is a very insightful question. Please hold on to it until the topic comes up again in the text, or for another thread if it turns out that he dodges it in this book.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:. Jaynes wrote:
(2) that there is some vestigial functioning of the right Wer-
nicke's area in a way similar to the voices of gods;
You quoted, in reference to this section... Jaynes wrote:The important thing about almost all these stimulation-caused
experiences is their otherness, their opposition from the self,
rather than the self's own actions or own words. The two points I think are relative about this is that, one, the voices were heard as physical events, and two, they were not in the persons own voice. The first point I think is significant because this is more than just remembering something that was said. The reason that it may mark a vestigial event of the hypothetical voices of the gods, is that for the most part, people reported voices but with no discernible meaning. One of the things Wernicke's area does is the translation of sound into recognized speech, (it does not supply the lexical content),unless this was also once done in the right hemisphere, stimulation there should not cause such a reaction. I regard that some of the examples cited vague associations with memories as incidental, the one thing we seem to know about memory is that it is vastly distributed function, so this is not surprising at all. So within the context of Jaynes hypothesis, was there an area of the right hemisphere that could cause voices to be heard? Yes. <edit> Hopefully that answers your question Leon, let me know if I didn't. That is helpful, but what I was looking for was a point by point walkthrough of just this subsection. For me, Jaynes has failed to "connect the dots" on this claim. He does not show the interpretations and inferences drawn from the observations that would specifically support this particular claim of vestigial "voices of authority" — and here I think his biggest problem is using provocative labels where more neutral and descriptive language would be more convincing, or at least less off-putting — based on the evidence as presented. It's time for Jaynes to "show and tell," to "put up or shut up". I like gravy as much as another, but there had better be some meat with it or I am calling shenanigans. I like to hear a good story well-told, but without underlying formal arguments, this subsection looks suspiciously like some of von Däniken's pseudoscience. (I know, overall, there is a world of difference between the two; I'm just commenting on the appearance.) So to put this request more formally: Please rebut my counterclaim that Jaynes has failed to demonstrate the applicability of the evidence that he presents in the subsection captioned 2. That There Exists Vestigial Godlike Function in the Right Hemisphere (Jaynes, pp107ff). I note that your explanation is very helpful, just show me how you got that from what Jaynes actually wrote.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 546
Points: 1,634
Location: United States
|
Thoughts on Jaynes pp. 126 -137.33
P. 130 Quote:
“…my linguist friends lament my arrogant ignorance and swear oaths that in order to transmit even such rudimentary skills from one generation to another, there had to be language. But consider that it is almost impossible to describe chipping flints into choppers in language. This art was transmitted solely by imitation,…”
This is likely true. However, there would first have to exist the ability to imagine chipping flints into choppers. Now if language has not yet been invented, how did the right hemisphere communicate this idea to the left? What command did this “bicameral” individual “hear”?
P. 132 Concerning language. Quote:
The crucial thing here is that the differentiation of vocal qualifiers had to precede the invention of the nouns which they modified, rather than the reverse.
Why? Wahoo could mean tiger, period. The tone could indicate either recognition of a tiger or the fear and excitement of one close by. Also, this is a “noun”; a name for something that Jayes says hasn’t been invented yet.
P. 133 Quote:
These are not arbitrary speculations. The succession from modifiers to commands and, only when these become stable, to nouns is no arbitrary succession. Nor is the dating entirely arbitrary. Just as the age of modifiers coincides with the making of much superior tools, so the age of nouns for animals coincides with the beginning of drawing animals on the walls of caves or on horn implements.
Nouns means abstract thinking, as does all language. Abstract thinking means awareness. One would have to have the ability to envision the separation of individual lives in order to draw them on cave walls. Again, if speech has not been invented, how does the cave man “hear” a command to draw on the wall? And what “sound” did he hear for each individual creature that he drew?
P. 134 Concerning the invention of nouns. Quote:
This period corresponds, I suggest, to the invention of pottery, pendants, ornaments, and barbed harpoons and spearheads, the last two tremendously important in spreading the human species into more difficult climates. From fossil evidence we know factually that the brain, particularly the frontal lobe in front of the central sulcus, was increasing with a rapidity that still astonishes the modern evolutionist. And by this time, perhaps what corresponds to the Magdalenian culture, the language areas of the brain as we know them had developed.
I would suggest nouns have been in use for a very long time by this stage of evolution. The very fact they can envision things like pottery, pendants, ornaments and barbed harpoons indicate they must have had a name for them. Variety would demand it.
Under the Heading:
The Origin of Auditory Hallucinations
That there is a problem here comes from the very fact of their undoubted existence in the contemporary world, and their inferred existence in the bicameral period. The most plausible hypothesis is that verbal hallucinations were a side effect of language comprehension which evolved by natural selection as a method of behavioral control.
Let us consider a man commanded by himself or his chief to set up a fish weir far upstream from a campsite.
Besides having a problem with the “inferred existence” of these hallucinations, it seems to me hallucinations that exist in modern brain damaged people, but not in the general population, would not necessarily have existed in primitive man. No reason to infer existence in early man except in brain damaged people then, also. But there is still a problem in that “nouns” have not yet been invented according to Jaynes; neither have names, so it might be difficult to “hear” speech that hasn’t yet been invented.
As for hallucinations as behavior control? Fear of the dominant leader would do that just as easily.
And:
(setting up a fish weir) …which would require a type of volition which I do not think he was then capable of
A perfectly logical explanation would be hunger and the possibility of an easy way to catch fish. Even the ability to set up a fish weir would require imagination. Perhaps a natural one made out of fallen tree limbs inspired the re-creation of such.
P. 135
This is what verbal hallucinations would supply.
It seems to me that Jaynes is calling simple imagination “hallucinations” needlessly; making the simple difficult. He’s chasing a feather with a fan.
A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote:
So to put this request more formally: Please rebut my counterclaim that Jaynes has failed to demonstrate the applicability of the evidence that he presents in the subsection captioned 2. That There Exists Vestigial Godlike Function in the Right Hemisphere (Jaynes, pp107ff).
I note that your explanation is very helpful, just show me how you got that from what Jaynes actually wrote.
Sorry Leon but I can't do that, because, like you, I don't think Jaynes did a very good job of it. Like we agreed on earlier he leaves it largely up to the reader, although I think he felt he had sufficient cause to assert the evidence he quoted supported his point, the manner in which he did it, failed. I perhaps should have expanded on this... Quote:Well from my perspective, I saw this entire chapter as his attempt to validate the plausibility of the bicameral hypothesis, from a physiological point of view, and stripped of assumptions on the readers knowledge, and hyperbole, I think he (with the readers unwarranted assistance) accomplishes this. Oops sorry, didn't say that right, nope, not at all. He does not accomplish it, only with the readers assistance and a broader knowledge of neurophysiology, do I find the argument plausible, if I relied solely on what Jaynes said, I would see no alternative except to be scratching my head, muttering "say what?" So Jaynes doesn't establish the argument but I feel it is on the basis of what I said above... Quote:The two points I think are relative about this is that, one, the voices were heard as physical events, and two, they were not in the persons own voice. The first point I think is significant because this is more than just remembering something that was said. The reason that it may mark a vestigial event of the hypothetical voices of the gods, is that for the most part, people reported voices but with no discernible meaning. One of the things Wernicke's area does is the translation of sound into recognized speech, (it does not supply the lexical content),unless this was also once done in the right hemisphere, stimulation there should not cause such a reaction. I regard that some of the examples cited vague associations with memories as incidental, the one thing we seem to know about memory is that it is vastly distributed function, so this is not surprising at all.
So within the context of Jaynes hypothesis, was there an area of the right hemisphere that could cause voices to be heard? Yes. Please let me know if I'm still missing the point, some aspects of this discussion and my ability to respond to some posts, are beginning to make me wonder if my mental acuity is what it once was.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:
Please let me know if I'm still missing the point, some aspects of this discussion and my ability to respond to some posts, are beginning to make me wonder if my mental acuity is what it once was.
That really is it. My question was more a "reality check" in case some stubbornness of my own was getting in the way of comprehension. I see something of a flow of logic in points (1) and (3) where, even if I don't have the technical expertise, a decent dictionary or a trip to the library can fill in the details. Point (4) is missing some steps in the logic but otherwise well laid out. Point (5) [6!] is self-evident, even without the latest research into the particulars. But point (2) remains murky. Either he is concerned about overstating the case — something that doesn't seem to bother Jaynes very often — or he just never got around to sorting it out before the publication date. Or maybe I should just be patient and see what else he has to offer.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 546
Points: 1,634
Location: United States
|
Epiphileon wrote:
Please let me know if I'm still missing the point, some aspects of this discussion and my ability to respond to some posts, are beginning to make me wonder if my mental acuity is what it once was.
I'm glad it's not just me! It does get confusing at times. So much has been said, and so much ground covered. It doesn't help that Jaynes isn't always clear or specific enough, in my opinion.
A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
FounDit wrote:Jaynes P. 133 wrote:
These are not arbitrary speculations. The succession from modifiers to commands and, only when these become stable, to nouns is no arbitrary succession. Nor is the dating entirely arbitrary. Just as the age of modifiers coincides with the making of much superior tools, so the age of nouns for animals coincides with the beginning of drawing animals on the walls of caves or on horn implements.
Nouns means abstract thinking, as does all language. Abstract thinking means awareness. One would have to have the ability to envision the separation of individual lives in order to draw them on cave walls. Again, if speech has not been invented, how does the cave man “hear” a command to draw on the wall? And what “sound” did he hear for each individual creature that he drew?
This is where Jaynes appears to be begging the question. Although he has demonstrated that many mental processes, including abstract and categorical thinking, take place without awareness, yet he does not demonstrate the necessity that language precedes consciousness, or that consciousness is not required to first acquire language. He is asking us to accept his interpretation of anthropological observations to validate the predictive power of his theory — and perhaps he shall later in the book — but I definitely agree with you that he hasn't made his case at this point. Yet much of what he writes is still valid. One does not need to name an object in order recognize and reproduce its physical appearance, but to do so in a way that expresses relationships among the objects requires categorical thinking. A more formal way to express this is that commands emerge from the desire to alter the states of modifiers or attributes, and that nouns and names emerge as collections of modifiers and attributes that facilitate references to those objects which share those attributes. All of that requires nothing more sophisticated than noting the correlation between events and consequences, something which even single-celled organisms can manage. happy==>eat==>food; happy==>eat==>get food; happy==>eat==>get food==>catch fish; happy==>eat==>get food==>catch fish==>build weir; As a sequence of tasks, there is no reason this could not have been developed over many generations through imitation of successful animals, including parents. Whether this occurred without the conscious application of formal logic and language is what Jaynes has yet to articulate. I see no need to appeal to a "phantom voice" nor "celestial guide," when a hungry belly is motivation enough.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
FounDit wrote:Thoughts on Jaynes pp. 126 -137.33 P. 130 Quote: “…my linguist friends lament my arrogant ignorance and swear oaths that in order to transmit even such rudimentary skills from one generation to another, there had to be language. But consider that it is almost impossible to describe chipping flints into choppers in language. This art was transmitted solely by imitation,…” This is likely true. However, there would first have to exist the ability to imagine chipping flints into choppers. Now if language has not yet been invented, how did the right hemisphere communicate this idea to the left? What command did this “bicameral” individual “hear”?
No there would not, just as chimps do not need language to communicate using sticks to retrieve ants from anthills, imitation is entirely sufficient to this task. There are many tasks even in modern human behavior, as he points out, the transmission of which depends far more on demonstration and imitation than on any verbal instruction. An aspect of human behavior I think this may also be relevant to is the amazing strength of traditions, or particularly of the phrase, "this is the way it has always been done."P. 132 Concerning language. Quote: The crucial thing here is that the differentiation of vocal qualifiers had to precede the invention of the nouns which they modified, rather than the reverse. Why? Wahoo could mean tiger, period. The tone could indicate either recognition of a tiger or the fear and excitement of one close by. Also, this is a “noun”; a name for something that Jayes says hasn’t been invented yet.Because he is attempting to posit a way that signaling evolved into language, rabbits have the ability to signal danger, and perhaps the intensity of their ground pounding indicates how imminent it is. Signaling can become incredibly complex without the need of an actual language, consider the dance of the honey bees. The evolution of language is most likely, only ever going to be a matter of inference; however what Jaynes lays out here is not unreasonable. I can easily see the need for "faster," 'farther," and "higher," being a more needful first step than nouns.P. 133 Quote: These are not arbitrary speculations. The succession from modifiers to commands and, only when these become stable, to nouns is no arbitrary succession. Nor is the dating entirely arbitrary. Just as the age of modifiers coincides with the making of much superior tools, so the age of nouns for animals coincides with the beginning of drawing animals on the walls of caves or on horn implements. Nouns means abstract thinking, as does all language. Abstract thinking means awareness. One would have to have the ability to envision the separation of individual lives in order to draw them on cave walls. Again, if speech has not been invented, how does the cave man “hear” a command to draw on the wall? And what “sound” did he hear for each individual creature that he drew?
Of what I've been able to find on the ideas of how language evolved, I see absolutely no reason to reject this theory of Jayne's out of hand, it is unlikely that we will ever have anything but inference as to how language came to be; however of one thing we can be certain, it evolved. Whether it evolved from much earlier animal signaling, or only within the hominid line, (as is debated within the field) doesn't really matter, it did not suddenly appear in early human behavior out of nowhere.
Your comment about the recognition of individual lives I do not fully understand, all primate species I am aware of have a basic recognition of this, it would be necessary for their social structure. P. 134 Concerning the invention of nouns. Quote: This period corresponds, I suggest, to the invention of pottery, pendants, ornaments, and barbed harpoons and spearheads, the last two tremendously important in spreading the human species into more difficult climates. From fossil evidence we know factually that the brain, particularly the frontal lobe in front of the central sulcus, was increasing with a rapidity that still astonishes the modern evolutionist. And by this time, perhaps what corresponds to the Magdalenian culture, the language areas of the brain as we know them had developed. I would suggest nouns have been in use for a very long time by this stage of evolution. The very fact they can envision things like pottery, pendants, ornaments and barbed harpoons indicate they must have had a name for them. Variety would demand it.I think you missed his point here, and your putting the cart before the horse, it was indeed the variety of things that demanded we be able to identify them, and therefore made words to identify them.Under the Heading: The Origin of Auditory HallucinationsThat there is a problem here comes from the very fact of their undoubted existence in the contemporary world, and their inferred existence in the bicameral period. The most plausible hypothesis is that verbal hallucinations were a side effect of language comprehension which evolved by natural selection as a method of behavioral control. Let us consider a man commanded by himself or his chief to set up a fish weir far upstream from a campsite. If he is not conscious, and cannot therefore narratize the situation Besides having a problem with the “inferred existence” of these hallucinations, it seems to me hallucinations that exist in modern brain damaged people, but not in the general population, would not necessarily have existed in primitive man. No reason to infer existence in early man except in brain damaged people then, also.
First of all, as I have already pointed out, these do not only occur in brain damaged people, it is a fairly well established ability of the human brain, and second, there is also a historical record of countless prophets of one ilk or another, hearing voices. These voices had to have come from somewhere, whether Jaynes' notion is correct or not, somewhere in evolutionary history the human brain developed the ability to generate audio hallucinations. Besides that, consider the likelihood of brain damage actually producing a complex behavior that wasn't some manifestation of an inherent ability in the first place.
But there is still a problem in that “nouns” have not yet been invented according to Jaynes; neither have names, so it might be difficult to “hear” speech that hasn’t yet been invented.
As for hallucinations as behavior control? Fear of the dominant leader would do that just as easily.
not, "If he is not conscious, and cannot therefore narratize the situation," in this case, as is the context of the argument, with no ability to consciously access the memory of the directions, being able to hear them replayed would indeed be evolutionarily stable
And:(setting up a fish weir) …which would require a type of volition which I do not think he was then capable of A perfectly logical explanation would be hunger and the possibility of an easy way to catch fish. Even the ability to set up a fish weir would require imagination. Perhaps a natural one made out of fallen tree limbs inspired the re-creation of such. Once again I believe you are not considering the vast power of intelligence alone, do you suppose the first cutting tools were first imagined? Or does it seem more reasonable that early hominids having been cut by sharp rocks, picked them up and started cutting things with them?P. 135 This is what verbal hallucinations would supply. It seems to me that Jaynes is calling simple imagination “hallucinations” needlessly; making the simple difficult. He’s chasing a feather with a fan.
There is absolutely nothing simple about imagination, even if you equate it with consciousness as, if I recall correctly you do, it is an extremely complex behavior, what is it, where did it come from, and why? Jaynes, right or wrong, is from an evolutionary perspective proposing reasoned, consistent answers to those questions. Your arguments with him seem to continuously be based on a competitive theory, what that theory is, would be beyond the scope of this discussion; however, it would be very useful to know what it is and its structure, would you consider presenting it in another thread? I believe it would be interesting, bring up issues that we are not touching on here, and would be happy to participate in it.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 546
Points: 1,634
Location: United States
|
Epiphileon wrote:
There is absolutely nothing simple about imagination, even if you equate it with consciousness as, if I recall correctly you do, it is an extremely complex behavior, what is it, where did it come from, and why? Jaynes, right or wrong, is from an evolutionary perspective proposing reasoned, consistent answers to those questions. Your arguments with him seem to continuously be based on a competitive theory, what that theory is, would be beyond the scope of this discussion; however, it would be very useful to know what it is and its structure, would you consider presenting it in another thread? I believe it would be interesting, bring up issues that we are not touching on here, and would be happy to participate in it.
You are correct in that I do equate consciousness with imagination. In fact, I believe the one cannot exist without the other. I have stated this several times over the course of not only this topic but others also.
If you will recall, early on I stated that I had problems with Jaynes’ hypothesis, and said it made no sense to me. However, you asked me to stay the course and give him a chance to make his case. I have done so, but at each step along the way, his hypothesis continues to appear false and untenable to me.
I continually find myself at odds with him and his “reasoning”, as I have stated, and find myself in the role of spoiler, which is not a comfortable position. In refuting his positions, I appear to be contentious, which is not what I desire. Rather, I am attempting to point out, what I see, as flaws in his logic or reasoning.
The goal, which I apparently missed and am unable to accomplish, is acceptance of his hypothesis to some minimal degree, and, if possible, find a common belief with him in the idea of bicamerality. In this case, the better part of valor for me might be to find another windmill in another thread, as you suggest.
Thank you, however, for a very interesting topic, and giving me opportunity to engage in some fascinating thought.
A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
My purpose in that last paragraph FounDit, was not to discourage you from continuing in this discussion, I have thought to start another thread a couple of times to pursue notions concerning consciousness that you've brought up, there are a number of points you've mentioned that I'd like to see further discussed, but that would definitely derail this thread from its intended purpose.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 546
Points: 1,634
Location: United States
|
I look forward to more interesting discussions on the topics of imagination and consciousness as they might arise.
On the topic of bicamerality, however, I feel I am more a nuisance than a help, so I will abstain from further comment, unless I feel it would be useful.
Thanks.
A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Feb.5-Feb.12
Book Two
The Witness of History
Chapter 1
pages 149 thru 160
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
FounDit wrote:I look forward to more interesting discussions on the topics of imagination and consciousness as they might arise.
On the topic of bicamerality, however, I feel I am more a nuisance than a help, so I will abstain from further comment, unless I feel it would be useful.
Thanks. Please continue to participate. Your point of view is not a nuisance, but rather a very valuable contribution to this thread. That goes for Ray41, NancyLee, RubyMoon, and some of the other lurkers as well.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
Jaynes p160 (166) wrote:It is a long way from Eynan. Putting aside for the moment the special pleading and begging the question involved in Jaynes's [ab]use of the label "bicameral mind," I find something of merit in this terse summary. There is indeed an uncanny structural resemblance in all these societies, separated as they are by time and physical location. Perhaps it can be explained by the influence of extraterrestrials, whether corporeal, spiritual, or some admixture. Perhaps it can be explained by diffusion, and Thor Heyerdahl has demonstrated the feasibility of such an explanation. Yet by Occam's Razor, the least complicated explanation would involve the neurological potential which all healthy humans share.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 712
Points: 2,063
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
Eynan, was a Natufian settlement built and settled circa 10,000–8,000 BCE
Quote:
The Natufian Period (12500--10200 before present according to carbon-14 datings) corresponds to the first phase of a phenomenon which within several thousands years was to transform hunter-gatherers into the earliest city-dwellers in Mesopotamia: the making of the Neolithic culture. At the time in the Levant societies showed evidence of strong tendencies to sedentary life. Later on they learned to control their vegetable food resources and eventually animal slaughter ... I saw the archaeological series on a site that was on the lip[side] of the valley through which the Jordon River flows. It comprised several layers of occupation going back to the nomadic hunter/gatherer. In the deepest level they found large jawbones with quartz 'teeth' imbedded, and, these were considered to be a crude form of sickle used by nomads to reap the annual seed bearing grasses. When this was done the people moved on. Each layer, coming up from there, indicated a longer and more sophisticated occupation until it reached the stage of being a permanent village. This site/area is believed to be where man gradually moved from being a nomadic hunter/gatherer to growing [improving seed yields] and harvesting/storing seeds which lead to his being able to form the first permanent abode/village.
The archaeologists were puzzled as to why the village was located/established so far from a water source until they checked the climatic conditions. 12,000 years ago the Jordon Valley was a glacier as the earth was experiencing a mini[?] ice-age.
It would appear that once man had the means to form a permanent abode his ability to accelerate his knowledge,understanding and cognitive thinking was exponential.
I am inclined to accept leon's comment;Yet by Occam's Razor, the least complicated explanation would involve the neurological potential which all healthy humans share.As an aside, I was reading an article yesterday which explained that the human brain was larger and heavier, size for size, than any animals brain because as it has grown it has continued to fold in on itself and develop deeper folds and crags.
(spread out it would be the size of a pillowcase).
To me this defining point is crucial as it shows that the human brain has been growing in capacity as the need to store more knowledge and perform more complex tasks are demanded of it.
As for Jaynes 'voices', there are numerous reasons to explain this without any need for in-depth neurological knowledge.
There are many plants, if chewed, smoked, etc. that will induce 'hallucinations' and this has been used by 'medicine man', witch doctor' types to influence[intimidate] tribal members/communities world wide, right up to the present time,[ie: Haiti]
Historical proof of voices commanding people to perform certain actions/deeds are written, but,hard to prove. Noah is recorded as being told to build the Ark, yet, logic tells us that it would be impossible to carry and feed all the animal species that existed at that time. Also that there is no proof of the earth being flooded for forty days, a seemingly impossibility.
The Ten Commandments were handed to Moses, but, he may have decided that his tribe needed some laws to live by, so, why not invent a voice from God supposedly telling him how the people should live. It would certainly empower him in the eyes of his people, and, he would not have been the first, nor will he be the last, to use this ruse???
I will now collect my club and retire to my cave,
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Ray wrote:As for Jaynes 'voices', there are numerous reasons to explain this without any need for in-depth neurological knowledge. Welcome back Ray, glad to have you. Certainly no deep knowledge of neuroanatomy is necessary to acknowledge that hallucinated voices can be heard by humans; however, if one is going to build an argument for them in evolutionary history, particularly as radical of one as Jayne's, one had better have all the bases at least tentatively covered. One other thing on this is, just in case, without some neurological mechanism for the production of the voices, they would not exist, no matter what was ingested.
Thanks for the info on the Jordon Valley, do you know if that series is on the web? I'm afraid I have forgotten most of what I heard in my anthropology classes.Ray wrote:Historical proof of voices commanding people to perform certain actions/deeds are written, but,hard to prove... he may have decided that his tribe needed some laws to live by, so, why not invent a voice from God supposedly telling him how the people should live. Yes it would be impossible to "prove" but, given the preponderance of the evidence I would find it hard to discount. On your second quoted point, I do think the Moses' original motivation may have come from a "command of a god"; but it should be remembered that Moses was a very highly educated Egyptian before he was the prophet of Yahweh, and that much of the book of the law has to do with health and hygiene.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote: Yet by Occam's Razor, the least complicated explanation would involve the neurological potential which all healthy humans share. I just want to be sure I'm following you correctly here, are you agreeing with Jaynes? As he would maintain that the bicameral mind was, at the time, just such a neurological potential.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 712
Points: 2,063
Location: Australia
|
Epi wrote;
Thanks for the info on the Jordon Valley, do you know if that series is on the web? I'm afraid I have forgotten most of what I heard in my anthropology classes.Epi,
The series was well over two years ago so names are no longer familiar[old timers disease]. The dig was being/was carried out under the control of the University of Israel[?] and the name Ofer Bar-Yosef sounds familiar. It was an Israeli archaeologist describing what was uncovered. Cannot find anything on You Tube, and a google search just leads me to books. Found that there are a lot of Early Neolithic Villages in the Jordan Valley which are the subject of archaeology and none of their names ring a bell? I opened several sites to read the description of activities and discoveries, and again, the only one that sounds close is; Ofer Bar-Yosef, The Excavations at Gilgal I - an early Neolithic site in the Jordan Valley.Your comment;without some neurological mechanism for the production of the voices, they would not exist, no matter what was ingested. We have to take that as a prerequisite as we basically cannot grow anything without a source. So, is it possible that the 'bicameral mind' is just a figment of Jayne's mind? and, that the potential for language has always been in the developing human brain, and, it has evolved slowly as the need arose and 'not as the result of hearing voices triggering a connection'???
In order to interpret/understand these voices would we not have to already have 'language', and would not that language be 'different'[dialects] for different locations/countries?
If the 'consciousness', 'I', loosely meaning that we recognise 'who/what we are', then would this not be a natural transition from being able to recognise the attributes/characteristics of fellow tribal members and applying the same criteria to 'oneself'??
This would place the 'Origin of Consciousness' back to early man's first interaction with his peers which would be ?????
Or, am I over simplifying a form of conclusion?
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Ray41 wrote:
Epi wrote;
Your comment;without some neurological mechanism for the production of the voices, they would not exist, no matter what was ingested.
We have to take that as a prerequisite as we cannot grow anything without a source. So, is it possible that the 'bicameral mind' is just a figurement of Jayne's mind... Yes it is entirely his own speculative invention. I am still strongly of the opinion that what Jaynes describes as the "bicameral mind' is dubious; however, the notion that at one time hallucinated voices were the method used to direct human behavior, I'm still open to considering. The other aspect of Jaynes theory I am only recently again, open to considering is the relatively recent arrival of consciousness in evolutionary history.
Other than establishing the physiological possibility of hallucinated voices, and the non-necessity of consciousness for many complex behaviors in the first section, nearly all of the support Jaynes offers for the credibility of his overall hypothesis, in my opinion, begins with this section, and it is all an analysis of what we know of the behavior of early societies.
In the past I have always been extremely doubtful that consciousness could have appeared as Jaynes is going to maintain it does. It always seemed to be far too quick of transition, and far too rapidly spread, to fit within an evolutionary paradigm; however, recent advances in our understanding of the physiological substrate for consciousness may actually allow for this. Ray41 wrote:and, that the potential for language has always been in the developing human brain and it has evolved as the need arose??? I doubt we will ever know the actual evolutionary origin of language with any accuracy with regard to time, or initial developmental steps, one of the biggest mysteries is the asymmetric hemispheric localization of the language centers. My guess would be that this occurred during the transition from arboreal to ground dwelling lifestyles. Jaynes description of the actual development of language from there is not unreasonable. Ray41 wrote:If the 'consciousness', 'I', loosely meaning that we recognize 'who/what we are', then would this not be a natural transition from being able to recognize the attributes/characteristics of fellow tribal members and applying the same criteria to 'oneself'?? This seems to me to require that recognition to be conscious to begin with, thereby making the argument circular, I'm not sure I got what you intended though. If that is not the case then here is the crux phrase in what you said, "natural transition", what is that? If we are going to posit an explanation of how we go from unconscious mentality to consciousness such terms must be expanded on.
Like I said above Jaynes notions rest primarily on a behavioral analysis, and it is an extended argument, much of the reason he holds this notion are yet to come, some of which, I originally found somewhat compelling
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:leonAzul wrote: Yet by Occam's Razor, the least complicated explanation would involve the neurological potential which all healthy humans share. I just want to be sure I'm following you correctly here, are you agreeing with Jaynes? As he would maintain that the bicameral mind was, at the time, just such a neurological potential. I agree with Jaynes to the extent that he is on the right track, and that he is definitely on the side of science and not nonsense. He has presented some good evidence that the gods of Olympus and other pantheons were not fabricated out of whole cloth but rather developed from the common experience of imagined voices that express moral decisions. As we both noted, his arguments have been a little sloppy, but the evidence itself is good. Yet as Ray41 points out, the very structure of these societies suggests that they are somewhat contrived by the leaders, or elite. That is to say that consciousness and bicameralism are modes of thinking that have been co-existent for a very long time; what differs from society to society is which is prevalent, and which is suppressed. [note: I edited the last sentence for better structure and clarity.]
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
Ray41 wrote: We have to take that as a prerequisite as we basically cannot grow anything without a source. So, is it possible that the 'bicameral mind' is just a figment of Jayne's mind? and, that the potential for language has always been in the developing human brain, and, it has evolved slowly as the need arose and 'not as the result of hearing voices triggering a connection'???
In order to interpret/understand these voices would we not have to already have 'language', and would not that language be 'different'[dialects] for different locations/countries?
If the 'consciousness', 'I', loosely meaning that we recognise 'who/what we are', then would this not be a natural transition from being able to recognise the attributes/characteristics of fellow tribal members and applying the same criteria to 'oneself'??
This would place the 'Origin of Consciousness' back to early man's first interaction with his peers which would be ?????
Or, am I over simplifying a form of conclusion? Your line of reasoning is quite sound. If I may say so, it is in other words what FounDit finds so objectionable about the whole thesis. We do observe evidence for consciousness in the development of individual children well before the ability to articulate spoken or written language. From this point of view, even if Jaynes is historically correct, it is of very little practical value in the rearing and education of modern human beings. On the other hand, if sufficient evidence can be demonstrated to support Jaynes's thesis, this could lead to an actual theory of consciousness with corresponding predictions. This would also raise some very interesting questions. If language, bicameralism, and consciousness are latent capacities of brain structure and function that are in turn very malleable, particularly during neonatal development, what other capabilities are possible, and how would we go about facilitating them?
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 712
Points: 2,063
Location: Australia
|
leon wrote:
If language, bicameralism, and consciousness are latent capacities of brain structure and function that are in turn very malleable, particularly during neonatal development, what other capabilities are possible, and how would we go about facilitating them?I don't think that we can influence the brain neonatal, but, once born, the babies of today are exposed to far more complex stimuli than the generation preceding them ever was. This environment must have an impact on brain development, and, subsequently, improving brain function, capability, and if measurable, capacity. It is not a fast process, but, if we look at the scientific gains, discoveries, breakthroughs and ever expanding stored data from the last 70 years, then we are moving at 'warp speed' compared to the comparable period preceding 1942. There must also be some latent ability in the brain to adapt, otherwise I, at the age of 70+, would not be able to encompass the technology that I am accepting, and using, right now.  Higher levels of nutrition have contributed greatly to our increasing intellect, as has the higher level of education available to a far larger percentage of the population. There have been many Einsteins in the world that just never had the opportunity to develop. We now are snaring a lot more of them in the education net. As for what capabilities are possible, I think that depends entirely on an individuals genetics, and, as an ex-stud breeder I know that with controlled mating and high selection and culling rates we can indeed enhance many capabilities. I would not like to see this associated in any way to the human race. 
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 712
Points: 2,063
Location: Australia
|
Ray41 wrote:
If the 'consciousness', 'I', loosely meaning that we recognize 'who/what we are', then would this not be a natural transition from being able to recognize the attributes/characteristics of fellow tribal members and applying the same criteria to 'oneself'??Epi wrote:
This seems to me to require that recognition to be conscious to begin with, thereby making the argument circular, I'm not sure I got what you intended though. If that is not the case then here is the crux phrase in what you said, "natural transition", what is that? If we are going to posit an explanation of how we go from unconscious mentality to consciousness such terms must be expanded on.
Like I said above Jaynes notions rest primarily on a behavioral analysis, and it is an extended argument, much of the reason he holds this notion are yet to come, some of which, I originally found somewhat compellingI am a bit confused here Epi. Does recognition directly need to have consciousness? Animals exhibit many forms of recognition, both of each other, their natural enemies, and in domestic situations, identifying their owners. Recognition takes many forms and is essential that offspring be identified by the nurturer in order to survive. This takes in the sense of smell, hearing, as well as visual recognition.
I have many times had a thousand ewes and lambs yarded, the lambs separated to be earmarked, vaccinated, castrated,etc. Often the twinning rate is over 40% (400 ewes to find 2 lambs), yet within an hour of the last lamb being released the whole mob is mothered up. This bonding is essential and 'instinctive' for all mammals if they are to continue as a species, so, what makes humans any different?
Without the ability to recognise tribal members, or friend from foe, we would have ceased to exist.
May I suggest that the ability to 'recognise' is not dependent on a 'higher form of consciousness' and that 'consciousness has always been present', the level being enhanced as the need to co-operate made more demands on the survival of the human species.
This brings us back to previous posts;
Your comment; without some neurological mechanism for the production of the voices, they would not exist, no matter what was ingested.
My comment; We have to take that as a prerequisite as we cannot grow anything without a source.
Why should this not also apply to consciousness?
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Ray wrote:being able to recognize the attributes/characteristics of fellow tribal members and applying the same criteria to 'oneself'?? Epi wrote:
This seems to me to require that recognition to be conscious to begin with, thereby making the argument circular, I'm not sure I got what you intended though.
Ray wrote:
Does recognition directly need to have consciousness?
No, certainly it does not Ray, you are absolutely right many levels of recognition go on throughout the animal kingdom without a glimmer of consciousness, including in many types in conscious modern man. What threw me off, and as I said, I suspected that I didn't quite get what you meant, was the underlined phrase in your original statement. It seemed to me that in order to apply something to ones self, one must first recognize self, and if one recognizes self, then one is conscious. Ray wrote:May I suggest that the ability to 'recognize' is not dependent on a 'higher form of consciousness'
We agree on this much.
and that 'consciousness has always been present',
This I can not accept, it had to have begun sometime, otherwise we are out of the realm of an evolutionary paradigm all together, and back to some sort of metaphysical imposition as an origin.
the level being enhanced as the need to co-operate made more demands on the survival of the human species.
I believe this was the driving force behind the advancement of increasing communication skills that resulted in language.
Ray&Epi wrote:This brings us back to previous posts;
Your comment; without some neurological mechanism for the production of the voices, they would not exist, no matter what was ingested.
My comment; We have to take that as a prerequisite as we cannot grow anything without a source.
Why should this not also apply to consciousness It most certainly does apply to consciousness; however, while all other human mental behaviors, that I can think of at the moment, demonstrate a continuous progression throughout evolutionary history, and although consciousness may have done this as well*, it may also be that it is unique, in that the physiological substrate was available as a result of the increasingly complex "virtual reality" being constructed by the various sensory inputs, and that the recognition of self was a threshold level phenomenon. In other words it turned on like a standard light bulb does rather than one on a dimmer switch. (Damn that is awkward, if that doesn't make sense to you, let me know)
*this seems highly unlikely to me, and here is part of the reason, this is however an aside, There is an aspect of consciousness that is unique to all other complex mental activity though, and I feel, it is absolutely critical to have a firm grasp on this and keep it ever in mind. Consciousness is a perception, not an action like cognition, or emotions, certainly at its beginning this is all it was, whether it is more than that now, is yet a matter of complete speculation.(Jaynes would not agree with this at all)
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Feb.12-Feb.19
Book Two
Chapter 1
pages 160 thru 175
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 712
Points: 2,063
Location: Australia
|
Epi wrote:
It most certainly does apply to consciousness; however, while all other human mental behaviors, that I can think of at the moment, demonstrate a continuous progression throughout evolutionary history, and although consciousness may have done this as well*, it may also be that it is unique, in that the physiological substrate was available as a result of the increasingly complex "virtual reality" being constructed by the various sensory inputs, and that the recognition of self was a threshold level phenomenonDoes this mean that 'consciousness' was laying dormant? and/or, that it was 'materialised by a combination of existing matter', which would be similar to what Jaynes is eluding to. Maybe I have not got a proper handle on this and am coming too far from left field. Epi wrote:
In other words it turned on like a standard light bulb does rather than one on a dimmer switch. (Damn that is awkward, if that doesn't make sense to you, let me know)Ah! but to get the bulb to light up we first need power, we do not get light without a source If what you are saying is that 'consciousness' somehow suddenly materialised, then where did it come, the 'origin' that is being sought. Not trying to be a pain in the butt here, just that I cannot get my head around something 'happening' and having it happen to every one in a similar time frame. 'Everybody' being all those people who were isolated when the land bridges went under water with the thaw following the ice ages, last one 12,000 years ago. These people include all those in North and South America when the bridge between Alaska and Siberia closed. The Australian Aborigine [put at being isolated for 40,000 years, and that is now being put at 60,000 years]when the bridge between here and Melanesia closed. We then have the Tasmanian Aborigines who were separated from the mainland at the same time, but, had no observable differences.
Maybe I should sit back again and observe for awhile what is posted.
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Ray wrote:Does this mean that 'consciousness' was laying dormant? and/or, that it was 'materialized by a combination of existing matter', which would be similar to what Jaynes is eluding to.Anxious Maybe I have not got a proper handle on this and am coming too far from left field. Don't feel that way Ray, for a long time I considered this very problem to be one that completely invalidated Jaynes' notion, and it was only very recently that I have come to see, such a threshold event as possible. Consciousness was not laying dormant, but we can most strongly suspect that if it did come into existence suddenly, then the structures upon which it was reliant must have been in place. In pre-conscious human beings, basic awareness of the world is already well developed, the only thing that is missing is for that awareness to include, that awareness. This would not necessarily require any new structure but, perhaps merely a subtle change in how signal was processed on existing structure. In light of current understandings of cortical organization, and signal processing this is not at all as far fetched as it sounds. In other words it is entirely plausible. While, as I've said, I am still skeptical about Jaynes bicameral mind story, I am now far less skeptical of the relatively recent arrival of modern human consciousness.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
In this chapter, Jaynes has set up three general anthropological observations in support of his thesis to which he gives some rather colorful labels. Jaynes p150 (156) wrote:
THE HOUSES OF GODS
Now, whenever we encounter a town or city plan such as this,
with a central larger building that is not a dwelling and has no
other practical use as a granary or barn, for example, and par-
ticularly if the building contains some kind of human effigy, we
may take it as evidence of a bicameral culture or of a culture
derived from one. This criterion may seem fatuous, simply be-
cause it is the plan of many towns today. We are so used to the
town plan of a church surrounded by lesser houses and shops
that we see nothing unusual. But our contemporary religious and
city architecture is partly, I think, the residue of our bicameral
past.
Jaynes p161 (167) wrote:
THE LIVING DEAD
The burial of the important dead as if they still lived is common
to almost all these ancient cultures whose architecture we have
just looked at. This practice has no clear explanation except that
their voices were still being heard by the living, and were perhaps
demanding such accommodation. As I have suggested at Eynan
in 1.6, these dead kings, propped up on stones, whose voices were
hallucinated by the living, were the first gods.
Jaynes p165 (171) wrote:
IDOLS THAT SPEAK
A third feature of primitive civilization that I take to be indica-
tive of bicamerality is the enormous numbers and kinds of
human effigies and their obvious centrality to ancient life. The
first effigies in history were of course the propped-up corpses of
chiefs, or the remodeled skulls we have referred to earlier. But
thereafter they have an astonishing development. It is difficult to
understand their obvious importance to the cultures involved
with them apart from the supposition that they were aids in
hallucinating voices. But this is far from a simple matter, and
quite different principles may be intertwined in the full expla-
nation.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote:In this chapter, Jaynes has set up three general anthropological observations in support of his thesis to which he gives some rather colorful labels. I don't see much to argue with here either at this point, the referenced events did occur, Jaynes does indeed put an imaginative, inferential interpretation on them; however it is no worse than any other, and is logically consistent with the rest of his argument. The big ears and open mouths on the idols does, even by its self, seem to give credence to there having been voices heard, and interacted with. Could a possible other explanation just be that the people were really impressed by their ability to communicate at all? Or another that people were beginning to be conscious of communication? My point is that the voices could have played a vital role in the evolution of consciousness, and that it may have been showing up earlier than in Jaynes' hypothesized timeline. We'll have to see how compelling his evidence is from later periods. Personally I think that if it is indeed true that the early Greeks had no personal pronouns, then personal reference did not exist.
From an earlier postLeon wrote:On the other hand, if sufficient evidence can be demonstrated to support Jaynes' thesis, this could lead to an actual theory of consciousness with corresponding predictions. This would also raise some very interesting questions. If language, bicameralism, and consciousness are latent capacities of brain structure and function that are in turn very malleable, particularly during neonatal development, what other capabilities are possible, and how would we go about facilitating them? This is absolutely the reason that I continue to pursue this matter; however, whatever we decide about Jaynes' notions overall, he has, and will yet, bring up critical issues in our understanding of what it is we are dealing with. So far this is true of his discussion of the limitations, and extent of consciousness, which I consider a necessary condition of accurate understanding.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,224
Points: 6,765
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Feb.12-Feb.19
Book Two
Chapter 2
pages 176 thru 203*
If this is too much to cover in a week, we can just extend it a week.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
First of all, I have to admit that I personally am having a bit of bother trying to keep all of these loose ends sorted, and I am still digesting the readings from the last two weeks. Epiphileon wrote:leonAzul wrote:In this chapter, Jaynes has set up three general anthropological observations in support of his thesis to which he gives some rather colorful labels. I don't see much to argue with here either at this point, the referenced events did occur, Jaynes does indeed put an imaginative, inferential interpretation on them; however it is no worse than any other, and is logically consistent with the rest of his argument. Indeed, my intent was to expose the argument, rather than to counter it. Epiphileon wrote:
The big ears and open mouths on the idols does, even by its self, seem to give credence to there having been voices heard, and interacted with. Could a possible other explanation just be that the people were really impressed by their ability to communicate at all? Or another that people were beginning to be conscious of communication? My point is that the voices could have played a vital role in the evolution of consciousness, and that it may have been showing up earlier than in Jaynes' hypothesized timeline. We'll have to see how compelling his evidence is from later periods. Personally I think that if it is indeed true that the early Greeks had no personal pronouns, then personal reference did not exist.
There are several possible inferences to be drawn from the evidence. It is possible that "large eyes" represent the physical necessity for a large hole into which to put a stone that represents an eye. ;) This is a physical constraint, "an' ye cannae change the laws of physics…" It could also be argued that "large ears" represent the ability to hear well. This does leave the possibilty for a metaphorical notion of hearing, as in listening to an "inner voice," such as the well attested "voice of reason," aka conscience. As a modality for awareness of the processes and activities of the human brain, consciousness works quite well, and from a certain perspective, I can also appreciate how bicameralism could fit the bill. As others have noted, even if Jaynes can demonstrate that a so-called bicameral point of view was prevalent within historical times, it still leaves the question open whether this occurred as an artefact of a more primitive mode, or rather as a consequence of population density.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:
If this is too much to cover in a week, we can just extend it a week.
At this point in the book, I don't think slowing down will help. If anything, breaking the material into smaller chunks is making Jaynes more fragmentary, for me, and that is why I am struggling with loose ends, trying to tie it together with the main points. Chapter by chapter seems about right, for me. This part of the book is mostly presentation of observations and interpretations. These are not finely argued points that require a great deal of discussion, but rather evidence that needs to be qualified as acceptable or not.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
|
Guest |