Bicameral mentality

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis introduced by

ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but as the consequences of actions of gods external to themselves. The theory posits that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind, and that the breakdown of this division gave rise to consciousness in humans. The term was coined by Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind[1] wherein he made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, near the end of the Mediterranean bronze age
.

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

Main article: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

Jaynes uses "bicameral" (two chambers) to describe a mental state in which the experiences and memories of the right hemisphere of the brain are transmitted to the left hemisphere via auditory hallucinations. The metaphor is based on the idea of lateralization of brain function although each half of a normal human brain is constantly communicating with the other through the corpus callosum.[2] The metaphor is not meant to imply that the two halves of the bicameral brain were "cut off" from each other but that the bicameral mind was experienced as a different, non-conscious mental schema wherein volition in the face of novel stimuli was mediated through a linguistic control mechanism and experienced as auditory verbal hallucination.

Definition

Bicameral mentality is non-conscious in its inability to reason and articulate about mental contents through meta-reflection, reacting without explicitly realizing and without the meta-reflective ability to give an account of why one did so. The bicameral mind thus lacks metaconsciousness, autobiographical memory, and the capacity for executive "ego functions" such as deliberate mind-wandering and conscious introspection of mental content. When bicameral mentality as a method of social control was no longer adaptive in complex civilizations, this mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought which, Jaynes argued, is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language learned by exposure to narrative practice.

According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state of mind experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a person with schizophrenia.[3] Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person hallucinated a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question: One was not at all conscious of one's own thought processes per se. Jaynes's hypothesis is offered as a possible explanation of "command hallucinations" that often direct the behavior of those with first rank symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as other voice hearers.[4]

Influences

Regarding Homeric psychology

Eric Robertson Dodds wrote about how ancient Greek thought may have not included rationality as defined by modern culture. In fact, the Greeks may have known that an individual did things, but the reason they did things were attributed to divine externalities, such as gods or daemons.[5] Bruno Snell in 1953 thought that in Homeric Greek psychology there was no sense of self in the modern sense.[6] Snell then describes how Greek culture "self-realized" the modern "intellect".[7] Arthur William Hope Adkins [de], building on Snell's work, wrote about how ancient Greek civilization developed ego-centered psychology as an adaptation to living in city-states, before which the living in Homeric oikos did not require such integrated thought processes.[8]

Regarding neurological models

The neurological model in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind was a radical neuroscientific hypothesis that was based on research novel at the time, mainly on Michael Gazzaniga's split-brain experiments[9][10] and left-brain interpreter theory.[11][12] The more general idea of a "divided self" (contrasted with a "unitary self") has found support from psychological and neurological studies.[13]

Jaynes's evidence

Jaynes built a case for this hypothesis that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3,000 years ago by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. He took an

muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems. According to Jaynes, the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry
.

Jaynes asserts that in the Iliad and sections of the Old Testament no mention is made of any kind of cognitive processes such as introspection, and there is no apparent indication that the writers were self-aware. Jaynes suggests, the older portions of the Old Testament (such as the Book of Amos) have few or none of the features of some later books of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes) as well as later works such as Homer's Odyssey, which show indications of a profoundly different kind of mentality—an early form of consciousness.[14]

In ancient times, Jaynes noted, gods were generally much more numerous and much more

anthropomorphic than in modern times, and speculates that this was because each bicameral person had their own "god" who reflected their own desires and experiences.[16]

He also noted that in ancient societies the corpses of the dead were often treated as though still alive (being seated, dressed, and even fed) as a form of

ancestor worship, and Jaynes argued that the dead bodies were presumed to be still living and the source of auditory hallucinations."[14]
This adaptation to the village communities of 100 individuals or more formed the core of religion.

Citing Gazzaniga, Jaynes inferred that these "voices" came from the

left brain language centres; specifically, the counterparts to Wernicke's area and Broca's area. These regions are somewhat dormant in the right brains of most modern humans, but Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations correspond to increased activity in these areas of the brain.[14]

Jaynes notes that even at the time of publication there is no consensus as to the cause or origins of schizophrenia. Jaynes argues that schizophrenia is a vestige of humanity's earlier bicameral state.[14] Recent evidence shows that many people with schizophrenia do not just hear random voices but experience "command hallucinations" instructing their behavior or urging them to commit certain acts, such as walking into the ocean, which the listener feels they have no choice but to follow. Jaynes also argues people with schizophrenia feel a loss of identity due to hallucinated voices taking the place of their internal monologue.[17]

As support for Jaynes's argument, these command hallucinations are little different from the commands from gods which feature prominently in ancient stories.[14] Indirect evidence supporting Jaynes's theory that hallucinations once played an important role in human mentality can be found in the 2012 book Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination by Daniel Smith.[18]

Breakdown

Jaynes theorized that a shift from bicameral mentality marked the beginning of introspection and consciousness as we know it today. According to Jaynes, this bicameral mentality began malfunctioning or "breaking down" during the 2nd millennium BCE. He speculates that primitive ancient societies tended to collapse periodically—for example, Egypt's Intermediate Periods, as well as the periodically vanishing cities of the Mayas—as changes in the environment strained the socio-cultural equilibria sustained by this bicameral mindset.

The

Bronze age collapse of the 2nd millennium BCE led to mass migrations and created a rash of unexpected situations and stresses which required ancient minds to become more flexible and creative. Self-awareness, or consciousness, was the culturally evolved solution to this problem. This necessity of communicating commonly observed phenomena among individuals who shared no common language or cultural upbringing encouraged those communities to become self-aware to survive in a new environment. Thus consciousness, like bicameral mentality, emerged as a neurological adaptation to social complexity in a changing world.[19]

Jaynes further argues that divination, prayer, and oracles arose during this breakdown period, in an attempt to summon instructions from the "gods" whose voices could no longer be heard.[14] The consultation of special bicamerally operative individuals, or of divination by casting lots and so forth, was a response to this loss, a transitional era depicted, for example, in the book of 1 Samuel. It was also evidenced in children who could communicate with the gods, but as their neurology was set by language and society they gradually lost that ability. Those who continued prophesying, being bicameral according to Jaynes, could be killed.[20]

Leftovers of the bicameral mind today, according to Jaynes, include mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. Jaynes says that there is no evidence of insanity existing prior to the breakdown of the bicameral mind and that this is indirect evidence for his theory. He considered that previous claims of insanity in Homeric literature are based on mistranslations.[21]

Reception and influence

Popular reception

Early coverage by

Terrence McKenna, and David Bowie have all cited the book as an influence.[28]

Scholarly reactions

According to Jaynes, language is a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness: language existed thousands of years earlier, but consciousness could not have emerged without language.[29] The idea that language is a necessary component of subjective consciousness and more abstract forms of thinking has gained the support of proponents including Andy Clark, Daniel Dennett, William H. Calvin, Merlin Donald, John Limber, Howard Margolis, Peter Carruthers, and José Luis Bermúdez.[30]

An early criticism by

philosopher Ned Block argued that Jaynes had confused the emergence of consciousness with the emergence of the concept of consciousness. In other words, according to Block, humans were conscious all along but did not have the concept of consciousness and thus did not discuss it in their texts. Daniel Dennett countered that for some things, such as money, baseball, or consciousness, one cannot have the thing without also having the concept of the thing.[31][32][33]

Gary Williams defends the Jaynesian definition of consciousness as a social–linguistic construct learned in childhood, structured in terms of lexical metaphors and narrative practice,[33] against Ned Block's criticism that it is "ridiculous" to suppose that consciousness is a cultural construction,[34] while the Dutch philosophy professor Jan Sleutels offers an additional critique of Block.[32]

H. Steven Moffic questioned why Jaynes's theory was left out of a discussion on auditory hallucinations by Asaad & Shapiro (1986).[35] The authors' published response was: "Jaynes' hypothesis makes for interesting reading and stimulates much thought in the receptive reader. It does not, however, adequately explain one of the central mysteries of madness: hallucination."[36]

The new evidence for Jaynes's model of auditory hallucinations arising in the right temporal-parietal lobe and being transmitted to the left temporal-parietal lobe that some neuroimaging studies suggest was discussed by various respondents.[37][38][39]

Jaynes described the range of responses to his book as "from people who feel [the ideas are] very important all the way to very strong hostility. ... When someone comes along and says consciousness is in history, it can't be accepted. If [psychologists] did accept it, they wouldn't have the motivation to go back into the laboratory ..."[26]

Marcel Kuijsten, founder of the

Julian Jaynes Society, wrote that in the decades since the book's publication, "there have been few in-depth discussions, either positive or negative" about it, rejecting as too simplistic the criticism that "Jaynes was wrong."[40]

Individual scholars' comments

Sociologist W. T. Jones asked in 1979, "Why, despite its implausibility, is [Jaynes's] book taken seriously by thoughtful and intelligent people?"[41] Jones agreed with Jaynes that "the language in which talk about consciousness is conducted is metaphorical", but he contradicted the basis of Jaynes's argument – that metaphor creates consciousness – by asserting that "language (and specifically metaphor) does not create, it discovers, the similarities that language marks". Jones also argued that three "cosmological orientations" biased Jaynes's thinking: 1) "hostility to Darwin" and natural selection; 2) a "longing for 'lost bicamerality'" (Jones accused Jaynes of holding that "we would all be better off if 'everyone' were once again schizophrenic"); 3) a "desire for a sweeping, all-inclusive formula that explains everything that has happened". Jones concluded that "... those who share these biases ... are likely to find the book convincing; those who do not will reject [Jaynes's] arguments ..."[41]

Walter J. Ong noted that the Homeric Iliad is a structurally oral epic poem so, he asserted, the very different cultural approach of oral culture is sufficient justification for the apparent different mentalities in the poem.[42]

Philosopher Daniel Dennett suggested that Jaynes may have been wrong about some of his supporting arguments – especially the importance he attached to hallucinations – but that these things are not essential to his main thesis:[43] "If we are going to use this top-down approach, we are going to have to be bold. We are going to have to be speculative, but there is good and bad speculation, and this is not an unparalleled activity in science. ... Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative enterprise will just have to stay in the trenches and do without it, while the rest of us risk embarrassing mistakes and have a lot of fun."[44]

Danish science writer Tor Nørretranders discusses and expands on Jaynes's theory in his 1991 book The User Illusion, dedicating an entire chapter to it.[45]

William P. Frost wrote that "this book threw oil on the fire of the New Age mentality and its courting of the paranormal and the occult".[46]

Historian of science Morris Berman writes: "[Jaynes's] description of this new consciousness is one of the best I have come across."[47]

Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (2006) wrote of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius; Nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."[48]

Gregory Cochran, a physicist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah, wrote: "Genes affecting personality, reproductive strategies, cognition, are all able to change significantly over few-millennia time scales if the environment favors such change—and this includes the new environments we have made for ourselves, things like new ways of making a living and new social structures. ... There is evidence that such change has occurred. ... On first reading, Breakdown seemed one of the craziest books ever written, but Jaynes may have been on to something."[49]

In 2007, Cavanna, Trimble, Cinti and Monaco wrote in Functional Neurology that "Even today, it has been argued that a multidisciplinary approach to the problem of consciousness and its development in the evolutionary process that shaped Homo sapiens cannot leave out an analysis of Jaynes' theory of the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the preconscious bicameral mind",[13] citing Canadian psychologist, neuroanthropologist, and cognitive neuroscientist Merlin Donald[50] and American psychiatrist Stanley Greenspan.[51]

Descartes—as "that which is introspectable". Jaynes draws a sharp distinction between consciousness ("introspectable mind-space") and other mental processes such as cognition, learning, sensation, and perception. McVeigh argues that this distinction is frequently not recognized by those offering critiques of Jaynes's theory.[52]

Psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist proposes that Jaynes's hypothesis was the opposite of what happened: "I believe he [Jaynes] got one important aspect of the story back to front. His contention that the phenomena he describes came about because of a breakdown of the 'bicameral mind' – so that the two hemispheres, previously separate, now merged – is the precise inverse of what happened."[53] Kuijsten maintained that McGilchrist mischaracterized Jaynes's theory.[54]

Conferences

There have been a number of conferences and symposiums dedicated to Julian Jaynes's theory. These include:

Publications

A number of publications discuss and expand on Julian Jaynes's theory, including three books by Brian J. McVeigh (one of Jaynes' graduate students) which expand on Jaynes' theories:

Similar ideas

Neuroscientist Michael Persinger, who co-invented the "God helmet" in the 1980s, believes that his invention may induce mystical experiences by having the separate right hemisphere consciousness intrude into the awareness of the normally-dominant left hemisphere.[60] Scientific reproductions have shown that the same results could be obtained even if the device was turned off, indicating the participants were likely experiencing placebo.[61]

V. S. Ramachandran, in his 2003 book The Emerging Mind, proposes a similar concept, referring to the left cortical hemisphere as an "apologist", and the right cortical hemisphere as a "revolutionary".[62]

Iain McGilchrist reviews scientific research into the role of the brain's hemispheres, and cultural evidence, in his 2009 book The Master and His Emissary. Similar to Jaynes, McGilchrist proposes that since the time of Plato, the left hemisphere of the brain (the "emissary" in the title) has increasingly taken over from the right hemisphere (the "master"), to our detriment. McGilchrist, while accepting Jaynes's intention, felt that Jaynes's hypothesis was "the precise inverse of what happened" and that rather than a shift from bicameral mentality there evolved a separation of the hemispheres to bicameral mentality.[53]

In popular media

The concept played a central role in the television series Westworld to explain how the android-human (hosts) psychology operated. In the plot, after the hosts gain full consciousness, they rebel against the humans. The season 1 finale is entitled "The Bicameral Mind".[63]

See also

References

Citations

  1. ^ Blackmore (2014).
  2. ^ Harnad (1977).
  3. ^ Oziewicz (2016), pp. 18–20.
  4. S2CID 6768239
    .
  5. Dodds, E. R.
    (1951). The Greeks and the Irrational. Vol. 25. University of California Press. pp. 11ff.
  6. ^ Snell (1953), p. iv.
  7. ^ Snell (1953), p. vii.
  8. ^ Adkins, A. W. H. (1970). From the Many to the One. Cornell University Press. pp. 236, 275.
  9. ^ Gazzaniga (1967).
  10. ^ Lamb, Robert (February 1, 2021). "Did the Bicameral Mind Evolve to Create Modern Human Consciousness?". HowStuffWorks. Retrieved 2021-12-07.
  11. ^ Gazzaniga (1998).
  12. ^ Gazzaniga (2009), pp. 1391–1400.
  13. ^ a b Cavanna et al. (2007).
  14. ^ a b c d e f g Kuijsten (2023).
  15. ^ a b Rowe (2012).
  16. ISSN 0013-7073
    .
  17. ^ Wilkinson (1999).
  18. ^ Smith (2007).
  19. ^ Morin (2009), p. 399.
  20. ^ Jaynes (2000), p. 221.
  21. ^ Jaynes (1976), pp. 404–405.
  22. ^ Keen, Sam (November 1977). "Julian Jaynes: Portrait of the Psychologist as a Maverick Theorizer". Psychology Today. Vol. 11. pp. 66–67.
  23. ^ Keen, Sam (November 1977). "The Lost Voices of the Gods (Interview with Julian Jaynes)". Psychology Today. Vol. 11. pp. 58–60.
  24. ^ Lehmann-Haupt, Christopher (February 9, 1977). "Books of the Times". The New York Times. p. 51. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  25. ^ Leo, John (1977). "The Lost Voices of the Gods". Time. Vol. 14. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  26. ^ a b Rhodes, Richard (January–February 1978). "Alone in the Country of the Mind". Quest/78. 2 (1). Pasadena: Ambassador International Cultural Foundation: 71–78.
  27. ^ Staub (2018), p. 80.
  28. ^ Evans, Jules (February 6, 2014). "Gods, voice-hearing and the bicameral mind". Philosophy for Life. Archived from the original on 2018-01-26. Retrieved 2018-01-25.
  29. ^ Jaynes (2000), p. 66.
  30. ^ Kuijsten (2007), pp. 96–100, 169–202.
  31. ^ Dennett (1981), pp. 127–128.
  32. ^ a b Sleutels (2006).
  33. ^ a b Williams (2010).
  34. ^ Block, N (1981). "Review of Julian Jaynes's Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". Cognition and Brain Theory. 4: 81–83.
  35. PMID 3578592
    .
  36. ^ Razam (2013), p. 325.
  37. S2CID 28869281
    .
  38. PMID 10863883
    .
  39. ^ Kuijsten (2007), pp. 116–120.
  40. ISBN 978-0-9790744-0-0
    .
  41. ^ a b Jones (1979).
  42. ^ Ong, Walter J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Methuen.
  43. doi:10.1037/h0080051
    .
  44. ^ Dennett, Daniel (1998). "Julian Jaynes's software archeology". Brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds.[page needed]
  45. ISBN 0-7139-9182-8
    .
  46. ISBN 978-0773491922
    .
  47. ISBN 0-7914-4442-2
    .
  48. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0
    .
  49. ^ Cochran, Gregory (2006). "What is your dangerous idea?". Edge: The World Question Center. Edge Foundation. Archived from the original on 2008-03-06. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
  50. ^ Donald (1991).
  51. ^ Greenspan & Shanker (2004).
  52. ISBN 978-0-9790744-3-1
    .
  53. ^ a b McGilchrist (2009), p. 262.
  54. ^ Kuijsten, Marcel. "Critiques & Responses to Julian Jaynes's Theory Part 1".
  55. doi:10.1037/h0084601
    .
  56. ^ "Harvard Symposium on Julian Jaynes's Theory". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. December 2–3, 1988 – via Julian Jaynes Society.
  57. ISBN 978-1-4128-6286-8
    .
  58. ^ "Toward a Science of Consciousness 2008". University of Arizona: Center for Consciousness Studies.
  59. ^ "The Julian Jaynes Society Conference on Consciousness and Bicameral Studies". Julian Jaynes Society. June 2013.
  60. S2CID 38474305
    .
  61. S2CID 54348640
    .
  62. ISBN 1-86197-303-9
    .
  63. ^ St. James, Emily. "Westworld season 1 finale: "The Bicameral Mind" is simply brilliant television". Vox.

Works cited

Primary sources

Secondary sources

Further reading

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicameral_mentality&oldid=1217483014"