Revision 560567736 of "User:FreeKnowledgeCreator/The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" on enwiki

{{Infobox book | <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books -->
| name = The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
| image =
| caption =
| author = [[Julian Jaynes]]
| country = [[United States]]
| language = [[English language|English]]
| genre = [[Psychology]]
| publisher = [[Houghton Mifflin Company]]
| release_date = 1976
| media_type = Print
| pages = 467
| isbn = 0-395-32932-9
}}
'''''The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind''''' is a 1976 book by [[Julian Jaynes]] which makes the case that a bicameral mentality, a state in which cognitive functions are divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys, was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human [[mind]] as recently as 3000 years ago.

== Jaynes' case for bicameralism ==
According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state of mind would have experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a [[schizophrenia|schizophrenic]]. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question: one would not be at all conscious of one's own thought processes ''per se''. Research into "command hallucinations" that often direct the behavior of those labeled schizophrenic, as well as other voice hearers, supports Jaynes's predictions.<ref>{{cite article | last=Erkwoh, R. et al  | title=Command Hallucinations: Who Obeys and Who Resists When?  | journal=Psychopathology | year= 2002 | volume = 35 }}</ref>

Jaynes built a case for this hypothesis that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3000 years ago by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. He took an [[interdisciplinary]] approach, drawing data from many different fields.<ref name="EvidenceSummary">{{cite web | year=1998–2006 | last=Kuijsten | first=Marcel | url=http://www.julianjaynes.org/evidence_summary.php | title=Summary of Evidence | accessdate=2006-05-22}}</ref> Jaynes asserted that, until roughly the times written about in [[Homer]]'s ''[[Iliad]]'', humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of [[consciousness]] as most people experience it today.  Rather, the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "[[Deity|gods]]" — commands which were recorded in ancient [[Mythology|myths]], legends and historical accounts. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very [[muse]]s of [[Greek mythology]] which "sang" the poems: the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their [[music]] and [[poetry]].

For example, in the ''[[Iliad]]'' and sections of the [[Old Testament]] no mention is made of any kind of [[cognition|cognitive]] processes such as [[introspection]], and there is no apparent indication that the writers were self-aware. According to Jaynes, 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.<ref name="EvidenceSummary" /> However the [[Epic of Gilgamesh]], considered by many historians to be the oldest known recorded story (ca. 2000-2100 BC), features characters whose actions are deeply rooted in introspection and dream analysis.{{or|date=April 2012}}It can be argued in turn that many distinct sources for the epic are known from over a 2,000-year timeframe, and earlier versions now lost may  have been consistent with Jaynes model.

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.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Stove | first=D.C. | year=1989 | month=April | title=The Oracles & Their Cessation | journal=Encounter | volume=72 | issue=4 | pages=30–38 | issn=0013-7073}}</ref> 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) and argued that the dead bodies were presumed to be still living and the source of auditory hallucinations (see [[ancestor worship]]).<ref name="EvidenceSummary" /> This adaptation to the village communities of 100 individuals or more formed the core of religion. Unlike today's hallucinations, the voices of ancient times were structured by cultural norms to produce a seamlessly functioning society. In Ancient Greek culture there is often mention of the [[Logos]], which is a very similar concept. It was a type of guiding voice that was heard as from a seemingly external source.

Jaynes inferred that these "voices" came from the [[right brain]] counterparts of 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.<ref name="EvidenceSummary" />

Even in modern times, Jaynes notes that there is no consensus as to the cause or origins of [[schizophrenia]] (the subject is still hotly debated). According to Jaynes, schizophrenia is simply a vestige of humanity's earlier state.<ref name="EvidenceSummary" /> Recent evidence shows that many schizophrenics don't just hear random voices but experience "command hallucinations" instructing their behavior or urging them to commit certain acts. As support for Jaynes's argument, these command hallucinations are little different from the commands from gods which feature so prominently in ancient stories.<ref name="EvidenceSummary" /> Indirect evidence supporting Jaynes's theory that hallucinations once played an important role in human mentality can be found in the recent book ''Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination'' by Daniel Smith.<ref>{{cite book | last=Smith | first=Daniel | title=Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination |year= 2007 | isbn=1-59420-110-2 }}</ref>

=== Breakdown of bicameralism ===
Jaynes theorized that a shift from bicameralism 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 second millennium BC. He speculates that primitive ancient societies tended to collapse periodically, (as in Egypt's Intermediate Periods and the periodically vanishing cities of the Mayas) as changes in the environment strained the socio-cultural equilibria sustained by this bicameral mindset. [[Bronze age collapse|The mass migrations of the second millennium BC]], caused by Mediterranean-wide earthquakes, created a rash of unexpected situations and stresses that 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 bicamerality, emerged as a neurological adaptation to social complexity in a changing world.

Jaynes further argues that [[divination]], [[prayer]] and [[oracle]]s arose during this breakdown period, in an attempt to summon instructions from the "gods" whose voices could no longer be heard.<ref name="EvidenceSummary" /> The consultation of special bicamerally operative individuals, or of [[casting lots]] and so forth, was a response to this loss, a transitional era depicted for example in the book of [[Books of Samuel|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.<ref>Jaynes, Julian. (1976) ''The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind''. Pg. 221</ref><ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2013:3-4;&version=31; Zechariah, 13: 2-3]</ref> Leftovers of the bicameral mind today, according to Jaynes, include religion, [[hypnosis]], possession, schizophrenia and the general sense of need for external authority in decision-making.

== Diffusion ==

The idea that language is a necessary component of subjective consciousness and more abstract forms of thinking has been gaining acceptance in recent years, with proponents such as [[Andy Clark]], [[Daniel Dennett]], [[William H. Calvin]], [[Merlin Donald]], [[John Limber]], [[Howard Margolis]], [[Peter Carruthers (philosopher)|Peter Carruthers]], and [[José Luis Bermúdez]].<ref>{{cite book |last= Kuijsten |first= Marcel | title= Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited |publisher= Julian Jaynes Society |year= 2007 |isbn=0-9790744-0-1 | pages = s. 96–100, 169–202}}</ref> Philosopher Gary Williams has recently defended Julian Jaynes against Ned Block's criticisms<ref>Block, N. (1981). Review of Julian Jayne's  Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Cognition and Brain Theory, 4, 81-83.</ref> in the journal ''Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences''.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Williams |first1=Gary |last2= |first2= |year=2010 |title= What is it like to be nonconscious? A defense of Julian Jaynes |journal= Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences |volume= |issue= |pages= |publisher= |doi= |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/e832238u36211688/ |accessdate= }}</ref>

A collection of Jaynes's essays on bicameralism combined with those of contemporary scholars was published in 2007, in a book titled ''Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited''.<ref>{{cite book |last= Kuijsten |first= Marcel | title= Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited |publisher= Julian Jaynes Society |year= 2007 |isbn=0-9790744-0-1}}</ref> Included in this book is new support for Jaynes's theory by Marcel Kuijsten, psychological anthropologist [[Brian J. McVeigh]], psychologists John Limber and Scott Greer, clinical psychologist John Hamilton, philosophers Jan Sleutels and [[David Stove]], and sinologist Michael Carr (see [[Shi (personator)|''shi'' "personator"]]). The book also contains an extensive biography of Julian Jaynes by historian of psychology William Woodward and June Tower, and a Foreword by neuroscientist [[Michael Persinger]].

== Critical responses ==
Jaynes's [[hypothesis]] remains controversial. The primary scientific criticism has been that the conclusions Jaynes drew had no basis in neuropsychiatric fact at that time.<ref>Asaad G, Shapiro B. What about the bicameral mind? Am J Psychiatry 1987;144:696</ref>

[[Richard Dawkins]] discussed Jaynes's theory in his recent book ''[[The God Delusion]]''. In his chapter on the roots of religion, Dawkins writes: "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."<ref>{{cite book |last= Dawkins |first= Richard | title= The God Delusion |publisher= Houghton Mifflin |year= 2006 |isbn= 1-4303-1230-0 }}</ref>  Others considered Jaynes's hypothesis worthy and offer conditional support, arguing the notion deserves further study.<ref>Keen, Sam, "Julian Jaynes: Portrait of the Psychologist as a Maverick Theorizer," ''[[Psychology Today]]'', November 1977, vol 11, pp. 66-7</ref><ref>Keen, Sam, "The Lost Voices of the Gods (Interview with Julian Jaynes)", ''Psychology Today'', November 1977, vol 11, pp 58-60</ref>

In a 1987 letter to the ''[[American Journal of Psychiatry]]'', Dr. H. Steven Moffic questioned why Jaynes's theory was left out of a discussion on auditory hallucinations by Drs. Assad and Shapiro. In response, Drs. Assad and Shapiro wrote, "…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]]."<ref>{{cite journal | last=Moffic | first=H. Steven | year=1987 | month=May | title=What About the Bicameral Mind? | journal=American Journal of Psychiatry | volume=144 | issue=5}}</ref>

Drs. Asaad and Shapiro's comment that there is no evidence for involvement of the right temporal lobe in auditory hallucination was incorrect even at that time.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Buchsbaum | first=M.S., et al. | year=1982 | title=Cerebral Glucography with Positron Tomography: Use in Normal Subjects and in Patients with Schizophrenia | journal=Archives of General Psychiatry | volume=39:251-259 | pmid=6978119 | last2=Ingvar | first2=DH | last3=Kessler | first3=R | last4=Waters | first4=RN | last5=Cappelletti | first5=J | last6=Van Kammen | first6=DP | last7=King | first7=AC | last8=Johnson | first8=JL | last9=Manning | first9=RG | issue=3 | pages=251–9}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last=Kuijsten | first=Marcel | year=2009 | title=New Evidence for Jaynes's Neurological Model: A Research Update | journal=The Jaynesian | volume=3:1}}</ref>  A number of more recent studies provide additional evidence to right hemisphere involvement in auditory hallucinations. Recent neuroimaging studies provide new evidence for Jaynes's neurological model, i.e. auditory hallucinations arising in the right temporal-parietal lobe and being transmitted to the left temporal-parietal lobe. This was pointed out by Dr. Robert Olin in ''Lancet''<ref>{{cite journal | last=Olin | first=Robert | year=1999 | month= | title=Auditory Hallucinations and the Bicameral Mind | journal=Lancet | volume=354 | issue=9173| doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)75304-6| pages=166 | pmid=10408523}}</ref> and Dr. Leo Sher in the ''Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience'',<ref>{{cite journal | last=Sher | first=Leo | year=2000 | month=May | title=Neuroimaging, Auditory Hallucinations, and the Bicameral Mind | journal=Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience | volume=25 | issue=3 |pages=239–240 |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1407719/pdf/jpn00086-0025.pdf |pmc=1407719 | pmid=10863883}}</ref> and further discussed in the book ''Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness.''<ref>{{cite book |last= Kuijsten |first= Marcel | title= Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited |publisher= Julian Jaynes Society |year= 2007 |isbn=0-9790744-0-1 | pages = s. 116–120}}</ref>

The 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.<ref name="Dennett 1986">{{cite journal | last=Dennett | first=Daniel | year=1986 | month= | title=Julian Jaynes's Software Archeology | journal=Canadian Psychology | volume=27 | issue=2}}</ref> He also wrote that:

{{quote|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. --[[Daniel Dennett]]<ref>Daniel Dennett (1998) "Julian Jaynes’s Software Archeology." In: ''Brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds''.</ref>}}

[[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."<ref>Edge Foundation (2006). "What Is Your Dangerous Idea?" http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_4.html</ref>  Author and historian of science [[Morris Berman]] writes, "[Jaynes's] description of this new consciousness is one of the best I have come across."<ref>{{cite book | last=Berman | first=Morris | title=Wandering God: A Study in Nomadic Spirituality |year= 2000 | isbn=0-7914-4442-2 }}</ref> Danish science writer [[Tor Nørretranders]] discusses Jaynes's theory favorably in his book ''The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size.''<ref>{{cite book | last=Nørretranders | first=Tor | title=User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size |year= 1991 | isbn=0-7139-9182-8 }}</ref>

Evidence taken to contradict Jaynes's proposed date of the transition from bicameralism is the [[Epic of Gilgamesh|Gilgamesh Epic]]: although the story of Gilgamesh was recorded centuries before the [[Old Testament]], and though its setting is contemporaneous or earlier than the [[Old Testament]] stories, the Gilgamesh story describes such features as introspection.{{Citation needed|date=June 2008}} Jaynes himself, noting that the most complete version of the Gilgamesh epic dates to post-bicameral times (7th century BC), dismisses these instances of introspection as the result of rewriting and expansion by later conscious scribes, and points to differences between the more recent version of ''Gilgamesh'' and surviving fragments of earlier versions. ("The most interesting comparison is in Tablet X." - detailed in ''The Origin of Consciousness'', 1982 edition, p.&nbsp;252f.) Others, such as science fiction author [[Neal Stephenson]] in ''[[Snow Crash]]'', have since conjectured that heroic epics and myths may be rooted in isolated individuals who became self-aware early and could accordingly outmatch and manipulate their fellows<!-- Not sure this is quite right. I remember Stephenson writing in Snow Crash about the use of algorithms/programs/spells and tablets to control other people, but nothing about internalized gods. -->.

[[Brian J. McVeigh|Brian McVeigh]] maintains that many of the most frequent criticisms of Jaynes' theory are either incorrect or reflect serious misunderstandings of Jaynes' theory, especially Jaynes' more precise definition of consciousness. Jaynes defines consciousness—in the tradition of Locke and Descartes—as "that which is introspectable." Jaynes draws a sharp distinction between consciousness ("introspectable mind-space") and other mental processes such as cognition, learning, and sense and perception—which occur in all animals. He argues that this distinction is frequently not recognized by those offering critiques of Jaynes' theory.<ref>{{cite journal | last=McVeigh | first=Brian | year=2007 | title=Elephants in the Psychology Department: Overcoming Intellectual Barriers to Understanding Julian Jaynes's Theory | journal=Julian Jaynes Society}}</ref>

== Similar ideas ==
In his book ''[[The Master and His Emissary]]'', psychiatrist [[Iain McGilchrist]] reviews scientific research into the role of the brain's hemispheres, and cultural evidence, and he 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 Jayne's intention, felt that Jayne's hypothesis was "the precise inverse of what happened" and that rather than a shift ''from'' bicameralism there evolved a separation of the hemispheres.<ref>{{Cite book |author=McGilchrist, Iain |title=The Master and his Emissary |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2009 |page=262 |quote=I believe he [Jayne] 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.}}</ref>

== Editions ==
''The Origin of Consciousness'' was financially successful, and has been reprinted several times. The book was originally published in 1976 (ISBN 0-395-20729-0) and was nominated for the [[National Book Award]] in 1978.  It has since been reissued (ISBN 0-618-05707-2). A new edition, with an afterword that addressed some criticisms and restated the main themes, was published in the US in 1990. This version was published in the UK by Penguin Books in 1993 (ISBN 0-14-017491-5). It has been translated into Italian, Spanish, German, French, and Persian.

== See also ==
{{Portal box|Mind and Brain|Neuroscience|Psychology}}
* [[Behavioral modernity]]
* [[Dual brain theory]]
* [[Exformation]]
* [[Lateralization of brain function]]
* [[FOXP2]], a gene that is implicated in the development of language skills.
* [[Mythopoeic thought]]
* [[Neurotheology]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|2}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.julianjaynes.org Julian Jaynes Society]
* [http://www.erikweijers.nl/pages/translations/psychology/the-origin-of-consciousness.php ''The Origin of consciousness'': Summary, selected quotes and review]

{{Laterality}}

[[Category:1976 books]]
[[Category:English-language books]]
[[Category:Neuroscience books]]
[[Category:Cognitive science literature]]