The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
- Downloads：5267
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-16 09:53:51
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Julian Jaynes
- ISBN：0618057072
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
At the heart of this classic， seminal book is Julian Jaynes's still-controversial thesis that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but instead is a learned process that came about only three thousand years ago and is still developing。 The implications of this revolutionary scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology， our history and culture， our religion -- and indeed our future。
Reviews
Johnpm
，
Just finished rereading this after many years and still I find it utterly extraordinary。 It's a remarkable piece of scholarship the theory or hypothesis， even though it's so outlandish and to spite， the book was written in 1976 it still hasn't been debunked， it's very convincing。 The hypothesis is that before circa 1200 BCE people were unconscious and they obeyed what we would consider hallucinogenic voices inside themselves from what they considered Gods。 Then that bicameral mind broke down for Just finished rereading this after many years and still I find it utterly extraordinary。 It's a remarkable piece of scholarship the theory or hypothesis， even though it's so outlandish and to spite， the book was written in 1976 it still hasn't been debunked， it's very convincing。 The hypothesis is that before circa 1200 BCE people were unconscious and they obeyed what we would consider hallucinogenic voices inside themselves from what they considered Gods。 Then that bicameral mind broke down for various reasons and we became conscious。Off course there's more， so much more and as a bonus you will come away with an understanding of Westworld 。。。more
Atul Jain
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Best search results。 Easy application for the students。
Davide Recchia
，
I first discovered Julian Jaynes's book in early 2021， over 40 years after it was originally published。 The title and synopsis were very intriguing and so decided to give it a shot。 After reading chapters 1 and 2， I was already blown away。 I could not put it down and devoured the rest。 It's one of the most fascinating books I've ever read！ Definitely above my expectations。 There are a few "heavy" sections in the middle but overall reads very smoothly。 （I actually read the ebook version while com I first discovered Julian Jaynes's book in early 2021， over 40 years after it was originally published。 The title and synopsis were very intriguing and so decided to give it a shot。 After reading chapters 1 and 2， I was already blown away。 I could not put it down and devoured the rest。 It's one of the most fascinating books I've ever read！ Definitely above my expectations。 There are a few "heavy" sections in the middle but overall reads very smoothly。 （I actually read the ebook version while commuting） 。。。more
Stephen
，
Wow。 I''ve just completed the most audaciously ambitious book I've ever read - period。 And maybe the most impactful treatise/books/writing I've ever read; in fact， it is the most impactful。 I hesitate because Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus is close to a philosophical guide for my life。 But this one's bigger， I never thought I'd say。 I'll say a little about it。 I stumbled onto this book having stumbled onto a FB group of the same name and joined up。 Why not？ I have always thought the consciousn Wow。 I''ve just completed the most audaciously ambitious book I've ever read - period。 And maybe the most impactful treatise/books/writing I've ever read; in fact， it is the most impactful。 I hesitate because Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus is close to a philosophical guide for my life。 But this one's bigger， I never thought I'd say。 I'll say a little about it。 I stumbled onto this book having stumbled onto a FB group of the same name and joined up。 Why not？ I have always thought the consciousness issue， which seems to have grown in terms of public awareness， was such an esoteric issue that I really paid it little attention。 So， I thought 'hey， maybe i'll learn something。' Well， in the course of scrolling through comments of cognitive scientists， psychologists， etc。， deep down in the weeds of cognitive studies and explications of the theories of Dr。 Julian Jaynes， a cognitive scientist， now deceased， I stumbled again over a reference to 'metaphor，' a topic I have been very interested in for 20-25 years。 I've never found a great book on it other than highly technically dense linguistic theory， and so I looked into this book。 Turns out metaphor plays a key role in Jaynes' grand hypothesis （my words） about the origin of consciousness。Ok， hang with me， because it's radical。 The entire community of psychologists， paleontologists， anthropologists， and cognitive scientists， generally believed consciousness （i。e。 the sense of self or "I"） formed in ancient evolutionary history， meaning millions of years ago。 But Jaynes thought something radically different - consciousness began to arise only with the development of language， and primarily when it got to be more organized and began to be written down， probably about 4，500 BC。 So wide disparity。 AND， the story of the birthing of consciousness， according to Jaynes， began when pre-conscious humankind began to organize in groups， small at first， then growing ever larger with the dawning of the agricultural revolution starting about 12，000 years ago， requiring much more organization of society。 Before then， man （please forgive the masculine tense） was not conscious， as we think of it。 He was action oriented， focused on killing and eating essentially， cooking， etc。， just 'domestic' life such as it was， setting up and moving camp。 But something happened over the years from 12，000 to about 1，000 BC to some degree， but really coming into the beginning of a fruition around 500-600 BC， more or less， and perhaps timeline varying among cultures。 This is when it gets really interesting。 As the groups started getting larger， probably around 2，500 BC， as I said， more order was required， and over this long period of time， that ordering came in the form of auditory hallucinations; yep， auditory hallucinations， i。e。 hearing voices。 He talks about it being activated or fueled by stress， with a big S。 The brain as we know is literally divided into two halves or hemispheres， a right and left hemisphere。 As an oversimplification， for right dominant humans （right handed， etc。）， the left side of the brain， and specifically Wernicke's area and Broca's Area on the left， contains the language centers。 The right per Jaynes （and not unsupported by much research） has areas corresponding to the language centers on the left， which Jaynes calls 'spatial。' According to Jaynes， as filtered through my very limited understanding of deep-cognitive neuroscience and ability to articulate this hypothesis， the action required to do the ordering of society， the things for everyone to do， developed into an exchange from the right side to the left/language centers （through the corpus collosum running through the middle， separating the hemispheres， and most specifically a small 'bridge，' called the anterior commissure）， a communication if you will from the spatial centers to these the dictates to act， essentially authoritative voices or orders。 And they came to the "receiver" （there was no actual receiving） as auditory hallucinations， 'hearing' instructions/orders providing guidance as to what to do。 So， it began to have an authoritative quality to it。 Somehow over time， certain individuals began to rise in prominence as those from whom the voices came。 They rose into leadership positions providing authoritative words。 Over time， those voices began to take on the imprimatur of voices of deities， through the leader who could hear those voices and communicate them as the words of a god or gods。 The examples in history are myriad。 Increasingly people obeyed the voices and began to put those oracles on pedestals。 Over time， kings， pharoahs， other venerated individuals， in some cultures actually became gods themselves or were side by side with god（s）。 In some cultures the king himself was deified， who heard the voice of god（s） directly。 Other cultures， as can be seen through ancient drawings。 The king is often shown with a deity beside or behind him， and many gods became embodied in inanimate gods， statues， idols， etc。 Those idols would speak to the King who would relay it to the people。 People and cultures all over the world had statues or other inanimate objects they venerated or worshipped。 They often provided food， other gifts， as god。 This phase was the development of the 'bicameral mind，' meaning the mind that operates like I've described， a shift from pre-conscious humankind to this bicameral phenomenon。 There's not too much written down during much of this time so it can only be hypothesized from cultural or archeological artifacts， often carvings or painting on stone， but it is most interesting。 Some of the most interesting discussions in the book compare bicameral literature。 The best examples are The Epic of Gilgamesh， The Iliad and The Bible （Old Testament）。 The Epic of Gilgamesh was 'written，' chiseled， on tablets around 2，100 BC， in Sumer/Mesopotamia， and is the first know piece of epic literature， perhaps a writing down of an oral tradition transferred down through time about creation， first man/woman， sin， flood etc。， long before the biblical account。 It's pretty interesting and not very long， and I recommend it if you're into that sort of thing。 He walks through more bicameral literature， focusing a good bit on The Iliad， written probably 8th century， but codifying essentially an oral tradition， it is believed， since the 12th Century BC， and the bible， noting that in all of the above， humankind was spoken to by the voice of god（s）。 Moses in the bible heard the voice of god who went to Eqypt to tell Pharoah to let the Hebrews go。 Countless biblical characters heard the voice of god。 In one case， an ass spoke to Balaam， a "prohet。" In the Bible the prophet spoked for god and to the people。 Amos is the oldest book， by Amos a prophet， and it follows the same bicameral model。 Not subjective consciousness， but the voice of god speaking through a man。Jaynes demonstrates pretty effectively how the literature changes over 500-1000 years from a bicameral form with very little statements that can be seen as examples of anything resembling subjective consciousness， but just the voice or voices from gods。 This was the most persuasive thing in the book。 Seems all the gods talked in all or most cultures。 With the bible， he shows the before and after， how god spoke through voices。 Summarized， there was a long， long period where cultures of our species throughout the planet being ordered by an authoritative voice of god and a demand of obedience。Then in contrast he cites more recent but still ancient literature， for example， the Book of Ecclesiastes， one of the last books of the Old Testament， which has much more obvious examples of what can be considered something closer to a burgeoning subjective consciousness。 Somewhere around 1000 BC in Mesopotamia， it seems， through chaotic social disorganizations， overpopulations， size， order broke down substantially causing the bicameral mind to begin to break down， as people had to struggle to find guidance in other ways。 And through the anguish of the loss of authority in the voices of the gods/god， man had to become conscious， slowly， as the new organizing principle。 So， that's my inept attempt to boil down Jaynes; there's so much more。 I didn't even touch much on the main phenomenon that facilitated consciousness being language and then writing， and specifically metaphor as the catalyst and means of language development and expansion。 And there's still vestiges of a bicameral way of being， even with subjective consciousness being the rule and not the exception。 So， yea， basically the hypothesis that 'explains' essentially everything important to our species' mode of self-organization， including the origin of god（s） him/themselves， through the development of subjective consciousness。 Do I believe it？ I don't believe it or disbelieve it， but it sure is a great and well thought out hypothesis。 It is the only thing I've ever read that purports to explain such fundamental things about humankind， i。e。 the origins of authority， gods， all of the literature about gods speaking and providing the primary mode of human governance， the development of consciousness itself。 So， believe it or not， like it or hate it， if you want to read something really fascinating that goes to the heart of who our species is and how we went from pre-conscious to conscious， get the book， if， for nothing else than a wonderful， fun thought experiment。 Truly fascinating。 Easily 5 stars。 。。。more
Zach Freeman
，
This is quite a dense - but rewarding！ - read。 Would not have made it through if it weren’t for a book club。 Definitely an intriguing theory about how （and when） consciousness developed。 Some of it feels so logical that it’s surprising no one else has thought of it and some of it feels a bit off the wall but it’s clearly the work of a deep thinker and a surprisingly down to earth writer。 The fact that this is Jaynes’ only published book is incredible。 In the afterword from 1990 that was in my co This is quite a dense - but rewarding！ - read。 Would not have made it through if it weren’t for a book club。 Definitely an intriguing theory about how （and when） consciousness developed。 Some of it feels so logical that it’s surprising no one else has thought of it and some of it feels a bit off the wall but it’s clearly the work of a deep thinker and a surprisingly down to earth writer。 The fact that this is Jaynes’ only published book is incredible。 In the afterword from 1990 that was in my copy he talks about a follow-up he’s working on。 Would love to read that as well。 Definitely worth a read to anyone interested in religion， psychology， philosophy， archeology， poetry or human history。 Jaynes covers a lot of ground and manages to tie it all together nicely。 。。。more
Steven Schrader
，
The premise of the book seems pretty far fetched but it was still interesting。 It presents a theory on the history of human mentality by reference to ancient literature such as the Iliad and the Odyssey。 The bicameral mind refers to a phase of human development when people supposedly heard voices （auditory hallucinations） and lived their lives according to what the voices said。 The voices were considered gods。 Sometime after 1000 bc the voices faded away and modern consciousness evolved。 Religio The premise of the book seems pretty far fetched but it was still interesting。 It presents a theory on the history of human mentality by reference to ancient literature such as the Iliad and the Odyssey。 The bicameral mind refers to a phase of human development when people supposedly heard voices （auditory hallucinations） and lived their lives according to what the voices said。 The voices were considered gods。 Sometime after 1000 bc the voices faded away and modern consciousness evolved。 Religion developed as a vestige of the bicameral mind。 The book makes reference to early civilization in Egypt， Mesopotamia， and Greece。 It is written in an academic style with a lot of tortured phrasing of sentences and tons of words I didn't understand， but was too lazy to look up。 If I had taken a class from the author when he taught psychology at Princeton， I probably would have gotten a C-， tops。 。。。more
B
，
Amazing work。 I'm not sure I fully buy the neurological part of his theory， but psychologically and sociologically his work is inspiring to say the least。 I'd need more time to process it， but yeah - full-hearted recommendation。 Amazing work。 I'm not sure I fully buy the neurological part of his theory， but psychologically and sociologically his work is inspiring to say the least。 I'd need more time to process it， but yeah - full-hearted recommendation。 。。。more
Kyle
，
We seem to have evolved from microscopic organisms。 Our bodies have gone through huge changes to reach our current state。 It follows that our minds have also undergone dramatic changes。 What was it like to have a monkey's mind？ Or a lizard's mind？ Or a tiny water creature's mind？ It is not inconceivable that even as anatomically modern humans， we have experienced dramatic changes to our minds。 A common symptom of schizophrenia is to hear voices， which are sometimes very wise， authoritative， inte We seem to have evolved from microscopic organisms。 Our bodies have gone through huge changes to reach our current state。 It follows that our minds have also undergone dramatic changes。 What was it like to have a monkey's mind？ Or a lizard's mind？ Or a tiny water creature's mind？ It is not inconceivable that even as anatomically modern humans， we have experienced dramatic changes to our minds。 A common symptom of schizophrenia is to hear voices， which are sometimes very wise， authoritative， intelligent and intimidating。 What if the normal state of mind of most humans a few thousand years ago was like that of a schizophrenic？ What if most of us evolved out of that mind and only a few of us remain in it？ It would neatly explain why it seemed so obvious to the ancients that God（s） communicated directly with them， and how so few of us can honestly testify to such phenomena today。 The premise of this book is that humans who lived before the Iliad were like social machines， unconsciously fulfilling societal tasks。 They were not "conscious" but instead possessed the "bicameral mind"。 This mind primarily consists of vivid， hallucinated voices which gave commandments on how to act。 The voices were variously perceived as those of a living king， a dead king， or a personal deity。 The definition of "consciousness" is not the definition of "cognition" but is "based on language"。 Apparently， over the last few thousand years， the potency of the bicameral mind has faded and we learned to be conscious。 The hallucinations of schizophrenics， divinely-inspired people， etc。 that occur in our age are remnants of a mentality which used to be the default。 The worldwide， ancient documentation of God（s） speaking to us are literal records。 Most rational people who read the above will be skeptical and unswayed。 If you are the sort of person who wants to hear a lucid， authoritative argument in favour of it， then read or listen to this book。 It is the magnum opus of a learned man who has thought very deeply about it and backs it up with decades of science。 I am largely convinced and my understanding of historical mysticism is profoundly different。 。。。more
Wes
，
If this book doesn't add a wrinkle to your brain then I got nothing for you。 A must-read for sure。 If this book doesn't add a wrinkle to your brain then I got nothing for you。 A must-read for sure。 。。。more
Julio Pino
，
Mama， we're all crazy now， and always have been！ Mind-blowing and clever revision of all human history。 Schizophrenia is the original human condition and consciousness emerged only some 4，000 to 5，000 years ago。 Today's crazies are atavistic throwbacks to our earlier selves。 Mama， we're all crazy now， and always have been！ Mind-blowing and clever revision of all human history。 Schizophrenia is the original human condition and consciousness emerged only some 4，000 to 5，000 years ago。 Today's crazies are atavistic throwbacks to our earlier selves。 。。。more
Garret Macko
，
I first came across this book a couple of years back when doing some background reading on the show Westworld—the final episode of Season 1 is titled "The Bicameral Mind，" and if you've seen it， that might mean something to you。 Anyway， I side with many other Goodreads users in thinking that this book is remarkable， even if its thesis and arguments might be a bit kooky。 It's hard to envision a bicameral human living 3，000 years ago， but perhaps it is necessarily so。 After all， such is the nature I first came across this book a couple of years back when doing some background reading on the show Westworld—the final episode of Season 1 is titled "The Bicameral Mind，" and if you've seen it， that might mean something to you。 Anyway， I side with many other Goodreads users in thinking that this book is remarkable， even if its thesis and arguments might be a bit kooky。 It's hard to envision a bicameral human living 3，000 years ago， but perhaps it is necessarily so。 After all， such is the nature of consciousness: we know it as we ourselves experience/create it。This is certainly a book I'll be thinking of for a long time to come。 。。。more
Michael
，
Second reading 。 。 。 first one was around 1977。 Whether or not Jaynes is correct， his book makes for a stimulating read。
Lorraine McCann
，
Kind of a wild ride， this one。 Again， it was chosen by a book group I belong（ed） to and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have found it otherwise。 Apparently it was a big cult book in the 1970s， and it carries a （sort of） endorsement from Richard Dawkins， so maybe I'm unusual in not having come across it before。Anyhoo， that's all by way of avoiding writing about what it's about， but here goes。。。。 The central idea of this book is that when homo sapiens evolved， we initially had two brains。 One brain was Kind of a wild ride， this one。 Again， it was chosen by a book group I belong（ed） to and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have found it otherwise。 Apparently it was a big cult book in the 1970s， and it carries a （sort of） endorsement from Richard Dawkins， so maybe I'm unusual in not having come across it before。Anyhoo， that's all by way of avoiding writing about what it's about， but here goes。。。。 The central idea of this book is that when homo sapiens evolved， we initially had two brains。 One brain was concerned with all the animal things like eating and procreating; the other was - well， the other was communing with the gods。 And then language， and the creation of a stable， enduring self， was the point when these two chambers connected and basically all of human civilisation flows from this。Like a lot of philosophy， this is a book with a compelling argument that left me wondering what to do with it if a） I believe him or b） I don't believe him。 Because as much as Jaynes has laboured to prove his hypothesis， I'm not sure what changes if he's right。 Maybe it sheds some light on the role/origins of religious belief？ That would be useful， yes。 But really this book just felt to me like a huge headache！ And yet I did sort of enjoy it， because it was so radical and pointing at such deep， deep questions。 I think I may well read it again。 。。。more
Colophōn
，
Absolutely Genius
Spencer
，
3。5 fascinating information and ideas but overinterpreted and focus a too narrow on mediterranean bronze age to support primary theses
Gregory Figg
，
This is a quite remarkable read。 A bold premise bringing with it a new paradigm， but Jaynes does seem to deliver - each turn of the page brings another means by which to have you reconsider what you think you know on the topic of consciousness。 Further， each claim he makes does seem to make sense， though it invariably propounds something utterly different to that with which the reader is familiar。 I'd be very interested to read reviews， critiques and criticisms from people in the fields of psych This is a quite remarkable read。 A bold premise bringing with it a new paradigm， but Jaynes does seem to deliver - each turn of the page brings another means by which to have you reconsider what you think you know on the topic of consciousness。 Further， each claim he makes does seem to make sense， though it invariably propounds something utterly different to that with which the reader is familiar。 I'd be very interested to read reviews， critiques and criticisms from people in the fields of psychology， neurology and the like， for I am a mere layman。 However， from my classical and historical background， and having focused on religious history and questions of faith in my dissertations， I found no shortage of interest in this tome。 It was highly recommended to me as something to have you thinking differently， and I in turn cannot recommend this highly enough。 。。。more
Paul
，
（I feel really bad about writing a negative review of this book insofar as a couple of my GR friends seem to love it 。 。 。 but here I stand， I can do no other。）So I once interned at an academic press that publishes theology/philosophy， where I worked under the acquisitions editor and was mostly tasked with the slush pile。 For those who may not be familiar， this is basically a stack of random manuscripts sent into the publisher/press， which then needs to be sorted through， as there may occasiona （I feel really bad about writing a negative review of this book insofar as a couple of my GR friends seem to love it 。 。 。 but here I stand， I can do no other。）So I once interned at an academic press that publishes theology/philosophy， where I worked under the acquisitions editor and was mostly tasked with the slush pile。 For those who may not be familiar， this is basically a stack of random manuscripts sent into the publisher/press， which then needs to be sorted through， as there may occasionally be something worth publishing。 So I dutifully spent my internship hours weeding out the cranks， the nonsense， the weaker academic work， etc。Anyway there's one genre that we would see all the time -- it was always an older guy （post-retirement）， a semi-expert in a single academic or professional field， who clearly spent a few years polishing his "theory of everything" book。 These books were always badly written， usually very earnest （which was kind of sad） rather than grandiose; and the upshot was the same in every case， namely， the manuscript's mildly delusional author thought that he had figured out the key to the universe， which was somehow tied to his field/specialty， and this grand unified theory （whether based in engineering， botany， art history， whatever） needed to be published immediately so that the world could know。 And the context was always a farrago of nonsense， the author's pet theories and favorite topics awkwardly shoved into a single narrative -- in short， the sort of thing that should remain in one's desk drawer and never be shown to anyone。 Basically what I'm trying to say is that I wish I'd been interning at Houghton Mifflin in 1973 so I could have stopped Bicameral Mind from entering the world。 Jaynes has created a series of unfalsifiable just-so stories about the development of consciousness that are semi-vaguely interesting as a speculative theory -- reminiscent of that one guy at every college party （"No but look， the early Greeks didn't have interiority at all！ They were hallucinating！ The DMT elves were talking through them！"） -- but I have no idea how this was published as a supposedly truthful account of anything。To be clear -- human interiority and consciousness developed at SOME point， historically （whether in Eden， on the plains of Africa， or etc。）。 This is definitely a thing; and for less technologically advanced cultures， this lack of interiority can still be observed to an extent。 As one scientist put it: I've done psychiatric evaluations of people from all over the world， and there is no question that in certain cultures the individual barely emerges out of the collective -- even out of their own body， to be honest。 They don't have the problem of the body-mind dualism because they don't possess the latter。 They are shockingly free of what we would call insight， reflection， interiority， detachment， etc。 It's as if they do not live in their minds， but in their bodies。 They are amazingly content to perform the most mindless and repetitive work -- in fact， in many ways， they are probably happier than the average American。 They essentially don't think about things until something goes wrong with their body。 Otherwise， "no brain， no problem。" But this lack of interiority in pre-modern cultures is not quite the same as bicameralism （as a theory）， and furthermore， Jaynes claims to have effectively proved， through a series of just-so stories based in shallow folk psychology/history， that interiority suddenly developed when one half of our brain stopped ordering the other half of the brain via religious hallucinations。 And that this happened at precisely the time of the Homeric Greeks， because they had to adapt to the Bronze Age collapse （had no human beings ever experienced hardship before then？）。 The claim is so absurd that it can't even be responded to -- perhaps one could begin by pointing out that Gilgamesh and other texts written thousands of years earlier （e。g。， letters from ancient Egypt， to give one of many examples） very clearly show interiority and self-reflection？ But why bother， honestly。 Some might argue that at least Jaynes is making an interesting psychological argument about meta-consciousness or the origins of authority -- notably， Jung， Campbell， Neumann et al。 have also made such arguments， all of them unconvincing -- but I would just note that a number of world-class geniuses have already covered that terrain （see Hegel， Schelling， et al。） without having to rely on wildly speculative claims about global neurological events in 1200 BCE。 。。。more
molly
，
I felt a little bit pretentious embarking on a book entitled， "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind，" but the ponderous cover belies a book that is truly intellectual peyote。 It is centered around a controversial and beguiling hypothesis: that consciousness only evolved in the first millenium B。C。E。 Some of the most interesting parts of the book trace this evolution of what we call consciousness and introspection through the oldest texts humanity has to offer， namel I felt a little bit pretentious embarking on a book entitled， "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind，" but the ponderous cover belies a book that is truly intellectual peyote。 It is centered around a controversial and beguiling hypothesis: that consciousness only evolved in the first millenium B。C。E。 Some of the most interesting parts of the book trace this evolution of what we call consciousness and introspection through the oldest texts humanity has to offer， namely the Iliad， the Odyssey， and the Bible （he also discusses a bit the Epic of Gilgamesh but as it does not fit his theory well， seems to mostly dismiss it as editorialized through the later oral history before its final written form）。 This book was written in the 70s， so at one point I got impatient to see whether any follow-up research has been done on this and it turns out there has been some very interesting work！ study using AI to look at introspection over time in the cultural record， accompanying editorial。 I won't summarize the results and make this review an enormously large one， but one line from the editorial: "The featured study lends supports to the notion that consciousness is a social construct in constant flux。"But the book is also far more than that。 It needed to first define what consciousness actually is， which unsurprisingly is a difficult task。 He makes a strong case for the need to distinguish consciousness from cognition and perception。 Instead， consciousness is the construction of an analog "I，" an avatar moving through space。 We usually locate this fictitious I in a space in our heads， which is of course complete nonsense- it could be located in our fingers or toes or even around the corner in another room （he points out that in different eras or in out of body experiences this is exactly how consciousness is experienced）。 The construction of an analog "I" is based on metaphor， which brings us to his first major hypothesis:（1） consciousness is generated and accessed by language。 So what was going on before we were conscious？ Well。。。（2） prior to consciousness， there was a different mentality based on verbal hallucinations （the bicameral mind）。 Here is where the discussion of ancient literature is fascinating。 It is true that in the Pentateuch， the Iliad， most ancient literature， humans are depicted as talking directly to gods in a way that just doesn't exist later。 Could it be that these bicameral civilizations experienced these voices talking directly to them as gods？ He also provides evidence for this through the lateralization of certain speech functions- if you stimulate the verbal center of the right brain in young-ish people， auditory hallucinations often occur that match those described in the older cultural records。 So why did this form of mentality break down？ Well。。。（3） Chaotic social organizations， overpopulation， and the success of writing all created situations where bicameral civilizations began to encounter each other and where the authority of bicameral voices were weakened。 We can only really begin to understand our own differences when we encounter others- perhaps a sort of proto-consciousness began to arise in traders on the edge of empires who needed to deal with other civilizations。 He summarizes it quite well， "In summary， I have sketched out several factors at work in the great transilience from the bicameral mind to consciousness: （1） the weakening of the auditory by the advent of writing; （2） the inherent fragility of hallucinatory control; （3） the unworkableness of gods in the chaos of historical upheaval; （4） the positing of internal cause in the observation of difference in others; （5） the acquisition of narratization from epics; （6） the survival value of deceit; and （7） a modicum of natural selection。"This breakdown of the bicameral mind gave rise to the concept of religion， the desire to return the lost voices of the gods and the certainty of a bygone age。 The Bible can be reinterpreted as a parable of this transition in mentality。 Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden of Eden but didn't know it， conversing directly with god （not conscious of even their own nakedness）。 So in a way eating the apple and falling from grace represents the awakening of consciousness and the accompanying uncertainty。 We are always trying to get back in that garden。So was consciousness inevitable？ Jaynes doesn't think so。 He says， I "wish to be very clear that consciousness is chiefly a cultural introduction， learned on the basis of language and taught to others， rather than any biological necessity。 But that it had and still has a survival value suggests that the change to consciousness may have been assisted by a certain amount of natural selection。"So do I buy all this？ Not necessarily。 Parts of it are impossible to ever prove， although it is interesting to reflect on。 Our ability to introspect certainly seems to be in flux over time， suggesting that it is a cultural invention （see above studies）。 However， it is a fascinating journey to go on even if it is impossible to buy wholesale。 I do think this is a book that will forever change my thinking。 Very worthwhile， although sometimes a tough intellectual row to hoe （I will admit to skimming some of the endless paraphrand/paraphier/metaphrand digressions）。 。。。more
Fatemeh
，
کلا یه مقدار با روندی که نویسنده برای تایید فرضیات و صحبتهاش شواهد و قرائن ارائه میده مشکل داشتم。 اما این دیدگاه و ایدهی دو ساحتی بودن ذهن برای من خیلی تازه بود。 خوندن کتاب هم یه جاهایی برام سخت میشد یه جاهایی راحتتر بود。 به میزان خوبی چالشبرانگیز بود برام کتاب。
Sahm-Yul Zappa
，
A bold hypothesis on how human consciousness came to be， the dawn of language， and the genesis of religion。 Later on， it starts exploring threads in which the author admits are wild speculation， but even this is the equivalent of intellectual Jazz。 It's cool。 You'll want to humor it。 Deceptively read-able in spite of it's intimidating tittle。 Don't pass it up。 Maybe it's not all true - it's just a hypothesis， after all。 But deep down， you'll come to feel a visceral， primordial truth to it's core A bold hypothesis on how human consciousness came to be， the dawn of language， and the genesis of religion。 Later on， it starts exploring threads in which the author admits are wild speculation， but even this is the equivalent of intellectual Jazz。 It's cool。 You'll want to humor it。 Deceptively read-able in spite of it's intimidating tittle。 Don't pass it up。 Maybe it's not all true - it's just a hypothesis， after all。 But deep down， you'll come to feel a visceral， primordial truth to it's core ideas。 Uncanny， and in some ways unsettling。 。。。more
imaculata form
，
Nehmen wir den Fall eines Mannes， der sich selbst oder dem das Stammesoberhaupt den Befehl gab， weit weg vom Lager den Flußlauf hinauf ein Fischwehr anzulegen。 Wenn er kein Bewußtsein hat！ und infolgedessen die Umstände nicht narrativieren kann， das heißt kein »Ich （qua Analogon）« in spatialisierter Zeit mit allem， was dazugehört， vor seinem »inneren Auge« sich ständig präsent halten kann – wie geht er dann die Sache an？ Ich meine， nur die Sprache hält ihn bei der Stange – bei dieser langwierige Nehmen wir den Fall eines Mannes， der sich selbst oder dem das Stammesoberhaupt den Befehl gab， weit weg vom Lager den Flußlauf hinauf ein Fischwehr anzulegen。 Wenn er kein Bewußtsein hat！ und infolgedessen die Umstände nicht narrativieren kann， das heißt kein »Ich （qua Analogon）« in spatialisierter Zeit mit allem， was dazugehört， vor seinem »inneren Auge« sich ständig präsent halten kann – wie geht er dann die Sache an？ Ich meine， nur die Sprache hält ihn bei der Stange – bei dieser langwierigen， den Nachmittag aufzehrenden Plackerei。 Ein Mensch des mittleren Pleistozäns würde sofort wieder vergessen haben， was er da zu tun im Begriff war。 Doch der sprechende Mensch hätte seine Sprache， ihn daran zu erinnern: entweder indem er selbst das Kommando wiederholt – was einen Typ des Wollens voraussetzt， zu dem er meiner Meinung nach seinerzeit noch nicht in der Lage war – oder aber， wie es wahrscheinlicher ist， vermittels wiederholter »innerer« Sprachhalluzination， die ihm sagt， was zu tun ist。Jemandem， der das vorige Kapitel nicht ganz verstanden hat， müssen derartige Überlegungen höchst befremdlich und abwegig vorkommen。 Stellt man sich jedoch unumwunden und ernsthaft dem Problem， die Entwicklung des menschlichen Geistes einsehbar zu machen， dann erkennt man， daß solche Lösungsvorschläge wichtig und notwendig sind， auch wenn wir derzeit noch nicht wissen， auf welchem Weg sie zu substantiieren wären 。。。more
Koohesefid
，
ثمرهی بیخوابی دیشب این شد که بالاخره تمومش کردم。خلاصه: نظریهی اصلی کتاب این هست که آگاهی در بستر تاریخی و فرهنگی شکل گرفته و در دورهی پیشاآگاهی انسانها دارای ذهنی دو ساحتی بودن و فاقد خودآگاهی。 منظور از دوساحتی بودن هم وجود یه ساحت الهی که توهمات عمدتا صدایی رو در ساحت ذهن انسان زمزمه میکرده。 برای نزدیک شدن به ذهن نویسنده بیماران اسکیزوفرنی رو مثال میزنه که به نظرش مشابه انسان دوساحتی هستن。 این دوساحتی بودن در برابر بحرانهای محیطی و تقابلات اجتماعات بشری به تدریج فرو میپاشه ولی هنوز اثرا ثمرهی بیخوابی دیشب این شد که بالاخره تمومش کردم。خلاصه: نظریهی اصلی کتاب این هست که آگاهی در بستر تاریخی و فرهنگی شکل گرفته و در دورهی پیشاآگاهی انسانها دارای ذهنی دو ساحتی بودن و فاقد خودآگاهی。 منظور از دوساحتی بودن هم وجود یه ساحت الهی که توهمات عمدتا صدایی رو در ساحت ذهن انسان زمزمه میکرده。 برای نزدیک شدن به ذهن نویسنده بیماران اسکیزوفرنی رو مثال میزنه که به نظرش مشابه انسان دوساحتی هستن。 این دوساحتی بودن در برابر بحرانهای محیطی و تقابلات اجتماعات بشری به تدریج فرو میپاشه ولی هنوز اثراتش در دنیای ما قابل مشاهده هست。 از طریق این ذهن دوساحتی نویسنده فرمانبرداری بی چون و چرای انسانهای باستانی، خدا، پیامبران، اوراکلها و احساس گناه بشر رو توضیح میدهنقد:ادعاهای کتاب بر چند مبنا استوار هست: اول ادعاهای زبانی که بر پایه مثالهایی از متون باستانی در کتاب نتیجه میگیره خودآگاهی در بعضی متون غایب هست。 ولی اولا تعداد متون به حدی کم هست که هیچ نتیجهگیری آماری قابل توجهی نمیشه بر مبنای اونها انجام داد و ثانیا مشکلات ترجمه فهم معنای دقیق یه سری از لغات باستانی رو واقعا سخت میکنه。دستهی دوم شواهد کتاب مبتنی هستند بر تغییرات فیزیولوژیک مغز در نیمکرهی راست که منشأ توهمات الهی دونسته شدن。 از زمان نگارش کتاب مطالعات بیشتری صورت گرفته و نشون داده شده امکان چنین نتیجهگیریهایی وجود ندارد。به نظرم بدون اضافه کردن این فرض اضافی که بشر در گذشته متفاوت از امروزش بوده هم میشه پدیدههایی که کتاب در صدد توضیحش هست رو توضیح داد。 میشه با مطالعات مردم شناسی روی قبیلههای منزوی از تمدن جهانی این نظریه رو راستی آزمایی کرد。 راه دیگه هم این هست که ببینیم آیا یه گروه از بیماران اسکیزوفرنی توانایی کار گروهی در قالب توهم جمعی رو دارن یا خیر。 。。。more
GONZA
，
Per quanto sia per certi versi un po' datato， questo libro racconta fatti molto interessanti che collega con una teoria decisamente innovativa， o almeno nuova per me che non l'avevo mai sentita。Adesso mi faró un giro in rete per vedere che ne pensano gli esperti。 Per quanto sia per certi versi un po' datato， questo libro racconta fatti molto interessanti che collega con una teoria decisamente innovativa， o almeno nuova per me che non l'avevo mai sentita。Adesso mi faró un giro in rete per vedere che ne pensano gli esperti。 。。。more
Todd
，
Very interesting concept， however， the author spends a very long time to explain details which are unnecessary to explain the point。
Nuno
，
This is probably the most astounding book I've ever read。The author proposes that Man has only been conscious for about 2，500 or 3，000 years and that until then he had a bicameral mentality where his thoughts were hallucinated voices he interpreted to be the gods ordering the 'rest' of him around。 This changed as language （and social unrest， migration and the interaction of cultures） made him internalize abstract concepts and develop a sense of self， an 'analog I' and mind-space。Jaynes produces This is probably the most astounding book I've ever read。The author proposes that Man has only been conscious for about 2，500 or 3，000 years and that until then he had a bicameral mentality where his thoughts were hallucinated voices he interpreted to be the gods ordering the 'rest' of him around。 This changed as language （and social unrest， migration and the interaction of cultures） made him internalize abstract concepts and develop a sense of self， an 'analog I' and mind-space。Jaynes produces evidence for his theory in the form of archaeological findings， ancient architecture and literature such as the Iliad and the Scriptures as he reviews a vast scope of civilizations and eras。I do not consider the theory proven， as it probably could never be when dealing with psychological anthropology， and I do not have Jaynes' erudition to be able to distinguish valid evidence from cherry-picking。 It is also not falsifiable and therein lies its biggest weakness。But it is deeply thought provoking as Jaynes fits all the pieces together in one perplexing chapter after another， from the development of the early gods， as their voices were hallucinated by everyone， to their eventual silencing and the loss of innocence， the creation of oracles， the development of modern religions and prophets， in the hope of restoring proximity to the gods。 Jaynes finalizes by shining new light on modern phenomena like music， poetry and schizophrenia as remnants of the lost bicameral mentality。Written in a formal， but easy to grasp style， at times humorous， the book is very enjoyable and I would recommend it to everyone who would like to reflect on the development of Man's mentality and look at the last 3 or 4 millennia from a new perspective。 。。。more
Alexander K
，
Brilliant。 Consuming。 Not safe for class。 Finished this after a short stint as a psychology student。 Who knows。 Jaynes？ Maybe。 Brilliant。I commented on Aion that it should not be regarded as some monolith in the history of thought as the internet likes to do。 Same， I have learned after some time， goes here too。
Tommy
，
The central thesis: humans don't need "consciousness" and genetically weren't ever preprogrammed to have it， it only emerged under specific conditions。 That's not so crazy but details matter。 He tries to prove this by reverse engineering the use of language to understand what people thought when behaving historically and obviously since he can't find traces of articulated self-reflectivity that means it couldn't have played much of a role and everything odd can be explained in terms of basically The central thesis: humans don't need "consciousness" and genetically weren't ever preprogrammed to have it， it only emerged under specific conditions。 That's not so crazy but details matter。 He tries to prove this by reverse engineering the use of language to understand what people thought when behaving historically and obviously since he can't find traces of articulated self-reflectivity that means it couldn't have played much of a role and everything odd can be explained in terms of basically anything else up to extrasensory possession presumably。 I also think that the curious unhospitable sites on which Mayan cities were often built and their sudden appearance and disappearance can best be explained on the basis that such sites and movements were commanded by hallucinations which in certain periods could be not only irrational but downright punishing—as was Jahweh sometimes to his- people， or Apollo （through the Delphic Oracle） to his， by siding with the invaders of Greece （see III。1， III。2， n。 12）。" Gets close to some very Ancient Aliens type reasoning。 。。。more
Prerna
，
This was a roller-coaster of a book！ The principle tenet on which Jaynes's theory of bicameral mind is based is that consciousness only developed in human beings with the evolution of language - in linking the two， he claims that a conscious mind did not exist before civilizations developed language structures。 Bicameralism postulates that the subjective conscious mind is an operator generated by metaphors - in trying to understand something we are only finding a metaphor for it and thus the fin This was a roller-coaster of a book！ The principle tenet on which Jaynes's theory of bicameral mind is based is that consciousness only developed in human beings with the evolution of language - in linking the two， he claims that a conscious mind did not exist before civilizations developed language structures。 Bicameralism postulates that the subjective conscious mind is an operator generated by metaphors - in trying to understand something we are only finding a metaphor for it and thus the finite set of the lexicon of language is stretched over an infinite set of circumstances。Through a thorough analysis of the Iliad which Jaynes regards as a psychological document offering insight into the mentality of the earliest mind， he suggests that originally human minds operated through two states - one of which listened and obeyed， while the other， the 'bicameral mind'， spoke， narratized and commanded。 Jaynes also suggests that there are several vestiges of the bicameral mind in the modern world and elaborates on this with the example of schizophrenic hallucinations - he explains that in normal people the stress threshold for release of hallucinations is extremely high， while in psychosis prone people it is somewhat lower。While I am skeptical about the theory， this was an extremely enjoyable and informative read。 I am not entirely convinced that consciousness developed with language as this would imply that consciousness is absent in species with no well developed language structures but science has shown us otherwise。 I also suspect that some of the examples Jaynes outlines are cases of confirmation bias。 I'm gonna have to agree with Richard Dawkins on this one: it is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius。 My dear friend Katia recommended this book and then buddy-read it with me， so thank you， Katia！ Here's a link to her review of the book。 。。。more
Aion
，
Thought provoking， but suffers from at least one fatal flaw and several major flaws that discredit the theory of the bicameral mind。
Paul moved to LibraryThing
，