Talk:The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misc

"continued work has not provided support for the idea"

This isn't true if you consider deMause's work to indirectly support Jaynes. I get the strong impression that they didn't know about each other but their respective theories fit together like a lock and key. It's just that they're attacking the same problem from slightly different angles.

Incidentally, fitting Jaynes' theory to deMause's fills holes in both of them. The result is amazing.

Has anyone addressed the issue of desemination of consciousness throughout the world in such a short period?

why did we not see isolated populations with Bicameral minds?

Who supports Jaynes?

"Some authorities, however, consider Jaynes's hypothesis worthy and offered conditional support ... Some scholars suggest that Jaynes' theory describes a real event ..." -- Can anybody firm up just who said authorities and scholars might be? -- 11 October 2005

Content Migration 12/20

Migrating the "theory" content from "Julian Jaynes" page to "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" as this has been suggested by others and is the standard across Wikipedia.

Due weight tag

From reviewing discussions at Talk:Julian Jaynes, it appears at a glance that this article goes out of its way to emphasize positive responses to this work to a degree that does not reflect the balance of reliable sources. The article could likely benefit from an integration of the Commentary and Criticisms subsections, as this can allow for a more natural presentation of diverse reactions to the work. The list of conferences influenced by the work need citations to independent sources establishing the significance of the conferences and verifying their relationship to this work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

How can this article not so much as mention the fact that the theory is almost universally regarded by scientists, historians of science, and philosophers of science, to be a paradigmatic case of pseudoscience? Most of its most significant claims are hopelessly untestable, and most of Jayne's arguments are based on confirmation bias and evidential selectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.98.70 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your statement is complicated, but the simple answer to your question is that nothing should be stated without a source. Can you provide, say, one source to support any of your assertions? Who says that Jaynes's theory is a "paradigmatic case" of anything? Is there any analysis to support the claim that it is "pseudoscience", or is that just name-calling on your part? How do you know there is an "almost universally" shared agreement with YOUR opinions? Find a relevant, reliable source and go from there... Of course, if you find sources that echo your opinions and similarly provide no actual analysis, they would neither support your argument nor help to improve the article. And remember: the sole purpose of the talk-page is to improve the article, not to debate the theory. B.Sirota (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Iliad/Odyssey

"Jaynes builds a case for this theory by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. For example, he asserts that, in The Iliad and sections of the Old Testament in The Bible that no mention is made of any kind of cognitive processes such as introspection and that there is no apparent indication that the writers were self-aware. He asserts that some later books of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes) as well as later works such as The Odyssey show indications of a profoundly different kind of mentality which he believes is indicative of consciousness."

This is a bit confusing, since the Iliad and the Odyssey are both ascribed as written works to Homer, though they were epic poems before that... --Edward Wakelin 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Jaynes says ancient tho written voices were hallucinated. Yet he expects us to take His written voice as gospel. Why can't he just accept they wrote what they saw, tho not as eloquently as the far seeing Jaynes? Maybe His voice is hallucinated. WTF 174.233.16.56 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, "tho". 85.31.131.59 (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What was his explanation for a priestly class?

It was universal in Indo-European societies, but why would it exist if everyone down to the swineherds heard gods speaking in their head every day of their lives? Why would anyone need an oracle or a shaman? It's pretty much a consensus opinion that the priestly class established their power because they claimed that they can talk to gods - how would that impress anyone if an average person had to have Apollo issue hallucinated commands to them just so they could go to the loo? 86.63.168.150 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This article used to emphasize 'Jaynes's book' (which in itself is not a complex topic) rather than trying to explain all of its important, separate controversial theories. Unfortunately, as of August 2023, one particular theory, bicameral mentality, has been planted here from its own separate article (with many flaws) as if it were the book's one and only topic, which is a distortion of the book. It was transferred here because the editor applied some kind of Wiki standard without knowing much about the actual book.

Anyways, your questions about bicamerality would be more fitting over there. However, a talk page "isn't a forum..." for discussing an author's theories, except to ensure that an article contains every major aspect of a topic. A good Wiki article should provide a reasonable, accurate summary that answers the 'big' questions about a clear topic, even if it can't answer every question. Your questions, of course, challenge an issue that makes no sense to you; perhaps a more appropriate 'talk page' question might be, 'If something makes no sense, is it a problem with the theory, or is the article just poorly written?' An innocent reader can't always know the difference. IMO, the poor article here is much to blame for confusion about Jaynes's theories.

As for the priests, the theory says they did not exist in early, small group bicamerality, but served an essential role in the "authoritarian hierarchy" of every advanced bicameral community. They managed the 'pantheon': every person following his/her voice or voices was potentially chaotic and only the social hierarchy could determine which voice was which god, and whose gods were higher or lower. (And they didn't 'hear' them "in their head", and probably not every day, and not to have a pee.) As for oracles, they came into existence with the gradual breakdown of the bicameral mind when 'voices' were still needed, and persisted for centuries alongside consciousness until almost no-one took them seriously. In trying to explain a few thousand years of ancient civilizations, the 'consensus opinion' (about power structures?) uses unstated default assumptions about so-called 'human nature', and it ignores the actual complexity and strangeness of historical facts. Jaynes's theory explicitly addresses all these and many other issues beyond the scope of an oversimplified Wiki article. B.Sirota (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 February 2024

Please include under “see also” a link to The Master and His Emissary (2009) by Iain Mcgilchrist (it has a page already) 84.68.100.253 (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)