There is the theory of the bicameral mind
I'm not asserting this as truth i'm just mentioning it as a potential point of interest for anyone who is...er..interested
This theory suggests that something happened to our mind 3000 years ago which afects how the two hemispheres of our brain inter-relate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mind
Bicameralism (the philosophy of "two-chamberedness") is a hypothesis in
psychology that argues that the human
mind once assumed 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. The term was coined by
psychologist Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, wherein he made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind only as recently as 3000 years ago.
Brain hemispheres and bicamerality
[TABLE="class: metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content ambox-Unreferenced"]
[TR]
[TD="class: mbox-image"]
[/TD]
[TD="class: mbox-text"]This section
does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by
adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed.
(April 2013)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Julian Jaynes saw bicamerality as primarily a metaphor. He used
governmental bicameralism 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. 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 hallucinations.
The bicameral mentality would be 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 would thus be a
"zombie mind" lacking metaconsciousness, autobiographical memory and the capacity for executive "ego functions" such as deliberate mind-wandering and conscious introspection of mental content. When bicamerality 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.
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
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.[SUP]
[1][/SUP]
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.[SUP]
[2][/SUP] 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 "
gods" — commands which were recorded in ancient
myths, legends and historical accounts. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very
muses 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
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.[SUP]
[2][/SUP]
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.[SUP]
[3][/SUP] 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.[SUP]
[2][/SUP] 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.[SUP]
[2][/SUP]
Jaynes notes that even in modern times[SUP][
when?][/SUP] 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.[SUP]
[2][/SUP] Recent evidence shows that many schizophrenics do not just hear random voices but experience "
command hallucinations" instructing their behavior or urging them to commit certain acts.[SUP][
full citation needed][/SUP] As support for Jaynes's argument, these command hallucinations are little different from the commands from gods which feature prominently in ancient stories.[SUP]
[2][/SUP] 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.[SUP]
[4][/SUP][SUP][
improper synthesis?][/SUP]
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.
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
oracles arose during this breakdown period, in an attempt to summon instructions from the "gods" whose voices could no longer be heard.[SUP]
[2][/SUP] 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
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.[SUP]
[5][/SUP][SUP]
[6][/SUP] 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, and
José Luis Bermúdez.[SUP]
[7][/SUP] Philosopher Gary Williams has recently defended Julian Jaynes against Ned Block's criticisms[SUP]
[8][/SUP] in the journal
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.[SUP]
[9][/SUP]
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.[SUP]
[10][/SUP] 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"). 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.[SUP]
[11][/SUP]
Richard Dawkins wrote of
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that, "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."[SUP]
[12][/SUP] Others considered Jaynes's hypothesis worthy and offer conditional support, arguing the notion deserves further study.[SUP]
[13][/SUP][SUP]
[14][/SUP]
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."[SUP]
[15][/SUP]
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.[SUP]
[16][/SUP][SUP]
[17][/SUP] 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[SUP]
[18][/SUP] and Dr. Leo Sher in the
Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience,[SUP]
[19][/SUP] and further discussed in the book
Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness.[SUP]
[20][/SUP]
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.[SUP]
[21][/SUP] He also wrote that:
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[SUP]
[22][/SUP]
, 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."[SUP]
[23][/SUP] Author and historian of science
Morris Berman writes, "[Jaynes's] description of this new consciousness is one of the best I have come across."[SUP]
[24][/SUP] Danish science writer
Tor Nørretranders discusses Jaynes's theory favorably in his book
The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size.[SUP]
[25][/SUP]
Evidence taken to contradict Jaynes's proposed date of the transition from bicameralism is the
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.[SUP][
citation needed][/SUP] 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. 252f.) This, however, fails to account for either the generally accepted dating of the "Standard Version" of the epic to the later second millennium or the fact that the introspection so often taken as characteristic of the "Standard Version" seems more thoroughly rooted in the Old Babylonian and Sumerian versions than previously thought, especially as our understanding of the Old Babylonian poem emerges.[SUP]
[26][/SUP] 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.
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. He argues that this distinction is frequently not recognized by those offering critiques of Jaynes' theory.[SUP]
[27][/SUP]
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.[SUP]
[28][/SUP]
Michael Gazzaniga pioneered the
split-brain experiments which led him to propose a similar theory called the
left brain interpreter.
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).[SUP]
[29][/SUP] 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.
