Watch and listen to lectures and interviews with Julian Jaynes by joining the Julian Jaynes Society: www.julianjaynes.org/join/ Read our latest book, "Conversations on Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind," which answers all of the most common questions about Jaynes's theory, explains the latest evidence, and extends the theory into many new areas: www.amazon.com/gp/product/1737305534/
I read the book after hearing about it during the late 70's shortly after it was published. It changed the way I think about mankind and our human history. I have re-read it at least three times since and have learned more and more ,,a very important book, Should be required reading for ever High School student,
I believe the misconception comes from “Westworld,” where one of the characters asks, “Wasn’t that discredited?” when the theory comes up in the show. May or may not be the reason, but definitely a popular cultural reason for people becoming aware of the theory.
Thank you Connor. This interview actually pre-dates Westworld, but, yes, they repeated the misconception but also brought Jaynes's ideas to the attention of a large, new audience. I think this misconception initially arose because, after Jaynes himself stopped lecturing, and prior to the founding of the Julian Jaynes Society, no one was actively promoting the theory. So because there was a period of perceived inactivity, some people jumped to the conclusion that the theory had somehow been discredited. Add to that the many misconceptions about the theory posted over the years by bloggers, Wikipedia editors, etc. But as more and more new discussion and evidence is published, and misconceptions clarified, this position can no longer be rationally maintained.
I’ve for a long time have had Jaynes’ definition of consciousness in mind and so it wasn’t that hard for me to assimilate it but nonetheless it was still a “Wow!” But often, yes, so many including academics define it in very disparate ways involving mere perception, awareness, awakeness, and such. Introspection was always part of my definition.
It makes me wonder if *any* non-human conscious intelligence could ever understand and communicate with us if our own consciousness truly emerged in such an accidental manner. Would any alien conscious being even be able to conceive and connect with our human ego in its modern form? How would a creature which might be intelligent but did not emerge from our own dual-hemispheric brain structure even form a theory of mind compatible with ours? Could we, or they, empathize with each other if we cannot step into each other's shoes, so to speak?
I find this hypothesis incredibly interesting but I think they are some flaws with it. One flaw is the fact that many human populations have been isolated for significantly longer than 3000 years, and yet still all think in the modern sense, and that the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest known work of literature, describes Gilgamesh as performing introspection, something that would be impossible under Jaynes' hypothesis. This first flaw naturally leads into the second flaw which is Jaynes's proposal does not explain how bicameralism could have been lost at the same time across the entire human species (simultaneous, world-wide transition). The indigenous Australian culture was completely separated from the rest of the world from 4000 BCE to 1600 CE, yet appears today to be both historically unchanged and self-conscious. The third and final flaw with this hypothesis is pre-transition divination. Divination is also considerably older than that date and the early writings he claims show bicamerality: The oldest recorded Chinese Writing was on oracle bones, meaning that divination arose at the same time or even earlier than writing in Chinese society. So, are these problems and criticisms too great which once-and-for-all shows Jaynes’s bicameral mind hypothesis model to be false? If not, how would a defender of Jayne’s respond to or account for these criticisms? If these criticisms can be rationally accounted for then what is the evidence that actually strongly indicates this hypothesis is true? Thanks.
We're glad you find the theory interesting and we're happy to point you to resources that address your questions for further study. Jaynes never claims there was a simultaneous, worldwide transition to consciousness. Different cultures transitioned at different times. For example, he discusses a later transition in Mesoamerica and Latin America. Relatively recent studies of preliterate societies do show vestiges of bicamerality (see Lévy-Bruhl and others; also the Introduction to "The Julian Jaynes Collection" and Judith Weissman's chapter in "Gods, Voices, and the Bicameral Mind"). See also: www.julianjaynes.org/blog/myths-vs-facts/myth-3-jaynes-theory-does-not-apply-to-other-cultures/. The issue of Gilgamesh has to do with modern impositions by the translators. Boban Dedovic is currently researching and writing a series of articles on this issue (see czcams.com/video/7xNUbMlgTPE/video.html - more to come). See also Rabbi James Cohn's discussion of the problems with the translation of psychological terms in the Old Testament: czcams.com/video/P-7I55QWnxM/video.html Regarding the evidence for the transition from bicamerality to consciousness in ancient China, see Michael Carr's chapter, "The Shi 'Corpse/Personator' Ceremony in Early China" in "Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness." See also Todd Gibson's "Souls, Gods, Kings, and Mountains" and "Listening for Ancient Voices" in "Gods, Voices, and the Bicameral Mind" on the transition from bicamerality to consciousness in ancient Tibet. See also the Summary of Evidence: www.julianjaynes.org/about/about-jaynes-theory/summary-of-evidence/. We have a great deal of other resources for learning more about Jaynes's theory available in the Member Area: www.julianjaynes.org/join/
I listen to a woman scream at her baby of around 11 months every time the partner is away. Police were called on several occasions but they didnt care or assumed what they were doing was normal. Ff to a few days ago child is 4 screams just like the mother except now the mother screams more than the child. I knock the door its open the mother appears and becomes this whimpering concerned woman who fears her daughter has broken her nose. Amidst all of this I ask the child if she had a good day at school she stops crying and a joyful yes and beginning clapping then goes back to crying. I tell the mother to stop whimpering as she is the cause her irrational emotions are making the child react and believe this is normal behaviour. She started shouting at the child and I asked her to stop abusing her. She was horrified being accused of abuse when I said verbal abuse she shut up mouth aghast she looked as though she heard verbal abuse for the first time...she was silent and the child told her to go away. The next neighbour came out to enquire she is a young woman too. Scratch Mark's on her chest. I asked the mother to seek help for her anger issues she closed the door. The other neighour now. I enquired about the scratch scars and she confirmed it was a fight. I'm asking...though consciousness appears to be a small part of it all is that because the power to self control through shock realisation also forces one to be aware of that within and without like a profound connection on the inside but the outside world remains the same?
Agreed -- while there are many nuanced aspects to the theory, it's really not that difficult to understand the basic ideas for those who take the time to carefully read Jaynes's book, and perhaps some of the relevant follow-up works that we've published. On the other hand, people who read Jaynes's book in a more cursory manner often come away with many misunderstandings or misconceptions.
So if consciousness is learned and it's based on language, then do people who speak different languages have different kinds of consciousness? Or more generally, could different people have learned different kinds of consciousness (even within the same language group) ?
Yes, individual and cultural differences in subjective consciousness based on language is a fascinating area that needs a great deal of further study. Some research along these lines has been done with preliterate societies such as the Pirahã. Also, the Stanford anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann and her colleagues have been doing interesting related work on what they call cross-cultural differences in theories of mind.
Just read an article about his theory how ancient Greeks thought the voices in their heads where the voices of the gods and that article didn't have comments so I did a search on CZcams because I just had to say that it must be the dumbest thing Ive heard this year, thanks, dunno if that s what he really said or the journalist effed up somehow, but anyway yeah, have a good day
Hi, I wanted to ask didn't Jane say something or write something about how technology could possibly be used to pervert consciousness? I'm looking around now at the world especially our country here in the USA and it's become kind of orwellian where black is white and white is black didn't change say something about how consciousness could be possibly perverted or maybe even controlled?
Yes, things like social media can become the new external authorities. Jaynes touches on that possiblity in some of the discussions in "The Julian Jaynes Collection." The topic is also discussed in our latest book, "Conversations on Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind: Interviews with Leading Thinkers on Julian Jaynes's Theory."
I think this is really saying something true - the global social media medium is beginning to function as a right hemisphere auditory authority - we are swiftly losing our individualized conscious state. Jaynes is right in so many ways. @@JulianJaynesSociety
If we accept Evolution, then the mind contained within the brain was originally less complex than it became along with all other parts of the body. But the historical record is too spotty to claim anything definitive as to dates.
This is a common misconception. Jaynes explains that consciousness as he carefully defines it is learned through metaphorical language. We encourage you to read Jaynes's book in order to understand the theory.
the theory explains the origin of religions, that is why it is ignored - but people should understand that religion/faith is nothing else but the appendix of the mind and beware when it inflames - and it is business !!
Watch and listen to lectures and interviews with Julian Jaynes by joining the Julian Jaynes Society: www.julianjaynes.org/join/
Read our latest book, "Conversations on Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind," which answers all of the most common questions about Jaynes's theory, explains the latest evidence, and extends the theory into many new areas: www.amazon.com/gp/product/1737305534/
I read the book after hearing about it during the late 70's shortly after it was published. It changed the way I think about mankind and our human history. I have re-read it at least three times since and have learned more and more ,,a very important book, Should be required reading for ever High School student,
Thank you Peter, we agree!
I read this book 10 years ago and in 2023 it is in my bones! Phenomenal piece of work exciting!!!
I'm so happy to see these videos coming out. Thank you!
You're very welcome - more to come!
I believe the misconception comes from “Westworld,” where one of the characters asks, “Wasn’t that discredited?” when the theory comes up in the show. May or may not be the reason, but definitely a popular cultural reason for people becoming aware of the theory.
Thank you Connor. This interview actually pre-dates Westworld, but, yes, they repeated the misconception but also brought Jaynes's ideas to the attention of a large, new audience. I think this misconception initially arose because, after Jaynes himself stopped lecturing, and prior to the founding of the Julian Jaynes Society, no one was actively promoting the theory. So because there was a period of perceived inactivity, some people jumped to the conclusion that the theory had somehow been discredited. Add to that the many misconceptions about the theory posted over the years by bloggers, Wikipedia editors, etc. But as more and more new discussion and evidence is published, and misconceptions clarified, this position can no longer be rationally maintained.
Great overview of Julian Jaynes' theory, thank you!
Thank you!
I’ve for a long time have had Jaynes’ definition of consciousness in mind and so it wasn’t that hard for me to assimilate it but nonetheless it was still a “Wow!” But often, yes, so many including academics define it in very disparate ways involving mere perception, awareness, awakeness, and such. Introspection was always part of my definition.
Julian Jaynes was a best seller. Bicamera was fascinating and seemed so true.
A footnote in "The Closing of the Western Mind" by Charles Freeman, led me to buy Jaynes' book, and has made me a devoted follower.
We're glad you discovered Julian Jaynes's theory!
Thank you for starting this society!
It makes me wonder if *any* non-human conscious intelligence could ever understand and communicate with us if our own consciousness truly emerged in such an accidental manner. Would any alien conscious being even be able to conceive and connect with our human ego in its modern form? How would a creature which might be intelligent but did not emerge from our own dual-hemispheric brain structure even form a theory of mind compatible with ours? Could we, or they, empathize with each other if we cannot step into each other's shoes, so to speak?
Fascinating theory!
We're glad you discovered Jaynes's theory and our channel.
I find this hypothesis incredibly interesting but I think they are some flaws with it.
One flaw is the fact that many human populations have been isolated for significantly longer than 3000 years, and yet still all think in the modern sense, and that the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest known work of literature, describes Gilgamesh as performing introspection, something that would be impossible under Jaynes' hypothesis. This first flaw naturally leads into the second flaw which is Jaynes's proposal does not explain how bicameralism could have been lost at the same time across the entire human species (simultaneous, world-wide transition). The indigenous Australian culture was completely separated from the rest of the world from 4000 BCE to 1600 CE, yet appears today to be both historically unchanged and self-conscious. The third and final flaw with this hypothesis is pre-transition divination. Divination is also considerably older than that date and the early writings he claims show bicamerality: The oldest recorded Chinese Writing was on oracle bones, meaning that divination arose at the same time or even earlier than writing in Chinese society.
So, are these problems and criticisms too great which once-and-for-all shows Jaynes’s bicameral mind hypothesis model to be false? If not, how would a defender of Jayne’s respond to or account for these criticisms? If these criticisms can be rationally accounted for then what is the evidence that actually strongly indicates this hypothesis is true? Thanks.
We're glad you find the theory interesting and we're happy to point you to resources that address your questions for further study.
Jaynes never claims there was a simultaneous, worldwide transition to consciousness. Different cultures transitioned at different times. For example, he discusses a later transition in Mesoamerica and Latin America. Relatively recent studies of preliterate societies do show vestiges of bicamerality (see Lévy-Bruhl and others; also the Introduction to "The Julian Jaynes Collection" and Judith Weissman's chapter in "Gods, Voices, and the Bicameral Mind"). See also: www.julianjaynes.org/blog/myths-vs-facts/myth-3-jaynes-theory-does-not-apply-to-other-cultures/.
The issue of Gilgamesh has to do with modern impositions by the translators. Boban Dedovic is currently researching and writing a series of articles on this issue (see czcams.com/video/7xNUbMlgTPE/video.html - more to come). See also Rabbi James Cohn's discussion of the problems with the translation of psychological terms in the Old Testament: czcams.com/video/P-7I55QWnxM/video.html
Regarding the evidence for the transition from bicamerality to consciousness in ancient China, see Michael Carr's chapter, "The Shi 'Corpse/Personator' Ceremony in Early China" in "Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness." See also Todd Gibson's "Souls, Gods, Kings, and Mountains" and "Listening for Ancient Voices" in "Gods, Voices, and the Bicameral Mind" on the transition from bicamerality to consciousness in ancient Tibet.
See also the Summary of Evidence: www.julianjaynes.org/about/about-jaynes-theory/summary-of-evidence/. We have a great deal of other resources for learning more about Jaynes's theory available in the Member Area: www.julianjaynes.org/join/
I listen to a woman scream at her baby of around 11 months every time the partner is away. Police were called on several occasions but they didnt care or assumed what they were doing was normal. Ff to a few days ago child is 4 screams just like the mother except now the mother screams more than the child. I knock the door its open the mother appears and becomes this whimpering concerned woman who fears her daughter has broken her nose. Amidst all of this I ask the child if she had a good day at school she stops crying and a joyful yes and beginning clapping then goes back to crying. I tell the mother to stop whimpering as she is the cause her irrational emotions are making the child react and believe this is normal behaviour. She started shouting at the child and I asked her to stop abusing her. She was horrified being accused of abuse when I said verbal abuse she shut up mouth aghast she looked as though she heard verbal abuse for the first time...she was silent and the child told her to go away. The next neighbour came out to enquire she is a young woman too. Scratch Mark's on her chest. I asked the mother to seek help for her anger issues she closed the door. The other neighour now. I enquired about the scratch scars and she confirmed it was a fight. I'm asking...though consciousness appears to be a small part of it all is that because the power to self control through shock realisation also forces one to be aware of that within and without like a profound connection on the inside but the outside world remains the same?
it's an incredibly complex theory?
don't underestimate your audience...
it really isn't difficult to wrap one's head around this theory.
Agreed -- while there are many nuanced aspects to the theory, it's really not that difficult to understand the basic ideas for those who take the time to carefully read Jaynes's book, and perhaps some of the relevant follow-up works that we've published. On the other hand, people who read Jaynes's book in a more cursory manner often come away with many misunderstandings or misconceptions.
I heard of Julian Jaynes via William S. Burroughs.
Nice... we're glad that you discovered Julian Jaynes's theory.
Glad jaynes work is seeing more light
Great discussion 🌊🏄♂️🌵☀️
Thank you!
❤ Fascinating!
Thank you!
So if consciousness is learned and it's based on language, then do people who speak different languages have different kinds of consciousness? Or more generally, could different people have learned different kinds of consciousness (even within the same language group) ?
Yes, individual and cultural differences in subjective consciousness based on language is a fascinating area that needs a great deal of further study. Some research along these lines has been done with preliterate societies such as the Pirahã. Also, the Stanford anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann and her colleagues have been doing interesting related work on what they call cross-cultural differences in theories of mind.
@@JulianJaynesSociety Yes, Daniel Everett's book on the Pirahã is amazing. Thanks for the pointers.
In language schools, it is said that one who speaks and understands two languages is regarded as one who has two souls.
Hope that helps.
No.
Just read an article about his theory how ancient Greeks thought the voices in their heads where the voices of the gods and that article didn't have comments so I did a search on CZcams because I just had to say that it must be the dumbest thing Ive heard this year, thanks, dunno if that s what he really said or the journalist effed up somehow, but anyway yeah, have a good day
Hi, I wanted to ask didn't Jane say something or write something about how technology could possibly be used to pervert consciousness? I'm looking around now at the world especially our country here in the USA and it's become kind of orwellian where black is white and white is black didn't change say something about how consciousness could be possibly perverted or maybe even controlled?
Yes, things like social media can become the new external authorities. Jaynes touches on that possiblity in some of the discussions in "The Julian Jaynes Collection." The topic is also discussed in our latest book, "Conversations on Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind: Interviews with Leading Thinkers on Julian Jaynes's Theory."
@@JulianJaynesSociety thank you sir
I think this is really saying something true - the global social media medium is beginning to function as a right hemisphere auditory authority - we are swiftly losing our individualized conscious state. Jaynes is right in so many ways. @@JulianJaynesSociety
12:48
If we accept Evolution, then the mind contained within the brain was originally less complex than it became along with all other parts of the body. But the historical record is too spotty to claim anything definitive as to dates.
This is a common misconception. Jaynes explains that consciousness as he carefully defines it is learned through metaphorical language. We encourage you to read Jaynes's book in order to understand the theory.
I wonder what the nuerolink will do
Good question!
Quicksilver got me here :] woo inspired scifi
MT brougght me here
...(Michal Tsarion)
Welcome!
I'm 25 finna be 26 and I'm mind blown
Welcome, and glad to see you've discovered Julian Jaynes's theory!
the theory explains the origin of religions, that is why it is ignored - but people should understand that religion/faith is nothing else but the appendix of the mind and beware when it inflames - and it is business !!
Indeed, Jaynes's theory offers a compelling explanation of the origin of god beliefs and religion.
As a very smart person puts it- Religion is just secularized metaphysics.
People who think this theory disproves the existence of the spiritual realm/proves materialism are a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect