Listen to the full interview, as well as 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/
This theory is so mind blowing and really explains a lot regarding why hearing from gods were so ubiquitous across human cultures in ancient times. Such a thing always baffled me but the bicameral mind theory is a huge explanatory piece of that ancient puzzle.
We still hear the same voices in - or 'from' - our linguistic mental regime; the only difference is that the first Platonic then scientific revolutions shifted the 'meaning' of these voices and nowadays we believe that the voices come from our own minds. When controllable and shared/accepted by others we call them 'ideas', when uncontrollable then we call it madness.
Always appreciative of people determined to try to understand things and dig deeper. I'm incredibly new to Jaynes- in fact just about 3 days old. Had seen the book title years ago which looked very inviting but was prodded to read it recently by a friend and am doing so now. Thre rapidly alternating thoughts are 1. Incredibly interesting and innovative and massively thought provoking 2. Incredibly speculate and quite probably incorrect 3. Almost certainly unprovable. We are born into language which then massively shapes what we see and experience in the world. For some reason (probably pain and discontent) some of us start asking questions about our experience and start enquiring into language and noting it's massive (perhaps almost total) molding and shaping of every aspect of our lives. Jaynes clearly thought this too. Yet to think that all beings other than humans are incapable of reflection/introspection and hence consciousness (for heaven's sake the word's been around long enough to know what it means rudimentarily so that to use it in some other way is surely pretty questionable if not downright confusing) leads dangerously towards not respecting other sentient feeling life forms leading to wonder whether Jaynes isn't Descartes' reincarnation. We're on the verge of destroying this beautiful planet because we don't respect others let alone other life forms. So "Let us not speak falsely now the hour is getting late" and realize the absolute truth that ALL beings are subjectively real and that this fact isn't more in some than others. It's an utter existential reality. Would love a live discussion with some about this. Open conversation is what we need and how we grow. Love to all you folks in this new age of rapidly increasing censorship and forced groupthink.
Welcome to the channel, it's great to hear that you've recently discovered Jaynes's book. The case becomes more compelling the further into it you get. Jaynes's theory actually proposes a number of testable hypotheses. The initially sentiment of "it's probably wrong" is common and usually anyone's initial reaction to new, ground-breaking ideas that challenge existing paradigms. A great deal of new evidence has emerged that supports each of Jaynes's four primary hypotheses (see Jaynes's Afterword) since the publication of his book, which we detail in our follow-up publications. The lack of an "analog 'I' narratizing in a mind-space" in non-linguistic humans and non-human animals by no means suggests that they are not worthy of moral consideration. Non-linguistic humans and non-human animals have the capacity to feel, suffer, experience emotions, etc. (It follows that most if not all current forms of animal exploitation for food, research, fashion, cosmetics, entertainment, etc., by humans are probably unethical, and usually based more on a "might makes right" mentality than any form of rational moral arguments. See Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation".) The difference between linguistic and non-linguistic thought can be illustrated by an example: a non-linguistic child I know can express a preference for one Halloween costume over another when they are directly presented to him, but he seems to lack the capacity to imagine what costume he would like to wear in the future. Without a metaphor-based analog 'I' narratizing in a mind-space, he's always living in an eternal present. There are now child development studies documenting the changes to consciousness that take place as children learn language. Again, it's great to hear that you've discovered Jaynes's theory. After you've finished the book, we have much more to explore here: julianjaynes.org
@@JulianJaynesSociety Thanks for the long very positive reply. I'm definitely going to keep going with the book. Just confused about his use of the term "consciousness" which doesn't seem to be the way it's used these days in consciousness studies. Definition of terms is crucial. But will keep open and persist in getting to the essence of Jaynes theory. Thanks so much 🙏.
This theory is provable, we're literally surrounded by its vestiges and the pre conscious writings with their outward proclamations and no words dealing with introspection. 3 days ha ha try 20 years and it will finally be revealed to you
I'm interested because I read his book and all that and I I believe he talked about how consciousness could be manipulated to where it wouldn't function properly like it has been because of technology and because of other things and what's happening now is that I think I don't know if you agree with me but I think that there are individuals in the world with great privilege and power who are using language and creating environments to our people become dependent on other parafrans and metafrans when they come up with reality and this is being done to get them not to think for themselves anyways what do you think
This guy is so correct and indeed conscious is 100% a constructed phenomena, which permits us to be 'introspective' as Marcel points out - which of course other animals appear not to have. The question I have is that are we now in an electronic environment whereby we are returning to a bicameral mind? I say we are bc of social media and the demise of individualized consciousness.
I think, unlike the hundred trillion cooperating individually unconscious cells that constitute one's body, selfs like you and I will remain conscious like we are even as our language and communications create a super organism out of us and we see it manifesting in a way that sees it relate to us as we relate to cells. This super organism has no need of being conscious since society is the ecosystem in which becoming conscious can evolve and it does not exist in a society. But, since it is a different kind of organism, it may be conscious in a way we are not equipped to understand. If an android, as human looking and behaving as those in the Westworld TV series, should be among us pretending to be human and got married, what difference would it make to the unknowing spouses feeling? Who would care if unknowing, their spouse was traditionally or technically produced?
Wouldn't it be interesting if this super organism should happen to be a species prerequisite condition qualifying it to be invited to join the ancient galactic society of super organisms. If the speed of light is indeed the communications limit then one has to imagine that the time scale of the far flung super organism society would be quite different from our own. For us a year is one orbit of our planet, for them perhaps a year is one galactic revolution.
Keeps coming up in the reflections I have on the subject. In particular, how Southern Evangelical societies seem to have this related mindset still lingering.
The comp t de Sade said and I can't say it in French because this device will not allow that anyways he said that if you change the way people think you can change the world
Listen to the full interview, as well as 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/
This theory is so mind blowing and really explains a lot regarding why hearing from gods were so ubiquitous across human cultures in ancient times. Such a thing always baffled me but the bicameral mind theory is a huge explanatory piece of that ancient puzzle.
We completely agree with you. Glad you enjoyed the interview!
We still hear the same voices in - or 'from' - our linguistic mental regime; the only difference is that the first Platonic then scientific revolutions shifted the 'meaning' of these voices and nowadays we believe that the voices come from our own minds. When controllable and shared/accepted by others we call them 'ideas', when uncontrollable then we call it madness.
Always appreciative of people determined to try to understand things and dig deeper.
I'm incredibly new to Jaynes- in fact just about 3 days old. Had seen the book title years ago which looked very inviting but was prodded to read it recently by a friend and am doing so now.
Thre rapidly alternating thoughts are 1. Incredibly interesting and innovative and massively thought provoking 2. Incredibly speculate and quite probably incorrect 3. Almost certainly unprovable.
We are born into language which then massively shapes what we see and experience in the world. For some reason (probably pain and discontent) some of us start asking questions about our experience and start enquiring into language and noting it's massive (perhaps almost total) molding and shaping of every aspect of our lives. Jaynes clearly thought this too.
Yet to think that all beings other than humans are incapable of reflection/introspection and hence consciousness (for heaven's sake the word's been around long enough to know what it means rudimentarily so that to use it in some other way is surely pretty questionable if not downright confusing) leads dangerously towards not respecting other sentient feeling life forms leading to wonder whether Jaynes isn't Descartes' reincarnation.
We're on the verge of destroying this beautiful planet because we don't respect others let alone other life forms.
So "Let us not speak falsely now the hour is getting late" and realize the absolute truth that ALL beings are subjectively real and that this fact isn't more in some than others. It's an utter existential reality.
Would love a live discussion with some about this. Open conversation is what we need and how we grow.
Love to all you folks in this new age of rapidly increasing censorship and forced groupthink.
Welcome to the channel, it's great to hear that you've recently discovered Jaynes's book. The case becomes more compelling the further into it you get. Jaynes's theory actually proposes a number of testable hypotheses. The initially sentiment of "it's probably wrong" is common and usually anyone's initial reaction to new, ground-breaking ideas that challenge existing paradigms. A great deal of new evidence has emerged that supports each of Jaynes's four primary hypotheses (see Jaynes's Afterword) since the publication of his book, which we detail in our follow-up publications.
The lack of an "analog 'I' narratizing in a mind-space" in non-linguistic humans and non-human animals by no means suggests that they are not worthy of moral consideration. Non-linguistic humans and non-human animals have the capacity to feel, suffer, experience emotions, etc. (It follows that most if not all current forms of animal exploitation for food, research, fashion, cosmetics, entertainment, etc., by humans are probably unethical, and usually based more on a "might makes right" mentality than any form of rational moral arguments. See Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation".)
The difference between linguistic and non-linguistic thought can be illustrated by an example: a non-linguistic child I know can express a preference for one Halloween costume over another when they are directly presented to him, but he seems to lack the capacity to imagine what costume he would like to wear in the future. Without a metaphor-based analog 'I' narratizing in a mind-space, he's always living in an eternal present. There are now child development studies documenting the changes to consciousness that take place as children learn language.
Again, it's great to hear that you've discovered Jaynes's theory. After you've finished the book, we have much more to explore here: julianjaynes.org
@@JulianJaynesSociety Thanks for the long very positive reply.
I'm definitely going to keep going with the book.
Just confused about his use of the term "consciousness" which doesn't seem to be the way it's used these days in consciousness studies.
Definition of terms is crucial.
But will keep open and persist in getting to the essence of Jaynes theory.
Thanks so much 🙏.
This theory is provable, we're literally surrounded by its vestiges and the pre conscious writings with their outward proclamations and no words dealing with introspection. 3 days ha ha try 20 years and it will finally be revealed to you
Fantastic interview on Julian Jaynes' theory, thank you!
Thank you Mark!
I'm interested because I read his book and all that and I I believe he talked about how consciousness could be manipulated to where it wouldn't function properly like it has been because of technology and because of other things and what's happening now is that I think I don't know if you agree with me but I think that there are individuals in the world with great privilege and power who are using language and creating environments to our people become dependent on other parafrans and metafrans when they come up with reality and this is being done to get them not to think for themselves anyways what do you think
This guy is so correct and indeed conscious is 100% a constructed phenomena, which permits us to be 'introspective' as Marcel points out - which of course other animals appear not to have. The question I have is that are we now in an electronic environment whereby we are returning to a bicameral mind? I say we are bc of social media and the demise of individualized consciousness.
I think,
unlike the hundred trillion cooperating individually unconscious cells that constitute one's body,
selfs like you and I will remain conscious like we are
even as our language and communications create a super organism out of us and
we see it manifesting in a way that sees it relate to us as we relate to cells.
This super organism has no need of being conscious since
society is the ecosystem in which becoming conscious can evolve and
it does not exist in a society.
But, since it is a different kind of organism,
it may be conscious in a way we are not equipped to understand.
If an android, as human looking and behaving as those in the Westworld TV series,
should be among us pretending to be human and got married,
what difference would it make to the unknowing spouses feeling?
Who would care if unknowing, their spouse was traditionally or technically produced?
Wouldn't it be interesting
if this super organism should happen to be a species prerequisite condition
qualifying it to be invited to join the ancient galactic society of super organisms.
If the speed of light is indeed the communications limit then
one has to imagine that the time scale of the far flung super organism society
would be quite different from our own.
For us a year is one orbit of our planet,
for them perhaps a year is one galactic revolution.
Great!
All the nowadays things that happening would make sense if you think about the Bicameral Mind
Absolutely, the theory has many modern day implications.
Keeps coming up in the reflections I have on the subject. In particular, how Southern Evangelical societies seem to have this related mindset still lingering.
Is there no part 2 to this interview?
Yes, it's available for Julian Jaynes Society members here, along with a ton of other Jaynes-related content: www.julianjaynes.org/member-login/
"Une revolution sociale est fonde sur un renovation mental"
The comp t de Sade said and I can't say it in French because this device will not allow that anyways he said that if you change the way people think you can change the world
Good.
Did semiotics influence him?
That's an interesting question... I don't think to a large degree.
Sorry to bother you again but I remember what the compt de Sade who was the (father of Marquis, and an anti royalist)
Foundations of the "Neo-Thought" movement.