Bicameralism - any views on it?

[peter]

First - I struggled to decide whether this should go into The Close or The Lorserat, but went for the Close on the grounds that psychology often seems to me to sit more comfortably with philosophy (to me) than with the other sciences. Correct me if this is bollocks - I'm not too old to learn.

Now, bicameralism - an idea introduced by Julian Jaynes in his 1976 book The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral mind - if I'm correct, proposes that as little as perhaps even 3000 years ago, human conciousness as we know it did not exist. Instead the experience of mind was that of a dialogue (wrong word becaus I think the traffic was supposed to be all one way but....) between a 'controlling' part of the brain and a listening/obeying part. This 'two compartment mind' (hence the term bicameral) gave rise to an almost 'schizophrenic' experience of the world in which there was no internal dialogue as we experience it (ie the constant and ongoing decision making process whereby we internally discuss and asses situations/courses of action etc with ourselves in order to decide what to do), but rather the one part of the brain experiencing instructions (as it were) from a disembodied voice eminating 'god-like' from the other part of the brain.

I have not read this book (hence my laziness in picking the brains of fellow Watchers to asses it's value ), but I gather that Jaynes believes this state of affairs pertained untill very recently in the human conciouss, and that the evidence of it can be seen in early writings and myths etc where communion with the gods etc can be seen as reflecting the bicamerality of the mind. For some reason this bicamerality 'broke down' (the Breakdown of the books title) and the concious as we experience it developed.

Now to what extent these ideas gained any ground in psychology I could not say - but they undoubtedly mirror the views portrayed in a number of 'secret history' books (eg The Secret History by Johnothan Black) which attempt to thread a path from the ancient hermetic traditions and mystery plays through the alchemy and cabala etc of later times, so in this area if nowhere else, the idea has struck a chord. It seems a staggering change of direction in the development of conciousnes if it is indeed correct, and one that evolution has left rather late in the day to effect (given the 200,000 years or so of 'modern man' conciousness that must have existed in this bifurcated state).

The trouble is these ideas are always presented very convincingly and it's only by bouncing them of you guys that I get to see the wood for the trees so all observations welcomed.

[I'm Murrin]

I was dubious, but I went and read the wikipedia page about it, and it got me thinking a lot... and then I realised that this is what China Miéville's Embassytown was depicting. I have no idea what to think, now. It sounds so strange and wrong, but apparently is considered in a kind of "not proven but possibly right" state.

I'm still dubious, however, of the idea that poets could write epics without ever being conscious of their own thoughts.

[peter]

Agreed Murrin - it sort of feels wrong, but isn't being blown out of the water for some reason.

[Fist and Faith]

I only have one camera.

[Vraith]

I only have one camera.

Me, too. But it will date ANY other camera if it thinks it can pop its lens-cap...regardless of what kind of lens and mounting gear the other has.

I suspect it isn't being "blown out of the water" [barring the possibility it has an overwhelming hot-tub/pool fetish that bars enjoyment anywhere else...]

Because it is untestable in any direct way.
But there are a couple problems...
First...we aren't talking about language, just written language...which was a new thing, growing into what it became...which tells you little about the interior functions of people's personalities/awareness/self-reflection.
In those early days, AFAWK, the purpose of writing was to keep business ledgers [and those, though not "stories" are in every way conscious and introspective] AND to TELL people what to think/what the world was really like.
[early on a major problem philosopher types had with writing was that they realized it was a LOT harder to control/manipulate people. They could think what they wanted about what you wrote, and there was far less opportunity to reply to/defend/alter/control those thoughts].

Also: There hasn't been any major change in brain structure in the last 3000 years. Probably not the last 40-50k at LEAST. [Likely closer to 150-200k].
Tie that to the fact [nearly certain, backed by tons of evidence from various directions] that people exhibit self-reflection practically from birth...
Tie that to the recent demonstrations of how the mind functions [at any age]...for instance, that many tasks/talents have a focus/locus, but that the DOING [and learning] of things is NEVER localized completely...EVERY task is a "whole brain" task...in fact it seems that "conclusions" actually result from multiple areas/points COMPETING with each other, till one wins...
It's a fun idea, in its way [I like the critic who said that the opposite is more likely to be true...we've become MORE split, not less]...

There is no doubt in my mind that the brain is bi-cameral AT MINIMUM, really more like a fly-eye, multi-cameral, I think...

But I don't buy his story.
People are "ordered around" by other/separate parts/voices just as much [and just as little] as they've ever been. Only the subject matter has changed.
[as for the atrophied right-brain points...he has to show that most people didn't ALWAYS have that. I'd bet anything they DID...because of what the right brain does...though the divisions aren't, as I said, as pure and clear as many folk think due to older/better known science]

[peter]

I only have one camera.

Well at least you didn't say you were in two minds about it!

Can I pick up on Vraiths point re changes in brain structure - agreed, the 'hardware' (actually - I think the professionals call it 'wetware' don't they?) probably has not changed for 200 odd thousand years, but there has been very definite sea-changes in the way it has been used during that period. Would I be right in thinking that the emergence of art occured late in the day (say 40ish thousand years or so ago) and appeared around this time 'spontaneously' in a number of unconnected locations (Europe and Austalia to give a couple of examples) [not sure what this tells us, if anything, but it seems odd that it should appear simultaneously in sepparate regions after all this time].

Also I'm not sure that the type of shift that the idea proposes, would necessarily demand structural adaptation within the brain. The brain seems perfectly capable already of percieving 'reality' in any number of different ways es evidenced by the 'altered states' induced by drugs, meditation, fasting, shamanic ritual and just bog-standard schizophrenia. The 'hardware' is already in place and all of these altered states already exist - but just on the peripheries. Normality just happens to be where the bulk of peoples perceptions of reality and mental framework (ie the inner you) coincide. The average mediocre state you could say - but can we be so sure that this place has not shifted, or indeed is not capable of rapid and spectacular change, if certain criteria are met.

(ps I'm perfectly aware that the above is most likely utter balderdash and it is possible to think to far outside the box, but it's a risk I'll take )

[Vraith]

The brain seems perfectly capable already of percieving 'reality' in any number of different ways es evidenced by the 'altered states'

So, lets talk about those altered states. Many of them have a purpose/function, and happen naturally...in response to/in support of what you are doing.
Ask any athlete about being "in the zone."
Physical performance is enhanced...many describe it in terms much like "oneness with the world," though usually a verbal variation like "one with the game/flow/the opponent."
Words/thoughts impede attaining such a state, and can drag you out of it.
How many artists...even writers, who are using words...talk about "it" coming from outside/elsewhere/being inspired/voices?
These are demonstrable, recordable/trackable nowadays.
Sounds like I'm on his side, about the "people were different,"
But I'm not.
Because those things, those altered states, don't replace/control our base/default mode or our self-reflection or our assessment. They ENHANCE it.
They don't impede our ability to adapt to change/novelty, they ELEVATE it.
I SUSPECT we spend a larger part of our days in "beta" than previously, due to the world we've made.
I suspect that this has/had/continues to have some unpleasant/devaluing side effects...
For the opposite reason he claims.
We are LESS AWARE of who we are...it's been replaced by all the crap about WHAT we are. Our internal dialogue is just NATTERING...instead of being driven/sourced in perception/models of doing and things, it is voiced by models of our overbearing parents, our brutally honest boss who is really just brutal and never honest, our first grade teachers binding us to our seats with glares and discipline.
That's much of why meditation is a true revelation for some [and very difficult to achieve for many...who then dismiss it or call it boring].

Less opinion, more evidential: we've had contact/encounters with multiple "primitive," aboriginal, uncontaminated cultures that haven't undergone the stresses he cites...and none of them demonstrate that bizarre lack of self-assessment/consciousness, or pseudo-schizophrenic lifestyle. They had no absence executive ego-functions, and no lack of autobiographical memory.
Of course, there have been enormous benefits to the change, too.
[though MOST of those benefits begin/spring from the minds of people who do function less in "beta" and more in other states...the beta folk just provide the machinery to execute].

We could all use a bit more primitive-time...but nothing has been "lost,"
[many people in many places are rediscovering these things...hell, it is a prime reason that Google has gone to such great lengths to make working a fucking BLAST!]

[peter]

Thats a salient point about the essential 'sameness' of the minds we encounter on first contact with long isolated peoples which are, with the exeption of a few perceptual details, 'wired' just as ours are. And yet.....I still wonder if we all percieve our 'reality' in the same way. I once heard it said that people in India and the East, as a result of their immersion in a spiritual atmosphere of polytheism, reincarnation, Karma and balance etc, actually experience the world 'top-down' (ie as a descending complex of layers leading to the self in the middle) rather than as we westerners do, as a distinct and sepparated inner-world [ie me] vs an outer-world [ie everything else]. Such a deep difference in perception resulting from the ideology or the prevailing atmosphere in which one is raised would not be overtly apparent on the face of things, or indeed present any stumbling block to meaningfull discourse, but would never the less be there - just not noticably to the person who experiences it and who naturally assumes everybody else experiences the world in the same way.

One more thing - the Wikipedia account says Jaynes "saw bicamerality as primarily a metaphor". What does this mean? Either he postulates it or he doesn't. Later in the piece it records that Jaynes "draws a sharp distinction between conciousness and other mental processes such as cognition, learning, sense and perception - which occur in all animals". Is the suggestion here that Jaynes did not view his 'bicamerality' as like a hotel with only two rooms, but rather as a hotel with many rooms, only two of which were given over to the bicamerality bit. This makes the idea somewhat more feasable I would guess - though by no means a 'done deal'.

[I'm Murrin]

The metaphor is the stuff about two minds, two parts, the whole name "bicameralism". It's all just a way to get across an idea, and not how it actually works.