Bicameral Mind -- True / Partially True/ Totally False?

[INRM]

I've heard this thing about some guy who wrote about "The Bicameral mind" about how just a few thousand years ago, people's brains operated far more independant of each other, and one of the effects was that people heard-voices which they thought was God commanding them, but it was through the right side of the brain signalling Wernicke's area or something, and people didn't have the degree of insight as now, and even saw visions more commonly.

And due to evolutionary changes, and improved intelligence, this characteristic went away and modern day man came to be, at least that's how I remember it?

Is this true, partially true, or outright false? Also, with other mammals, particulary monkeys, especially any species particularly close to humans, does this happen where the wrong side dominates, and stuff like this happens?

INRM

[rastamonte]

I have this book, and read it from cover to cover.
Julian Jaynes
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
I don't know if it is true, but it is a fascinating idea.

[andyandy]

i think God-visions were just magic mushroom hallucinations :)

[blutoski]

As rastamonte points out, this is Jaynes' theory. I read the book twenty years ago, found the reasoning questionable, and have since concluded that it borders on quackery.

Jaynes' strongest arguments are based on literature, rather than actual history or physical evidence. His arguments are subject to - among other things - our lack of understanding of period colloquialisms, the reliability of our translations, and the interpretation of the 'meaning' of text when the authors are unavailable to confirm our assumptions.

His predictions about locality and hallucination also contradict much of contemporary psychiatric physiology - audiohallucinations appear to manifest symmetrically in the frontal lobe just as often as anywhere else.

[LostAngeles]

It's interesting, but my first inclination would be to question about the food, because I think there's a particular form of mold (ergot?) that can induce hallucination. Considering food presevation back then wasn't the greatest, I'd look at any possible ingestable hallucinatory substances first, esp. if as others have said it does contradict what we currently know about the brain.

(Not saying, of course, that that couldn't ever be overturned, but for now, it looks unlikely)

[polkablues]

I could imagine a scenario in which, around the time of the inception of spoken language (obviously quite a bit earlier than what Jaynes references), there certainly could have been some confusion as the human brain adapted to thinking in language as opposed to merely image and abstraction. A thought-of word or phrase, to a brain not fully evolved to process it, could conceivably be mistaken for a message from an outside entity.

[PixyMisa]

As rastamonte points out, this is Jaynes' theory. I read the book twenty years ago, found the reasoning questionable, and have since concluded that it borders on quackery.

I'd say say it's well across the border, myself.

Jaynes' strongest arguments are based on literature, rather than actual history or physical evidence. His arguments are subject to - among other things - our lack of understanding of period colloquialisms, the reliability of our translations, and the interpretation of the 'meaning' of text when the authors are unavailable to confirm our assumptions.

Yep.

I've read Homer. Not in the original Greek, okay. But in respected translations. There is nothing at all in there to suggest that these are anything other than modern people in a fictionalised account.

People make up exactly the same type of story today. People believe exactly the same type of story today.

You can support any theory if you use your personal interpretation of selected literature as your evidence. It's just not actually worth anything as evidence.

[Dancing David]

I've heard this thing about some guy who wrote about "The Bicameral mind" about how just a few thousand years ago, people's brains operated far more independant of each other, and one of the effects was that people heard-voices which they thought was God commanding them, but it was through the right side of the brain signalling Wernicke's area or something, and people didn't have the degree of insight as now, and even saw visions more commonly.

And due to evolutionary changes, and improved intelligence, this characteristic went away and modern day man came to be, at least that's how I remember it?

Is this true, partially true, or outright false? Also, with other mammals, particulary monkeys, especially any species particularly close to humans, does this happen where the wrong side dominates, and stuff like this happens?

INRM

I am sceptical. evolution does not occue in such a short time frame generaly. Voices can be caused by a number of different causes, seizures, psychosis, ingestion of psychomimetic substances.

Ther two sides communicate through the corpus collosum. I don't know if the right side can directly contact the left motor strip.

Temporal lobe seizures and psychosis are most likely the culprits, besides starvation or ergotine(and other kinds) poisoning.

[MRC_Hans]

I think that various parts of the human population (what we sometimes call races) have a divergence point that is much earlier than a few thousand years. Since we all have the same type of brain, any evolutionary changes must have occurred much earlier, otherwise it would't be so evenly distributed.

I think the tendency for earlier people to believe more readily in the supernatural is to be explained by the fact that the scientific mindset is fairly recent. Although ancient cultures did employ scientific thinking, they mixed it with belief systems. There was not our modern way of distinguishing between knowledge-based and belief based thoughts (actually, to a considerable portion of the population, there still isn't).

Our present quest to separate belief and knowledge comes, IMHO, from the notion that all is, at least in principle, knowable. While we have moved away from the 19th century notion that science will soon have discovered everything there is to discover, we are still assuming that there is no limit to what we can potentially discover. Thus, we see the need to separate belief from knowledge.

Hans

[Zoroaster]

I have an avid interest in Jaynes' theory. I definitely think it needs major adjustments in terms of its time frame and much further study but it should not be thrown out completely. If anyone else is interested there is a new (2007) book out edited by Marcel Kujisten consisting of essays about Jaynes' theory called "Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness". There is also a forum similar to this one which would welcome skeptical comments and inquiries from those who have read Jaynes' original book in its entirety. I can't post links but its at the Julian Jaynes Society Forum website.

As an atheist I feel that there is not sufficient inquiry into why religion occurs and with so many universal beliefs e.g. spirits, ghosts, gods, little people, voices, idolatry and possession. Jaynes' theory begins to put these together in a meaningful way. That does not mean it is right and much of it is untestable. My current viewpoint is that gives a valuable way of looking at the past and the possible development of religion and schizophrenia. I find that looking at ancient literature and archeology with this information in mind is like looking at nature with the theory of natural selection in mind that is so far I have found nothing to contradict it and it has made sense out of things that were otherwise unexplainable to me.

[Dancing David]

Schizophrenia is not caused by the bicameral mind or the development of language. Schizophrenia is caused by internal events that the brain 'hears', they are not loud thoughts. They are internal stimuli, they are not generated by the language center as far as I know (I will have to check if the occur in the auditory cortex or the language strip). People can also hallucinate noises.

He is on the wrong track, if he was really interested he would study delusion and memory. It might appear that the author is placing too much emphasis on the development of language as the defining characteristic of humans. While it is a very useful trait, in terms of evolution it is likely a late development. The wiring of memory and belief is much more important to the conflated idea of consciousness. (IE Delusions)

There are some strong reasons that people find religion useful and searching for these high level abstractions might be foolish:
1. Associative learning.
2. Confirmation bias.
3. Emotional and intuitive reasoning.
4. Pattern recognition, actually part of 1.
5. Social and cultural transmission.

ETA:

Sorry Zoraster, I did a quick search of schizophrenia research sites and none of them had any links to the phrase bicameral mind. Lots of links in 'inhibitory centers' and the like, but nothing to support this theory.

[INRM]

One thing that I remembered odd about Bicameral Mind was this...

Why did earlier writings prior to Homer have no introspection in the writings which later writings did?

[Zoroaster]

Schizophrenia is not caused by the bicameral mind or the development of language. Schizophrenia is caused by internal events that the brain 'hears', they are not loud thoughts. They are internal stimuli, they are not generated by the language center as far as I know (I will have to check if the occur in the auditory cortex or the language strip). People can also hallucinate noises.

He is on the wrong track, if he was really interested he would study delusion and memory. It might appear that the author is placing too much emphasis on the development of language as the defining characteristic of humans. While it is a very useful trait, in terms of evolution it is likely a late development. The wiring of memory and belief is much more important to the conflated idea of consciousness. (IE Delusions)

There are some strong reasons that people find religion useful and searching for these high level abstractions might be foolish:
1. Associative learning.
2. Confirmation bias.
3. Emotional and intuitive reasoning.
4. Pattern recognition, actually part of 1.
5. Social and cultural transmission.

ETA:

Sorry Zoraster, I did a quick search of schizophrenia research sites and none of them had any links to the phrase bicameral mind. Lots of links in 'inhibitory centers' and the like, but nothing to support this theory.

I was not trying to state that there is a cause and effect relationship between schizophrenia and "the Bicameral mind" (Jaynes would say that schizophrenia is the surviving vestige of the bicameral mind.) and I understand completely that Jaynes theories are widely rejected. However see if you might agree with some of these statements.

1. Old testament descriptions of prophets seem like they may be descriptions of those who would be called schizophrenic today.

2. Modern schizophrenics often equate the voices that they hear to gods or spirits and are sometimes compelled to obey the voices.

3. Religious use of idols and the belief that they once spoke can be found in the history of a surprising number of cultures.

Just because you agree with some or all of these statements, does not, of course, mean you agree with Jaynes, but these are the kind of things that fit together much better if you grant some of Jaynes' theory. I am not an expert on the brain but there are some who have confirmed the possibility of voice hallucinations originating in the right temporal lobe. (Michael Persinger - Neuropsychological Bases for God Beliefs)

As far is "if he was really interested" goes, Jaynes dedicated his adult life to understanding consciousness. I think he was really interested.

My main frustration with the outright rejection of Jaynes' theory is that it is often done without a reasonable attempt to understand a very complex and nuanced idea. Also, as he states in the preface to the second edition (paraphrasing) his theory is not one that crumbles to bits just because one piece of it is proven inaccurate.

[INRM]

What does Conflated mean?

INRM

[Jeff Corey]

Just throw in the spurs.

[PixyMisa]

One thing that I remembered odd about Bicameral Mind was this...

Why did earlier writings prior to Homer have no introspection in the writings which later writings did?
What gives you that idea? The Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest surviving story we have, and it's deeply introspective.

[PixyMisa]

1. Old testament descriptions of prophets seem like they may be descriptions of those who would be called schizophrenic today.

2. Modern schizophrenics often equate the voices that they hear to gods or spirits and are sometimes compelled to obey the voices.

3. Religious use of idols and the belief that they once spoke can be found in the history of a surprising number of cultures.
All of these are perfectly fine.

The problem with Jaynes' theory is that this still happens today. If Jaynes were right, it would have stopped happening when the bicameral mind "broke down", but instead we find that people are people, as they have always been.

Just because you agree with some or all of these statements, does not, of course, mean you agree with Jaynes, but these are the kind of things that fit together much better if you grant some of Jaynes' theory.Why? How? They are all perfectly reasonable even if you utterly reject Jaynes' theory.

I am not an expert on the brain but there are some who have confirmed the possibility of voice hallucinations originating in the right temporal lobe. (Michael Persinger - Neuropsychological Bases for God Beliefs)Yeah, but that doesn't support Jaynes' theory, because there's no reason to believe that modern humans are any different in that respect from people of 3000 or 5000 years ago.

My main frustration with the outright rejection of Jaynes' theory is that it is often done without a reasonable attempt to understand a very complex and nuanced idea. Also, as he states in the preface to the second edition (paraphrasing) his theory is not one that crumbles to bits just because one piece of it is proven inaccurate.How is it reasonable? As I pointed out last year, all it is, is literary criticism run amok.

[Dancing David]

I was not trying to state that there is a cause and effect relationship between schizophrenia and "the Bicameral mind" (Jaynes would say that schizophrenia is the surviving vestige of the bicameral mind.) and I understand completely that Jaynes theories are widely rejected. However see if you might agree with some of these statements.

1. Old testament descriptions of prophets seem like they may be descriptions of those who would be called schizophrenic today.

Not really, a person with untreated scizophrenia would be very unlikely to make it to the point of getting a following. The vast majority of schizophrenias show affective flattening and are severely debilitated they would be unlikely to survive.

The point is that you do not need this high level abstracted theory to explain why people here voices. that is why schizophrenia research would be a clue. No mention of the bicameral mind.

The role of prophets would be a complex social and political one. I would not discount the role of mentali illness but the split brain thing is interesting. It does not produce hallucinations.

2. Modern schizophrenics often equate the voices that they hear to gods or spirits and are sometimes compelled to obey the voices.

They also think thier neighbors are hiding in the walls, and that Ted Kennedy is watching them through the electrical wiring.

And again, command hallucinations do not need to high level abstracted theory to exist. I am also not sure people are compelled to follow command hallucinations the way an individual with OCD follows compulsions.


3. Religious use of idols and the belief that they once spoke can be found in the history of a surprising number of cultures.

Considering 75% of United Statesers feel they have talked to god that is not suprising, nor would outright chicanery be excluded.


Just because you agree with some or all of these statements, does not, of course, mean you agree with Jaynes, but these are the kind of things that fit together much better if you grant some of Jaynes' theory. I am not an expert on the brain but there are some who have confirmed the possibility of voice hallucinations originating in the right temporal lobe. (Michael Persinger - Neuropsychological Bases for God Beliefs)

As far is "if he was really interested" goes, Jaynes dedicated his adult life to understanding consciousness. I think he was really interested.

My main frustration with the outright rejection of Jaynes' theory is that it is often done without a reasonable attempt to understand a very complex and nuanced idea. Also, as he states in the preface to the second edition (paraphrasing) his theory is not one that crumbles to bits just because one piece of it is proven inaccurate.

My issue is that is a high level abstratcetd theory, it is not based upon the simple biomechanics of the way the brain functions, it is mainly speculative and perhaps was started before the advent of modern neurobiology.

As in other sciences, start with the simple and try to keep it simple. I am not condemning it wholesale, just pointing out it is ,um, very speculative.

the study of consciousness is best understood through reduction to biological processes.

[Dancing David]

What does Conflated mean?

INRM

To join together , sometimes in a confused and misleading fashion.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/C0562800.html
SYLLABICATION: con·flate
PRONUNCIATION: kn-flt
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: con·flat·ed, con·flat·ing, con·flates
1. To bring together; meld or fuse: “The problems [with the biopic] include . . . dates moved around, lovers deleted, many characters conflated into one” (Ty Burr, Entertainment Weekly May 18, 1994).
2. To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin cnflre, cnflt- : com-, com- + flre, to blow; see bhl- in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: con·flation —NOUN

[Bikewer]

I've read a couple of Oliver Sacks' books on psychology and mental oddities, and it's apparent that most of these sorts of phenomena are pretty well described in psychological literature.
Mostly having to do with temporal-lobe disturbances; the temporal being strongly connected to our perception of reality.
Hallucinations of all sorts, time anomalies, "dual" perception anomalies... All due to lesions, temporal epilepsy, and other disturbances.