
How Julian Jaynes’ consciousness theory is faring in the neuroscience age (2015) - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/54/the-unspoken/consciousness-began-when-the-gods-stopped-speaking-rp
======
nabla9
Wacky and entertaining idea.

The theory rests on another idea that many people assume is obviously true
without ever thinking twice.

It's the notion that verbal thought and verbal thinking is required and
fundamental part of consciousness and self awareness.

When I started to read about the philosophy of consciousness, it became
obvious that most people experience their own consciousness differently than I
do. Their inner starting point is completely off from my personal epistemology
and it may be hard for them to see the alternative viewpoint interesting.

For me, verbal thoughts have always been just one cognitive ability in par
with spatial reasoning. I have always had trouble understanding why people
link verbal thinking and consciousness and self awareness.

Temple Grandin's has really good insight into the differences of thinking:
Thinking the Way Animals Do: Unique insights from a person with a singular
understanding
[http://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html](http://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html)

~~~
rusk
_> I have always had trouble understanding why people link verbal thinking and
consciousness _

I came across the same conundrum when I was studying psychology. It all came
down to the medium becoming the message. Language is the prime means through
which we convey experience. Of course there are other means visual, spacial
but when you're "studying consciousness" you're typically reading books.
Serious treatise in the area are delivered in the form of books. We come to
think of thought as being predominantly verbal because that's the predominant
means through which we acquire an "objective" appreciation for what
consciousness "is". Even to use a word "consciousness" puts that set of
concepts in a delineated box. I could go on ... but I risk becoming stream of
consciousness ...

~~~
nabla9
I had interesting discussion about logical thinking once. My fried claimed
that it's impossible to think logically (btw. etymology of word logic is
"word" or "what is spoken") without verbally running the the words and
sentences in your head. Then I explained that I have always used logic
visuospatially. "and" is choice between places or fork in the road, "or" is
combining two objects in the same place and so on.

Content of our consciousness seems to be based on sensory input and sensor
fusion. Thinking is running simulated sequences and scenarios in our head.
Different people use different sensory content more than others. I wouldn't be
surprised if some people use feelings or motor imaginary more than others.

We have visuospatial ability, audioverbal perception and motor
imagery/proprioception. Interoceptive senses seem to relate feelings somehow.
If you really drill and analyze what if feels to love, hate or fear. The
feeling is related to our internal senses.

~~~
alsetmusic
> My fried claimed that it's impossible to think logically (btw. etymology of
> word logic is "word" or "what is spoken") without verbally running the the
> words and sentences in your head.

In this case, would numbers represent “words” in the language of mathematics?
When I was younger and sharper, I used to see products of numbers physically
manifest in my mind. This is a form of logic, but it also required an
“alphabet” of sorts.

As an aside, I once saw an interview with a mathematical genius of sorts who
stated that he associated numbers with colors. He saw the product of two
numbers as a third color. Again, logic without traditional language.

~~~
hyperpallium
Mathematical proof did not originate with number, but geometry.

------
uoaei
A lot of people discount Jayne's theory for the inaccuracy regarding its
assertions about the physical mechanisms, namely that specific modules in one
half of the brain talk across the corpus callosum to specific modules in the
other half. But IMO they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What I
haven't seen yet are investigations into the nature of self-awareness and
agency assuming that his theory holds water on the mental aspects. Studies
have shown that we make decisions whole seconds before we are conscious of our
coming to a conclusion. Could this not be some remnant of the potential fact
that our internal decision processes are based around a similar mechanism as
what he proposes? The only difference is that we think that "voice" telling us
what to do is ourselves, and not some imposition from outside.

------
paulsutter
Crucially, Jayne's definition of "consciousness" is basically introspection.
If you replace the word "consciousness" with "introspection", all the
controversy evaporates and the story becomes (only mildly) interesting.

> Jaynes ... decides to read early texts, including The Iliad and The Odyssey,
> to look for signs of people who aren’t capable of introspection—people who
> are all sea, no rime. And he believes he sees that in The Iliad. He writes
> that the characters in The Iliad do not look inward, and they take no
> independent initiative.

Suitcase words like "consciousness" are tricky to work with.

[https://alexvermeer.com/unpacking-suitcase-
words/](https://alexvermeer.com/unpacking-suitcase-words/)

~~~
adekok
> Crucially, Jayne's definition of "consciousness" is basically introspection.

With language as a key portion. See any discussion of deaf people who aren't
taught language until late in life, such a Helen Keller. The stories
consistently have them _emotionally overwhelmed_ when the first learn
language. They want to know the names of everything.

And also, they consistently talk about "before" and "after". Before language,
they were a collection of emotions, fears, desires, etc. After language,
_they_ existed for the first time. They could name things, including
themselves.

This looks a lot like the transition to _self aware_ consciousness. Which
means Jayne isn't entirely wrong.

~~~
nyir
A quick search yielded something from a book about Keller - do you have some
other good sources for what you mention?

------
nfg
“O, what a world of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial
country of the mind!

A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible
mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of
disappointments and discoveries.”

If you’re intrigued reading the article, or have had the book on your ‘todo’
for years now I’d really encourage you to just go get a copy and take it on.
It provides a wealth of food for thought - a lovely example of a theory that
in all likelihood is in its details totally wrong, but enriches the reader
regardless.

------
FrozenVoid
I think the trigger event for modern consciousness mode is a critical percent
of population being literate. It could been happening a few millenia earlier
than his book suggests, and shaped the brain around reading the "fixed
language"(i.e. written words) allowing abstraction levels not possible with
earlier purely verbal communication.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(process)#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_\(process\)#History)
The history of reading dates back to the invention of writing during the 4th
millennium BC. Although reading print text is now an important way for the
general population to access information, this has not always been the case.
With some exceptions, only a small percentage of the population in many
countries was considered literate before the Industrial Revolution. Some of
the pre-modern societies with generally high literacy rates included classical
Athens and the Islamic Caliphate.[41]

Scholars assume that reading aloud (Latin clare legere) was the more common
practice in antiquity, and that reading silently (legere tacite or legere
sibi) was unusual.[42] In his Confessions, Saint Augustine remarks on Saint
Ambrose's unusual habit of reading silently in the 4th century AD.[42][43]

------
adekok
Neal Stephenson's novel "Snow Crash" depended entirely on this theory. I'm not
sure if I believe it, but it made for a good novel.

------
falcor84
These ideas are mentioned by the character of Ford (played by Anthony Hopkins)
in Westworld, in regards to creating consciousness in robots, and they made
quite a bit of sense to me in that context.

------
alyx
For those interested in thoughts about consciousness, I highly recommend
Bernardo Kastrup.

He comes from a comp sci background but has several books and very well
structured arguments for Idealism. His manner of delivering his insights I
think particularly appeal to those with analytical and critical thinking
backgrounds.

He has several very good videos on YouTube as well.

[https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4552692.Bernardo_Kastr...](https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4552692.Bernardo_Kastrup)

[https://www.youtube.com/user/bernardokastrup/](https://www.youtube.com/user/bernardokastrup/)

------
tzahola
I’ve been familiar with this idea for a while, although whenever it comes up,
I can’t help but think about Hitchens’s razor:

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”

------
vinceguidry
Any useful theory of consciousness has to be able to explain animal
consciousness too. Language is really the only differentiator between us and
other primates, cognitively. (naturally it's a powerful difference) Primates
far and away clear the bar for sentience, we know enough about dogs and cats
to grudgingly accept them into the fold too. Plenty of birds are extremely
intelligent and social as well.

~~~
rusk
_Language is really the only differentiator between us and other primates,
cognitively_

I don't agree. Many other types of animals have rudimentary languages, but I
wouldn't dispute the sophistication of human language towers above all others,
that in itself rests (along with other uniquely sophisticated behavioural
endowments) upon what really differentiates us which is the capacity for
imagination and abstract thought. The capability to imagine things that aren't
actually real, but perhaps could be. It's thought that the seat of all this is
the frontal cortex but I see now on wikipedia that is contentious these days
[0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe#In_other_animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe#In_other_animals)

~~~
gscott
I have pets and they try to entertain themselves when they are board. Seems
like thet are thinking abstractly with limitations imposed by body and brain.

~~~
rusk
I don’t think it’s the same. They can’t reason about what they’re doing
abstractly. That’s why they’re acting it out.

~~~
gscott
This ape took a selfie all on his own just as good as any human.
[https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/monkey-
selfie...](https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/monkey-
selfie.jpg?quality=85)

~~~
rusk
Ape is a corner case, they're the only species we know of that share to a
limited extent the enlarged forebrain that humans have.

A single outlying data-point hardly disproves a theory, and even so, you can't
possibly know that the monkey knew what he was doing. It could just be
mimicry. Your thinking about what the monkey is thinking is distinctly the
distinguishing trait of human psyche I'm talking about.

EDIT: Also relevant. Operant theory can explain seemingly "intelligent"
behaviour as random or observed and mimicked actions that are then reinforced
by the environment [0]

Your monkey's behaviour could be explained in a similar vein to that which
explains "cargo cult" behaviour [1].

Now, you could say that this is indeed "intelligent" behaviour, but then again
a dog can be trained to open a door, and pigeons can be trained to orient
themselves based on a clicker [2]. But what I'm talking about here is what
_distinguishes_ human intelligence from other forms of life on this planet.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning#Origins_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning#Origins_of_operant_behavior:_operant_variability)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#First_occurrences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#First_occurrences)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtfQlkGwE2U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtfQlkGwE2U)

------
Method-X
If you find this sort of thing interesting, I highly recommend HBO's
Westworld. It's really well done and thoroughly thought provoking.

~~~
k__
That series brought me to read about the theory.

But almost all pschological educated people I talked to found it too muddy.

------
a_lieb
There seems to be an accepted idea that ancient people had a totally different
way of thinking: that up to around 300 BC, humans navigated through the world
with a dream-like, pre-scientific logic, and didn't view the world as
comprehensible or subject to predictable laws and patterns.

I've always wondered, do we actually know this for sure? What's the evidence?
Just by introspection, it is so hard for me to imagine being in a state of
mind where I didn't believe that if I dropped a rock off a cliff twice, under
similar conditions, it would do pretty much the same thing the second time. Or
that if I did it over and over again, I would start to see patterns that I
could rely on for later. This feels as hard-wired as just about anything in my
mind.

To me, it makes more sense to think that humans have always thought the same
way, and these days we just have better tools and have learned to refine the
cognitive abilities that are wired into us. But I'm really interested to hear
the case for the other side.

~~~
wahern
I don't think that's a generally accepted idea at all. It's an idea that, in
various forms, some modern philosophers have floated. Because it's so radical
it's something you'll hear (and remember) people chatter about, but that
doesn't mean many people take it literally, especially people familiar with
ancient works.

At best I think such ideas help challenge beliefs about ourselves in the
modern era. At worst I think they perpetuate a tendency for people to
dehumanize those whom we can't personally identify with.

~~~
a_lieb
I'm glad to hear that. I've definitely seen it mentioned by a bunch of
experts/academics as if it were accepted fact (Jordan Peterson is the only one
that comes right to mind).

I think the idea might partly come from the dream-like quality of ancient
myths, but I feel like that underestimates the ability of people to partition
those myths from daily life. It's not like our current religious stories are
exactly logical.

------
diminish
previous discussion

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617268](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617268)

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617268](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617268).

------
remir
I had a couple of episodes of sleep paralysis where I experienced auditory
hallucinations. Often times, the voices I heard were clear as day, which was
strange since I wore ear plugs during a lot of these experiences.

Also, I saw an article on the news about a treatment involving VR for people
who hears voices in their head. In the video, the person described the voices
as distinct and she could even interact with them.

So I would say there's something to explore there.

~~~
hugheth
For me this is one of the most interesting concepts which has only been
briefly touched on -

Jaynes proposes that in the Iliad the Greeks "heard the voices of the gods"
and used those to make decisions. In our modern society I'm sure a lot of
religious people would find God(s) speaking directly to them a fabrication of
the mind, but auditory hallucinations are common and well documented. I often
find on the edge of sleep I can lucidly think of a tune or song and hear at as
clearly as if it was actually being played in the room.

I think Jaynes made a really interesting observation about older theistic
societies that took for granted the ability for people to receive instructions
in their heads from the gods. It seems commonplace in religious literature at
the least that people can interact with gods and hear what they have to say,
something which we tend to interpret more as a metaphor nowadays.

If we reject his theory on consciousness as being a modern substitute for
heavenly direction, I don't think that necessarily rules out a cognitive
function that we've lost over the past few thousand years - one which could
have developed from a young age by not writing off auditory hallucinations as
mental noise...

------
gfodor
I haven't read the book so this may just be an easy to refute idea, but it
seems to me if introspection is a cultural construct that grew out of
necessity then there should be mechanisms to disprove this theory in the
modern day. For example, by looking for evidence of introspection in cultures
that are isolated from modern civilization or in individuals who were raised
in isolation.

------
_0ffh
I read that book about 15 years ago, it's a fantastic read. I picked it up
because either Dennett or Dawkins called it something like "the most
insightful and thought provoking idea that is probably not true" (I think it
was the latter).

------
_nedR
As a Computer Engineer by training I am curious about the field of research
regarding conciousness.

Is there any contemporary book or resource that summarizes the current
academic views and discoveries on the subject?

------
gok
So other people are rewatching Westworld too? :)

------
booleandilemma
From 2015.

~~~
barce
And it's really hard to verify what people heard in the past. “Our kings,
presidents, judges, and officers begin their tenures with oaths to the now-
silent deities, taken upon the writings of those who have last heard them.”
How do we know that they weren't just doing poetry or fiction, or creating
religion to control the masses?

~~~
whatshisface
Nietzsche wrote at length about the "death of god," which was his way of
symbolizing the unseating of god from society's abstract throne, and the
dangerous power vacuum that blood would be shed to re-fill. You can't walk
three feet through the past couple centuries before finding some text
discussing, cheering on or mourning the transition from a society where god is
generally assumed to be behind things to one where he isn't.

If a similar phase change had occured 3000 years ago, I'm pretty sure it would
have been well-documented. I have a hard time believing that this event is for
the first time being seen clearly from a vantage point three thousand years
distant!

~~~
21
> If a similar phase change had occured 3000 years ago, I'm pretty sure it
> would have been well-documented

Documented where?

The Sapiens book makes a similar assertion, that something changed in the
brain about 10000 years ago, when agriculture was invented.

Before that people hunted and gathered for 200k years with little progress and
suddenly there was an explosion.

------
kingkawn
Sum ergo cogito always made much more sense to me

