

“There Is Only Awe” – on Julian Jaynes - gwern
https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/there-is-only-awe/

======
improv32
Melting Asphalt has a great little essay series on Jaynes' Origin of
Consciousness here:
[http://www.meltingasphalt.com/series/](http://www.meltingasphalt.com/series/)
It's fairly brief and well worth the read.

------
cheatsheet
In some regards I can certainly see Jayne's theory as correct with regards to
the arising of consciousness as a mechanical function between the self and the
environment in which the self exists, which results in a symbolic translation
that expresses varying degrees of dissonance and harmony.

But there is also a clearly defined conceptual boundary which humans have
surpassed, which is the capacity to not merely react to their environment, but
to act as an equally dominating force of it. The nature of the reflective mind
contained in it's environment; reacting and translating what is observed into
what is perceived: it is one of dissonance and harmony, and results in
uncontrollable chaos. Man is a function of his environment, instead of
defining the environment.

It is the will to exceed one's own expectations, as an creature of nature, and
as a consciousness. When we have crafted an entire networked world that begins
on a completely conceptual level, I think the question of what we are, and
what we have become, and the control we have over that, deserves more than a
cursory thought.

It's that looping around the argument that causes it to collapse. I use my
mind to explain my mind. The model doesn't fit the current data, only all the
data leading up to it.

~~~
anigbrowl
His book is called 'The Origin of Consciousness in the _Breakdown_ of the
Bicameral Mind.' It's precisely the maladaptive aspects of bicameralism in the
encounters with increasingly complex social environments that Jaynes
postulates as the reason for its evolutionary deprecation.

 _Man is a function of his environment, instead of defining the environment._

Neither of these is true (I realize you are arguing against the first
position). We are in constant interaction with our environments, neither
simply acted-upon nor possessed of god-like powers of manipulation from whose
consequences we are immune. I feel you must not have read Jaynes' book, since
he postulated bicameralism at work in tasks such as agricultural planting,
which by definition alter the environment. If you haven't read it, then I urge
not to rely on the summary explanation that can fit in a blog article or even
a longish essay. Jaynes' articulation of his theory is elaborate and
discursive, but also rigorous and well-qualified (in terms of acknowledging
limitations and the difficulties of falsifiability).

~~~
cheatsheet
I don't think you can prove that neither is true, but I rarely agree with
myself to begin with.

I will not rely on the summary explanation, I can assure you of that.

------
nemo
I wonder if he read Bruno Snell's "The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek
Origins of European Thought." A lot of what's described in the article about
the Greeks and the Iliad/Odyssey is akin to Snell's approach. Though Snell
didn't use the idea of the bicameral mind he traced the origins of conscious
thought through the Greeks very similarly.

~~~
anigbrowl
He cites it twice, but notes that he and Snell came to quite different
conclusions although their lines of inquiry overlap significantly.

------
michaelbuddy
I read this book 18 years ago. Definitely interesting and logical take on
human behavior. Looks like a revisit of the book has been done. Years ago this
crazy self published book series called NeoTech mentioned Jayne's book and
some other good titles. I'm embarrassed to have spent cash on NeoTech but
pleased I read some of the titles recommended in it.

~~~
beagle3
[http://leftinthedark.org.uk/book](http://leftinthedark.org.uk/book) [0] is a
take on Jayne's ideas, going much farther in one particular direction.
Supposed to be well backed by references - I didn't try to follow them (the
reference style leaves much to be desired, and is on its own a signal of low
scientific quality). But it is extremely interesting and thought provoking.

[0] I read the first edition. I don't know how the recent one differs, if at
all.

~~~
gwern
I read that. A lot of the biology is nonsense. (While Jaynes is also unlikely
to be true, there it's more that it's a daring idea confined to high-level
description and speculation, rather than incoherent gibberish about DNA and
fruits.)

------
Animats
If there's anything we've learned as AI moves forward, it's that introspecting
about how the human mind works doesn't help much. We're just not wired for
enough internal access to look at how our own minds work.

Machine learning is starting to demonstrate that something that starts to look
semi-intelligent can be built, using rather simple techniques and enough
compute power. Convolutional neural networks don't take much code to
implement. They just hammer hard on a simple numerical computation. The
amazing thing is that it works.

~~~
jobposter1234
> We're just not wired for enough internal access to look at how our own minds
> work.

How can you justify saying this, given we (as a species) are less than 100
years into the exploration of our own minds? At best, you could argue that we
do not yet have the vocabulary to argue how our minds work. It's a bit early
to suggest we "are not wired" to understand our own cognition.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Well half of those years we've been using additional "wires" (computers) and
ramping up dramatically our reliance on our cyborg halves in the pursuit, so I
don't think it's crazy to suggest he original pre-cyborg wiring was inadequate
to he task.

------
_0ffh
I remember the book (it's fascinating), end also why I read it: Because of one
intriguing phrase I read in a Dawkins or Dawkins/Dennett book that was
something like "The most brilliant(ly put)? hypothesis that is probably not
true".

