mike_decock

You'd really have to read Jaynes' book to fully understand the reasoning behind the argument for a bicameral mind.

In short, the auditory hallucinations are what enabled ancient man to complete long-term, complex tasks. Just like a schizophrenic today is compelled to carry out the orders of the voices in his head, so was the bicameral man compelled to obey the voices. Physiologically, the source of the voices is the same region that handles complex, spatial reasoning.

Evolution isn't a linear, proactive process predicting what qualities will be advantageous in the future, it is a reactive process responding to new challenges.

The theory is that originally, it was the group leader whose voice would be hallucinated. After the leader died, the voice would continue to be hallucinated. That is where the beliefs in an afterlife and Gods had their roots.

-Mike...

Smilin

interesting point on evolution.

The notion of an after-life is the result of shcizophrenic hallucinations? Wow, first time I've heard that one.

ekorczynski

As I've (perhaps excessively) emphasized in other threads, I hold no beliefs in absolute Truths, instead relying upon provisional probable relative truths. So, while I can't say I "confidently believe Jaynes was right", I can say that I find his data and analyses compelling enough to force provisional acceptance upon me. Plus, IMHO his theory passes an Occam's Razor test.

<caution: extreme statement follows> Assuming that "modern society" won't collapse after WorldWarIII (not sure how to put the odds these days), I think that his book will eventually be considered as one of the most important texts ever written in any language ever. <extreme statement concluded>

From links at the Jaynes site:http://julianjaynessociety.tripod.com/
it seems that additional neurological data shown in the last 25 year tend to support his basic thesis, with some corrections to details. Check it out.

mike_decock

Jaynes passed away before writing his follow-up. Are there any new books expanding on his hypothesis?

-Mike...

ekorczynski

I haven't read any, but the Jaynes society web-page "Related essays by others" lists extensive refs. and links to writings by others that expand upon the basic concept. Check it out.

dk

• Posted by Smilin:
  So you agree panic is a non-conscious reaction.. (fight or flight response) When I was 10, I almost drowned. I can remember vividly fighting for my life in the water... (I wasn't able to act rationally at the time).
  dk: Even people that suffer from panic attacks/disorders are keenly conscious of their high anxiety, heart palpitations, intense fear and discomfort. They don’t necessarily take flight or fight, some drive themselves to an emergency room.
• Posted by Smilin:
  Reaction to life and death situations is a function of all living creatures.
  dk: People able to react with reason harnessed to a purpose increase their odds of survival arithmetically.
• Posted by Smilin:
  But to refocus back to the main question at hand, what determines consciousness and do other animals posses it?
  dk: In a sense Pavlov showed animals contain coconsciousness, like solids and liquids contain hardness. The hardness of rock can be measures by its “resistance to scratching”, which tells us nothing of the hardness of water. The nature of rocks and liquids require an explanation that entails an underlying reality. Likewise we know consciousness by “scratching the surface”, but remain almost completely ignorant of the underlying reality of consciousness. I submit human consciousness is like water where animal consciousness is like a rock, and science has barely begun to scratch the surface of either . Human nature and dog nature are governed by different laws, different variables, and differenet equations form different perspectives.

Answerer

Guys, I have a question: "Can plants be regard as having no consciousness?", most of my friends said they do and a few think they don't. But I'm remain skeptic on the issue and hope you guys have answer to my question.

Nowhere357

I disagree with this statement. Humans have subjective awareness because of their brains, and dogs have brains. Why would different laws apply? Do you suggest that dogs don't have subjective awareness?

Wyz_sub10

Dogs certainly lack a certain awareness of self, specifically.

Nowhere357

IMO the answer is yes, plants have no consciousness.

I think consciousness requires at least a central nervous system. Plants have no 'mind' or 'self-awareness'.

What evidence is there that consciousness can exist without a central nervous system?

Are plants 'aware'? That's a different question. What does it mean to say something is 'alive'?