The following is a lecture
given by Julian Jaynes at the Canadian Psychological
Association Symposium on Consciousness in
http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/jaynes_ind.pdf
CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE VOICES
OF THE MIND
JULIAN JAYNES
Four Ideas
I can sum up what I have said so far
as three major ideas about the origin of consciousness. The first concerns the
nature of consciousness itself and that it arises from the power of language to
make metaphors and analogies. The second idea is the hypothesis of the
bicameral mind, an early type of mentality. I think the evidence for its
existence is unmistakable. Apart from this idea, there is a problem of
explaining the origin of gods, the origin of religious practices in the back dors of time that is so apparent with a psychological study
of history. The bicameral mind offers a possibility to tie it all together and
to provide a rationale for it. The third idea is that consciousness followed
the bicameral mind. I have placed the date somewhere between 1400 B.C. and 600
B.C. This is a long period and that date may have to be adjusted. But I believe
this to be a good approximation.
I would add here that there is a
weak form of the theory. It says that consciousness could have begun shortly
after the beginning of language or perhaps at certain times and places. After
all, people could create metaphors at the beginning of oral language—that is
how language grew. Consciousness could have originated in exactly the same way
as I have described, and existed for a time in parallel with the bicameral
mind. Then the bicameral mind is sloughed off at approximately 1000 B.C. for
the reasons I have suggested, leaving consciousness to come into its own. This would
provide easy ad hoc explanations for highly developed cultures such as
the transition period. Further, I do not see why there
would be a need for consciousness alongside of the bicameral mind if the latter
made the decisions.
A fourth idea that I shall end with
is a neurological model for the bicameral mind. I want to stress, however, that
it is not at all a necessary part of the theory I have presented. Since the
bicameral mind was so important in history, responsible for civilization, what could
have been going on in the brain? The proper strategy in trying to answer such a
question is to take the simplest idea and set about to disprove it. If it is
disproved, you then go on to something more complicated. The simplest idea,
obvious I think to anyone, would involve the two cerebral hemispheres. Perhaps
in ancient peoples—to put it in a popular fashion—the right hemisphere was
“talking” to the left, and this was the bicameral mind. Could it be that the
reason that speech and language function are usually just in the areas of the
left hemisphere in today’s people was because the corresponding areas of the
right hemisphere once had another function? That is a somewhat questionable way
to say it, because there are other reasons for the lateralization of function. But
on the other hand, it raises issues that I like. What is an auditory
hallucination? Why is it ubiquitous? Why present in civilizations all over the
world?
....In summary, I would like to
again repeat these four ideas or modules of the theory I have presented. First
is the nature of consciousness and its origin in language, which can be
empirically studied in the learning of consciousness in children, as well as in
the study of changes of consciousness in recent history. The second idea is the
bicameral mind, which can be studied directly in ancient texts and indirectly in
modern schizophrenia. Third is the idea that consciousness followed bicamerality, which can be studied in the artifacts and
texts of history. And the fourth is that the neurological model for the bicameralmind is related to the two hemispheres. And this
can be studied in laterality differences today.