Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind - The Julian Jaynes Society Podcast

The Need to Acknowledge Bicameral Vestiges: Jaynesian Psychology Finds Support not just from the Ancient WorldBy Brian J. McVeighProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).This post is inspired by a recent exchange I had with a commentator who saw little value in relying on biblical accounts as evidence to support Jaynes’s theories because they were “fairytales.” Presumably such a criticism could be extended to other writings that constitute humanity’s extensive religious tradition. It is worth responding to this line of critique because it is not an uncommon reaction from those who find fault with Jaynes (and for what it’s worth, Jaynes did not set out to explain the origins of religion; his research was on the origin of consciousness).Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/2022/04/26/the-need-to-acknowledge-bicameral-vestiges/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Disentangling Inner Speech, Self-dialogue, and Auditory Hallucinations: The Mind Is a Machine for Sociopsychological CommunicationBy Brian J. McVeighProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).How are inner speech, self-dialogue, auditory imagery, and hallucinations related? And what exactly are hallucinations? Some have suggested that hallucinations are caused by a monitoring defect in inner speech (also termed inner voice, silent speech, subvocal speech, covert speech, self talk, internal monologue, verbal thought, etc.) (Fernyhough, The Voices Within, 2016). Such a claim, however, ignores the overwhelming evidence concerning hallucinations before about 1000 BCE. Any theoretical linkage must take into account one crucial datum: hallucinations were central to normal sociopsychological functioning. Hallucinations, which were ubiquitous in the ancient world, were a mechanism for social control (until about the first millennium BCE). The “monitoring defect” hypothesis confuses matters: Rather than hallucinations resulting from a problem with inner speech, inner speech is a type of watered-down hallucination. This is why, arguably, for some an inner voice possesses agent-like properties or is accompanied by a felt presence, suggesting vestigial bicameral mentality.Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/2021/10/26/disentangling-inner-speech-self-dialogue-and-auditory-hallucinations/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Consciousness, Cognition, and Free Will: A Jaynesian PerspectiveAn Interview by Vinay Kolhatkar with Julian Jaynes Society Founder and Executive Director Marcel Kuijsten.Marcel Kuijsten discusses the uniquely human consciousness from a Jaynesian perspective with the show's host, Vinay Kolhatkar. Also covered are free will and cognition, the cognitive explosion of Ancient Greece, pre-conceptual ancient cultures prevalent today, the human disposition to obeying authorial voices, and the enormous canvas for future research.Courtesy of the Savvy Street Show (https://www.thesavvystreet.com/).Watch the video here: https://youtu.be/tAE5WL5XvDQLearn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

History, Not Evolution, Is the Key Variable for Understanding Consciousness: The Temporal Extension Thesis and the Adaptive PsycheBy Brian J. McVeighProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).The human mind is always adjusting, accommodating, and adopting resources from outside itself to expand and improve its capabilities. Such adaptation, if broadly understood, unfolds across different temporal spans. But a glaring weakness of mainstream research psychology is its almost complete neglect of a time-scale that would illuminate how the human mind changes over a few generations or several centuries.Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/2021/09/15/history-not-evolution-key-variable-for-understanding-consciousness/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Has Human Mentality Changed?Part 2: Cognitive Relativism and Jaynesian PsychologyBy Brian J. McVeighProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).In Part 1 of “Has Human Mentality Changed?” I discussed how the contributions of Julian Jaynes bolster a radical neuroplastic understanding of the mind, especially if the crucial role of the cultural acquisitions of adaptive cognitive capabilities are incorporated into the analysis of historical changes in psychology, i.e., a neurocultural perspective. Here I want to explore some of the implications of psychic diversity. Three different perspectives illustrate well the significance of psychic plasticity. Though my present discussion is about psychic plasticity as an enculturating (extra-genetic) process, neurophysiological changes cannot be ignored (thus, “neurocultural”).Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/blog/julian-jaynes-theory/has-human-mentality-changed-part-2/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Has Human Mentality Changed?Part 1: Neuroplasticity and Jaynesian PsychologyBy Brian J. McVeighProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).The media and scientific journals give much attention to “neuroplasticity” (the brain’s innate ability to form and reorganize synaptic connections in response to learning or injury), “neurodiversity” (variations in the brain regarding sociability, learning, attention, mood, and other various mental functions), “neurotypical,” and “neuroatypical.” From an intellectual historical perspective these terms elicit interest because they call into question, at least in a very general sense, what has been a foundational concept of the social sciences: Psychic unity. Introduced by the anthropologist Adolf Bastian (1826‒1905), psychic unity was further conceptualized early in the twentieth century as an intellectual assault on racism by enlightened, well-meaning, anthropologists. Psychic unity is a universalist idea postulating that that human mentality is more or less the same everywhere; it challenged the previously dominant view of social Darwinism that viewed societies climbing a ladder of civilizational progress. At the top were late-nineteenth century industrially-advanced societies whose technological prowess was assumed to grant them superiority. In the case of northern European and American powers, it was assumed that their “white,” Christian identity explained their success (though Japan, which was not far behind the Euro-American sphere in terms of “progress,” obviously did not rely on white racialism and Christianity to account for its achievements). It was thought that less successful societies had not acquired the cognitive capabilities to compete with those higher up the ladder of civilization. The premises of psychic unity are still prevalent among not a few psychologists and configures assumptions that restrict research, despite recent interest in neuroplasticity and neurodiversity.Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/blog/julian-jaynes-theory/has-human-mentality-changed-part-1/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Putting Julian Jaynes’s Theory to the TestJaynes’s Theorizings, Like All Great Systems of Thought, Require Hypotheses-testing and Experimentation to Be SubstantiatedBy Brian J. McVeighProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).It is easy to forget that the Newtonian, Darwinian, and Einsteinian intellectual edifices were built over many years, painstakingly solidified brick by brick through batteries of well-designed experiments and careful analyses. Science is the sturdy house that such patient construction continually erects.Consider the work of Julian Jaynes. Over the years I have heard many dismissively say “it’s an interesting theory but it can’t be proven.” Such remarks demonstrate a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific progress as well as what is needed to come to terms with Jaynesian theorizing. The contributions of Jaynes constitute an entire paradigm that reaches far beyond psychology. It is a constellation of bold, innovative ideas with far-ranging implications and great breadth that sheds new light on neurology, history, religious studies, psychotherapeutics, archaeology, linguistics, philosophy, literature, and other arts. So what is needed, then, is a breaking down of Jaynes’s core theories into numerous propositions, postulations, and hypotheses appropriate to different disciplines and fields of expertise. That way his claims can be systematically tested. That is a tall order and demands the contributions of a legion of specialists.Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/blog/julian-jaynes-theory/putting-julian-jaynes-theory-to-the-test/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Fact Checking Scott Alexander’s Discussion of Julian Jaynes’s Theory on “Slate Star Codex”By Marcel KuijstenProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠).In June 2020, the psychiatrist and blogger Scott Alexander wrote a review of Julian Jaynes’s The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind for his popular “Slate Star Codex” blog. His discussion of Jaynes’s theory contains a number of misconceptions and errors, and I will attempt to clear those up here. While the first three sections of his review are more or less just a summary of Jaynes’s main arguments and some topics he feels are related or supportive, the issues I’d like to address can be found in the fourth and fifth sections of his post.Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/blog/fact-checks/fact-checking-scott-alexander-part2/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Conscious Interiority Is a Constellation of ProcessesBut Attention-grabbing Headlines in the Scientific Literature Mistakenly Suggest that Consciousness is an All-purpose Psychological StuffBy Brian J. McVeighProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠⁠).Pretend you’re from another dimension and unfamiliar with cars, planes, trains, and ships. But you quickly notice what they share in common: Motion. You’re interested in discovering exactly how these contraptions work and decide that to understand them you need to investigate motion-ness. So you begin to take them apart, piece by piece, looking for the essence of movement. However, try as you might, you can’t discover the mysterious potency animating the operation of going from point A to point B. But you’re absolutely convinced that motion-ness must exist somewhere in or around anything imbued with the power of mobility.  Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/blog/julian-jaynes-theory/conscious-interiority-is-a-constellation-of-processes/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Conscious Interiority and the Language TrapWhy We Struggle to Explain ConsciousnessBy Brian J. McVeighProduced by Marcel Kuijsten. Read by Michael R. Jacobs (⁠⁠⁠www.theungoogleable.com⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/@VoidDenizen⁠⁠⁠).Cleaning up the mess surrounding the uses of “consciousness” is not an airy, abstruse, or esoteric subject, a topic only for absent-minded academics with their heads in the clouds. This discussion has serious, profound, and practical implications. Neuroscientists employ terminology to delineate the differences between being asleep, in a coma, or in a state of ordinary consciously interiorized mentation. Physicians, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, counselors, and other mental health care providers need to be able to differentiate various forms of cognition to facilitate healing.Read the complete text from this episode:https://www.julianjaynes.org/blog/julian-jaynes-theory/conscious-interiority-and-the-language-trap/Learn more about Julian Jaynes's theory or become a member by visiting the Julian Jaynes Society at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.julianjaynes.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.