The Origin of Consciousness in Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

[Andrew]

I have a book by Julian Jaynes which has a radically different way of tracking the development of religion.

Are you guys familiar with it? The Origin of Consciousness in Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

He is, once you begin reading, talking about the origin of what actualism describes as the ‘self’, and not consciousness.

There a pdf copies available. Really worth reading because it’s radically different from the evolutionary theory of religion, and presents a theory which is about the changes in the consciousness humans experienced with the development of written language. Specifically over the timeframe of the last 5000 odd years.

If interested I could explain more, but I won’t if that’s of no interest.

[Andrew]

To tempt you a little to look into it;

Claudiu is describing the traditional Darwinian view that evolution selected religion. Like the movie “The Invention of Lying” with Ricky Gervais. Someone came up with these stories and it worked to get someone laid, and otherwise was popular in getting a lot of people laid. (Which is the only mechanism of evolution). Religion was invented to get people laid, and it worked.

The second view (which is really an extension of the first but with a focus of power) is the Marxist view, that religion was invented to control people and was a deliberate way of extracting their labour to enrich a few.

Jaynes view is radically different. That it was the natural state of humans to be what is now call schizophrenia. Essentially, everything an individual experienced was an hallucination of their parents, tribal leaders. He goes extensively through ancient literature to support this. However, with the invention of writing, humans were able to reflect on previous experience beyond their natural hallucination. They started to “put the dots together”. Hence the breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

As someone who has and will hallucinate powerfully when very tired, or sick, this aspect of our nature needs no further proof.

The age of the Enlightened, was actually the last attempts of humans to try and return to the previous mode of consciousness.

Essentially, the gods are built into our biological brain. We hallucinate like crazy under the right conditions, and Jaynes arguments are that such a way of being was our natural state up until around 10000-5000 years ago.

Very interesting read, and very unpopular too. Neither evolutionists or spiritualists are fans.

[Andrew]

All three theories are true in their own ways and own times.

Religion certainly got me hooked up with a woman outside my “league”. I have 3 chiseled 6’2" sons to prove it.

My internal experience of religion supports the Marxist view that it was all about power and control over me. A lie deliberately told by those who knew better.

My most powerful experiences all point to Jaynes view, that we are wired to hallucinate authority and realms of incredible things which have no actual existence.

The kicker would of course be that Aliens are behind it all. Just throwing that in for a fourth alternative.

[Andrew]

[Quote added by staff for context]

@claudiu

@Vineeto

This attitude of disparaging thought and thus human intelligence, and not religion in general, is what made India stand out in its “paramount contribution to the retardation of evolution”.

I was wondering re-reading what Richard wrote if that was specifically targeted at Indian-rooted religions.

By comparison, Christianity, although it has its fair share of anti-thought history like the Church deeming heliocentrism to be heretical and banning all Copernican books when presented with clear evidence that geocentrism was false [L], did nevertheless later provide an environment wherein more intellectually-inclined believers could conceptualize the world as created by the rational mind of God, and therefore could see rationally understanding the world as being praising of God’s creation, which allowed them to experiment and eventually develop a system of finding things out about the world that later became formalized as the scientific method – the benefits of which have been innumerable, including of course leading to Darwin developing his theory of evolution, but more saliently so in enabling the vast increase in the health, wealth, and prosperity of humanity that has been seen due to the advent of the industrial revolution and capitalism (which contrary to some modern beliefs has the function of vastly reducing poverty, not of generating it).

Although all worldviews, belief systems, viewpoints, narratives, etc., are feeling-fueled and thus miss the point as they are all entirely redundant and inherently flawed, nevertheless some are more propitious than others.

(Lest this be taken as some defense of Christianity, it should be noted that, for example, America was founded by Christians who happened to believe in a slightly different flavor of Christianity than the ruling powers at the time, and were thus fleeing persecution and death, which directly led them to make the sensible decision to explicitly separate church from state, which separation has evidently been immensely beneficial for the well-being of the citizens therein.)

I see it like this:

• when human ancestors hadn’t evolved sufficient intelligence yet, the instinctual passions were more propitious than not, as it enabled them to survive and reproduce. Some passions were more propitious than others, with the ones not conducive to survival at all having been evolved away (e.g. an excessive suicidal instinct with no herd-benefit would quite naturally fail to propagate)
• after evolving the basic passions, further evolution bore out that for example tribalism in human ancestors was better than not being tribal, these organisms survived better. This is evident in wolves too so we are not yet even at the point of cognition
• as cognition started to develop but was inchoate, and it was not possible yet to fully make sense of the world with sensible thinking, beliefs evolved, the tribes that had certain beliefs survived better than those that didn’t have beliefs at all (at that point).
• there was a memetic selection of which beliefs were most effective, this where you end up having religions and such, again with some being more beneficial than others
• all the above followed patterns of “mosaic evolution” with e.g. Indian religions retarding the process more than Western religions
• nevertheless at some point in the past, perhaps centuries perhaps millennia, humans had evolved everything they would need to be able to become actually free – at which point it was definitively the case that all the above (ie instinctual passions, tribalism, beliefs) were not only redundant but actively harmful as compared to what was now possible
• and from that point of it being possible, to the next few centuries or millennia, it took a very special (as in extraordinary) naive boy from the farm to be naive enough to see that it is possible and then go and actually have the mettle to go all the way and actually do it, for the benefit of every body
• the good news for us is since he did it, a handful more have succeeded in only a few decades (compared to the centuries/millennia needed for the first to have done it), and the way is clearer and more well-laid out than ever… so really no excuse not to do it now I include myself in this lol

Cheers,
Claudiu

I hadn’t read that quote of Richard regarding the disparagement of thought in Indian religion.

I know this may sound like a banging on about a theory, but I do find it a far stretch to imagine (which is what we are doing when talking about human evolution) that 400000 years of modern human/ Neanderthal (generically interbreeding evidence means we are one species), with the later having a significantly larger brain than ours, where for the majority of that time thinking and feeling like modem humans do.

It seems far more likely that up until relatively recently, they had a very different, far less ‘self’ like existence.

It’s very much a “theory of mind” issue, in which we project ourselves onto the other and literally imagine a ‘self’ like our own being there.

‘self’ consciousness is just far more likely to be very modern, if not entirely overlapping Indian religions.

One of the points Jaynes makes, if not the central point of his work, is all the practices of altering our consciousness towards “trance” is an attempt to get back to the pre-modern mind.

To imagine that of the 103 billion humans who have lived in the last 40000 years, let alone 4000000 years were all so similar to us in self consciousness yet so absolutely incapable and devoid of anyone as intrepid as Richard seem a really vivid imagining.

That is to say, there was something in the way for there to be the breakthrough. That something being a lack of ‘self’ consciousness. Not a lack of a ‘self’, but lack of the individual modern version of it.

[claudiu]

@Andrew

To imagine that of the 103 billion humans who have lived in the last 40000 years, let alone 4000000 years were all so similar to us in self consciousness yet so absolutely incapable and devoid of anyone as intrepid as Richard seem a really vivid imagining.

Well, I see why Vineeto replied as she did to Ed now.

The very theory you are espousing does not support your incredulity here. According to Wikipedia, Jaynes “places the origin of consciousness around the 2nd millennium BCE” [L].

According to Our World in Data, half the 109 billion people who have ever lived and died, did so in the last 2,000 years [L].

That leaves at least 54.5 billion who have lived and died since, according to your understanding of this theory, the shift to “thinking and feeling like modern humans do”, plus 7.95 billion alive today.

So to re-phrase your statement to be in line with the theory:

To imagine that of the [62] billion humans who have lived in the last [2000] years […] were all so similar to us in self consciousness yet so absolutely incapable and devoid of anyone as intrepid as Richard seem a really vivid imagining.

Yet this is precisely what happened. Remarkable, isn’t it?

You do realize for something new to have come about, one person among all the billions that have ever lived will have to be the first to have done it?

You will really have to uncover the naivete you have buried under all this cynicism and recognize just what a wonderous, unique, and fleeting opportunity we are all presented with. The universe in no way will guarantee that the world will become actually free – we are among the most well-positioned humans on the planet to be able to do everything we can to have it happen.

Cheers,
Claudiu

[claudiu]

@Andrew

It seems far more likely that up until relatively recently, they had a very different, far less ‘self’ like existence.

It’s very much a “theory of mind” issue, in which we project ourselves onto the other and literally imagine a ‘self’ like our own being there.

‘self’ consciousness is just far more likely to be very modern, if not entirely overlapping Indian religions.

One of the points Jaynes makes, if not the central point of his work, is all the practices of altering our consciousness towards “trance” is an attempt to get back to the pre-modern mind.

I do find this fascinating. From Wikipedia:

[…] Jaynes proposed that until roughly the times written about in Homer’s Iliad , humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today. Rather, the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external “gods”—commands that were recorded in ancient myths, legends, and historical accounts. This is exemplified in not only the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology who “sang” the poems. According to Jaynes, the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry.

Jaynes asserts that in the Iliad and sections of the Old Testament, no mention is made of any kind of cognitive processes such as introspection, and there is no apparent indication that the writers were self-aware. […]

Jaynes theorized that a shift from bicameral mentality marked the beginning of introspection and consciousness as we know it today. According to Jaynes, this bicameral mentality began malfunctioning or “breaking down” during the 2nd millennium BCE. […] The Late Bronze Age collapse of the 2nd millennium BCE led to mass migrations and created a rash of unexpected situations and stresses that required ancient minds to become more flexible and creative. Self-awareness, or consciousness, was the culturally evolved solution to this problem. This necessity of communicating commonly observed phenomena among individuals who shared no common language or cultural upbringing encouraged those communities to become self-aware to survive in a new environment. Thus, consciousness, like bicameral mentality, emerged as a neurological adaptation to social complexity in a changing world.

Jaynes further argues that divination, prayer, and oracles arose during this breakdown period in an attempt to summon instructions from the “gods” whose voices could no longer be heard. [emphasis added]

I find this highly compelling, and fascinating if true…

And it would speak volumes as to what @Kub933 's initial point was the whole time!

@Kub933

Wow human-kind really did get screwed over by those holy men, what have they done!? […]

But it is those god men that peddled their snake-oil, they offered a promise of eternity for the ‘self’. Those feeling beings could have long ago gladly allowed their self-immolation, but instead the god men locked ‘humanity’ into endless cycles of suffering for a promise of an afterlife .

And what a perverse worldview spawned from this […] This has me viewing self-immolation in a completely different light, it is nothing weird, in fact it is something way overdue. Something that if not for the “retardation of evolution over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years” would have likely been the all-round state of affairs.

In other words, it would mean that just as humanity evolved and developed the seismic, species-delineating shift of being able to self-introspect and thus gain the capacity to become actually free…

… those “holy men” and “god men” came and literally kept alive the hallucinatory, delusory madness that humanity had just managed to crawl out of due to selection pressures… literally dragging the human mind back to, or retarding its progression away from, the days before genuine self-consciousness was possible.

What utter madness it would be if true! I appreciate Kuba’s point much more now.

Cheers,
Claudiu

[Kub933]

Wow yes it makes me appreciate my own point even more too

I am intrigued to do a little more research on this, thanks @Andrew.

So as the capacity for clear thought began to take root the enlightened beings invited back those gods which prevailed beforehand. In doing so they created reality, where the sanity of normality has its roots in insanity. This is where human kind has been for the past 3000-5000 years.

It’s as if in doing so they created this hybrid way of existing. Where human beings clearly have the capacity for pure consciousness and yet it is as if we are 1 foot in and 1 foot out. Thought is still shackled to passions. The monstrosity that comes out of this is ‘me’ as an identity, clearly a mistake just waiting to be corrected.

It does bring more clarity to the words that reality is a distorted/perverted/blinkered version of actuality. Those human beings existing before the capacity for clear thought would have existed as if in a trance, this is where the passions would have commanded their day to day existence. And yet something changed which allowed human beings to implement clear and considered thought. But instead of going all the way towards purity and perfection those god men decided that perfection can never be lived by any human being, instead they invited god back into human affairs through enlightenment.

What they created through this process is an abomination. ‘I’ as an identity am an abomination, ‘I’ should long ago have ceased to ‘be’ but instead ‘I’ was enticed to remain with the promise of eternity. And yet ‘I’ know ‘I’ am an abomination, so ‘my’ life is a life of suffering, for ‘I’ know that ‘I’ should not ‘be’. ‘I’ as an identity am like the bastard child of a love affair which should have never taken place.

I remember when I first read Richard’s journal I wondered why he wrote so much about spirituality, of course it was a huge aspect of his dissolving of he enlightened state but initially I thought it does not apply to me. But it is clearer and clearer now just what role it played in the current state of affairs and just how deeply it runs. That the very parameters of reality were set up by those enlightened beings, the ‘wisdom’ they brought back was rooted in hallucination. Human kind has since been refining those truths into various belief systems, trying to refine that which has it’s roots in madness, so of course ‘humanity’ is well and truly lost, it cannot be fixed.

Wow it is really something, it must have been the most peculiar (this is way too luke-warm of a word actually) experience for Richard when he dissolved the entire psyche. He would have lived as the only person existing outside of the sanity/insanity spectrum which itself is based in madness. He was a classified madman and yet what exactly was the rest of the population living?

[Andrew]

The number I read was something like “109 billion in the last 40000 years” , however that was a long time ago I read that and from memory.

My point wasn’t that Richard wasn’t the first, of course not, it was rather post humorous exoneration of our common ancestors from all being those with feet of clay!

That is, modern consciousness was required before anyone could even experience the human condition as we define it.

Don’t you find it more acceptable to exonerate ancestors who were not capable of ‘self’ consciousness? It doesn’t reduce the significance of Richards discovery, as it wasn’t about being first, but rather free.

As I haven’t been enlightened, I will default my opinion to Richards statements about “feet of clay”. Certainly, I didn’t even know enlightenment was actually a factual thing until my late 20s. I thought it was something made up!

Jaynes book, is far more detailed and nuanced than Wikipedia summaries, and various dates are given depending on which source he is analysing. However, the 2000 BCE change is the line when the “gods” became less and less audible. Hence “prophecy” and divination etc.

I can’t definitively say what Jaynes wrote without rereading the book. Which I rebought last year, but only managed to browse.

From the moment I read the book it really hit a chord with me as being “likely true”.

I was raised Pentecostal Christian which is all about exactly that “hearing” the voice of god, trance (slain in the spirit) , music to bliss and create atmosphere for prophecy (I was the music director for a while at the church I grew up in, playing “free association” music for many minutes at a time to “channel the holy spirit”).

My experience of religion matches Jaynes description of what humans try to achieve with trance etc, get back to the “one with god” state. His Voice being the only voice.

As Paul the apostle wrote “It’s no long I who lives, but Christ who lives in me”.

That was the goal.

[claudiu]

@Andrew

The number I read was something like “109 billion in the last 40000 years” […] Don’t you find it more acceptable to exonerate ancestors who were not capable of ‘self’ consciousness?

Mm the point is you’ve exonerated 109 billion stretching across 40,000 years… yet of those, at least 62 billion in at least the past 2,000 years were capable of self consciousness already (and that’s a vast underestimate as the theory places this capacity as starting 4,000 years ago).

So why did you exonerate these 62 billion so readily, and state an incredulity that it would be a “really vivid imagining” to think that all were “so absolutely incapable and devoid of anyone as intrepid as Richard”? When these 62 billion had this capability of self consciousness?

@Andrew

It doesn’t reduce the significance of Richards discovery, as it wasn’t about being first, but rather free.

You seem to be saying 109 billion minus one humans never had the capacity to self-immolate and thus diminishing Richard’s historical and epoch-changing breakthrough as him having been just around the first human that could have done it at all, in other words not so special once all the requisite capacities were in place.

It just doesn’t make sense given the 62 billion that already qualified according to the requirement in question.

Also it would indicate a belief or idea that you just have to be lucky enough to have all external circumstances in place in order to succeed… rather than it being entirely up to you! A matter of mettle, as Vineeto put it. This is really the deleterious effect this can have, it puts it out of your hands (or those reading who agree) and thus reduces likelihood of success.

That is my impression anyway!

Cheers
Claudiu

[Andrew]

Yes, the number itself seems suspect. It was from memory, and I have no idea how it was derived.

So, thinking about how many I am exonerating, it’s likely to be exponentially less than those who lived since the “breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”.

Jaynes made many points about different cultures persisting in the Bicameral way of self too. For example, South America, Australia, and anywhere else that didn’t have a writing system (as apposed to artistic representation).

Some of the things I remember from the book; there is no record of ancient Egypt (or any culture from that time circa 2000bc) having a “police force”. Armies? Yes, often large. But police, no.

The point being, control of the individual was more like a swarm, with no need to “police” anyone.

It would tie into the “disfranchisment” feeling too. As there was a security in being an automaton. The increased ‘self’ awareness would increase the anxiety of the individual.

Is it necessary to believe something which is speculative at best to have success with actualism?

How does the opinion that all members of our species going back into prehistory have the same consciousness as our own help?

If anything, especially if it is not true, is itself holding people back.

One of the main reasons that Jaynes book has been roundly ignored by most; it is very comprehensive in presenting an evidence based argument that all the gods and the supernatural were our own biology.

As Peter (actualists, not apostle) notes at one point (paraphrasing here from memory); " everyone is spiritual when pushed" - that was a bad paraphrase even for me! However, the point is, Jaynes thorough evidence destroys the spiritual world view.

As Peter points out about people being essentially spiritual (even avowed atheists will often come out with something spiritual dressed up as science), compelling evidence that it is all a trick of nature was never going to be popular.

The book is 49 years old.

[Andrew]

This is very interesting indeed. I wonder if it would be appealing to enough people to start a separate discussion on this topic?

I remember from Richard’s writing that in his experience people with so called “disorders” such as schizophrenia, and even personality disorders were better off seeking professional help, rather than persuing actualism. I remember he even tried at one point to specifically target personality (?) disorders based on the premise that the human condition was so much more obvious to such individuals (my interpretation, perhaps it was they were near the “edge” of the human condition? On the extremes?)

Anyway, I am not familiar with any reports of anyone having success from the background of disorders.

Why would this be so?

Indeed, as I reported a few posts back, my own psyche is very susceptible to powerful hallucinations under mainly sleepless conditions. I don’t think this is rare though.

To Claudiu’s point that this can become an excuse, that needs to be admitted first. The two situations i.e. full schizophrenia vs occasionally hallucinating are many orders of magnitude different.

It is however interesting what I reported regarding “talking with god” (knowing I was talking to myself, but a part I had always called my “higher self” were I had left a lot of intelligent and kind ways of talking with myself) was me stumbling upon a vestige of Bicameral Mind.

It really felt good actually, even though it was only a few occasions over a few days. Primary of the enjoyment is those conversations were always friendly. Even back in my mid twenties.

We have indeed has many discussions about “being one’s own best friend” and being friendly within oneself.

It could be a key for those struggling with schizophrenia (I remember Guilherme years ago struggling and failing at actualism - I tried to find his YouTube video, but the algorithm isn’t playing ball)

[Andrew]

Edit: this follows from my comment above Vineeto’s, not a reply to her.

…

Indeed, instead of it forming an excuse, it forms a pathway.

If indeed the biology of humans generates a Bicameral self, one which can manifest in what we nowadays call disorders, then someone who has these disorders may well have tools to persue actual freedom with the knowledge that it is also in our history to become primarily non Bicameral. Hence, a major objection “we can’t change human nature” takes another blow!

[claudiu]

@Andrew

Yes, the number itself seems suspect. It was from memory, and I have no idea how it was derived.

@Andrew

How does the opinion that all members of our species going back into prehistory have the same consciousness as our own help?

Hmm again the point isn’t that the number is suspect or that you have to believe everyone had the same consciousness going back to prehistory. This was what prompted my response:

@Andrew

To imagine that of the 103 billion humans who have lived in the last 40000 years, let alone 4000000 years were all so similar to us in self consciousness yet so absolutely incapable and devoid of anyone as intrepid as Richard seem a really vivid imagining.

For what it’s worth, Our World in Data gives the number as 109 billion lived and died since 190,000 BC plus 8 billion still alive today.

The point is you expressed incredulity that Richard was especially capable and intrepid and that this resulted in his success, citing this 100 billion plus number of humans.

But, again, there were/are at least 62 billion humans with the same self-consciousness according to this theory.

So maybe I can ask it as a question: where does your statement stand with regards to the incredulity that so many were “absolutely incapable and devoid of anyone as intrepid as Richard” given at least 62 billion of the 103 billion you mentioned did indeed have the same or so similar self consciousness to us?

Cheers
Claudiu

[Andrew]

@claudiu

The point is you expressed incredulity that Richard was especially capable and intrepid and that this resulted in his success, citing this 100 billion plus number of humans.

No Claudiu, I never stated such a thing at all.

I will not argue the point however, unless it is useful to you furthering your progress towards actual freedom.

A lot of the reason I didn’t post much for many months was that I really didn’t want to be in the way. There wasn’t anything happening, and what would be the point? Thousands have been and gone in regards to Actualism. I really don’t care so much if I live or die, so it’s really such a shame that for even an instant you are concerned with anything other than going all the way.

I will leave it to you. If you regard it useful to going all the way to continue this conversation, I am in.

If not, I am out.

Your choice.

[claudiu]

@Andrew

I will leave it to you. If you regard it useful to going all the way to continue this conversation, I am in.

If not, I am out.

It’s more for your benefit — I see I struck some resistance and am getting pushback now, but the salient point still stands. It’s also curiosity on my part if you will be able to see the simple point I’m making.

@Andrew

A lot of the reason I didn’t post much for many months was that I really didn’t want to be in the way. There wasn’t anything happening, and what would be the point? Thousands have been and gone in regards to Actualism. I really don’t care so much if I live or die, so it’s really such a shame that for even an instant you are concerned with anything other than going all the way.

This is a “sorry for taking up space” sort of feeling… it’s really unnecessary Andrew! And selling yourself short. I’m enjoying having the convo and so I’m doing it. You are not impeding the spread of peace on earth by conversing with me.

As to being “concerned with anything other than going all the way”, you don’t need worry about it. I still have to eat, work, take care of the dog etc… actualism isn’t about becoming an ascetic hermit so that one concerns with self with nothing else. In the meantime (until the magical event) I live life as enjoyable as possible, which takes form now in this exchange we are having.

So if you are interested, back to:

@Andrew

@claudiu

The point is you expressed incredulity that Richard was especially capable and intrepid and that this resulted in his success, citing this 100 billion plus number of humans.

No Claudiu, I never stated such a thing at all.

I was just paraphrasing what you said here:

@Andrew

To imagine that of the 103 billion humans who have lived in the last 40000 years, let alone 4000000 years were all so similar to us in self consciousness yet so absolutely incapable and devoid of anyone as intrepid as Richard seem a really vivid imagining.

And the simple point is this: if we accept Jaynes theory 100%, then this is wrong as certainly in the past 2,000 years (as opposed to from 4,000,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago when the bicameral mind broke down), the 62 billion humans who have lived in this 2,000 year period were “all so similar to us in self consciousness yet so absolutely incapable and devoid of anyone as intrepid as Richard”.

So where does this leave what you said in terms of this being “a really vivid imagining”?

As to:

@Andrew

This is very interesting indeed. I wonder if it would be appealing to enough people to start a separate discussion on this topic?

It might indeed be as it’s beyond scope of Kuba’s journal… what you think if I move it to new topic @Andrew @Kub933 ?

Cheers
Claudiu

[Andrew]

Indeed, I would definitely like that, a new topic.

As for my statements, it is obvious now that I misremembered Jayne’s timeframe,

added unsupported conclusions to exonerate our ancestors without first doing some mental math; the number of humans who could have been as intrepid as Richard, those who shared a “modern” primarily non-bicameral experience, is far higher (exponentially so) than my unthought through statement.

I will leave any further comments for the new thread/topic.

Cheers
Andrew

[claudiu]

@Andrew

Indeed, I would definitely like that, a new topic.

It has been done! Let me know if I messed anything up and should have added more or taken less @Andrew @Kub933

[Andrew]

Thanks @claudiu Looks intact to me!

Where shall we go from here?

I will start rereading the book, that way my memory will be fresh, and and there will be less misquotes etc.

From there, looking at the evidence itself. I’ve never discussed this in any depth beyond “bringing it up” in conversations.

This will be fun!

[Andrew]

[Andrew]