Unconscious Greeks
At the suggestion of a reader (jdt), I’ve been reading The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes (1976). I’m not even 100 pages in, but there’s already enough material to make for a good post.
Jaynes starts out with a discussion of what exactly consciousness is. At first glance, that seems like a ridiculous and simplistic question, but try to answer it, and you’ll quickly see that it’s not. He uses evidence from psychological experiments to show that consciousness is not required for concepts, learning, thinking or reason. “Preposterous!”, you say. Well, read the book. He then goes on to tie consciousness to language and, specifically, to metaphor. Consciousness is a metaphorical construct that allows for spatialization of thought, narratization of our lives, and explanation of our actions. The last two sentences summarize all of Chapter 2, so I’m sorry if it’s unclear, but I’m not writing a book report here. I want to get directly to the good stuff.
Chapter 3 is where the book becomes applicable to our subject matter on this blog. Jaynes begins by trying to figure out when consciousness first arose. By this point, he has established that consciousness is predated by language, so we’re looking for a time after the origin of language. To have evidence, we need written records, so we’re looking after 3,000 BCE. Furthermore, we need a language we completely understand. Cuneiform, Egyptian Hieroglyphics and the like go out the window, and we arrive at ancient Greek as the earliest written language that is totally understood by modern man. Jaynes then uses The Iliad to show that Greeks around the time of the Trojan War, still had not developed consciousness. I know. I was floored by that, too. Jaynes himself calls this conclusion “disturbingly interesting.”
He takes passages from the text and clearly illustrates the fact that at no point in the epic do the characters exhibit will or volition. At every turn, they are told what to do by the gods, at least aurally, and sometimes in person. He gives examples of ancient Greek words used in the text that later came to have meanings related to consciousness via the process of the metaphorical development of language (discussed in a prior chapter), but which had no such significance at the time. He coins the phrase bicameral mind.
In distinction to our own subjective conscious minds, we can call the mentality of the Myceneans a bicameral mind. Volition, planning, initiative is organized with no consciousness whatever and then ‘told’ to the individual in his familiar language, sometimes with the visual aura of a familiar friend or authority figure or ‘god’, or sometimes as a voice alone. The individual obeyed these hallucinated voices because he could not ’see’ what to do by himself.
These are the same voices heard today by schizophrenics, and others with mental disabilities. In fact, Jaynes points to evidence that MANY of us experience these voices. We just know better than to actually attribute them to an outside source.
One afternoon I lay down in intellectual despair on a couch. Suddenly, out of an absolute quiet, there came a firm, distinct loud voice from my upper right which said, “Include the knower in the known!” It lugged me to my feed absurdly exclaiming, “Hello?” looking for whoever was in the room.
One young biologist’s wife said that almost every morning as she made the beds and did the housework, she had long, informative, and pleasant conversations with the voice of her dead grandmother in which the grandmother’s voice was actually heard. This came as something of a shock to her alarmed husband, for she had never previously mentioned it, since “hearing voices” is generally supposed to be a sign of insanity.
A study done in England in the 19th century indicated that 7.8% of men and 12% of women had this type of hallucination. All of this leads me to some questions. Have any of you experienced this? Do religious fundamentalists who claim that god has spoken to them mean it literally because they are misunderstanding this phenomenon? Is there any excuse for religion in a conscious world?
“In a sense, we have become our own gods.”
-Julian Jaynes
~I AM~
June 18th, 2005 at at 5:41 pm
I have difficulty believing the Greeks were not “conscious” while they were building the greatest empire the world had ever seen at that time. Even if you account ofr the average stupididty of the Greek individual at the time, all indicators point to a capable society. This, to me, would indicate consciousness was already established at that time. Math, music, art, questioning of natural events and such (science), and architecture were some of the subjects they were familiar with, and I would think it takes a fully conscious mind (with complex language understanding) to utulize them. I still think consciousness would HAVE to predate organized (historically dated) societies. I know I have not read the book. I will add it to my list, but admittedly, it will be a ways down.
As far as people talking to themselves, I find this completely believable. And yes I think many people interpret an overactive conscience or super-ego (however you want to describe the voice in your head that tells you what to do) wrongly. I think guilt among other emotions plays a large part in this problem. I’ve found Catholics to be more susseptable to this than other religious people. Although I contend it is the individual who creates and sustains this problem. Catholics push an unusually large amount of guilt on one another causing their consciences to become overactive. When you combine religiousity with an inability to understand your own mind, the result is imaginary friends guiding your every move. What a horrible way to live. I think that gives you a small window into what it might be like to be a schitzophrenic. Imagine no one seeing what you are believing.
June 18th, 2005 at at 6:52 pm
Remember that the Trojan War took place very early in Greek history. It’s believed to have been during the 13th or 12th century BCE. The Mycenaean civilization was gone by around 1,000 BCE, and the Iliad was written down by about 900. The Archaic and Classic Periods of Greek history (700-323 BCE) are what you’re talking about. Interestingly, Jaynes mentions that the Odyssey, which was written down ca. 700 BCE, is entirely different, showing plenty of evidence of consciousness. Therefore, it is his conclusion that the Iliad falls just before the development of consciousness. That dates this development to between 1200 and 700 BCE. In fact, it was probably the flowering of consciousness that led to Greece’s golden age.
June 18th, 2005 at at 11:28 pm
I Am, would you mind explaining to me the calendar (BCE). I guess it’s sad, but I haven’t done research on that.
June 18th, 2005 at at 11:50 pm
boywonder:
I’m satisfied to leave the Christ in Christian and Christmas. I figure those are none of my business. However, time belongs to all of us, and I won’t measure it using Christian units. Go here for more information.
June 19th, 2005 at at 4:03 pm
Thanks, that was interesting. I do like that site too. I’ve visited it before several times, but hadn’t read that part of it. I thought it would be good to include that in the encyclopedia. BTW, what’s your feeling about that so far? I’ve been writing stuff down on it, but I haven’t had much feedback yet. Is there anything I should change? Content or the way I’m doing it? I told you I need help with the technical aspect. And any way to make this easier or better for every one involved I would do. I suppose I’m coming on strong with this whole project, but it’s something I believe very strongly in. At the moment, I still feel everyone else is very interested. I just worry, ofcourse, about all of the work I’ve put into this going to waste.
June 19th, 2005 at at 4:57 pm
Great new site
There’s a new site from the creators of Atheist Revolution, The Evangelical Atheist, and FreeThought…
June 20th, 2005 at at 1:47 am
I’ve also read the book, and found it a fascinating and plausible theory, one that both explains where conscious came from as well as were mankinds tendency to hallucinate gods came from.
And, that said, I’ve frequently had very distinct hallucinations of my (long dead) mother calling my name — usually when drifting off to sleep on the edge of hypnogogic illusions. I’ve never attributed it to anything other than a playback from somewhere in my brain, although at times the voice has been very clear and distinct, and did seem to come from outside my head.
Of course, there’s also the phantom music, which I can frequently hear when I’m in a room with white noise from a fan. I’ve long since figured out that it’s the fan that’s the source — random noise + brain +human propensity for pattern = phantom orchestra. It’s never louder than the fan, but definitely seems to be there, always rhythmic, and goes away if I turn on a louder source of sound, like the TV.
And, being a rationalist, I know that it’s merely a manifestation of my brain trying to impose order on random input — the “face in the car grill” (or Jesus in a taco) phenomenon in audio form. Then again, I’ve done acid, I’ve seen the effect greatly magnified. Never, I say never, look up at a stucco ceiling on LSD…
June 20th, 2005 at at 2:35 pm
I find Susan Blackmore’s explanation of the evolution of consciousness through memetic mutation and natural selection to be very satisfying. It seems that consciousness is not needed for even very intelligent acts. However, that probably depends on your definition of consciousness.
June 20th, 2005 at at 8:59 pm
Teotwawki23:
What in godless name is the “Jesus in a taco” phenomenon? Is LSD required for that? I haven’t done acid. I don’t think the world needs any help being weird. When the news starts to make sense, then I’ll think about hard core hallucinogens.
June 21st, 2005 at at 1:51 am
I Am: you know, “Jesus in a taco” — all those devout Catholics who are constantly spotting images of Jesus (or Mary) in tacos, broken windows, reflections, puddles, etc., etc. And how come, for them, it’s always Jesus, never, say Eric Clapton?
‘Cause they’re projecting. More on which, here, down near the bottom of the post.
(PS: Thanks for the blogshares buy.)
June 25th, 2005 at at 8:20 pm
that Greeks around the time of the Trojan War, still had not developed consciousness
What???
I see two possibilities here. One is that Jaynes (and you) are simply talking spectacular nonsense.
The second (and more charitable) interpretation is that Jaynes is making a reasonable point, but choosing unreasonable language to make it, by way of livening it up and selling more books.
It all depends on what working definition of “consciousness” you’re using. In my view consciousness is not a yes/no phenomenon, but a sliding scale with beetles, dogs, chimps, human babies, and human adults all exhibiting it to a greater or lesser extent. You can draw the line anywhere you like, and then perform experiments to see what lies over it, and what falls short. But experimentation can’t tell you where is a sensible place to draw the line to start with.
Jaynes is clearly working with an extremely narrow definition of consciousness, I would say far, far too narrow a definition to be even remotely sensible.
I’m quite happy to give serious consideration to the proposition that the flowering of *some new mental agility* (related to the use of language, the ability to think metaphorically, and the move away from the “bicameral mind”) led to Greece’s golden age. But to call that new mental agility “consciousness” strikes me as highly unreasonable, and very far from the meaning that we give that word in every day usage. It strikes me as blatent sensationalism.
After all if the Greeks were not “conscious” in 3000 BCE, then surely it’s not plausible that everyone alive now is conscious, is it? After all there’s been no significant evolutionary change since then. I’d guess by Jayne’s definition large swathes of contemporary humanity must still be “unconscious”.
Does that seem reasonable to you? It doesn’t to me. Apart from anything else it sounds like a licence to commit genocide.
For a website dedicated to pointing out the stupid things that other people say and believe, you should take special care in future not to talk such total and utter nonsense yourself.
June 26th, 2005 at at 1:27 am
Larry:
Take it easy. I’m not presenting this as fact. It’s an interesting theory, about which I will not make up my mind until I finish the book.
Could you provide us with your exact definition of consciousness?
June 26th, 2005 at at 6:23 am
Ok I’ve calmed down a bit now!
Could you provide us with your exact definition of consciousness?
I’m not offering an exact definition as I make clear: In my view consciousness is not a yes/no phenomenon, but a sliding scale with beetles, dogs, chimps, human babies, and human adults all exhibiting it to a greater or lesser extent. You can draw the line anywhere you like
Factors which I’d consider to contribute to the relative darkness of the shade of grey would include: the ability to *feel* (pain, fear, desire, love and other sensations and emotions), self-knowledge (including factors like awareness of our own existence as a being like but distict from others, and the ability to use a mirror), the knowledge that one day we will die, the ability to form an abstract picture of the world from the available sense-data, and so on. This is the usual stuff. Notice that the ancient Greeks are unlikely to fail on any of these counts.
As I say you can set the bar as high or as low as you like, and decide (by experiment) that e.g dogs or 2-year old humans are or are not “conscious” accordingly. My own view is that the interesting stuff happens quite low down, so I would wish to call dogs “conscious”. I recommend this to you if only as a way of offending religious types.
Of course other people want to set the bar higher and include things like the ability to use language in their definition: fair enough. But to set the bar so high that many adult humans fail to be “conscious” by your definition, is not sensible. It is enormously disingenuous, arrogant, and dangerous.
Jaynes should use another term to discuss the phenomenon he’s interested in (the move away from the bicameral mind, or whatever) because the the word “consciousness” already has a good and useful meaning (if not a precise one, namely it corresponds to setting the bar somewhere miles below where he’s setting it), and that meaning is not his to play with and change beyond all recognition.
As a result I am happy to present you with an uncontroversial fact: around the time of the Trojan War, humans were conscious and had been so for hundreds of thousands of years.
June 26th, 2005 at at 6:41 am
I’m taking this from p 134f of “How the Mind Works” by Steven Pinker, which perhaps you should read once you’ve thrown your current book on to the fire:
Sometimes “consciousness” is just used as a lofty synonym for “intelligence”… But there are three more specialized meanings…
One is self-knowledge… including the ability to use a mirror… Because it is so easy to say something about self-knowledge, writers can crow about their “theory of consciousness”
Hmm. Jaynes?
A second sense is “access to information”… As with self-knowlsedge, there is nothing miraculous or even mysterious about it…
Finally, we come to the most interesting sense of all, “sentience”: subjective experience, phenomenal awareness, raw feels, first-person present tense, “what it is like” to be or do something, if you have to ask you’ll never know.
December 4th, 2005 at at 2:55 am
Re:The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. My view has been the same as Larrys, consciousness is a relative phenomenom, that is, a plant, ant, dog, etc. all have different degrees of consciousness, none comprehensible to the other. The interesting thing to me, though, is I remember when I became conscious, around the age of five. I “knew” everyone and everything around me but knew nothing of events before then. Jaynes model may well be correct, the fact is that no one really knows or ever will know the “truth” about origins, we will always have myth and belief. An extremely interesting point by Larry, the belief that some people are not conscious or are less so can be an incentive to genicide. The same thought occured to me while I was reading Jaynes book. Isn’t this already the rational for the way we treat animals?