3 ms·

> Jaynes' "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" is perhaps the most egregious offender. Can you expand on this? I am reading th

by mrow84 9y ago

> Jaynes' "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" is perhaps the most egregious offender. Can you expand on this? I am reading this book at the moment, but I don't quite follow your criticism. He doesn't seem to me to be talking about phenomena related to "consciousness of consciousness", but rather about how consciousness arises as a functional process, and as a consequence of our linguistic heritage (though I haven't finished the book yet, and I find it all quite confusing, so I'm not really sure). For reference, I found the entry for "Consciousness, defined" in the index, and the paragraph on the referenced page that most closely corresponds to a definition seems to be this: > Subjective conscious mind is an analog of what is called the real world. It is built up with a vocabulary or lexical field whose terms are all metaphors or analogs of behavior in the physical world. Its reality is of the same order as mathematics. It allows us to shortcut behavioral processes and arrive at more adequate decisions. Like mathematics, it is an operator rather than a thing or repository. And it is intimately bound up with volition and decision.

CuriouslyC 9y ago
Note the distinction between: 1. consciousness as "awareness" or "experiencing existence" 2. consciousness as "mind" or what we experience that doesn't seem to correspond to the outside world. The former is certainly not a result of language, and that is what is referred to as consciousness in Buddhist/Hindu philosophy. The latter is definitely influenced by language and seems to be what many modern scientists are referring to when they talk about consciousness. The conflation of the two definitions does a great disservice to understanding what consciousness "is".
- mrow84 9y ago
  > The former is certainly not a result of language, and that is what is referred to as consciousness in Buddhist/Hindu philosophy. I recommend reading Jaynes' book (assuming you haven't already) before you draw any firm conclusions on the role of language. I really don't think I can do him justice, but his thesis seems to be that humans were, until relatively recently (4000 years ago, perhaps?), non-conscious - they would not have "experienced existence". He goes on to discuss consciousness as a product of metaphor, and thus with decidedly linguistic origins. That is terrible summary, though, so I recommend reading the book and forming your own view - I have found it quite enjoyable so far. As an aside, he starts the book with a list of things that consciousness is not, from his perspective: * Consciousness Not a Copy of Experience * Consciousness Not Necessary for Concepts * Consciousness Not Necessary for Learning * Consciousness Not Necessary for Thinking * Consciousness Not Necessary for Reason

by mrow84 9y ago

CuriouslyC 9y ago

Note the distinction between: 1. consciousness as "awareness" or "experiencing existence" 2. consciousness as "mind" or what we experience that doesn't seem to correspond to the outside world. The former is certainly not a result of language, and that is what is referred to as consciousness in Buddhist/Hindu philosophy. The latter is definitely influenced by language and seems to be what many modern scientists are referring to when they talk about consciousness. The conflation of the two definitions does a great disservice to understanding what consciousness "is".

mrow84 9y ago
> The former is certainly not a result of language, and that is what is referred to as consciousness in Buddhist/Hindu philosophy. I recommend reading Jaynes' book (assuming you haven't already) before you draw any firm conclusions on the role of language. I really don't think I can do him justice, but his thesis seems to be that humans were, until relatively recently (4000 years ago, perhaps?), non-conscious - they would not have "experienced existence". He goes on to discuss consciousness as a product of metaphor, and thus with decidedly linguistic origins. That is terrible summary, though, so I recommend reading the book and forming your own view - I have found it quite enjoyable so far. As an aside, he starts the book with a list of things that consciousness is not, from his perspective: * Consciousness Not a Copy of Experience * Consciousness Not Necessary for Concepts * Consciousness Not Necessary for Learning * Consciousness Not Necessary for Thinking * Consciousness Not Necessary for Reason