4 ms·
In some regards I can certainly see Jayne's theory as correct with regards to the arising of consciousness as a mechanical function between the self and the env
by cheatsheet 12y ago
In some regards I can certainly see Jayne's theory as correct with regards to the arising of consciousness as a mechanical function between the self and the environment in which the self exists, which results in a symbolic translation that expresses varying degrees of dissonance and harmony.
But there is also a clearly defined conceptual boundary which humans have surpassed, which is the capacity to not merely react to their environment, but to act as an equally dominating force of it. The nature of the reflective mind contained in it's environment; reacting and translating what is observed into what is perceived: it is one of dissonance and harmony, and results in uncontrollable chaos. Man is a function of his environment, instead of defining the environment.
It is the will to exceed one's own expectations, as an creature of nature, and as a consciousness. When we have crafted an entire networked world that begins on a completely conceptual level, I think the question of what we are, and what we have become, and the control we have over that, deserves more than a cursory thought.
It's that looping around the argument that causes it to collapse. I use my mind to explain my mind. The model doesn't fit the current data, only all the data leading up to it.
- irickt 12y agoThe book Closure by Hilary Lawson is a heroic effort to resolve the problem of self-reference. He doesn't address all the questions you raise but offers a framework for considering them.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 12y agoHis book is called 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.' It's precisely the maladaptive aspects of bicameralism in the encounters with increasingly complex social environments that Jaynes postulates as the reason for its evolutionary deprecation. Man is a function of his environment, instead of defining the environment. Neither of these is true (I realize you are arguing against the first position). We are in constant interaction with our environments, neither simply acted-upon nor possessed of god-like powers of manipulation from whose consequences we are immune. I feel you must not have read Jaynes' book, since he postulated bicameralism at work in tasks such as agricultural planting, which by definition alter the environment. If you haven't read it, then I urge not to rely on the summary explanation that can fit in a blog article or even a longish essay. Jaynes' articulation of his theory is elaborate and discursive, but also rigorous and well-qualified (in terms of acknowledging limitations and the difficulties of falsifiability).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- cheatsheet 12y agoI don't think you can prove that neither is true, but I rarely agree with myself to begin with. I will not rely on the summary explanation, I can assure you of that.