Living creatures (creatures of life) are divided into two groups

[Swammerdami]

Humans have large operational differences between left and right cerebral hemispheres, especially in the "language centers." Is this the case in other primates?

The main thing separating humans from "lower animals" is language. Is complex language a key to consciousness and advanced thought?

I don't know why I wrote this in such a crude and misleading way. I am a Julian Jaynes disciple and interpret his teachings to mean, in the briefest summary:

• The development of language was a big change in cognition. I think Jaynes regards the use of personal names as a major breakthrough, but I'm far from sure of this: The language of other primates may be very primitive but I'll guess they DO use personal names for friends and relatives.
• Language led to a "bicameral brain" in which the separate hemispheres had separate functions. Schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations are two of several modes Jaynes relates to brain bicamerality. Has schizophrenia been observed in other primates?
• Humans remembered (and hallucinated) their parents' words even after their parents were dead, a modality which led to ancestor worship, along with obedience to kings and ancestral kings (gods).
• As Neolithic and Bronze Age societies advanced, limitations to bicameral ("schizophrenic"!???) cognition led to failures. Unexplained society collapses in history (Mayans? Hittite Empire? too-easy surrendering to Cortez and Pizarro?) might be explained by bicameral cognition being unable to cope, having difficulty in creating original thought.
• Better cognition, what Jaynes calls "subjective consciousness," began to appear (often early in the Iron Age). Famously Homer's The Odyssey describes its hero Odysseus as the first man who could think for himself.
• As subjective consciousness (gradually?) replaced the "bicameral brain," vestiges of bicamerality remained, e.g. in the Oracles at Delphi. I think "demon possessions," e.g. as described for 1st century Judaea, inhabited bicameral brains.

I think this Jaynes model can be melded — albeit with difficulty — alongside other models. Rousseau?

 

[rousseau]

It sounds like you know more than me, but none of what you wrote surprises me. Language would be a major component of our particular brand of consciousness - allowing us to thrive in our own cultures. Maybe not a key to consciousness, so to speak, but a key to advanced thought.

I wouldn't take that to mean that a bird, bear, or dog isn't conscious, but rather complex language isn't a component of their own brand of cognition. They still see, smell, feel, hear, and even communicate - but the overall experience would be different.

Can you imagine human consciousness without language? It wouldn't be all that interesting or particularly special, but you can still imagine existing without words.

But then, I'm not an expert on this topic, so I could just be talking nonsense.

 

[Swammerdami]

One can take a slightly bolder view of Jaynes' hypothesis. Language was necessary for NEITHER "animal-like" cognition NOR for subjective consciousness. (Though language facilitated learning and culture which led to better adapted cognition when humans "became conscious.")

The bicameral brain can be thought of as a sort of detour: It led to an early type of religion which hastened the rise of early Neolithic towns, but cognition wasn't creative enough to find good solutions as city-states grew in size and complexity and conflicted with neighboring towns. Such towns succeeded when leaders' subjective consciousness implied creative thought.

 

[rousseau]

Bicameral mentality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Interesting reading. It sounds like we're back in Ancient Greece with our level of scientific understanding of consciousness - theory but not necessarily proof.

I likely shouldn't comment too much because I haven't done much reading on the topic. I typically take an empirical approach in observing my own experience to understand how my mind functions, but I don't worry too much about how I define that experience. I can say with confidence that my mind / sensory / nervous system does certain things, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Jarhyn]

One can take a slightly bolder view of Jaynes' hypothesis. Language was necessary for NEITHER "animal-like" cognition NOR for subjective consciousness. (Though language facilitated learning and culture which led to better adapted cognition when humans "became conscious.")

The bicameral brain can be thought of as a sort of detour: It led to an early type of religion which hastened the rise of early Neolithic towns, but cognition wasn't creative enough to find good solutions as city-states grew in size and complexity and conflicted with neighboring towns. Such towns succeeded when leaders' subjective consciousness implied creative thought.

So Swammerdami, you accept that neural nodes communicate largely along parallelized surfaces which transmit images which represent other things yes?

Because that's a neural language, a language of images and shapes and patterns.

I would say that language is at the very heart of all cognition.

The bigger question is, how mutable is the language, and in what timescales and periods is the mutability applicable?

The natural genetic language is mutable on the scale of protein changes, mostly at gestation time. The natural neural language is mutable with respect to connection weights, largely in "nurture time", capable of modifying pattern intersections at "observation time", and capable of binding sound patterns to mouth movements to natural neural languages at education time.

It's languages implemented by systems of languages, language all the way down.

The real question is "what is the language being spoken, does it say everything it needs to be able to say at that level, can we speak to the things that speak in this language, and are we really even interested in what is being said?"

There is a conversation in the bacteria between the cilia motor's orientation and motivation, and the receptor that speaks a verb to it mediated by a chemical. If we interject ourselves in the conversation, we can hear what it says before the cilia does, translate it into a language more easily understood, and then perhaps throw away the message and even send one of our own.

The issue is whether or not the language can be translated across some barrier, such as the barrier of the gap between your neurons and mine. We do this by... Creating yet another language, one of wiggles in molecules rather than presence or absence of specific molecules, one which may mutate more freely.

 

[Elixir]

I would say that language is at the very heart of all cognition.

Interesting thread. I would agree withe the above, with the caveat that we have no idea what actually constitutes language.
In another thread Jarhyn, you elicited some scorn for asserting that a rock has "agency". I agreed with you then, and now I will recall that assertion to assert that rock's agency constitutes "language" in (one of) its most rudimentary forms. If you grant that then yes; language is at the heart of all cognition.

 

[rousseau]

One can take a slightly bolder view of Jaynes' hypothesis. Language was necessary for NEITHER "animal-like" cognition NOR for subjective consciousness. (Though language facilitated learning and culture which led to better adapted cognition when humans "became conscious.")

The bicameral brain can be thought of as a sort of detour: It led to an early type of religion which hastened the rise of early Neolithic towns, but cognition wasn't creative enough to find good solutions as city-states grew in size and complexity and conflicted with neighboring towns. Such towns succeeded when leaders' subjective consciousness implied creative thought.

It sounds like you're well read on the topic of consciousness, any authors or books you'd recommend reading?

(I was going to start a new thread but thought I'd go straight to the source)

 

[Swammerdami]

One can take a slightly bolder view of Jaynes' hypothesis. Language was necessary for NEITHER "animal-like" cognition NOR for subjective consciousness. (Though language facilitated learning and culture which led to better adapted cognition when humans "became conscious.")

The bicameral brain can be thought of as a sort of detour: It led to an early type of religion which hastened the rise of early Neolithic towns, but cognition wasn't creative enough to find good solutions as city-states grew in size and complexity and conflicted with neighboring towns. Such towns succeeded when leaders' subjective consciousness implied creative thought.

It sounds like you're well read on the topic of consciousness, any authors or books you'd recommend reading?

(I was going to start a new thread but thought I'd go straight to the source)

No! Just the opposite. I'm self-taught on Jaynes book alone and hardly read his other supporters. I'm sure there are interesting JJ discussion boards — if you find any link here. My brother was the anthro student, not I.

I think Jaynes' insights segue into the development of early civilizations. There's a thread on Dawn of Everything by two Davids — a book that is still on my Own_and_Want-to-Read List :gak: :-(

I think there are books that study the early development of magic and religion. Jarhyn, do you have any recommendations?