Jump to content

Talk:The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was his explanation for a priestly class?

[edit]

It was universal in Indo-European societies, but why would it exist if everyone down to the swineherds heard gods speaking in their head every day of their lives? Why would anyone need an oracle or a shaman? It's pretty much a consensus opinion that the priestly class established their power because they claimed that they can talk to gods - how would that impress anyone if an average person had to have Apollo issue hallucinated commands to them just so they could go to the loo? 86.63.168.150 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article used to emphasize 'Jaynes's book' (which in itself is not a complex topic) rather than trying to explain all of its important, separate controversial theories. Unfortunately, as of August 2023, one particular theory, bicameral mentality, has been planted here from its own separate article (with many flaws) as if it were the book's one and only topic, which is a distortion of the book. It was transferred here because the editor applied some kind of Wiki standard without knowing much about the actual book.
Anyways, your questions about bicamerality would be more fitting over there. However, a talk page "isn't a forum..." for discussing an author's theories, except to ensure that an article contains every major aspect of a topic. A good Wiki article should provide a reasonable, accurate summary that answers the 'big' questions about a clear topic, even if it can't answer every question. Your questions, of course, challenge an issue that makes no sense to you; perhaps a more appropriate 'talk page' question might be, 'If something makes no sense, is it a problem with the theory, or is the article just poorly written?' An innocent reader can't always know the difference. IMO, the poor article here is much to blame for confusion about Jaynes's theories.
As for the priests, the theory says they did not exist in early, small group bicamerality, but served an essential role in the "authoritarian hierarchy" of every advanced bicameral community. They managed the 'pantheon': every person following his/her voice or voices was potentially chaotic and only the social hierarchy could determine which voice was which god, and whose gods were higher or lower. (And they didn't 'hear' them "in their head", and probably not every day, and not to have a pee.) As for oracles, they came into existence with the gradual breakdown of the bicameral mind when 'voices' were still needed, and persisted for centuries alongside consciousness until almost no-one took them seriously. In trying to explain a few thousand years of ancient civilizations, the 'consensus opinion' (about power structures?) uses unstated default assumptions about so-called 'human nature', and it ignores the actual complexity and strangeness of historical facts. Jaynes's theory explicitly addresses all these and many other issues beyond the scope of an oversimplified Wiki article. B.Sirota (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus against original research

[edit]

Both myself and @Artem.G: have removed original research added by @Snarcky1996:, with this edit. That means the consensus is against the addition of the material. Yet Snarcky continues to revert the removal without bothering to discuss on this talk page per WP:BRD. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See ensuing conversation here :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bicameral_mentality Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: made bold statements here. Do you really think that a two-to-one contest between competing reversions is indication of "consensus"? I don't see that you've made much effort to engage in discussion. It's possible that you and Snarcky1996 could work on rewriting the Gilgamesh additions to rephrase the OR commentary, that is, without asserting that other interpretations 'refute' or 'criticize' Jaynes's arguments.
Other major issues, however, seem to me more significant, e.g. the "Definition" section, without any citations, introduces a lot of terminology and concepts (metareflection; The bicameral mind thus lacks metaconsciousness, autobiographical memory, and the capacity for executive "ego functions" such as deliberate mind-wandering...) Did Jaynes actually use such terms? The text sounds as if they are his ideas. But I doubt it, I think they count as OR! And to top it off, you seem to be the originator of that material as of 25 Aug, 2023... And your parallel edits in the Bicameral mentality article where you describe it, again without citations, as "early human consciousness", a "form of consciousness", and schizophrenia as "a vestige of this earlier consciousness" are all ways to super-confuse innocent readers about Jaynes's book and ideas. B.Sirota (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@B.Sirota: Have you read Jaynes? Yes, he really uses those terms. I didn't write either article; I did rewrite/summarize parts of it to reduce duplication. I also proposed for the two articles to be merged, but the merge tags were removed and I couldn't be bothered to argue about it at the time. I still think they should be merged because the "similar theories" section is also all OR. Some editor decided they were similar, not citable sources. Basically, there is a book proposing a theory, a few critics, and nobody really following in Jaynes' footsteps, so there is no reason for the "bicameral mentality" article, which isn't even the common-name term for the theory, which would be "bicameral mind". Skyerise (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. that August 2023 edit has a clear edit summary noting that I moved the material here from Bicameral mentality, since it was specifically about the book's content and wasn't present here, in the article about the book. I didn't write it: I moved it here and then summarized it there. Skyerise (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are those unspecified, unreferenced critics who refer to the Gilgamesh-epos? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew. Then we could include it. Skyerise (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the article got protected, but OR is still here? Let's remove it until the source that mentiones Jaynes, Gilgamesh and the Bible is found. Artem.G (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re Content migration 8/23 and OR

[edit]
@Skyerise: When you consolidated the ‘Bicameral mentality’ article into ‘the Book’ (18-25 Aug/ 23), what was gained? Neither content nor references were added or improved, and you left behind a “summary” of a shoddy summary which has always made "bicamerality" look like "The Origin of Consciousness"!!! That article has long needed to be replaced, not merged with 'the Book'. You also deleted from ‘the Book’ mention of Jaynes’s other hypotheses. Since then, ‘the Book’ seems to be about bicamerality and nothing else, a falsity you seem to agree with. The little that Wiki had about everything Jaynes actually wrote is being distorted or erased! IMO, more content and accuracy, rather than summary, is needed in Wiki about Jaynes’s many ideas (especially metaphor and consciousness), and in the long run, one 'Book summary' article will not do. A major confusion already exists here between the totally positive ‘Reception and success of the Book’ versus ‘Discussion, criticism and controversy over his various theories’. As for ‘Bicamerality in popular culture’ and 'similar theory' claims, they certainly do not belong to ‘the Book’.
In place of the basics about Jaynes’s other ideas that you deleted from ‘the Book' article, you’ve added jargon and phrases, without references, as if to explain Jaynes. One example (18 Aug/ 23) is what you rewrote about consciousness having “its evolution in ancient history”. Your jargon makes me wonder if you’ve read Jaynes, since evolution is a slow, biological process while Jaynesian consciousness is a product of language (it's 'nature'): yes, it first happened about 3000 years ago , but it's 'origin' was an "invention"(pg. 66) not an ‘evolutionary transformation’ from an “earlier form of consciousness”. On the other hand, bicamerality might have a genetic, hence evolutionary, basis.(pg. 311)
Both articles, ‘Bicameral mentality’ and ‘the Book’, are currently very sloppy about the difference between Jaynes’s facts and his claims and interpretations. Ancient artifacts (e.g. Iliad and Gilgamesh texts) are factual evidence, while different theories that imply different interpretations can be compared. But comparison is not criticism: @Snarcky1996: is not guilty of OR but of an invalid inference: ‘conventionally interpreting’ Gilgamesh is not a criticism of bicamerality. The editorial challenge here, rather than deleting the material, is to contextualize it in comparison with Jaynes’s own commentary on Gilgamesh (pgs. 247-253). Of course, none of Jaynes's ideas can be fairly compared or criticised without being first stated – correctly! If Snarcky's sources do not explicitly mention Jaynes, it's his/her job to explicate the comparison fairly. However, such a specific comparison belongs only in an improved (or replaced) 'Bicameral mind' article structured to allow it! B.Sirota (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be a single purpose editor here to promote Jaynes, including using Jaynes in other articles. This is not good. We can't just cherry pick Jaynes, we need to use secondary independent sources. I wouldn't expect you to understand our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made my case above at length, critically but I hope not rudely. I’m not looking for a fight. Your concise response, without discussion about my topics of interest, jumped from my ‘comments’ to an unfounded conclusion that my ‘editing’ has an inappropriate purpose. And your final comment drips with condescension that doesn’t fit your helpful reputation.
What don’t I understand? In my comment, I did not “cherry-pick”, I loosely discussed only one example. My ‘purpose’ vis-à-vis Jaynes-related articles is that they fairly and correctly present what he actually wrote. His own publications (there is more than just his book) are Primary Sources for their explicit content, and should be directly referenced with relevant quotations. Secondary sources are necessary to establish notability and to avoid O.R. with regard to analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, interpretation, criticism, etc. However, secondary sources are NOT necessarily good sources to establish ‘what a primary source says’; in fact, when they describe or restate primary source contents they sometimes introduce error or bias.
I focus on Jaynes for various reasons. My criticism is extremely general, however: no topic should be a victim of ‘secondary source distortion’ or dubious paraphrases of primary content, and Wiki-editors who want to improve existing Wiki-articles should not just restructure, rephrase or re-summarize the primary content without actually referencing the primary source. B.Sirota (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of more clarity I have proposed that Bicameral mentality be moved to Bicameralism (psychology), here. Skyerise (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 4 February 2024

[edit]

Please include under “see also” a link to The Master and His Emissary (2009) by Iain Mcgilchrist (it has a page already) 84.68.100.253 (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

metaphor links to wrong article

[edit]

In the section "Jaynes's theories", there is a passage in the article here "from language, and specifically from metaphor" [5].

The citation and meaning are correct, though the link behind the word "metaphor" hyperlinks to the Wikipedia article for "Metaphor" the Figure of Speech. I suggest that it should link instead of the Wikipedia article for "Conceptual Metaphor" as this is the mechanism of thought which Jaynes refers to.

I am, however, only a beginner in the art of Wikipedia, so I would like the more experienced folks to consider or undertake this, please. Ross Bennett (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crbennett: Yes, it seems you are right and I've made the requested edit. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very kindly! Ross Bennett (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FRINGE, MERGE

[edit]
FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Julian Jaynes#It needs to be made clearer that his overall hypothesis is WP:FRINGE.
Please see also: Talk:Julian Jaynes#Move to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?

Summary: Aspects of his hypothesis having "inspired" some later research doesn't equate to his work being proven correct, and cognitive science and related displines descreasingly support it, most especially his central notion that consciousness only arose a few millennia ago. Furthermore, it was proposed at that article to move it and reshape it into an article on the book, since the person is not notable for anything other than one book. Instead, someone has WP:CFORKed it, and this is not good. The bio mostly just repeats claims from the book article, and both are faulty articles, so we have double the maintenance burden.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It's worse than I suspected, with a third fork at bicameral mentality, which has similar problems to some extent, but is more inclusive of the criticism and including enough of it (from a certain era) to lean already in the FRINGE direction. However, it is missing most of the more recent conclusions of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and related fields.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He claimed that English is descended from Sanskrit

[edit]

Direct quote: "Even such an unmetaphorical-sounding word as the verb 'to be' was generated from a metaphor. It comes from the Sanskrit bhu, “to grow, or make grow,” while the English forms ‘am’ and ‘is’ have evolved from the same root as the Sanskrit asmiy “to breathe.”" ("Origin of consciousness", p. 51)

This man claims to be a researcher of ancient cultures and languages. I don't think there are many high-schoolers who think that English is descended from Sanskrit. P.S. Those Sanskrit words don't even mean what he says they mean, according to wiktionary they mean "to be" and "am". 212.3.196.172 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are both descendants of Proto-Indo-European. And there are sometimes shared cognates. I don't think you know as much as you think you do. How should this information be used to improve the article? Do you have a third-party source that criticizes Jaynes for this? Otherwise it is simply your own personal observation which cannot be added to the article. See our policies on original research and synthesis. And basing observations on Wiktionary rather than a proper etymological dictionary is inadequate. Wiktionary, like all other user-contributed content including Wikipedia itself, is not considered to be a reliable source here. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the English verb "to be" is a cognate of the Sanskrit word. But Jaynes says that it "comes" from the Sanskrit word. That is absolutely insane. English is descended from Proto-Germanic which is directly descended from Proto-Indo-European. Sanskrit was not involved in any way. Unless you believe that the English conquered India in the 18th century and then borrowed from them the English word "to be".
You could say, oh he misspoke, he meant "it's a cognate", not that "it comes from". But also on the same page he claims "The very concept of law in Greek derives from nomos, the word for the foundations of a building." The Greek word nomos (meaning "law") comes from "nemo" (verb "to distribute"). I happen to know Ancient Greek and have a bunch of dictionaries, even the classic 19th century Liddel-Scott dictionary notes that nomos is derived from nemo, while the actual etymological dictionaries (Frisk, Chantraine, Beekes) don't even list "nomos" separately and list it under "nemo", since to every student of Greek the relation is totally obvious. And none of these dictionaries mention any kind of meaning like "the foundations of a building". In fact "nemo" is mostly connected with lots of different words about pastures and grazing which is as far away from construction as possible.
And regarding the two Sanskrit words - I don't know Sanskrit at all (neither did Jaynes), but I don't see why wiktionary articles on these words aren't sufficient evidence. You can also simply type "bhu Sanskrit" in Google, and you can see that the word is apparently simply the Sanskrit word for "to be", not "grow" as Jaynes claims. 80.89.78.188 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also the wiktionary articles on the Sanskrit words have references to dictionaries in the end. 80.89.78.188 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This web page isn't for discussing the book, but rather for discussing how to improve the article about the book. I see nothing in your post that is about improving the article based on sources. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Do you have a proposed change to the article based on sources? Otherwise, please desist in using this talk page as if it were a forum for such discussions. As I pointed out above, all criticism of the book must be sourced to a writer who directly levies that criticism: the observations of random Internet IPs, however erudite they are or think they are, have no place in an encyclopedia article. Skyerise (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if someone happens to look at this talk page they might get an idea of what a fraud this author is. This was literally the first page of the book where he went out of the area of his actual expertise and started talking about languages and history, and right away there's four ridiculous errors in that single page, including an extremely blatant one of claiming that English verbs have descended from Sanskrit. I can only imagine the amount of shoddy research that was put in for the rest of the book (which I personally have no ability to verify, since I don't know anything about Babylonian literature or Mycenean architecture or whatever - I do know something about Indo-European comparative linguistics so I can see this guy is full of s-t). 212.3.198.98 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But just out of interest - if I would submit correctly formatted quotations from Beekes' etymological dictionary of Greek (considered standard reference right now) showing that "nomos" has nothing to do with "foundations of a building", and a quotation from an English etymology dictionary showing that "to be" is not descended from Sanskrit and "is" is not related to any word meaning "to blow", could this be put in the article? Or would you just say, "oh that's just a single page of the book, it's not relevant"? 212.3.198.98 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could put in a section called "Dubious claims" and phrase it without making categorical claims myself, for example: "Numerous claims in the book are contradicted by generally accepted reference works. In the section "Mind of man", the author claims that the English verb "to be" comes from the Sanskrit word "bhu" which according to Jaynes means "to grow, or make grow". The generally accepted view is that "to be" comes from the Proto-Germanic *biju- "I am, I will be" [quotation from etymonline.com], while the definition of the Sanskrit verb "bhu" (भू) is "to be" [quotation from a Sanskrit dictionary]." 212.3.198.98 (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you couldn't, unless you can provide a source that explicitly levies the criticism against Jaynes' book. See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." It's your own opinion, not a citable one, and doesn't belong in the article. I've provided that link once already, but clearly you didn't read it. Skyerise (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind&oldid=1242179500"