The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

This book came out in 1976. We studied it at BYU in my Honors' Program Psychology class in 1978. BYU is Mormon-run. Every Honors' Program Science Professor used evolution for their own field, but would not acknowledge, at least publicly, that any other Science field's use of evolution was necessary for them. It was their way of cognitive-dissonantly maintaining the scientific integrity in their field, but not needing to give up Mormonism due to Science. I was taught evolution by Honors' Program professors of: Biology, Geology, Physics, Genetics, etc. They had been allowed to tell only the Honors' Program students about the usefulness of evolution in explaining so much of Science. I was overwhelmed. But each one also held out the following as their final reason to cling to the god concept: Evolution takes a long time. There is not enough time in the history of humans for a brain structure that does not have consciousness to suddenly have consciousness, because a new structure would be required for that property to emerge. So there had to be a god to endow consciousness into the already existing brain structure. But in this Pseudo-Science class (Psychology), the Honors' Program Professor got permission from the university to use his classes to try to debunk this brand-new book. Jaynes had set out to unify disparate areas of Psychology like: Schizophrenia, hallucinations, ability to be hypnotized, dreams, hearing voices, left-brain right-brain differences, epileptic seizures and why severing the corpus callosum often created two distinct personalities, mental disorders, consciousness, etc. What he ended up doing, however, is explaining why religions and the god delusion occur throughout the world. And he did it while explaining how more robust consciousness arises naturally in the structure of the brain as it had been configured for thousands of years, without a change in its structure. And he explained how it occurred very rapidly. Sort of accidentally, or incidentally, he explained why this destructive behavior of religious belief would arise. Dawkins and others struggle mightily with this. Why did such a horrid thing, that is mostly destructive to human progress, take hold? Jaynes explains why it took hold. And he does so brilliantly. In fact, Dawkins said the following, in The God Delusion, about Jaynes' book: “It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between …” The goal of my Psychology professor was to debunk Jaynes. The implications were clear: If Jaynes was right, then the last pillar of why there had to be a god falls by the wayside. Instead of needing a god to endow consciousness upon an already existing human brain structure, a belief in god and the creation of religions is an unfortunate side-effect of evolving consciousness. Scientists and researchers like Dawkins are terribly afraid of Jaynes. Why? Because it means that all their research and all their negativity about how bad religion is in the evolutionary process are for naught. This lowly Pseudo-Scientist Psychologist figured it out. So what does Dawkins do? The statement above acknowledges that he could not debunk Jaynes. In the end, our class also could not debunk Jaynes. We became atheists on the spot. I'm still amazed at why Jaynes' book, which explains these things we atheists struggle with, why religions came about, is not a number one seller among atheists. Jaynes was attacked by fellow Psychologists because most of them, at the time, were deeply religious, and used religion to “help” patients. Jaynes told them they were wrong to believe in a god or in religion. He was attacked by Scientists because they were embarrassed that this “mere” Psychologist had figured it out where they could not. Read the quote by Dawkins until you also see that Jaynes scared him as well. If he, and all other prominent atheists, would simply get on board with Jaynes, the issue would be resolved and we could go on t

I read this book about 20 years ago and consider it the most influential book I have ever read. I found it very challenging to get through. For example, I remember spending an entire commute (about an hour) considering the thoughts presented on one page. I initially rejected Jaynes' contention on that page. It took me an hour of consideration to conclude that he was entirely correct. Considering the amount of thought required though, this book is really a page turner of a sort. Jaynes' main thesis, that consciousness evolved due to changes in civilization that caused the brain to evolve, around 2 thousand years ago, is fascinating, and, in my opinion, well supported by the evidence he presents. However, I have not concluded that it is entirely true. Nevertheless, this book is a must read for intelligent, curious people regardless of whether his theory is eventually proven true. Specifically, I have received the following benefits from reading this book: I understand why some activities are much easier to learn by visual observation and why oral instruction is often detrimental in learning to perform physical activities. This helped me teach my children how to ride their bicycles. I understand the significance of Christ in western culture, and why our calendar is divided into pre and post christ eras. I understand my feelings concerning the loss of my parents. Less specifically, I understand many things about people. I owe Jaynes credit for teaching me these things.

It's hard to describe exactly what this book did to me. Suffice it to say that my views on history, religion, language and consciousness seem to be permanently altered, and my reading and thinking have broadened as a result. Jaynes defines conscousness too narrowly for some philosophers and psychologists, who seem to want it to include all of perception, but for me, his focus on interior dialogue, conceptual space, the notion of self, the ability to narratize and project this self into theoretical situations, is right on target. These are the kinds of things that create our notions of ourselves as human. Considerable space is devoted to anatomy, and split-brain studies, but the bulk of the book relies on archaeology, ancient art, ancient texts, and their use of language. This is the thrust of Jaynes' argument: consciousness arose only relatively late in human development, appearing first in the Middle East at the end of the second millenium BCE., and this consciousness was dependent on language. He theorizes that the right hemisphere of the brain was specialized to recall longterm information, as the left was (and still is, in most people) specialized for language. Pre-conscious people, he contends, hallucinated instructions of a super-ego-like nature generated in the right brain. In the simplest, small scale, early societies, these hallucinations were attributed to ancestors, chiefs, or kings. Eventually they were attributed to gods. As societies became increasingly complex, personal hallucination as a guiding force in life declined in value, and modern consciousness was born. To make his case, Gilgamesh, the Iliad, the Odyssey, Hesiod, and the Bible are examined, ancient carvings and burial practices are considered, and the evolution of religious practices involving idols, sacrifices, prophecy, omens and divination are all looked at. They give support to Jaynes' contentions and open the mind of the reader. This is a book that keeps on giving.