User:B.Sirota/sandbox/Ver4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
VERS.10 7Feb. The bicameral mind or bicamerality, as conceived in the Bicameral Hypothesis proposed by research psychologist Julian Jaynes, was the "preconscious"[1]: 397 social and mental system of the world's first civilizations and religions.[Note 1] It was, as a product of evolution, a "primitive"[1]: 432 functioning of the human brain and ancient humanity's "method of behavioral control"[1]: 134 with a "mentality based on verbal hallucinations".[2]: 452 It is called bicameral (i.e. "two-chambered")[lower-alpha 1] because the hallucinations, as hypothesized, were generated by the right cerebral hemisphere and 'heard' by the left as if spoken, providing a mental system in two parts — an executive authority and a human follower — without consciousness;[lower-alpha 2] and in certain contexts the "executive part [was] called a god".[1]: 84 [4]: 8 In other words, 'bicameral humans', like people today, had sensations, could communicate, and usually acted habitually, but unlike today, they had no 'mind' or 'inner self' and could not reflect on their own actions and experiences; instead, an ancient human would regularly hear and automatically obey an hallucinated 'voice', or 'voices', which commanded action. The 'voices' expressed the right hemisphere's accumulated "admonitory experience": 106 which was activated simply by stress: 94 or by hallucinogenic sounds, sights and ritual aids.: 168–175, 243, 300–307 In all early civilizations everyone heard such 'voices' which were recognized as the authoritative "voices of chiefs, rulers or the gods[.]"[5]: 1
This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Jaynes (1920-1997) proposed the bicameral hypothesis in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind which came out in January, 1977[lower-alpha 3] and presents a wide range of supportive evidence found largely, according to Jaynes, "in the literature and [archaeological] artifacts of antiquity."[7]: 456 Bicamerality is understandable only in the context of the book's overall psycho-historical[lower-alpha 4] theory which involves two additional hypotheses: the first explains that consciousness is a strictly human ability that is "learned and not innate[;]"[8]: 6 [9] the second, that consciousness was first learned "as recently as 3,000 years ago."[8]: 1 [lower-alpha 5] On this account, consciousness was a "new mentality": 257 that became possible "only after the breakdown" of bicameral mentality,[7]: 453 [11][12] and since the middle of the 1st millenium BCE, consciousness has flourished and interacted with "the rest of cognition"[7]: 456 [lower-alpha 6] to expand human abilities and reshape human culture. Meanwhile, the preconscious mentality has left a cultural legacy, especially in religious traditions.
All the hypotheses together potentially explain many "otherwise mysterious facts", of ancient history[13]: 273 and of the modern world[14] that might be based on functions of the right cerebral hemisphere. Many such phenomena, as possible "vestiges" of bicamerality,[15] have varying degrees of "diminished consciousness": 324 (e.g. possession,[16] hypnosis[17]) while the hallucinations of severe schizophrenia[18] might be a "partial relapse": 405 to bicamerality, with a possible genetic basis.[2]: 452-453
The bicameral hypothesis has been influential,[19]: 35 having "inspired much of the modern research into hallucinations in the normal population [since] the early 1980s[.]"[14] The phenomenon of voice-hearing nevertheless remains poorly understood both neurologically[20] and historically.[19][21] It is reported in most, and possibly all, cultures,[1]: 413 [22] often with a religious or spiritual significance, and is not necessarily a sign of mental illness,[19][23][24] which motivates individuals, and groups such as the Hearing Voices Movement, to seek significance in the experience.[14]
Jaynes’s hypotheses are highly controversial: his method involved "bold" speculations[25]: 150 and his use of ancient texts as evidence cannot be scientifically conclusive;[26]: 164 moreover, the bicameral hypothesis is largely unproveable[19]: 35 while it challenges commonplace assumptions and deeply-held convictions about human nature, mental health,[27]: 126–131 and religion.[13] Among early critics of Jaynes’s proposals, "everyone could find a topic or conjecture that they disagreed with"[28] or they found the theory "ingenious [and] remarkable", yet also "exasperating [in its] incompleteness".[26]: 163 Among detractors, one early objection was that Jaynes's position is patently "absurd",[29][30]: 304 another was that his theory is attractive only to people with certain biases.[31] Supporters — who acknowledge that "Jaynes’s work is generally dismissed"[30]: 304 or is mostly "ignored"[32]: 2 by experts in one or another discipline — contend, nevertheless, that Jaynes’s theorizing "continues to be ahead of much of the current thinking in consciousness studies"[14][33][lower-alpha 7] and that "the vast majority of critiques of the theory are based on misconceptions about what Jaynes actually said[.]"[35]