The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

What an exhilarating experience. This extraordinary book is improbable in a number of ways: * improbable that a book with such a leaden (but totally descriptive!) title would ever have appealed to the mass market; * improbable that such a "heavy" subject could be delivered in such light, graceful and playful prose; * improbable that, seeing as it asserts a novel and revolutionary scientific hypothesis, this book was distributed and published outside the usual academic channels; * improbable that a single individual, apparently working more or less alone, authored such an imaginative, dazzling and, to be frank, brilliant, multi-discipline synthesis (I counted anthropology, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and classics among the unrelated disciplines Jaynes writes insightfully on); and * improbable that, without the imprimatur of serious academic support (as I understand it Jaynes never had tenure, though he was friends with W. V. O. Quine, which doubtless stands for something), this book was even taken seriously, let alone proved as resistant to serious academic challenge (philosopher Ned Block had a half-hearted go, and there was a well publicised review by Daniel Dennett ("Julian Jaynes' Software Archaeology" - available online) but its critique was of emphasis rather than substance, and was otherwise largely complimentary. Other than that, Richard Dawkins (whose non-zoological opinions I have little time for) has spent a lazy couple of sides outlining the theory, only to feebly remark that the book "is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius ..." and while he suspects the former, can't muster the intellectual energy to decide so is "hedging his bets"). But there's one way it isn't improbable, and that's the most remarkable of all: its credibility. The thesis at first blush seems outlandish, yet in Jaynes capable hands it explains deftly and plausibly a number of cultural artefacts of antiquity, including religion itself, that traditional anthropology has been quite unable to sensibly account for, such as that our religious forebears, on their own account spoke with burning bushes, followed fiery pillars, buried their dead with food, gold and even wives, worshipped idols and thought they had daily interaction with gods. Traditional views tend to shrug shoulders and mark these phenomena down as "just some of the crazy stuff they used to do in the olden days" (exhibit a, by none other than Dick Dawkins: "all religious people are deluded") or worse, contrived some far less plausible explanations for them. Jaynes takes these behavioural artefacts seriously, which seems only fair seeing as the ancients obviously did (not for the hell of it do you build 500 foot pyramids) and proposes a theory for why. Not just that they were (and are) deluded, but that their cognitive architecture was arranged that they heard voices, more or less exactly as schizophrenics do today. Not as a disease of the mind, but as an evolutionary strategy. On the stronger form of Jaynes' bicameral theory, human beings *were not conscious* before about 500A.D. That is, to say the least, controversial. Jaynes states it upfront, at which point it seems nothing short of outrageous, then patiently, elegantly and compellingly sets out his case. His exegesis is always a pleasure to read, and truly enlightening at times (his discussion of the difference between "consciousness" and "perception" is fascinating - essentially it makes the point that a lot less of our cognitive experience is conscious than we generally apprehend (when Bertrand Russell exemplified consciousness in the the proposition "I see a table" Jaynes suggests "Russell was not conscious of a table, but of the argument he was writing about" - namely that he saw a table.) Jaynes routes consciousness, in the more prescriptive sense he uses it, in the origin of language, and in particular the metaphor. Again, a controversial view, but by no means inconsistent with the sort of outlook you might find in Wittgenstein, for example. So is Jaynes right? In my view the wrong question to ask, of Jaynes, or any theory. A better question is whether it is helpful in describing our world, and I certainly think it is (you can never have too many tools in the toolbox). Jaynes' particular elucidation of the bicameral mind may or may not be right, but dispositionally questions he ask seem to be ones in need of an answer, and the anthropological evidence for a need for clear direction and certainty in an uncertain world which was provided through a actual dialogue with apprehended gods (rather than the weak and decidedly figurative religious experiences humans tend to experience these days) seems well answered by the hallucinatory model, and the explanation of consciousness's origin in the failure of the hallucinatory model to deal with the encroaching size and complexity of civilisation in the millennium before Christ seems oddly plausible. Consciousness, then, emerged like one of Steve Gould's spandrels from an existing cognitive architecture which had developed contemplating something quite different. I dare say Dickie Dawkins wouldn't like that idea too much, either. And for the essentialists, it gets worse: hard core reductionists will shudder at the thought wherein Jaynes turns his attention to vestiges of the bicameral world in the modern day. Religion, you'll not be surprised to hear, is proposed as just such a vestige - the striving of mankind for certainty in the absence of compelling voices instructing how to act - but so is science. Jaynes is typically eloquent as he closes his book: "For what is the nature of this blessing of certainty that science so devoutly demands in its very Jacob-like wrestling with nature? Why should we demand that the universe make itself clear to us? Why should we care? "... Science, then, for all its pomp and factness, is not unlike some of the more easily disparaged outbreaks of pseudoreligions. In this period of transition from its religious basis, science often shares with the celestial maps of astrology, or a hundred other irrationalisms, the same nostalgia for the Final Answer, the One Truth, the Single Cause." As are almost all the verbal constructions in this 450 page tome, that is beautifully put. Olly Buxton

The title of my review is a quote from author and NPR radio host Don Wooten, and I think he is correct. The psychologist and author James E. Morriss wrote that Jaynes's theory "… could alter our view of consciousness, revise our conception of the history of mankind, and lay bare the human dilemma in all its existential wonder." Jaynes was far ahead of his time, and his theory remains as relevant and influential today as when it was first published. Many consider Jaynes's book to be one of the most important of the twentieth century. Since the publisher has only included one editorial review, I will add additional reviews below. But first, a word about some of the negative or critical reviews of Jaynes's book. I encourage you to view these with skepticism, as most reflect a very poor understanding of Jaynes's theory, and can easily be dismissed. Jaynes's book is not difficult to understand, but nonetheless many seem to only skim the book or for other reasons fail to grasp his ideas. The most common pitfall in understanding Jaynes's theory is misunderstanding how Jaynes defines consciousness. Jaynes defines consciousness in a very precise way (and he explains why this is so important), and confusing his definition for more broad, vague definitions of consciousness will lead to failure to understand the theory as a whole. The internet, social media, and other factors have ushered in somewhat of an epidemic of lack of humility, where many seem to feel they are qualified to weigh in on nearly everything, regardless of their background or experience with the subject matter. They are quick to offer their opinion on nearly anything, regardless of whether or not they actually know what they are talking about. Amazon also encourages this, by soliciting customer reviews. In the case of the purchase of a garden hose, a set of shelves, other household basics, and many other everyday products, this often makes sense. But for books such as Julian Jaynes's, the average person's opinion may not be all that useful, if not counterproductive. In 2016, Julian Jaynes's theory was discussed in HBO's hit series "Westworld," potentially exposing nearly a million new people to the theory. While it is wonderful that so many new people were turned on to Jaynes's fascinating ideas, it's safe to say that many of these new readers (along with many others) have little if any background with the subject matter. Just as you wouldn't trust your accountant to repair your plumbing, or your eye doctor to handle your legal affairs, so too you should be highly skeptical of the ability of Amazon reviewers with no background in the subject matter to have a sufficient enough understanding of Jaynes's theory after perhaps skimming it once to properly evaluate and review it. Jaynes's theory provides a fascinating reexamination of the psychology of our ancient past and also has far-reaching modern-day implications. Read it for yourself, and make up your own mind. Regardless of whether or not they agree with Jaynes on every point, many feel that Jaynes's book is one of the best books they have ever read -- including people like David Bowie, who included it on his list of favorite books. Since the publication of Jaynes's book, Jaynes's neurological model for the bicameral mind has been confirmed by modern brain imaging studies, his theory inspired the modern interest in hearing voices among normal people (and helped inspire the founding of the worldwide "Hearing Voices Network"), children's imaginary companions have been found to often involve actual hallucinations, his theory helped re-ignite scholarly interest in the role of language in consciousness, vestiges of the bicameral mind have been documented in many pre-literate societies, the transition from bicamerality to consciousness has been documented in other cultures (such as China and Tibet), and much more. ** For more information on Julian Jaynes's theory, including new evidence that supports the theory that's been discovered since it was first published, please visit the Julian Jaynes Society at julianjaynes.org. Also be sure to take a look at our follow up books on Julian Jaynes's theory: "Conversations on Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind," "Gods, Voices, and the Bicameral Mind," "The Julian Jaynes Collection," "Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness," and "The Minds of the Bible." ** The following is a small sampling of comments by reviewers whose background and expertise puts them in a better position to offer an informed opinion on Jaynes's theory: “[Jaynes’s] basic hypothesis is probably right.” And “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is one of those ... books … that readers, on finishing it, find that they think about the world quite differently.” — T.M. Luhrmann, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Stanford University “[Jaynes] has one of the clearest and most perspicuous defenses of the top-down approach [to consciousness] that I have ever come across.” .... "Something like what he proposes has to be right." — Daniel Dennett, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University “The weight of original thought in it is so great that it makes me uneasy for the author’s well-being: the human mind is not built to support such a burden.” — David C. Stove, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, University of Sydney “Julian Jaynes’s theories for the nature of self-awareness, introspection, and consciousness have replaced the assumption of their almost ethereal uniqueness with explanations that could initiate the next change in paradigm for human thought.” — Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience, Laurentian University “Neuroimaging techniques of today have illuminated and confirmed the importance of Jaynes’ hypothesis.” — Robert Olin, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus in Preventive Medicine, Karolinska Institute “The bold hypothesis of the bicameral mind is an intellectual shock to the reader, but whether or not he ultimately accepts it he is forced to entertain it as a possibility. Even if he marshals arguments against it he has to think about matters he has never thought of before, or, if he has thought of them, he must think about them in contexts and relationships that are strikingly new.” — Ernest R. Hilgard, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Stanford University “Daring and brilliant … well worth reading by any person interested in theories of human learning and behavior, in theory development, and in seeing a scholarly, fertile and original thinker at work.” — Martin Levit, Ph.D., Professor of Education “Some of Jaynes’ original ideas may be the most important of our generation . . . And I feel weak as I try to convey some slight impression of Jaynes’ fantastic vision in this short review. Not since Freud and Jung has anyone had the daring and background to pull together such a far reaching theory.” — Ernest Rossi, Ph.D., Professor of Neuroscience “This book and this man’s ideas may be the most influential, not to say controversial, of the second half of the twentieth century. I cannot recommend the book emphatically enough. I have never reviewed a book for which I had more enthusiasm. . . . It renders whole shelves of books obsolete.” — William Harrington, in The Columbus Dispatch “… Scientific interest in [Jaynes’s] work has been re-awakened by the consistent findings of right-sided activation patterns in the brain, as retrieved with the aid of neuroimaging studies in individuals with verbal auditory hallucinations.” — Jan Dirk Blom, M.D, Ph.D. “… [O]ne of the most thought-provoking and debated theories about the origin of the conscious mind.” — Andrea Cavanna, M.D. “… I sympathize with Julian Jaynes’s claim that something of great import may have happened to the human mind during the relatively brief interval of time between the events narrated in the Iliad and those that make up the Odyssey.” — Antonio Damasio, Ph.D., Professor of Neuroscience, Psychology and Neurology, University of Southern California “[Jaynes’s] description of this new consciousness is one of the best I have come across.” − Morris Berman, Ph.D. “He is as startling as Freud was in The Interpretation of Dreams, and Jaynes is equally adept at forcing a new view of known human behavior.” — Raymond Headlee, M.D. in American Journal of Psychiatry “Julian Jaynes is a scholar in the broad original sense of that term. A man of huge creative vitality, Julian Jaynes is my academic man for all seasons.” — Hubert Dolezal, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology “Having just finished The Origin of Consciousness, I myself feel something like Keats’ Cortez staring at the Pacific, or at least like the early reviewers of Darwin or Freud. I’m not quite sure what to make of this new territory; but its expanse lies before me and I am startled by its power.” — Edward Profitt, in Commonweal “… [Jaynes’s] proposal is too interesting to ignore.” — David Eagleman, Ph.D., neuroscientist, Baylor College of Medicine, in Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain “… Read the book and make up your own mind. I can guarantee that you will be enormously interested if not entirely persuaded, as I am myself.” — Charles Van Doren “… [The] more I thought about Jaynes’s thesis, the more reasonable it sounded, and the more I read in anthropology, in history, and above all, in poetry, the more evidence I found to support the idea that hallucinated voices still give socially useful commands.” — Judith Weissman, Ph.D., author and Professor of English, Syracuse University “One’s first inclination is to reject all of it out of hand as science fiction, imaginative speculation with no hard evidence; but, curiously, if one is patient and hears out the story (Jaynes’s style is irresistible) the arguments are not only entertaining but persuasive.” — George Adelman, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, MIT, in Library Journal “The most significant book of our time . . .” — D. N. Campbell, in Kappan Magazine “It seems likely that the concept of the ‘bicameral mind’ advanced by Julian Jaynes will prove to be an insight of considerable significance.” — T. Buchan, M.D., Department of Psychiatry, University of Zimbabwe, in Zambezia “A wonderfully intriguing and evocative book…” — J. Harold Ellens, Ph.D., in Understanding Relgious Experience

This book contains more than just another view on history. It's definately altered my world historical view. If the thesis is accurate, then it changes scores of current teachings, trashing many erroneous religious and cultural beliefs. I found Jaynes hypothesis very convincing, but have serious reservations. The last time I read a book of this sort, which I recommend reading, is Mircea Eliade's, The Myth of The Eternal Return, Cosmos and History. These two books together are amazing pieces of the historical puzzle in the development of human existence. Eliade's, Sacred and Profane is yet another. Jayne explains this phenomenon briefly describing the human brain's layout, in it's right organizational skills and it's left motor skills (varying in individuals) and in various scans and tests on patients in hallucinatory states, in Schizophrenics and in Tourette's syndrome brain functions and then uses his theory on history with what I found as a credible analogy, detailed and extensive to back up this view. This answers the long sought questions of why the Iliad so differs from the Odyssey, why the Old Testament differs in its older writings from its newer and from the New Testament. Why civilizations had the religious foundations, rites and political structures as they did. The answer Jayne produces is the two chambered or bicameral mind of our evolutionary human ancestors, where the right hemisphere lobe produced hallucinatory visual and auditory images and voices, in the human mind that lacked a self-conscious as we know it. In this he or she strictly obeyed their inner voice or multiple voices. You can see this in various accounts of the ancient bicameral minds of ancient Egypt, Assyria and the later self-conscious mind accounts of Assyria and Babylon and so forth. In this, various statues-idols, dead bodies of kings, family members and so forth were used as living images to the inner voices that were so clearly heard. And such inner voices could have been the temporary right hemisphere similiar to the ancient bicameral mind in the more recent historical visions in Faust's vision of Mestophecles, Dante's vision of Virgil, in the writings of Milton and William Blake. For instance, the ancient Hebrew prophet Amos followed his bicameral inner voice, while the book of Ecclesiastes was clearly the work of the self-conscious "I" in human self-reflections. The scores of references Jayne's supplies are more than slight. To possibly understand the "ka" of ancient Egypt is for me truly priceless in defining their world view. To perhaps understand the visions of Moses, the invention of the soul, the reasons for divination and games of chance, the bicameral voices of Samuel in the Old Testament, the use of personal terrapins and idols; these all are consistent with Jayne's bicameral thesis and seriously profound in viewing world history. To see the comparisons of the bicameral mind to the gradual shift of the self-conscious "I" is great thinking theory. The longing for such voices in various cultures can be seen over and over again. The god's truly ceased speaking, their internal voices silenced, and were frantically attempted to revive by kings and priests creating laws and written codes to supplement this crucial loss in human evolutionary existence. The Hebrew prophets for instance, may have retained the bicameral mind, hearing what they perceived as the voice of God. While such prophets existed in small groups, their genocide was the natural selection of the stronger, which resulted in destroying their genetic pools to reproduce in favor of the self-conscious humans, which perhaps would have been the result anyway It's also very intriguing of the idea of so-called religious and spirit possessions being that of another sort of bicameral function in the occurrence of right brain function overtaking the left conscious completely in awareness, facial contortions and motor skills, primarily in language. Not only that, but it answers the questions to the possessions of the Oracle in Delphi's trancelike state of the priestess, the Sibyls who retained respect as valid in ancient circles including the early Christian church. I'm utterly amazed at the very idea of valid Sibyls, outside of the many fantasy stories of the magical past. What is not specifically mentioned in this book, but raised in this whole thesis, is the question of psychedelics. Are psychedelics perhaps a doorway to another dimension of life, life after death, or simply the bicameral mind? And, were the early mystical religious writings influenced from psychedelics or simply the bicameral mind? Or both? Perhaps like music, it builds up excitation on the right hemisphere of the brain, spreading to areas adjacent serving divine auditory hallucinations. I also raise another outside question, that of what the Bon and Tibetan Buddhists call the thoughtless state of "Rigpa," or the natural state of mind and the hallucinations of the bardo of dharmata, displayed in colors, sounds and lights, and thought realms in the bardo of the becoming, the Nirmanakay. Could these states of consciousness also be some type of function of the bicameral mind? However, what strikes me as erroneous is the idea that animals and those without language do have conceptual minds more advanced than mere perception and in this, they do not appear to have bicameral hallucinatory voices that they "must" obey. But even more so, after reading a book on the Egyptians I do not support the bicameral mind theory on their worship of the dead and find fault overall with this hypothesis. So as another reviewer asked, can we reduce history to this possibility of bicameral mind function in the gradual breakdown from stress to the self-conscious "I," or should we view history as God's voice and actions truly involved with human affairs?

This is one of those books that I've heard about for years and whose ideas seem to be floating around in the general meme-space of society, but up until now I've never read the original book which sets out these ideas in full. Julian Jaynes was one of the most original thinkers of the 20th century and this book has been called one of the most influential books of the 20th century. I'm not sure I would go that far but Jaynes' theory of consciousness definitely upset the apple cart of psychology at the time. But unfortunately for Jaynes his theory did not really take over psychology during the last few decades the way he probably hoped it would. The reasons for this are probably many but among them must be the weaknesses in the central theses of the book themselves. I thought at the beginning that I would probably be 90 percent convinced of Jaynes' theory by the end of the book. Unfortunately that didn't happen. But before we delve into the details let's briefly review the structure of the book. Coming in at 469 pages including the Afterword the book requires a sizable investment of time to wade through. It is divided into three sections: 1.) The Mind of Man, 2.) The Witness of History, and 3.) Vestiges of the Bicameral Mind in the Modern World. But in the Afterword (written in 1990) Jaynes informs us that there are four independent theses in the book: 1.) consciousness is based on language, 2.) the bicameral mind, 3.) the dating, and 4.) the double brain. Jaynes would have been better served if he had structured the book around these four theses. So let me now critique the arguments in each of these theses and show why there are substantial reasons to reject each of them. Thesis #1: Consciousness is based on language. According to Jaynes consciousness is a metaphor of reality and he goes to great lengths to define what a metaphor is. This part of the argument I found confusing with its metaphiers, metaphrands, paraphiers, and paraphrands which appear to be terms that Jaynes invented for his own purposes. Suffice it to say that the implications of this thesis are staggering. It means that human beings had no consciousness before there was language and of course nonhuman animals don't have consciousness either. Since metaphor is a rather advanced stage of language it's not clear at what age Jaynes thinks human beings acquire consciousness. He doesn't really address this issue. The other implications of this thesis are that human beings with cognitive and/or language disabilities are also not conscious. As the father of a nonverbal autistic child I find this claim to be rather ludicrous. I suspect my son is as fully conscious as any other human being. It's just that he lacks the verbal ability to tell us about his introspections. So I completely reject thesis #1. Thesis #2: The Bicameral Mind Jaynes describes his bicameral mind as a type of nonconscious mentality in which the right hemisphere of the brain generates auditory (and sometimes visual) hallucinations that are received by the left hemisphere as voices. This is similar to how schizophrenia operates today only in the past such voices were interpreted to be those of the gods. What this has to do with consciousness is a bit perplexing since even schizophrenics are conscious of what the voices are saying and they can tell others exactly what is said and even the tone of the voices. Thus, it would appear that people hearing voices in their heads were conscious to some extent. Jaynes denies this which is one of the central tenets of his entire theory. In any case, Jaynes envisions entire societies where all of the people heard hallucinated voices which they interpreted as the voices of their gods. The content of these voices were mainly admonitions or commands which enabled the people to survive. All decisions were made by the gods and transmitted to human beings via the voices. Now, this does not sound like a very good basis for the construction of a society for several reasons. First of all, there are bound to be contradictions between the voices. My god tells me to do X and your god tells you to do Y which may be the opposite of X. Since both gods had to be obeyed (another tenet of the theory) we can easily see how conflict would be inherent in such a system. Jaynes tries to step around this issue by claiming that bicameral societies were rigid and hierarchical but I'm not sure it really solves the problem at all. If only the god of the king is to be obeyed first then that necessarily erodes the authority of my personal god who may be telling me different things. So the possibility of a truly bicameral society is a bit suspect. Jaynes' case would be made much better if he could point to any recently discovered primitive tribe that was bicameral. The highlanders of central New Guinea and the Yanomamo Indians of South America first came into contact with modern civilization in the 20th century. As far as we know none of these recently discovered societies were bicameral in the way that Jaynes is suggesting. That's a bit suspicious in and of itself. So thesis #2 is a bit weak. Thesis #3: The Dating By this Jaynes means his historical chronology of the Near East in which the bicameral mind began breaking down in c. 1000 BCE and consciousness arose in Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia in the 1st millennium BCE. In the book Jaynes says the cause of this breakdown was ultimately the eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera which he dates to 1470 BCE or possibly later. This caused massive social disruption and a huge refugee crisis which the bicameral societies of the time could not handle. They thus broke down resulting in the rise of modern consciousness. Modern tree-ring dating puts the Thera eruption back at 1628 BCE which is even earlier than Jaynes thought it was, but it probably doesn't change the argument substantially. Jaynes doesn't use the term Bronze Age collapse (which occurred in c. 1200 BCE) although he is clearly referring to it. According to his theory bicameral Mycenae, the bicameral Hittite Empire, etc. all collapsed internally due to the stress induced on the bicameral mind which was ultimately caused by a natural catastrophe. Modern scholarship would refute this by claiming that none of these collapses were internal. They were caused by the influx of conquerors from an unknown source collectively known as the Sea Peoples. There is thus no room for a bicameral collapse. Jaynes' claims about bicameral societies in the Americas are even more ludicrous. He claims that the Mayans and Incans (and presumably the Aztecs too) were bicameral. But since we have detailed chronicles of the Spanish conquest of both the Aztecs and Incas one would imagine that the Spanish conquistadors would have noticed such a difference in mental functioning in their conquered subjects. Both Moctezuma and Atahualpa were captured by the Spanish and kept in confinement for long periods of time. Never once do the Spanish report that their prisoners are being commanded by voices in their heads. What some might call Jaynes' strongest claims involve the Iliad of Homer. According to Jaynes the Iliad contains no concept of consciousness and its view of the human mind is entirely bicameral. Jaynes chooses the Iliad because he says it is the oldest literary work in which the translation is certain. But then he goes on to say that modern translators have read consciousness into the Iliad when it really wasn't there. I'm certainly not in a position to comment on the meanings of such Greek words as "thumos", "phrenes", etc. and how they changed over time. Jaynes may be right that these words did not imply consciousness when they were used in the Iliad. But I'm not sure what that proves exactly. The ancient Greeks of the Bronze Age also had no word for arteriosclerosis but that does not mean that this particular disease didn't exist in those days. One side note I will mention in passing. According to Jaynes bicameral man was not capable of deceit. Therefore we should not find any deceit being carried out by the Achaeans or Trojans in the Iliad. That does not seem to be the case. Doesn't Patroclus don Achilles' armor in order to deceive the Trojans into believing that Achilles has taken the field of battle? Not to mention the Trojan horse itself (not covered directly in the Iliad) which is the ultimate deceit. Also, one tends to wonder if bicameral man is incapable of deceit then why are their prohibitions against deceit in both the Ten Commandments of the Hebrews and the Code of Hammurabi, core documents of two supposedly bicameral societies. Thesis #4: The Double Brain This is perhaps the least controversial thesis of Jaynes since it does seem to have some solid experimental evidence behind it. It does appear to be the case that right-handed individuals have their language center in the left hemisphere of the brain with the right hemisphere of the brain being mostly nonverbal. Jaynes does present some evidence that the right hemisphere is involved in the auditory hallucinations of schizophrenics. I'd like to know what further research has been conducted in this area since Jaynes' death in 1997. But it's not clear how the neurological evidence for the double brain makes the actual existence of bicameral societies more likely. So those are my objections in a nutshell. I don't buy Jaynes' theory although I must say that the book is a pleasure to read particularly due to Jaynes' florid writing style. Just thinking about these issues in history, psychology, and neurology is stimulating whether or not you agree with the arguments in the final analysis. So Jaynes certainly has done a great service to all of these various fields by getting people talking about these issues. So I highly recommend the book even though I vehemently disagree with most of the theses asserted in it.

The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind Julian Jaynes Prior to reading Dawkins The God Delusion, I had no knowledge of Julian Jaynes nor his thesis. Jaynes’ source material in The God Delusion provoked enough interest to order his book. It did not disappoint. The Origin of Consciousness appears to have stimulated quite a lot of debate, for as Dawkins himself writes, It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between..." Jaynes 1976 book is eloquently written. My suggestion is to obtain a copy of any of his editions that includes the afterword, and begin with the afterword, read the book, and reread the afterword. This reader, though marginally to competently knowledgeable about the areas Jaynes covered, still struggled with the material at times. I’d enjoy reading this book as part of a lecture series, with discussion of the material covered post lecture. So, what are the hypothesis covered in The Origin of Consciousness and the breakdown of the bicameral mind? Consciousness is the development of “mind space, the space which you preoptively are ‘introspecting on’ or ‘seeing’ at this very moment,” along with the development of the sense of “I” being able to narratize said mind space. None of this was possible prior to to development of language. The evolution of language into a complex metaphor allowed this development to proceed. The bicameral mind itself is that prior to consciousness as we experience, “there was a different mentality based upon verbal hallucinations” that emanated in the brains right hemisphere. Jaynes develops this hypothesis with many examples of the origin and slow breakdown of the bicameral mind through Bronze Age cultures, in particular Assyrian, Babylonian, Hebrew, and Greek. “The bicameral mind is an ancient mentality demonstrated in the literature and artifacts of antiquity.” The gods spoke directly to us via these verbal hallucinations, and Jaynes analogically connects this phenomena to schizophrenia. Jaynes then informs the reader how this mentality was broken down over the centuries. How the gods no longer spoke directly to us, but through intermediaries via religion. Think, even now, using Christianity as an example, how so many people go to church that once per week, to hear their ‘minister’ relay the word of God. The book initiates thought, but with brevity in mind, I’d like to discuss two topics. The first is chance. Jaynes postulates that the bicameral man had no real concept of chance, thus opening the doors for diviners, soothsayers, shamans , priests etc, who would make decisions based upon lots, signs in nature, entrails and so on. This process observed in movies and literature now makes sense as the gods spoke through their intermediaries. Think back as a child, the first time you were exposed to a selection process such as eeny meanie mighty mo... As a young child, with no concept of chance, figures it out quickly, but the first exposure to something like this is mystical. Abraham and Isaac. In the Old Testament, Abraham hears the voice of His god, who orders him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Just prior to the slash of the blade, God stops Abraham. Was this God’s test for Abraham’s absolute fealty, or a biblical analogy not to be taken seriously? If we are to believe the Bible’s authenticity, then this really happened. What if it were to happen now, and a man took his son out and killed him with the excuse he was following God’s command? I digress. Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mimd is worth the read because it commands the reader to think. It’s not an easy read, but Jaynes attempts to help the reader with subtle analogy and summarizations. The author provides compelling arguments to support his thesis. In my opinion, this book is worth the read.

A few years ago I went to a conference where they had an award for the "most interesting theory most likely to be wrong". Of all the books I have read during the last few years, the late Julian Jaynes' "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind" would most likely win that honor. Coincidentally, both Jaynes' book as well as the conference contribution deal with the language and the brain; Jaynes also deals with consciousness, literature and history. In short, his theory is that up until about 3000 B.C., Homo sapiens, walked the earth without anything like the conscious, subjective experience of our surrounding and memories we currently possess. Then, agriculture, cities and the first complex societies arose. How were the masses which existed in these radically new social circumstances controlled? According to Jaynes, human beings were still not conscious, but heard voices which commanded them what to do whenever a novel and unfamiliar situation arose. Where did these voices come from? From the right cortical hemisphere, from the brain regions analogous to the language centers on the left. These voices are comparable to what schizophrenics hear today. The difference is that they were not considered something abnormal, but a command from "the gods". The underlings in these first complex civilizations heard the voices of their masters, even when they were absent, and these of their personal gods. Higher ranking members of society heard voices of higher gods, and the king/pharao heard voices of the supreme god and sometimes was considered that god himself. The art of these civilizations was set up to trigger this hallucinating. The brain's division into an obeying left and a commanding, god-like, right cortical hemisphere is what Jaynes calls the "bicameral mind". This mindset kept societies stable and growing. No one questioned what he or she had to do, as no one would ever question "the gods"! Then, the 2nd century B.C., a time marked by natural catastrophes and societal instability, came along. The bicameral mind was no longer useful under these rapidly changing circumstances. Hearing voices was no longer encouraged societally, and children and adults showing such tendencies were possibly killed in some circumstances. The "gods" had ceased to speak to humans directly. True modern consciousness came about. Modern religions, oracles and various superstitions are the results of the human desire to relive the less uncertain times of the bicameral mind. Neurological conditions like schizophrenia and Tourette-syndrome are the neurobiological remainders of the formerly ubiquitous voices of the "gods". Jaynes, a Princeton scholar, in his educated and quirky style, does a good job in outlining his theory and he draws support for it from a variety of sources, most notably the writings of the Iliad and Odysee and the old testament. He reconstructs a timeline, in which later literary works show support for truly conscious, subjectively experiencing characters; older ones do not. I am not competent to judge his psycho-literary criticism. I am competent to judge his arguments stemming from neuroscience; although he speculates and obviously leans out the window, he does not say anything unreasonable. He is off on some scientific issues, for instance in his statement that the neanderthals are a part of the lineage leading to us; however none of these factual mistakes seriously undermine his main thesis in my opinion. I think that he is onto something, but that in many cases goes to far in his interpretation of the evidence supporting his ideas. I also think that even though it is very valuable to think along his lines, the core of his thesis is wrong. In my opinion there are two reasons for that: Firstly, only a part of humanity went trough a historical progression such as the one in the middle East and eastern Mediterranean in the 4th to 2nd century B.C, but all present humans appear to be conscious. I have personally talked to Australian aborigines who's grandparents were hunter-gatherers and who appeared undoubtedly conscious to me. Many peoples who had remained hunter-gatherers or in small-scale agricultural societies only came into contact with European civilization during the last 500 years, and some remain in such forms of social organization. The Kajapo in the Amazon or the New Guinea highlanders are clearly not the non-conscious robots Jaynes imagines pre-bicameral or bicameral humans to be. Then, Jaynes basically pictures ancient Egypt as a society of constantly hallucinating citizens. Hallucinating wasn't seen as something pathological in these times, he argues, and it in fact contributed to societal functioning. Judging on the behavior of modern schizophrenics, I doubt that such a society is possible. They act too destructively and erratic. Among Jaynes' own examples is a man who was told by his voices to commit suicide by drowning himself. These are psychological forces too fiery to be channeled into avenues beneficial for an ordered, complex society. Still, despite my disagreement with its basic take-home message, a book I consider highly worth reading. His notion of psychohistory is very, very interesting. Psychological phenomena which nowadays lead to a removal of a individual from society, such as hallucinations, were possibly considered something desirable in previous epochs. I can't picture a society completely composed of constantly hallucinating individuals; but I could see how such hallucinations by kings and priests were valued at times. Not only were technology, art and the organization of political and economic power vastly different at different times in history, but possibly also the basic mindset of humans - although in my opinion, in contrast to Jaynes', not to the degree of the absence of a true mind.

I first read this book in the late `70s. I am writing about it almost 25 years later because it remains, after numerous readings, one of the more interesting and thought provoking books I have read. Still today, if I could only choose a handful of books to have on a deserted island, this would be one of the few. I remember picking the book up after reading a condescending review of Jaynes and his theories in the pop-psychology rag, Psychology Today. I figured that if he offended them enough to warrant such a dismissal, it might be worth a read! I also liked his style - he came up with the stark, unappealing black and white cover with the convoluted title just to keep pop-psychology aficionados from reading it! He was hoping for serious consideration. Unfortunately, he didn't get it. Jaynes rankled so many groups with his book because, in great part, he had the audacity to try and bring together so many disparate areas into a huge macro theory about how consciousness came about. He pulls from many well-known studies in psychology, including fascinating research that I had studied on the way to my degrees in psychology. He pulls from ancient literature. He pulls from anthropology and archaeology. And he has the audacity to try and weave a theory that, in the end, is probably not provable scientifically. Then he goes on to propose how this theory could also explain the origin of things like poetry, music and (oh, oh!) religion. This is not a book to read quickly or glibly. Like trying to figure out a jigsaw puzzle without an idea of what it will be, he forces you to work in order to juggle all of the divergent pieces he attempts to weave together. But like a puzzle that suddenly snaps into focus, there are simply wonderful `ah-ha!' moments during the second half of the book where the floating pieces suddenly resolve into clarity, making sense of things that you may never have even wondered about before. In this regard, even if he is wrong in a number of things, the book is profoundly worthwhile reading. He makes you consider life from perspectives you have probably never envisioned. Julian Jaynes only wrote one book. His second planned work was not completed and who knows if it would have even been published after the dismissal of the experts. The `experts' ridiculed his ideas and, therefore, pushed them off to the side as not being worthy of study, testing, changing or improving. They were content to `throw the baby out with the bath', so to speak. Too bad. For within the ideas he presents and disciplines he weaves together, there are undoubtedly many that are worthy of further research and consideration. For some, it is simply easier and more convenient to trash the whole thing. But maybe the 'experts' should reconsider. After all, this book was first published almost 30 years ago now and the ideas still have that 'ring of truth' about them. If you like to challenge preconceptions and are willing to work through the book objectively, I think you will find this a book you might well keep on a desert island, too.

There is nothing unique I can add to the variety of comments already offered regarding this remarkable book. I read it many years ago, and again a few years ago, and then recently. Each time I learned a great deal ... about psychology, mythology, and ancient literature. Jaynes chronicles that these 'voices' in the human head and the evolution of consciousness evolved in human societies in different parts of the world at different times. Among the interesting ramifications, although not specifically discussed by him, is that this lends credibility to the anthropological theory of "Multi-regionalism", or poly-genesis, whereby modern humans evolved separately in different parts of the globe, and did not stem from a common ancestor "out of Africa," but rather that two million years ago members of the emerging 'human' population met and interbred, providing today's races with many ancestors. The author's theory that the internal 'voices' in the brain were once believed to be gods, but which we now see as possible schizophrenic occurrences, makes sense. Many schizophrenics today are participants in the same illusions and are guided by the 'voices' they hear, and of course the religious charlatans continue to assure their believers that they are in communication with some god or another. Personally, regarding the Middle Eastern prophets, I have long thought that many of them were in the sun too long -- experiencing what Jaynes refers to as "hallucinations" from being in the desert alone (with no companions, or books to read since literature was not yet invented -- and the creators of our religions were all uneducated illiterates). I even speculated that the "blinding light" allegedly experienced by Paul of Tarsus was a heat stroke, not uncommon in the Middle Eastern deserts. In sum, Western society (or what some optimistically refer to as 'Western civilization') has been in a manic state ever since the early Christian political-power seekers preferred to abandon the rationality of the ancient Greeks and to promote myths which required less thinking. Understandably, millennia later these myths have continued to be more easily swallowed by the illiterate and compliant masses who prefer comforting illusions rather than the tiresome process of thinking... (By the way, who is to say that even some of the revered, self-promoting ancient "prophets" were not also involved in misleading their constituencies for their own reasons?) As some reviewers have indicated, Jaynes may have 'gone beyond the evidence' in formulating an all-encompassing theory of how consciousness evolved and history's role in it. However, the attempt is brilliant, and the erudition is unquestionable. This book is a masterpiece of literature, providing a river of ideas and insights. We owe the author our gratitude.

1) Short Verdict 🧠📜 A grand, provocative synthesis that asks a scandalous question: what if introspective consciousness is a cultural invention only a few millennia old? Jaynes’s argument—that ancient peoples operated via a “bicameral” mentality guided by auditory hallucinations they took as gods—is audacious, weirdly persuasive in places, and endlessly debatable. As intellectual adventure, it’s thrilling. 2) Literary Analysis (Thesis, Evidence, Style) 🔎 Thesis in a nutshell: Jaynes claims that early humans didn’t possess our modern, self-reflective consciousness. Instead, the brain’s “two chambers” (loosely, language-dominant and its partner) coordinated action through command hallucinations—heard as external voices of gods, kings, or ancestors. This “bicameral mind” broke down under social complexity and crises (war, migration, disasters), giving rise to a new introspective, narrative self between roughly the late second and early first millennium BCE. Evidence & method: The book raids ancient texts (Homer, Hebrew scriptures, cuneiform records), archaeology, comparative anthropology, and neuropsychology. Jaynes reads the Iliad as strikingly sparse in inner life (deeds prompted by gods), the Odyssey as a transitional text, and later writings as increasingly drenched in words for mind, will, and conscience. He pairs this with clinical material on auditory hallucinations (e.g., in certain psychoses or extreme stress) to argue that hearing “voices” is a latent human capacity once culturally organized rather than pathologized. Key concepts: The “Analog I” — a mental model of the self navigating a metaphorical mind-space. Metaphor as machinery: language doesn’t just express consciousness; it builds it, bootstrapping introspective categories from bodily and spatial metaphors. Hemispheric speculation: rough lateralization is enlisted to sketch how voice-like commands could feel alien to the self. Style: Sweeping, lucid, and riveting. Jaynes writes like a courtroom advocate: staging exhibits, marching through counterpoints, and daring you to prove him wrong. He’s never dull; even when you balk, you keep turning pages. 3) Placement in Literature & Culture 📚 Few works have so delighted and infuriated readers across psychology, classics, philosophy of mind, religious studies, and literary theory. It’s a cult classic that seeded durable questions: Is consciousness a universal given or a historical achievement? How much of our “inner voice” is linguistic training? Why do certain cultural moments teem with visions and oracles? Even critics concede the book’s value as a heuristic lens—it sharpened debates about narrative identity, inner speech, and the social construction of mental life. Its fingerprints appear anywhere scholars probe how minds are scaffolded by culture. 4) Controversies & Caveats ⚖️ Neuroscience pushback: The hemispheric story is over-neat by today’s standards; functions are more distributed and plastic than the model implies. Historical leaps: Dating a civilizational “shift” in consciousness from selected texts risks selection bias; silence about inner life isn’t proof of its absence. Hallucination ≠ governance: Clinical analogies illuminate but don’t clinch the claim that whole societies operated via voice-commands. And yet… The book’s core insight about language, narrative, and normed attention helping to constitute conscious experience remains fertile—and aligns with modern work on inner speech, predictive processing, and cultural cognition (even if routes differ). 5) Trivia & Background 🗂️ Originally published: 1976; your listing refers to a paperback dated 15 August 2000. Length & apparatus: Substantial in scope (hundreds of pages) with dense notes; later reprints often include a reflective afterword by Jaynes responding to critiques. Signature terms: “bicameral mind,” “Analog I,” “mind-space,” and the emphasis on metaphor as cognitive engine. 6) Final Take & Rating 🏁⭐ Read this as bold speculative history of mind—not scripture. You’ll argue with it, annotate furiously, and come away seeing consciousness less as a flashlight in the skull and more as a socially engineered narrative practice. For the sheer power of its ideas and the doors it opens, it’s indispensable. Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

La traducción (publicada por el FCE) es inencontrable, lo que es bastante sospechoso, porque este es un libro muy peligroso para las bases de Occidente, me temo. Y no estoy de coña.

中身はきれいでした。もちろん使用感はありますが、気になるレベルではありませんでした。

Les idées de Jaynes sont complètement révolutionnaires, et malgré la difficulté il se débrouille bien à la défense de sa thèse. Une thèse très séduisante, mais qui ébranle complétement nos convictions intimes, encore un pas supplémentaire par rapport à la théorie de Darwin sur l'évolution. Mais pourquoi donc la conscience? Comment est-elle apparue chez l'homme, alors qu'elle est complètement inutile dans la logique pure de l'évolution et n'amène rien en terme de survie? Ce livre pose des questions fondamentales, aussi fondamentales que le "qui sommes nous?" et "d'où venons nous?" Cette théorie d'un "esprit à deux chambres" n'a été reprise par personne après Jaynes. Dommage, car on aurait aimé une mise à jour de la théorie avec les derniers progrès scientifiques, notamment sur le fonctionnement du cerveau, car intuitivement on comprends bien que l'unité de l'esprit humain ne va pas de soi.

Julian Jaynes nos apresenta uma visão evolutiva, biológica e cultural sobre a origem da consciência. Talvez uma das obras mais provocativas e intrigantes que vale a pena se dedicar a entender. Em resumo, o autor propõe que pensamentos e as decisões no passado se davam por alucinações no hemisfério direito do cérebro. Tais alucinações se tornaram a base das civilizações antigas e, por consequência, o que chamamos hoje de religião. No entanto, Julian Jaynes diz que houve uma ruptura nesse modo de pensamento e as alucinações, visões e possessões se tornaram privilégio de um grupo seleto de pessoas como profetas, oráculos e videntes. Com a diminuição das alucinações, a sociedade desenvolveu a escrita e os primeiros códigos legais. A narrativa interna se torna a função essencial no lugar de comando vindos dos deuses. Julian Jaynes preenche o livro com exemplos e uma didática que torna leigos no assunto, assim como eu, em mais conhecedores do tema.