User:B.Sirota/sandbox/Ver3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bicameral mind (or bicamerality), in the complex hypothesis of the bicameral mind,[1][lower-alpha 1] was the way the human brain used to function, in the very ancient past, to create a "mentality based on verbal hallucinations[.]"[2]: 452 It is characterized as bicameral (i.e. "two-chambered")[lower-alpha 2] because it was in two parts, "a decision-making part and a follower part"[4]: 8 and these two parts are associated respectively with the right and left sides of the brain. Most notably is that "neither part was conscious."[4]: 8 [1]: 84 [lower-alpha 3] In other words, while ancient, bicameral humans were fundamentally the same as humans today, they had no mental 'inner self' and could not 'think consciously' to control their own behavior; instead, a bicameral human's actions were controlled, as needed, by one or more hallucinated voices which commanded action, and which were recognized as the authoritative "voices of chiefs, rulers or the gods[.]"[7]: 1 Bicameral 'voices' were similar to those heard today in schizophrenia: all such "auditory hallucinations" must have an underlying neuro-psychological explanation, and the "neurological model" for bicameral voices suggests that they were 'spoken' by the right cerebral hemisphere to be 'heard' and obeyed by the left cerebral hemisphere.[1]: 100-125,404-432
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 |
The bicameral hypothesis was proposed by Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes (1920-1997) in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, published in January, 1977.[lower-alpha 4] The book continues to be a relevant resource on the hypothesis and its supporting evidence, which Jaynes claims is found "[w]herever we look in antiquity, [...] either in ancient texts or in archaeological artifacts."[6]: 452 The evidence suggests that bicamerality was the normal mentality before the 1st millennium BCE. If the hypothesis is correct, it has many, "far-reaching"[9] implications,[10] including:
- the evolution of language involved important functions on both sides of the brain, not only the left hemisphere;[5]: 129-137
- bicamerality enabled the social organization[5]: 144-145 that "made civilization possible" wherever it arose;[11]: 206 [lower-alpha 5]
- bicamerality was the basis of "our first ideas of gods"[12] as evident in the widespread polytheism, idolatry, and theocracy of ancient societies;[11]: 149-175 [13]: 281–286
- the "breakdown" of bicamerality led to ancient 'supernatural' experiences of angels, demons, and ghosts, etc.; and to ancient 'spritualistic' and 'magical' practices, such as divination, incantation, amulets, prayers, and oracles, etc., all aimed at accessing the "absent" gods;[11]: 223-254 [13]: 281–286
- many modern-era phenomena might be "vestiges of the bicameral mind",[14]: 317-446 for example: prophecy and spiritual possession;: 339–360 music and poetry;: 361–378 hypnosis;: 379–403 schizophrenia;: 404–432 shamanism;[15] "the 'invisible playmates' of childhood; [...] and hundreds more."[9]
Bicamerality in context
Although largely unprovable,[16]: 35 the bicameral hypothesis has been influential,[16]: 35 having "inspired much of the modern research into hallucinations in the normal population [since] the early 1980s[.]"[10] The phenomenon of hearing voices, which reportedly occurs in many, and possibly all, cultures,[1]: 413 [17] remains poorly understood both neurologically[18] and historically.[16][19] The fact that voice-hearing need not always be pathological[16][20][21] motivates individuals, and groups such as the Hearing Voices Movement, to seek significance in the experience.[10]
Jaynes's book presents the bicameral hypothesis as a part of a general psycho-historical[lower-alpha 6] theory which includes two additional hypotheses: the first explains that consciousness (i.e. the 'ability to introspect')[1]: 1-66 [lower-alpha 7] is a strictly human ability that is "learned and not innate[;]"[22]: 6 [23] the second, that consciousness was first learned "as recently as 3,000 years ago."[22]: 1 Consciousness was once a "new mentality": 257 that became possible "only after the breakdown" of bicameral mentality and culture,[6]: 453 [11][24] but since the middle of the 1st millenium BCE, it has interacted with "the rest of cognition"[6]: 456 to drive human history. Meanwhile, the bicameral mentality has not entirely disappeared because it may have an underlying genetic basis,[2]: 311,453 and the hypothesized archaic dominance of the right cerebral hemisphere might be essential for fully explaining "a large class of phenomena of diminished consciousness": 324 (many of the "vestiges" of bicamerality). All the hypotheses together potentially explain many "otherwise mysterious facts" of ancient history[13]: 273 as well as of the modern world.[10]
Jaynes’s hypotheses are highly controversial: his method involved "bold" speculations;[25]: 150 his use of evidence found in ancient texts cannot be scientifically conclusive;[26]: 164 moreover, the bicameral hypothesis challenges widely-held assumptions 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"[10][33][lower-alpha 8] and that "the vast majority of critiques of the theory are based on misconceptions about what Jaynes actually said[.]"[35]