The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind, a 1976 book by Julian Jaynes, is probably one of the most intriguing and contentious works in the already unusually controversial field of consciousness studies. This book proposed bicameralism, the hypothesis that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one half of the brain, which appears to be speaking, and another half which listens and follows instructions. Julian Jaynes’ central claim is that consciousness in humans, in the form that is familiar to us today, is a relatively recent phenomenon, whose development followed the invention of writing, the evolution of complex societies and the collapse of bicameralism. According to Jaynes, in the bicameral eras, humans attributed the origin of the inner voices (which we presumably all hear) not to themselves, but to gods. Human behavior was, therefore, not conscious but automatic. Actions followed from strict obedience to these inner voices, which represented orders from a personal god, themselves conditioned by social and cultural norms.

In Jaynes view, consciousness is strongly connected with human language (an assertion hard to refute but possibly an insufficiently general description) and results, in large part, from our ability to introspect, and to hold conversations and dialogues with ourselves. The change in human’s perception of these voices, a process which, according to Jaynes, took place over a time span that lasted only a couple of millennia, during the Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek and Egyptian civilizations (the ones he studied) led to the creation of consciousness as we know it today. This implies that human consciousness, as it exists today, is a brand new phenomenon, in the evolutionary timescale.

Taken at face value, this theory goes totally against the very ingrained belief that humans have been fully conscious for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, if we consider other species of hominids and other primates. It is certainly strange to think that consciousness, as we know it, is a phenomenon with only a few millennia.

And yet, Jaynes’ arguments are everything but naive. They are, in fact, very sophisticated and based on extensive analyses of historical evidence. The problem with the theory is not that it is simplistic or that there is a lack of presented evidence. The problem I have with this theory is that the evidence presented comes mostly from a very subjective and argumentative analysis of historical artifacts (books, texts, vases, ruins), which are interpreted, in a very intelligent way, to support Jaynes’ main points.

To give an example, which plays an important role in the argument, let’s consider the Iliad. In this text, which predates, according to Jaynes, conscious behavior, and has its origins in bicameral times, all human actions derive, directly, from the clear and audible instructions received from gods. In the Iliad, there is no space for reflection, autonomy, cogitations, hesitations or doubts. Heroes and plain humans act on the voices of gods, and that’s it. The Odyssey and posterior texts are progressively more elaborate on human thought and motivation and (according to Jaynes) the works of Solon are the first that can be viewed as modern, consistent with our current views of human will and human consciousness. Most significant of all, to Jaynes, is the Bible, in particular the Old Testament, which he sees as the ultimate record of the progressive evolution of men from bicameralism to subjective, conscious, behavior.  Analysis of these texts and of other evidence of the evolution of consciousness in Mesopotamia, Assyria, Greece, and Egypt, are exhaustively presented, and should not be taken lightly. At the least, Jaynes may have a point in that consciousness, today, is not the same thing as consciousness, five millennia ago. This may well be true, and it is hard for us to understand human thought from that time.

An yet, I remained unconvinced of Jaynes’ main point. True, the interpretation he makes of the historical evidence is from someone who has studied the materials deeply and I am certainly unable to counter-argue with someone who is so familiar with the topics. But, to me, the many facts (thousands, probably) that he brings to bear on his argument can all be the result of many other factors. Maybe the writers of the Iliad wanted to use god’s voices for stylistic effect, maybe the empty throne of the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta depicted in a famous scene is not due to the disappearance and silence of the gods (as he argues) but to some other reasons. Jaynes proposes many interesting and ingenious interpretations of historical data, but in the end I was not convinced that these interpretations are sufficient to support his main thesis.

Despite missing his main objective, however, the book makes for a great read, presenting an interpretation of ancient history that is gripping and enlightening, if not fully convincing.

The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself

Sean Carroll’s 2016 book, The Big Picture, is a rather well-succeeded attempt to cover all the topics that are listed in the subtitle of the book, life, the universe, and everything.  Carroll calls himself a poetic naturalist, short for someone who believes physics explains everything but does not eliminate the need for other levels of description of the universe, such as biology, psychology, and sociology, to name a few.

Such an ambitious list of topics requires a fast-paced book, and that is exactly what you get. Organized in no less than 50 chapters, the book brings us from the very beginning of the universe to the many open questions related to intelligence, consciousness, and free-will. In the process, we get to learn about what Carroll calls the “core theory”, the complete description of all the particles and forces that make the universe, as we know it today, encompassing basically the standard model and general relativity. In the process, he takes us through the many things we know (and a few of the ones we don’t know) about quantum field theory and the strangeness of the quantum world, including a rather good description of the different possibilities of addressing this strangeness: the Copenhaguen interpretation, hidden variables theories and (the one the author advocates) Everett’s many-worlds interpretation.

Although fast-paced, the book succeeds very well in connecting and going into some depth into these different fields. The final sections of the book, covering life, intelligence, consciousness, and morals are a very good introduction to these complex topics, many of them addressed also in Sean Carroll popular podcast, Mindscape.

The Digital Mind: How Science is Redefining Humanity

Following the release in the US,  The Digital Mind, published by MIT Press,  is now available in Europe, at an Amazon store near you (and possibly in other bookstores). The book covers the evolution of technology, leading towards the expected emergence of digital minds.

Here is a short rundown of the book, kindly provided by yours truly, the author.

New technologies have been introduced in human lives at an ever increasing rate, since the first significant advances took place with the cognitive revolution, some 70.000 years ago. Although electronic computers are recent and have been around for only a few decades, they represent just the latest way to process information and create order out of chaos. Before computers, the job of processing information was done by living organisms, which are nothing more than complex information processing devices, created by billions of years of evolution.

Computers execute algorithms, sequences of small steps that, in the end, perform some desired computation, be it simple or complex. Algorithms are everywhere, and they became an integral part of our lives. Evolution is, in itself, a complex and long- running algorithm that created all species on Earth. The most advanced of these species, Homo sapiens, was endowed with a brain that is the most complex information processing device ever devised. Brains enable humans to process information in a way unparalleled by any other species, living or extinct, or by any machine. They provide humans with intelligence, consciousness and, some believe, even with a soul, a characteristic that makes humans different from all other animals and from any machine in existence.

But brains also enabled humans to develop science and technology to a point where it is possible to design computers with a power comparable to that of the human brain. Artificial intelligence will one day make it possible to create intelligent machines and computational biology will one day enable us to model, simulate and understand biological systems and even complete brains with unprecedented levels of detail. From these efforts, new minds will eventually emerge, minds that will emanate from the execution of programs running in powerful computers. These digital minds may one day rival our own, become our partners and replace humans in many tasks. They may usher in a technological singularity, a revolution in human society unlike any other that happened before. They may make humans obsolete and even a threatened species or they make us super-humans or demi-gods.

How will we create these digital minds? How will they change our daily lives? Will we recognize them as equals or will they forever be our slaves? Will we ever be able to simulate truly human-like minds in computers? Will humans transcend the frontiers of biology and become immortal? Will humans remain, forever, the only known intelligence in the universe?

 

In memoriam of Raymond Smullyan: An unfortunate dualist

Mind-body Dualists believe there are two different realms that define us. One is the physical realm, well studied and understood by the laws of physics, while the other one is the non-physical realm, where our selves exist. Our essence, our soul, if you want, exists in this non-physical realm, and it interacts and controls our physical body through some as yet unexplained mechanism. Most religions are based on a dualist theory, including Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

On the other side of the discussion are Monists, who do not believe in the existence of dual realities.  The term monism is used to designate the position that everything is either mental (idealism) or that everything is physical (materialism).

Raymond Smullyan, deceased two days ago (February 10th, 2017),

165

had a clear view on dualism, which he makes clear in this history, published in his book This book needs no title.

An Unfortunate Dualist

Once upon a time there was a dualist. He believed that mind and matter are separate substances. Just how they interacted he did not pretend to know-this was one of the “mysteries” of life. But he was sure they were quite separate substances. This dualist, unfortunately, led an unbearably painful life-not because of his philosophical beliefs, but for quite different reasons. And he had excellent empirical evidence that no respite was in sight for the rest of his life. He longed for nothing more than to die. But he was deterred from suicide by such reasons as: (1) he did not want to hurt other people by his death; (2) he was afraid suicide might be morally wrong; (3) he was afraid there might be an afterlife, and he did not want to risk the possibility of eternal punishment. So our poor dualist was quite desperate.

Then came the discovery of the miracle drug! Its effect on the taker was to annihilate the soul or mind entirely but to leave the body functioning exactly as before. Absolutely no observable change came over the taker; the body continued to act just as if it still had a soul. Not the closest friend or observer could possibly know that the taker had taken the drug, unless the taker informed him. Do you believe that such a drug is impossible in principle? Assuming you believe it possible, would you take it? Would you regard it as immoral? Is it tantamount to suicide? Is there anything in Scriptures forbidding the use of such a drug? Surely, the body of the taker can still fulfill all its responsibilities on earth. Another question: Suppose your spouse took such a drug, and you knew it. You would know that she (or he) no longer had a soul but acted just as if she did have one. Would you love your mate any less?

To return to the story, our dualist was, of course, delighted! Now he could annihilate himself (his soul, that is) in a way not subject to any of the foregoing objections. And so, for the first time in years, he went to bed with a light heart, saying: “Tomorrow morning I will go down to the drugstore and get the drug. My days of suffering are over at last!” With these thoughts, he fell peacefully asleep.

Now at this point a curious thing happened. A friend of the dualist who knew about this drug, and who knew of the sufferings of the dualist, decided to put him out of his misery. So in the middle of the night, while the dualist was fast asleep, the friend quietly stole into the house and injected the drug into his veins. The next morning the body of the dualist awoke-without any soul indeed-and the first thing it did was to go to the drugstore to get the drug. He took it home and, before taking it, said, “Now I shall be released.” So he took it and then waited the time interval in which it was supposed to work. At the end of the interval he angrily exclaimed: “Damn it, this stuff hasn’t helped at all! I still obviously have a soul and am suffering as much as ever!”

Doesn’t all this suggest that perhaps there might be something just a little wrong with dualism?

Raymond M. Smullyan

The User Illusion: Cutting consciousness down to size

In this entertaining and ambitious book Tor Nørretranders argues that consciousness, that hallmark of higher intelligence, is nothing more than an illusion, a picture of reality created by our brain that we mistake by the real thing. The book received good reviews and was very well received in his native country, Denmark, and all over the world.

Using fairly objective data, Nørretranders makes his main point that consciousness has a very limited bandwidth, probably no more than 20 bits a second. This means that we cannot, consciously, process more than a few bits a second, distilled from the megabytes of information processed by our senses in the same period. Furthermore, this stream of information creates a simulation of reality, which we mistake for the real thing, and the illusion that our conscious self (the “I”) in in charge, while the unconscious self (the “me”) follows the orders given by the “I”.

the_users_illusion

There is significant evidence that Nørretranders’ main point is well taken. We know (and he points it out in his book) that consciousness lags behind our actions, even conscious ones, by about half a second. As is also pointed out by another author, Daniel Dennett, in his book Consciousness Explained, consciousness controls much less than we think. Consciousness is more of a module that observes what is going on and explains it in terms of “conscious decisions” and “conscious attention”. This means that consciousness is more of an observer of our actions, than the agent that determines them. Our feeling that we consciously control our desires, actions, and sentiments is probably far from the truth, and a lot of what we consciously observe is a simulation carefully crafted by our “consciousness” module. Nørretranders refers to the fact that some people believe that consciousness is a recent phenomenon, maybe no more than a few thousand years old, as Julian Jaynes defended in his famous book, The Bicameral Mind.

Nørretranders uses these arguments to argue that we should pay less attention to conscious decisions (the “I”, as he describes it) and more to unconscious urges (the “me”, in his book), letting the unconscious “me”, who has access to vastly larger amounts of information, in control of more of your decisions.

Explaining (away) consciousness?

Consciousness is one of the hardest to explain phenomena created by the human brain. We are familiar with the concept of what it means to be conscious. I am conscious and I admit that every other human being is also conscious. We become conscious when we wake up in the morning and remain conscious during waking hours, until we lose consciousness again when we go to sleep at night. There is an uninterrupted flow of consciousness that, with the exception of sleeping periods, connects who you are now with who you were many years ago.

Explaining exactly what consciousness is, however, is much more difficult. One of the best known, and popular, explanations was given by Descartes. Even though he was a materialistic, he balked when it came to consciousness, and proposed what is now known as Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind and the brain are two different things. Descartes thought that the mind, the seat of conscience, has no physical substance while the body, controlled by the brain, is physical and follows the laws of physics

Descartes ideas imply a Cartesian theatre, a place where the brain exposes the input obtained by the senses, so that the mind (your inner I) can look at these inputs, make decisions, take actions, and feel emotions.

dennet

In what is probably one of the most comprehensive and convincing analyses of what consciousness is, Dennett pulls all the guns against the idea of the Cartesian Theather, and argues that consciousness can be explained by what he calls a “multiple drafts” model.

Instead of a Cartesian Theater, where conscious experience occurs, there are “various events of content-fixation occurring in various places at various times in the brain“. The brain is nothing more than a “bundle of semi-independent agencies“, created by evolution, that act mostly independently and in semi-automatic mode. Creating a consistent view, a serial history of the behaviors of these different agencies, is the role of consciousness. It misleads “us” into thinking that “we” are in charge while “we” are, mostly, reporters telling a story to ourselves and others.

His arguments, supported by extensive experimental and philosophical evidence, are convincing, well structured, and discussed at depth, with the help of Otto, a non-believer in the multiple drafts model. If Dennett does not fully explain the phenomenon of consciousness, he certainly does an excellent job at explaining it away. Definitely one book to read if you care about artificial intelligence, consciousness, and artificial minds.