# Julian Jaynes's Bicameral mind theory **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 15, 2004, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247 "2004-05-15T06:55:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Electronic\_Chaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Electronic\_Chaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Electronic_Chaos)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/1 "2004-05-15T06:55:40Z")
I’m currently reading Julian Jaynes’s “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” (_catches breath_), and I am curious as to how well accepted his theories are. What are the major points usually used against it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/2 "2004-05-15T15:47:35Z")
I read his book a long time ago and find it interesting but unlikely to be correct. IIRC, he is essentially proposing that humans only became “fully conscious” within the last 10k years. If that actually was true, then one would expect there to still be pockets of humans (eg, in laces like New Guinea) who have not crossed that threshold. I doubt many scientists would agree with that. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/3 "2004-05-15T16:13:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I read his book a long time ago and find it interesting but unlikely to be correct. IIRC, he is essentially proposing that humans only became “fully conscious” within the last 10k years. If that actually was true, then one would expect there to still be pockets of humans (eg, in laces like New Guinea) who have not crossed that threshold. I doubt many scientists would agree with that. Well, what would be a satisfactory condition to pass the consciousness analogue of the Eliza test? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/4 "2004-05-15T16:14:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If that actually was true, then one would expect there to still be pockets of humans (eg, in laces like New Guinea) who have not crossed that threshold. I doubt many scientists would agree with that. Places like Harrison, AR. How could you tell them from regular folk? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/5 "2004-05-15T16:16:32Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Well, what would be a satisfactory condition to pass the consciousness analogue of the Eliza test? I don’t understand. If that’s a reference to something specific in the book, then I don’t remember it. It was over 20 yrs ago that I read it… ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/6 "2004-05-15T16:18:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t understand. What SimonX said. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/7 "2004-05-15T16:43:04Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Places like Harrison, AR. > > How could you tell them from regular folk? I’d say the burden was on the guy who put the theory out there. If it’s not a testable hypothesis, then it ain’t science. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/8 "2004-05-15T18:07:35Z")
When you finish “Bicameral”, get yourself a copy of Lucien Lévy-Bruhl’s 1910 masterwork “How Natives Think” The absence of 80’s jargon, and the relatively unpolluted state of world culture in the 1800’s are a real Godsend for Bruhl’s approach to the origins of consciousness. The book should be pretty easy to find as it gets reprinted every couple of years. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@The\_Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tim)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/9 "2004-05-15T18:16:27Z")
Neuroscientists do not accept the theory. Basically he has no evidence for his claims. I wouldn’t heap contempt on him as some do, but I find his claims flat out wrong despite being interesting. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/10 "2004-05-15T19:07:28Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > get yourself a copy of Lucien Lévy-Bruhl’s 1910 masterwork “How Natives Think” … for Bruhl’s approach to the origins of consciousness. Could you summarize the book? I can’t seem to find a review online. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/julian-jayness-bicameral-mind-theory/245247/11 "2004-05-15T20:18:29Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Could you summarize the book? I can’t seem to find a review online. It’s been far too long ago for me to do anything but screw up a summary of the book. Bruhl’s emphasis was on common modes of pre-logical thought and the idea that before rationality we as a species tended to see _every_ event as having an underlying cause or purpose. [Here’s a short review](http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Levy-Bruhl.htm). Please note that the book is NOT for the PC squeemish, as it was written from the colonial perspective of its time. Still, “How Natives Think” contains a lot of historical information on consciousness that just can’t be gotten from any other source.