Was Primordial man conscious?

[Mickiel]

@Trinopus

People with a modern education are more aware of their cosmos. They “see” things that an uneducated person doesn’t see at all. Education broadens one’s consciousness.

(Just as one example, there really are people, even in modern, educated society, who deny that the Moon is visible in the daytime!)

In pre-civilization times, no one had the kind of education that widens conscious awareness of the world. They lived, as Carl Sagan said, in a demon-haunted world, where they spent a lot of time worrying about spirits, ghosts, and so on.

Sure, they had a lot of knowledge – but it was mostly case-by-case data, without underlying rules. The very concept of “rules of nature” was unknown.

I would say that, even today, a guy who has only a third-grade education isn’t as fully conscious as a guy who has some college under his belt.

(There’s also hour-to-hour differences. We spend a lot of time quietly zoned. Using only ten per cent of our brains – so to speak! )

I think education is one of the signs of consciousness, as is language and mathematics; the more complex of these, the more consciousness is there.

[Uniqueorn]

@Mickiel

I think Julian Jaynes book on consciousness is excellent, in fact I developed my theory based on some of his; and this is just theory, I cannot prove it. But the bible refers to Adam as " The First man", and we know from archaeology and science that could not be true; so my theory is that he was simply the first man with Consciousness; or a full working one. The first man created in God’s image, which is consciousness; but that would mean, if that much is true, that humans before Adam, just had no consciousness, or none as developed as humans after Adam.

Jaynes proved that most of what we do, even now, we do it unconsciously; so its really no far reach to imagine a whole race of unconscious humans doing simple everyday things.

In example, we can drive a car, while looking in the mirror and combing our hair, while steering the wheel, while looking at the road, while being sure not to hit anything around you, while listening to music, while talking on the phone, while applying the brakes, while keeping your speed in mind, while watching other traffic; and most of those things, we do unconsciously. So humans can do a lot, and not be conscious of doing it, or not really needing to be conscious to do them.

If you know what I mean.

That’s not really what Jaynes was talking about. His hypothesis was that up to around 3000 years ago, we had a bicameral mind which (among other things) made it easier to receive direct messages from Gods (as one part of the brain might have created the messages and the other one obeyed them).

Also, you have to distinguish between instincts and habitual behaviours. Your example with the car shows that we can do many things on an other-than-conscious level, but we had to learn them on a conscious level before we were able to automate them.

[Der_Trihs]

@Mickiel

There has to be a reason why Primordial man did not grow in leaps and bounds; just stayed basically stagnant for millions of years; showing limited pivots in their unusual history. And I think a lack of consciousness explains that better than any other reason I am aware of. Its as if they were dormant; basic elementals.

Animals appear to be conscious, so that is unlikely. However they may not have thought in the sense we think if they lacked language. I recall a quote by Helen Keller referring to her time before she learned a language as the “time of no thought”; language is the basis of thought.

One hypothesis I’ve heard is that what changed was the development of language. According to this idea early humans either had no language or only a simple one, which greatly limited their intellectual abilities and their ability to pass on knowledge. Once they evolved modern language capabilities their cultural/technological development and variety skyrocketed. They could pass on knowledge, build on the past and disseminate ideas where they couldn’t before.

[septimus]

Jaynes distinguished three phases of human cognition:
(1) Before language
(2) Bicameralism, which arose after language
(3) Subjective consciousness, which arose after a breakdown caused in part by the size and complexity of cities.

It’s important to note that intellectual achievement does not require subjective consciousness as Jaynes defines it. Much creative work is done via dreams, or non-narrative processes; indeed subjective narration interferes with such creativity.

I agree with Daniel Dennett who accuses Jaynes’ detractors of facile thinking:

If we are going to use this top-down approach [like Jaynes], we are going to have to be bold…
… when you make a mistake it tends to be huge and embarrassing. That’s the price you pay in playing this game. Some people have no taste for this, but we really can’t do without it. Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative exercise will just have to stay in the trenches and do without it, while the rest of us risk embarrassing mistakes and have a lot of fun…

… it is a mistake …simply to bash away at the weakest links in sight, because the weakest links are almost certainly not correct—but also not critical to the enterprise as a whole.

[MrDibble]

Usually I fully agree with Dennett on pretty much everything, but in this case, I think he’s only half-right - it is OK to tell just-so stories even in Science, but the moment your just-so story is proved wrong by hard evidence, clinging to it is bad.

I’m personally on the fence about Jaynes’s hypothesis: I think there’s sufficient hard evidence for pre-3000 B.C. conscious introspection (just the act of burial of the dead is sufficient evidence, IMO), but that’s subjective. But then, Jaynes’s hypothesis is based on absence of any discussion of introspection in literary sources, which always struck me as flimsy. Pre-“breakthrough” art just doesn’t convey the message Jaynes sees in it, to me.

[njtt]

Even if the historical story Jaynes tells is broadly right (the evidence for it is actually pretty weak, but it is not entirely absurd), and even if his neuroscience were not, by now, so dated, the thing he thinks arrived when the bicameral mind breaks down does not seem to be what most people mean by “consciousness”. If he had called his book something like Metacognition and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, more professionals, scientists and philosophers, might have taken him a bit more seriously (although he would not have sold so many copies).

[Mickiel]

@John_Mace

You need to define “Primordial Man”, and stop using “Adam” if you’re trying to engage in a scientific discussion. At some level, your idea is not new: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, but this is a fringe view.

It always seems unusual to me when others tell me what to do and not to do in a thread??

[njtt]

@Mickiel

It always seems unusual to me when others tell me what to do and not to do in a thread??

Why? What would you expect to happen in message board threads?

[John_Mace]

@Mickiel

It always seems unusual to me when others tell me what to do and not to do in a thread??

Did you think that “Primordial Man” actually means anything specific? If so, you’re wrong. So, in order to answer your question, we would need you to define your terms.

Further, if you are expecting some religious discussion about “Adam”, in the sense that the Abrahamic God is involved, you need to spell that out. Many of us who know a thing or two about anthropology are atheists, and are likely to be uninterested in debating the issue as there is no means of resolving it scientifically.

[Mickiel]

@John_Mace

Did you think that “Primordial Man” actually means anything specific? If so, you’re wrong. So, in order to answer your question, we would need you to define your terms.

Further, if you are expecting some religious discussion about “Adam”, in the sense that the Abrahamic God is involved, you need to spell that out. Many of us who know a thing or two about anthropology are atheists, and are likely to be uninterested in debating the issue as there is no means of resolving it scientifically.

I am not religious and I expect nothing. And I would like to know what else Primordial man can mean, other than what it simply means?

[Mickiel]

One of my interest in the subject, is consciousness itself, and how some view it arrived. I see consciousness as a given, not a result of some mixture of primordial soup. Yet some see it in those terms;

How Earth's Primordial Soup Came to Life

If even primordial man was not conscious, then where did consciousness come from? The soup was already there, human bodies were already there, the universe already formed; but consciousness is the super key to our lives, all is based on it. So if we can track consciousness, I think many questions will be answered. We can argue over the beginning of matter and human flesh, but consciousness is the determining factor.

And I don’t think consciousness even began in the first humans. So the value of this missing link, is far more than I knew. Consciousness cannot be derived from primordial soup and rocks, nor nebulous explosions in space; humans can even exist without it.

Jaynes said, and I quote; " We only can be conscious of, those things we are conscious of."

But can we be conscious of why we are conscious? And can our history clue us in on more?

[John_Mace]

@Mickiel

And I would like to know what else Primordial man can mean, other than what it simply means?

I could mean the earliest member of the subspecies H. sapiens sapiens (assuming one accepts that our species has subspecies)

It could mean the earliest members of the species H. sapiens.

It could mean the earliest members of the genus Homo.

It could mean the earliest human ancestors after the split with the chimp line.

There are people on this board who know a thing or two about anthropology, and if you wish to engage with them, it’s best not to fight them. YMMV.

[Czarcasm]

What exactly are you referring to when you use the term “primordial man”? If you can not pin down what you mean by the term, could you possibly find another term to use?

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

What exactly are you referring to when you use the term “primordial man”? If you can not pin down what you mean by the term, could you possibly find another term to use?

I simply mean the first human beings to emerge; allow me to repeat this most dynamic definition; the first human beings.

In my view, primordial art is not a sign of consciousness, as some in science believe;

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/signcon.html

I view consciousness as far more complicated than simple art, and I don’t think we can trace it by using art.

[Mickiel]

@John_Mace

I could mean the earliest member of the subspecies H. sapiens sapiens (assuming one accepts that our species has subspecies)

It could mean the earliest members of the species H. sapiens.

It could mean the earliest members of the genus Homo.

It could mean the earliest human ancestors after the split with the chimp line.

There are people on this board who know a thing or two about anthropology, and if you wish to engage with them, it’s best not to fight them. YMMV.

So when you define a definition, do you then define the definition of the definition? Or when you debate, do you debate the desire to debate, and the thought of debating, before the debate begins??

[Czarcasm]

@Mickiel

So when you define a definition, do you then define the definition of the definition? Or when you debate, do you debate the desire to debate, and the thought of debating, before the debate begins??

Sorry John. You’re on your own.

[GeorgeLTirebiter]

@Mickiel

In my humble opinion Primordial man was not conscious as we are conscious, they seemed to only exist with a very high level of instinct. Which is why I think they never really progressed a whole lot in so many millions of years, and never became civilized. This lack of productive would then explain why humanity, after Adam, just took off in an entirely different direction and civilization flourished soon after. It explains how Adam was " The first man with Consciousness." Or the first human created in God’s image. That image is consciousness.

There is no answer to this question. There is however, “Conclusive Evidence” (it is a legal term, look it up - “Black’s Law Dictionary”) to the contrary. Go invest $25 or so on a copy of “The Future of the Mind” by Dr Michio Kaku for the facts. You may ask, how could a book by a Theoretical Physicist about the “future” tell me when consciousness in primordial man began? Simple, Dr. Kaku traced the genes of humans and apes, scientifically mind you, to determine when those genes began to evolve in humans but not in apes. Amazingly, the whole process started with the evolution of only five genes - pretty cool, huh? Therein lies your answer. Moreover, for your further edification, it was millions of years before that Adam dude showed up to stomp the Terra Firma, naked and unashamed. In addition, and I am just guessing here, but I bet he was hung like a gnat until that hottie Eve hit the scene on the next page.

[John_Mace]

@Mickiel

So when you define a definition, do you then define the definition of the definition? Or when you debate, do you debate the desire to debate, and the thought of debating, before the debate begins??

Buh-bye.

Looks like you’re here to lecture anyway, not to learn.

[GeorgeLTirebiter]

@Mickiel

So when you define a definition, do you then define the definition of the definition? Or when you debate, do you debate the desire to debate, and the thought of debating, before the debate begins??

The supreme paradox of all thought is the attempt to discover something that thought cannot think.
—Søren Kierkegaard

Chew on that.

[Mickiel]

@GeorgeLTirebiter

There is no answer to this question. There is however, “Conclusive Evidence” (it is a legal term, look it up - “Black’s Law Dictionary”) to the contrary. Go invest $25 or so on a copy of “The Future of the Mind” by Dr Michio Kaku for the facts. You may ask, how could a book by a Theoretical Physicist about the “future” tell me when consciousness in primordial man began? Simple, Dr. Kaku traced the genes of humans and apes, scientifically mind you, to determine when those genes began to evolve in humans but not in apes. Amazingly, the whole process started with the evolution of only five genes - pretty cool, huh? Therein lies your answer. Moreover, for your further edification, it was millions of years before that Adam dude showed up to stomp the Terra Firma, naked and unashamed. In addition, and I am just guessing here, but I bet he was hung like a gnat until that hottie Eve hit the scene on the next page.

Consciousness did not arrive from physical genes evolving, or humans would have " A consciousness gene". There is no " Consciousness organ", even Jaynes believed there is nothing inside of the human head but bone and tissue, we just think consciousness is located within our heads; their really is no location for consciousness, its just there. Which is why the biblical explination of consciousness is more attractive; it defines consciousness as a Spirit.