This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
"continued work has not provided support for the idea"
This isn't true if you consider deMause's work to indirectly support Jaynes. I get the strong impression that they didn't know about each other but their respective theories fit together like a lock and key. It's just that they're attacking the same problem from slightly different angles.
Incidentally, fitting Jaynes' theory to deMause's fills holes in both of them. The result is amazing.
Has anyone addressed the issue of desemination of consciousness throughout the world in such a short period?
why did we not see isolated populations with Bicameral minds?
"Some authorities, however, consider Jaynes's hypothesis worthy and offered conditional support ... Some scholars suggest that Jaynes' theory describes a real event ..." -- Can anybody firm up just who said authorities and scholars might be? -- 11 October 2005
"Jaynes builds a case for this theory by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. For example, he asserts that, in The Iliad and sections of the Old Testament in The Bible that no mention is made of any kind of cognitive processes such as introspection and that there is no apparent indication that the writers were self-aware. He asserts that some later books of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes) as well as later works such as The Odyssey show indications of a profoundly different kind of mentality which he believes is indicative of consciousness."
This is a bit confusing, since the Iliad and the Odyssey are both ascribed as written works to Homer, though they were epic poems before that... -- Edward Wakelin 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
From reviewing discussions at Talk:Julian Jaynes, it appears at a glance that this article goes out of its way to emphasize positive responses to this work to a degree that does not reflect the balance of reliable sources. The article could likely benefit from an integration of the Commentary and Criticisms subsections, as this can allow for a more natural presentation of diverse reactions to the work. The list of conferences influenced by the work need citations to independent sources establishing the significance of the conferences and verifying their relationship to this work. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Migrating the "theory" content from "Julian Jaynes" page to "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" as this has been suggested by others and is the standard across Wikipedia.
How can this article not so much as mention the fact that the theory is almost universally regarded by scientists, historians of science, and philosophers of science, to be a paradigmatic case of pseudoscience? Most of its most significant claims are hopelessly untestable, and most of Jayne's arguments are based on confirmation bias and evidential selectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.98.70 ( talk) 05:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It was universal in Indo-European societies, but why would it exist if everyone down to the swineherds heard gods speaking in their head every day of their lives? Why would anyone need an oracle or a shaman? It's pretty much a consensus opinion that the priestly class established their power because they claimed that they can talk to gods - how would that impress anyone if an average person had to have Apollo issue hallucinated commands to them just so they could go to the loo? 86.63.168.150 ( talk) 23:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Both myself and @ Artem.G: have removed original research added by @ Snarcky1996:, with this edit. That means the consensus is against the addition of the material. Yet Snarcky continues to revert the removal without bothering to discuss on this talk page per WP:BRD. Skyerise ( talk) 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
See ensuing conversation here : /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bicameral_mentality Snarcky1996 ( talk) 23:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
So the article got protected, but OR is still here? Let's remove it until the source that mentiones Jaynes, Gilgamesh and the Bible is found. Artem.G ( talk) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please include under “see also” a link to The Master and His Emissary (2009) by Iain Mcgilchrist (it has a page already) 84.68.100.253 ( talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
In the section "Jaynes's theories", there is a passage in the article here "from language, and specifically from metaphor" [5].
The citation and meaning are correct, though the link behind the word "metaphor" hyperlinks to the Wikipedia article for "Metaphor" the Figure of Speech. I suggest that it should link instead of the Wikipedia article for "Conceptual Metaphor" as this is the mechanism of thought which Jaynes refers to.
I am, however, only a beginner in the art of Wikipedia, so I would like the more experienced folks to consider or undertake this, please. Ross Bennett ( talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see:
Talk:Julian Jaynes#It needs to be made clearer that his overall hypothesis is WP:FRINGE.
Please see also:
Talk:Julian Jaynes#Move to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?
Summary: Aspects of his hypothesis having "inspired" some later research doesn't equate to his work being proven correct, and cognitive science and related displines descreasingly support it, most especially his central notion that consciousness only arose a few millennia ago. Furthermore, it was proposed at that article to move it and reshape it into an article on the book, since the person is not notable for anything other than one book. Instead, someone has WP:CFORKed it, and this is not good. The bio mostly just repeats claims from the book article, and both are faulty articles, so we have double the maintenance burden. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
PS: It's worse than I suspected, with a third fork at bicameral mentality, which has similar problems to some extent, but is more inclusive of the criticism and including enough of it (from a certain era) to lean already in the FRINGE direction. However, it is missing most of the more recent conclusions of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and related fields. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
FYI|pointer=}}
it means "Please go to the other thread, don't comment here." Cf. also
WP:TALKFORK. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
"continued work has not provided support for the idea"
This isn't true if you consider deMause's work to indirectly support Jaynes. I get the strong impression that they didn't know about each other but their respective theories fit together like a lock and key. It's just that they're attacking the same problem from slightly different angles.
Incidentally, fitting Jaynes' theory to deMause's fills holes in both of them. The result is amazing.
Has anyone addressed the issue of desemination of consciousness throughout the world in such a short period?
why did we not see isolated populations with Bicameral minds?
"Some authorities, however, consider Jaynes's hypothesis worthy and offered conditional support ... Some scholars suggest that Jaynes' theory describes a real event ..." -- Can anybody firm up just who said authorities and scholars might be? -- 11 October 2005
"Jaynes builds a case for this theory by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. For example, he asserts that, in The Iliad and sections of the Old Testament in The Bible that no mention is made of any kind of cognitive processes such as introspection and that there is no apparent indication that the writers were self-aware. He asserts that some later books of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes) as well as later works such as The Odyssey show indications of a profoundly different kind of mentality which he believes is indicative of consciousness."
This is a bit confusing, since the Iliad and the Odyssey are both ascribed as written works to Homer, though they were epic poems before that... -- Edward Wakelin 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
From reviewing discussions at Talk:Julian Jaynes, it appears at a glance that this article goes out of its way to emphasize positive responses to this work to a degree that does not reflect the balance of reliable sources. The article could likely benefit from an integration of the Commentary and Criticisms subsections, as this can allow for a more natural presentation of diverse reactions to the work. The list of conferences influenced by the work need citations to independent sources establishing the significance of the conferences and verifying their relationship to this work. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Migrating the "theory" content from "Julian Jaynes" page to "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" as this has been suggested by others and is the standard across Wikipedia.
How can this article not so much as mention the fact that the theory is almost universally regarded by scientists, historians of science, and philosophers of science, to be a paradigmatic case of pseudoscience? Most of its most significant claims are hopelessly untestable, and most of Jayne's arguments are based on confirmation bias and evidential selectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.98.70 ( talk) 05:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It was universal in Indo-European societies, but why would it exist if everyone down to the swineherds heard gods speaking in their head every day of their lives? Why would anyone need an oracle or a shaman? It's pretty much a consensus opinion that the priestly class established their power because they claimed that they can talk to gods - how would that impress anyone if an average person had to have Apollo issue hallucinated commands to them just so they could go to the loo? 86.63.168.150 ( talk) 23:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Both myself and @ Artem.G: have removed original research added by @ Snarcky1996:, with this edit. That means the consensus is against the addition of the material. Yet Snarcky continues to revert the removal without bothering to discuss on this talk page per WP:BRD. Skyerise ( talk) 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
See ensuing conversation here : /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bicameral_mentality Snarcky1996 ( talk) 23:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
So the article got protected, but OR is still here? Let's remove it until the source that mentiones Jaynes, Gilgamesh and the Bible is found. Artem.G ( talk) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please include under “see also” a link to The Master and His Emissary (2009) by Iain Mcgilchrist (it has a page already) 84.68.100.253 ( talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
In the section "Jaynes's theories", there is a passage in the article here "from language, and specifically from metaphor" [5].
The citation and meaning are correct, though the link behind the word "metaphor" hyperlinks to the Wikipedia article for "Metaphor" the Figure of Speech. I suggest that it should link instead of the Wikipedia article for "Conceptual Metaphor" as this is the mechanism of thought which Jaynes refers to.
I am, however, only a beginner in the art of Wikipedia, so I would like the more experienced folks to consider or undertake this, please. Ross Bennett ( talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see:
Talk:Julian Jaynes#It needs to be made clearer that his overall hypothesis is WP:FRINGE.
Please see also:
Talk:Julian Jaynes#Move to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?
Summary: Aspects of his hypothesis having "inspired" some later research doesn't equate to his work being proven correct, and cognitive science and related displines descreasingly support it, most especially his central notion that consciousness only arose a few millennia ago. Furthermore, it was proposed at that article to move it and reshape it into an article on the book, since the person is not notable for anything other than one book. Instead, someone has WP:CFORKed it, and this is not good. The bio mostly just repeats claims from the book article, and both are faulty articles, so we have double the maintenance burden. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
PS: It's worse than I suspected, with a third fork at bicameral mentality, which has similar problems to some extent, but is more inclusive of the criticism and including enough of it (from a certain era) to lean already in the FRINGE direction. However, it is missing most of the more recent conclusions of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and related fields. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
FYI|pointer=}}
it means "Please go to the other thread, don't comment here." Cf. also
WP:TALKFORK. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)