[Matt] I might not so quickly dismiss certain claims about "consciousness or self-awareness" beginning, Krimel, but they do have to clarified in very precise ways to fit with the Darwinian paradigm. Dennett mentions that what we would need is work on the "software" side of humanity (as opposed to the biological hardware) to solve the "mystery" of consciousness, and I find it notable that Walter Ong in Orality and Literacy suggests that Jaynes' positing of rapid biological change isn't even needed if one simply accounts for the shift between an oral culture to the rise of literacy. The "bicameral mind" isn't exactly bullshit speculation, but rather a metaphor for trying to understand how an oral culture would perceive itself (along with interpreting evidence we know about these cultures, including notions of gods and such).
[Krimel] I usually refer to Jaynes' idea as interesting and worth considering but I thought subtlety would be lost in this context. I read his book way back when. I agree with Dennett assessment on this one. I think Marshall McLuhan may have also weighed in on the topic when talked about the way text changed the way people think and see the world. For example, reading requires practiced and unnatural control of the movement of our eye muscles. This would point toward the way in which intellectual tools and practices shape and alter brain structure. Research on meditators suggests much the same thing. The brain is not a muscle but it acts like one. If you use it a particular way, you get better at it and change the way it functions. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
