Anyone want to read and discuss "The Origin of Consc in the Breakdown of the B Mind ?
September 15, 2016 at 9:19 pm
Was just reading about this on wiki. Rev Rye mentioned having read it as one of the books on Bowie's list of top 100 and thought I'd like to read it too. Not sure we've ever done this before but I'm thinking it might be fun to discuss it as we go, like in a book club. If anyone is interested we can allow a little time for people to get hold of a copy and then maybe we could plan on discussing a chapter a week - or whatever we all agree to. My preference would probably be to read the newer edition.
In the discussion on wiki I enjoyed the different responses of Dawkins and Dennett to the book. Intriguing.
Jaynes's hypothesis remains controversial. The primary scientific criticism has been that the conclusions Jaynes drew had no basis in neuropsychiatric fact.[8]
Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (2006) wrote of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind:
vs
The philosopher Daniel Dennett suggested that Jaynes may have been wrong about some of his supporting arguments, especially the importance he attached to hallucinations, but that these things are not essential to his main thesis:[22]
The book is called [/url]The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Aug 15, 2000
by Julian Jaynes
But I see there is a newer version with a co-author called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
[url=https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/1501277227/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473988399&sr=1-2&keywords=the+origin+of+consciousness+in+the+breakdown+of+the+bicameral+mind]Jul 7, 2015
by Julian Jaynes and James Patrick Cronin
Think about it and let me know.
In the discussion on wiki I enjoyed the different responses of Dawkins and Dennett to the book. Intriguing.
Jaynes's hypothesis remains controversial. The primary scientific criticism has been that the conclusions Jaynes drew had no basis in neuropsychiatric fact.[8]
Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (2006) wrote of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind:
Quote:"It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."[9]
vs
The philosopher Daniel Dennett suggested that Jaynes may have been wrong about some of his supporting arguments, especially the importance he attached to hallucinations, but that these things are not essential to his main thesis:[22]
Quote:"If we are going to use this top-down approach, we are going to have to be bold. We are going to have to be speculative, but there is good and bad speculation, and this is not an unparalleled activity in science. […] Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative enterprise 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." --Daniel Dennett[23]
The book is called [/url]The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Aug 15, 2000
by Julian Jaynes
But I see there is a newer version with a co-author called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
[url=https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/1501277227/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473988399&sr=1-2&keywords=the+origin+of+consciousness+in+the+breakdown+of+the+bicameral+mind]Jul 7, 2015
by Julian Jaynes and James Patrick Cronin
Think about it and let me know.
