X-Message-Number: 15927 Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:26:03 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Badger <> Subject: Re: Is consciousness only 3000 years old? George Smith wrote: > He described in some detail how numerous mental and > behavioral activities do > not require consciousness, drawing from research > available up to that time > and carefully defined consciousness as the arena of > "internal" mental > dialogue from which modern human beings derive > decision making, free will, > etc. Jaynes conscludes that consciousness came as a > function of language > but was accidental and not evolutionary. We didn't > need to be conscious to > survive. Or maybe consciousness is the arena of "internal" mental dialogue from which modern human beings derive "the illusion" of decision making, free will, etc. But that's another topic, sorta. Though I haven't read the book, I've heard the argument before. There hasn't been very much support for his theory in the field has there? One question that came to my mind was, "Does Jaynes suggest that two hemispheres are required for consiousness? If so, why do patients in split brain studies appear to still be conscious? In fact, it was my understanding that these studies suggest there are at least two minds which work in concert, producing the illusion of a unitary consciouness. Secondly, how would these allegedly pre-conscious humans appear to us. If I come upon a group of people who have built a village and have a community and they make and use tools, read and write, etc. ... how would I know that they were unconscious? Best regards, Scott Badger "Vita Perpetuem" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15927