No doubt there is also a privileged historical reference as well. Angels? Disembodied souls? Positively medieval. Dualism? A bit dressier, but still discredited. Free will? That’s something still being disputed, but the free will of modernists is not the free will bandied about half a millenia ago. That seems to be yet another convenient myth. So how about consciousness and ‘internal’ states? I could see quite easily a future where the ‘consciousness’ of the late 22nd century is not the consciousness of today. This is not too far from modern consciousness being a relatively new historical phenomenon ala Jaynes, btw. And points to the difficulty of acquiring evidence that such is the case; the absence of fossilized remains being something of a hindrance.
This presumably refers to Julian Jaynes and The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. (I haven’t read it; I was sure until I checked that Dennett discussed it extensively in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, but I can’t find such a discussion now, and thus have no idea why I know about it.)
Sorry, didn’t see this right away for some reason. Yeah, I think I’d like to read it at some point. And I don’t see it on the internet, so I’ll take you up on your offer. Could you send a copy to [email address redacted]?
Jaynes is first mentioned on p. 221 of Consciousness Explained, and I haven’t got that far yet. I’m really rather perplexed about this; I have a distinct memory of reading about Jaynes’ bicameral mind, in some detail, in something by Dennett (around the same time I was reading Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash, oddly enough—which was late last fall, I think). The slight reference in DDI that I can find almost certainly wouldn’t have been enough to prompt me to look it up (although I looked up and learned about a lot of things as a result of reading that book).
No doubt there is also a privileged historical reference as well. Angels? Disembodied souls? Positively medieval. Dualism? A bit dressier, but still discredited. Free will? That’s something still being disputed, but the free will of modernists is not the free will bandied about half a millenia ago. That seems to be yet another convenient myth. So how about consciousness and ‘internal’ states? I could see quite easily a future where the ‘consciousness’ of the late 22nd century is not the consciousness of today. This is not too far from modern consciousness being a relatively new historical phenomenon ala Jaynes, btw. And points to the difficulty of acquiring evidence that such is the case; the absence of fossilized remains being something of a hindrance.
This presumably refers to Julian Jaynes and The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. (I haven’t read it; I was sure until I checked that Dennett discussed it extensively in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, but I can’t find such a discussion now, and thus have no idea why I know about it.)
Would you like to read it? I have a (not too great) scan of it.
Sorry, didn’t see this right away for some reason. Yeah, I think I’d like to read it at some point. And I don’t see it on the internet, so I’ll take you up on your offer. Could you send a copy to [email address redacted]?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5317066/jaynes-origin-consciousness-breakdown-bicameral-mind.pdf
Thanks!
Dennett touches on it (IIRC) in Consciousness Explained, maybe that’s where you remember it from...
Jaynes is first mentioned on p. 221 of Consciousness Explained, and I haven’t got that far yet. I’m really rather perplexed about this; I have a distinct memory of reading about Jaynes’ bicameral mind, in some detail, in something by Dennett (around the same time I was reading Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash, oddly enough—which was late last fall, I think). The slight reference in DDI that I can find almost certainly wouldn’t have been enough to prompt me to look it up (although I looked up and learned about a lot of things as a result of reading that book).
Jaynes also gets a mention in Breaking the Spell.