Before Consciousness

Plain of Lesithi, island of Crete, 1980

Julian Jaynes earned master's and doctoral degrees in Psychology from Yale, and taught at Princeton from 1966 to 1990, the whole time doing science. One online bibliography of his work lists over 40 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, book chapters, and presentations. He accomplished a lot in his field.

The journal articles include “Imprinting. The interaction of learned and innate behavior: III. Practice effects on performance, retention and fear” in the Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, “The function of the frontal cortex” in Psychological review, “Studies of Maternal Retrieving in Rats. III. Sensory Cues Involved in the Lactating Female’s Response To Her Young” in Behaviour, and “The evolution of language in the late Pleistocene” in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Hard science, peer reviewed, from a Princeton researcher.

Jaynes wrote only one book. He titled it The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Being a scientist with a sharp mind and curiosity to boot, the first few chapters of that book he devotes to defining terms and creating context. He lists the various broad answers science has proposed to the question, “What is the origin of consciousness in evolution?”, and discusses the difficulties and shortcomings of each.

He then looks closely at a list of broad answers to the question, “What is consciousness?” This chapter, “The Consciousness of Consciousness,” is probably the best exposition that I’ve ever read of the different answers to that question, and the assessment of each: Is it probable? Is there evidence? What does relevant research say?

He then lays out his conclusions:

Consciousness is not mere reactivity to the environment.

It’s not involved in most visual phenomena.

It’s not “involved in the performance of skills and often hinders their execution”.

It’s not necessary for speaking, writing, listening, or reading.

It doesn’t “copy down experience” like a camera or videorecorder.

It’s not involved at all in classical conditioning of behavior.

It’s not necessary for learning skills or solutions.

It’s not necessary for making judgments.

It’s not the source of reasoning.

It has no location.

He ends this very long, very well presented argument:

If our reasonings have been correct, it is perfectly possible that there could have existed a race of [humans] who spoke, judged, reasoned, solved problems, indeed did most of the things that we do, but who were not conscious at all…

[U]nless you are here convinced that a civilization without consciousness is possible, you will find the discussion that follows unconvincing and paradoxical.

But rather than take my word for it, if you've read this far: get your hands on this book, and read chapters 1, 2 and 3, preferably in one sitting.