#Jaynes: On the Origin of #Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976):
"But there can be no progress in the science of consciousness until careful distinctions have been made between what is intro-spectable and all the hosts of other neural abilities we have come to call cognition. Consciousness is not the same as cognition and should be sharply distinguished from it."
@bryankam If I understand this correctly, some unconscious behavior would classify as cognition? For instance, how we synchronize our footsteps when we walk with another person. That would certainly require cognition, as in brain activity, but we're largely unaware of the phenomena unless specifically pointed out.
I guess I should read this book, even if it's still highly controversial. I always liked the idea of a bicameral mind, even if it falls in the realm of fiction more than fact.
@dusnm It's a stronger claim than just footsteps; he tries to prove that things like learning, language, problem-solving don't necessarily involve consciousness as he defines it.
I think most people don't understand his definition of consciousness, which might be better understood as "heightened self-consciousness." He does *not* mean something like "awareness" or "experience."
The book is fantastic. Even if parts of his evidence are wrong, his theory explains much more than any other theory.
@bryankam I used footsteps as an example of an unconscious ability that requires brain processing. I can intuitively grasp the idea that certain acts don't require conscious thought, but this idea that higher cognition (like learning and language processing) isn't consciousness is new to me.
It doesn't help that consciousness itself is an ill defined term. Nobody can seem to agree on what it even is.
Bryan Kam
Dušan Mitrović