Evidence of earliest humans in North America corroborated by second study

[Cypress]

The first link below gives an excellent list of evidence for the bicameral mind theory and, in some cases, alternate theories. It does touch upon primitive societies, children and schizophrenics. Specifically in terms of auditory hallucinations.

The part about children was very interesting to me. Just as we can see the evolution of mankind in the development of a fetus, notably gill arches and a tail, the evolution of the mind in mankind may be seen in children. As the link notes, children can have imaginary friends or other auditory hallucinations that they believe are real. The alternate explanation is "vivid imagination" but offers no evidence nor explanation.

FWIW, I never had an imaginary friend and only recall one visual hallucination when I was 5 or 6; I crawled up into the attic of the large base-housing apartment building and saw a red devil-like creature coming out from behind a beam causing me to run back downstairs. LOL

Summary of Evidence for the Bicameral Mind Theory - Julian Jaynes Society

A summary of evidence for Jaynes's theory of origin of consciousness and the bicameral mind, including relevance to the theory and ...

www.julianjaynes.org

I've never had imaginary friends or any bona fide visual hallucinations I can recall.



You definitely have to watch out for those demons in the attic!

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Earliest evidence of humans in the Americas confirmed in new U of A study​

The new paper finds that the mud [containing the human footprints] is between 20,700 and 22,400 years old – which correlates with the original finding that the footprints are between 21,000 and 23,000 years old. The new study now marks the third type of material – mud in addition to seeds and pollen – used to date the footprints, and by three different labs. Two separate research groups now have a total of 55 consistent radiocarbon dates.

"It's a remarkably consistent record," said Holliday, a professor emeritus in the School of Anthropology and Department of Geosciences who has studied the "peopling of the Americas" for nearly 50 years, focusing largely on the Great Plains and the Southwest.

"You get to the point where it's really hard to explain all this away," he added. "As I say in the paper, it would be serendipity in the extreme to have all these dates giving you a consistent picture that's in error."

Earliest evidence of humans in the Americas confirmed in new U of A study

A new paper agrees with findings that footprints discovered in New Mexico are between 21,000 and 23,000 years old – much older than the previously known earliest signs of human culture in the Americas.

news.arizona.edu

I'm glad that I believed Frank when he said that it wasn't he.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Another paper reviewing Jaynes theory along with criticisms and alternate POV. Note the focus on volition, consciousness and the differences seen in how modern and ancient peoples viewed self-volition. It also points out possible cultural bias in the theory.

“They Were Noble Automatons Who Knew Not What They Did:” Volition in Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - PMC

An important question in consciousness research concerns its origins. In Julian Jaynes' book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, he suggests that consciousness arose rather recently in human history, sometime between ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusion​

From this brief overview I hope to have drawn attention to the importance of volition for Jaynes' theory of consciousness. In my analysis two themes have emerged: the first is that the experience of self-volition appeared fairly recently in human history, and the second is that, for Jaynes, it was the appearance of self-volition that signalled the emergence of consciousness following the breakdown of the bicameral mind. The latter is perhaps the most intriguing feature of Jaynes' theory from a contemporary theoretical perspective. This is because it implies that self-volition is a defining feature of human consciousness, perhaps even the defining feature. On this view, volition may be foundational to consciousness—only once an organism has internalised the causes its behaviour (thus linking them to the “self”) can that organism be said to be conscious.

Before concluding, it is important briefly to acknowledge the theory's critical reception, especially within academic circles (for a more extensive review see, for example Rowe, 2012). A number have found fault with various aspects of Jaynes' theory. For example, in an early review Block (1977) argues that if, on a superficial level, the narrative of ancient texts implies a profound difference in mentality, the most plausible interpretation of this is not that the mentality was profoundly different, but that the ancients' interpretation of their internal lives was different to our own. That is, the most likely scenario, according to Block, is that they had minds like ours, but a very different theory of mind.

It has also been noted that Jaynes' theory relies heavily on evidence from the Near and Middle East (Carr, 2006; Rowe, 2012). This is because, according to Rowe (2012), this is where the record is strongest. Inevitably this exposes Jaynes to the criticism that his theory is culturally biassed. Although it would be wrong to accuse Jaynes of an exclusive focus on these cultures (for example, he spends time in his book looking at evidence from Mesoamerican cultures such as the Maya), the fact remains that the theory relies heavily on a culturally limited evidence-base. The extent to which his theory may or may not apply to other cultures is an open question, and one that more recent scholars have started to consider (see, for example Carr, 2006, and his application of Jaynes' theory to ancient Chinese ancestral sacrifices).

Despite this criticism, there have also been notable defenders of Jaynes' theory, or at least certain aspects of his theory. For example, Dennett (1986) defends what he calls Jaynes' “top-down” approach to the problem of consciousness. Dennett is also sympathetic to Jaynes' ideas on the emergence of consciousness, namely that it may have happened relatively recently and that social/environmental factors were the driving force behind its emergence.

Although it is important to note the critical reception of Jaynes' theory, my aim in this article has not been to establish the veracity of that theory in terms of the origins of consciousness and human volition. Instead, my aim in this article is a modest one—to offer the reader a primer on the prominence of volition in Jaynes' theory. In doing so, I hope to have shed new light on what remains an important (if flawed) contribution to the field of consciousness research.

 

[Cypress]

Attempted negative proof fallacy. Science does not use consensus. Science is not a journal or magazine or a research.

Okay, so this is a tacit admission you don't actually have any research or data showing that carbon 14 data is garbage, which would be accepted by any legitimate scientific journal in the world.

 

[Cypress]

Another paper reviewing Jaynes theory along with criticisms and alternate POV. Note the focus on volition, consciousness and the differences seen in how modern and ancient peoples viewed self-volition. It also points out possible cultural bias in the theory.

“They Were Noble Automatons Who Knew Not What They Did:” Volition in Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - PMC

An important question in consciousness research concerns its origins. In Julian Jaynes' book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, he suggests that consciousness arose rather recently in human history, sometime between ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusion​

From this brief overview I hope to have drawn attention to the importance of volition for Jaynes' theory of consciousness. In my analysis two themes have emerged: the first is that the experience of self-volition appeared fairly recently in human history, and the second is that, for Jaynes, it was the appearance of self-volition that signalled the emergence of consciousness following the breakdown of the bicameral mind. The latter is perhaps the most intriguing feature of Jaynes' theory from a contemporary theoretical perspective. This is because it implies that self-volition is a defining feature of human consciousness, perhaps even the defining feature. On this view, volition may be foundational to consciousness—only once an organism has internalised the causes its behaviour (thus linking them to the “self”) can that organism be said to be conscious.

Before concluding, it is important briefly to acknowledge the theory's critical reception, especially within academic circles (for a more extensive review see, for example Rowe, 2012). A number have found fault with various aspects of Jaynes' theory. For example, in an early review Block (1977) argues that if, on a superficial level, the narrative of ancient texts implies a profound difference in mentality, the most plausible interpretation of this is not that the mentality was profoundly different, but that the ancients' interpretation of their internal lives was different to our own. That is, the most likely scenario, according to Block, is that they had minds like ours, but a very different theory of mind.

It has also been noted that Jaynes' theory relies heavily on evidence from the Near and Middle East (Carr, 2006; Rowe, 2012). This is because, according to Rowe (2012), this is where the record is strongest. Inevitably this exposes Jaynes to the criticism that his theory is culturally biassed. Although it would be wrong to accuse Jaynes of an exclusive focus on these cultures (for example, he spends time in his book looking at evidence from Mesoamerican cultures such as the Maya), the fact remains that the theory relies heavily on a culturally limited evidence-base. The extent to which his theory may or may not apply to other cultures is an open question, and one that more recent scholars have started to consider (see, for example Carr, 2006, and his application of Jaynes' theory to ancient Chinese ancestral sacrifices).

Despite this criticism, there have also been notable defenders of Jaynes' theory, or at least certain aspects of his theory. For example, Dennett (1986) defends what he calls Jaynes' “top-down” approach to the problem of consciousness. Dennett is also sympathetic to Jaynes' ideas on the emergence of consciousness, namely that it may have happened relatively recently and that social/environmental factors were the driving force behind its emergence.

Although it is important to note the critical reception of Jaynes' theory, my aim in this article has not been to establish the veracity of that theory in terms of the origins of consciousness and human volition. Instead, my aim in this article is a modest one—to offer the reader a primer on the prominence of volition in Jaynes' theory. In doing so, I hope to have shed new light on what remains an important (if flawed) contribution to the field of consciousness research.

Okay, that makes a little more sense.

The sense that we have a free will and the ability to self-actualize, may be marginally different from a seemingly more archaic emphasis on fate.

But there are still a lot of people today who don't think free will exists.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Okay, that makes a little more sense.

The sense that we have a free will and the ability to self-actualize, may be marginally different from a seemingly more archaic emphasis on fate.

But there are still a lot of people today who don't think free will exists.

I'm not the least bit sure that free will exists.
I can't visualize the bio-machinations required.
I don't view "fate" as the alternate answer, though.

My suspicion is total randomness,
but subconsciously,
it could be because that's what I'd prefer it to be.

 

[Cypress]

I'm not the least bit sure that free will exists.
I can't visualize the bio-machinations required.
I don't view "fate" as the alternate answer, though.

My suspicion is total randomness,
but subconsciously,
it could be because that's what I'd prefer it to be.

If free will doesn't exist, you can't say your wife or children freely choose to give their love to you. It's just the interactions of protons and electrons.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Okay, that makes a little more sense.

The sense that we have a free will and the ability to self-actualize, may be marginally different from a seemingly more archaic emphasis on fate.

But there are still a lot of people today who don't think free will exists.

Free will is a little different, but certainly related. You know I'm a free will advocate. Even if over 90% of our minds are genetic programming, personal experiences and social conditioning, I think there's enough spark there to make independent choices. OTOH, maybe it's the gods making us do it. LOL


Self-volition is more about consciousness. Animals don't "think", they just react to genetics and experience. No dog sleeping on the floor is pondering its place in the Universe or wondering if there's life after death.

Self-actualization is more about recognizing one's own value as an independent living being. Being self-actualized recognizes our own limitations but never a victim. Those on JPP who have a victim mentality are not self-actualized since they blame others for their own lives. Such people would certainly disagree that they have free will.

Again, measuring how people thought 3000 or 30,000 years ago compared to how they think today is highly problematic since there's very few factual ways to measure it. Writings, construction of monuments, cities, how they lived, who and what they worshipped, etc are all good indicators but not definitive proof like measuring thigh bone length in ancient humans or footprints in 20,000-year-old mud. Still, as the previously posted "summary of evidence" link pointed out, there are many ways to observe the evolution of consciousness both ancient and modern. If nothing else, such observations show how our thinking has changed over the millennia even if we don't understand how or why.

How the Skeletons of Our Prehistoric Ancestors Evolved to Modern Human Frames

As humans transitioned from hunter-gatherers to farmers, so too did their bone structure.

www.discovermagazine.com

Summary of Evidence for the Bicameral Mind Theory - Julian Jaynes Society

A summary of evidence for Jaynes's theory of origin of consciousness and the bicameral mind, including relevance to the theory and ...

www.julianjaynes.org

 

[Into the Night]

All hilarious. You idiots can't even figure out of you're alive or not!!

And the last thing you Democrats want is free will for anyone but yourselves!

 

[IBDaMann]

Earliest evidence of humans in the Americas confirmed in new U of A study​

Question: How do you spot utter booooolsch't right away?
Answer: You look for wild speculations that are presented as "confirmations." Even better if those wild speculations are of the unobserved distant past.

So, UofA speculations are afforded the status of "confirmations." Amazing.

The new paper finds that the mud [containing the human footprints] is between 20,700 and 22,400 years old

Which dating speculations were spliced together and crafted into a palatable guess and declared "thientifically valid"?

– which correlates with the original finding

Aaaah, so there was a previous speculation that the "researchers" set out to validate as their entire purpose for the effort. Is it any wonder that their invented narrative findings "correlate" with the previous speculation that they set out to validate?

that the footprints are between 21,000 and 23,000 years old.

Why did they pick that range? What other narrative(s) are they trying to validate?

The new study now marks the third type of material – mud in addition to seeds and pollen – used to date the footprints, and by three different labs.

This doesn't tell me the methods used to Frankenstein the arbitrary guess.

Two separate research groups now have a total of 55 consistent radiocarbon dates.

Of course they published the raw data, yes? They didn't keep it a secret, right? Could you post a link to the raw data and to the methods used?

"It's a remarkably consistent record," said Holliday,

I notice the word "consistent" repeated often, as though there might otherwise be a question about whether they accomplished what they set out to do.

a professor emeritus in the School of Anthropology and Department of Geosciences who has studied the "peopling of the Americas" for nearly 50 years,

I don't believe that he ever studied any peopling of the Americas centuries before he was born.

 

[IBDaMann]

I can't imagine boats 60k years ago were very sea worthy for open ocean journeys.

Is that because wood was somehow so much different back then? It really doesn't take much to build a boat. There is much speculation that certain Neanderthalls were navigators of the Mediteranean over 100,000 years ago. Once you discover that wood floats, the first thought is to make some floaties, and then it just hits you, i.e. "make a boat."

 

[IBDaMann]

The worst day as a paleoanthropologist is probably better than the best day as a tax accountant.

Let's see.

A "worst day" as a paleoanthropologist ...

... and a "best day" as a tax accountant ...

Yeah, that's a tough one.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If free will doesn't exist, you can't say your wife or children freely choose to give their love to you. It's just the interactions of protons and electrons.

That's exactly the implication. A lack of free will means everything we do is purely animalistic. We can still have laws for animals who present a danger to the public, but putting them down or any other animal is no worse than turning off a bright light that is shining in our eyes.

We can still have sophisticated social rules, up to and including fatal consequences. Morals are whatever we say they are and people, because they lack free will, are without morals. We'd only have our basic genetic programming, experiences and social conditioning. Those who fall outside social parameters can be eliminated as a waste time, space and food.

That said, I'm still solidly on the side that we have freedom to choose regardless of how limited that may be. Some more than others due to genetic malformity, mental illness, dementia, TBI, etc.

"Prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him."
James 5:16


Just because I often strongly disagree with many JPP members whom I consider to be demented, suffering from a TBI or otherwise cognitively impaired doesn't mean I don't sympathize with their condition.

Even those who have studied behavioral psychology and experienced a career of observing the length, width and breadth of humanity should agree that not all human behavior can be accounted for as a matter of genetics, social conditioning or any other measurable factors.

Call it the X factor. I call it Free Will just like I use the word "God" as a place marker for the creation of the great unknown.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

 

[IBDaMann]

Okay, so this is a tacit admission you don't actually have any research or data showing that carbon 14 data is garbage,

Carbon-14 is total garbage if you are trying to date something for which carbon-14 cannot be used. Did you say that FOOTPRINTS were dated?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That's almost ten thousand years older than other known unequivocal sites of human habitation in North America.

yes.

most of what we call "facts" are probably wrong.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

This has nothing to do with that. It simply shows that prehistoric humans lived in the Western Hemisphere far earl ier than prior work had shown. It's mostly of interest to historians, anthropologists, and archeaologists.

the self appointed world narrative controllers get antsy when people start asking too many questions.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

If free will doesn't exist, you can't say your wife or children freely choose to give their love to you. It's just the interactions of protons and electrons.

That's true, of course, C,
and it's pretty obvious that we all respond to one another as if free will exists.

I've admitted all along that I have inclinations, not actual knowledge,
but to my mind, "random" is just easier to envision
than a free will without being able to imagine how the latter works.

I've always been skeptical about supernatural phenomena,
and free will would have to be supernatural.

If it's NOT the interaction of subatomic particles, that it IS supernatural.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That's true, of course, C,
and it's pretty obvious that we all respond to one another as if free will exists.

I've admitted all along that I have inclinations, not actual knowledge,
but to my mind, "random" is just easier to envision
than a free will without being able to imagine how the latter works.

I've always been skeptical about supernatural phenomena,
and free will would have to be supernatural.

If it's NOT the interaction of subatomic particles, that it IS supernatural.

only totalitarians seek to deny free will.

 

[Cypress]

That's true, of course, C,
and it's pretty obvious that we all respond to one another as if free will exists.

I've admitted all along that I have inclinations, not actual knowledge,
but to my mind, "random" is just easier to envision
than a free will without being able to imagine how the latter works.

I've always been skeptical about supernatural phenomena,
and free will would have to be supernatural.

If it's NOT the interaction of subatomic particles, that it IS supernatural.

I think it's easy to say on paper that nothing is real except the deterministic motions of protons and electrons.

It's harder to actually live that philosophy out in real life. We all want to believe our girlfriends, partners, and spouses freely chose to love us. We all want to believe that friendship, loyalty, and trust are voluntarily given to us by someone with a free moral agency.

But I cannot definitevly prove strict physical materialism is all there is in this life.