Forums » Smalltalk » Has anyone heard of the bicameral mind theory?

... mentioned in the show Westworld.

And if so do you believe it could be true, or is complete bullpuckey?

Well, it apparently is a real world hypothesis, and looks like it's helped spawn similar hypotheses and is overall considered controversial (but not wholly rejected).

Which mostly just means that probably none of here are fit to state more than personal opinion about how valid it may or may not be. I'd have to spend a lot more time looking it over to develop any proper opinion, but my immediate thoughts are that it sounds needlessly complicated and like just another attempt the hold onto the idea that humans are somehow more "special" than other animals. It seems like studies of human consciousness and development have a bad habit of just assuming that specialness as a baseline, even though studies of the psychology of other animals keeps showing them to be more and more incredible and ever more on-par with us.

I'm in the "total bullpuckey" boat myself, and possibly even further and into the "actually is probably harmful as a theory" camp.

Zelphyr said it first; for the bicameral mind theory to hold any water, it would require that animals act as "automatons" that are completely unable to resist their instincts, learn new things, etc. Anyone who has spent any time around animals knows this isn't true. For example, they can be startled and choose to resist the urge to run away and instead go to investigate the new thing after an initial second of fear.

It's probably also worth mentioning that theories like this, where certain "lower orders of being" are incapable of doing anything but responding like robots to stimuli, have been used to argue that animals don't actually really feel pain in the way that we do, therefore it's okay to do horrific tests on them. And it has been used to argue that there are "less evolved" humans that don't have real thoughts or feelings, therefore all the evils of racism aren't really evils at all and it's okay to treat certain types of people like the aforementioned robotic animals we can do anything to.

I don't think any human minds work this way, and I'm fairly certain no animal minds actually work this way either.

The only place I'd entertain that it might apply is to actual robots, depending on how they are made.

Utter and complete nonsense. The timeline given by this..."theory" is dead in the water from a cursory scan of the Epic of Gilgamesh. which predates supposed development of the bicameral mind and demonstrates a capacity for reflection that a bicameral mind would be incapable of.

Kim covered the other issues with this "theory" quite nicely.

Bury it next to phrenology and eugenics. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I want to step back in real quick to say that from the extremely little understanding I got reading about it, it did seem to me like there are aspects of it that could be used to help understand certain concepts, a bit like the concepts of id, ego, and superego can still help in the discussion of some topics even though there's little to no structural support and certainly nothing so clear-cut, and I'm pretty sure the concepts are mostly just linguistic relics rather than actual scientific concepts by now. And if any of the hypotheses that have built off the concept seem more grounded and workable, then it still warrants acknowledgement for existing even if it ends up completely wrecked, sort of like how the idea of disease being transferred through "bad air" turned out to be garbage but still arguably helped along the way to figuring out germ theory and airborne toxins (even though it does need to be noted that the "bad air" thing also got in the way and created some problems itself).

From my (again, extremely limited) understanding, the biggest problem I see with it is the timeline, which I don't think is totally inseparable from the base concept of a brain having basically an input part and an output part that got garbled at some point. I just wouldn't have it as a part of human development so much as an aspect of cognitive development of, like, some of the earliest life forms. That context seems like it'd make a lot more sense. And I mean backing waaaaaaaaaaaay up. Aside from general observations of modern animals and ancient anthropology stuff both conflicting with the claimed timeline, recent studied have been proving that basically all prior studies done to identify just self-awareness alone have been missing tons and they aren't sure how to even fix that yet; and studies focused on specifically intentional/active teaching as a sign of intelligence (with "teaching" requiring a behavior that has a measurable cost to one individual that measurably helps another individual to perform better, plus other details I don't clearly recall offhand) have so far identified the behavior in a number of very different animals, including at least one species of ants.

Overall... I think we simultaneously credit other animals with too little ability to think, understand, and choose, and credit humans with too much of those same things. My own thoughts on the whole thing lean heavily into Chaos Theory.

I agree, and I think you have targeted the theory at one of it's most vulnerable weaknesses--because, although we cant go back and interview Greek soldiers at the battle of Troy, most of us have had the chance to interact closely with animals and so it's easier to examine the difference between what the theory seems to say they should be like and what they actually are like.

And indeed, yes, I was only hoping to get personal opinions and just fodder for interesting thoughts. Which these answers are good for--this is exactly what I was aiming for.

And also, the next time I watch Westworld, if it spooks me out a little, I have some rational, reasoned arguments bouncing around in my head to dispell the spookiness. 🙂

Oh man. So many good points. That's a mic drop moment.

I hadn't thought about it being harmful in it's current state, but you're right, it absolutely could be!

I was sure that the theory annoyed me (mainly because it was saying silly things about people who lived not that long ago and whom I think clearly were as conscious as anyone else). But it annoyed me only because I thought it was wrong (untrue), not because of any real-world impacts I thought it could have. But your bit of analysis here has convinced me that this is actually is an impactful question rather than just a fun, theoretical question for cocktail parties or something. Nicely done. 😍

I like the specific example you give of an animal resisting an impulse.

Exactly! The Epic of Gilgamesh. And probably tons of other texts. I think we can say Q.E.D. at this point. It is proven. Thanks for indulging me in this intellectual exercise, folks. ✅ 🙃

So interesting! Input and output parts that got garbled at some point. (!) But maybe way earlier on.

I have often wondered about this: since a bacteria voluntarily "chases" food or a better environment, doesn't it then think? Isn't thinking a necessary part of deciding to do one thing versus another thing? Maybe that's even something crucial to the definition of life--the ability to decide something. To choose. Maybe it's the thing that makes living matter different from non-living matter. I wonder. But I'm tangenting---

Ants? Ants have been found to exhibit some aspect of self-awareness? WOW. *fascinated*

I totally agree with your characterization of how the theory can matter because it was the foundation for something, even if that thing built on it has changed so much that it required the foundation itself to be completely changed, yep. Like the bad air thing.

And I also think there's SOMEthing of value to be found in SOME of it... I'm fascinated with how "split-brain" patients can literally have their left hand try to do something while their right hand tries to prevent their left hand from doing it-- (I think there's something to be discovered there, about human nature, but I dont know exactly what..)

And the theories that maybe some kind of ....wisdom/insight/sixth sense...may come from one side of the brain to the other in a way that makes the receiving side perceive that wisdom as coming from an outside source. Some theories like that refer back to this bicameral mind theory so I will say I do find those interesting even if I don't find that bicameral mind theory itself believable --- but like you say, as a foundation or a...word bank...maybe it's useful in some ways....so true.

*brain is happy from this collaborative analysis*

~~~~~~~~~~


[edit]

Okay, I just looked up that ants and self-awareness thing you mentioned, and I found a thing. I'm going to share it here because...well, it's just so hella interesting.

I was going to clarify that I was talking about ants teaching, and that that's separate from self-awareness, that I included it as an example of other aspects of intelligence, consciousness, reasoning, that sort of thing (consciousness and self-consciousness are separate things), but you went and pulled up ants potentially showing self-awareness. And looks like it includes some of the questioning of how to actually interpret results, too. (That mirror test has been the standard for awhile, but among other things, there's been cases of animals technically failing it while still showing other behaviors either in those tests or in ones set up differently that indicate self-awareness being there; for example, I forget which, but there was a species of monkey that failed with the dot thing, but both passed another variation and also would just, like, generally be very obviously checking themselves out while clearly aware it was their own reflection.)

But yeah, the garbled input/output thing seemed like the kinda thing the bicameral mind hypothesis was getting at? Also totally possible I just plain didn't read enough of the hypothesis itself. I focused a bit more on how it was viewed by others after getting what seemed like the basic concept. I also noticed that it was, indeed, referred to as a "hypothesis" rather than a "theory," which is an important distinction in science stuffs!

Actually it's scientifically referred to as "The Bicameral Mind Hypothesis".

hy·poth·e·sis
[hīˈpäTHəsəs]
NOUN
hypothesis (noun) · hypotheses (plural noun)
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:

the·o·ry
[ˈTHirē]
NOUN
theory (noun) · theories (plural noun)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:


They have no evidence, it's just a book to tease the mind with a "What If' scenario.

Ah, indeed. You're right on all counts. The bicameral mind hypothesis. Thank you, it's an important distinction indeed!

Also, I see--my bad for misunderstanding what you were saying about the ants.

And I see your point--any or all of us could be understanding it wrong or not fully understanding it. That's totally valid. Point taken there. I might have put off an...air of certainty about certain ways of paraphrasing what that hypothesis says that wasn't totally warrented. I just got excited about the input/output analogy because it makes sense to me (in my also, admittedly limited layperson's grasp of this topic). It's just fun. For what it's worth I do think everyone's input has helped me get a better grasp of the topic, so that's cool. So thanks for that and the clarifications.

Lol.

Yes, I know. I'm familiar with the difference between the two--I was just a bit careless using the word "theory" in more of a colloquial way (the way it's sometimes used in pop culture), rather than in a scientific way. Thank you for making the distinction so clear in case anyone is unfamiliar with the difference between a hypothesis vs. a theory.

Indeed, it's the bicameral mind hypothesis, not the bicameral mind theory.

I just wanted to point it out, because theory denotes it has scientific evidence that supports it.

The Bicameral Mind Hypothesis has no scientific evidence to support it. The book was written to make money off erroneously labeling a hypothesis as a theory. LOL

Sorry, I am fairly to the juggler vein when it comes to topics. When the topic started off with the incorrect labeling of theory versus hypothesis it gave it educational power and distinction that is has not scientifically achieved.

Just enjoying reading everyone's opinions on the hypothesis. Kim's comments made me smile, very intelligent.

Very interesting read here in this thread!

In the most kindly way of poking fun, I hope, do you mean the jugular vein?

Fascinating. I think debating the origin of consciousness is a bit beyond me as I'm just some dude tbh. I've never studied this in a meaningful way, most I've ever done is skimmed a hot take tiktok and looked at the wikipedia, but as a thought experiment and theory it's fun.

I'm glad you find it fun. *smiles* I am like the coffee shop barista at Starbucks that sells you a coffee then strikes up an hourslong conversation about whether freewill exists, what happens inside a black hole, or what alien cultures might be like Thanks for visiting my "virtual coffee shop."

OH absolutely it was befabled as badly as any science is in showbiz, a cryptic-enough sounding group of words to bring mystery and depth to a topic on which the writers had run dry. Reminded me of Cartesian Theater, actually, like it's something that can sound plausible if you don't know any better.

The good news is I get to feel like an absolute grownup whenever a script yanks the green curtain clear off the rod. "Robots suddenly develop 'souls' " isn't a tired trope yet, I'll be over here with the popcorn and the pointy sports banners.

And this is why I do not participate in public gatherings. The spelling of words when I have not been able to sleep in 60 hours is more important than what I said. I apologize for my misspelling of a word, and enjoy the topic at hand!

I'm very sorry for offending you, I didn't realize how unkind of me it was to undermine your part of the discussion or take it so lightly. It's more like, I felt that all that there was to say, without much deeper thinking on my part, had been said already; and I thought it would be funny to point out a slight error in the format of your statement as you were pointing out a technicality error in someone else's, whether yours was more relevant or not. I apologize, and wish you well in sleeping and such.