Came here to say the same thing. Excellent book, a thought-provoking read for sure

The great thing about that book was: once you understood the title, you didn't really need to read the book.

>The great thing about that book was: once you understood the title, you didn't really need to read the book.

Seriously, it's something I've never thought about, but once you hear "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" you kinda know what the theory is and it makes sense.

The thesis seems understandable to me from the title, but I couldn’t tell you whether we should believe it or not. I assume the content of the book provides evidence and justification. I assume, because I haven’t read it either.

I did read it. Also, a recent summary of "the world since Jaynes" (forgot the link)

They did say that he had something there. AFAIK they didn't say that he spawned a whole field of research, though.

>but I couldn’t tell you whether we should believe it or not. I assume the content of the book provides evidence and justification

I assume the same. It's just that there is something nice about a theory that basically tells you the core of what you need to know from the name of it.

Hollywood dialog:

"We're making a new movie. It's called 'Snakes on a Plane' "

"Oh? What's it about?"

Wait this guy's saying that humans weren't conscious prior to ~2000 BCE? That's at the very least quite an extraordinary claim.

It's an outsider view, but it is thought provoking, worth digesting. The mechanism and data (both historic and current) are more concrete than other theories of consciousness I'm aware of (although I'm no expert).

Consciousness might not be as essential to the human experience as is generally believed now a days. What percentage of the day are we really engaged in conscious rational thought anyways? And is it really what makes us human, or do subconscious processes play a much bigger role in the human experience than reason?