Jaynes's, according to your comments, seems to be taking a linear and progressive view toward human evolution. I don't see humans now as any "better" than they were three thousand years ago, just different. And based on the writings of Epictetus, I don't see any difference between my though process and his even though we are separated by 2000 years. Of course I can't be SURE of that. And I am very suspect of theories about something as amorphous as consciousness. We don't understand our own, current, right here right now, consciousness. I really doubt Jaynes has explained consciousness of 3000 years ago.
And how can YOU know whether animals are conscious or not? Don't you think that's a might hubristic of you? (hubristic, my own word, thank you very much). Dolphins, apes, not conscious? I certainly wouldn't have the ego to say only man is conscious.
You confuse my being amazed by the silliness of a book, with being riled. That's a huge inferential mistake to make, and we are contemporaries. Interesting how wrong you can be, isn't it? Imagine how wrong Jaynes could be! I am. |
