>Jaynes places the event at about 1300 B. C. (see page 250 of his book) and
>his claim is supported by a fair amount of data -- evidence. Jaynes, a
>professor at Princeton, wrote the book in 1976, promising a sequel,
>tentatively to be called THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONSCIOUSNESS, in 1984. Don't
>know if the second book ever appeared.
>
>Unverifiable claim? Yes. I'd call it a speculation -- on the greatest
>mystery of our time -- our human self-awareness. Worth consideration,
>though. There is more to the human equation than music/art/building things
>and bi-pedalism. IMO, of course.
>
I agree that there is much more to humanity than building things. But I can
not observe those extra things even in you. That is, I can not observe your
inner states nor can you observe mine. All you can observe is my behavior. I
know that you do not have the mind of a cat because you do not pounce on small
things that move rapidly across the floor; but cats do. I know you are not
froggie-minded because you do not flick your tongue when a fly is near. What
you do hawever is do things that other humans do. I am forced to conclude
that you are human.
>My own speculation -- and that's all it is:
>
>1. Assume the Jaynes' thesis is true.
>2. Somerthing happened about 1300 B.C. -- or maybe earlier.
>3. Assume that something was the infusion of a "soul" by God into humanity.
>
>I know -- I must assume the Greek soul/body split to do this -- I'll do
>that for now.
>
Question. If the infusion of the soul makes no difference in behavior, how do
we know it happened? This is the part of jayne's book I can't fully remember.
What is the evidence for this change?
>4. Assume that every time you -- or I -- or any human makes a decision to
>do something -- like write this post, for instance, or raise a finger, we
>are doing so because we have "free will," or -- in other words, we are
>doing it "supernaturally." What I mean by this is there is no "scientific
>explanation," even in principle, that can be used to explain why we make
>that decision and perform that action -- even though the action be as
>simple as raising a finger in the air. WE partake of the supernatural -- or
>the non-natural, to use what is perhaps a better word. WE act, in a small
>way, like gods.
>
The above reminded me of the following. I don't quite know what to think of
it or how it fits in but it is something that must be taken into account.
"Libet et al. have demonstrated that a 'person's' brain
makes a decision to act before the 'person' is aware of having
decided to act; that is, the brain makes the decision and then
informs the person of the decision, who (mistakenly) believes he
or she actually 'made' the decision. In the experiment to
showthis, a spot rotating on a TV screen at a rate of 2.5 cycles
per second is watched by an experimental subject. The subject is
asked to decide of his or her own free will to bend a finger, and
note the position of the spot when the decision is made. An
electrode attached to the head shows that, on average, a
potential change in the brain occurred 0.35 seconds before the
person sid he or she 'intended ' to act."~Frank J. Tipler, The
Physics of Immortality, (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 201
>5. This capability came about with the soul-infusion of course.
>
>Just a speculation. Not well though out. Ignore it if it sounds "dumb." But
>here's the implication. Assume all the above is factual. That means that
>when I decide to deliberately raise my finger, that's a decision, and it is
>one made via "freewill," or non-naturally. Therefore, in principle at
>least, a real "gap" ought to be scientifically measurable -- some
>collection of physical particles/electrical pulses NOT in "obedience" to
>established known "laws" of motion & electricity. I can't figure out if I
>like that implication or not. But the idea seems to be testable, again, in
>principle anyway.
>
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm