hypothesis-one
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| hypothesis-one [2024/04/04 18:10] – brian.m | hypothesis-one [2024/05/14 13:36] (current) – jjswikiadmin | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | **Hypothesis One: Consciousness Based on Language** | + | ==== HYPOTHESIS ONE: CONSCIOUSNESS IS BASED ON LANGUAGE ==== |
| - | Consciousness, | + | **Theoretical Claim** |
| - | How Metaphors Work Their Magic | + | Consciousness, |
| We speak of our minds as being “quick, | We speak of our minds as being “quick, | ||
| - | For Jaynes metaphor’s persuasive power comes from its four components working together: The unknown thing to be described (metaphrand) and the known thing doing the describing (metaphier). For example, in the expression “time flies like an arrow” time is the more abstract, difficult-to-conceive metaphrand while arrow is the more concrete, easier-to-grasp metaphier. Note, however, that it is not really the arrow itself that provides the descriptive impact, but something about the arrow—its unstoppable speed, linear preciseness, | + | **Supporting Evidence** |
| - | It is the network of meanings in which a concept is embedded that grants expressive power to figures of speech (though not all metaphors are particularly generative). | + | // |
| - | Consciousness is the metaphrand when generated by the paraphrands of verbal expressions, but the functioning of consciousness is, as it were, the return journey. Consciousness becomes the metaphier containing past experiences, | + | |
| - | The Precursors of Mental Language | + | For Jaynes metaphor’s persuasive power comes from its four components working together: |
| - | + | ||
| - | Jaynes submitted that we need a “paleontology of consciousness” in which we can discover stratum by stratum how this metaphorically-built introcosmos we call subjective introspectable self-awareness was built up over the centuries. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Jaynes refers | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | When the gods began to fade into the mists of mythology individuals had not yet attributed their behavior directly | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Preconscious hypostases are “seats of reaction and responsibility” | + | |
| - | Phase 1: Objective. In the bicameral age terms referred to simple external observations. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Phase 2: Internal. Terms come to mean things inside the body, especially certain internal sensations. The transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 occurred at the beginning of bicameral mentality’s breakdown. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Phase 3: Subjective. Terms refer to processes | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Phase 4: Synthetic. The various hypostases unite into one conscious self that can introspect and self-reflect. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | In pre-Socratic times physicality and concreteness characterized what we would call psychological activity (metaphrands) which was located in bodily organs (metaphiers). As an example of hypostases, let’s take a look at ancient Greek. | + | |
| - | Besides breath, blood, and the brain, cognition and emotion were identified with the spatial cavity | + | |
| + | It is the network of meanings in which a concept is embedded that grants expressive power to figures of speech (though not all metaphors are particularly generative). Consciousness is the metaphrand when generated by the paraphrands of verbal expressions, | ||
| + | //Evidence from Child Development// | ||
hypothesis-one.1712272258.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/04/04 18:10 by brian.m
