So "because there are no detective stories in the illiad there was no crime" ?
Certainly yes, a hypothesis of a rich interior model is explicit in fiction, it's tempting to theorise but to theorise a rich interior model doesn't exist is to deny the kinds of abstraction needed to eg teach somebody how to do a thing. It's weighting fiction as proof of theory of mind above all other things.
Construct an internal model where an old, blind Neanderthal explains to a young child how to hunt a bison they have never yet seen, which does not presuppose exactly the same narrative structural necessities in the legend of gilgamesh: imagined time, third party views of acts done, if this then that.. it beggars belief that Jaynes can argue otherwise and be taken seriously. All Jaynes really does is establish a time terminus ante quem so to speak. He cannot establish terminus post quem at all.
He asks questions we still don't have answers for.
His answers are probably rubbish, but that doesn't matter. Without a suggested answer, there could have been no book. The assumption is that somebody will take up the questions and get a better answer.
Similarly, the question of how we see was answered with gradually increasing merit. First rays shooting from your eyes, then rays entering your eyes, neural processing for feature extraction, and integration into the fractionated attention stream, with a wholly confabulated continuity.
I like this model of emergent (theory of) mind better. I suspect at each stage, the sensor and the sensed couple. But, I am willing to bet a snake, purely on thermal signal, can (and does) make feints to confuse prey, before striking. That means to me they have an analytical model of "if this then that" beyond the trivial.
"What it is like to be a bat" poses questions to shape and form and understanding if you intuit a higher mind lies behind the sonar.
Probably? I just don't like Jaynes and allow that to leak into a critique.
Certainly yes, a hypothesis of a rich interior model is explicit in fiction, it's tempting to theorise but to theorise a rich interior model doesn't exist is to deny the kinds of abstraction needed to eg teach somebody how to do a thing. It's weighting fiction as proof of theory of mind above all other things.
Construct an internal model where an old, blind Neanderthal explains to a young child how to hunt a bison they have never yet seen, which does not presuppose exactly the same narrative structural necessities in the legend of gilgamesh: imagined time, third party views of acts done, if this then that.. it beggars belief that Jaynes can argue otherwise and be taken seriously. All Jaynes really does is establish a time terminus ante quem so to speak. He cannot establish terminus post quem at all.