'wasn't just a metaphor'/metaphor constructs how we interpret experience...

My opinion, Jaynes is credible, yet his reputation may say otherwise. Of course credibility doesn't imply he's right. Nothing is certain, or falisfiable really, at this point but there are plenty of resources commenting on it if you look hard enough. Julian Jaynes Society is working on its library and I believe Brian McVeigh specifically is a guy who is doing some armchair psycho-archeology work in memory of Jaynes. Of course this is a resource to confirm, not deny the theory. Worth the time if you're interested. A good amount is written, presumably, without Jaynes in mind or consciousness or whathaveyou and makes a good case for him regardless.

Thanks for linking that blog entry. Rewording Jaynes' idea of consciousness as ToM can be appealing. I generally read his 'consciousness' as 'reflexive consciousness' to stay away from misconception.

I do think that there is a good amount of neuroscience that supports his dual brain model. (Its more comprehensive than what Peterson assumes). It takes some ingenuity though, as you have to imagine how a modern 'reflexive consciousness' may operate differently. A tenet of his theory is that neural systems are adaptable by different means than natural selection, that processes of mind are rebound and reconstituting new capacities for thought and deliberation. Thus a pre-self-conscious mind becomes reflexive given the right circumstance.

To address that article again and the topic of the tribal/aborigine mind, we should consider how their environment should not be considered the same as that of the Bronze Age Middle East. There is, perhaps, a curve relating population size (as a cognitive stressor) and the permeance of hallucinated gods, assuming Jaynes' theory. See Jaynes' chapter regarding dead king, first god. Hierarchical social structure may be a prerequisite for the Jaynesian model.

The problem with Jaynes is how unfalsifiable his theory becomes. That too can add to its appeal. I can say that his theory of Bronze Age collapse is pretty convincing and aligns with the general motion of history and the pressures that expansion and trade present. Of course my credibility is worthy of questioning too.

I want to add that a study of Hindu/Buddhist and Ancient Chinese philosophy is a place that should receive more attention. To clarify Jaynes' theory would not assume that 'reflexive consciousness' would have evolved in the same time frame necessarily as described in Origins, rather that consciousness as such has its own history in that -cosm of humanity. This is something I would hope to learn more about. Regardless of the validity of Jaynes, looking between major traditions for the origins of a concept of consciousness seems like valuable space for inquiry.