Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA23527 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 22 May 2000 15:05:35 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1C9@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Why are human brains bigger? Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:03:34 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
So what are all those organisms that (probably) don't have beliefs, like
insects, doing?
The implicit point is that beliefs are not required for survival per se, so
the question is, why do humans need beliefs?
The biggest problem, as I think I've said, is that only humans seem to
express beliefs in external ways, through ritual essentially, and there
seems to be a clear point in human evolution when ritual emerged. So what
was is that created the conditions in which natural selection favoured
humans that had beliefs, which it undoubtedly appears to have done?
Moreover, what were the triggers that turned internal beliefs into shared
ritual behaviours?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Robin Faichney
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:35 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Why are human brains bigger?
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >No, there's no problem.
> >
> >I see what you're saying about levels of perception, and I'd agree, and
> you
> >have got the main point in a nutshell I was trying to make, that certain
> >behaviours, clearly evident in other organisms like insects, but also
> >apparent in humans (although far less obviously) are conducted without
> the
> >need for conscious thought- breathing for example.
>
> OK
>
> >So, I think this related to the statement that Chuck made about all
> actions
> >requiring beliefs. It does depend on what you call an 'act', mind you,
> and
> >this I think needs clarifying.
>
> That's easy. It's an act if it requires some belief! :-)
>
> (To come up with a circular definition is good, if what we're really doing
> is
> realizing an existing circularity.)
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ==============================================================This was
> distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 22 2000 - 15:06:34 BST