Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA23683 (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 15:48:57 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfc405$2933bb80$03000004@r2z3h3> From: "Tyger" <void@internet-zahav.net.il> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1C9@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Subject: the usefullness of belief Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:48:17 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Dear Vincent,
Couple of years back, a colleague did some research into dissipative systems
in far from equilibrium systems. One of the by-products associated with the
results (which I do not have the xpertise to deal with) was a simile
concerning the concept of distribution of projection capabilities in complex
systems. One of the issues we discussed was the resonable probability that
at a certain point in human evolution, some humans became better at what we
may folk-wise call guessing or intuition.
In other words, their brains became better at projecting probable
distribution of events, which led to higher degrees of accuracy in the
realms of hunting and the probability of finding beast A at location X, for
example. The concept belief we reasoned was a kind of explication provided
by these humans to their peers as a validation for their superior ability,
leading to a higher ability to attract females and thus eventualy to a
higher gene spreading. Thus by positing belief as the "causative agent" in
their actual success, a meme was born. the meme of belief. soon imitation of
the meme of belief spread because of its "perceived value" since the actual
capability of these humans to project distribution of probable events was in
itself inimitable. In short I think that humans needed belief as a statement
of causation. from this point on, the leap to a belief in a higher power
providing the added " perceivable success" to certain individuals is
inevitable. according to the above indeed humans dont need beliefs for
survival but "invent" beliefs to be used as explicative of causative powers.
a meme of belief can in this fashion also be used to explicate why this same
success rate of prediction (in fact probability projection) fails to be
consistent across time. From that moment on the belief becomes by itself
part of the survival kit. Not genetic anymore but memetic 'par excellence'.
Regards,
Tyger.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Campbell" <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 4:03 PM
Subject: RE: Why are human brains bigger?
> 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 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 - 15:49:26 BST