Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA23811 (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 16:12:06 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1CC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the usefullness of belief Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:10:12 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Thanks,
I'd agree beliefs have something to do with causation.
I'd also hypothesise that beliefs emerge out of our imperfect perceptual
system for identifying causation- hence wanting rain so much you jump about
in frustration, and it rains, leading to the rain dance, as you try to
capture the same set of movements/feelings that 'made' it rain the first
time. Then, you notice the times it does rain after the dance, and regard
the times it doesn't rain as your fault for not doing the dance properly.
Children growing up in such a culture fall in line with such a belief, even
if it seem ridiculous, because social relations are at stake if you don't go
along with it.
Another, controversial idea is that religiousity stems from temporal lobe
epilepsy, bouts of which can overstimulate the emotion centres of the brain,
resulting in the investment of huge amounts of emotional significance in
everything (and not just mates, relatives, children etc.).
There is no doubt that the capacity for belief has a biological basis in my
mind, the question as you suggest is what (if anything) happened next?
> ----------
> From: Tyger
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 4:48 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: the usefullness of belief
>
> 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 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 - 16:12:36 BST