Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA00245 (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 17:19:33 +0100 Message-ID: <39291735.ECAE8656@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 12:17:09 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: the usefullness of belief References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1C9@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <001301bfc405$2933bb80$03000004@r2z3h3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Tyger wrote:
> 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.
There is some research on how individuals rise to leadership status in ancestral
type societies. They generally are better hunters, BUT, they are also better at
being leaders. If they don't have both qualities, they abuse the part of their
power derived from being better hunters (which may, I would imagine, come in
part from a genetic source) and fail to get the necessary cooperation to hunt.
In fact, despite their superior abilities, they allow others of less ability to
lead the hunt at times to avoid the jealousy that could split the group. AND,
there is substantial evidence that because these men are allowed to marry more
women, they account for about 25% of the genes of the next generation.
> 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'.
>
I have difficulty following your logic. It seems to me that since there is an
objective reason why some are better at probabilities than others, that is what
moves the belief in the first place - which is to say that the belief is based
on a real phenomenon. BTW: the experiments on split brain vs. normal people on
judging probabilities shows that the former judge it VERY accurately, while the
normals don't come close. Mice also judge accurately. It seems that the events
have to go through a processing center in the upper brain before judgement is
made, and this is what throws them off. I would presume that it is at this level
that there is genetic variability in judging probability. (Mice don't have the
processing center)
>
> 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 - 17:19:59 BST