Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA00508 (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 18:01:10 +0100 Message-ID: <003001bfc417$bc639d00$03000004@r2z3h3> From: "Tyger" <void@internet-zahav.net.il> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1C9@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <001301bfc405$2933bb80$03000004@r2z3h3> <39291735.ECAE8656@mediaone.net> Subject: Re: the usefullness of belief Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:01:12 +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
The logic , is that the belief was at a certain point in time and as I see
it, for a brief period at that, indeed based on some genetic proficiency of
survival value. right after that, "I Believe":-), there came the split of
the meme from the gene. hence from that moment on , it will not be accurate
to say anymore that belief is based on some biological mechanism. my point
is that positing a neccessary biological basis for belief in modern human is
irrelevant. As I see it, today, the basis of the usefulness of a belief
should be checked in memetic context only.
Concerning your second point, the fact that they also need to be better
leaders, is irrelevant to my point concerning the origination of the meme of
belief. there is place for both parameters to join and co-evolve
simultaneously. the meme of the better leader and the meme of a belief in a
superior capability may have (and probably did) join forces to create the
belief leader- shamans and the like, which became through the ages a kind of
social support mechanism for the actual leader.
----- Original Message -----
From: "chuck" <cpalson@mediaone.net>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: the usefullness of belief
>
>
> 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 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 - 18:01:36 BST