Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA00626 (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 18:13:37 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bfc419$796d5ca0$03000004@r2z3h3> From: "Tyger" <void@internet-zahav.net.il> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1CC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Subject: Re: the usefullness of belief Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:13:45 +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
In short, I think that what happened next was a complete disassociation of
meme and gene. the belief meme took a course of its own and eventually
raised to the status of a culture/ society meme, forgetting its biological
ancestry.
The point is that as millenia passed, the memory of the meme persisted ,
whilst its actual origination, faded into obscurity. what remained is the
meme propagating itself through human culture. hence the arisal of
superstitions and the like became inevitable. accordingly, to this day we
may be swayed this way or that by certain belief memes, which are, as it
where, operating independently of the context, but solely upon a racial
memetic memory.
As culture became more and more complex (urbanization and the like) the
belief meme, took again upon itself a new function, that of social cohesion.
hence the arisal of group beliefs resulting in religions. those in turm
evolved into memeplexes, having a self-perpetuating mechanism.
Beliefs thus spread, not because they relate to some original biological
advantage or survival value, but au contraire, because they offer a social
cohesiveness that is self-fullfilling and self-referential.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Campbell" <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: the usefullness of belief
> 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 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 - 18:14:03 BST