Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA09692 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 23 May 2000 13:09:35 +0100 Message-ID: <392A2E21.C47D49E4@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:07:13 +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: Why are human brains bigger? References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1CF@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> I think this distinction between act and behave is a semantic one, there are
> things that animals and humans do that do not require beliefs, that's the
> only point I was making.
>
> It may be that humans' active behaviour is belief-reliant (breathing is
> passive, hunting is active in the sense I mean it here), and it's certainly
> interesting that you tie it in with the notion of self-awareness.
>
> I indeed think there is an important distinction between the beliefs you
> describe, which I totally accept and agree with, and religious beliefs, and
> perhaps it is the latter I'm thinking more of. The difference I think comes
> in the material consequences which are less concrete with religious belief
> tied as they are to abstract ideas and rituals.
I think you are basically correct on this. The core of religious belief is
really a body of laws that define cooperative behavior. So the consequences of
the belief are far more generalized. And you are right that the two are often
conflated, but I suspect that is primarily in non stratified, ancestral type
societies; when there is no significant division of labor, all the categories we
use to describe societies are melded together and it's tough to make a hard and
fast distinction between religion, practical science, magic etc. etc.
> One of the problems is that
> the two sorts of beliefs are often conflated- as with the rain dance.
>
> Vincent
>
> > ----------
> > From: Robin Faichney
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 4:10 pm
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: Why are human brains bigger?
> >
> > On Mon, 22 May 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > >So what are all those organisms that (probably) don't have beliefs, like
> > >insects, doing?
> >
> > They don't act, but they do behave.
> >
> > >The implicit point is that beliefs are not required for survival per se,
> > so
> > >the question is, why do humans need beliefs?
> >
> > I wouldn't assume that they do. The fact that something exists doesn't
> > imply it's required. But see also below.
> >
> > >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?
> >
> > You seem to be thinking particularly about religious beliefs, but I'm not
> > sure they're the best examples. I might believe that a particular area is
> > best for hunting, and such simple, concrete beliefs are likely to have
> > come about earlier than religious ones, I'd guess.
> >
> > However, that misses the point I was trying to make linking belief with
> > action. It seems to me that a member of a simpler species might well
> > exhibit behaviour quite similar to that of a human who had the
> > hunting area belief. So what's the difference (if any)? The human
> > thinks "I believe this, and I want to influence my comrades, because
> > not only will we have success in our hunting, but I'll get the credit".
> > And the animal doesn't! So what I'm saying is that belief and the
> > self-concept go together, and action goes right along with them. The
> > animal can be said to have a sort of working hypothesis, but it does
> > not have a concept with which it identifies: "I, me, my belief!". Nor
> > does it act on the basis of such a belief -- it just does what it's
> > inclined to do. Susan Blackmore would have us be just like that, and
> > I'm inclined to agree with her.
> >
> > --
> > 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 : Tue May 23 2000 - 13:10:12 BST