A Conversation for The evolutionary function of belief

A853814 - I certainly hope you've gone to bed by now!

Post 161

Spiff


Hi Ben and Bed Time et Cie, smiley - ok

it's late... interesting stuff here... euuuuuggggghhhhhh. smiley - smiley

bis morgen


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 162

Gone again



Yes, I agree there is little doubt that beliefs can be said to evolve, but the environment and the context within which it happens is (I feel) qualitatively different from conventional (Darwinian) evolution. Perhaps to the point where using the term "evolution" to describe the development of human beliefs could be considered confusing.... smiley - huh

Do the giants ever tire of having all these people standing on their shoulders? If I were such a giant, I think I'd be quite peeved by now.... As a mere human, I'm wondering how stable is whatever it is I'm standing on at the moment. Is it the floor, or a large acromioclavicular region? smiley - winkeye

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 163

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

No need to 'feel' P-c! Memetic transmission occurs without the intervention of sex. That's a pretty clear qualitative difference is it not?

'Evolution' is surely an extremely confusing term to apply to beliefs. Rather than build, one upon another, they can be instantly overturned. Fashion is a common but trivial example. The Earth suddenly changing from being the centre of everything to a satellite of the sun is another.


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 164

Spiff


Yes, but isn't this entry more about certain beliefs affecting which individuals survive and thus the evolution of the group?


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 165

Gone again



Yes there is: "I feel" is an indicator that what I was about to write was an opinion, not necessarily a fact. An important distinction. smiley - winkeye



Yes, and yet 'evolution' can be observed, as long as the difference in context is allowed for.

<'Evolution' is surely an extremely confusing term to apply to beliefs.>

Possibly - but I should point out my own imprecision: Ben's title is "The evolutionary function of belief", which isn't exactly what we are commenting on.



The latter change was anything but sudden, IMO. From the initial hypothesis to acceptance took centuries, didn't it?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 166

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

Nothing so coherent Spiff, unfortunately. It isn't about 'beliefs' but 'belief'! So *which* beliefs is not relevant as long as they are 'inspired' beliefs - whatever they might be!

I have suggested that the survival effect could be measured objectively by counting the number of grandchildren of believers. This suggestion was dismissed in a rather cavalier manner without any alternative even being hinted at. I can't believe (he, he 'believe!) that this project has little more than a couple of weeks until completion.


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 167

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

I'm sure that you are largely correct P-c! That post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. What you 'feel' is as good a factoid as any other IMHO. I wouldn't be too scared of claiming it as a fact.

There can, of course, be evolution without sex, which I was rather hoping that someone would offer as an objection.

Could we have an example of gradual memetic change please? No, forget that, I was really thinking about paradigm shift as opposed to normal science (a la Kuhn). I can't comment on TEFOB as I still can't make any sense of it.

Yep, the heliocentric view was gradually adopted. I was WRONG, but I don't mind. Glad you pointed it out. Still, even that has been displaced by an emphasis on the fact that the Sun is a relatively insignificant and average sort of star. We sure aren't talking about evolutionary time scales here anyway. I was right enough if we think in those terms.

What I'm really wittering on about is the loose use of the term 'evolution' to describe what appears to me to be mere 'change'. Aren't we in danger of trying to sound too scientific while merely redescribing the obvious?


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 168

Spiff


hi again, smiley - smiley

it seems to me that the crucial point here is that at a certain point in human beings evolutionary 'history' some groups began to 'believe' in powers beyond the physical - mysterious forces.

The suggestion here is that those groups that believed in these mysteries prospered and those that didn't... well... didn't.

I'm not sure this is a true reflection of what happened in evolution, but i'd tend to think not, intuitively.

but a different example might help to clarify - is it fair to say that the ability to harness fire can be said to have 'influenced' evolution. ie that those groups that succeeded in doing so had an edge over other groups and thus dominated and, in evolutionary terms, were more likely to survive; indeed, we might say they were even able to cause other groups not to survive.

You there, Ben? I've got another prob with this, about the way it is weighted heavily on describing inspiring leaders and visionaries with just a few lines on the conclusions you draw from the phenomenon...


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 169

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

It seems to me that the quotes should be round the word 'evolutionary' in your first sentence. Better still, omit it since I can't see any justification for supposing that humans have evolved since there were humans (homo sapiens sapiens).

OK, harnassing fire influenced memetic transmission since it had to be a very contagious meme. But please, why call that 'evolution'?


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 170

Spiff


did fire not come before homo sapiens sapiens? Or at least contribute to the rise to dominance of that group while others *could* have dominated? Isn't that affecting the 'evolution' of the species?

I'm no expert here, so please take that for the sincere question that it is. smiley - smiley

as to talking about the 'history' of evolution, the speech marks were to indicate that there is no 'history' in 'pre-history', which is a fair description for the period i was describing. Make sense? smiley - smiley


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 171

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

Plenty of sense, Spiff. Sorry, I was being waggish as usual. My objection was really to the *lack* of quotes round 'evolution' in your first sentence.

I don't know whether any pre HSS used fire. Frankly, I doubt it. Anyway your point would, I think, apply to the origin of HSS as opposed to it's evolution. Darwin would appear to have used that word advisedly in his title! smiley - smiley


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 172

Gone again



And yet evolution is 'merely' change; the sort of change that contributes to the survival of the species in question. In other words, evolution is a special case of 'change', and could apply as Ben says it does (or not).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 173

Gone again



Well Dr. Jaynes believed that consciousness (as we know it) emerged around the time of the ancient Greeks.... I imagine *that* (if true) would be an instance of evolution in humans?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 174

a girl called Ben

I really MUST read that book. My copy is lent to someone who lent his copy to someone else...

B


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 175

Spiff


er... consciousness emerging at the time of the ancient Greeks? Sounds *much* too recent to my untutored ear!


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 176

a girl called Ben

Me too, which is why I want to read the book. I suspect it is one of those that I would read with a yellow highlighter and some 'calm-me-now' pills!

B


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 177

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

Sure, evolution is a special case of change. I just like the custom of keeping it for those cases, and not using it for mere changes.


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 178

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

I'm glad you said 'emerged'. Yep, that would be a pretty special case of change - and I don't believe it for one yoctosecond. You should read some of Alji's posts on ancient Indian civilisation.


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 179

Spiff

yes, and ancient African civilisations, surely. And Chinese and Indian, among, i imagine, others. smiley - sadface

but isn't the the problem is with the idea that an innate capacity for 'belief in the mysterious' could be a characteristic that might benefit individuals within a group; just as changes in the shape of the nostrils, or ears, or size of the brain?

this is going far further back through pre-history than any of the recognised ancient civilisations though. Back to the earliest notions of 'mysterious' or 'divine' forces associated with the nature of the sun, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, etc.


A853814 - The evolutionary function of belief

Post 180

Gone again

From your comments, I guess you haven't read Jaynes' book? smiley - huh Perhaps 'emerged' was the wrong word: it's difficult to precis a book like that in a sentence or so. smiley - doh Read it; you'll enjoy it. smiley - ok

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


Key: Complain about this post