Plant/Human Symbiosis & the Fall of Humanity: A Talk with Tony Wright

“I believe that the lost secret of human emergence . . . the undefined catalyst that took a very bright monkey and turned that species into a self-reflecting dreamer . . . that catalyst has to be sought in these alkaloids in the food chain that were catalyzing higher states of intellectual activity.”
--Terence McKenna
Tony Wright and Graham Gynn are authors of Left In The Dark--the book that presents Tony’s research outlining a radical re-interpretation of the current data regarding human evolution and, they contend, our recent degenerated state we call “civilization”. You can read the book for free here. Despite such a young and extreme proposal positive reactions are growing and include such minds as Dennis McKenna, Stanislav Grof, Colin Groves, Michael Winkelman and many others.
There are many mysterious anomalies about human evolution yet to be adequately explained. These include the human brains rapid expansion in size and complexity, why this accelerating expansion suddenly stalled roughly 200,000 years ago and our brains have been shrinking ever since, and why our rare glimpses of genius goes hand in hand with our species wide insanity.
The following is a discussion with Tony Wright on these anomalies and more, followed by some further information on his theory.
TS: After two decades of research and radical self-experimentation you’ve come to a synthesis between the ancient data and information coming out of modern science. Paradoxically this all seems to indicate a humongous problem, and simultaneously explains why we would be oblivious to it in the first place: we are all suffering from species wide neural retardation, and are now too deluded to even realize when faced with the mountain of evidence. Is this the general idea?
TW: Yes. It should be virtually impossible to find any supporting evidence for such a profound theory if there was no real problem with the development and structural integrity of our neural system in the first place. If there were only ancient accounts of the diagnosis, or any supporting biological data, or initial support from some of society’s sharpest minds, then it should at least ring alarm bells. That all those elements exist and in addition our collective behavior has long been thought by many to be insane indicates something really serious just doesn’t add up. If everything is fine then the theory would be a no-brainer to refute, and we should at least have no fear in thoroughly checking it out.
So during millions of years of evolution in the African tropical forest we developed a symbiosis with fruit, and your proposing that it is no coincidence the most complex tissue in the known universe evolved during a symbiosis with perhaps dozens of species of the most complex chemical factories on the planet. How did this occur?
I’m proposing that the accelerating expansion of the neo-cortex was due to a runaway feedback mechanism driven by our own hormone system in combination with the complex plant bio-chemistry provided by our diet. What has been overlooked is the profound effects of flooding our brains 24/7 for thousands of generations with this highly advanced molecular engineering formula. Fruit is essentially a womb-like developmental environment for the seeds and has very unique, highly complex hormonally active chemistry. Our early development is dictated by the transcription process whereby changes in how the DNA is read dictate the type of structures that develop. Steroids like testosterone are the key players here, but by incorporating more and more of these DNA-reading plant chemicals into our diet we basically shifted from a typical mammalian developmental environment to more of a plant developmental environment.
Along with regulating gene transcription many of these molecules increase brain activity, modulate the endocrine system including the pineal gland, inhibit mono amine oxidase (MAO inhibitors), are antioxidants and also inhibit the activity of our own hormones such as testosterone and oestrogens. Just altering the activity of these two hormones has a dramatic affect on many aspects of our development, physiology and neural structure. For example, decreasing they’re activity extends juvenility and the window for brain development by delaying the onset of sexual maturity.
All this coming together would have many interconnected affects and, being that this bio-chemistry would be present in the developmental environment it would dramatically impact what develops at this most sensitive and rapid stage of brain/endocrine system growth in the uterus.
This carried on after birth through breastfeeding, and then afterwards through directly ingesting this highly advanced molecular engineering cocktail we call fruit. Each generation would pass down a progressively modified neuro-endocrine system as a result. So after millions of years of ever more entangled co-evolution nearly all of the transcription chemicals present during our early development and on through life that were essential to our optimal design/functioning were lost and replaced by progressively worse substitutes irrelevant to our evolution . . . all the way until we reach today’s ‘junk’ food. Ironically much of this actually has the opposite effect of fruit bio-chemistry on our hormones, causing the unique process to reverse.
All of this sounds complex but at its foundation it’s just really basic engineering principles: If you change the design (transcription) and construction materials that a system or technology is built from and fueled by, then the structure and functionality of that system will inevitably change as a result. This logic is obvious when applied to any of our technologies but paradoxically we haven’t applied it to the thing involved in generating our perception, which just happens to be the most complex piece of kit we know. Our perception is directly correlated with and ‘effectively’ a product of the extremely sensitive structure and bio-chemistry of our brain and this has changed out of all recognition in a very short time. (more on this symbiosis)
Makes sense considering even the slightest alterations in the structure or chemistry of the brain can result in major changes in overall functioning, how we perceive the world, and our sense of self. The powerful effects of taking even a minut dose of a psychedelic being a perfect example of this sensitivity! What happened when we lost this symbiosis?
Even mild climate change can result in a shrinking of the forest. This would isolate and separate some symbiotic associations more easily than others but a big drying will affect even the most protected non seasonal niches. Eventually we left the forests and were separated from the highly advanced molecular engineering cocktail that we were immersed in for millions of years. The physiological structures most influenced by the symbiosis were the ones most vulnerable to exposure from the re-emerging basic mammalian hormone regime since it was these hormones that prevented their emergence in the first place. The most hormonally sensitive parts of our physiology would be the most affected; such as our reproductive system, immune system and our highly sensitive neural system, especially during its early development in the uterus.
When the symbiosis ended and the archaic steroid regime re-asserts its influence the neocortex stalls and accelerating expansion turns into contraction. The complex neural architecture begins to erode and because the left hemisphere of the brain is more sensitive to steroids this side inevitably erodes at a quicker rate. Some genetic asymmetry and specialization was the primitive norm, and now one side is inevitably reverting back to the primitive type more quickly than the other.
The orthodox view suggests each hemisphere has its own specialized capabilities and that the characteristics of the dominant left hemisphere, such as conceptual and rational thought/speech, are some of our most advanced traits. The data indicates that the development of the brain and in particular one side of the neocortex is now incomplete, and paradoxically the most retarded side has assumed control. With a loss of functioning we become less able to experience, understand and know, and with this comes fear. Fear is a powerful emotion that can mask all other mental functions and this played a part in suppressing the more baffling perceptions of the right hemisphere. When we lose any sense fear accompanies this and a growing sense of anxiety and the need for control arose as the left began actively resisting experiences it cannot categorize or understand since they are threatening to its very sense of self.
This has severely limited our perception and compromised many abilities. The evidence suggests those abilities as well as a wholly different sense of self lie dormant in the right side of our brain and is only occasionally glimpsed by a tiny minority of people. Unfortunately this also creates a paradox. The dominant side of the brain is assessing itself and so while the concept of specialist abilities appears initially to make some sense on further investigation all is not as it appears and this doesn’t hold up. I have proposed that the abilities and perception facilitated by the left side of our brain are a more primitive and greatly reduced or distorted version of what still remains locked away in the right. Instead of separate senses a unified and highly advanced system that perceives everything all at once without any problems was the norm. These glimpses of synesthesia for example (which some are actually born with) could be a relic of this unified and coherent perceptual capability now well beyond and frightening to the primitive neural architecture of the left hemisphere.
It’s interesting then that the myths of a previous golden age and humanities fall into dark times are found all over the world. Even the bible talks about our naked, forest dwelling, fruit eating past. This sort of theme is witnessed among Eskimos, Aborigines, Native Americans, Mayans and dozens of other cultures. Many also talked of a “higher self”. Do you think our ancient ancestors knew what happened? How did they go about addressing the problem? Do we still get glimpses of these right brained states of consciousness today?
When you look at the ancient myths and traditions with all this in mind it becomes blatantly obvious that they all are attempting to describe and address through various techniques essentially the same thing--although both the myths and practices have become inevitably distorted over time from their original purpose as the condition progressed. Of course our tendency today is to dismiss them all as “myths” but in reality they may be more historic account than myth, and this would be expected if the condition was progressive. I’ve proposed that the origin of these ancient practices, such as shamanism, meditation, sleep deprivation, etc, were borne out of techniques to reduce the influence of the degrading left hemisphere and/or engage the abilities of the increasingly suppressed right hemisphere. If fruit was all that was needed to turn around the negative hormonal feedback loop that developed, our ancestors would have figured this out a long time ago. These practices would make a lot of sense if the general condition exists.
Most of us today don’t escape the confines of the dominant left hemisphere except in dreams and perhaps subconscious glimpses during meditation or similar practices. More direct experiences are possible through supplementing with neuro-chemical analogues found in various psychedelic plants for example but a combination of approaches works best. Many such as prodigies, savants, etc, all display abilities characteristic of more access to the right hemisphere. Although if you were to take all of these abilities and put them together with once in a lifetime athletic feats, and shamanic states of consciousness it may still be only a glimpse of a state of being that our distant ancestors considered “normal”. While there has been a catastrophic loss the idea that we all have a fundamental problem with our neural functioning that is entirely treatable is immensely hopeful given our current situation.
---
Food for Thought
There appears to be a mountain of evidence supporting Tony’s theory. For starters, we are learning more and more about the beneficial properties of fruit bio-chemistry all the time. One tomato for example contains 10,000 different phytochemicals that we currently know about. Many of these chemicals are transcription factors influencing the way the DNA is read and thereby influencing the structures that develop. Is it any wonder then that this can affect brain size? That our brains are shrinking? That poor construction materials can possibly lead to brain damage? Or that what a mother consumes can have a life long impact on the child after birth? For millions of years this unimaginably complex formula was directly influencing what structures develop at the most sensitive stages of growth.
As the symbiotic relationship evolved the mammalian developmental environment was slowly infused with ever greater concentrations and complexity of plant hormones. This had a progressive impact on the way the DNA was read in turn resulted in novel structure and function.

Even if the neo-cortex could be built to the same structural specifications, the major part of its essential neuro-active operating environment was also provided by the chemical cocktail in fruit. There currently is no other coherent and contextual explanation for the accelerating expansion of the brain which suddenly halted and began contracting around the time we left the African forests.

In more recent times, the catastrophic loss of essential design specifications (transcription chemicals) and chronic neuro-chemical deficiency has been exacerbated by the use of increasingly poor quality construction materials.

Katherine Milton’s findings suggest that we have lost around 95% of the complex plant bio-chemistry and nutrients that were present during our evolution for tens of millions of years. When considered within the context of the design, development and function of most complex and chemically sensitive thing we know, these factors in combination can only result in a massive failure.
--
The Chemistry of Patriarchy
It sounds unlikely that our left hemisphere is a dominant yet damaged version of the right, however there is evidence from various fields to support such a seemingly wild notion. Simon Baren-Cohen has discovered evidence that the left hemisphere is more susceptible to testosterone damage and that higher levels of testosterone in the womb are linked to a lower level of empathy and less social skills. His theory is that autism is an extreme form of the male brain; the male brain being ordinarily less empathic than female brains in the first place. Estradiol is made from testosterone by the enzyme aromatase and plays an important part in the “masculinisation” of the brain, or in this case, the damage to the left hemisphere. So the degree of masculinisation is determined by the amount of testosterone available and the degree of aromatase activity.
The book elaborates: “As we have already seen (see Chapter Three for the link with oestrogen dependent cancer), the activity of aromatase is inhibited by plant flavonoids and, more importantly, by melatonin. Less melatonin leads to more aromatase activity, which in turn leads to increased masculisation of the brain and, at the extreme end of the spectrum, autism (which appears to be becoming much more common). Our ancestral fruit-based diet would have been rich in aromatase inhibiting factors--and in the past our pineals would have pumped more melatonin too. The degree of masculisation of the male brain we see today, therefore, may well be an aberration that has had huge consequences for us.”
Males therefore appear to be the most damaged. Where this manifests in a greater degree of left-brain dominance it can be a disaster, as is evidenced by the abundance of fear and control in our male dominated society. Perhaps it is no surprise then that we live in such a patriarchal society where it’s the old men, chronically deficient in plant chemistry and suffering from years of testosterone driven over-masculinisation, who send the young to war and are currently running our society into the ground through they’re greed and lack of empathic understanding.
Could it just be a coincidence that we see competitive and aggressive behavior all over the place and the biological data seems to predict this sort of behavior in the first place? To make matters worse much of the food we now consume contains the very same hormones that would have been inhibited, along with others that have many detrimental effects.
If humanity were a single patient displaying the range of behavior we are collectively capable of and turned up at the neurology/psychology department of a prestigious hospital, what would they think of our mild to severe tendency for self harm and suicide? Or our oblivious destruction of the very environment that sustains us?
Treating the hundreds of apparently 'distinct' behavioral, psychological and perceptual symptoms without at least checking for a general/structural cause would be grounds for serious negligence and a raft of law suits even if there were no smoking gun regarding evidence/mechanisms for a developmental/structural cause? In our case the evolutionary data and biological mechanisms are equivalent to fairly complete cctv footage of a serious accident, and the myths and spiritual traditions of many disparate cultures are eye witness accounts which include, once the dogma is stripped away, methods to treat the condition. Shamanism, psychedelic plants, yoga, meditation, fasting and sleep deprivation are just some examples of these techniques aimed at regaining some of this lost perception.
--
Psychedelics and Other Clues
Psychedelics like ayahuasca seem to be a powerful means of re-accessing these lost perceptual abilities (any wonder our left brained society has made these things illegal?). It’s been said that shamans for example who work with it enough can eventually bring in an altered state of consciousness willingly, without even drinking the brew. The beta-carbolines in ayahuasca alone are powerful MAO inhibitors with psychoactive properties by themselves (along with many other beneficial effects). We’re chronically deficient in not only a complex cocktail of plant MAO inhibitors but also the ones that our pineal glands would have produced in much higher amounts as well, given that flavonoids stimulate this gland. Pinoline is just one example.
Many other psychedelics can undoubtedly help as a partial treatment. Tony’s mention of synesthesia being a relic of this advanced perception makes sense in light of E.A. Serafetinides research. Serafetinides administered LSD to those who had undergone either left or right temporal lobe removal. He found the perceptual affects were virtually non-existent after right but not left temporal lobe removal--further supporting the idea that the left hemisphere is no longer capable of making use of such profound activity and that this is another psychedelic catalyzing access to the latent functions of the more sensitive right hemisphere.
Other research by Dr. Allan Snyder has found that by decreasing the dominance of the left hemisphere with magnetic fields the enhanced perceptual abilities of the right can be partially accessed. These include increased visual memory, drawing skills, and other abilities. He cites cases were autistic savants have damage to parts of the left hemisphere and how this results in a decreased ability to suppress the less filtered perceptions of the right hemisphere.
Just one example of this is Steven Wiltshire, who has astonishing artistic abilities coupled with a photographic memory. Oddly, he cannot add or subtract! His left hemisphere lost its linear processing but this decreased its dominance, opening the door to the rights more advanced abilities. There are many others like Wiltshire with similar stories.
Research into Alzheimer’s also supports the idea that we are chronically deficient in the chemicals abundant in a fruit, and that this is just a further symptom. Recently it has made headlines that hundreds of dementia patients could be helped by a “drug breakthrough”. Dementia seems to be partially halted and reversed by drugs with the same sort of activity we see among these fruit chemicals. A quick search on google reveals many fruit chemicals with the same exact properties. If this is the case then when we were flooded by an incredibly rich cocktail of flavonoids way beyond current research parameters then, relatively speaking, our reference points for dementia are invalid.
Insanity and Hope
If there was any indication at all that we had profound abilities locked within us then we should immediately look into this. Especially since it is precisely these sorts of enhancements in perception that are necessary if we are going to get ourselves out of the mess we’ve stumbled into.
As Einstein said: “The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.”
If there were any evidence at all for widespread neural retardation would it not be a near certain candidate for the root problem behind our collective insanity and inability to live harmoniously with each other and our environment? If there is a structural problem with our neural architecture then this provides an absolutely amazing opportunity for a species scale ‘fix’ to our current state of literal insanity, and offers immense hope for our dire situation here on earth.
Even if there was only the slightest indication that this was the case then we should at least check to be sure. Not rigorously checking into such a profound possibility would actually be a symptom, and it should be very easy to dismiss based on scientific methodology.
The current reaction to this research is split, but the initial support leans heavily towards the more creative, innovative and intelligent spectrum of society who have been willing to scrutinize with an open mind. Even still, such broad initial support is a conundrum for such a radical new idea. Although the book is not well known as of yet, the Transpersonal Association of Estonia has selected it for translation. Meanwhile it’s being dismissed--often before even evaluating the evidence--by those who cite current or familiar paradigms . . . exactly as predicted if the condition is real.
Major shifts in perception can be accomplished relatively quickly by combining various techniques. It’s straight forward: replace this plant bio-chemistry for the long term and diminish the influence of the left hemisphere while simultaneously engaging the right hemisphere. The trend is very consistent from those who’ve dabbled. The more one explores the more mind blowing and self-evident it becomes. Ultimately it comes down to a choice.
Look at the evidence, experiment and decide for yourself.
This only a glimpse at some of the supporting data. For more information see:
http://leftinthedark.org.uk/
http://beyond-belief.org.uk/
New book project: http://www.indiegogo.com/Make-up-your-own-mind
Images courtesy of the author.
Tweet- 4-20-12
- Trevor Smith's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version










Comments
it just makes sense
Hey Fractal
Thanks for your input! It seems we have similar stories.
Getting off processed foods certainly helped me, as did ayahuasca and this sort of thing. Although it wasn't until i did a full on shift to a raw plant-based diet high in fruit that things seemed to really turn around dramatically.
interesante
so
another spam bot?
alex104
The consensus among many
The consensus among many striving to better our world is that we are collectively engaged in a tightrope act between disaster and a massive shift in collective awareness. Our ignorance is jeopardizing the continuation of not only our own species but countless others, and the planet as a whole. We have the physical means to turn things around but it is a crisis of consciousness, and thus our own minds that stand in our way. We are more often than not glued into our conditioned behaviors and ways of viewing the world.
Without a fundamental change in the way we relate to ourselves, the earth, and our place in the cosmos, we will only see more of the same. History repeats itself and, as we have seen time and time again, attempts to fix any of the individual problems (symptoms) that arise from a deranged collective mind are doomed to fail in the long run unless the damaged equipment generating all these problems is addressed.
These words by Terence McKenna seem to some it up well in my opinion:
“You must cut through the aura of programming and cultural assumptions that surround us from the moment we are able to speak. The only way this can be done is by dissolving the boundaries of ego. Ego is a structure that is erected by a neurotic individual who is a member of a neurotic culture against the facts of the matter. And culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviors are acceptable…
..The goal can now be stated. What this is all about is a return to archaism with the lessons learned in history. Thats where we were happy. The fall was a fall..Into a veil of tears..Into a world of limitation, pain, suffering, infectious disease and so forth and so on. It’s a prodigal journey into a lower dimension that can now be ended by a collective cultural decision to commit to this Taoist shamanistic feminized cybernetic caring aware present kind of being.”
This could be a huge development
I haven't read the whole article but I've been thinking about fruit lately since I converted to a raw vegan diet. Also, I think about cities/civilization a lot since I studied urban planning. Finally, I've been reading Eisenstein's Sacred Economics. Oh one more thing, I read somewhere that grains contain opioids, which are addictive. Well if your transitioning from an egalitarian gatherer people of fruit eaters and suddenly fruit is less abundant so you start hunting sporadically how can you convince people to stay still so that you can control them? Get them addicted to something and then make that addiction the method of exchange. You create an entire brainwashing mechanism (culture + civilization) where people forget about the freedom in the forest and buy into a sedentary life. Cooked food, grain and meat could have been the first mind control mechanisms. The first step in man's attempt to triumph over nature.
Now we use digital money that is completely removed from nature and everything we eat is so far away and hidden that we have no idea what it really is. Everyone is eating this food that keeps them in a crippled state of being and they can't really think about a better future. Their imaginations are stuck on the level of immediate gratification, and satisfying the senses with more destructive things and lifestyles. Food is a very powerful transformational medium. What you eat is one of the biggest decisions you make everyday.
We have to get back to the forest.
Make more love with fruit.
Make more love with fruit. Thank you.
meat = big brains, population boom?
Wonder how/if this idea jibes with the research released by media today theorizing that the introduction of meat into the human diet caused our population explosion (meat-eating mothers allowed breastfeeding babies' brains to grow faster, thus shortening weaning time (2 yrs and under, compared to herbivore primates: 4-5 years at least) and allowing each woman more children during her reproductive life.
Something about it doesn't seem so rosy (and not just because I'm a vegan!), especially given our overpopulation and "civilization" and falling out-of-sync with nature and taking the world over as our own...And what does it mean that our brains are shrinking when humans as a whole probably eat more meat--the supposed brain fertilizer--now than at any time in history? You have to wonder: if we'd never eaten meat, would there be less of us? Would we still be living in harmony with the natural world? Anyone have any thoughts on this?
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/04/20/meat.eating.behind.humans.sp...
sorry for the delay
It seems like that article doesn't take into the account the hormonal affects of meat or the consequences of a short weaning period on brain development. For example, meat creates a surplus of the very hormones that fruit inhibits- and these hormones initiate things like puberty. The earlier this is initiated the less time there is for brain development. Any wonder there is an epidemic right now at the rapidly declining age of puberty? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/puberty-before-age-10-a-new-normal.html?_r=2
Also, in regards to all these claims that meat was the big-brain catalyst, i addressed this sort of thing in my response to Jim Cross below. I'll paste it here:
Evidence of meat-eating after this symbiosis was lost does nothing to refute what was going on in the jungles.
Take a look at the genome of angiospersm (i.e. fruit) as compared to the typical mammalian genome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Genome_Sizes.png
It utterly dwarfs it. Combining the biochemical output from a number of the most complex and hormonally active chemical factories on the planet (fruit) with a mamalian genome in a unique symbiotic association leads to a drastically altered developmental/endocrine environment. On the contrary, combining the bio-chemical output of several mamalian genomes via a meat-based diet does little to alter the typical mamalian environment which always builts a typical mamalian brain with the usual range of traits. The mechanisms for meat-fueled brain growth is always very vaguely defined and based almost entirely on assumptions and loose inference. Besides, we never see complex and intelligent carnivores even remotely close to the level of intelligence humans display, or our ape cousins for that matter.
"At the end of this fourth period about 200,000 years ago we were probably most like bipedal, super-intelligent wolves."
Not sure how you've come to such a conclusion given that many aspects of our physiology suggest exactly the opposite. Not to mention there is a clear link between a high-fruit diet and intelligence in many other species, including our closest relatives. I've seen the author quoted elsewhere saying:
“The orthodox view, avidly held by many, is that meat and particularly the high protein content of meat, was somehow responsible for the enlargement of our brains. This ignores the established link between brain size and a fruit diet, and the likely scenario in which our brains stopped expanding when we left the forest (and started to eat meat!)... ...Firstly meat is supposed to be easy to digest and to be a high- energy food, but fruit is much more easily digested and provides more readily available energy .
Secondly, if there were a sufficient external pressure to bring about such a change as a shortening of the gut, we would expect other adaptations and changes towards a carnivorous diet as well. Certainly we would not expect adaptations to be heading in the opposite direction. Our teeth, for instance, are nothing like the teeth of a carnivore. The teeth of our nearest relative, the bonobo, are much better adapted to eating meat than human teeth are, and bonobos hardly eat any meat.
So, if bringing meat into the diet of an ancestral human was enough to shorten the gut and expand the brain (both major changes), where are the parallel changes in areas that would be needed to cope with a meat diet? If we look at areas such as dentition, the physiology to digest meat and the ability to catch it, we find nothing that looks even vaguely carnivorous. If we lined up... …chimps, bonobos and humans – we would have to conclude that humans are in fact the least adapted to eat meat. Humans have much smaller teeth and they cannot chase the meat nearly so well...”
Many other aspects of our physiology that suggest we are most adapted to a plant-based diet are discussed in the .pdf of the book. For example, carnivores, and even omnivores, synthesize they're own vitamin C internally because they don't aquire it from external sources in the diet. They also don't synthesize they're own vitamin D from sunlight like humans do, since they do aquire this via diet.
Humans on the other hand are exactly the opposite. We don't synthesize our own vitamin C (a chemical essential to optimal functioning that we would die without), and we do synthesize our own vitamin D--which suggests we weren't aquiring the vitamin D through meat consumption, and were in fact getting the high amounts of vitamin C necessary to normal functioning from plant sources.
this is almost completely incorrect
This makes a nice story that aligns with many people's enthusiasm for plant medicine, but it is almost completely incorrect
The time lines for this to be correct are completely off and the evidence is very clear from the types of teeth we've had. Our physical evolution has gone through about four major phases. First we were in the rain forest and lived on fruits and plants - this is Eden talked about above. Next, as the rain forests were replaced by grasslands we developed large teeth to eat tougher food such as tubers. Next, as the grasslands continued to spread we began to eat meat and the teeth began to shrink. Through all of these phases, the human brain was increasing in size, but during the fourth phase is when the brain growth really took off and that is probably associated with increasing meat in the diet and possibly the mastery of fire that makes the meat more digestible. The main driver of brain growth, however, through all of these phases was the increasing demands made by the environment on humans and the increasing demands we made upon each other living in a society as we became human. At the end of this fourth period about 200,000 years ago we were probably most like bipedal, super-intelligent wolves.
The brain shrinkage of the last 200,000 years is not at all an indication of a problem but is, in fact, a result of increasing intelligence without increasing brain size. Brain shrinkage happens in the process of the domestication of all species and we during this period domesticated ourselves. It is also directly related to the chemistry and the energy problem of the human brain. You can only grow the brain so far before its energy consumption begins to become a liability. The way to increase intelligence without growing the brain in size is to have more specialization of function and a denser packing of brain structures. The shrinking is the result of the continued increase of human intelligence and directly related to the development of language and human culture.
I have discussed in great detail a lot of issues regarding brain size and evolution in various posts on my own blog
http://broadspeculations.com/2011/06/26/into-the-hive/ http://broadspeculations.com/2011/10/19/on-the-run/ http://broadspeculations.com/2012/01/18/eros-thanatos-and-tantra/Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
hi jim
The theory is basically a re-interpretation of the existing data regarding human evolution..So to cite only the orthodox interpretation and dismissing the proposal without comparing the two interpretations side by side doesn't make much headway in having a solid debate (since the orthodox view is, afterall, an interpretation of said data as well)
Care to refute the very basic and well evidenced biological mechanisms regarding the affect of having the combined bio-chemistry of several species of fruit, which alter gene transcription, horomone activity, etc, flooding the most chemically sensitive and complex piece of tissue in the known universe 24/7 for evolutionary time scales? Evidence of meat-eating after this symbiosis was lost does nothing to refute what was going on in the jungles.
Take a look at the genome of angiospersm (i.e. fruit) as compared to the typical mammalian genome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Genome_Sizes.png
It utterly dwarfs it. Combining the biochemical output from a number of the most complex and hormonally active chemical factories on the planet (fruit) with a mamalian genome in a unique symbiotic association leads to a drastically altered developmental/endocrine environment. On the contrary, combining the bio-chemical output of several mamalian genomes via a meat-based diet does little to alter the typical mamalian environment which always builts a typical mamalian brain with the usual range of traits. The mechanisms for meat-fueled brain growth is always very vaguely defined and based almost entirely on assumptions and loose inference. Besides, we never see complex and intelligent carnivores even remotely close to the level of intelligence humans display, or our ape cousins for that matter.
"At the end of this fourth period about 200,000 years ago we were probably most like bipedal, super-intelligent wolves."
Not sure how you've come to such a conclusion given that many aspects of our physiology suggest exactly the opposite. Not to mention there is a clear link between a high-fruit diet and intelligence in many other species, including our closest relatives. I've seen the author quoted elsewhere saying:
“The orthodox view, avidly held by many, is that meat and particularly the high protein content of meat, was somehow responsible for the enlargement of our brains. This ignores the established link between brain size and a fruit diet, and the likely scenario in which our brains stopped expanding when we left the forest (and started to eat meat!)... ...Firstly meat is supposed to be easy to digest and to be a high- energy food, but fruit is much more easily digested and provides more readily available energy .
Secondly, if there were a sufficient external pressure to bring about such a change as a shortening of the gut, we would expect other adaptations and changes towards a carnivorous diet as well. Certainly we would not expect adaptations to be heading in the opposite direction. Our teeth, for instance, are nothing like the teeth of a carnivore. The teeth of our nearest relative, the bonobo, are much better adapted to eating meat than human teeth are, and bonobos hardly eat any meat.
So, if bringing meat into the diet of an ancestral human was enough to shorten the gut and expand the brain (both major changes), where are the parallel changes in areas that would be needed to cope with a meat diet? If we look at areas such as dentition, the physiology to digest meat and the ability to catch it, we find nothing that looks even vaguely carnivorous. If we lined up... …chimps, bonobos and humans – we would have to conclude that humans are in fact the least adapted to eat meat. Humans have much smaller teeth and they cannot chase the meat nearly so well...”
Many other aspects of our physiology that suggest we are most adapted to a plant-based diet are discussed in the .pdf of the book. For example, carnivores, and even omnivores, synthesize they're own vitamin C internally because they don't aquire it from external sources in the diet. They also don't synthesize they're own vitamin D from sunlight like humans do, since they do aquire this via diet.
Humans on the other hand are exactly the opposite. We don't synthesize our own vitamin C (a chemical essential to optimal functioning that we would die without), and we do synthesize our own vitamin D--which suggests we weren't aquiring the vitamin D through meat consumption, and were in fact getting the high amounts of vitamin C necessary to normal functioning from plant sources.
we eat both plants and meat
For the last million years or so, we have continued to eat plants along with meat. We are omnivores.
I am convinced that there is a remarkably symbiosis between plants and humans and am totally convinced of the benefits of plant eating and plant wisdom. I don't see the need to have a mythology to make it more than it is.
And I don't believe meat eating by itself caused the larger brain size. It was the normal evolutionary pressures. It just enabled it to happen
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
hmm
If your convinced of the symbiosis and benefits of plants, then why brush all the biological data of they're affects on our development under the rug? The mechanism for meat/brain expansion your refering to is an idea, and one which appears vague and highly speculative compared to the well known effects plant biochemistry has on us.
Its true many groups have eaten meat at times in the past. But this tells us nothing of what was happening with groups that remained in the forest where things don't fossilize. I just noticed this question of meat consumption is addressed in the FAQ section here: http://beyond-belief.org.uk/node/9
Isn’t there evidence for our ancestors living in non-forest environments and hunting, eating meat and cooking their food?
"Yes there is significant evidence going back millions of years for our ancestors and our existing relatives inhabiting various types of forest and non-forest/non-fruit habitats and adapting their behaviour to survive. The evidence for non-forest habitation is cited as part of the long-standing presumption that such environments were essential to explain key traits during our recent evolution, particularly in regard to our large ‘structurally advanced’ brain and related intelligence. This presumption ignores the much more substantial and extant evidence that large intelligent brains were and still are the product of symbiotic evolution in the relatively benign tropical forests.
There is also the related and equally flawed presumption that finding evidence for some of our ancestors inhabiting non-forest environments accounts for the whole of our ancestral lineage. It’s as if one day all the members of any given ancestral lineage got together in the benign and bio-chemically rich forest and agreed to move en-mass to a much more hostile and bio-chemically impoverished habitat.
Evidence for non-forest habitation by some of our relatives tells us nothing at all of any ongoing forest habitation by others. For example the Olive Babooncan be seen today inhabiting a wide range of environments from semi-arid desert like environments through savannah and woodland to wet tropical forest. Now or in the future, evidence for their existence will be more easily preserved and discovered in arid climates with little chance of finding any evidence for their relative abundance in the wet tropics.
There seems little doubt that individuals and large groups of our ancestors did find themselves in such hostile environments for any number of reasons and using their forest evolved brain and related intelligence survived for significant periods even adapting and speciating. It does seem a bit odd that in the environments that supposedly built and honed our ancestor’s large intelligent brain did not prove to be such a great place to survive. A number of relatively large brained apes still inhabit the forests, yet only one of the many examples found in non-forest habitats still survives and even in its current guise it can still inhabit the forest."
once again the timeline is off
Here's what you say:
"There currently is no other coherent and contextual explanation for the accelerating expansion of the brain which suddenly halted and began contracting around the time we left the African forests."
The problem is that brain size increase didn't halt after we left the forest. At the peak function of 2 million years ago that you talk about the brain size was 2/3 to 3/4 the size of current humans Brain size continued to increase after we left the rain forest.
And the brain shrinkage you talk about is not a problem. It is precisely what allowed us to become human. It is not a sign of degeneration but is what is actually responsible for our humanity. In fact, it is closely tied to our capacity for speech and religious consciousness and our capcity to have culture.
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
If you take a look at the
If you take a look at the .pdf of the book it goes into this in much greater detail (he's been working on this for 20+ years, so of course they've taken into account the orthodox model your citing)
I'm not sure you heard my comment regarding how things don't fossilize in the jungles. Hell..we just discovered the first chimpanzee fossil 7 years ago! Even those are very rare, and they inhabit a wide variety of environments, not just the strictly arboreal type. So its no surprise we don't have much of a fossil record of what was going on in the groups that remained there.
So while there is evience of slightly smaller brains outside of the jungles, that doesn't tell us much about what was going on inside them (*where things don't fossilize.)
And the idea that brain shrinkage is somehow an advantageous trait "that made us human" is entirely speculation and has no basis when compared to the evolutionary pressures/brain size of other mammals. Many anthropologists are still puzzled by this shrinkage, so i'm not sure how you've jumped so ardently to the conclusion that it is evidence of advancement. You said what catalyzed it was that we needed our wits about us once leaving the rainforest..Why then don't we see other big brained intelligent species coming out of the savannah?
Its very counter intuitive to imagine that because of tough environmental pressures that called upon great wits, effort, skills, intelligence, memory, etc, natural selection would respond by a shrinkage in brain size. What would be the advantage of having less neural complexity in an environment that requires ever increasing intelligence to survive?
On the other hand, the affects of plant-biochemistry on the hormonal/developmental environment of humans is pretty straightforward and indicates a clear mechanism by which accelerating neural expansion and complexity can arise, and why loosing this complex biochemical cocktail would result in a reversion back to the typical mamalian neural structure.
one more thing
I am not saying that plants had no role in human evolution. I am just saying that they are not the major drivers and probably had little to do with brain size.
Just apply a little common sense. Bonobos today eat primarily fruit and are sometimes regarded as being very similar to humans. They diverged from chimpanzees about 2 million years. Now there is much admirable about bonobo society but why don't they have the same brain size as humans? After all they have been eating fruit for the last 2 million years.
The main drivers of human evolution were bipedalism and the fact that we were forced out of the rain forest to where we needed to use our wits to survive.
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
"Why don't they have the
"Why don't they have the same brain size as humans"
This doesn't seem to be how evolution works. Its more like a complex labrynth of unfolding processes on various levels of development, so its not as if we both started off as the same thing on the same platform with the same set of environmental parameters that unfolded the same for millenia..It is an obvious clue though that the second most intelligent group of animals on the planet (as far as we know, at least) inhabit the forests and consume hefty amounts of plant biochemistry, eating very little if any meat. And as i said MANY aspects of our physiology suggest we are even more adapted to consuming fruit than them.
Interestingly bonobos exhibit much greater levels of inter-group cooperation and empathy. Throw a big cardboard box in a group of chimps and they'll fight over it until one dominant alpha male comes out on top, claiming it for himself. Throw a box into a group of bonobos..and they'll all jump in and have an orgie.
Its no surprise that our backwards society still looks at the "tools" (twigs) used by chimps to aquire food as a more advanced trait than something like empathy and cooperation--which in my opinion are abilities that heavily dwarf the intelligence necessary to use a few twigs to get food (something bonobos don't need to do to sustain themselves anyways).
Another clue is that bonobos have much lower testosterone levels than chimps, which means less masculination of the brain and more empathy. Coincidence that the flavonoids in fruit inhibit this hormones activity and bonobos spend much more time in the trees?
There is a huge correlation with fruit-rich environments and complex neural systems (see fruit bats, parrots, primates, etc)..Howler monkies and spider monkeys are also a great example. One eats around twice the amount of fruit as the other, and surprise, "coincidentally" the one who consumes more fruit has nearly twice the brain size of the other and is more intelligent...All this even though they live in the same habitat, eat relatively the same food, and have the same body mass.
"The main drivers of human evolution were bipedalism and the fact that we were forced out of the rain forest to where we needed to use our wits to survive."
And how would a dramatic decrease in brain processing capacity be a proper evolutionary response to these complex and demanding needs of the new environment?
Look at the Dubois ratio
First of all, we can't look at brain size by itself. Eugene Dubois evolved a formula to relate body mass and brain size. Roughly speaking, as body mass increases brain size increases at the ¾ power. So the real measure to look at is how far the brain size is above the ratio. Humans, apes, dolphins, dogs, cats, and squirrels for example fall above the ratio. None of these except some species of apes eat primarily fruit. Dogs and cats are carnivores. Dolphins eat fish. Humans, of course, are more above the ratio than any species. We are omnivorous.
Our ancestors came out of the rain forest and began living in the savannas several million years ago. While in the savanna, they increasingly became more omnivorous and their brain size increased.
The human ancestor with the largest brain size was Cro-Magnon man who lived in Europe, not the rain forest, about 30,000 years ago.
The shrinkage of the human brain over our recent evolutionary history is the result of three things. Brains get smaller as we live in larger groups, possibly because we need a smaller brain to survive due to the protection of the group. The brain becomes efficient and possibly more intelligent with more tightly integrated neural structures. Body mass overall decreased, thus requiring less brain to do the same work, because of the poor nutrition brought about by agriculture and consumption of grains (plants, by the way).
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
Side Point
In relation to more immediate{recent}"evolution /devolution" ... the very trashing {making extinct} natural varieties of fruits ... how in the USA state of Virginia alone there used to be 119 logged varieties of Apples - all with unique features of nutritional enhancement.
But now, due to the lowest common denominator mentality of a marketing economy, there are only 5 varieties left {over last 100 years} As we ignore the indigenous wisdom of earths variety the less viable {healthy, wealthy and wise} we seem to becoming.
The few varieties left, due to over hybridization, and commercial farming techniques are themselves becoming less and less nutritionally viable, {and tasteless} Hence we are becoming more and more artificial / superficial in our sensibilities towards our life sustaining environment.
True retardation in at least some sense of the word is there. How else could a species consciously pollute their air and water supplies, as if without a care, devastate their life sustaining ecosystems ... not even for immediate survival as much as for experimental intrigue and limited marketing suggestibility.
When even much more smaller-to-tiny brained species keep their instincts intact, never eating outside of their inherent wisdom outside of forced domestication.
The more external science we depend on the less internal intuition/instinct viability we seem to experience.
As if having to externalize, more and more, our knowledge acquiring sensibilities is as if to make up for our gradual loss of organic and indigenous sensibility.
We think in our retarded state that we are advancing more and more due to external technological crutches, when in even the most basic social and humanitarian values we are almost bankrupt.
As if true devolution in action. We can't communicate without machines, tolerate disease without vaccination, understand the the natural varieties among us, hence endless war ... can't even grow food without ever increasing chemical poisoning ... nor finance the progressive creativity of our interactive marketplaces without excessive manipulative cheating.
Even the most common algae is way more successful and integrated in it's ability to "thrive" in a given environment without such undue stress to it's own survival.
Agree 100% with this
This is precisely a key part of the symbiotic relationship we have had with plants. We have modified them for thousands of years through selection and controlled breeding. Hardly anything we eat today existed in its current form even 10,000 years ago. Much of the diminution of physical stature of human beings over the last several thousand years is directly related to consumption of grains (plants, by the way) for which we are still not fully adapted.
The question of how to draw the line with technology is a crucial one to me and I am still not sure where the line is. It doesn’t have to happen that machines take over. We have a choice in the matter. But the takeover is subtle and very gradual so it is very easy to think it is not happening or that we do have control over it. So much of technology is undeniably good and I wouldn’t want to do without it. The fact is that without it and without the deliberate modification of plants billions of people who now live could not live.
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
I disagree with your last
I disagree with your last sentence. I'm guessing that you are referring to conventional agriculture of grains and not genetically engineered plants. The truth is that fruit trees provide more food per acre than grains. Also, they don't deplete soil of nutrients and they protect against erosion. Trees can be grown organically on a permaculture farm to increase productivity, reduce resource use and increase biodiversity.
If we all started eating a fruitarian diet we could feed more people with fewer resources and much better nutrient density and life-force.
In case you are referring to GE food I'll just say that it is a big untruth that GE plants are more productive in terms of yields. There are also a host of other problems like health problems, farmer suicides in India, loss of biodiversity and chemical warfare upon soil.
Technology will not save us. It had been primarily destructive when it comes to ecology, social systems, labor and peace. What will save us (if anything) is a mass awakening and the subsequent choices and actions.
even the fruit trees have been modified
Pippalayana talks about apple trees. Apple tree and most citrus are bred and typically are developed from grafted plants with selected root stock. This is conventional agriculture. The orginal apples from Asia are not the apples you get in the store and are not the apples that even an organic farmer would grow.
I am completely in favor of moving our agriculture away from non-sustainable practices toward more organic ones. But you still need to recognize that this is still human technology - just different technology. Growing with permaculture is a technology.
I am planning a visit in June to a sustainable agriculture organization in Ecuador - Progreso Verde - where my daughter will be dong an intership. I hope to report back with information on this. By the way, if you visit my blog, you will find I actually worked in agricultural extension in Costa Rica. So agriculture has always been a huge interest of mine.
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
deleted
Trevor -- after reading the
Trevor -- after reading the book I still would like to know the implications this theory has for the health, nutrition and spiritual well-being of present-day humans. What do Tony et al recommend we eat? Is it a raw plant food diet, strictly fruitarian, etc.?
Are there any specific modern fruits that have been shown to perform this hormonal feedback loop in the human body? Or has research not gone that far yet?
Yeah the idea is to mimic
Yeah the idea is to mimic the biochemical environment of the past and so that implies a diet of raw plants, a high % of which is fruit. So things like figs, bananas, etc would have definitely been eaten then. And really a lot of fruit (probably all, i don't know) outside of africa has the similar classes of chemicals that are MAOI, alter gene transcription, our hormones, the endocrine system, are neuro-active, etc etc..
That these things were involved in stimulating the pineal gland/endocrine system in general means we are also chronically deficient in things like melatonin, pinoline, etc. So supplementing with harmalas (maoi like syrian rue and banisteriopsis caapi) and melatonin can help a lot, as can psychedelics. But really combining long term diet changes with frequent supplementation and a combination of techniques to reduce the dominance of the left while simultaneously engaging the right is the way to make the most headway very quickly.
I believe the last page or two of the book briefly outlines this general idea
Interesting perspective.
Thank you for presenting this perspective.
Here in bush tropics fruits are abundant and taken daily. The behavior of local people here is extremely calm, socially attentive, and awake. As a female, I see very little sexual aggression from males as compared to the rest of the modernized country. For the most part locals don't eat processed because it's more expensive in town, one can eat from a single 1/2 acre plot here nature is so un-diluted. On my walks I see people hunting and gathering daily, both tribals and middle class Indians, it is a way of life. What I have also noticed is the use of well water by all locals, it's cheaper and more ready for them than municipal water, so there is little or no additional fluoride in the population, which you can see. I witnessed the results of a epidemic fluoride saturated population in the States everyday with people I worked with. Fluoride is a still a massive device used in the Northern hemisphere. Where has all the Intuition gone? ttp://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html
ttp://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html
Interesting post
You're story reminds me of Weston Price who noted severe behavioral and even detrimental physiological changes among primitive peoples who switched to a western diet from they're more natural one. And here we're talking just one generation. It seems processed foods have drastically increased the degeneration rate
And yeah, flouride is just one of the many things in a lot of water these days, but its particularly scary in its impact. Especially on the pineal gland..A lot of people think thats just some conspiracy theory, but there are legit studies that have been done.
Heres another site with some interesting information: http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal-gland/
And for those who don't know about it...: http://www.findaspring.com/
Thanks, Trevor! Sounds like
Happy to share it. If the
Happy to share it. If the idea is true then simply bringing it to mainstream attention would be a huge first step. If the condition doesn't exist then there would be zero evidence, afterall.
I agree regarding the reductionist obsession. Its really a shame more branches of science aren't in better communication with each other as well. For instance neuroscientists hardly ever attempt to take into account the evolutionary and real time impact of flooding the neural system with thousands of biochemicals that literally build and fuel the most complex and chemically sensitive thing we know, from the uterus until death.
This comes to mind
http://beyond-belief.org.uk/sites/beyond-belief.org.uk/files/katherine%20milton%203%20high%20image.jpg
You'd think that what we have built and fueled this piece of biotechnology with for millions of years would be taken into account when studying its functioning.This obsession with specialized areas without taking into account the broader context in which it sits and the intertwined factors is just another symptom really, and is seen all over the place. We are trapped in linear, one-at-a-time thought processes. Savants on the other hand have a more holistic view and can hold vast amounts of information in their awareness simultaenously.
Even this sort of thing is only a glimpse at what is possible. http://www.smarter.org/images/superhuman.jpg
Not symbiosis.
I'm very interested in the theory and will read the source material and comment more soon.
But before I go further, something must be stated clearly for both the readers of Reality Sandwich and the author of the paper - this is NOT symbiosis.
Wright has got the terminology wrong, and it's an important problem.
Symbiosis is defined as a relationship between organisms of different kinds that are in physical association with each other for half or more of the life history of at least one of the organisms. It's a physical contact phenomenon that is ecological in nature.
Flowers and bees, fruits and people are NOT symbioses.
They are important ecological relationships, but they occur for much less than half of the life history of each organism involved. The organisms mentioned are therefore NOT "symbionts" as described.
The misuse of scientific terminology damages the scientific merit of the paper. This isn't nitpicking or semantics- it reveals a lack of understanding of basic scientific definitions. It's like writing about DNA without knowing what it is.
As a new reader of the theory, the misstep leads to immediate suspicion of the scientific accuracy, since the author is not speaking scientifically.
Furthermore, the misuse of the term here clouds people's conceptions of what symbiosis and symbiogenesis are - And these are important concepts in evolution, particularly for moving away from the neo-Darwinian model of evolution, which is part of the troublesome materialist/capitalist/patriarchal paradigm (and perhaps more importantly, is scientifically inaccurate and unsupportable) that the author of this paper, the writer of this interview, and the readership of this website are working to create alternatives to.
Denying symbiosis its true definition by confusing it here doesn't serve us. I'm very open-minded and excited by the Q&A here, and implications of this work, and so will continue to read. It may well be great work and I'm going to comment more - But fumbling with language won't help anyone.
I hope this is helpful.
CH
Hey Conner
Hmm, maybe Tony can weigh in on this eventually?
One thing i don't quite understand is when you said:
" They are important ecological relationships, but they occur for much less than half of the life history of each organism involved. The organisms mentioned are therefore NOT "symbionts" as described."
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say the relationship would occur for less than half of the life history of each organism? Many species of fruit would have been flowing through the digestive system and flooding the blood and brain 24/7..They'd even be there before birth (via the diet of the mother), after birth (via breastfeeding) and all the way on during life via direct consumption until death.
Also from what i've read, "symbiosis" is a very broad category and the strict definition of the word is a controversial thing. But this seems to fit the bill for being a mutualistic type?
Trev - what about convergent evolution?
You know, where two very different species not closely related undergo similar changes of form/function, due to similar selective pressures? And their differences start to decrease, as they adapt. And they end up looking a lot alike -- as if closely related?
I ask because, amid all this about symbiosis and etc -- the most evolutionary thing I'm seeing here looks a lot like convergence. As Conner's post reflects:
"the neo-Darwinian model ... is scientifically inaccurate, and unsupportable."
That has a familar sound. Nobody's mentioned, must be I'm the only one who's noticed, or recognized the script?
That's a word-for-word recitation -- of Scientific Creationist "perspective" on evolution. And so what, if everything, or what little, we know and understand about that has come from biology - science. NOT a bible study group ... pretending to know square root of squat. Those folks routintely flunk the most basic high school bio class test on evolution.
So -- as psychedelia, in its 'evolution,' converges with Sci Crea -- is any visible difference left from older, rightwing disinfo "Science Ops" propaganda war? YES.
No creation 'scientist' has ever said, nor would criticize evolutionary theory, on grounds its "part of the troublesome materialist/capitalist/patriarchal paradigm." That's not pushing Jesus or your local pastor (and his flock). That's mckennism, post-1992. Is it coincidence that this feature begins with a TM quote? I wonder ...
Likewise, for this "Left in the Dark" book. First I ever heard of it, it was being pushed or touted to me by a poster all upset by CONCERNING STONED APES. As so many, he was trying to deflect, or change subject of that discussion. (which also notes this 'convergence' in clear 'iffy' light).
There's lots of good info out there on symbiosis, evolution, selection, etc etc. Its not classified, no Top Secret clearance needed to access it. Interesting stuff, but beware -- it involves stuff to know and, understand. The stylish sound-bite level "So, its just simply very complicated" won't get you far. But that may or may not be a concern for whoever, depending on their interest and purposes.
There's a metric sh-tload we do know, megaton of evidence and info. But alas, it won't support what we're hearing, now from both our local neighborhood scientific creationists ('cdesign proponentsists') -- and increasingly, their look-alike/sound-alikes loyalists in post-mckennist pop psychedelia.
Weird, weird world, getting weirder??
?
Worlds definitely getting weirder and weirder..
But this theory has nothing at all to do with scientific creationism.
And i don't see any reason to dismiss it simply because there is a mckenna quote in an article someone wrote about it-- instead of going by the evidence or lack thereof. The two theories have very vague similarities on the surface, but really they are two totally different things.
If only ...
Well, I respectfully stand on my own observation, of the convergence.
The historically older panic about scientific findings contradicting Bible-derived teachings about our origins and the world around us, is well known and long remarked upon. And I don't find a strong strand of anti-science pseudoscience -- i.e., anything akin to Scientific Creationism -- in the populist psychedelic culture pattern until the advent of the 'stoned apes' and etc biz, heralded in 1992 with the publication of FOOD OF THE GODS, most notably.
Its only in the past two decades, an anxious ambivalence of love/hate, want/resent "Aesopianly foxy" attitude toward science, like that of Sci Crea, has become evident in psychedelia. Science has credibility, discursive command. Spiritual and transcendent insights -- whether from the Bible, or "heroic" tripping -- are only believed by ... well, believers.
On one hand, the 'inspired' want that kind of credulity science commands -- they want others, me and you and a dog named Boo -- to take whatever 'inspirations' they're promoting seriously; as "possibilities" not certainties, in TMist idiom. As if to distinguish from something dogmatic.
So, the 'inspirational' gets a face-lift. Gets repackaged, as a 'theory.' An empiricle-like idea, such as a scientist might 'not dismiss' (borrowing your phrase). Why? To try and insert the 'theory' into a discussion of theory.
I have more respect for the older, Wm Jennings Bryan type creationist -- not that much more, but -- at least they cited faith as the basis of their disagreement with evolution. In other words, biblical creationism was not dishonest, it didn't pretend.
But starting in the 1970's, a new kind of creationist ploy arose, distancing itself from that -- realizing science was kicking bible butt. We began hearing a plea: "Well, its true I'm religious but that's not the reason I disagree with evolution. The problem is, evolution is not well supported scientifically, despite what we hear from so many science spokesmen. Its the evidence itself, that doesn't actually support natural selection, and that's why I find fault with it." (The Conner line I referenced - it comes verbatim, from Sci Crea).
So instead of citing Bible, in all honesty, the religious right began going dishonest, citing fossils not bible verses -- but in fallacious, false even fraudulent fashion. Suddenly, whoever and their brother's an expert, can tell the scientists what the findings are, know better. An entire theater emerges. All well known, widely discussed; enormously analogous to what's happened in psychedelia the past two decades. And yes, TM, probably our number one trail-blazer down that fork.
In 1970's, the 'pseudoscientific sneak anti-science' gag was exclusive to Sci Crea; very little of that visible in psychedelia then. But now as we see -- gotta look (and no fair covering eyes) -- can the same be said?
I guess you'd say yes? But some observers, including but hardly limited to myself, notice more and more -- psychedelia and Sci Crea are converging on a decidedly anti-science pseudoscience 'covert op' form or rhetoric and propaganda. In a rare unguarded moment, the Mondo interview 1992, TM expressly stated he crafted stoned apes as 'consciously propaganda.'
Its good, its fine, its all okay, no quiz, disagreement admissible. Not to contrarianize ...
ok
Anti-science? It's not attacking science, or saying natural selection is false. Just proposing an epigenetic mechanism that developed alongside it.
Of course feel free to speculate. But i invite you to read the .pdf if you want. This isn't pseudo-science. Inevitably, with a radical theory such as this there is of course some speculation around the edges--but the basic biological mechanisms are high school level stuff and the general idea is very well evidenced.
Re:
Hi -
I see why there's some confusion here - it mostly comes from the difference between broad definitions of symbiosis and scientific ones. Symbiosis is certainly used broadly, but the scientific defintion is - as truly scientific definitions are always - specific. There is little to no controversy over the definition of symbiosis amongst symbiosis researchers.
Terms like "parasitism" "mutualism" and "commensalism," often attached to symbioses, are merely perspectival. Mutual? Are you sure? Parasitic? For whom? they're value terms that don't have real scientific worth (which is not to say that they're not valuable in certain contexts).
The definition I presented is the accepted scientific defintion - presented by researchers of true symbioses. It rests mostly on the half-or-more part.
The part of the plant still interacting during digestion is simply food. The food is dead in the consuming organism - it's active, of course - but no longer qualifies as a symbiont. If the human being consumed an entire plant, from root to leaf, and it somehow stayed alive in him for more than half its life history, then it would be a symbiont. This is why certain fungi and protoctists and even animals (worms, mostly) form symbioses (often noticed as pathologies) in human beings after they are consumed - they keep on living. Merely eating something and digesting it, then being deeply affected by its content, chemical make-up, and essence does not qualify. It's an important phenomenon, but it's not symbiosis.
So what you and Tony Wright are expressing is a food/ecological relaitonship, not symbiosis.
I'm not concerned with nitpicking at Tony's work - My hope here and reason for posting is merely that exact language will help us build a better bridges in culture and thinking.
Thanks for your work,
CH
A well-taken perspective, on defining boundaries
-- terms you've used pertaining to symbiosis, commonly found in bio texts.
Popular use of 'symbiosis' referring to human relations (personal or otherwise) -- meaning, something beneficial to both - expresses semantic confusion. So does this feature.
Ecological, cultural-economic relations between humans and plants they gather to eat, and/or domesticate and grow, isn't symbiosis. We're consumers, they're producers and a resource species for our subsistence. Its more comparable to predator and prey, relationally; not so different from animals we utilize as food resources. Or does Wright say we're symbiotic with them too?
Symbiosis as a concept goes back a long way, 1800's. As now defined (Conner correct me), it generally refers to a sort of consortium or partnership between different species, where one (the symbiont) actually inhabits the other (the host). The symbiont lives inside it or on the host's surface -- and just as important, in a directly hooked-up metabolic relationship with the host, either at its expense (in which case its a parasitic symbiont), or to its benefit (mutualistic symbiosis).
(Fascinating too, per some of your purport; some Glomales, at early stages of symbiosis, stress their host, take take take parasite-like but ... as relation develops lo and behold, the symbiont turns nice and becomes very mutual ... just stuff I've read, don't know different from).
But - much bigger problem (sigh) alas ... here we are discussing the substantive, when its the formal over-arching that rules. Turns out that wanting to actually know, which means correcting mistakes, to understand better, inclusively -- is only one kind of interest in science. What its for, what its about, far as its concerned, and the rest of us except for -- well, if we have ideas that are very important to spread, and science might not support them. Now we deal with 'ideas' that use science vocab and content, but are wrong and - can't be corrected.
For example, "Sci Crea" has an entirely different type of interest in fossils and DNA and evolution -- wrap their message in it to commandeer scientific creds. So its all disinfo and propaganda tactics up the wazoo. Their mistakes are not subject to correction. That's a very different type of 'science' interest, defensive against being wrong. (Sorry Trev, we disagree)
Now, about this "neo-Darwinian model of evolution" being "scientifically inaccurate and unsupportable - ?" I spit a jet of coffee out my mouth when I read that, got a spot on carpet now.
hmm
Maybe all this is why the book doesn't mention the word symbiosis at all? To avoid this confusion with the strict science definition? (just did a control f search for it in the .pdf, turned up nothing). Jim has a point though, everything i could find on the web seems to fit fine.
"Ecological, cultural-economic relations between humans and plants they gather to eat, and/or domesticate and grow, isn't symbiosis. We're consumers, they're producers and a resource species for our subsistence. Its more comparable to predator and prey, relationally; not so different from animals we utilize as food resources."
I don't think the human/fruit relationship is more comparable to predator and prey. Look up seed dissemination. It seems mutually beneficial to me.
Anyways thanks for the info Conner. Last i talked to Tony he was very busy but he should be around in a day or two i'd imagine.
i like the idea of precision
But even the Wikipedia entry on symbiosis says: "The definition of symbiosis is controversial among scientists." And under one section it is talks about co-evolution as if it is type of symbiosis.
I am not 100% sure what is being claimed for the mechanism of action here and how it would drive evolution. The claim seems to be something along the lines that plants have been programming human evolution. Whether that fits any definition of symbiosis I am not sure.
I can certainly buy into the concept that what we eat affects us and generally a more plant-based diet is good. Actually we were mostly hunters and gathers for the last million or more years of our evolution. And it is hunter and gatherer - we ate meat and plants. Only recently with the climate change after the last glacial maximum and the invention of agriculture did we become more sedentary and living in denser population groups. With this came increased warfare, violence, and many of the other ills of our current predicament. There is a great book by Spencer Wells - Pandora's Seed: Why the Hunter-Gatherer Holds the Key to Our Survival that discusses some of the negative effects of this change.
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
Even ... Wikipedia ... says -?
Wow. Well. That clarifies the 'source' (ahem) of this "definition of symbiosis is controversial" piece of talk. In that respect, i.e. contextual not substantive -- a good piece of info you've presented. But the 'as if' manner of presentation ... c'mon Jim (geez).
"Teaching the controversy" - vaguely familiar sound. But as Conner rightly notes above, biologists are pretty clear what they mean by 'symbiosis.' This whole 'controversy' trope, often used as a banner to flag attention -- makes good news copy, daytime television tabloid, colliseum stuff.
OMG "even Wikipedia" - like now you've touched some gold standard? Why not check standard texts or primary sources (for "right from the horse's mouth")? Websters dictionary, or some goofy open source entry, better 'cherry picking' for unclarity -- such as 'controversy' (what controversy?) over symbiosis. Lord love a duck.
This again recalls Sci Crea power struggle with competent sources. Other types of lit, badly sourced better provide for its purposes. Pop treatments of science, full of errors and confusion, can be quoted as if authoritative, for just such purpose. I don't know how to consider "Even Wikipeida" implicit assumption -- as if that would even be a minimally appropriate or relevant source -- much less some kind of high trump accuracy!!
I don't even get a clear meaning from that sentence about 'controversial' -- what controversy?
As many find, continual recourse to rhetorical ploys and shell games are a constant, consistent feature of Sci Crea's 'discussion' of its subject matter. In posing its own 'scientific' theory, it too presents a 'radical' challenge to "conventional science" on its own, much greater authority. Sci Crea knows better -- and the superiority of their visionary inspired understanding over science is closed to question, a foregone premise. Its a raid on science, a grab after its crediblity, wrap themselves in it like its theirs.
Recall TM's story of "Professor Stent" - and the latter telling him, heart broken "My young friend, your ideas ..." Moral of the story? TM ends with "And that's the last time I ever gave science an opportunity to participate in my great theoretical adventure, to be part of my great theories, help prove them. I'll never ask those scientists what they think again ..."
The sequence is exactly laid out in "Fox and the Grapes." First the excitement of desire, followed by frustration when it doesn't pan out (if tried), and finally cursing the grapes as sour. Stupid science, didn't want it anyway ...
These sort of 'scientific theories,' the theater 'radical challenge' avoid scientific context and review, disqualify scientific criticism even as they proclaim their scientific worth or value. They're founded on major gaffs, but their errors can't be corrected. That's not what those errors, the noise and confusion pretending to be clarity and signal, is doing there.
Certain type 'theories' don't care to hear they're wrong, they're no purpose for any correction or improvement. They're not trying to be right or correct or etc, they are sermons. In the clutch, this leaves them without direct coherent, cogent reply to sound criticism. With neither interest nor ability to engage broadly -- we get a defensive reaction from them, not response. It turns out Fight or Flight ("Exit, Stage Left") are the only two options such 'theorizing' has left itself.
I find it no coincidence Wright's 'rad theory' is being served piping hot, not to the science community but for psychedelia's fascination, popular attendance. I don't predict we'll see it submitted to any peer reviewed, accredited journal in ecology and evolution. I think this type 'theory' is, in general, more of a teaching or a tenet, a doctrine. As such, true to the 'Sci Crea' comparison.
These 'theories' don't seek broad inclusion or theoretical integration. Instead they draw a line, to divide themselves from 'all that.' Rather than seeking competent criticism, the wish is to avoid any discouraging word - and seek a following for enthusiastic acclaim and, as can be plainly observed, authoritarian discursive challenge to science, a la religious objections to Galileo, Darwin (etc.). "Same as it ever was" ...?
If Wright is serious I'd encourage him to expose his ideas to more competent, systematic, impartial expertise, and authentic critique (not bally-hooing). Maybe he's got something, who's to say, without that? But if he doesn't want to do that, okay, c'est la vie as the old folks say.
Well a few comments, where
If you feel there is no case to be answered re the human condition then the debate on origins is redundant.
Briefly semantics and reductionism, commented on by many, all language is arbitrary, reductionist terminology perhaps more than most, I could understand if it were essential to know the latest fashion in meanings for epigenetics or symbiosis if it made any significant difference to the very simple plot, it does not.
Its pretty obvious with a cursory glance that it is some form of symbiosis in the wider sense. What seems to be missed is the ‘effective’ endosymbiosis, god knows what the accepted term is but hey ho. The proposal is for increasingly specialised fruit eating, a specialised form of what is already well known. Fruit (semantics again) is of course a highly specialised product of co-evolution, the expanded sex organ/developmental environment for angiosperm reproduction and therefore unlike any other ‘food’. Specialisation in such a diet ‘effectively’ perpetually immerses the organism with the specialised transcription cocktail of a very different and bio-chemically much richer species or entirely kingdom if you like.
To cut to the chase re current neural function/perception, the proposal is that the expanding neo-cortex was/is ‘effectively’ the symbiont and as such cannot begin to function at anything more than a most basic level without that highly unique bio-chemically/hormonally rich association. It will still function, just slowly revert to mammalian type.
The whole origins debate appears to be coloured by the long standing assumption that the expansion of the neo-cortex (and associated traits) in primates was the product of classic adaptive selection in ‘hostile’ environments. So the evidence for tool use hunting and eating meat is ‘presumed’ to be wholly representative of any given lineage.
Re chimps/bonobos extant apes etc, if the theory is read it is clear I am proposing a unique form of symbiosis (or whatever you wish to call it) that results in increasingly entangled hormonal feedback loops. The more the process evolves the more complex and potentially unstable it becomes or at least increasingly vulnerable to any breakdown of the association. Being that I have also proposed that some of the human lineage were perhaps the most specialised and stayed in the association longest until the most stable ecology’s that could support such an association dried up, then all extant apes have also gone through the same separation, some at a much earlier. That the obligate arboreal apes are still in the recovered forest and still eating a significant % fruit will not restart or maintain the mechanisms products of the unique symbiotic phase. It will slow down any reversion and perhaps result in an equilibrium that has not reverted so far as would occur in more hostile environments. This may even be the case re chimps and bonobos, certainly some neurologists consider their neural systems to be degenerate, yet no explanation. Nevertheless chimps generally inhabit less stable climate zones and have been exposed to harsher condition in drier times, bonobos inhabit a more stable zone. Rather than chimps ‘evolving’ intelligence for tool use they simply drew on the latent intelligence courtesy of the expansion phase yet in finding ways to survive they were degenerating more quickly. Bonobos in captivity appear to be more intelligent without the harsher environments to ‘drive’ said intelligence.
Anyway off on a ramble, will try to pick out key points in next post, in meantime another semantic point re dentition and ‘canines’ http://primateevolution.tripod.com/id4.html
Symbiont?
Not sure I follow all of this but it sounds like you really do mean symbiont in the sense that Connor defines it. In other words, the neocortex is a symbiont organism (a fruit of some sort? a very intelligent mango?) that has been incorporated into the human genetic structure.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
Um, a species can symbiose with itself?
Symbiosis, if I understand correctly -- which matters to me (unfashionable I know) -- involves a miniumum of two species, based on direct physical metabolic (and sometimes life cycle staging) connection. The symbiont species getting energy, nutrient from the host species.
Alas. The human neocortex is ... human. Not some other species (earth to Jim?).
Aw to heck with it right? Why not just extend 'symbiosis' to mean 'reproduction.' Let's apply the term to a fetus, why not call it a symbiont? After all, bun lives inside its "oven" (mommie), and has direct metabolic umbilical connection, getting its vital nourishment from its "host"?
Never mind that the fetus isn't actually a different species. So what, really? Why be dominated by petty definitions? Like Humpty Dumpty told Alice: "I use words to mean what I want them to mean. Who's to be the master, the word - or the one using it?"
You won't find baby in mommie's tummy cited in any reliable, competent source as a 'symbiont' ... But who cares? Sci Crea / ID lit is chockful of similar casual nonsense (pretending to be info).
The fallacious "plant/human symbiosis' theme in this article (pure TMcK, 'buidling on' his 'research') seems 'correction-proof.' But its not the error itself that I find meaningful or telling, its the 'authoritative pseudoscientific' theater -- the stony silent aversion of substantive problems, in favor for sweeping it further and further away from 'all that' -- gives it a 'correction-proof' appearance. If it can be corrected, why not do that? If protest and argument is all the very thought can elicit, ok. In context of the 'science says' routine, as if here we are citing science and having that underfoot -- I find that remarkable, and diagnostic so far.
There's that horrible comparison, again, with Sci Crea/ID. Or do you think they're "unique" (I bet they do)? Attempts to raid credibility of science by using its vocab and wrapping -- are common as crabgrass. And forget about substance, or anything being correct, valid, specific or even clear. The goofiness is silken spin, to entangle anybody'd who'd try. As so many biologists have found, banging their heads against the ID ganglion.
Content error and fog serves an active purpose, as calculated distraction from another much more telling contextual fact. Namely -- to what audience, for whose consumption, is a 'theory' or 'idea' being served? Scientifici community, as one might expect of a theory? No way Jose, some 'theories' are strictly 'ponem et circenses.' Like ID, and - unless this is going to standard processes of scientific review -- this too? (sigh) ...
(As J. Vallee has remarked, of some versions (UFO cultism), this stuff: "The absurdity ... of many religious visions is not a superficial logical mistake. It may be the key to their function.The confusion ... may have been put there deliberately to achieve certain results... to keep scientists away. The other is to create conditions for a new form of social control ...").
Apparently tripping an eyeball-rolling reaction of "steer clear, take distance" from scientists who know better, but aren't so wary about certain things (like, psychedelia's cultural devolution, recent decades) - is a very easy form of manipulation. Insistent, correction-proof pseudoscientific nonsense communicates by the implicit, not express -- i.e., its message is contained between the lines. Its overtness whispers a subliminal 'go away' cue to critical perspectives and scientists etc. They aren't supposed (by the Supposers) to realize they're in effect obeying some as if unseen baton, waved by man behind a curtain. That's why its called 'manipulation.'
These type 'theories' and 'theorizers' might as well be Obi-Wan Kenobi's telling whoever isn't going to buy in, right to their face: "These aren't the 'theory-droids' you're looking for; there's nothing of interest for you here, off you go now ..."
I think I mentioned how Sci Crea has only fight or flight capability not reply or response, in equivalent situations of its transparency held up to the light. The blessings end right there, it gets mad, goes on attack against those 'godless Darwinists.' Or it goes silent, ignores or even runs away, when its pseudosci and relational dynamics are noted and remarked upon. Hard to escape sense of stony silence, almost as if 'cat's got tongue' impression. That's why these 'not so accidental' errors are called incorrigible, and its central feature of this stuff. No matter what its source.
I'd repeat my encouragement to Wright -- if you believe you've got something there, don't be afraid to expose it to systematic scientific critique -- which is not defined as "friends and family" (or psychedelic "on-board phds"). Can you be so sure there'd be nothing left of it? Might be the case, I wouldn't be surprised.
But one will never know until and unless one goes that route. And failing that ... well, you know. Meanwhile I don't roll eyeballs on cue, I use them to look.
Well; 'glad we got that cleared up' (eyeball rolling icon).
Why so argumentative?
Almost every post of yours comes off as very condescending. Can we not have a civil discussion without blatantly sarcastic and rude remarks littered through each post?
Its interesting your so quick to dismiss it, since your comment relating the fruit/human relationship as being a 'predator/prey' relationship (which i responded to above) indicates you don't even seem to understand the basics of that mutually beneficial relationship (i.e. seed dissemination..)- much less the biological feedback loop the book goes into. It'd be good to have even a rudimentary understanding of something before flat out throwing it out the window, wouldn't you agree?
We can get hung up on the precise semantics regarding 'symbiosis' all we want but the essence of that, and this, is a mutually beneficial relationship: which this clearly what a fruit/human relationship is. Proposing species wide neural retardation should surely be met with more than an arbitrary semantic argument and a vague, reactionary comparisons with sci-crea-- since if not true then there would be mountains of evidence to the contary and zero evidence supporting it.
Not exposing it to scientific critique? Look at the links. He's done experiments with a university on sleep deprivation to test the general idea (the manchester trial), which were very revealing.Tony's ran this by a lot of researchers as well, many of whom agree with his ideas. And no, they aren't all "pyschedelic on-board phds"..( do you mean to imply that now all phd's who are into psychedelics are more 'flimsy headed' than those who aren't?)
Trevor
Unfortunately this thread is heading down the path of the stoned apes discussion.
The fundamental problem for me about this is the extraordinary claim which really lacks almost any evidence. I have looked at some number of links that you have provided and most of them seem to be Tony's interpretations of other reasearch in an very expansive way not justified at all by the actual research. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.
I don't see how any of these timelines align with fossil evidence. You or Tony can argue the fossils won't be there because they were in the rain forest, but then what is your evidence for the timeline? If the size of the human brain stopped growing 200,000 years ago because we stopped eating the rich phytochemical mix of fruit and plants in the rain forest, then we must have been still living in the rain forest at that time. But why would bipedal humans without fur with all of the adaptations for endurance - being able to run and cover long distance (See Born to Run - Christopher McDougall) - with few of the adaptations for swinging from trees - be living in the rain forest. Our bodies were clearly built by 200,000 years ago for living outside the rain forest not in it.
I personally have a great deal of interest in human evolution past and future but I try to base my speculations on science and do not try to argue with it or contradict it. I try to extend and interpolate rather than posit whole new theories without strong evidence.
Are there links between diet and health - mental as well as physical? Absolutely. We would be better off eating more plants and fruits.
Are there links between human social behavior and the manner in which we make a living (gathering, hunting and gathering, farming, mining, searching for oil etc)? Absolutely. The way we make a living determines how large a group we can live in, how much energy we can command, how likely we are to wage war, what is our rate of innovation. Economy drives human behavior and drives consciousness to a much greater extent than consciousness does by itself unfortunately.
Eating more fruit is not a solution to the human condition, although it won't hurt and it does taste good.
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
hey jim
Really busy at the moment so i'll be brief
Your first remark, and the one claiming 'not strong evidence', well, you said yourself you don't understand the general mechanism being proposed, no? Context is a key thing here, and the information will simply not make sense without it. I would really like to hear your thoughts after reading through some of the .pdf of the book, since there is quite a bit of information in there which isn't touched upon here. And your points are all addressed there in full. To be candid, i've encountered many who had similar concerns before reading it- but they agreed after doing so that something really serious seems to be going on here.
As for climbing abilities- Ever seen the olympics/professional climbers? They are pretty astonishing. Ton'ys sleep deprivation trial showed an increase in motor skills after 5 days awake as well (left would loose dominance over prolonged time awake loosening its dominance and allowing the more functional right hem to take over).
Remember that if the idea is correct then the abilities we consider "normal" now are not what would have been normal then. Even the most acceptional climbers we see today could only be a shadow of what was once normal. And how is hairlessness more useful in the sun drenched savanah as opposed to the warm, moist, relatively shaded tropical forests?
Minor point: I could be wrong here, but i think i recall that sweating- in terms of water loss- also is a fairly inneficient means to cool down the body as opposed to panting, which is much more suited for the savanah. In the tropical forests water loss wouldn't be an issue however.
Even some primates in the forest today utilize they're bipedal abilities often. For a species like us that shows physiological signs of being even more adapted to fruit eating then bonobos (bonobos being a species who eat very little meat to begin with), the ability for quick locomotion on the forest floor would be very useful in evading the few predators around and navigating quickly to other food sources, since we would be eating a wide variety of species and in large amounts in order to fulfil our energy needs.
apologies if i am a little harsh
Sometimes with the Evolver movement I feel a little bit like the the scorpion in the Scorpion and the Frog fable. It is something I need to work on.
At any rate, the discourse should always be respectful.
I feel the Evolver movement needs to be built on a sound scientific foundation and not on wishful thinking. That doesn't mean buying into the whole reductionist paradigm but it also doesn't mean buyng into things we want to be true because it aligns with other beliefs. Where is the right line is on all of this is very hard to see sometimes.
I will take a thorough look at everything and post back if it changes any of my ideas.
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
A tuppence for you to elaborate on - ?
-- what you mean exactly by the phrase "into psychedelics"? What defines that for you?
"Not exposing it to scientific critique? Look at the links. "
I think Jim comments usefully (just below) about your "links" -- to me, seems you wave them like semaphore spelling out ... nothing, Sound and fury my good man.
And scientific critique standards are process-based. They involve reviewers, editorially solicited (or approved, bare minimum) for competence and reputation. The principle of confidentiality is to relieve relational/collegial concerns. It facilitates rigorous review, allowing for pointed criticism of any and all errors or flaws, without concern about "not making friends" with someone.
Or trigger a reaction of "Bum Out Theater" -- as any discouraging word about some 'theories' elicits from their proponents and following.
When I first heard about this one, it was used as a deflection tool (no, it didn't work) from criticism of stoned apes. That's how I first learned about it. No conclusion from that one data point, but quite a few here follow suit as seems to me.
There are social issues, human values, stakes I and many others recognize in the cultural wars with science, and the deliberate deception they operate on - yes this includes Sci Crea / ID. Our knowledge and understanding proceed apace but not by asking 'how many angels can fit on head of a pin" or "what was the catalyst that ignited the evolution of the human brain.' The latter notion doesn't come up in evolution, which is a matter of selective pressures upon adaption, operating on variations of genotype with phenotypic expression, interacting with environmental and developmental stimuli and inputs.
Evolution has its dynamics, but isn't about some "catalysis." There is such a thing in bio. But that has to do with biochemical reactions, metabolic pathways. Alas, I know how definitions, accuracy and precision, standards like validity of data, reliability and etc -- don't help certain type 'theories' too well. So, not to put too fine a point on such.
In sci fi narrative a 'catalyst' such as a monolith might be the solution to big mystery of evolution. Great story device. Or in other narratives -- 'scripture' - deity waving whatever wand can be catalyst. Or in others scriptures, psilocybin can be dressed up as 'catalyst' ...
Maybe you have a basic biology text, or better yet primary lit, with some scientist or research source affirming this verbiage. If there's any such basis for this notion of some mysterious catalyst in human evolution -- I'd be interested. Other than that, I modestly suggest it is a fatuous or 'conjured question' -- analogous to "what if we were horses?" or - how many angels can fit on the head of a pin (anyone want that?).
Lifting up the tent edge, to see what's behind, what meets the eye -- appearance is, circus. Velly intelestink.