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
ooos doubke post
...
earth to brian
I was joking. Intelligent mango? Did you think I was serious?
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
Fascinating article
links
"I'd repeat my encouragement
"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")"
I would assume you are referring to Dennis Mckenna..a man who definatly has worked for his Ph.D and simply passing him off as a "psychedelic on-board phd" is quite arrogant and petty..also it does not make me want to take you very seriously. When you pass something like that off(without any justifiable reason) just becuase you find a way to take a cheap shot it just shows your own bias more than it does anything else.
Do you really have such a problem with people of this sort who hold Ph.D's, but then criticize others work claiming they dont have the reviews of people with Ph.D's who you have your approval?.. ..sounds like someone has a bias..
I'm sure Scorpion would've said much the same to Frog ...
... if the story mentioned -- by another poster here (calling it a 'fable') -- had gone different.
If Frog had instead told "friend Scorpion" pleading for a piggyback ride from Frog: "No thanks on your kind offer Good Scorpion. I don't need to give you a ride across the river, not today. Whatever your need or emergency, I find its your misfortune and none of my own. Well, I won't detain you any further (so git along, mkay?); I'm sure you've other possibilities" -- whaddya bet Scorpion would have exploded with a childishly 'venomous' display?
If Frog had pricked Scorpion's pretensions (instead of falling for his line) -- I've no doubt Scorpion would have reacted with raging temper. How dare Frog deny such a 'friendly' and politely worded entreaty -- Where does Frog get off, who does he think he is? The nerve! The affront to everything one might hold dear and sacred. Why, the two could've perhaps become friends, but for Frog's incivility! Why - Frog's is almost an Act of War, maybe he's looking for trouble here huh? This could have been the start of something beautiful, who knows? But now, now --
Scorpion only meant to get what he wanted, after all; like the Fox (who only wanted to feast on those luscious-looking grapes). Yes, Scorp would've exploded with self-righteous indignation, and had a foot-stamping theatrical tantrum.
All well and good by an aggressor (however overt or covert) -- as long as he can have what he wants, whether its a ride, or grapes, or the sudetenland, or small service fee for good relations, maybe even protected status. But whatever the satisfaction demanded, and no matter how innocent an aggressor's act -- Scorpion would've turned 180 degrees on a dime. An Aggressor's demand for tribute or acquiescence is to be granted -- or, 'respected' as its called, in the blatantly authoritarian idiom of aggression's 'disinfospeak' -- or else.
If a 'polite' aggressor's demand is not met, his sheeps wrapping comes off, and whole act implodes. The scripted affectation of hyper-cordiality, beatific blessings of 'good sir Frog' transform -- abruptly (for 'relational scramble' effect, purely tactical) -- to insulting abuse, heaping hostilities and scorn on Frog.
Only then, we see what Scorpion's really made of, his true colors formerly masked, now shining through, about like:
"Frog, you are Quite Arrogant and Petty .. which doesn't make me want to take you very seriously! You must have something against scorpions. Why so biased, why so argumentative, what's your problem with scorpions --??"
When dramatized cloaks of inspired blessing and elaborately contrived affectations of friendly entreaty by strangers -- laid on as if with a trowel -- fall away, what's underneath is inevitably revealed. The mask is fine as such, but question of what's underneath is deeply in evidence for conscious awareness and informed perspectives -- regardless whether our attention is directed to the mask, or away form it -- especially, by Friend Scorpion himself. Frog, failing to realize, messed up to be fooled as he was. Otherwise, in a different denoument, a more street-smart Frog mighta told Scorpion:
"Quit crying, and get up off your knees (you got eight of 'em, for crying out loud). Its not the end of your world. If you really need to get across that river, as you say, I suggest you go forth and seek. Perhaps you'll yet find your way to the grapes you want so bad ..
Hmm, well it seems to be
Elaine Morgan who popularised the Aquatic Ape Theory, (which BTW I do not support) did highlight several traits that individually seem to take an awful lot of shoe horning into the 'savannah adapted' category. Taken together it would be hard to find a less well adapted species on the savannah.
Taking humans and hominids out of the picture we might well be discussing the exceptionally large brained forest dwelling apes. In the whole of biological evolution, we don’t see relatively large animals with such relatively large brains (with the exception of a few of the cetaceans). With all the hostile environments and all the cognitive requirements to successfully hunt etc over hundreds of millions of years we don’t see this ever. Only recently and in very close co-evolution with the emergence of the most bio-chemically complex ecology in biological evolution. And with a unique and evolving association with the hormonally rich sex organs/ specialised developmental environments (fruit) of many of these extremely bio-chemically complex organisms do large brained mammals appear in abundance.
The known pharmacological effects of fruit biochemistry include steroid modulation/activity inhibition, neuro-active, anti-oxidant, enzyme inhibiting, oh and rich in simple sugars. So after the accepted period of forest dwelling and its clear association with unusually large brains how would such a 'large brain' friendly formula be replaced being that the unique bio-chemistry is not coded for in the mammalian genome?
Re running the basic proposal by 'stoned friends' well it is true that I would expect to see some capacity for contextual thinking with certain classes of neuro-chemical analogues though I have bothered to run it by a few other people with at least some orthodox knowledge.
Anthropologist Colin Groves is an active member of the sceptic society, he has also written on primate and human evolution with significant interest in neural evolution. He is well versed in the fossil evidence being involved in formal descriptions ect. Not someone who would likely do me any favours.
His comment on reading the manuscript
"This is a totally new way of looking at the evolution of the human brain. It is so totally fresh, unexpected and hitherto un-thought-of that it will probably take a long time before evolutionary anthropologists and psychologists begin to take it on board; but it will make an impact, of that there is no doubt. It will be, it must be, taken very seriously in any discussion of human origins."
I did ask him to point out any significant flaws Of course he may be a secret tripper or toker thus invalidating his comments but I have had similar responses from neurologists and other disciplines central to the plot.
All the more odd as I have proposed serious species wide neural degeneration as a consequence of the 'symbiotic' breakdown, so any support is also support for ones own neural system/perception being compromised. Now if these and others are in some way deluded in their appraisal then there must be a really weird perceptual problem.
Will Groves join our discussion? (bets?)
Decoding - message sounds almost like subliminal whispered reply, along lines such as: "Hell no, this theory won't go."
Answers that. Very well. It won't be submitted to some biology journal as I wondered. Its to be denied competent scientific review process (emphasis on 'process' - steps). Almost sounds like an injustice to it, phrased that way (mm?).
Oh well. No ox of mine faces goring either way. Whether this "Totally New Way of Looking at Evolution of the Human Brain" gets put to science's tough-as-nails review standard (anonymous critique, by referees "editor-chosen" based on their competence - as editor adjudges), the dog in the hunt is someone else's. And a "No" answer, however worded or indirect, is an answer.
BTW I think the quote cited to Groves is right on one point -- like him I don't expect to see biologists hopping on 'the bandwagon.' No more than scientific creation or stoney apes ...
But may one wonder, dare ask, how did Groves come to involved attention, end up quoted? Is there mutual acquaintance? Or, was it dart board method? Or, perhaps mass-mail this 'society' (?) and - he bit, answered?
We know Groves' name. And since anonymous review (its a process, scientific standard) is what I asked about - why did you even mention him as if that addresses anything? What's next, someone's amp go up to eleven? My questions are about relevance and meaning - not hand waving or protest; stuff at issue, contextually, as I've cited.
With good reason. We've this history, recently on the rise by many indicators -- of subversion encircling science, coveting its credibility - wanting its gazoline. And trying to figure out, how's it gonna get in there and get that?
Here I see comment and attention being insistently flagged in concerted fashion, away from 'all that' -- away from the DRAGNET type questions that stand in evidence; seems as if tactical. What rules for observing, thinking, are in effect?
Are we only supposed (on the part of whoever) -- to note the ostensibly brilliant terms of this theory, as directed? To the exclusion of things that might be more clue-worthy? Like: "Pay no attention to any man behind a curtain, or anything not expressly put out for display?" Especially if maybe left out on purpose, like context -- stuff that might have a lot more to do with what it is we see before us.
Again, trusting my feelings! - I get sense of messaging, Obiwan style. About like: "Never mind these context-droids (nothing of interest there ...)." When in fact, I find an entire structure of interest, a constellation of considerations in it.
A seeming diversion or deflection from context uncannily matches a sense I get from fog and non-sequiturs (all around). It presents a familiar appearance, a distinct pattern as of purpose and consistency. Its hard to look past, but easy enough to see through. About like ID / Sci Crea ...
And thus I asked whether this new theory would be submitted to biology review, ecology/evolution ideally. That's the scientific framework, the neo-Darwinian synthesis (whole theory). I rather not confuse biology with other fields, however related where evolutionary questions arise, like anthro (for hominid fossils, and prmate phylogeny etc). Nothing against anthro, hell I've had 90 graduate credit hrs of it. But as I'm aware, it relies on biology for evolutionary questions. Not vice versa.
Anthro's mainly a 'social science' -- along with psych and sociology. Biology is among the natural sciences -- along with physics and chem; here in USA on campus, at least (don't know how it goes in merry old lands like Oz, or Alice's wonderland).
So, this sequence -- it seems like bumping the microscope (after all this work to get it in focus) is part of method. Put cart being put before horse, evidence second. First comes the theory i.e. conclusion; then, effort to try to prove it. Facts that conflict can be ignored, rotten cherries. All this as Sci Creas know. Such practices are so easy -- but they have to avoid real process of hard science review. Because their bs wouldn't fly there.
There's every appearance of strategy in keeping a theory away from duly competent, systematic critique. There's a lot to learn from Sci Creas about this, they've been in "the business" longer than 'plant/human symbiosis' chatter.
So there's good reason I don't ignore basics on the ground floor, of context and form. And what I see here resembles ideology craving scientific credibilty by claiming it has a basis in science, for purposes. I rather stand on direct observations using eyes - and understanding of the integrity of science, the role of its review processes. Sounds this theory will be safe - well protected from any possible 'harm' thereby.
BTW (please): A 'Sceptic soc' is not an academic field or discipline. Its not even anthropology, much less biology. Another, even redder herring there, leading yet further away from the "Context of Critical Relevance" issue - or constellation of issues, an entire nest.
Nothing against people's beliefs or intellectual entertainments, hobbies. Rationalistic debunking including, and these scoffing societies. Hey I'm a Capricorn myself (altho I don't believe in astrology - but, what do you expect for one who's ruling planet is Saturn?). But - whether its 'scientific materialist' (scientism) type, or the newer 'rad philosophy' (decon pomo, genuflecting to mention of Foucault not McKenna as here) -- that stuff is again not science, its ideology borrowing from science and philosophy and whatever else looks good to it.
Whether ID/Sci Crea, Stoned Apes -- if it calls itself an evolutionary theory and claims some breakthrough brilliance -- but won't expose its heel to scientific i.e. biologists' assessment -- okay. I see. Very good. I'd encourage theorizers to have a little more confidence in their own theory, don't be so afraid there's nothing to it whatsoever, as suggested by the Fight and Flight reaction -- to any hint that maybe this ought to be competently submitted and reviewed, anonymous -- if its not a put-on, and really supposed to have something of scientific worth or interest.
There's also a "by its fruits" test -- the effect of a 'theory' on its constituency -- like, exuberant (sometimes fanatic-like) abandonment of critical reason, rejecting the integrity of scientific knowledge and understanding in order to "Teach the Controversy.
Apologies for lack of follow
Apologies for lack of follow up, been away.
Without addressing all the peripheral points the objective of the interview was to help initiate serious debate on the possibility that we are mentally ill/perceptually compromised.
As such a scenario brings with it an assessment conundrum I have proposed a causal mechanism that may be more reliable than ‘subjective self assessment’, some kind of mechanism would likely have to exist if there were a progressive neurological condition.
The intention was a discussion on heavily modified transcription/developmental environments as a possible mechanism to explain various unique traits and the potential for reversion to type resulting in a progressively ‘primitive neural system.
As this is not in your opinion plausible let alone compelling then I would be interested in your take on the split brain data and interpretations of same data and how that might impact on self-assessment generally.
This includes the presumed objectivity of the peer review process etc.
I would simply caution against confusing the relatively objective data/mechanisms with the interpretation of that same data as the data appears to suggest or even predict an inability to perceive reality. This page has links to several bodies of research, it is quite simple, are the peer-reviewed conclusions sound or are they seriously flawed exactly as the data predicts.
http://beyond-belief.org.uk/node/1
More generally I would hardly be drawing attention to such a proposal if I did not urgently wish to seek wider and rigorous scrutiny, as the existence of such a condition would surely be of great concern?
The 'urgent wish' of 'great concern' -
of which you speak, last paragraph, is a powerful motivator. We see this with fundamentalists also. Their concern about the fate of the Immortal Soul in eternity, is merely another constellated point common -- between neopsychedelia and Sci Creationism -- each helping itself to the credibility of scientific knowledge, with whatever evolutionary vocab and evidence looks as good to such intentions -- as those luscious grapes did to the Fox who coveted them.
And its not just their own measly Immortal Soul, for which they have 'great concern' -- its yours and mine too. They 'urgently wish' not just their own redemption, their hopes include salvation for you and me too. As with "the intention" of their discourse. But how on earth could they enforce or impose their intention on anyone else? How would they prevent whoever else from speaking his own thought, making his own observations; not theirs? Your mention "the intention" of this discussion seems to tiptoe around whose intention. As if, no matter ...
Well that's just how it is with ideological zeal; regardless which extremity it comes from -- biblical or neopsychedelic (post-FOOD OF THE GODS). Its psychologically driven, uncritically self-unreflective; and as with every such its ends justify its means -- manipulative and fundamentally power-seeking.
As such - stepping back for wide angle panoramic view -- the doctrines and messages, dressed in theory's clothing, reflect the intensifying eddies and currents aswirl in our present milieu. We have a clear, historically-emergent, culturally patterned social angst in the wake of Galileo and all that's gone on, and continues.
I feel we are having separate conversations Tony. I don't find a line of communication in yours, sorry. No bad wishes nor hard feelings, not here.
The ‘concern’ was
More generally unless I’m mistaken this forum deals with topics and novel ideas related to the human condition and particularly our reference points re perception.
I have simply raised the question of our neural/perceptual integrity and the circular presumption that our perceptual equipment is functional.
Specifically I have drawn attention to the extensive peer reviewed data/conclusions on cerebral asymmetry/dominance and pointed out what looks to me (and increasingly to others) like a major contradiction between data and interpretation of data that is explained even predicted by the same data.
In simple and easily refutable steps, I would still be interested in your comments of these two related pieces of ‘peer reviewed’ data. You have an opportunity to entirely refute the key symptomology of the condition I have proposed by addressing very orthodox peer reviewed data.
1 The orthodox consensus is that the left hemisphere is perceptually dominant, it has an executive role and our ‘normal’ sense of self is heavily coloured by the left hemisphere. Of course this applies to the neuro-researchers involved in split brain research and similar as well as those involved in the peer review process and of course everyone else (by degrees)
2 The left hemisphere displays a number of related traits that are considered extremely pathological in almost any context (except when explaining their endemic existence as part of the left hemispheres normal function)
If these two elements are more or less accurate then there is a serious problem?
This paper by Ramachandran is a simple introduction to the key elements that encompasses the basic conundrum, there are many others. http://leftinthedark.org.uk/PDF/Ramachandran%20VS%20Evol.pdf
He outlines the basic scenario yet takes no account that the data inevitably applies to himself when attempting to make sense of the data. This applies more generally to the human capacity to self assess (including the peer review process)
The hemisphere with the 'specialist traits' is assesing the data and drawing the conclusions.
There's no need to explain to me Tony
I've no further questions. For me what you're posting is, again, still and further -- non-sequiturs. I find nothing responsive to observations and questions I've posted, in what you say. And its no big to-do by me, I neither criticize nor complain. You're well within your rights to reserve reply, and instead if you prefer, ask my "take" on x or y ("take"- huh?). Just as I am to ask my questions, for you to answer or not as you see fit. All well and good, no cause for flap or flutter.
But all that finds no connection to my curiosity. My interest revolves around finding out. Mine is to discover - not suppose or etc. I'm a truth-seeker exploring an interesting landscape, criss-crossed with all kinds of hard-to-see trip wires, tense and charged.
Long story short, I'd refrain from obliging you by "going back and forth" about whatever on your cue. If you need reading sources, info, I can direct. But that's not some fascinating intellectual feed-in. Sorry if I frustrate, you really seem like you want some such (from little old me?). If it makes any difference, I'd rather you address my questions too. But fine either way, again.
Whatever I'm studying, research, investigating -- my objective is to find out, verifiable answers. I like ice underfoot thick enough to hold weight, not go out on some limb until it snaps. So, I build understanding not on some wild-ass "speculative" etc -- but on solid ground, well-tested knowledge, direct evidence anybody could look at if they dared. Not arguments this or that.
You don't have to be Galileo to look through the telescope, and see if you see those dots of light around Jupiter too. It ain't no rhetorical flourish or literary style. No more than a dog checking out the horizon for what's happening ....
So, for me -- no "deep" (i.e. banal) brilliant thinking. I observe methodically, and learn. Thats how I do it. I use reliable tools of inquiry, from combined disciplines, to discover -- not just answers either, also new questions. Especially ones that might not be so obvious. And as I sometimes find, it seems some trails have been covered (as if to hide them from view, hoping nobody finds them? -- and god forbid follows them to their source?).
And in due course, when the edge of the curtain is found, starts getting pulled back (even little Toto can do that) ... an interesting panic reaction is evident. Its a patterned sequence (like Fox and Grapes) that plays out over and over -- typical of ideological agendas, power-seeking stuff ("theories" if we must) needing to fly below the radar, go undetected. Some "brilliant ideas" that target particular interests or cliques, prefer cover of dark (where its hard to see what they're up to). And when hit with light ...
For example, as played out in the Dover, PA trial, with the smoking gun found (awesome detail work Detective Forrest). The flap and flutter in that coop, when it was entered into evidence, placed in display. Especially with the elaborate relational theater, Academy Award grade acting and script, the ID gang had worked up. Beats hell out of me why those guys didn't just take their show to Hollywood.
And -- all it took was two words, disccovered by focused, methodical investigation. There it was, chapter and verse -- in black and white: "cdesign proponentsists." After all the hand waving and protests of "oh, we want rigorous review, but you narrow-minded conventional blah blah ..." etc.
You know the drill, I know it, we all do. If you want rigorous critical review for your theory, its easy. I can even help advise and refer. Here at RS, you can have the choir to sing about it, put on a show, step right up and be impressed or amazed etc. Been through this before though with stoned apes - keep away from science, then whine that its being criminally ignored by "the very scientists whose informed criticism could be vital for ..." Etc. all indignant and accusatory. Pure theater of lame.
But fooling whoever else is secondary, not the main agenda. So it doesn't matter if someone else is fooled or not. As long as whoever has 'convinced' himself, reaffirmed his conviction, renewed his faith... others are merely patsies
asymmetry
Jim Cross
http://www.broadspeculations.com
I dont have a problem with
I dont have a problem with Asymmetry generally, it appears asymmetry is the norm for neural systems http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolutionary-origins-of...
However while asymmetrically specialised neural systems may be excellent for survival having structural variation within the executive perceptual layer may not be so helpful for facilitating a coherent sense of self. Currently at first glance it looks like we have two specialised hemispheres yet if you look at the data on what each side is supposed to be specialised for and of course which hemisphere is interpreting the data it doesn’t stack up. Add in the known evolutionary bio-chemistry/transcription factors and the know developmental mechanisms support the proposal that the genetic asymmetry was by degrees ironed out resulting in a relatively undifferentiated executive layer. Any loss of those factors would expose the embedded asymmetry with one side being more sensitive than the other.
Symbiosis & Love - A Conscious Commitment To Evolution
This very important article/discussion almost acknowledges the dread implication of the profound crisis facing mankind today ....and, by extension, every other living thing on earth and in the heavens. Our symbiotic relationship with Nature has ceased, implying that we, Homo 'sapiens' are finished....
But the article does not seem able to go past that dramatic consequence to the root of the problem, which is ironically implicit in its surmise. It suggests instead that a reversal is still possible through recourse to psychedelics, totally ignoring the obcious: that the pathway back [to symbiosis] may also be the way we sustained it in the first place. So the novel premise tendered really needs to be questioned....
However Trevor is to be congratulated for raising the issue for serious consideration. In discussing Tony's book with him, he expresses hope we will succeed ....but also a great fear that we will fail. I really must get into the book: "Left in the Dark" asap.
I have also read only a few of the comments appended hereto, but look forward to doing so as soon as I find a few more quiet moments.
But a short and urgent response to his postulate that psychedelics are needed if the lingering [but still diminishing] opportunity for recovery ....is in order. Like all magic bullets [pills] we can surely conclude: there are no magic bullets!
In the entropy that unquestionably defines our situation in the world today, recourse to such 'products' may briefly catapult one out of the insane paradigm and into clear ether, or seminal awareness, momentarily ....but it violates the quintessence of reason still faintly visible in the discussion and, no doubt, in the book [I suppose - although I haven't yet read it - so am on a dangerous wicket; however I will take the risk because it is vital to question the assumption tendered] .....If it was raw fruit and nuts etc that nourished us into evolving ....then it is the same path that remains the 'real' way to recover that lost health. Thus may we redeem our true Human Nature.
Our indigenous brothers and sisters - the elders - knew much about what is sacred, but not everything. Nonetheless, they know without question this ....is 'Purification' time - and that time now, they also say, is short! This wisdom resonates ....deeply [with us].
Their Truth, and ours, is that only a return to Natural Law [on which we must depend, and which we must again serve] .....may save us. We agree it is late, but not too late! The simple path is the only real one available. Moreover it costs nothing, physically or spiritually.
Approached with humility and grace, even as we are ....past the point of no return and on the threshold of ultimate tribulation, this moment is survivable. 'The answer [how?] my friend [as always] .....is written on the wind....'
Love and best wishes from us [at Edenhope.org]
Steve 'n hope
hey steve, sorry for the late response. I must have missed this
You said "It suggests instead that a reversal is still possible through recourse to psychedelics, totally ignoring the obvious: that the pathway back [to symbiosis] may also be the way we sustained it in the first place. "
Sorry for the confusion, i thought the article made it pretty clear that obviously an immediate recourse to the hormone rich plants that sustained the symbiosis would be a major and essential part of any restoration approach. From the article:
"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."
But if fruit alone was the entire anwser than our ancestors would have figured this out a while ago. I would read the book and get a better idea of the proposal before coming to conclusions about all this.
Negative hormonal feedback loops are a powerful thing. Our entire system, endocrine glands included, would have been running very very differently in the past, and the chemical output would have been radically different than it is now..even among those with a fruit diet these days. (Not to mention that there is also the issue of the left being more damaged and yet dominant..also being less able to utilize the galaxy of plant chemicals)
And so if a plethora of MAOI and psychedelic tryptamines were in the mix "pre-fall", and it seems that they definitely would have been, then replacing them is not implying that they are a "magic bullet pill" but simply addressing a serious neurochemical deficiency that is dictating our perception and sense of self.
Anywho, it would be cool to
http://leftinthedark.org.uk/s
One of the top chairs to
Thanks for the spam
WISDOM TEETH Early humans
hmmm
In related news...
britain unprepared for tsunami of dementia patients
quote
News
The Plan
Interesting post. But
Interesting post.
But to play devils advocate...
Wasn't it einstein who said that "god doesn't play dice" ;-)
Joking aside, I'm curious as to where you ultimately see humanity in the next few decades?
Where will we be in the next few decades?
wherever you go, there you are
"oh hey there you are!
"hi, do i know you?"
"no but thats where you are; your THERE!"
New in-depth interview with Tony Wright
Artemis was a hunter
More about Artemis
?
An Interview With Tony Wright
Related article
Touches on out obvious
New Theory Of Neural Evolution
!
BTW
Discussion Board
Humans are slowly but surely loosing abilities
Just saw this the other day on a blog. Its telling that even when looked at from many angles, our situation indicates something just isn't right.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112135516.htm
dementia and diet