Re: The Spirituality of Chimps


Thomas (1994) was a newsgroup posting I made in
alt.philosophy.objectivism which laid out the hypothesis.

Ragland: Okay. Do you have a copy of it you could post here?

If, as you indicate, you know of a reference to a hypothetical brain
centre, close to the limbic system, but working with the neocortex,
that manages status i.e. which enables the individual to know its own
status in relation to that of others then please let me know of it.

Ragland: I never stated I knew of a reference to a hypothetical brain
centre, close to the limbic system, but working with the neocortex,
that manages status i.e. which enables the individual to know its
own status in relation to that of others. I said I agreed with you
there
are neurophysiological structures which enable religion. I stated your
two so-called new hypotheses were not new at all but quite old. Those
were
status recognition and the "absent King or Alpha". In any event you
conceded this brain center is "hypothetical".

Mark Thomas:
Like chimpanzees? Fighting it out for dominance in gangs? Gang on
gang? I don't need to go far from here to find people living at that
level.

Ragland: Neither do I. They are thirty miles away from me. I have no
desire
to research them while they are active because they are much more
dangerous than chimpanzees.

Mark Thomas:

It a choice between that low level and civilization - and civilization
only happens when people have a set of shared beliefs be they in the
Holy Trinity or in the State, Money and the Law.

Ragland: Successful criminal gangs definitely have a set of shared
beliefs
and anybody stepping too far from those shared beliefs may be savagely
beaten up or murdered.


Reply Rate this post:




From: Mark Thomas - view profile
Date: Sat, Feb 25 2006 1:44 pm
Email: "Mark Thomas" <m.thoma...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Groups: sci.bio.evolution
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Mark Thomas:
Fair enough to be skeptical until you understand why it makes sense.

It is a big call.

Ragland: Does meaning I don't necessarily agree with 100% of what you
say makes me skeptical? If you
read what I wrote I agree with some of what you say. To advance your
arguments your going to have to do more research and write more.

Mark Thomas:

However, as oxygen was always there and phlogiston wasn't wasn't there,

and just as the Earth was so obviously flat, so we should always be
prepared to challenge our deepest held assumptions - even if everyone
else shares them. Always remember those millions of flies, they keep
the frogs in business.

Ragland: I've noticed something about you. First, you write of religion
being
necessary yet you seem to have animosity towards it. For example, your
use
of the word "halo". Are the frogs the "alphas"?

Mark Thomas:
You are so used to religion being in this box and evolution being in
another, that you, perhaps, find it easier to ridicule the idea that
they may be in the same box, rather than to think your way out of your
box.

Ragland: Thanks for telling me what I think. What I do know is religion
is a product of early primitive man and largely symbolization of his
thoughts and feelings. There are some universal motifs I think you
would learn a lot about religion by studying anthropology and
archeology. You write, "The hypothesis is that religion is a part of
being
human and that this has evolved because of the selective advantage it
confers through group cohesion." It does more than this. It represents
to a degree the very innermost feelings and thoughts, largely through
symbolization, of mankind. This can be traced all the way back to
around the ancient campfire. Because humanity is involved in a
transition (which will ultimately spell the death of religion) it has
weakened. Still, it has maintained itself quite well up to 2006 and
will
do so beyond for quite some time.

Mark Thomas:

A testable hypothesis?


Or a null hypothesis? As Dunbar pointed out, religion is very costly -

it just has to have a selective impact.

Ragland: What is the selective impact Mr. Thomas. You haven't
addressed the most important question in your equation.

Mark Thomas:

The status centre hypothesis is eminently testable by brain scanning.
It should light up under social stress. I would further suggest that
clinical depression is in there too and occurs when an individual is
forced so far down, or even out of the hierarchy, that they feel unable

to control their lives any further. Clinical depression is part of the

mechanism that stops the game (as it is being lost) and so gives the
individual the chance of a new start somewhere else.

Ragland: Social stress and clinical depression can be caused by
numerous factors. Your status centre is very vague.

Mark Thomas:

I would then stick my neck out, if it is a neck, and not a constriction

caused by a misplaced halo, and suggest that the part of the status
centre that lights up to the alpha will also light up for God i.e. when

a person believes they are in the presence of their God, or are engaged

in what they believe to be meaningful communication with their God.

Ragland: Tell that to the victims of the Jonestown massacre or the
millions who cheered Hitler or the Japanese during WWII. Yes,
you are right. There are times when group cohesiveness leads to
almost total loss of autonomy and individuality and people will
believe they are in the presence of their God, or are engaged in what
they believe to be meaningful communication with their God. This can
be extremely dangerous. So while I acknowledge what you are
saying in some instances I would personally deplore it and resist it.
Of course, there are much less malignant varieties. Would you
consider Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Billy Grahm,etc.
to be "alpha males"? You are in UK so you probably don't know
these people.


.