The Stoned Ape Theory of Human Evolution - Terrence Mckenna

[Bakers]

solly ...

[tsig]

Originally Posted by quarky

You wake up naked, miles from home.

Beer will do that too.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by tsig

Beer will do that too.

My friend said that in the police cell everybody that he had ever known in his life popped up one by one out of the toilet and said hello. Beer doesn't do that to you!

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by asydhouse

Why aren't you conversing with Bakers, Zeuzzz?

If someone argues a better and more eloquently stated point than me what do you expect me to do? Throw an online tantrum?

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Bakers

TM's dread nemesis, the "paradigm of Western civilization" - a harvest of rotten fruit. Best regards.

Yes that baby out with the bathwater mentality, that trickster "revolutionary" surfing the disturbance, not caring in fact where that revolution is tending as long as its turning (and cool dude knowing since no one can determine the destination anyway, the cool dude rides the wave without looking for a destination... that sounds so wise, so zen, so street smart hip to just not care what's gonna happen next... actual wisdom turned to peculiar folly).

To me, the guard against self-deception built into science, in fact the core value of the algorithm of practical science work, of science as a practical philosophy, is the height of human achievement, greater than all arts even. Prior necessity for wise cultural life, wise life of the species... looks increasingly like prior necessity for survival of the species, certainly for peace and enlivened-in-the-mind people.

Science is the egg "Western civilisation" has hatched, so when Terrence says he wants to overturn it, he's ignoring that it's a bad idea. He's smugly pretending to be a righteous opponent of the brutality and stupidity of our cultural outlook towards the utility of the world... he's using to his advantage the conflation (in so many minds) of science with technology, and braiding those two with the policies of unscientifically minded politicians. Perhaps he forgets that science is the victim of this equating of science with policy.

But he knows a reservoir of resentment when he sees it, & he's shrewd enough to be able to harness it to his own trips. When he's insinuating his trojan horse smuggling of psychedlics into academia, he's keeping alive the hope of a psychedelic future taken away by the Law. Appealing to an emotional and immature reactionary impulse among us privileged children of the Enlightenment, he thus conspires with us to identify the lies of the Authorities; he's also tapping into our guilt at being the beneficiaries of our elders' rapings of the world, a guilt which can be turned into support for a magical out hatch. Luckily we have a handy and very effective potion to hand for recruitment into the revolution! Come through a trip, and it's obvious the Law is stupid, ergo the people who made the law, and those who support it! (Which also conveniently really is true! Or so it seems.)

What a shame politics ever got involved. But then, used for actual truth seeing, psychedelics were always bound to challenge the hypocrisy of the Establishment.

When he admits he is lying to his hip audience, they see the revolutionary theatre of his "resistance" and applaud. He then leads them up the garden path into rebelling against the notion of scientific truth, playing the Postmodernist piped piper leading unscientific cultural children of the West in their illusion of choice among realities. The romantic rebels are filled with self-righteous determination, teamed with their genuine tragedy and pain so unjustly imposed on them by the ignorant Establishment (I feel this too, it's a definite fact we have been sat on by the Authorities, they do have a lot to answer for, people in jail, in prison for years, lives wasted by the Establishment... yes there is anger, outrage, self-righteous passion, (but at least today no one taking up guns, thankfully) in response to the terrible things imposed on us by ignorant sods, politicians who have never tripped!... instead we have delusional identifying of enemies among those who stand up to speak truth!... and people getting into selling delusional "therapies" using crystals, which would be fine if they used acid to do it, making it clear that it's a trip, a mental journey like a meditation... might be worthwhile!... but as it's illegal, we get empty fantasy make-believe instead)...

That's why Terrence is the hero of the romantic movement in the minds of those who have no real understanding of science, refugees from religions, romantic rebels looking at the world through the lens of self-determined Western values of own life choices... ironic for those who then wind up following Terrence up onto the barricades to overthrow the freedom they live in (to be who and what they want!) which is the fruit of the Enlightenment that our Western civilisation worked out to free us from the oppression of the Church, frankly.

I'm still reacting to the nasty vibe in the longest rant in the reaction/comments thread after your article on Reality Sandwich website. That guy seems to think he can tap into some new reality where he will be a wizard or something. He maybe thinks he can do what Castaneda claimed, not realizing the whole thing was like McKenna basically a fantasy/sf pulp novel marketed very cleverly, a product of the times when Situationists used guerrilla street theatre to air subversive ideas in the cultural craziness of the 60s.... Castaneda shrewdly realised he could sell more art if it claimed to be life. Terrence picked up that same vibe.

Seen as art, Terrence was a genius. Seen with the understanding that our ship's sinking and we should all be manning the pumps, he's a menace.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

If someone argues a better and more eloquently stated point than me what do you expect me to do? Throw an online tantrum?

Ha! Surely you're joking, Mr Zeuzzz!

You don't really see what he's done as rhetoric, do you? He's nailed the hypothesis to the deck, and it's dead. Scientifically finished.

The honourable thing, the scientific thing, is to publicly accept that, and acknowledge that this particular hypothesis need never darken our doorway again!

Simple and straightforward, my friend.

Integrity. Honesty. Open faced.

Then move forward, with power!



PS Okay I've slipped... I know you will say that the idea is independent of its origins. The hypothesis may still have some validity... so the rest of the discussion in this thread is still a valid examination of ideas and evidence.... so I know you will not concede the closure of the idea. I can't see it. I find it unlikely, having considered it on my own before I knew of TM's shenanigans. In light of my understanding of the way evolution works, it isn't possible for the brain to have responded to some ancestor's tripping... your epigenetics hopes seem to be based on a partial knowledge and wrong understanding of the science, as in so many other fields, sad to see (you are bright, why not make real use of it!) (Integrity, humility, honesty, move forward).

Terrence's original proposal was a crock of tripper's fantasies he tried to pass off as based in real science, which is plain dishonest, knowing he had plenty of gullible ignorant people to thus gain as a market. That taints the whole brew, invalidates it as sound psychedelic behaviour. What do you say to that, Zeuzzz? (Which is the actual conversation Bakers was asking you to have, and which you dodge with your "witticism" above.)

[Zeuzzz]

Mckenna, as a person, has been dealt with.

The theory, as it stands, under which ever label you want to ascribe it, 'the stoned ape theory' or 'humans tend to enjoy psychedelics' theory or 'human plant evolutionary symbiosis' is very much still alive, and the very topic of this thread.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Bakers

I assume you're basically just running away from any honesty or integrity of discussion as fast as you can. True, you can run from it, as we see. But do you figure you can hide? If so - where? Under the Brugmansia tree?

Not to unmask anything. Nor harm in you being told, direct and on the level, that I feel you're acting out in a very manipulative way, for purposes that you're not up front about. And I find they're not consistent or compliant with the purposes of this discussion forum, as set forth in the terms of registration. Glad we're having this little talk.

He's talking to you, Zeuzzz.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Bakers

Hey zzzzzz – I’d like know too, how come you’re not answering question about your purpose in broadcasting that ‘stoned apes’ gospel, and not correcting gross misinfo you’re standing on? If you’re not here to discuss this “stoned apes” thing, why do you bring it here for discussion? Just wonderin’ – could theorize, but rather ask. Inquiring mind here, wants to know, straight from trojan horse’s mouth – does cat have its tongue?

Again. These are really important questions for you personally to consider.

Is it embarrassing? More for you to consider.

[Zeuzzz]

Oh yes, I'm evidently running away so fast I'm not actually going anywhere.

Your point?

[porch]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

'the stoned ape theory'

no

Quote:

'humans tend to enjoy psychedelics' theory

yes

Quote:

'human plant evolutionary symbiosis'

maybe

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Mckenna, as a person, has been dealt with.

The theory, as it stands, under which ever label you want to ascribe it, 'the stoned ape theory' or 'humans tend to enjoy psychedelics' theory or 'human plant evolutionary symbiosis' is very much still alive, and the very topic of this thread.

Those three alternatives are not synonyms.

Modern humans tend to enjoy psychedelics... unless they don't! It's all in what you think you're doing etc. But that's not relevant to any kind of evolution, or this thread, is it?

Human plant evolutionary symbiosis. Cultural evolution, yes. Biological evolution, can't see how.

So we're saying when early hominids sat round the fire burning those plants and got high on the smoke, they started making music, and making music together caused the evolution of our interactions, which might have included some selectional advantage in those who responded better and made better music in the sense of harmonious intermingling, sensitivity.... sensitive mates make better mates?

That's my very own personal "stoned ancestors" idea, so cannabis and humans have lived comfortably together forever. It's pretty easy and social.

Tripping is always iffy. It's not a reliable force. Psychedelics are not a consistently manageable social cohesion force. Even now, most people wind up drinking or smoking instead of tripping regularly. As somebody once said, you can use it for inspiration and wisdom quests, but you can't live out there.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Oh yes, I'm evidently running away so fast I'm not actually going anywhere.

Your point?

Is that you have not responded in any way to Bakers. Not only the direct questions, but also his astute recognition of the way you always fly away and change the subject when one of your positions turns out to be on slippery ground. You are slippery. Since that was my own first impression of you and I tried to engage with you about your intentions, you ignored me. Here again you ignore questions about purpose.

Frankly you do not seem honest. That's why I'd like to see you explain yourself. Bakers also thinks you are here to subvert discussion. Why don't you prove him wrong?

[quarky]

Why crucify Zeuzzz?

He brought up a controversial subject matter; it brought out 11 pages of fairly interesting ideas and rebuttals.

My initial reaction was that the underlying concept of the o.p. needn't rely on a particular plant or fungus...they are everywhere...and it's likely they were experimented with, despite survival disadvantages.

Shamanic insights, gleaned from psychedelic 'journeys', no doubt influenced our evolution...not through mutations, but indirectly...as they continue to do in this modern age.

Steve Jobs had the balls to credit lsd where credit is due.
If illegal drugs were not part of the equation, we would all be much poorer for it.

Enduring the trip, at least initially, was a sacrifice to the whole.
It wasn't about seeking pleasure. It was about seeking guidance. Much vomiting normally ensued.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by quarky

Why crucify Zeuzzz?

He brought up a controversial subject matter; it brought out 11 pages of fairly interesting ideas and rebuttals..

Absolutely right, and I was just coming back to say I was now feeling bad for having pressed you, Zeuzzz. You do certainly contribute to this forum.... it's just kind of frustrating seeing how you go throwing in things that others with more knowledge inform you are wrong, but you still push on... you are doing art in the guise of science, seems to me.... much like ol' Terence himself!

And I wish you'd recognise that yourself, and start practicing as an honest artist, instead of what I perceive to be a dishonest scientist routine.

Like I said elsewhere, I feel I'd like you initially if I met you in real life, because of this bright creative thoughtful side of you.... but I suspect I'd soon grown tired of the invulnerability of your teleological system/mode of reasoning.

Sorry to cause offence. But no regrets (beyond regretting giving you bad vibes).

[quarky]

Group hug?

(Too soon?)

[Zeuzzz]

It's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.

Any answer can be restated as a question.

Still, I like psilocybe mushrooms. One of my favorites. I want to believe in Mckennas theory, even if the truth is far more complex. This thread has been fun.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

It's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.

Any answer can be restated as a question.

Still, I like psilocybe mushrooms. One of my favorites. I want to believe in Mckennas theory, even if the truth is far more complex. This thread has been fun.

And that's the hardest part of science, honestly letting go of the outcomes you wish for, and following the truth with integrity, so that those who come after are working on a sound platform of work you have done. It's a house of knowledge.

A house that we, the human species, is collectively building.

Camping is fun. That's a good way to do the trips. Like reading science fiction, you can suspend your disbelief for the duration. But when you close the book, you do have to come back to the house, you do have to come down (that's as much a part of the trip as going up ), and it's a good idea if you haven't wired your stereo into your plumbing when you drop some sounds and brew a cuppa chai!



PS That "more interesting to live without knowing" is a flippant comment. What you are saying is: given that your physical and social needs have been successfully taken care of by the cumulative efforts of previous generations who have established the systems on which we depend, you are free to dream and speculate as much as you like without bothering over the consequences of what you choose to believe.

Science knows that answers are tentative, but when everything points to a sound picture, there's no need to go introducing arbitrary what-ifs that aren't warranted by the successfully cogent weave of pieces/systems of knowledge already in place. If you need more, write science fiction! (Who knows, you might have a talent for it!)

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by quarky

Why crucify Zeuzzz?

He brought up a controversial subject matter; it brought out 11 pages of fairly interesting ideas and rebuttals.

My initial reaction was that the underlying concept of the o.p. needn't rely on a particular plant or fungus...they are everywhere...and it's likely they were experimented with, despite survival disadvantages.

Shamanic insights, gleaned from psychedelic 'journeys', no doubt influenced our evolution...not through mutations, but indirectly...as they continue to do in this modern age.

Steve Jobs had the balls to credit lsd where credit is due.
If illegal drugs were not part of the equation, we would all be much poorer for it.

Enduring the trip, at least initially, was a sacrifice to the whole.
It wasn't about seeking pleasure. It was about seeking guidance. Much vomiting normally ensued.

Your whole post is right, I mean it feels right to my mind.

Thank you for stepping in, there, quarky. I can't speak for Zeuzzzzzzzzz, but I appreciated it.



PS if the drugs were legal, think how much more benefit we would be accruing from psychedelic experience! What a stupid waste of time this war on the users of psychedelics has been.

[Zeuzzz]

Ok lets look at whatever data and research into this hypothesis we actually have then, that's nothing to do with Mckenna.

Since Mckenna as a person has taken a battering here for enjoying sex, having an eager crowd of loyal supporters, being a bestselling author and .... umm. Which presumably make his theories incorrect, due to wrongness by association with a popular cultural figure, who also lacked the credentials to say anything worthy of consideration on this matter.

Actually, to correct myself, he had a doctorate (degree?) in Shamanism if I recall.

Can't really think of a better discipline to have studied in regards to this theory.

Lets have a look at the orthodox views of our sudden evolutionary ascent from primates to humans, and see how they explain it.

African Exodus, Chris Stringer and Robin McKie, Jonathan Cape, London 1996, from the Preface.

Quote:

For the past few years, a small group of scientists has been accumulating evidence that has revolutionised our awareness of ourselves, and our animal origins. They have shown that we belong to a young species, which rose like a phoenix from a crisis which threatened its very survival, and then conquered the world in a few millennia. The story is an intriguing and mysterious one, and it challenges many basic assumptions we have about ourselves... It is a remarkable, and highly controversial narrative that has generated headlines round the world and which has been the subject of a sustained programme of vilification by scientists who have spent their lives committed to the opposing view that we have an ancient, million-year-old ancestry. The debate, which reverberates in museums, universities and learned institutions across the world, is one of the most bitter in the history of science.

Also
African Exodus, p 5-6

Quote:

It was one of the critical events in mankind's convoluted route to evolutionary success. The nature of the trigger of this great social upheaval is still hotly debated, but remains a mystery at the heart of our 'progress' as a species. Was it a biological, mental or social event that sent our species rushing pell-mell towards world domination? Was it the advent of symbolic language, the appearance of the nuclear family as the basic element of human social structure, or a fundamental change in the workings of the brain? Whatever the nature of the change, it has a lot to answer for. It transformed us from minor bit players in a zoological soap opera into evolutionary superstars, with all the attendant dangers of vanity, hubris and indifference to the fate of others that such an analogy carries with lt.

William S Moxley comments further in his book: "A Theory of Psychedelic Experience", which draws upon recent research in many fields of study to create a multi-disciplinary theory attempting to define the nature, cause, roots, and future of psychedelic experience. Published in the Drug Reform Coordination Network Internet Library 1996.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/univcont.htm
Reading this paragraph in African Exodus, I realized I had been for several years working on ideas which constituted the very answer sought by this recent revolution in thinking about human evolution. It was, as I have said in chapter 2, "Models and Theories," a falling into place of pieces of a puzzle which justified so much earlier "wild speculation," a realization that practically by accident I had found a key that many others were actively searching for which would enable the opening of a door to an important future in understanding.


Who was referring to Rebecca Canns comments in the same book, which are here:

Quote:

We often wonder if language played a part of the process, and that our ancestors all had some new mutations which allowed them to spread, at the expense of the other indigenous peoples. [Results of genetic research] suggest the spread of our ancestors was rapid, with little mixing.

Moxley continues (Ch 7)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/univcont.htm
http://www.psychedelic-library.org/univch7.htm#back1
"Although language certainly played a part in the process, as I have already discussed, the identity of the trigger, the origin of the population bottleneck, the reason behind man's migration to the ends of the earth, the factor enabling the rapid rise of culture independently in all these regions, the factor behind the ability of the new hominids to out-compete all former races of archaic man, the secret of the birth of the human race, may all be intimately related to one and the same phenomenon: the advent of psychedelic use by a regionally isolated group of proto-humans somewhere in Africa.

Such use might then have spread with the spread of the descendants of this core group of individuals, mimicking a population bottleneck in that psychedelic use and the advantages it provided were closely guarded secrets not evident or available to competing "tribes." As I stated previously, if a member of a competing "tribe" were to use the new medicine, it would only serve to isolate him from his own group. Psychedelic use could then have been at once the reason for an apparent but not necessarily absolute bottleneck, and also the trigger, the key which enabled this original group to expand and prosper by virtue of the cognitive advantages provided by the cumulative effects of psychedelic use. These advantages, I remind the reader, concern a new and powerful ability to suspend a mode of existence entirely governed by habit routine. The advanced ape that was our predecessor necessarily had, as I have shown, the most complete, one might say irrevocable dependence on habit routine of any animal yet evolved, a dependence entirely precluding the use of the most advanced nervous system ever evolved for creative purposes.

But what of that other facilitating factor I mentioned before, the one that would allow psychedelic use to become important and not just an infrequent and disorienting event for single individuals who might then expulsed from their group? Some environmental or social situation must have resulted in the frequent use of psychedelics by a significant proportion of the core group, and psychedelic use must then have become part and parcel of the social structure of the group. There are several possibilities. Here another body of research information on climate change becomes important, for during the proposed period between 100Ka and 200Ka, drastic climatic changes were occurring on a time scale certain to disrupt all life on the planet, especially those advanced forms of life so dependent on social complexity and a diversified diet."


African Exodus, op. cit., p186-187
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q...#search_anchor

Quote:

It is an extraordinary catalogue of achievements that seem to have come about virtually from nowhere - though obviously they did have a source. The question is: what was it? Did we bring the seeds of this mental revolution with us when we began our African Exodus, though its effects were so subtle they took another 50,000 years to accumulate before snowballing into a cultural and technological avalanche that now threatens to engulf Homo sapiens? Or did that final change occur later, and was it therefore more profound, and much speedier in its effects?

I believe the answer is neither of these, or rather a combination of the two: The seeds of the revolution were indeed carried by Homo sapiens from his birthplace in Africa, but they were seeds which needed periodic stimulation to grow vigorously. As I have argued, psychedelic wisdom does not of itself propel societies to produce a "technological avalanche" nor should we believe that "technological avalanches" are inherently good. Psychedelic wisdom rather leads to ecology, stability, and longevity. But when novel and severe challenges present themselves to psychedelically-enabled societies, they are able to react intelligently and with foresight and complex long-range planning. This is perhaps the most important difference between the true Homo sapiens his animal forebears.

Thus the periodic and now well-established abrupt climatic upheavals of the post-Eemian world became the catalyst which successively and cumulatively forced tribes of men living in many isolated areas of the globe to use their God-like powers of creativity to advance technology in the interests of survival. An ice age was approaching, with fits and starts, and global climatic change was frequent and severe. If the cognitive seeds existed, dormant in the sense of not automatically producing technological change at a rate which we moderns believe essential to our species, and these seeds existed in all the societies of men around the globe, the fact of climatic change being a global phenomenon would explain how these seeds flowered, or were forced to grow independently in all these regions.

I think some of the above people, when they wonder what were the 'seeds of this mental revolution' would benefit from using the word seed far more literally than they originally intended. One such symbiotic seed, out of many others, could be the spores of coprophilic mushrooms.

"Drugs will not be brought under control until society itself changes,
enabling men to use them as primitive man did;
welcoming the visions they provided not as fantasies,
but as intimations of a different, and important, level of reality."

- Brian Inglis. The Forbidden Game, A Social History of Drugs, 1975, Hodder and Stoughton Limited, U.K. p230.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Since Mckenna as a person has taken a battering here for enjoying sex, having an eager crowd of loyal supporters, being a bestselling author and .... umm. Which presumably make his theories incorrect, due to wrongness by association with a popular cultural figure, who also lacked the credentials to say anything worthy of consideration on this matter.

I've not been following this thread too closely, but didn't people give him a battering because there was a speech in which he admitted making the whole "Stoned Ape" thing up?

Quote:

Actually, to correct myself, he had a doctorate (degree?) in Shamanism if I recall.

From?

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Since Mckenna as a person has taken a battering here for enjoying sex, having an eager crowd of loyal supporters, being a bestselling author and .... umm. Which presumably make his theories incorrect, due to wrongness by association with a popular cultural figure, who also lacked the credentials to say anything worthy of consideration on this matter.

Actually, to correct myself, he had a doctorate (degree?) in Shamanism if I recall.

Can't really think of a better discipline to have studied in regards to this theory.

Creating and perpetuating a scientific fraud.

So your misrepresentation of why the disapproval of Terrence was aired is typical of how you avoid getting the point. It really is annoying!

Don't see shamans among apes. How does tripping evolve big brains? Not through shamanism, (no shamans before big brains) & anyway which is an elite priesthood scenario in primitive form. Anyway, degree in one field does not equate with master of another.... or any, come to that!

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by asydhouse

Creating and perpetuating a scientific fraud.

Publishing a book (not a science paper) is not committing science fraud. It's just putting the idea out there. As his brother Dennis said, who is a very respected scientist/botanist, it behooves us to question.

As he said it was like a Trojan horse. He simply wrote the book. Made his case. Supplied some references. And left it there on the doorstep for someone else to further look into.

Quote:

Don't see shamans among apes.

I don't think an ape ingesting a psychedelic would turn him into a shaman. This would be a very slow gradual evolutionary process. If you want links to chimps and apes highly unique zoopharmacology dietary habits, I supplied links before. All you have to do is apply what would happen to apes that continually add these beneficial medicines to their diet over a large t9ime scale to work out where the trend could end up.

Quote:

the How does tripping evolve big brains?

Enhancements to various senses.
Increased spirituality.
As Medicine.
Emotional intelligence.
Changes in perceptions, giving more rise to a sense of something at a distance, which could catalyze all sorts of brain states to evolve.
Psychs ability to promote linguistic thinking, likely expanding the left hemisphere over many many thousands of years of continual use.
Also the general changes to visual, auditory and other senses should in fact create new neural connections and a wider experience base for the brain to work on and develop to the size it did.

Quote:

Not through shamanism, (no shamans before big brains)

Shamanism would have been one of the very latest stages.

Quote:

Anyway, degree in one field does not equate with master of another.... or any, come to that!

Forget Mckenna.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Mckenna, as a person, has been dealt with.

The theory, as it stands, under which ever label you want to ascribe it, 'the stoned ape theory' or 'humans tend to enjoy psychedelics' theory or 'human plant evolutionary symbiosis' is very much still alive, and the very topic of this thread.

Um, no the theory that psychedelic mushroom advanced human evolution is a non-starter.

And symbiosis doesn't mean what you think in your usage. There is hardly a symbiosis at all, even with corn and soya.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Um, no the theory that psychedelic mushroom advanced human evolution is a non-starter.

I agree.

To propose it was only mushrooms would be ludicrous.

But as it stands I see no other psychedelic that ticks as many boxes, even if there are thousands of other potential candidates.

Why do you think it's a non starter?

Quote:

And symbiosis doesn't mean what you think in your usage. There is hardly a symbiosis at all, even with corn and soya.

Spores have evolved to survive through mammalian digestive tract for maximum dispersal, have they not? Which would be a benefit to the survival of the fungi. And the fungi (if the correct variety) may also produce benefits for the person, the one with the most evidence being breaking long held instinctive/archaic patterns of thought, and boosting emotional and spiritual intelligence.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

As he said it was like a Trojan horse. He simply wrote the book. Made his case. Supplied some references. And left it there on the doorstep for someone else to further look into.

Which he misquoted to serve his own purposes, knowingly passing off a lie in someone else's voice!

He ascribed his own lie to another scientist's work!

The fact that you try to paint that as an insignificant hiccup is a demonstration of why no one on these forums can trust anything you say.

"for someone else to further look into" is also a false representation of what he did. He left it there knowing that most of the hippies he was talking to and building his fan base from would not bother checking the original sources, and probably not understand what they read even if they did.

Sure enough, you come along and propagate the lie as if it were established scientific knowledge. When that's pointed out, you ignore it, change the subject, and say never mind let's move on...

You pretend to do science. That is more dangerous than any outright woo. That's irresponsible on your part.

The original hypothesis looks hardly worth discussing by this point. The question of fraudulent propagation of false information is the main topic of this thread now it seems to me.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

...
But as it stands I see no other psychedelic that ticks as many boxes, even if there are thousands of other potential candidates. ...

Hi, Zeuzzz.
I seem to have missed your list of potential candidates.
Could you repost it, please?

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Quote:

How does tripping evolve big brains?

Enhancements to various senses.

Perceptual distortion and hypersensitivity is generally a selective disadvantage. Also, the evidence points to a progressive evolutionary decrease in our sensory acuities.

Quote:

Increased spirituality.

What, precisely, do you mean by this, and how is it a selective advantage?

Quote:

As Medicine.

For what disease?

Quote:

Emotional intelligence.

My experience of regular trippers suggests the opposite, but anecdotes aren't good evidence, so what's your evidence for this?

Quote:

Changes in perceptions, giving more rise to a sense of something at a distance, which could catalyze all sorts of brain states to evolve.

Could you be a bit more vague and hand-wavy?
What do you mean by 'a sense of something at a distance'?
What sorts of brain states?
What do you mean by a brain state 'evolving'?
How could 'a sense of something at a distance' catalyze the evolution of brain states of any kind?

Quote:

Psychs ability to promote linguistic thinking, likely expanding the left hemisphere over many many thousands of years of continual use.

Evidence? In that case, shouldn't we see the left hemisphere correspondingly larger and more complex than the right? why isn't this the case?

Quote:

Also the general changes to visual, auditory and other senses should in fact create new neural connections and a wider experience base for the brain to work on and develop to the size it did.

Why would new neural connections have anything to so with changing the size of the brain?
Where is the evidence that regular or continuous use of psychedelics is so advantageous?
Many people over the past 50 years have regularly taken psychedelics - have you any evidence that they outperform their straight contemporaries overall? Most that I know have done worse than their contemporaries.

Your descriptions of what might affect human evolution indicate little understanding of how phenotypic traits evolve. A trait must have a selective advantage. If, for the sake of argument, eating psychedelics gave a selective advantage in any of the ways you suggested, you'd get more psychedelic eaters in the population, not bigger brains. Their digestion and metabolism of the materials and compounds involved might evolve, but not brain size.

In any case, if you want to argue that psychedelics increased human brain size, you need to show the connection between psychedelics and the number of copies of DUF1220 encoded in the genome (DUF1220-Domain Copy Number Implicated in Human Brain-Size Pathology and Evolution).

Psychedelics act to modify the effects of neurotransmitters in the brain. Random mutations in receptors and synapses in the CNS can also do this; if there was some selective advantage to certain such changes, we might expect to have seen them evolve naturally, particularly in such an evolutionarily sensitive organ, where small changes in behaviour can have a profound influence on survival and reproduction.

That we see the normal activity of the brain still being effectively disrupted by these psychedelics, suggests that their effects do not provide a selective advantage [my personal observations of people tripping and people who have taken psychedelics for significant periods, reinforces this].

[Zeuzzz]

Cool not read a reply that long in ages. This might even wake me up fully. 2 secs, I'm gona have a banana first.

[pakeha]

I'm still waiting for that list of possible candidates for the psychotropic plants that formed part of the diet 190,000 BCE.
Finish the banana first, OK?

[Zeuzzz]

Should I just reply generally or will you want evidence for every counterclaim, with references?

Will be a bit delayed, in light of the possibility of me adding an additional answer to one of your questions. I'm currently drying out my banana skin to extract the bananadine to evaluate its medicinal value first hand.

Hopefully will be more effective than my friend who picked the totally wrong species of toad to lick for a day.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by asydhouse

Which he misquoted to serve his own purposes, knowingly passing off a lie in someone else's voice!

He ascribed his own lie to another scientist's work!

The fact that you try to paint that as an insignificant hiccup is a demonstration of why no one on these forums can trust anything you say.

"for someone else to further look into" is also a false representation of what he did. He left it there knowing that most of the hippies he was talking to and building his fan base from would not bother checking the original sources, and probably not understand what they read even if they did.

Sure enough, you come along and propagate the lie as if it were established scientific knowledge. When that's pointed out, you ignore it, change the subject, and say never mind let's move on...

You pretend to do science. That is more dangerous than any outright woo. That's irresponsible on your part.

The original hypothesis looks hardly worth discussing by this point. The question of fraudulent propagation of false information is the main topic of this thread now it seems to me.

It's bizarre, it's like your shouting at Mckenna, who is long dead, through your keyboard, on a random forum, whilst actually speaking to people who are not him nor anything to do with him.

Is it his beard?

Or his monotone voice?

I find it oddly relaxing. If I want to doze off I put on a lecture from him, usually get the impression he's making a profoundly good point for a few minutes, then soon realize he's just chucking the same long philosophical words together just very coherently, and then zzzz.

Brilliant mind, though. Very original thinker, even if a bit mad.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Should I just reply generally or will you want evidence for every counterclaim, with references?

Will be a bit delayed, in light of the possibility of me adding an additional answer to one of your questions. I'm currently drying out my banana skin to extract the bananadine to evaluate its medicinal value first hand.

Hopefully will be more effective than my friend who picked the totally wrong species of toad to lick for a day.

C'mon, Zeuzzz.
Don't be coy.

I'd really like to know what psychotropic plants you think could be considered possible candidates for your theory.

References?
H'mmm.
Let's see what you come up with.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

It's bizarre, it's like your shouting at Mckenna, who is long dead, through your keyboard, on a random forum, whilst actually speaking to people who are not him nor anything to do with him.

Is it his beard?

Or his monotone voice?

I find it oddly relaxing. If I want to doze off I put on a lecture from him, usually get the impression he's making a profoundly good point for a few minutes, then soon realize he's just chucking the same long philosophical words together just very coherently, and then zzzz.

Brilliant mind, though. Very original thinker, even if a bit mad.

No Zeuzzz, I'm talking directly to you and pointing out to you that you are always evading the criticisms of your understanding, and then deliberately misrepresenting those criticisms, just as you have done here. I am telling you that at the very least you should have acknowledged that McKenna's lie was propagated in the OP by you, and disavowed it clearly. Instead you try to paint a prudish response to McKenna's mode of being as being the cause of opprobrium for his intellectual misbehaviour.

It's your behaviour on these forums which I am addressing, as I did right from the start of my encounter with you.

You refuse to see what you do. You are continually bandying about false information, and you are slippery. You don't face up to your mistakes.

Believe it or not, I've been trying to help you learn to do it better. That's to do science better. That's to do real honest science.

You will refuse to acknowledge this again. Someone mentioned Dunning-Kruger.
Seems right.

Ok, rest easy, I'm done with you. I won't bother reading your fabrications any more. It's not amusing. It's not artful. It's just dishonest "sciencey" stuff. A waste of time.

[Zeuzzz]

Ok well I can be brief... umm, Africa only? I'll try but I could literally just keep typing for days on this.

Well we have the genus cannabis, for a start. You may have heard of that one?

I used to know over fifty of the active cannabinoids, phytocannabinoids and others, that different cooking and preparation methods can either enhance or destroy, but some are pretty obscure. I find the endocannabinoids the most intersting ones, as you don't even ingest the plant to have them, they are endogenous to our neurochemistry anyway. So there's Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabidiol (CBD) cannabichromene cannabinol cannabigerol tetrahydrocannabivarin cannabidivarin .... are the main ones with easy names.

The other ones get IUPAC like. Too many numbers and letters.

Benefits? Well documented increased sensory awareness (without the 9THC), generally increased cautiousness and anxiety, apart from that, pretty neutral in all as a class of psychoactive.

Actually, it's the unsung cure for boredom. I highly suspect occasional use of CBD or related cannabinoids in the diet and food of natives really helped them experiment with different perceptions of the world and mind.

Also, major evolutionary bonus, you can not beat THC sex.

Excessive use will lead to psychosis, laziness and persistent paranoia.

Though what on earth a tree swinging semi evolved chimp has to worry about is anyone's guess.

I'd rank it as neutral effect. Though the fact our brains have evolved special cannabis plant specialized electrochemical systems is very telling of widespread use in all of our common ancestors. For good or bad.

Psycho-stimulants like morning glory, LSA would be everywhere. Also all sorts of alkaloids would become accessible via basic cooking methods and new methods of ingestion, active alkaloids like mitragynine, mitraphylline, 7-hydroxymitragynine and raubasine are most common to kratom (indonesian) but are found in trace amounts in various genus of grass and bush shrub world wide.

If you wanted to enhance your sleeping or lucid dreaming abilities + creativity you might take a leaf (or lilly pad) out of the ancient Egyptians book and add some blue water Lilly into your diet (or boil them at 80 to destroy the tannins that give you the nausea and leave behind the nuciferine and aporphine). Also related alkaloids like bulbocapnine, boldine, glaucine and corytuberine are antipsychotic and would have probably been used in cases where people were going mad or needed sedating. Half of these are in most natural lillies all over the world in trace amounts, you just have to prepare them right.

Of course there is opium from various groups of flowering poppies, which are pretty common all over the world. Would help people in pain, they could use as medicine, and to reduce fear in fearful situations. Very addictive though, so positive and negatives cancel out. Though back then, as an eater of a food you happen to enjoy the effects of, before the development of cultural morals or judgements about addiction, you would probably not care, and just keep using for life. Remarkably tepid on the brain in terms of down regulation of receptors or long term lasting side effects (why doctors still love opiates so much), even if respiratory depression from a one off foolish overdose really is a danger. And an evolutionary disadvantage.

I doubt they would have known how to separate the really strong pharma grade isoquiline alkaloids from the gunk though, it's far less likely to 'overdoo' it dangerously in it's natural form, by brewing a poppy tea the most active chemical (highest comparative active dose) is codeine and noscapine, which has a far more tolerable LD50 than pharmaceutical diamorphine or oxycodone.

There is also a rather large body of evidence that our ancestors ingested Khat (it's basically the law for everyone in Somalia still, an entire culture built on cathinone ingestion as a sacred right) when they needed to exert a lot of physical or mental exercise. Khat contains various amphetamine related cathinones, which are not too dissimilar in effect from MDMA, yet more focused and productive (you don't spend half the time declaring your love to people), and used as a study aid.

I should stop.

And check the rules,
I am not advocating anything here,
Just sharing public information and memories in response to a question.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I agree.

To propose it was only mushrooms would be ludicrous.

But as it stands I see no other psychedelic that ticks as many boxes, even if there are thousands of other potential candidates.

Why do you think it's a non starter?

A lack of any way it influenced that rates of reproduction or any likely mechanism to do so.

Quote:

Spores have evolved to survive through mammalian digestive tract for maximum dispersal, have they not? Which would be a benefit to the survival of the fungi. And the fungi (if the correct variety) may also produce benefits for the person, the one with the most evidence being breaking long held instinctive/archaic patterns of thought, and boosting emotional and spiritual intelligence.

I don't think you know the difference, symbiosis is different from potentially mutally beneficial.

[Dancing David]

Zeuzzz, I don't think you know much about the theory of evolution at all.

It takes quite a bit of evidentiary data to say likely' or 'probable', your idea is 'totally speculative with no reasonable data to support it'.

Take sicle cell anemia, there is a well documented path for it and beta thalessemia to say they are 'probably' linked to evolution fo traits. A very strong case can be made for melanin levels in skin in tropical populations as well.

The theory that upright gate led to neotany and then advanced brain development in humans is 'likely'.

However your theory is 'speculative' with 'no presented evidence'.

[Zeuzzz]

Sorry, forgot the main ones; coffee and coca.

coca = methylecgonine cinnamate, benzoylecgonine, truxilline, hydroxytropacocaine, tropacocaine, ecgonine, cuscohygrine, dihydrocuscohygrine, nicotine and hygrine.

[Zeuzzz]

Are endorphins evident in species that could not have possibly ever had a history of ingesting opiate derived peptides from plants?

If not it seems a peculiar co-incidence that the body's main endogenous endorphin/painkiller that binds to our opiate receptors is β-Endorphin, and natures most common painkiller morphine also binds to the u1 receptor too and has basicaly the same effect profile ...

Strange things happen, but there are others, this is not a one off.

I think this thread is just going to turn into a long drawn out chicken or egg situation eventually.

What came first:

The receptor?
Or the drug?

[jdc324]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Are endorphins evident in species that could not have possibly ever had a history of ingesting opiate derived peptides from plants?

If not it seems a peculiar co-incidence that the body's main endogenous endorphin/painkiller that binds to our opiate receptors is β-Endorphin, and natures most common painkiller morphine also binds to the u1 receptor too and has basicaly the same effect profile ...

Strange things happen, but there are others, this is not a one off.

I think this thread is just going to turn into a long drawn out chicken or egg situation eventually.

What came first:

The receptor?
Or the drug?

The receptor

As I understand it (actually, I probably don't)... we have receptors for acetylcholine. Some can be activated by muscarine and some by nicotine. It seems likely to me that these receptors would have developed 'for' / 'with' acetylcholine and we later had exposure to muscarine and nicotine which, coincidentally, had affinity for some of those receptor sites. My guess would be that it'd be a similar story for endorphins and opiates, but that's just a guess. I do recall once seeing an image that showed enkephalin and morphine docking at a receptor site and the enkephalin being a better fit (which led me to assume the morphine was mimicking enkephalin, which was actually what the receptor was 'for') but I can't find the source at the moment (so it might be nonsense - I can't know without looking it up and checking it). Don't know if there are differences in affinity or not.

As far as I know, endorphins are common in vertebrates but I'm not sure how I could judge whether they "could not have possibly ever had a history of ingesting opiate derived peptides from plants". That's rather a strong claim for someone to defend, btw. Almost impossible, I would say.

I just found these which look interesting at first glance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15383669 & http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17006413 E.g. "Without doubt, human cells can produce the alkaloid morphine."