The Stoned Ape Theory of Human Evolution - Terrence Mckenna

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I would like to state that I do not advocate the use of illegal drugs.

Why not?

They are awesome. Not just on a subjective level but on a clinical level.

Excluding the addictive ones.

I can back this up with scientific studies.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Why not?

They are awesome. Not just on a subjective level but on a clinical level.

Excluding the addictive ones.

I can back this up with scientific studies.

Psychedelics, a Disneyland for adults, sometimes a dangerous Disneyland. I can back this up because I know a few acid casualties.

[Zeuzzz]

Yet without the corporate ties and monetary linearization of value and worth.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Do you have evidence for this proclamation? Or is this just subjective retrospection?

I have precisely as much as you do. That was the point.

Quote:

Cave art. Numerous archaic art portrays mushrooms as a pivotal influence in human evolution.

Oh, please. If you can interpret cave art to that degree you'd be a million bucks richer--they're universally as ambiguous as any prophesy of any religion you choose. Then you have the airbrush issue: are these paintings of things that are common, or of things as people wish them to be?

In other words, I find evidence that has to be filtered through a psychological analysis of a culture that ceased to exist before humans domesticated dogs to be highly dubious. The fact that you don't suggests, to me, that a very, very, very strong bias is in action here.

Quote:

That very well may be true. But until you clearly state your hypothesis here openly I can not begin to evaluate it's veracity vs the theory this thread is about.

Evasion noted.

Quote:

Agreed. It would, wouldn't it?

Do you have ANY physical evidence for large-scale consumption of such drugs? Because if not, you're merely speculating--which is fun, but isn't science.

Quote:

But first, can you demonstrate that humans could not have ingested them in the past?

I don't NEED to. If you can't prove they did, your pet hypothesis can be dismissed (you still haven't provided a falsifiable hypothesis). "They didn't eat it" is what's known in science as the null hypothesis, and the fact that you're demanding proof for the null hypothesis is yet another example of you using precisely the same logic as Creationists. "You can't prove God DIDN'T do it!" is a favorite argument of theirs, after all.

It's simple: Provide proof that they ate these mushrooms, or we're done here. There are no other options.

Quote:

This will, unfortunately, not show up in the fossil record by any measurable means. It is metabolized and disposed of so quickly it makes scientific traces of it impossible to trace.

Well golly gee wiz, isn't that awfully convenient. Got any maps showing human populations vs. the populations of your favorite fungus through time? Because it's been argued in this thread that they don't overlap early in human history, which would make consuming them a tad difficult, wouldn't it?

Quote:

I challenge you to prove otherwise, without going down the government road of anti psychedelic drug propaganda.

Nope. I don't play that game. ANY data I provide you will dismiss as "government...anti psychedelic (sic) drug propaganda". This is another CTist argument tactic: appear to demand evidence, as any scientist would, but leave yourself an out in case someone actually DOES provide that evidence.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yet without the corporate ties and monetary linearization of value and worth.

Pardon?

[Dinwar]

Let me make this simple for you, Zeusss: You've provided enough data to make this an interesting idea, one that's not inherently implausible. Unfortunately, you've failed to provide half enough evidence to get any of us to agree to it. Until you provide that data, you're going to remain at the "Interesting idea; not worth my time" stage for many of us. Ranting and raving about drugs isn't helping you--you haven't proven humans USED the drugs. Do that, then we'll take the idea more seriously. Until then, WE CAN'T. Not "we won't", we CAN'T. It violates the rules of science.

I'm really not sure how much simpler to make it.

[dafydd]

Let us not forget that Terrence McKenna spent a great deal of time frying his synapses.

[Zeuzzz]

What evidence do you want?

Please make your question as empirical and definitive as possible.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yet without the corporate ties and monetary linearization of value and worth.

I thought you said you weren't a conspiracy theorist? (cuz, this is EXACTLY what they would say)

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Let me make this simple for you, Zeusss: You've provided enough data to make this an interesting idea, one that's not inherently implausible. Unfortunately, you've failed to provide half enough evidence to get any of us to agree to it. Until you provide that data, you're going to remain at the "Interesting idea; not worth my time" stage for many of us. Ranting and raving about drugs isn't helping you--you haven't proven humans USED the drugs. Do that, then we'll take the idea more seriously. Until then, WE CAN'T. Not "we won't", we CAN'T. It violates the rules of science.

I'm really not sure how much simpler to make it.

Woo-meisters don't need evidence. Looks-like-a-bunny science is their preference. Real science is too hard, takes too much time, requires too much patience and care and doesn't fit their preconceived notions.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

What evidence do you want?

Please make your question as empirical and definitive as possible.

Evidence that early men ate magic mushrooms on a regular basis, and not just now and again in a ceremony.

[StankApe]

everytime I see your posts, I think "I wonder if he ever invented a perpetual student machine" lol (though perpetual student machine would be a decent band name)

[Zeuzzz]

^ Nice posts.

Let the productive dialogue continue henceforth.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

^ Nice posts.

Let the productive dialogue continue henceforth.

So, no evidence.

[StankApe]

dude, it's an internet forum, not Meet The Press, we ARE allowed to have a little fun aren't we?

[dafydd]

Any thread inspired by Terence McKenna is bound to be funny.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by StankApe

dude, it's an internet forum, not Meet The Press, we ARE allowed to have a little fun aren't we?

Fully agree.

But some people seem to be taking this topic far more seriously than you are.

It was not my intent, but it has evolved into this.

[dafydd]

So the thread is a joke?

[StankApe]

I reckon it's the manner in which you vehemently attempted to diminish the negative affects of psychedelic drug use by linking it to the evolution of mankind hence turning it from a bad thing, into some sort of good thing we should all be celebrating, without any evidence to back it up.

that isn't going to earn you a lot of kudos.

[Zeuzzz]

I hate kudos.

I love empirical evidence and sound arguments.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I reckon it's the manner in which you vehemently attempted to diminish the negative affects of psychedelic drug use by linking it to the evolution of mankind hence turning it from a bad thing, into some sort of good thing we should all be celebrating, without any evidence to back it up.

that isn't going to earn you a lot of kudos.

We have to take into account the fact that psychedelics are not aphrodisiacs.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I hate kudos.

I love empirical evidence and sound arguments.

Good, when are you going to start doing that?

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I hate kudos.

I love empirical evidence and sound arguments.

[Zeuzzz]

Evidence of obfuscation noted.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Evidence of obfuscation noted.

I'm out until you post some evidence.

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

4-HO-DMT increases arousal and sexual drive in threshold dosages. So what you get from a group of mushroom ingesting apes, apart from the technological advantage to visual acuity and hunting, is increased instances of successful copulation. Which is another factor that likely propelled them further up the the evolutionary pipeline than their counterparts.

So here you have a factor that increases the number of their offspring. the animals eating the psilocybin will be more sexually active, and thus tend to out breed the non psilocybin ingesting members of the population.

It made us better survivors, better hunters and better breeders.

And what happens when the pregnant apes eat the mushrooms with psilocybin? What does the ape do when a predator approaches while high on the psilocybin? I don't think it had any more affect than apes who got tipsy eating over ripe fruit.

[StankApe]

I've done an apeload of mushrooms, and getting some booty was the last thing on my mind.

[Zeuzzz]

Wheres Dinwar gone?

This thread is getting boring.

[StankApe]

see the bear above, they are hanging out with him, waiting for your evidence.

[Zeuzzz]

What evidence do you want?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

This thread is getting boring.

I wonder why.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

What evidence do you want?

Please make your question as empirical and definitive as possible.

Evasion noted.

Look, I'm getting really sick of doing your work for you. I've already proposed at least a tentative start for this line of reasoning: provide a map showing where the magic mushrooms were growing, and where human populations were, at whatever time you think they impacted human evolution. This is fairly standard stuff (though I'll admit the details can be nightmarishly difficult; I'm just asking for a rough map here, not a detailed analysis of the total range as impacted by taphonomy). Seriously, this is the first thing you should have done in this. A simple link to a picture showing that humans could in fact have ingested the 'shrooms at the appropriate time would lend to your speculations a degree of plausibility they do not currently have. It's not proof, but at least it's a start.

The next step would be to see what sort of evidence these 'shrooms WOULD leave behind. I think you've dismissed the chemical analysis far, far too easily. We can identify C3 vs. C4 plants in the fossil record going back through the Cenozoic, for example. I'm sure there's some chemical trace that we can use to identify 'shroom use.

Quote:

I love empirical evidence and sound arguments.

That's awfully funny, because you haven't provided any of it. Your best "evidence" is something that's a subjective interpretation of artistic expression--about as empirical as your anecdotal claims about what 'shrooms do to you. You are becoming more and more belligerently opposed to the idea of actually looking at the past to demonstrate your ideas, demanding that I do your work for you. Honestly, if you tried to pull this in any journal your paper would be rejected out of hand. And your arguments all hinge on the modern world, which is a critical failure when making arguments regarding ancient events.

Just to prove a point, I did some research--which is more than you can say. Here's a fun little map of 'shroom distribution. Here's a fun little map of human distribution. The problems are quite obvious--humans wouldn't have encountered 'shrooms until well after they divided into numerous sub-groups, meaning that only those sub-groups that actually encountered the things would be impacted by them. Humanity as a whole would be unimpacted. Here's an article citing a Johns Hopkins study, which talks about those pesky negative effects you keep downplaying. Basically, too much of the drug makes you a nervous wreck--hardly conducive to hunting when there are monsters the likes of which our most vivid fantasy literature doesn't come close to running around. And the threshold is individual, meaning that the only way to know if you've hit it is to exceed it. Such a risk is rather unacceptable to a hunter/gatherer society most of the time.

So yeah, there ARE risks, and no, humans COULD NOT have eaten them early in our evolution. Your two big selling points have been shown to be rather wrong.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Wheres Dinwar gone?

This thread is getting boring.

Believe it or not, I've got better things to do than doing your research for you.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

What evidence do you want?

Evidencey kind of evidence. The kind of evidence that you have failed to provide. Bedtime.

[StankApe]

Quote:

Basically, too much of the drug makes you a nervous wreck--hardly conducive to hunting when there are monsters the likes of which our most vivid fantasy literature doesn't come close to running around.

no kidding, short faced bear....shudder


and you are also correct about the transverse logic, you can't use modern humans (who have the modern brain) as a baseline for measuring the affects of mushrooms on primitive man. That's akin to saying 'couldn't the turbo boost have been the major factor in automobile evolution? I mean look at the Ferrari!"

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I suspect if you eat something and get sick, there's a strong tendency to avoid it thereafter, even if later experience shows it won't make you sick.

It's called the García Effect. It's curious because in most conditioned responses the effect needs to happen very shortly after the stimulus to produce a proper association whereas with food it can be produced even when the effect happens hours after ingestion..

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yes. The evolution of humans from apes is necessary evidence for the theory. Unless you have an alternative theory for the most drastic evolution of the the human neocortex, the sudden tranformation and evolution of which is unprecedented in the fossil record.
(I stand to be corrected by Dinwar shortly!, no doubt )

Sorry, that's just not how it works.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

It's called the García Effect. It's curious because in most conditioned responses the effect needs to happen very shortly after the stimulus to produce a proper association whereas with food it can be produced even when the effect happens hours after ingestion..

That page is very lacking in scientific studies and references.

I suspect you are missing the main point of the theory anyway by referencing the Garcia effect.

As it relates to neural learning, it is inherently obvious with all drugs that produce a positive effect in human beings that even stimuli that are initially unpleasant end up being rewired over time in the brain into a positive sensation.

Now, this has very clear limits.

For example, as a point many here might be able to relate to, very few people enjoy beer the first time they ever try it. However over time, once the positive intoxicating effect of the beers effects get associated with the taste in the brain, the adverse reaction to the taste starts to get less and less with time. Until eventually everyone likes the taste. As is very true in most western cultures now a days.

The same is true with drugs like Kratom^WP. Which tastes absolutely abhorrent on first ingestion of it, but people who get used to it drink it daily with no complaints. The same is true for poppy tea. The same is true for snorting mephedrone. The same is true for smoking cigarettes. The same is true for ingesting mushrooms. The same is true ... for any drug that provides a positive stimulus after ingestion.

The limit case of this positive neural association is cell damage and extremely quick detrimental effects to the human tissue that is being reconditioned. For example if you snort mephedrone for weeks on end, eventually the amount of damage you will be doing to your mucus membrane will far outweigh any positive effects the drug may temporarily provide. So the pain increases over time, until your body literally demands you stop punishing it due to the pain, or you choose to ignore the warnings and snort till your septum dissolves.

[Dinwar]

You have to get the drug into your system in order for any of that to matter. Obviously, given the maps, humans as a whole could not. Therefore only a subset (or a few subsets) of humanity could possibly take advantage of the effects of this drug. Thus, your idea, as originally stated, cannot be true--not unless you can prove that the drug's range overlaps humanity's to a much higher degree or much earlier than the maps I've provided indicate.

I have now given you multiple areas of investigation by which you can provide ample evidence for your idea. Instead, you've opted to continue to talk about modern people, ignoring the fact that your idea includes within it the necessary assumption that this happened some time ago. I'm not sure why you're bothering, though I suspect it's because you simply don't grasp the concept that arguments about what happened in history must be supported by historical evidence (a common failing among those not familiar with the historical sciences). It IS an error, however, and one that, for your argument to be taken seriously, you must correct.

[Zeuzzz]

I will get to your valid points in due course, just felt it necessary to post that previous comment first.