The Stoned Ape Theory of Human Evolution - Terrence Mckenna

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Happy walking then.

Of course real science is done by walking away from alternative theories

So you want to dictate the terms of the conversation, under the guise of telling scientists how to do science. THAT'S a GREAT way to not look like a crackpot! Worked fantastically for Jabba, after all.

Oh, wait....

I've given you the data that would convince me you're right. Can you provide it or not? The alternative hypothesis is the null hypothesis: that these mushrooms didn't have a significant impact, and likely weren't even widely eaten. Until you can prove they WERE eaten, you're explaining an effect without knowing if the cause actually existed.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Is good for shaving. Not so good for complex science.

Unless you believe in simplicity and intuition over empirical evidence.

If you have empirical evidence that hallucinogens aided in the evolution of human intelligence then now would be a good time to present it.

[Zeuzzz]

Nice reply.

What evidence do you want? Please be as specific as possible.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by tsig

If you have empirical evidence that hallucinogens aided in the evolution of human intelligence then now would be a good time to present it.

Happy reading

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The falsifiable hypothesis is that the use of psychedelics in our ancient ancestors catalyzed the evolution of our consciousness into a drastically different and boarder form of primate consciousness, the transformation of which drastically contributed to the difference between us as humans and our non psychedelic ingesting primate counterparts.

The evidence for this is above. Your choice of replying to it or not is your own.

Can we call this the Stoned Monkey Theory?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Nice scientific comment. Would this pass peer review?

Passes mine.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by tsig

Can we call this the Stoned Monkey Theory?

Yes.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Nice reply.

What evidence do you want? Please be as specific as possible.

You've yet to provide sufficient evidence for me to accept your hypothesis. I've provided exactly what evidence would convince me, and you've failed to provide it. Thus, I feel perfectly justified in rejecting your hypothesis and instead accepting the null hypothesis (if you don't understand how that works, you're in NO position to tell the rest of us how science is conducted--the concept of a null hypothesis is firmly established in science, and in particular in the historical sciences, and is often used specifically to avoid Just So Stories).

Again, I don't need to support my position. My position is that you haven't sufficiently supported yours. Provide some data that the ancient humans actually ate these mushrooms at a time when it could have had the impact you hypothesize, or admit you can't and we'll adjourn until such time as that data becomes available. And if you don't accept THAT as a common practice in science, you're merely showing that you're completely ignorant of the process of science as scientists actually conduct it.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by tsig

Can we call this the Stoned Monkey Theory?

The Stoned Terence McKenna Theory.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

You've yet to provide sufficient evidence for me to accept your hypothesis. I've provided exactly what evidence would convince me, and you've failed to provide it. Thus, I feel perfectly justified in rejecting your hypothesis and instead accepting the null hypothesis (if you don't understand how that works, you're in NO position to tell the rest of us how science is conducted--the concept of a null hypothesis is firmly established in science, and in particular in the historical sciences, and is often used specifically to avoid Just So Stories).

Again, I don't need to support my position. My position is that you haven't sufficiently supported yours. Provide some data that the ancient humans actually ate these mushrooms at a time when it could have had the impact you hypothesize, or admit you can't and we'll adjourn until such time as that data becomes available. And if you don't accept THAT as a common practice in science, you're merely showing that you're completely ignorant of the process of science as scientists actually conduct it.

Again I ask you, what evidence do you want? And please try to be as specific as possible.

[ThunderChunky]

So according to this theory, horniness was a limiting factor in terms of population growth. That is just laughable.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Again I ask you, what evidence do you want? And please try to be as specific as possible.

I want osteological/dental studies showing that people from the correct time consumed these mushrooms. I've already stated as much, but you ignored me. Without such studies, you cannot demonstrate that such consumption was anything more than chance or part of a rare and, evolutionarily speaking, unimportant ceremonies. Once you've established that these mushrooms WERE widely consumed, THEN we can discuss the relative importance of said consumption in the evolution of populations.

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

So according to this theory, horniness was a limiting factor in terms of population growth. That is just laughable.

I honestly hadn't considered that. You're right, it is a ridiculous notion. The mere fact that humans were migrating more or less demonstrates that we were having ample offspring.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

By researching it and supplying the evidence I have found. Much of which can be found in the above post. And much of which (in a more empirical form) is hopefully soon be be published in an open access journal.

No, I asked how you've gone about trying to falsify this hypothesis.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I want osteological/dental studies showing that people from the correct time consumed these mushrooms.

Ok this is starting to be more productive. How could one prove with osteological/dental strudies that humans consumed mushrooms?

Quote:

Once you've established that these mushrooms WERE widely consumed, THEN we can discuss the relative importance of said consumption in the evolution of populations.

And how could I prove that to you?

Likewise, how could you disprove that to me?

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

So according to this theory, horniness was a limiting factor in terms of population growth. That is just laughable.

You have this backwards. Horniness was a crucial factor in the successful acts of copulation in the psychedelic consuming primates. As I stated previously.

[Zeuzzz]

Also what happens to dental records if our ancestors went through an evolutionary phase, that was lost in time with proceeding generations, of basic dental hygiene and brushing and cleaning their teeth daily? Would definitely be an evolutionary advantage, sexually.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Also what happens to dental records if our ancestors went through an evolutionary phase, that was lost in time with proceeding generations, of basic dental hygiene and brushing and cleaning their teeth daily? Would definitely be an evolutionary advantage, sexually.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ok this is starting to be more productive.

I'm sorry, but there's NOTHING new here. I proposed this before your temporary absence--and you responded to the post, so I'd assumed you'd read it. Apparently I was wrong.

Quote:

How could one prove with osteological/dental strudies that humans consumed mushrooms?

The same way we do it with every other foodstuff. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine the precise methodology.

Quote:

And how could I prove that to you?

Oh for crying out loud....I JUST TOLD YOU.

Quote:

Likewise, how could you disprove that to me?

If you fail to provide the data, your idea fails.

You appear to be working under the not uncommon misconception that we can know everything about the past. We can't. It sucks, but it's the truth, and we who deal with historical sciences constantly have to have the humility to admit we don't know something. THAT is why Just So Stories are so dangerous--once we think we know an answer we stop asking questions, even such basic ones as whether this information is possible to know. Understand that I'm not saying if you fail to provide that osteological/dental data that you'll therefore be wrong. I'm saying something much more subtle: that if you fail to provide that data, we can't say you're right EVEN IF YOU ARE. There's simply not enough data to draw any conclusions. THAT is why your stubborn insistence that everyone who disagrees with you provide a counter-hypothesis is misguided--it's entirely plausible, and even likely given the nature of this question, that NO hypothesis can be substantiated in regards to this question.

An honest researcher must be able to acknowledge when there's insufficient data to answer a question, particularly when addressing the past. If the data aren't there, either you're wrong or we can't know. And while it's not emotionally satisfying, we get a lot further in science by admitting the gaps in our knowledge then by feigning knowledge that simply isn't there.

Quote:

Horniness was a crucial factor in the successful acts of copulation in the psychedelic consuming primates.

This still makes no sense. Sexual desire is demonstrably not the limiting factor when it comes to copulation. Primates other than humans engage in prostitution, and in many primate species copulation is part of community interaction. So your proposed mechanism isn't likely to be terribly important.

Quote:

Also what happens to dental records if our ancestors went through an evolutionary phase, that was lost in time with proceeding generations, of basic dental hygiene and brushing and cleaning their teeth daily?

Is that an honest question? Because it's flat-out stupid, for two reasons. First, we'd have records of that, and we don't. Teeth are one of the more enduring features on mammals, after all, and dental hygiene by definition seeks to preserve teeth as one ages. Secondly, this demonstrates that you have no understanding of what an osteological or dental study would actually entail. Brushing one's teeth in no way removes trace elements from bones or teeth that were put there via metabolic processes. The concept is akin to trying to remove the gravel from concrete by spraying the outside of a building with a garden hose.

Quote:

Would definitely be an evolutionary advantage, sexually.

Your modern American biases are showing. You might want to watch that.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The falsifiable hypothesis is that the use of psychedelics in our ancient ancestors catalyzed the evolution of our consciousness into a drastically different and boarder form of primate consciousness, the transformation of which drastically contributed to the difference between us as humans and our non psychedelic ingesting primate counterparts.

I did not realize it was a falsifiable hypothesis. How do you falsify it?

If somehow taking psilocybian did not alter our evolutionary direction, how would we know? Is there some tell tale sign that this change, this taking an evolutionary left turn rather than an evolutionary right turn, because some monkey tripped on some mushrooms really happened? Is there something that we could conceivable look at and say, with a fair degree of certainty "you know, zeuzz was not right about this, after all"?

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The evidence for this is above. Your choice of replying to it or not is your own.

Wrong answer! You've presented no serious evidence, for one thing. For another you don't seem to understand what is entailed in a falsifiable hypothesis*.



* I will grant you that a hypothesis could seem to not be meaningfully falsifiable until someone comes along and proposes a clever experiment. Maybe you really are so much more clever than me and Dinwar & Terence McKenna. If this is the case, prove it! Tell us how to do it.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

How interesting! There are many people who are predictably attracted to woo as flies are attracted to dung. The unsupportable and unfounded speculations of this thread are just another manifestation of this attraction.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with speculation as long as you know it is just speculation. In fact, speculations are generally needed to generate hypothesis (which is not likely to happen here but it is certainly how most hypotheses get their start).

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

So according to this theory, horniness was a limiting factor in terms of population growth. That is just laughable.

I meant to bring that up too.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Likewise, how could you disprove that to me?

As has been pointed out to you already, it doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You have this backwards. Horniness was a crucial factor in the successful acts of copulation in the psychedelic consuming primates. As I stated previously.

If horniness was all that was required to outcompete your fellow creatures it would have evolved on its own. It's a little more complicated than that. ThunderChunky is absolutely correct in noting that this is a laughable notion.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Zeuzzz, you have neglected to answer my question - how have you attempted to falsify your hypothesis?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Nice hyena.

Now can you answer the question about dental hygiene?

The build up of enamel and general properties of teeth in skeletons means you can apparently can tell a lot about the person from various tests on it. I'm sure Dinwar knows the theory and methodology.

I head it on BBC4, an ornithologist was saying in the distant future it is going to be very hard to study us now a days since we brush our teeth so much and get rid of a a lot of useful evidence that would otherwise be left to study in the fossil record.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I'm sorry, but there's NOTHING new here.

I know. Each post is new, but the material we are discussing is not new, else we would not be able to discuss it.

Kind of weird isn't it?

Quote:

Oh for crying out loud....I JUST TOLD YOU.

I cam sorry for having made you use capital letters but I honestly have no idea what you just told me, to be perfectly frank I have seen little beef in your posts in the last few pages.

Quote:

I'm saying something much more subtle: that if you fail to provide that data, we can't say you're right EVEN IF YOU ARE. There's simply not enough data to draw any conclusions.

What would be adequate data? And how would it show up to support of falsify the theory?

Quote:

Your modern American biases are showing. You might want to watch that.

I am not American

I an Human.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Zeuzzz, you have neglected to answer my question - how have you attempted to falsify your hypothesis?

Yes. With this thread. So far, it not been falsified, and not been proved to any reasonable degree.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So the answer is that you haven't tried to falsify it.

[Zeuzzz]

I am currently trying to falsify it by researching the ornithological data. So far I have drawn blanks of a methodology to determine mushroom ingestion from the fossil record.

But just stumbled across these two papers, that may be relevant. More so the latter one.

Mystical Experiences Occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin Lead to Increases in the Personality Domain of Openness. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 2011; DOI:

Basics of Forensic Fungi - CRCnetBASE

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Happy reading

Except there are no actual indications of hallucinogenic ingestion influencing human's evolution. Much of what you describe already might be accounted for by the upright gait and pelvic narrowing theories, so I saw no actual lines of reasoning in your post to indicate that hallucinogens impacted human evolution.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Except there are no actual indications of hallucinogenic ingestion influencing human's evolution. Much of what you describe already might be accounted for by the upright gait and pelvic narrowing theories, so I saw no actual lines of reasoning in your post to indicate that hallucinogens impacted human evolution.

The fact we evolved from apes to humans in the first place is ample evidence, the evolution of of the human neocortex which is unprecedented in the fossil record, is ample evidence for alternative explanations not usually considered in other in other species. Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary theories.

And it's not my theory.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I am currently trying to falsify it by researching the ornithological data.

That's not trying to falsify it, that's trying to find the supporting evidence that the hypothesis needs in order to even start being taken remotely seriously by anybody.

I'm thinking you're not overly familiar with how science works.

[Zeuzzz]

Nice reply.

Anything productive to add to the topic?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Nice reply.

Anything productive to add to the topic?

Just that if you truly believe that your hypothesis is a scientifically falsifiable one, that you should try to falsify it scientifically.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Just that if you truly believe that your hypothesis is a scientifically falsifiable one, that you should try to falsify it scientifically.

What happens when I try my hardest to falsify it, and start entire thread on the topic amongst well educated people who also seem unable to falsify it? (despite the bad signal to noise ratio)

The theory is not postulating the existence of us evolving from pink unicorns. The theory is making a reasoned and informed argument about the evolution of human consciousness based on the available evidence we have about evolutionary theory, apes and humans minds. I would call it more a plausibility hypothesis than a scientific theory.

[Zeuzzz]

Dinwar says we need dental or osteological/dental studies as the primary evidence to prove the hypothesis. I presume since he is a paleontologist. Which is a fair statement. But how could such evidence prove hallucinogenic mushroom ingesting? Or general hallucinogen ingestion?

What other evidence apart from osteological/dental studies would count as evidence for or against the theory?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

What happens when I try my hardest to falsify it, and start entire thread on the topic amongst well educated people who also seem unable to falsify it? (despite the bad signal to noise ratio)

I don't know. Why don't you first try to falsify it and then start such a thread?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I don't know. Why don't you first try to falsify it and then start such a thread?

I can't falsify it. I started the thread for others to asses the theory and help me try to falsify it. They have not. They have just gotten rather annoyed at the threads existance at times and presumed that it's my pet theory. Which I have found rather amusing at times, to say the least.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I cam sorry for having made you use capital letters but I honestly have no idea what you just told me, to be perfectly frank I have seen little beef in your posts in the last few pages.

I can only assume you weren't looking, then. I told you precisely what data would prove me wrong--and then you asked me what data would prove me wrong. You have to understand that it seems to me that you're not reading what I write.

Quote:

What would be adequate data? And how would it show up to support of falsify the theory?

~sigh~

I've already told you: osteological and dental studies demonstrating via trace element analysis that ancient humans actually ate the mushrooms in question. The next step in this process is not to ask yet again what data I'd want--I've explained that numerous times already. The next step is for you to find a trace element analysis that would do this. It's YOUR hypothesis; YOU do the legwork.

Quote:

I am not American

I an Human.

First, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm both, for example. Second, I apologize if you found my statement offensive. My point is still valid, however--it's only modern Western culture that has issues with bad breath. Prior to about WWII most people didn't brush their teeth regularly. Somehow the species seems to have survived.

It illustrates some of the problems you're having in this discussion: you're projecting your own biases onto a society so ancient that we can only barely understand it, and we probably couldn't really understand it if we encountered it today. You have to learn to look at the world through the eyes of those ancient people. And then you have to understand how those ancient people interacted with their world to fully understand evolutionary processes occurring at the time.

Quote:

I can't falsify it. I started the thread for others to asses the theory and help me try to falsify it. They have not.

I've provided what would be considered an adequate criticism by anyone with an understanding of archaeology.

Quote:

They have just gotten rather annoyed at the threads existance at times

Nope. I'm getting annoyed because you won't read what I'm writing and keep asking me the same questions--which I've already answered.

Quote:

and presumed that it's my pet theory.

I don't believe you understand what that phrase means.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I've already told you: osteological and dental studies demonstrating via trace element analysis that ancient humans actually ate the mushrooms in question.

And how, via trace element analysis, would you deduce the ingestion of mushrooms?

Please share the methodology, in the spirit of the forum and education.

Quote:

The next step is for you to find a trace element analysis that would do this.

I do not know how to find these trace elements. I was hoping you could educate me.

Quote:

It's YOUR hypothesis; YOU do the legwork.

It's not my hypothesis.

Quote:

First, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm both, for example.

I bet your more human than American though

Quote:

Second, I apologize if you found my statement offensive. My point is still valid, however--it's only modern Western culture that has issues with bad breath. Prior to about WWII most people didn't brush their teeth regularly. Somehow the species seems to have survived.

Quote:

I agree. And did not say otherwise.

It illustrates some of the problems you're having in this discussion: you're projecting your own biases onto a society so ancient that we can only barely understand it, and we probably couldn't really understand it if we encountered it today. You have to learn to look at the world through the eyes of those ancient people. And then you have to understand how those ancient people interacted with their world to fully understand evolutionary processes occurring at the time.

I've provided what would be considered an adequate criticism by anyone with an understanding of archaeology.

Nope. I'm getting annoyed because you won't read what I'm writing and keep asking me the same questions--which I've already answered.

I don't believe you understand what that phrase means.

'sigh'

Do you prefer the Beatles or the Rolling stones?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ok this is starting to be more productive. How could one prove with osteological/dental strudies that humans consumed mushrooms?




And how could I prove that to you?

Likewise, how could you disprove that to me?




You have this backwards. Horniness was a crucial factor in the successful acts of copulation in the psychedelic consuming primates. As I stated previously.

Have you ever had sex due to the ingestion of drugs?

My experience suggests that you are more concerned with where you left your body than sex.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The fact we evolved from apes to humans in the first place is ample evidence, the evolution of of the human neocortex which is unprecedented in the fossil record, is ample evidence for alternative explanations not usually considered in other in other species. Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary theories.

And it's not my theory.

On this forum it is. You can't start off espousing a theory then hide behind the "not my theory" dodge.