February 1, 2015 — Burnt State

[Burnt State]

In vino veritas.

 

[smcder]

I was going to post the following in the George Hanson "trickster" thread, but it connects with comments made by @Burnt State in this Paracast episode, and with LCs comments. Maybe at some point a single thread to discuss this approach will materialize.

Some of us have discussed in various forum threads the similarities between abduction, close encounter, NDE, hallucinogen/entheogen, meditative, psychotic/mystical, and dream experiences. Essentially, they are all altered states of consciousness.

Often, the Trickster is referred to a change agent. A mechanism that causes -- or perhaps manifests -- during times of system destabilization. During his Paracast session, Burnt State noted how historically individuals who entered these altered states were shaman; individuals who used their ability to access altered states for the good of their community. In general, historically, there seems to have been much more openness, acceptance, and value of altered states and the knowledge and insights that could/can be gained from them. (It might even be argued that the use of hallucinogens/entheogens was historically more integrated into human cultures.)

While it doesn't explain those cases in which external stimuli have been documented, it's possible that both exogenous and endogenous chemicals and the altered subjective states/experiences which they catalyze in humans may be an evolutionarily adaptive mechanism that brings novel information/knowledge into human culture. In other words, this noted capacity for humans to experience self-initiated and spontaneous altered states may be an adaptive mechanism.

Or, for those who disdain reductive explanations, it may be a mechanism that was bestowed upon humans by some Other(s) for the same purpose: to advance the species/culture.

With that in mind, I found the following commentary very interesting. It comes from a long read article from the New Yorker about recent psilocybin (Magic Mushroom) trials for treatment of anxiety in individuals with terminal cancer being conducted at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and New York University. Although the entire article is excellent and I recommend reading it, the comments of interest come from neuroscientist Carhart-Harris.

I've underlined the juicy bits for the tldr crowd.

“If the only way we can access the unconscious mind is via dreams and free association, we aren’t going to get anywhere,” he said. “Surely there must be something else.” One day, he asked his seminar leader if that might be a drug. She was intrigued. He set off to search the library catalogue for “LSD and the Unconscious” and found “Realms of the Human Unconscious,” by Stanislav Grof. “I read the book cover to cover. That set the course for the rest of my young life.” ...

When, in 2010, Carhart-Harris first began studying the brains of volunteers on psychedelics, neuroscientists assumed that the drugs somehow excited brain activity—hence the vivid hallucinations and powerful emotions that people report. But when Carhart-Harris looked at the results of the first set of fMRI scans—which pinpoint areas of brain activity by mapping local blood flow and oxygen consumption—he discovered that the drug appeared to substantially reduce brain activity in one particular region: the “default-mode network.”

The default-mode network was first described in 2001, in a landmark paper by Marcus Raichle, a neurologist at Washington University, in St. Louis, and it has since become the focus of much discussion in neuroscience. The network comprises a critical and centrally situated hub of brain activity that links parts of the cerebral cortex to deeper, older structures in the brain, such as the limbic system and the hippocampus.

The network, which consumes a significant portion of the brain’s energy, appears to be most active when we are least engaged in attending to the world or to a task. It lights up when we are daydreaming, removed from sensory processing, and engaging in higher-level “meta-cognitive” processes such as self-reflection, mental time travel, rumination, and “theory of mind”—the ability to attribute mental states to others. Carhart-Harris describes the default-mode network variously as the brain’s “orchestra conductor” or “corporate executive” or “capital city,” charged with managing and “holding the entire system together.” It is thought to be the physical counterpart of the autobiographical self, or ego.

“The brain is a hierarchical system,” Carhart-Harris said. “The highest-level parts”—such as the default-mode network—“have an inhibitory influence on the lower-level parts, like emotion and memory.” He discovered that blood flow and electrical activity in the default-mode network dropped off precipitously under the influence of psychedelics, a finding that may help to explain the loss of the sense of self that volunteers reported. (The biggest dropoffs in default-mode-network activity correlated with volunteers’ reports of ego dissolution.) Just before Carhart-Harris published his results, in a 2012 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a researcher at Yale named Judson Brewer, who was using fMRI to study the brains of experienced meditators, noticed that their default-mode networks had also been quieted relative to those of novice meditators. It appears that, with the ego temporarily out of commission, the boundaries between self and world, subject and object, all dissolve. These are hallmarks of the mystical experience.

If the default-mode network functions as the conductor of the symphony of brain activity, we might expect its temporary disappearance from the stage to lead to an increase in dissonance and mental disorder—as appears to happen during the psychedelic journey. Carhart-Harris has found evidence in scans of brain waves that, when the default-mode network shuts down, other brain regions “are let off the leash.” Mental contents hidden from view (or suppressed) during normal waking consciousness come to the fore: emotions, memories, wishes and fears. Regions that don’t ordinarily communicate directly with one another strike up conversations (neuroscientists sometimes call this “crosstalk”), often with bizarre results. Carhart-Harris thinks that hallucinations occur when the visual-processing centers of the brain, left to their own devices, become more susceptible to the influence of our beliefs and emotions. ...

In “The Doors of Perception,” Aldous Huxley concluded from his psychedelic experience that the conscious mind is less a window on reality than a furious editor of it. The mind is a “reducing valve,” he wrote, eliminating far more reality than it admits to our conscious awareness, lest we be overwhelmed. “What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive.” Psychedelics open the valve wide, removing the filter that hides much of reality, as well as dimensions of our own minds, from ordinary consciousness. Carhart-Harris has cited Huxley’s metaphor in some of his papers, likening the default-mode network to the reducing valve, but he does not agree that everything that comes through the opened doors of perception is necessarily real. The psychedelic experience, he suggests, can yield a lot of “fool’s gold.”

Nevertheless, Carhart-Harris believes that the psychedelic experience can help people by relaxing the grip of an overbearing ego and the rigid, habitual thinking it enforces. The human brain is perhaps the most complex system there is, and the emergence of a conscious self is its highest achievement. By adulthood, the mind has become very good at observing and testing reality and developing confident predictions about it that optimize our investments of energy (mental and otherwise) and therefore our survival. Much of what we think of as perceptions of the world are really educated guesses based on past experience (“That fractal pattern of little green bits in my visual field must be a tree”), and this kind of conventional thinking serves us well.

But only up to a point. In Carhart-Harris’s view, a steep price is paid for the achievement of order and ego in the adult mind. “We give up our emotional lability,” he told me, “our ability to be open to surprises, our ability to think flexibly, and our ability to value nature.” The sovereign ego can become a despot. This is perhaps most evident in depression, when the self turns on itself and uncontrollable introspection gradually shades out reality. In “The Entropic Brain,” a paper published last year in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Carhart-Harris cites research indicating that this debilitating state, sometimes called “heavy self-consciousness,” may be the result of a “hyperactive” default-mode network. The lab recently received government funding to conduct a clinical study using psychedelics to treat depression.

Carhart-Harris believes that people suffering from other mental disorders characterized by excessively rigid patterns of thinking, such as addiction and obsessive-compulsive disorder, could benefit from psychedelics, which “disrupt stereotyped patterns of thought and behavior.” In his view, all these disorders are, in a sense, ailments of the ego. He also thinks that this disruption could promote more creative thinking. It may be that some brains could benefit from a little less order." ...
​

Once again, humans may simply be reinventing a "technology" that nature has already perfected over millennia of evolution. Spontaneous, endogenously caused altered, tricksterish states may be an intrinsic mechanism of the human (and other) species that promotes change, survival, and potentially progress.

also posting this to C&P

Once again, humans may simply be reinventing a "technology" that nature has already perfected over millennia of evolution. Spontaneous, endogenously caused altered, tricksterish states may be an intrinsic mechanism of the human (and other) species that promotes change, survival, and potentially progress.

I think you could definitely say altered states of mind (and everything else) are a result of evolutionary forces and get broad agreement ...

Bones to pick in how you said it
(but first, see also: Social Darwinism and Kipling: Just So Stories)

To me this boils down to "things are the way they are, because that's how they happened to come to be" or lies we tell to children (and ourselves, so we aren't afraid of the dark ... cf: looking for your car keys under the street lamp)

1. change and survival don't need to be promoted, they come along free in this universe (see Heraclitus or Buddha) in classic Darwinian terms:

chance and necessity (think of How the Moose Got Its Antlers)

explain it all - that's no problem, the problem is attributing teleology, purpose, intention to the process ... as your wording above seems to do.

2. the idea that nature has perfected something, anything (or that an intrinisic mechanism promotes progress) should make conventional evolutionary theorists cringe ... nature will scrap it all at the drop of a hat (or a meteor) and see what makes it out alive
(See SJ Gould The Spread of Excellence as against the idea of progress in evolution)

spontaneous here seems to mean ex nihilo but I thought nature had perfected this technology ... ?

To make a standard evolutionary argument here - I think we do better to think of

survival of the survivaliest or

survival of those who survive

than to think in terms of "fitness" ... fit may be the short, pudgy guy who consoles the athlete's wife after he falls off a cliff in his latest adventure ...

So, if you are promoting a reductionist explanation of these phenomena in the terms above, you may need more than mere Darwinism at your side.

bonus question: (is our idea of Darwinism evolving?)

 

[smcder]

The hierarchy of selection

The hierarchy of selection

We most typically think of natural selection working at the level of the individual, favoring those better at leaving behind more individual descendants. However, with a little imagination, we can see how natural selection might work at other levels of biological organization as well. Moving down the hierarchy, natural selection could act on the cells within an individual, favoring those cell lineages better at leaving behind descendent cells. Moving up the hierarchy, natural selection could act on species, favoring those species better at diversifying into descendent species.

 

[Constance]

Yes ma'am ... DID is the old MPD diagnosis ... raises fascinating issues for self and the "C" word ...

We took that subject up once earlier at C&P but I don't remember how far we researched it. Now we have Kelly and Kelly to consult as well as Myers. Let's take it up again when we can.

 

[Soupie]

I think you could definitely say altered states of mind (and everything else) are a result of evolutionary forces and get broad agreement ...

So are suggesting that you don't think the capacity to experience altered states is adaptive?

Or are you saying it simply can't be proved? Or that I havent proved it?

Or are you saying that TENS in general is flawed?

And if you are not saying any of those things, what are you saying?

Bones to pick in how you said it

(but first, see also: Social Darwinism and Kipling: Just So Stories)

To me this boils down to "things are the way they are, because that's how they happened to come to be" or lies we tell to children (and ourselves, so we aren't afraid of the dark ... cf: looking for your car keys under the street lamp)

As far as my wording, I dont disagree. I didnt bother to choose it carefully. We both know that TENS excludes intentionality.

As far as looking under the street lamp, what would you suggest? If experiencing altered states is not adaptive, is it a mere epiphenomenon? We just happen to have this capacity for no particular reason? A byproduct of other adaptive abilities or, eh, other epiphenomenal capacities?

Im being sincere. Are you suggesting capacities evolve because we, as individuals, want them to or value them? Im all for straying away from the street lights.

1. change and survival don't need to be promoted, they come along free in this universe (see Heraclitus or Buddha) in classic Darwinian terms:

chance and necessity (think of How the Moose Got Its Antlers)

explain it all - that's no problem, the problem is attributing teleology, purpose, intention to the process ... as your wording above seems to do.

2. the idea that nature has perfected something, anything (or that an intrinisic mechanism promotes progress) should make conventional evolutionary theorists cringe ... nature will scrap it all at the drop of a hat (or a meteor) and see what makes it out alive
(See SJ Gould The Spread of Excellence as against the idea of progress in evolution)

As noted, the wording was not chosen carefully. And as you know, its certainly not uncommon for even serious scientists to use such short hand.

But to suggest that certain random mutations lead to random capacities that just so happen to confer an adaptive, temporary advantage to an temporary organism existing in a particular temporary niche is not incoherent. And i suggest that our capacity to experience altered states may be just such a capacity.

Or not.

spontaneous here seems to mean ex nihilo but I thought nature had perfected this technology ... ?

Spontaneous here means the altered state manifests without the intention of the individual.

So Joe going through a really stressful situation in his life. Death of a child, divorce, affair, fired, etc. He is driving on a back road and unbeknowst to him, certain endogenous molecules become active in his brain and he has a powerful, paranormal experience. Life changing perhaps. As a result, he views life differently. He shares his experience with others. Or perhaps he does not, but those close to him note a distinct difference in Joes behavior.

Or maybe not. Maybe, as you say, the capacity to experience altered states is epiphenomenal. It doesnt help us survive at all, but it doesnt kill us, make us unfit, so it persits in the gene pool.

To make a standard evolutionary argument here - I think we do better to think of

survival of the survivaliest or

survival of those who survive

than to think in terms of "fitness" ... fit may be the short, pudgy guy who consoles the athlete's wife after he falls off a cliff in his latest adventure ...

So, if you are promoting a reductionist explanation of these phenomena in the terms above, you may need more than mere Darwinism at your side.

bonus question: (is our idea of Darwinism evolving?)

Re: the pudgy guy.

Cant there be multiple adaptive behaviors/strategies for passing on ones genes? The fact that both studs and pudgies have differing ways of passing on genes doesnt mean that they are not both adaptive.

Having said all that, if you recall from many, many posts ago in a different discussion, ive said that I am very open to the idea the NS is not the main driving force behind evolution. So i dont disagree with what you are saying/questioning.

While its not my primary interest right now, im very curious how the apparent teleology/intentionality of living systems plays with the notion of a causal determined physical world.

 

[Soupie]

To make a standard evolutionary argument here - I think we do better to think of

survival of the survivaliest or

survival of those who survive

Survival of the least unfit?

 

[Soupie]

To make a standard evolutionary argument here - I think we do better to think of

survival of the survivaliest or

survival of those who survive

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.[1] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

When there are few copies of an allele, the effect of genetic drift is larger, and when there are many copies the effect is smaller. Vigorous debates occurred over the relative importance of natural selection versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. Ronald Fisher held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968, Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population (although not necessarily changes in phenotypes) are caused by genetic drift.[3]​

 

[smcder]

Survival of the least unfit?

No, least and un are negatives, - so this just cancels out to equal survival of the fit.

 

[smcder]

So are suggesting that you don't think the capacity to experience altered states is adaptive?

Or are you saying it simply can't be proved? Or that I havent proved it?

Or are you saying that TENS in general is flawed?

And if you are not saying any of those things, what are you saying?


As far as my wording, I dont disagree. I didnt bother to choose it carefully. We both know that TENS excludes intentionality.

As far as looking under the street lamp, what would you suggest? If experiencing altered states is not adaptive, is it a mere epiphenomenon? We just happen to have this capacity for no particular reason? A byproduct of other adaptive abilities or, eh, other epiphenomenal capacities?

Im being sincere. Are you suggesting capacities evolve because we, as individuals, want them to or value them? Im all for straying away from the street lights.


As noted, the wording was not chosen carefully. And as you know, its certainly not uncommon for even serious scientists to use such short hand.

But to suggest that certain random mutations lead to random capacities that just so happen to confer an adaptive, temporary advantage to an temporary organism existing in a particular temporary niche is not incoherent. And i suggest that our capacity to experience altered states may be just such a capacity.

Or not.


Spontaneous here means the altered state manifests without the intention of the individual.

So Joe going through a really stressful situation in his life. Death of a child, divorce, affair, fired, etc. He is driving on a back road and unbeknowst to him, certain endogenous molecules become active in his brain and he has a powerful, paranormal experience. Life changing perhaps. As a result, he views life differently. He shares his experience with others. Or perhaps he does not, but those close to him note a distinct difference in Joes behavior.

Or maybe not. Maybe, as you say, the capacity to experience altered states is epiphenomenal. It doesnt help us survive at all, but it doesnt kill us, make us unfit, so it persits in the gene pool.


Re: the pudgy guy.

Cant there be multiple adaptive behaviors/strategies for passing on ones genes? The fact that both studs and pudgies have differing ways of passing on genes doesnt mean that they are not both adaptive.

Having said all that, if you recall from many, many posts ago in a different discussion, ive said that I am very open to the idea the NS is not the main driving force behind evolution. So i dont disagree with what you are saying/questioning.

While its not my primary interest right now, im very curious how the apparent teleology/intentionality of living systems plays with the notion of a causal determined physical world.

What is TENS and NS?

I'm mostly saying it's boring and doesn't tell us anything to say something is "adaptive". The fact that you argue (in your reply above) both sides from the same principle supports that - and its seems to me reasonable to take my sense of boredom as seriously as I take my other senses.

Cant there be multiple adaptive behaviors/strategies for passing on ones genes? The fact that both studs and pudgies have differing ways of passing on genes doesnt mean that they are not both adaptive.

The point here is to say that the "fit" guy was eliminated by chance (substitute meteor for bus, then) and there's no adapting (ahead of time) to chance. So who's the fittest is determined after selection, not judged by some observer ahead of time. (this goes back to a discussion with @Pharoah on the C&P thread)

I'm bored again, so that's all.

 

[smcder]

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.[1] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

When there are few copies of an allele, the effect of genetic drift is larger, and when there are many copies the effect is smaller. Vigorous debates occurred over the relative importance of natural selection versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. Ronald Fisher held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968, Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population (although not necessarily changes in phenotypes) are caused by genetic drift.[3]​

Yes ... less well known is the fact that Kimura penned many a Tokyo rock ballad ... one with this haunting refrain:

Like a strong wind across the allelic plains,
He drifted and slowly changed.

 

[Constance]

It seems to me that the idea @Soupie keeps pressing (changing its terminological clothing from time to time) is that consciousness -- the 'ghost in the machine' -- is really just another machine. Just my impression after a half-year or more of discussions at C&P.

 

[Soupie]

No, least and un are negatives, - so this just cancels out to equal survival of the fit.

No, not really. In the above case, it's not the most fit who survives. It's everyone who is not unfit.

Yes, those who are not unfit now become the most fit. You could argue that it's semantics, but it really is a different concept. Subtle but different.

Only the strong non-fatally mutated survive.

It doesn't matter who the most fit is; it only matters who the least fit is.

 

[smcder]

No, not really. In the above case, it's not the most fit who survives. It's everyone who is not unfit.

Yes, those who are not unfit now become the most fit. You could argue that it's semantics, but it really is a different concept. Subtle but different.

Only the strong non-fatally mutated survive.

It doesn't matter who the most fit is; it only matters who the least fit is.

I didn't say the most fit, I said:

"survival of the fit"

everyone who is not unfit = (cancel the negatives) everyone who is fit = survival of the fit

QED

subtitles be damned

 

[Soupie]

What is TENS and NS?

Theory of evolution via natural selection, with random mutation the source of variation being selected.

I'm mostly saying it's boring and doesn't tell us anything to say something is "adaptive". The fact that you argue (in your reply above) both sides from the same principle supports that - and its seems to me reasonable to take my sense of boredom as seriously as I take my other senses.

Do you really believe this? You don't believe a lion is adapted to the savanna and a whale the ocean?

I do think Life is in a continual process of diversification and adaptation to the various, continually changing environments on Earth. What I wonder is whether random mutation and NS are the main "mechanisms" driving it.

Cant there be multiple adaptive behaviors/strategies for passing on ones genes? The fact that both studs and pudgies have differing ways of passing on genes doesnt mean that they are not both adaptive.

The point here is to say that the "fit" guy was eliminated by chance (substitute meteor for bus, then) and there's no adapting (ahead of time) to chance. So who's the fittest is determined after selection, not judged by some observer ahead of time. (this goes back to a discussion with @Pharoah on the C&P thread)

I'm bored again, so that's all.

Multiple, entire species could be wiped out by a meteorite and apparently have several times throughout the history of Life on earth. I'm not sure this contradicts the idea that Life adapts to various niches.

It could be argued that Life on earth is on the cusp of being able to survive an impending meteorite strike. Thus, Life on earth may have finally adapted to the solar system in which it evolved.

Theres is a very interesting JRE podcast with Randal Carlson about this very topic. Carlson feels the Life has an intrinsic drive (my words) to get off planet because being confined to the surface is very dangerous (as the geologic and fossil record seem to indicate).

I didn't say the most fit, I said:

"survival of the fit"

everyone who is not unfit = (cancel the negatives) everyone who is fit = survival of the fit

QED

subtitles be damned

Okay, but I believe the orthodox phrase is survival of the fittest, which my reverse statement was in response to.

 

[smcder]

Theory of evolution via natural selection, with random mutation the source of variation being selected.


Do you really believe this? You don't believe a lion is adapted to the savanna and a whale the ocean?

I do think Life is in a continual process of diversification and adaptation to the various, continually changing environments on Earth. What I wonder is whether random mutation and NS are the main "mechanisms" driving it.


Multiple, entire species could be wiped out by a meteorite and apparently have several times throughout the history of Life on earth. I'm not sure this contradicts the idea that Life adapts to various niches.

It could be argued that Life on earth is on the cusp of being able to survive an impending meteorite strike. Thus, Life on earth may have finally adapted to the solar system in which it evolved.

Theres is a very interesting JRE podcast with Randal Carlson about this very topic. Carlson feels the Life has an intrinsic drive (my words) to get off planet because being confined to the surface is very dangerous (as the geologic and fossil record seem to indicate).


Okay, but I believe the orthodox phrase is survival of the fittest, which my reverse statement was in response to.

I'm mostly saying it's boring and doesn't tell us anything to say something is "adaptive". The fact that you argue (in your reply above) both sides from the same principle supports that - and its seems to me reasonable to take my sense of boredom as seriously as I take my other senses.

Do you really believe this? You don't believe a lion is adapted to the savanna and a whale the ocean?

Do I really believe it's boring and that one should listen to their sense of boredom and that in this case (ASM being "adaptive") doesn't tell us anything - doesn't add to the discussion as so far developed? Yes.

Whereas I believe "a lion being adapted to the savanna and a whale the ocean" isn't a matter of belief, it's a matter of definition.

When you posted:

My understanding is that evolution acts on individuals, not species, so this idea is already on shaky ground. Unless one were to consider that a capacity to experience altered states (hallucinations) was adaptive at the individual level.

What was my response?

Okay, but I believe the orthodox phrase is survival of the fittest, which my reverse statement was in response to.

LOL ... ok, ok ... if you just have to be right, then so be it.

 

[Soupie]

Do I really believe it's boring and that one should listen to their sense of boredom and that in this case (ASM being "adaptive") doesn't tell us anything - doesn't add to the discussion as so far developed? Yes.

My understanding of the discussion:

The UFO experience is a tricksterish phenomenon.

It may be trying to teach us something.

It may be a mirror phenomenon; we participate in creating the experience.

The UFO experience—and similar paranormal experiences—may be related to altered states of consciousness involving specific molecule families.

A few psychiatrists and neuroscientists are suggesting that giving people hallucinogenic drugs has positive effects on their lives and thus their loved ones.

People report experiencing spontaneous altered states of consciousness, presumably caused by endogenous molecules or other processes. This may be an epiphenomenal byproduct of evolution, or it may be a capacity that has been adaptive in the (social) niches in which humans find themselves.

When you posted:

My understanding is that evolution acts on individuals, not species, so this idea is already on shaky ground. Unless one were to consider that a capacity to experience altered states (hallucinations) was adaptive at the individual level.

What was my response?

Okay, but I believe the orthodox phrase is survival of the fittest, which my reverse statement was in response to.

LOL ... ok, ok ... if you just have to be right, then so be it.

In past discussions—not at the paracast—i have talked about NS acting at the tribe and species level, and have always been told a la Dawkins that it acts at the gene level. I am open to the idea that NS and adaption acts at different levels. I appreciated the link you provided.

I agree that the concept of adaptation leads to just so stories. That may be the case for ASMs too. I was compelled to suggest they were due to the recent experiments with psilocybin showing that its use was deemed helpful to those suffering from death anxiety. But I think there is other "evidence" that altered states are adaptive.

On the contrary, perhaps humans (and other organisms) would be just fine without the capacity to experience altered states of mind. (I doubt it though.)

 

[Soupie]

Here are two papers by a Dr. Froese which may be of interest.

Are altered states of consciousness detrimental, neutral or helpful for the origins of symbolic cognition? A response to Hodgson and Lewis-Williams

Can altered states of consciousness be adaptive?

 

[smcder]

My understanding of the discussion:

The UFO experience is a tricksterish phenomenon.

It may be trying to teach us something.

It may be a mirror phenomenon; we participate in creating the experience.

The UFO experience—and similar paranormal experiences—may be related to altered states of consciousness involving specific molecule families.

A few psychiatrists and neuroscientists are suggesting that giving people hallucinogenic drugs has positive effects on their lives and thus their loved ones.

People report experiencing spontaneous altered states of consciousness, presumably caused by endogenous molecules or other processes. This may be an epiphenomenal byproduct of evolution, or it may be a capacity that has been adaptive in the (social) niches in which humans find themselves.


In past discussions—not at the paracast—i have talked about NS acting at the tribe and species level, and have always been told a la Dawkins that it acts at the gene level. I am open to the idea that NS and adaption acts at different levels. I appreciated the link you provided.

I agree that the concept of adaptation leads to just so stories. That may be the case for ASMs too. I was compelled to suggest they were due to the recent experiments with psilocybin showing that its use was deemed helpful to those suffering from death anxiety. But I think there is other "evidence" that altered states are adaptive.

On the contrary, perhaps humans (and other organisms) would be just fine without the capacity to experience altered states of mind. (I doubt it though.)

By altered state of mind, I'm identifying states of mind in which one is experiencing sensory hallucinations.

On the contrary, perhaps humans (and other organisms) would be just fine without the capacity to experience altered states of mind. (I doubt it though.)

Without the capacity - or the actual experience? At the individual level or ... ? Why do you doubt it? Can we conceive of individuals without the capacity to hallucinate? Why or why not?

One study from as early as 1895[45] reported that approximately 10% of the population experiences hallucinations. A 1996-1999 survey of over 13,000 people[46] reported a much higher figure, with almost 39% of people reporting hallucinatory experiences, 27% of which daytime hallucinations, mostly outside the context of illness or drug use. From this survey, olfactory (smell) and gustatory (taste) hallucinations seem the most common in the general population.

How do we know the other 61% have the capacity and should they be worried?

The UFO experience—and similar paranormal experiences—may be related to altered states of consciousness involving specific molecule families.

Some may be and if so, it doesn't mean all are. I would think states involve chemical changes - the evidence indicates that mental states correlate with physical states. Which specific molecule families do you have in mind?

A few psychiatrists and neuroscientists are suggesting that giving people hallucinogenic drugs has positive effects on their lives and thus their loved ones.

I think there are several good studies that under controlled clinical settings they do. I don't know if this has been controlled for the clinical and effects alone but it seems reasonable some of them have.
People report experiencing spontaneous altered states of consciousness, presumably caused by endogenous molecules or other processes. This may be an epiphenomenal byproduct of evolution, or it may be a capacity that has been adaptive in the (social) niches in which humans find themselves.

I notice that here you make the move from "involving" to "presumably caused".

In past discussions—not at the paracast—i have talked about NS acting at the tribe and species level, and have always been told a la Dawkins that it acts at the gene level. I am open to the idea that NS and adaption acts at different levels. I appreciated the link you provided.

I'm glad you are open to the science! You're welcome.

I was compelled to suggest they were due to the recent experiments with psilocybin showing that its use was deemed helpful to those suffering from death anxiety.

How do you see that the introudction of a hallucinogen in a clinical setting is evidence for altered states being adaptive?

I'm going to post this on the C&P thread - seems like it could be long over there.

 

[smcder]

It seems to me that the idea @Soupie keeps pressing (changing its terminological clothing from time to time) is that consciousness -- the 'ghost in the machine' -- is really just another machine. Just my impression after a half-year or more of discussions at C&P.

The GIM is a green cyber-homonculus!

 

[smcder]

We took that subject up once earlier at C&P but I don't remember how far we researched it. Now we have Kelly and Kelly to consult as well as Myers. Let's take it up again when we can.

I've been thinking about this - be longs on the C&P ... @Tyger posted a video early in the discussion, I'll try to find it - (I can remember the exact piece of road I was driving when I heard one of the most interesting parts of the video - but of course no details to help me find it!)

... but there is the idea that some personalities aren't aware of others, I'm not sure it's always the case that a master personality knows the others or all about them - so one question is how are memories and experiences kept separate ... another is could I have another personality, I'm unaware of it and vice versa - maybe it lives at night when I dream, maybe he or she is a dream character - gaining some gradual awareness of the situation and trying to communicate this way ... or maybe it's world is very different because it cannot act in the world, it's unknown to me and to the outside world - and so the way you interpret something in a dream, say you hear a ram caught in a thicket or you fall asleep with your mp3 player on - and you work this into the dream narrative, maybe even attribute it to your own will ... and maybe that is how it is for this other person inside of me ... so that everything I do is interpreted by this second person as being their will, their intention but they are a completely passive observer, in fact.

I'll try to follow up over there and with the video.