Smart People Do More Drugs--Because of Evolution

[sac beh]

Good post, and it makes sense to me...

There has always been a symbiotic relationship between intelligence and novelty.

Novel experiences (which were very abundant in early human history) lead to the exercise of mental capacities to understand and explain the experiences. The further development of these mental capacities leads humans to seek out further novel experiences.

Today, although the rate of novelty in technological innovation increases, the overall novelty in human experience (it seems to me) has not. Psychoactive drugs provide a substitute experience for human intelligence that lacks sufficient novel experience in its situation or time.

This is why in early human history the development of religious story and myth was an expression of intelligent evolution, whereas today it is quite the opposite. Today these types of myths much more activate the emotions and fears of people rather than their mental capacities which develop intelligence.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Data and evidence and experimentation turn hypothesis into theories... if you think I have my usage wrong, you can take it up with the National Academy of Sciences...

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Definitions.html

Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Scientific hypotheses must be posed in a form that allows them to be rejected.

Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence...

...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences


http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

[guest3901]

"I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

yeah...that about sums it up.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

"I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

yeah...that about sums it up.

yup... that about sums up the common misconception.

Here's some education to cure that misconception problem....

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

In science:
Theory
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

 

[guest3901]

oh...i see.
im just common folk to you....

well....i never.

 

[EddieShoestring]

i don't think much of that piece-
as has been pointed out the author is utterly incorrect about canna and opium being the only 'natural/agricultural' (whatever that means) drugs
and suggesting that consuming psychoactive substances is evolutionary novel is plain silly as on any given night roughly 25% of shrews are effectivily pissed up from eating fermenting fruit. Shrews are at the base of the mammalian evolutionary tree and have been scuttling about for, say, 70million years and presumably have been getting tipsey for much of that time-
so it is easy to demonstrate that mammals getting mullered is not a recent thing

eddieS

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

oh...i see.
im just common folk to you....

well....i never.

I never said anything of the sort... I just suggested that you would benefit from learning what a scientist means when he publishes a theory, since you were assuming that scientific theory meant 'guess'.

 

[guest3901]

hypothesis=a mere assumption or guess.

theory=contemplation or speculation.

hey,while i got ya here.
got any new gear coming out?
i really enjoyed your Geisha....

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

about canna and opium being the only 'natural/agricultural' (whatever that means) drugs

natural |ˈna ch ərəl|
adjective
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind

agriculture |ˈagriˌkəl ch ər|
noun
the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products.


Plants that were farmed as crops specifically for the psychoactive properties present in the chemically unprocessed final product would be 'natural/agricultural drugs'.



Psilocybe mushrooms, amanita mushrooms, morning glory, hawaiian baby woodrose, salvia, coca leaves, caffeine in its many forms, dmt snuffs, ayahuasca, ergot, datura, and peyote/peruvian torch/other mescaline cacti, although gathered and used... were never agriculturally produced for their natural psychoactive properties.

Marijuana and opium were.

 

[sac beh]

i don't think much of that piece-
as has been pointed out the author is utterly incorrect about canna and opium being the only 'natural/agricultural' (whatever that means) drugs

Well if you don't know what he means by it (I agree its vague from the summary we're given), how can you declare it incorrect?

and suggesting that consuming psychoactive substances is evolutionary novel is plain silly as on any given night roughly 25% of shrews are effectivily pissed up from eating fermenting fruit. Shrews are at the base of the mammalian evolutionary tree and have been scuttling about for, say, 70million years and presumably have been getting tipsey for much of that time-
so it is easy to demonstrate that mammals getting mullered is not a recent thing

But he's talking about humans. You can't completely substitute a new species and call the theory wrong based on your substitution. Even if your substitution made sense (but it doesn't), the article says that the theory does not claim that the drug use correlates to positive life outcomes, which is what you are talking about with "mammals getting mullered" and tipsy. So I think you haven't understood the theory yet.

 

[sac beh]

Plants that were farmed as crops specifically for the psychoactive properties present in the chemically unprocessed final product would be 'natural/agricultural drugs'.

Psilocybe mushrooms, amanita mushrooms, morning glory, hawaiian baby woodrose, salvia, coca leaves, caffeine in its many forms, dmt snuffs, ayahuasca, ergot, datura, and peyote/peruvian torch/other mescaline cacti, although gathered and used... were never agriculturally produced for their natural psychoactive properties.

Marijuana and opium were.

Thanks, that clears it up.. for me at least..

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

hypothesis=a mere assumption or guess.

theory=contemplation or speculation.

hey,while i got ya here.
got any new gear coming out?
i really enjoyed your Geisha....

Thing about a conversation is... the person making a statement gets to decide how they meant the words they use, as long as their usage is within the correct definitions.

For example...

When you ask me when My new gear is coming out...

I know that the recognized pot grower definition of 'gear' is cannabis seed.

But I also know that a gear is round and metal and has teeth around it and meshes with other gears to make machinery work.


So do you want me to impose my definition on your question and ridicule it, or to respond to it according to your intended definition?

Anytime any scientist writes a scientific article about their theory, they are intending theory to be defined according to the scientific definition.

theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. -ries)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory.
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.
• Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

New gear around New Years.

 

[guest3901]

Psilocybe mushrooms, amanita mushrooms, morning glory, hawaiian baby woodrose, salvia, coca leaves, caffeine in its many forms, dmt snuffs, ayahuasca, ergot, datura, and peyote/peruvian torch/other mescaline cacti, although gathered and used... were never agriculturally produced for their natural psychoactive properties.

Marijuana and opium were.

so native americans didnt harvest tobacco for peace pipe time.
and the ande mountain people didnt harvest the leaves of the cocoa leaf so they could climb those mountains.
and the south american indians didnt harvest certain shrooms,to practice there god rituals.
and the Navajo didnt harvest their peyote...?

so these ancient tribes who lived thousands of years before us where just lucky each season??and accidently stumbled on this.?

 

[sac beh]

so native americans didnt harvest tobacco for peace pipe time.
and the ande mountain people didnt harvest the leaves of the cocoa leaf so they could climb those mountains.
and the south american indians didnt harvest certain shrooms,to practice there god rituals.
and the Navajo didnt harvest their peyote...?

so these ancient tribes who lived thousands of years before us where just lucky each season??and accidently stumbled on this.?

lol, you picked the one activity (harvesting) that actually isn't in the definition of agriculture. Simply harvesting or gathering of naturally occurring plants doesn't constitute agriculture.

 

[guest3901]

im sure they propagated all their sacred herbs..

 

[sac beh]

im sure they propagated all their sacred herbs..

Nor does the act of propagation alone constitute agriculture.

the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products

I think you'd be surprised how late the practice of agriculture appeared in human history, especially related to plants and animals that were not basic to immediate survival needs for societies transitioning to settlement.

 

[BlueMonk]

Nor does the act of propagation alone constitute agriculture.

the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products

I think you'd be surprised how late the practice of agriculture appeared in human history, especially related to plants and animals that were not basic to immediate survival needs for societies transitioning to settlement.

Sounds like you have read a certain book by Jared Diamond. I made it through the first half. Very interesting first half though. And yes, it supports everything you said.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

so native americans didnt harvest tobacco for peace pipe time.
and the ande mountain people didnt harvest the leaves of the cocoa leaf so they could climb those mountains.
and the south american indians didnt harvest certain shrooms,to practice there god rituals.
and the Navajo didnt harvest their peyote...?

so these ancient tribes who lived thousands of years before us where just lucky each season??and accidently stumbled on this.?

Of course they harvested them. I clearly said such were "gathered and used"...


That does not make item agricultural, though.

Harvested ≠ Agriculturally produced.

 

[sac beh]

Sounds like you have read a certain book by Jared Diamond. I made it through the first half. Very interesting first half though. And yes, it supports everything you said.

I actually picked up his book at the store a few years ago and almost bought it, but I didn't. Maybe I should read it now.

But the most recent book I've read on this topic is Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind by Colin Renfrew. Its a great intro into the topic of how human mental and material capacities evolved separately and together. One of the central problems in the study, and in archaeology in general, is how to account for gaps in human evolution where biologically and genetically we had evolved into the modern human, yet cultural and behavioral modernity came much later. The answer has a lot to do with exactly the topic of this thread: how novelty encourages intellectual development where the genes left off.

 

[Trillion]

Ok... how about I take an ordinary dc-10 flight to a large open meadow in an alternate dimension...



I'd take a plain plane to a plain in another plane.

The thought plane of the plain plane plane sailing is plain out of this plane.