Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineGainM1nd

Registered: 07/19/13
Posts: 13
Loc: Merica
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Was He Right?
    #18584335 - 07/20/13 10:27 AM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Ok so recently found out that psilocybin causes neurogenesis

could from an evolutionist perspective could Terence stoned ape hypothesis been correct?

If they do in fact cause neurons to form in the hippocampus (short-long term memory centers) then is it safe to assume that apes who ate the mushroom would have developed cognition?

What do you guys think?


--------------------
I NEED THESE PRINTS ASAP PLEASE!!!

Caerulipes

Ovoideosystidiata

Liniformans var americana

Quebecensis


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDawks
Jolly African Potato


Registered: 06/09/10
Posts: 4,935
Re: Was He Right? [Re: GainM1nd]
    #18587589 - 07/20/13 11:21 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

No, because that's not how evolution works.


--------------------
date ; unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount ; sleep


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGainM1nd

Registered: 07/19/13
Posts: 13
Loc: Merica
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Dawks]
    #18588773 - 07/21/13 08:32 AM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Can you please elaborate what do you mean thats not how evolution works?

What about epigenetics?


--------------------
I NEED THESE PRINTS ASAP PLEASE!!!

Caerulipes

Ovoideosystidiata

Liniformans var americana

Quebecensis


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
Re: Was He Right? [Re: GainM1nd]
    #18589369 - 07/21/13 11:06 AM (10 years, 7 months ago)

I find the argument convincing that human consciousness was influenced by psychoactive substances. It is also known that food influences evolutionary processes.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsicodelico
Just another psycho
Male


Registered: 01/21/11
Posts: 246
Loc: Brazil Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 23 days
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Vaipen]
    #18589385 - 07/21/13 11:11 AM (10 years, 7 months ago)

you won't find the answer here.

But yes, it is a possibility.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSillyputty67

Registered: 10/06/12
Posts: 2,239
Loc: Netherlands
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Psicodelico]
    #18589726 - 07/21/13 12:50 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Extraterrestrials, psychoactive compounds, simply sitting around a campfire and sharing stories of the days hunts. Walking upright and being to survey the surroundings in a way no other creature could.


Any, or All of the above.


--------------------
1) Everything I ever posted or say is a lie.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,691
Re: Was He Right? [Re: GainM1nd]
    #18589885 - 07/21/13 01:28 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

GainM1nd said:
If they do in fact cause neurons to form in the hippocampus (short-long term memory centers) then is it safe to assume that apes who ate the mushroom would have developed cognition?



Even if the far-fetched neurogenesis-causing-cognition hypothesis would be right, it still wouldn't explain how it would become hereditary. In my view, that is the most fatal flaw of the 'stoned ape' theory. One of many, btw.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGainM1nd

Registered: 07/19/13
Posts: 13
Loc: Merica
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Was He Right? [Re: koraks]
    #18593283 - 07/22/13 07:38 AM (10 years, 7 months ago)

The neurogenesis phenomena is not a hypothesis, there is empirical evidence that is what happens when humans take psilocybin.

Epigenetics would explain how it would become rooted in our biology though.

Im not saying with certainty that we developed cognition because of psilocybin, but I do however entertain the idea quite often.


--------------------
I NEED THESE PRINTS ASAP PLEASE!!!

Caerulipes

Ovoideosystidiata

Liniformans var americana

Quebecensis


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDawks
Jolly African Potato


Registered: 06/09/10
Posts: 4,935
Re: Was He Right? [Re: GainM1nd]
    #18593449 - 07/22/13 08:39 AM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

GainM1nd said:
Can you please elaborate what do you mean thats not how evolution works?

What about epigenetics?




Genotype that proves advantageous toward procreation is selected for. That's how evolution works.



Quote:

GainM1nd said:
What about epigenetics?




What about it?


--------------------
date ; unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount ; sleep


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSillyputty67

Registered: 10/06/12
Posts: 2,239
Loc: Netherlands
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Dawks]
    #18593569 - 07/22/13 09:28 AM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Consciousness evolved outside of just as much as inside of the genepool. Conversations, thoughts, ideas, that were shared to the masses, were passed on for the next generation to pick up on.


Once again its an all of the above kind of answer. No single solution.


--------------------
1) Everything I ever posted or say is a lie.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Sillyputty67]
    #18597586 - 07/22/13 11:44 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

malicom said:
Consciousness evolved outside of just as much as inside of the genepool. Conversations, thoughts, ideas, that were shared to the masses, were passed on for the next generation to pick up on.


Once again its an all of the above kind of answer. No single solution.




Are you suggesting that we are in fact more than our genepool and that our mental processes, our thoughts, ideas and experience of reality as a whole are also part of the development of human self awareness? That, as it were, there is a mental or consciousness-component, perhaps like a meme that acts similar to the evolutionary process albeit outside DNA, but parallel to it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,691
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Vaipen]
    #18598009 - 07/23/13 02:11 AM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Wouldn't the concept of 'culture' get quite close to that? I think it's rather obvious, really :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXingu
Stranger

Registered: 10/20/12
Posts: 932
Loc: NC
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Was He Right? [Re: koraks]
    #18600678 - 07/23/13 04:36 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

koraks said:
Even if the far-fetched neurogenesis-causing-cognition hypothesis would be right, it still wouldn't explain how it would become hereditary. In my view, that is the most fatal flaw of the 'stoned ape' theory. One of many, btw.




How not? In the same way that behaviors and experiences of your parents, which were only epigenetic influences to them, become part of your own genetic material, which psychoactives they chose to consume and the physiological and behavioral changes experienced due to them would likewise get passed on.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130701135550.htm

"Gene mutations caused by a father's lifestyle can be inherited by his children, even if those mutations occurred before conception. What's more, these findings show that mutations in the germ-line are present in all cells of the children, including their own germ cells. This means that a father's lifestyle has the potential to affect the DNA of multiple generations and not just his immediate offspring. These findings were published in the July 2013 issue of The FASEB Journal."

Psychoactives are as much a relevant lifestyle element as food choices and physical activity.

Nurture effects nature effects nurture, culture and DNA are inseparable mutual influences.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDawks
Jolly African Potato


Registered: 06/09/10
Posts: 4,935
Re: Was He Right? [Re: GainM1nd] * 1
    #18600754 - 07/23/13 04:51 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

What you're saying sounds very Lamarckian. Evolution does not work like that.


--------------------
date ; unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount ; sleep


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXingu
Stranger

Registered: 10/20/12
Posts: 932
Loc: NC
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Dawks]
    #18600764 - 07/23/13 04:52 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Dawks said:
What you're saying sounds very Lamarckian. Evolution does not work like that.




So according to you, lifestyle does not influence genetic lines?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDawks
Jolly African Potato


Registered: 06/09/10
Posts: 4,935
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Xingu]
    #18600817 - 07/23/13 05:01 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Inherited mutations will not lead to structure unless selection takes place.


--------------------
date ; unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount ; sleep


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXingu
Stranger

Registered: 10/20/12
Posts: 932
Loc: NC
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Xingu]
    #18600871 - 07/23/13 05:12 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Assuming by Lamarckian you mean?

"Second Law: All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.[21]

The last clause of this law introduces what is now called soft inheritance. "The second law was widely accepted at the time..[but] has been decisively rejected by modern genetics."[22] However, in the field of epigenetics, there is growing evidence that soft inheritance plays a part in the changing of some organisms' phenotypes: it leaves the DNA unaltered but affects DNA by preventing the expression of genes.[23] Some epigenetic changes such as the methylation of genes alter the likelihood of DNA transcription and can be produced by changes in behaviour and environment. Many epigenetic changes are themselves heritable to a degree. Thus, while DNA itself is not directly altered by the environment and behavior except through selection, the relationship of the genotype to the phenotype can be altered, even across generations, by experience within the lifetime of an individual. This has led to calls for biology to reconsider Lamarckian processes in evolution in light of modern advances in molecular biology.[24]"

Per Jablonka, Eva (2006). Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. from wikipedia (people bash it, but studies don't back up those positions on inaccuracy, at least for most academic subjects)

A study by MIT:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

"In Feig’s study, mice genetically engineered to have memory problems were raised in an enriched environment–given toys, exercise, and social interaction–for two weeks during adolescence. The animals’ memory improved–an unsurprising finding, given that enrichment has been previously shown to boost brain function. The mice were then returned to normal conditions, where they grew up and had offspring. This next generation of mice also had better memory, despite having the genetic defect and never having been exposed to the enriched environment. "

I'd certainly say that psychedelics can induce/catalyze a wide variety of enriched environments. It's not proven, but it's a hypothesis with basis. This is inherited epigenetics potentially, but would seem equally as relevant to the resultant offspring as DNA changes.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDawks
Jolly African Potato


Registered: 06/09/10
Posts: 4,935
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Xingu]
    #18600975 - 07/23/13 05:31 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Xingu said:
A study by MIT:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

"In Feig’s study, mice genetically engineered to have memory problems were raised in an enriched environment–given toys, exercise, and social interaction–for two weeks during adolescence. The animals’ memory improved–an unsurprising finding, given that enrichment has been previously shown to boost brain function. The mice were then returned to normal conditions, where they grew up and had offspring. This next generation of mice also had better memory, despite having the genetic defect and never having been exposed to the enriched environment. "





Fascinating but it's just one study. "Soft inheritance" as you say may indeed play a role here however it's also possible that other factors are at play, for instance normal genetic variance/crossover. Did the study include a control to ensure that "non-enriched" mice's offspring didn't have "better memory"?

Quote:


I'd certainly say that psychedelics can induce/catalyze a wide variety of enriched environments. It's not proven, but it's a hypothesis with basis. This is inherited epigenetics potentially, but would seem equally as relevant to the resultant offspring as DNA changes.




Explain to me how exactly you think using psychedelics could lead to the development of an entirely new structure. Even with this "soft inheritance" stuff it makes no sense.

For instance I can solve a rubik's cube pretty damn quickly. In around 30 seconds. Of course genetics played a massive role in my ability to acquire this trait HOWEVER my father, nor his father have ever touched a rubiks cube in their life. When I select a mate I'm not going to ask her how fast she can solve a cube, because, it's a useless, pointless skill. Do you really maintain that my children will be automatically good at solving rubik's cubes just because I am? What if they never learn how? and if they do learn what's to say they won't be slower than me rather than faster because of their mothers genetics?

Unless selection takes place, i.e. the ones that can't solve the cube are either killed or somehow unable to pass on their cubeless genes, then my rubiks cube skills will have no influence on generations to come.


--------------------
date ; unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount ; sleep


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXingu
Stranger

Registered: 10/20/12
Posts: 932
Loc: NC
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Dawks]
    #18601508 - 07/23/13 07:15 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Dawks said:
Explain to me how exactly you think using psychedelics could lead to the development of an entirely new structure. Even with this "soft inheritance" stuff it makes no sense.

For instance I can solve a rubik's cube pretty damn quickly. In around 30 seconds. Of course genetics played a massive role in my ability to acquire this trait HOWEVER my father, nor his father have ever touched a rubiks cube in their life. When I select a mate I'm not going to ask her how fast she can solve a cube, because, it's a useless, pointless skill. Do you really maintain that my children will be automatically good at solving rubik's cubes just because I am? What if they never learn how? and if they do learn what's to say they won't be slower than me rather than faster because of their mothers genetics?

Unless selection takes place, i.e. the ones that can't solve the cube are either killed or somehow unable to pass on their cubeless genes, then my rubiks cube skills will have no influence on generations to come.




Heh, perhaps useless, but the question is less of the unique skill, but rather the mental attributes and chemical states necessary to make that skill easier to learn for you. By structure I thought you meant DNA, for brain structure that's more of the inherited behavior changing the brain through neuroplastic effects, which occur even in adulthood. In terms of the creation of new brain structures, it seems less likely that psych's were the sole variable that caused that, but likely that they aided growth over generations. I believe Mckenna's theory included a part about the influence on selection, which boiled down to arousal that psych's cause, which could be possible.

So in other words, someone eating a diet with certain types of of neurotransmitter agonists, one that makes them horny and which causes brain activity changes that effect cognition, would likely lead to both that person creating offspring (often with someone else that consumes the same substance) and with offspring that had a slightly different brain structure than average that corresponded to that increased activity, without yet experiencing the substance. Seems possible...unlikely, but if strange unlikely things didn't happen in nature, the platypus wouldn't exist.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
Re: Was He Right? [Re: Xingu]
    #18603062 - 07/24/13 01:40 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

In my worldview I think it is possible that there are more things that affect DNA. Evolution is one process and epigenetics another. But in my mind reality does not even exist as most people think of it.

To me, reality is a form of illusion that we stabilize and solidify through the consensus, the shared experiences of all sentient life on Earth, possibly less sentient life as well, to a lesser degree. Reality is not principally made of matter but of consciousness. The consensus transfixes the consensus to behave predictably resulting in 'laws' of nature and certain constants. The consensus is largely based on our mutual expectation and requirements to a stable, predictable world, full of causal effects.

Hence, evolution is a process we tend to think of as one that is beyond doubt. But when I read sciencedaily, I often find articles that shed new light evolution. But if evolution is part of a view of materialist science, it is no great surprise to see resistance to ideas that would make evolution more pliable.

We conscious beings affect the world and participate, small as our personal impact may be, the outcome of the world from moment to moment. Therefore DNA may be altered as well. We are not prisoners of reality, we create it in the extreme here and now. Likewise, if the consensus would allow it, DNA isn't a chain that bonds us totally but more like reality itself, which it is part of, a reality that can be altered if we so wish it.

I don't necessarily desire a divide between evolution as a process and the choice and influence of a single individual in his or her life. If the change in DNA that is the result of someone's behavior is not somehow against the expectations of the consensus, such changes can occur and be passed on to the next generation. Changes to the consensus occur mostly when no one is aware of them as to be able to oppose it with dogma in mind or what we think we know.

"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows."
-- Epictetus

I think maybe evolution is something entirely different than what we think it is. Overall it seems to me resulting in imperfect organisms.

I was thinking about this this morning. I wondered why labor is such a painful and risky process. Many things can go wrong, killing the baby or the woman or both. Mammals are prone to this imperfect procreation and you wonder what sort of evolutionary process leads to this risky system of birth?

And despite it being risky we thrive. It is almost as if something lying behind the genetics is pushing to get through. Something wants to be alive. And it will use any biological organism to come here. Even if the method of delivery, no pun intended, is not perfect, risky or painful.

Evolution has no goal or preferences. It just meanders along like a stream between elevation sin the landscape. It is a system where our language often breaks down on. We tend to say 'it is a process that aims at selecting the best individuals to procreate'.  But that implies a will behind it. Yet there is none. At least, we are told this.

There is no aim, just as a river has no aim, it cannot help it that water flows to the lowest level and eventually and logically, reaches the sea. So if evolution is just a gene swarm, filling out every possible opportunity for life to come through into this plane of existence, one cannot imply a reason behind it when it is obvious that human females cannot just drop a baby in a few minutes but have to go to a painful labor process. Evolution has no preference for pain or difficulty it seems. But wouldn't it be more logical that women who give birth without any problems would be auto-selected to have a higher survival rate and their offspring would carry the genes that make giving birth easier?

Today we see this labor process as a disease, a risk and we force women into hospitals where they are subjected to a medical procedure to give birth, no longer a natural process but an assisted removing of a what is almost a cancerous tumor that needs to be removed quickly and safely.

If evolution is about procreation, which ultimately it is, it is a wonder we made it to be the dominant species. Surely an egg hatching species would be better equiped? Fewer things may go wrong laying an egg. The fetus safe from infections and so on in a shell.

Something is pushing through, no matter what and it cares not about risks associated with any form of procreation and giving birth. And it cares little about genetics in that way. If genetics somehow allow life to come through, it will use that as a means to do so.

And what it is, is consciousness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Did humans evolve from chimpanzees due to psilocybin mushroom use? *UPDATED 09/05/2009* PookztA 4,245 19 09/05/09 08:02 PM
by zouden
* Was Lamarck Just a Little Bit Right? Silversoul 2,014 5 04/08/07 05:56 PM
by Silversoul
* Evolution question... lamarboarder1 1,228 7 10/09/05 09:17 AM
by phi1618
* Why evolution is ignorant of simple biology
( 1 2 3 all )
Buckeye Oysters 4,002 57 12/04/10 01:53 PM
by EntheogenicPeace
* Immaculate Conception! DiploidM 767 1 12/22/06 05:44 PM
by Silversoul
* WHY has life evolved?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
RebelSteve33 15,444 112 11/11/06 10:43 PM
by Ravus
* If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? user1837483975 2,178 15 04/23/12 02:25 PM
by Cyclohexylamine
* Riddle me this shroomery... sandman_130 742 16 03/29/09 04:19 PM
by zouden

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
2,337 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.