Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by mistermann | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mistermann

See also Terence Mckenna's stoned ape theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#%22Stoned_ape%...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnEKoFrx1rI

Yes it's "a little" out there, but I think it's actually quite plausible.

View on HN

It's certainly interesting, but what is the explanation for how consuming Psilocybe mushrooms could have effects across generations? Is it that an organism having had that experience might have altered behavior leading to advantages in natural/sexual selection? Or that psilocybin literally alters something physiological or [epi]genetic? Basically how could psilocybin cause a permanent (since it has persisted long after humans stopped frequently consuming psilocybin, assuming that was ever a thing), multigenerational increase in intelligence over a very long period of time?

I think the theory kind of relies on the notion that there are certain 'inductive leaps' which are hard for the natural mind to make independently, but this knowledge can then be socially transmitted after induction with relative ease. Ex. "Rubbing sticks together a certain way makes fire" is fairly hard to discover with no a priori knowledge, but if demonstrated the meme propagates quickly.

Whether psychedelics are actually effective at producing 'inductive leaps' is something that is under-researched as a result of legal status. There were some very interesting study results around this from the 60s, but more research is needed (many used subjective measures). How can inductive leaps be quantified? Perhaps some sort of expert-peer-grading?

Well the simplest explanation is the classic nature vs. nurture, paired with selective breeding. If you are raised by hippie shroom eating chimp parents, you'll probably be attracted to a different sort of mate than if you are raised in a warrior clan. This sort of taming can happen within 3-4 generations and have permanent effects.

Dmitry Belyayev was able to produce a tame variety of the red fox within 4 generations of breeding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Belyayev_(zoologist)#Be...

It's not at all clear to me that humans, ancient or modern, are tamer than other great apes. Chimps in particular are notoriously violent (have you ever seen that picture of a shaved ape? That thing could tear you to shreds!), however other great apes are significantly more pleasant. Also modern humans have an incredible capacity for violence, and there is a lot of archeological evidence to suggest that ancient humans did as well.

He was also able to anti-tame them quite quickly as well.

I have a feeling an alien human researcher would say the same about us if they had witnessed a Walmart on a black Friday.

What takes foxes a number of generations to change, corporations can change in people just by altering incentives. This is the double edged sword of intelligence.

Demonstrating how we can "play god", to some degree, in some circumstances. Kinda makes you wonder if humans might be capable of more than the current state of affairs on this planet.

I would argue (and I think TM would agree) that the effects on the evolution of human society would be many times more important than any biological changes in individuals.

Saw that recently...it's cool, but there's no actual evidence that psilocybin has any of the positive evolutionary effects that Mckenna hypothesizes.

Sourcing evidence from prehistoric times is notoriously difficult. What we do know (or think we know, to be more accurate) is often pieced together from archeological finds and correlations of semi-related "facts" from various scientific fields, forming a theoretical model of "how things used to be". We do not know how accurate our models are (each person has their own).

> low doses of psilocybin improve visual acuity, particularly edge detection, meaning that the presence of psilocybin in the diet of early pack hunting primates caused the individuals who were consuming psilocybin mushrooms to be better hunters than those who were not, resulting in an increased food supply and in turn a higher rate of reproductive success.

> Then at slightly higher doses, he contended, the mushroom acts to sexually arouse, leading to a higher level of attention, more energy in the organism, and potential erection in the males, rendering it even more evolutionarily beneficial, as it would result in more offspring.

> At even higher doses, McKenna proposed that the mushroom would have acted to "dissolve boundaries," promoting community bonding and group sexual activities.

> At these higher doses, McKenna also argued that psilocybin would be triggering activity in the "language-forming region of the brain", manifesting as music and visions, thus catalyzing the emergence of language in early hominids by expanding "their arboreally evolved repertoire of troop signals."

I'm not saying we don't have evidence for what happened in prehistoric times. As you said, that's hard. But the above is the outline of Mckenna's theory, taken from wikipedia. My point, is that he makes a number of claims as to the effects of psilocybin - see above - and none of those claims of what the drug can do are backed up by evidence.

I assume that Mckenna may have been speaking from personal experience, that the drug improves visual acuity and can sexually arouse, but there's no evidence for it.

I always thought he was putting way more emphasis on the "visual acuity" part than it deserved, maybe he was grasping for something from the material science world to be able to include.

> that the drug improves visual acuity and can sexually arouse, but there's no evidence for it.

If you're referring to formal, peer reviewed studies, of course not. But the sexual arousal and community bonding aspects I'd say there's plenty of anecdotal information consistent with the possibility. This of course in no way proves that his theory has any validity to it on a historic basis, but it at least doesn't rule it out as being impossible.

The whole theory is best taken with a healthy quantity of salt (and it's best to listen to audio of it), but it is a really interesting theory/prediction. One's opinion of the plausibility is likely proportional to their experience with psychedelics, those with a lack of experience would likely have some difficulty with the "how" part.

> I'm not saying we don't have evidence for what happened in prehistoric times. As you said, that's hard. But the above is the outline of Mckenna's theory, taken from wikipedia. My point, is that he makes a number of claims as to the effects of psilocybin - see above - and none of those claims of what the drug can do are backed up by evidence.

So, what you're saying is that it's state-of-the-art work in the burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology.

No. I'm saying that the effects of psilocybin claimed by Mckenna, and which are required for his theory, do not exist. Specifically, for example, psilocybin actually reduces vision, rather than improving it [1] : which invalidates Mckennas first quoted point above.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01965761

This isn't a question of "evolutionary psychology", but of neuroscience.

Am I following correctly?:

- psilocybin has been proven to reduce vision capabilities under all circumstances, and this is conclusively proven in that report?

- each of his contributing sub-theories must have been true (all are pre-requisites) for his overall theory to have some unrealized truth to it?

- there are conclusive studies demonstrating it is not possible for psilocybin to effect evolutionary psychology?

Just trying to get a clear understanding of what you are saying, and what you are not. Typing is such a low-bandwidth medium.

EDIT: -1, gosh I find it frustrating how difficult it seems to be to communicate with others on certain topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20042550

"The Dude" just 100,000 years earlier?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com