Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: A new spin on the “Stoned Ape Hypothesis”
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://bigthink.com/the-past/a-new-spin...ypothesis/

KEY POINTS: In 1992, the ethnobotanist Terence McKenna proposed the controversial “Stoned Ape Hypothesis,” which argued that psilocybin mushrooms long ago helped spark rapid evolution in human cognition, consciousness, and culture. One key objection to the hypothesis is that psychedelic-induced changes can’t be inherited genetically. Cognitive neuroscientist and journalist Bobby Azarian proposes an update to McKenna’s theory, arguing that psilocybin triggered useful worldview shifts that “went viral” and ultimately reshaped society.

EXCERPT: . . . Now, we’re ready to state the two claims of the New Stoned Ape Theory. The first is that psychedelics act as chemical catalysts for cognitive phase transitions, or sudden changes in cognitive architecture that precipitate radical new insights or shifts in worldview. By increasing neural entropy, psychedelics create a state of heightened plasticity where entrenched beliefs and cognitive patterns become more malleable. Like a kaleidoscope suddenly rearranging its fragments to reveal an entirely new pattern, the mind undergoes a rapid reorganization, coalescing around a novel perspective that fundamentally transforms one’s worldview and sense of self.

The second claim is that because these paradigm shifts produce insights that are useful or interesting, they don’t remain isolated within individuals. Instead, the new perspective or worldview spreads as a meme, a unit of cultural transmission that propagates through society, reshaping the cognitive systems they inhabit through a subtle but potentially powerful restructuring of neural connectivity patterns. If the psychedelic-inspired idea or worldview spreads sufficiently fast and far, it may become part of the zeitgeist and reshape the collective consciousness through cultural evolution.

To summarize the theory in a sentence: Psychedelics, as “worldview shifters,” can create a cognitive phase transition whose spread creates a social phase transition — a shift in culture. It’s that simple!

Using the same logic of the Entropic Brain Hypothesis at a higher scale of agent, the social organism, we can presume that social phase transitions are more likely to occur during times of chaos — only not in a neural sense but rather a social context, such as periods of civil unrest and war. This further suggests that psychedelics become cognitive tools for cultural movements that become revolutions — by producing worldview-shaping solutions in times of existential threat. This means that only a very small subset of any given population needs to directly experience chemically induced altered states to spark a social phase transition, because the psychedelic-inspired ideas spread to receptive minds without the need for drugs.

The psychedelic movement of the 1960s illustrates this phenomenon nicely; despite its relatively brief duration, it had a profound and lasting impact on culture, art, science, and social values. Many of the ideas about spirituality, environmental awareness, and the evils of war that were central to the psychedelic counterculture became mainstream. Even the way of dressing, the atmosphere of music, and the way people spoke changed essentially overnight. A whole new “cultural vibe” was birthed from the psychedelic era that is still very much with us today.

In this version of the Stoned Ape Theory, there is no longer the problem of explaining how drug-induced cognitive changes became heritable genetic changes, or how such changes spread across the entire human species. You no longer have: 1) the far-fetched-sounding story of mind-altering substances somehow becoming part of the typical human diet, and then for some reason largely dying out; and 2) you don’t need to rely too heavily on poorly understood evolutionary mechanisms, like epigenetics and the Baldwin effect. While those mechanisms are certainly still part of the evolutionary story, the shift to an explanation that emphasizes the causal role of cultural evolution bypasses much if not all of the earlier criticism... (MORE - missing details)
Maybe a bit off topic or may be connected….Do you think that the result of stoned apes gaining cognitive skills, intelligence, consciousness et al is responsible for the fact humans have large brains/skulls? For instance a baby chimp can function like a miniature adult shortly after birth, but the human baby needs some time to develop. A human mother does not possess the right machinery to deliver the large head required, so in actuality humans evolved to give birth early, before becoming something mobile like a baby chimp.

I was thinking maybe mind altering diets can initiate mutation much quicker. Figure need a bigger brain to keep all in. IOW we’re all premature….idk
(Oct 25, 2024 07:27 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe a bit off topic or may be connected….Do you think that the result of stoned apes gaining cognitive skills, intelligence, consciousness et al is responsible for the fact humans have large brains/skulls? For instance a baby chimp can function like a miniature adult shortly after birth, but the human baby needs some time to develop. A human mother does not possess the right machinery to deliver the large head required, so in actuality humans evolved to give birth early, before becoming something mobile like a baby chimp.

I was thinking maybe mind altering diets can initiate mutation much quicker. Figure need a bigger brain to keep all in. IOW we’re all premature….idk

With respect to the topic itself (getting that out of the way, first): I don't know if there was enough of a "society" a hundred thousand years ago (with widespread norms) to be altered by cultural memes and rituals that were psilocybin in origin.

Human brains in the past were supposedly larger than they are today. So lots of meat in the skull was already the case when STA theory (new or old) begins applying. And, of course, even the original hypothesis doesn't seem to have advocated that psychotropic substances enlarged the brain over time, but brought about neurocognitive alterations in the structure.

But neoteny itself (alone) could certainly be on the right track in other ways (as well as the "big head to body" ratio in infants being applicable).

In chimps, mating receptivity is primarily visual, rather than pheromonal. So one could assume likewise with respect to the ancestors of archaic humans. That they were hung up on aesthetic appearances, which eventually became selective.

They may have been attracted to members with slightly juvenile features, causing a species to incrementally increase in development along that route. Which would also account for some degree of atavistic pedophilia in modern humans (sometimes only deterred by law and social stigma consequences).

Other reasons for the "how and why" of growing brain size, though:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-human...-20151110/

The underlying logic is straightforward: Human brain evolution likely required a metabolic trade-off. In order for the brain to grow, other organs, namely the gut, had to shrink, and energy that would typically have gone to the latter was redirected to the former. For evidence, they pointed to data showing that primates with larger brains have smaller intestines.

A few years later, the anthropologist Richard Wrangham built on this idea, arguing that the invention of cooking was crucial to human brain evolution. Soft, cooked foods are much easier to digest than tough raw ones, yielding more calories for less gastrointestinal work. Perhaps, then, learning to cook permitted a bloating of the human brain at the expense of the gut. Other researchers have proposed that similar trade-offs might have occurred between brain and muscle, given how much stronger chimps are than humans.