Tuesday, September 07, 2010

The Dalai Lama - Consciousness or Mind is Beginningless


LIGHTING THE WAY
by the Dalai Lama,
translated by Geshe Thupten Jinpa

more...

Dalai Lama Quote of the Week

The essential point about this condition of potentiality is that, although there is a causal relationship between the physical world and the world of mental phenomena, in terms of their own continuum one cannot be said to be the cause of the other. A mental phenomenon, such as a thought or an emotion, must come from a preceding mental phenomenon; likewise, a particle of matter must come from a preceding particle of matter.

Of course, there is an intimate relationship between the two. We know that mental states can influence material phenomena, such as the body; and, similarly, that material phenomena can act as contributory factors for certain subjective experiences. This is something that we can observe in our lives. Much of our gross level of consciousness is very closely connected to our body, and in fact we often use terminology and conventions which reflect this.

For example, when we say 'human mind' or 'human consciousness' we are using the human body as the basis to define a particular mind state. Likewise, at the gross levels of mind such as our sensory experiences, it is very obvious that these are heavily dependent upon our body and some physiological states. When a part of our body is hurt or damaged, for instance, we immediately experience the impact on our mental state. Nevertheless, the principle remains that mental phenomena must come from preceding phenomena of the same kind, and so on.

If we trace mental phenomena back far enough, as in the case of an individual's life, we come to the first instant of consciousness in this life. Once we have traced its continuum to this point of beginning, we then have three options: we can either say that the first instant of consciousness in this life must come from a preceding instant of consciousness which existed in the previous life. Or we can say that this first instant of consciousness came from nowhere--it just sort of 'popped up'. Or we can say that it came from a material cause.

From the Buddhist point of view, the last two alternatives are deeply problematic. The Buddhist understanding is that, in terms of its continuum, consciousness or mind is beginningless. Mental phenomena are beginningless. Therefore, the person or the being--which is essentially a designation based on the continuum of the mind--is also devoid of beginning.

--from Lighting the Way by the Dalai Lama, translated by Geshe Thupten Jinpa, published by Snow Lion Publications

Lighting the Way • 5O% off • for this week only
(Good through September 10th).


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Buddhist Geeks #187: Non-Meditation and the Nature of Thought (Robert Spellman)

Excellent - this is an area of my practice where I struggle sometimes. Rather than relaxing my mind and settling into spaciousness, it can feel like I am at war with the monkey mind.

Buddhist Geeks 187: Non-Meditation and the Nature of Thought

BG 187: Non-Meditation and the Nature of Thought

06. Sep, 2010 by Robert Spellman

Episode Description:

“You need not make efforts to create non-conceptuality. You need not regard thoughts as a fault. And so that your practice does not succumb to famine, from the beginning have a bountiful crop. Not searching for a state that is calmly resting, vividly clear, and filled with bliss, bring into your experience whatever arises without taking it up or discarding it.” – Orgyenpa

We’re joined again this week by one of our favorite Buddhist Geeks, Robert Spellman. In our discussion with him, we delve into the often tenuous relationship that meditators have to their own thoughts. Robert shares a profound teaching from a 13th century Tibetan teacher, Orgyenpa, on how to relate to the thinking mind. He also talks about the difficulty in getting personally identified with insights, and explores what is meant by “non-meditation.” For those meditators out there who are interested in having a more empowering and healthy relationship to their own minds, this promises to be a very interesting interview.

Episode Links:

Transcript

has contributed 4 posts on Buddhist Geeks.

Robert Spellman is a professional visual artist and meditation teacher. Since 1993 he has been teaching painting, drawing and watercolor both privately and at Naropa University in Boulder, Colorado, where he is a associate professor in both the visual arts and religious studies departments. Teaching requires repeated examination of his life as an artist. This has been edifying: a greater sense of purpose is emerging. In 1996 painter Joan Anderson and Robert co-founded Mountain Water, an artists’ retreat in rural southern Colorado where they continue to explore the interface of artistic disciplines and meditation. The artistic forms that evolve over centuries contain the wisdom of a culture. When these essential forms are learned and embodied, their infinite reconfiguration provides up-to-date richness, clarity and guidance for oneself and others on the most profound levels.

Website: RobertSpellman.com


TEDxGöteborg - Gustaf Gredebäck - The Mirror Neuron System: Understanding Others as Oneself

I found this interesting lecture at Neuroscene's podcast, Intrepid Insights.
Gustaf Gredebäck is an Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology, Uppsala University where he manages the Uppsala Babylab. His research span several topics including occulomotor development, social cognition, and object representations in infancy. Central to his research is the active infant, that perceive, interpret, and interact with his/her physical and social environment in a goal directed and future oriented manner.

About TEDx, x=independently organize event
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x=independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)




Philosophy TV - Jamie Dreier and Mark Schroeder on Competing Accounts of Moral Truth and Moral Disagreement

Cool discussion - not only do they discuss the issue of conflicting metaethics and truth claims, but they frame the discussion in the context of three ethical perspectives: relativism, contextualism, and expressivism.

Jamie Dreier and Mark Schroeder


Jamie Dreier (left) and Mark Schroeder (right) on metaethical contextualism, expressivism, and relativism.

Why are we motivated to do what we believe to be morally right? Relativism, contextualism, and expressivism provide straightforward answers to that question. But each of these views must face its own distinctive challenges. Dreier and Schroeder provide a guided tour of those challenges with a focus on problems arising from competing accounts of moral truth and moral disagreement. They finish by addressing a meta-metaethical question: Are disagreements between rival metaethicists substantive?

Related works

by Dreier:
Expressivist Embeddings and Minimalist Truth” (1994)
Transforming Expressivism” (1999)
Relativism (and Expressivism) and the Problem of Disagreement” (2009)
PEA Soup: A Contextualist Solution to a Puzzle about ‘Ought’s and ‘If’s (2010)

by Schroeder:
How Expressivists Can and Should Solve Their Problem with Negation” (2008)
Expression for Expressivists” (2008)
Hybrid Expressivism: Virtues and Vices” (2009)
Being For (2010)

See also:
Experimental Philosophy: Hagop Sarkissian, Are People Actually Moral Objectivists?
Andy Egan, “Relativism about epistemic modals” (2010)

More video:
Mark Schroeder and Will Wilkinson (BhTV)

To download this episode of Philosophy TV right click here and select “save link as” to download a .mp4 version of this conversation. If your mobile device supports .mp4 streaming, clicking that link will allow you stream the video.


Monday, September 06, 2010

JAMA - Moderate Doses of Psilocybin Reduce Anxiety and Depression in Advanced-Stage Cancer Patients

File:Psilocybe Cubensis.JPG

More support for the therapeutic use of psilocybin (and other hallucinogens) for anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. This comes from the Archives of General Psychiatry, a publication of the American Medical Association, so it's as mainstream as it gets.

Pilot Study of Psilocybin Treatment for Anxiety in Patients With Advanced-Stage Cancer

Charles S. Grob, MD; Alicia L. Danforth, MA; Gurpreet S. Chopra, MD; Marycie Hagerty, RN, BSN, MA; Charles R. McKay, MD; Adam L. Halberstadt, PhD; George R. Greer, MD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. Published online September 6, 2010. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.116

ABSTRACT

Context Researchers conducted extensive investigations of hallucinogens in the 1950s and 1960s. By the early 1970s, however, political and cultural pressures forced the cessation of all projects. This investigation reexamines a potentially promising clinical application of hallucinogens in the treatment of anxiety reactive to advanced-stage cancer.

Objective To explore the safety and efficacy of psilocybin in patients with advanced-stage cancer and reactive anxiety.

Design A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients with advanced-stage cancer and anxiety, with subjects acting as their own control, using a moderate dose (0.2 mg/kg) of psilocybin.

Setting A clinical research unit within a large public sector academic medical center.

Participants Twelve adults with advanced-stage cancer and anxiety.

Main Outcome Measures In addition to monitoring safety and subjective experience before and during experimental treatment sessions, follow-up data including results from the Beck Depression Inventory, Profile of Mood States, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were collected unblinded for 6 months after treatment.

Results Safe physiological and psychological responses were documented during treatment sessions. There were no clinically significant adverse events with psilocybin. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory trait anxiety subscale demonstrated a significant reduction in anxiety at 1 and 3 months after treatment. The Beck Depression Inventory revealed an improvement of mood that reached significance at 6 months; the Profile of Mood States identified mood improvement after treatment with psilocybin that approached but did not reach significance.

Conclusions This study established the feasibility and safety of administering moderate doses of psilocybin to patients with advanced-stage cancer and anxiety. Some of the data revealed a positive trend toward improved mood and anxiety. These results support the need for more research in this long-neglected field.

Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00302744

The dose used was pretty small - for me, at 185 lbs, it would have been about 17 mgs. When I was using, I would often consume small dose of 3.5 grams of Psilocybe cubensis, which have an average psilocybin content of about 0.65 percent per gram, giving me a dose of about 23 mgs. Often, I used as much as 7 grams of dried mushrooms, providing 46 milligrams of the drug, so 17 mgs is a good conservative dose, through enough to produce effects in a novice.

Interestingly, of 10 subjects, 8 had prior hallucinogen experience in their lives.

Finally, this is from the discussion:

Although past researchers reported more pronounced therapeutic effects with a higher-dose model, even the lower dose of psilocybin used in the current study gave some indication of therapeutic benefit in quantitative psychological evaluations. In particular, we found that the STAI trait anxiety subscale demonstrated a sustained reduction in anxiety that reached significance at the 1- and 3-month points after treatment. This reduction might reflect a reduced level of stress and anxiety over time. Although the state anxiety on the STAI showed a modest elevation at 6 months, the change was not statistically significant and might have resulted from the deteriorating medical status of most subjects over time.

Mood also improved for 2 weeks after treatment with psilocybin, with sustained improvement on the BDI reaching significance at the 6-month follow-up point. The POMS scores also reflected improved mood 2 weeks after receiving psilocybin. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward positive outcome. With a larger cohort of subjects and use of a higher dose of psilocybin, it seems possible that significant results would be obtained on these measures.
Good to see.


NPR - Evolving Culture: Where Do We Go From Here?

Cool segment - I agree that genetics drove our early evolution, along with the environment. And as the piece states, for the last 10,000 years or so, culture has been the primary driver of evolutionary change, which manifests at the genetic level through epigenetics.

My guess is that the next stage will be one of two things: (1) Worst case: economic or environmental disaster will shape the next stage of our existence, and not for the better, or (2) Best case: technology will drive us toward ever more complex levels of complexity.

A male musk ox stands in a paddock at the Large Animal Research Station in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Enlarge Jane Greenhalgh/NPR

Hide And Seek? A male musk ox stands in a paddock at the Large Animal Research Station in Fairbanks, Alaska. The musk ox is genetically adapted to survive the harsh climate. Its long hair skirt, covering a fine wool coat and a 2-inch layer of fat, allows the animal to retain heat during the long, lean winters. All animals, except humans, adapt to climate by changing genetically.

For billions of years, the environment and how it affected organisms' genes was the key to evolution. But in the past 10,000 years, for humans at least, genetic evolution has been nudged aside by something more powerful.

"What we are able to do which other animals aren't able to do is to rapidly adapt to completely new environments," says Robert Boyd, an anthropologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Most animals — all animals except humans — would have to adapt to that by changing genetically."

Humans Adapt With Their Wits

Think about it. Let's say you want to live in Fairbanks, Alaska. If you're a musk ox, you can't build a shelter or buy insulations, so you make your own.

"They have a very, very superfine sort of wool that's underneath a long skirt of hair," says biologist Perry Barboza, director of the Large Animal Research Station, a part of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. "That provides an enormous amount of insulation. And on top of that, or beneath that, they have about 2 inches fat as well."

But musk ox can only survive in one kind of environment. Transport them to the desert, and they die within days because they don't have the physiology to get rid of excess heat.

Humans can live anywhere they like: in Fairbanks, where the winters get to 40 below zero, or Dubai, where the summers are routinely 100 and above. The reason is we don't have to make genetic adaptations to our environments in order to survive.

Cold Weather Survival

Native Alaskan cultures created incredibly innovative tools and techniques to enable survival in the frozen, inhospitable climate. Click through the photos below to see some of the clothing and tools that gave them a uniquely Human Edge.

"You could say that one of the most important tools for [humans] surviving in the north is the needle," says Aron Crowell, who is Alaska Director of the Smithsonian's Arctic Studies Center. The earliest humans used those needles to sew warm, waterproof clothing: fur jackets, sealskin boots and waterproof parkas.

Eskimos don't have a gene that tells them how to make a parka. That ability comes from cultural knowledge passed from generation to generation. Sure, we needed to evolve a brain that could conceive of the idea of using seal intestines to make a waterproof parka, but Boyd says having a big brain is just the start.

"It's easy to see that it's not individual intelligence that makes us so good at adapting," he says. "It's an important component, but we also need the ability to accumulate knowledge gradually over a whole population of people over hundreds or maybe even thousands of years."

The Franklin Expedition in the mid-1800s exemplifies this concept well, Boyd says. On May 19, 1845, two ships set out from England in search of the Northwest Passage through the Arctic. Neither returned. Almost 15 years later, a search party found a single sheet of paper left in a tin can covered by stones on King William Island in the Canadian Arctic.

28 of May 1847 … Having wintered in 1846-7 at Beechey Island … after having ascended Wellington Channel and returned by the West side of Cornwallis Island. Sir John Franklin commanding the Expedition. All well.

But scribbled in the margins of the paper was a more ominous note.

Sir John Franklin died on the 11th June, 1847, and the total loss by deaths in the Expedition has been to this date 9 officers & 15 men.

In the end, all perished, but not before the starving crew apparently resorted to cannibalism. Boyd says the irony is that there were Canadian Eskimos living near where the ships became frozen in the ice, and the Eskimos survived the harsh winter just fine.

"The difference was the English sailors didn't have the knowledge to live in the Arctic, and they couldn't figure it out on their own," he says.

Sharing Knowledge

For the past 10,000 years, it's been cultural changes that have shaped how humans have evolved and coped with their environments — not genetic changes.

And just as geneticists have been looking at ancient DNA to see how new genes emerged and spread, anthropologists and archaeologists are trying to do the same for the emergence and transmission of new skills.

Archaeologist Ben Potter of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, spends a lot of time visiting ancient sites of human habitation throughout the state. He says you can think of them like a laboratory to understand how humans coped "when they're pushed to their limit, or when they are approaching an environment that they're not equipped for biologically."

Ten-thousand years ago, the latest development in arrowheads or stone microblades would be passed from parent to child or tribe to tribe. Now, the way cultural information is transmitted has changed dramatically. UCLA's Boyd says that today there are institutions whose whole function is to be engaged in cultural transmission.

"Schools, religious institutions and other kinds of associations — and then there are things like NPR who transmit to zillions of people," he says.

There's a torrent of cultural knowledge flowing over us all the time, and we get to decide how to use that knowledge to shape our future.

"Where it's going to go? Your guess is as good as mine," he says.

Wherever it goes, if we don't like the outcome, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

This story was produced by Jane Greenhalgh.


Robert Wright Does a Meditation Retreat

Interesting . . . . Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God, among many other fine books, has a new article in the New York Times' Opinionator column. He talks about his recent one-week meditation retreat - and it's not his first one (which I did not know).

It's nice to see people like Sam Harris and Robert Wright, among others, promoting meditation and mindfulness practice. These people have influence, and they can bring others to the practice. Each new person who begins down the path is one more possibility for a more compassionate world (yes, I am an optimist).

Mind the Grid

Robert Wright

Robert Wright on culture, politics and world affairs.

Not that you asked, but my fingernails are longer than they’ve been in a while. I just spent a week off the grid — no World Wide Web, no e-mail, no cell phone, no landline — and at some point I seem to have quit biting my nails.

But before you get envious: in addition to unplugging from the wired world, I plugged into a regimen that isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. I was at a silent meditation retreat. My fellow yogis and I did about five hours of sitting meditation each day and five hours of walking meditation. Then each night we listened to a talk about the context of all this: the Buddhist worldview.

So I’ve failed to control my variables. Who knows how much of my newfound calm is due to escaping modern technology and how much is due to immersing myself in an ancient discipline?

On the other hand, there’s an illuminating synergy between the two. A week of silent meditation can help highlight how technology keeps us in its grip, and what some of the costs of our ongoing surrender are.

Like many meditation retreats, this one emphasized “mindfulness,” which involves a calm focus on the present moment — much the kind of focus that is said to be endangered by the infinite regress of distractions and disruptions brought to us by digital technology. And this awareness of the moment includes awareness of your internal states; you’re supposed to carefully examine your thoughts, your feelings, your reactions. So when you come back from a retreat and plug your newly mindful mind into the grid, the subtle sources of the grid’s power seem more salient.

Take Paris Hilton, for example. When I fired up my computer to catch up on the news I’d missed, I saw a headline saying she’d been arrested for cocaine possession. I felt something urge me to click on the headline. I examined that something and found it to be a certain low-key delight in misfortunes that befall rich and famous people who seem (from afar, at least) really gross.

I’m happy to say that this schadenfreude wasn’t overwhelming, and I resisted the temptation to click — until I saw, right under the headline, “(video).” Thinking someone had captured her arrest with a cell phone camera, I felt a medium-sized desire to witness her humiliation. I wrestled with the desire. I lost. I clicked. What a sucker! It was just video of some news anchor’s report on the arrest. I felt annoyed, even cheated, by this misleading labeling. Grievance welled up within.

Maybe Buddha’s time off the grid gave him enough critical distance from certain emotions to discover his formula for liberation from them.

In the space of only a few minutes, the grid had sent a succession of emotions coursing through my body, none that I’m especially proud of. And I feel especially not proud of them right after a meditation retreat, which grants enough critical distance from your feelings to highlight their frequent pointlessness, if not absurdity.

Of course, the grid also stirs positive emotions, and I won’t here join the debate over whether the good it does outweighs the bad. My point is just how frequently and often subtly it activates our emotions, period. Next time you’re about to click on a headline, pause to see if there’s some feeling urging you on — outrage over a heinous crime; satisfaction that some culprit is being brought to justice; the tribalistic joy that leads you to read about a Yankees win or (if you’re a Mets fan) a Yankees loss; the alluring anticipation of vindication or reassurance when an op-ed seems likely to support your worldview; the well-founded trust that a columnist you dislike will say things that confirm his or her worthlessness.

E-mail, too, plays on your emotions. How often do you click on an e-mail without some degree — however small — of such feelings as tentative hope or eager anticipation, mild anxiety or even dread? And because your inbox is the portal to so much virtual human contact, it can exert a collective pull. Sometimes when I feel the urge to check in, and then realize I don’t have my iPhone, I have small but discernible feelings of loss or sorrow. (And my iPhone doesn’t even have a Facebook app!)

Of course, none of these emotions are modern inventions. It’s just that the grid messes with them on a whole new scale. Via e-mail, a brain designed for a small and intimate social environment enters a much bigger universe of people, whose sometimes consequential communication arrives unpredictably. And when we move from e-mail to the Web, we face a medium so vivid and interactive as to offer a tool of seduction with unprecedented power.

A particular problem for me is techno-lust. The Web makes it so easy to window shop! I won’t tell you how much time I’ve spent cyber-evaluating the Blackberry Torch and the Palm Pre (some of it on my iPhone). This research hasn’t yet resulted in a purchase, but it has ensured that ads for cell phones follow me all over the Web, and this in turn has triggered a broader research program that is now entering its penultimate phase: After considering several alternatives, I’ve again narrowed it down to the Blackberry Torch and the Palm Pre.

So there you go: covetousness, schadenfreude, anxiety, dread, and on and on. It’s the frequent fruitlessness of such feelings that the Buddha is said to have pondered after he unplugged from the social grid of his day — that is, the people he lived around — and wandered off to reckon with the human predicament. Maybe his time off the grid gave him enough critical distance from these emotions to discover his formula for liberation from them. In any event, it’s because the underlying emotions haven’t changed, and because the grid conveys and elicits them with such power, that his formula holds appeal for many people even, and perhaps especially, today.

Personally, I’m a fan of the formula, or at least of the version of it I’ve seen on modern American meditation retreats. If this column hasn’t featured lush praise for it, that’s partly because I’ve already written rapturously — a year ago, on this very Web site — about a previous retreat. But it’s also because I don’t want to oversell the program. The serenity tends to fade once you plug back into the grid. Sustaining even modest mindfulness in the modern world is a challenge.

But I’m working on it, trying to keep living in the moment. I meditated this morning. My fingernails remain impressive. And I’m totally over that Paris Hilton thing — it was just a momentary lapse.

Postscript: If you’re interested in the details: the retreat I attended was in Massachusetts, at the Insight Meditation Society, which teaches in the Vipassana tradition. (A prominent Vipassana retreat center on the West Coast is Spirit Rock.) The teachers at this particular retreat were Narayan Liebenson Grady and Michael Liebenson Grady of the Cambridge Insight Meditation Center. (I’m a little reluctant to disclose even these bare details, as there’s a kind of implied intimacy at these retreats that I wouldn’t want to violate, but since I’ve said virtually nothing about the retreat itself, my conscience is fairly clear.)


Sam Harris - The Moral Landscape: Thinking About Human Values in Universal Terms

Sam Harris has a new book coming out soon (October 5), The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values - and so he has been doing some of the obligatory promotion, including this piece from Huffington Post. I wish he would do some serious neuroscience - that's how he can make a difference in the world.

Personally, I don't think Harris and his cohort are going to get very far telling people their god does not exist and that their morality is better to have come from science than their religion, but it's fun to watch the spectacle.

The Moral Landscape: Thinking About Human Values in Universal Terms

Sam Harris, Author, Neuroscientist

The following is a series of 12 questions relating to my forthcoming book, The Moral Landscape, and my answers to them.

1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?

Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world -- and there clearly are -- then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

2. Are you saying that science can answer such questions?

Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors -- ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.

3. But can't moral claims be in conflict? Aren't there many situations in which one person's happiness means another's suffering?

There are some circumstances like this, and we call these contests "zero-sum." Generally speaking, however, the most important moral occasions are not like this. If we could eliminate war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse, etc. -- these changes would be good, on balance, for everyone. There are surely neurobiological, psychological, and sociological reasons why this is so -- which is to say that science could potentially tell us exactly why a phenomenon like child abuse diminishes human well-being.

But we don't have to wait for science to do this. We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience.

4. What if some people simply have different notions about what is truly important in life? How could science tell us that the actions of the Taliban are in fact immoral, when the Taliban think they are behaving morally?

As I discuss in my book, there may be different ways for people to thrive, but there are clearly many more ways for them not to thrive. The Taliban are a perfect example of a group of people who are struggling to build a society that is obviously less good than many of the other societies on offer. Afghan women have a 12% literacy rate and a life expectancy of 44 years. Afghanistan has nearly the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world. It also has one of the highest birthrates. Consequently, it is one of the best places on earth to watch women and infants die. And Afghanistan's GDP is currently lower than the world's average was in the year 1820. It is safe to say that the optimal response to this dire situation -- that is to say, the most moral response -- is not to throw battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read. This may seem like common sense to us -- and it is -- but I am saying that it is also, at bottom, a claim about biology, psychology, sociology, and economics. It is not, therefore, unscientific to say that the Taliban are wrong about morality. In fact, we must say this, the moment we admit that we know anything at all about human well-being.

5. But what if the Taliban simply have different goals in life?

Well, the short answer is -- they don't. They are clearly seeking happiness in this life, and, more importantly, they imagine that they are securing it in a life to come. They believe that they will enjoy an eternity of happiness after death by following the strictest interpretation of Islamic law here on earth. This is also a claim about which science should have an opinion -- as it is almost certainly untrue. There is no question, however, that the Taliban are seeking well-being, in some sense -- they just have some very strange beliefs about how to attain it.

In my book, I try to spell out why moral disagreements do not put the concept of moral truth in jeopardy. In the moral sphere, as in all others, some people don't know what they are missing. In fact, I suspect that most of us don't know what we are missing: It must be possible to change human experience in ways that would uncover levels of human flourishing that most of us cannot imagine. In every area of genuine discovery, there are horizons past which we cannot see.

6. What do you mean when you talk about a "moral landscape"?

This is the phrase I use to describe the space of all possible experience -- where the peaks correspond to the heights of well-being and valleys represent the worst possible suffering. We are all someplace on this landscape, faced with the prospect of moving up or down. Given that our experience is fully constrained by the laws of the universe, there must be scientific answers to the question of how best to move upwards, toward greater happiness.

This is not to say that there is only one right way for human beings to live. There might be many peaks on this landscape -- but there are clearly many ways not to be on a peak.

7. How could science guide us on the moral landscape?

In so far as we can understand human well-being, we will understand the conditions that best secure it. Some are obvious, of course. Positive social emotions like compassion and empathy are generally good for us, and we want to encourage them. But do we know how to most reliably raise children to care about the suffering of other people? I'm not sure we do. Are there genes that make certain people more compassionate than others? What social systems and institutions could maximize our sense of connectedness to the rest of humanity? These questions have answers, and only a science of morality could deliver them.

8. Why is it taboo for a scientist to attempt to answer moral questions?

I think there are two primary reasons why scientists hesitate to do this. The first, and most defensible, is borne of their appreciation for how difficult it is to understand complex systems. Our investigation of the human mind is in its infancy, even after nearly two centuries of studying the brain. So scientists fear that answers to specific questions about human well-being may be very difficult to come by, and confidence on many points is surely premature. This is true. But, as I argue in my book, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a huge mistake.

The second reason is that many scientists have been misled by a combination of bad philosophy and political correctness. This leads them to feel that the only intellectually defensible position to take when in the presence of moral disagreement is to consider all opinions equally valid or equally nonsensical. On one level, this is an understandable and even noble over-correction for our history of racism, ethnocentrism, and imperialism. But it is an over-correction nonetheless. As I try to show in my book, it is not a sign of intolerance for us to notice that some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living.

9. What is the difference between there being no answers in practice and no answers in principle, and why is this distinction important in understanding the relationship between human knowledge and human values?

There are an infinite number of questions that we will never answer, but which clearly have answers. How many fish are there in the world's oceans at this moment? We will never know. And yet, we know that this question, along with an infinite number of questions like it, have correct answers. We simply can't get access to the data in any practical way.

There are many questions about human subjectivity -- and about the experience of conscious creatures generally -- that have this same structure. Which causes more human suffering, stealing or lying? Questions like this are not at all meaningless, in that they must have answers, but it could be hopeless to try to answer them with any precision. Still, once we admit that any discussion of human values must relate to a larger reality in which actual answers exist, we can then reject many answers as obviously wrong. If, in response to the question about the world's fish, someone were to say, "There are exactly a thousand fish in the sea." We know that this person is not worth listening to. And many people who have strong opinions on moral questions have no more credibility than this. Anyone who thinks that gay marriage is the greatest problem of the 21st century, or that women should be forced to live in burqas, is not worth listening to on the subject of morality.

10. What do you think the role of religion is in determining human morality?

I think it is generally an unhelpful one. Religious ideas about good and evil tend to focus on how to achieve well-being in the next life, and this makes them terrible guides to securing it in this one. Of course, there are a few gems to be found in every religious tradition, but insofar as these precepts are wise and useful they are not, in principle, religious. You do not need to believe that the Bible was dictated by the Creator of the Universe, or that Jesus Christ was his son, to see the wisdom and utility of following the Golden Rule.

The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering. Consider the Catholic Church: This is an institution that excommunicates women who want to become priests, but it does not excommunicate male priests who rape children. The Church is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. When we realize that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being, we can see that the Catholic Church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology. It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.

11. So people don't need religion to live an ethical life?

No. And a glance at the lives of most atheists, and at the most atheistic societies on earth -- Denmark, Sweden, etc. -- proves that this is so. Even the faithful can't really get their deepest moral principles from religion -- because books like the Bible and the Qur'an are full of barbaric injunctions that all decent and sane people must now reinterpret or ignore. How is it that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are opposed to slavery? You don't get this moral insight from scripture, because the God of Abraham expects us to keep slaves. Consequently, even religious fundamentalists draw many of their moral positions from a wider conversation about human values that is not, in principle, religious. We are the guarantors of the wisdom we find in scripture, such as it is. And we are the ones who must ignore God when he tells us to kill people for working on the Sabbath.

12. How will admitting that there are right and wrong answers to issues of human and animal flourishing transform the way we think and talk about morality?

What I've tried to do in my book is give a framework in which we can think about human values in universal terms. Currently, the most important questions in human life -- questions about what constitutes a good life, which wars we should fight or not fight, which diseases should be cured first, etc. -- are thought to lie outside the purview of science, in principle. Therefore, we have divorced the most important questions in human life from the context in which our most rigorous and intellectually honest thinking gets done.

Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning. It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values -- allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals -- is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.

Follow Sam Harris on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg



Cultural Neuroscience of the Self: Understanding the Social Grounding of the Brain

This cool article by Shinobu Kitayama and Jiyoung Park comes from Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (2010;5(2):111-129), but was posted in its entirety on Medscape Today. If you are a regular reader, you know this is the kind of stuff I LOVE to read and share.

Cultural Neuroscience of the Self: Understanding the Social Grounding of the Brain

Shinobu Kitayama; Jiyoung Park

Posted: 08/25/2010; Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2010;5(2):111-129. © 2010 Oxford University Press

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

Cultural neuroscience is an interdisciplinary field of research that investigates interrelations among culture, mind and the brain. Drawing on both the growing body of scientific evidence on cultural variation in psychological processes and the recent development of social and cognitive neuroscience, this emerging field of research aspires to understand how culture as an amalgam of values, meanings, conventions, and artifacts that constitute daily social realities might interact with the mind and its underlying brain pathways of each individual member of the culture. In this article, following a brief review of studies that demonstrate the surprising degree to which brain processes are malleably shaped by cultural tools and practices, the authors discuss cultural variation in brain processes involved in self-representations, cognition, emotion and motivation. They then propose (i) that primary values of culture such as independence and interdependence are reflected in the compositions of cultural tasks (i.e. daily routines designed to accomplish the cultural values) and further (ii) that active and sustained engagement in these tasks yields culturally patterned neural activities of the brain, thereby laying the ground for the embodied construction of the self and identity. Implications for research on culture and the brain are discussed.

Introduction

…familiar categories of behavior—marriage customs, food taboos, folk superstitions and so on—certainly do vary across cultures, but the deeper mechanisms of mental computation that generate them may be universal and innate (Pinker, 2002, p. 39).

What Steve Pinker is referring to in this quote is a view of the human mind as an autonomous computational machine. Now a half century old, this view became a dominant metaphor of the mind around the 1950s when a computer was invented. This metaphor presented an appealing possibility that the human mind might also have a set of algorithms that enable it to receive an input and perform intelligent transformations on it (see Posner, 1989 for this history). Ever since then, the computer metaphor has held sway on social and behavioral sciences in general and on psychology in particular. It was central in cognitive psychology (Neisser, 1967), which had important influences on social cognition and social psychology in general (Fiske and Taylor, 1991; Wyer and Srull, 1994).

Any powerful metaphors can highlight issues and research agendas. Such metaphors can therefore contribute to the development of empirical and theoretical knowledge. The computer metaphor is not an exception. The enormous progress the above-noted fields have undergone over the last half century may owe importantly to this single metaphor. At the same time, however, any powerful metaphors, including this one, can also hide and background some other aspects that are equally important and fundamental. We believe that useful as it obviously is, the computer metaphor is limiting in some important ways especially if taken too literally, thereby hampering a further development of the related fields. In particular, the computer metaphor would portray the mind as fixed, bounded and housed neatly in the head, and but for sensory receptors nearly completely insulated from the external environment. However, recent demonstrations of neural plasticity and epigenesis emphasize the significance of experience in brain development by suggesting that non-genetic, environmental factors can lead to dramatic changes in gene expression (e.g. Suomi, 1999; Gunnar et al., 2001; Meaney and Syzf, 2005; Lee et al., 2006). Given this emerging evidence, it has become increasingly clear that 'the mind itself' is significantly influenced by socio-cultural contexts insofar as experience is powerfully organized by culture. This possibility, however, is often back-grounded, underappreciated and thus under-researched within the general theoretical framework informed by the metaphor endorsed by Pinker and many contemporary researchers of the human mind.

A new theoretical framework of cultural neuroscience, which we will suggest later in this article, is intended to restore a much needed balance in emphasis (see Ambady and Bharucha, 2009; Dominguez et al., 2010; Kitayama and Uskul, in press; Kitayama and Tompson, 2010; Losin et al., in press; Malafouris, in press; Seligman and Brown, in press for related perspectives). It seeks to establish an alternative view of the human mind as biologically prepared and, yet, supplemented, transformed and fully completed through active participation and engagement in the eco-symbolic environment called culture. In our view, then, cultural neuroscience is an interdisciplinary field of research that investigates interrelations among culture, mind and the brain (Kitayama & Tompson, 2010; Kitayama & Uskul, in press). Drawing on both the growing body of scientific evidence on cultural variation in psychological processes and the recent development of social and cognitive neuroscience, this emerging field of research aspires to understand how culture as an amalgam of values, meanings, conventions and artifacts that constitute daily social realities might interact with—that is, both constructing and being constructed by, the mind and its underlying brain pathways of each individual member of the culture. As we will see, this new field has potential of bridging social and biological sciences, thereby contributing to a new integrative theoretical framework for the study of the human mind.

Why Add 'Neuro' to the Study of Culture?

Over the last two decades, a number of researchers have argued that psychological processes are malleably shaped to a degree that is far greater than was previously considered possible by exposure to, and active engagement in, socio-cultural environments. This thesis has received considerable support from the last two decades of research in cultural psychology (e.g. Markus and Kitayama, 1991, 1994; Nisbett et al., 2001; Kitayama et al., 2006; Heine, 2008, for reviews). Nevertheless, increasingly more compelling evidence has begun to emerge from recent adoption of neuroscience measures in the field. In fact, the present special issue of Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience is a testament to this observation.

Before the modern rebirth of cultural psychology, a number of cross-cultural studies in psychology had been largely based on survey methods (e.g. Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1992). Although powerful and capable of demonstrating a broad bird's eye view of world cultures (e.g. Inglehart and Baker, 2001), the methods had left open the question of how culture might influence psychological processes, mechanisms, and structures of each individual. One important strength of the cultural psychology literature was that, unlike its predecessors, it took advantage of a variety of experimental paradigms and tasks to investigate underlying processes and mechanisms (see Kitayama and Cohen, 2007, for a review). Although important and crucial in theory development in psychology in general, there is an important limitation in this endeavor as well because any psychological paradigms or tasks necessarily involve observations of downstream outcomes of hypothesized processes or mechanisms, such as response time, recall or recognition, and judgment.

Neuroscience measures have enabled researchers to observe neural processes underlying the psychological processes more rapidly and concurrently than was ever before possible with traditional behavioral measures alone. For example, the processing of socially significant stimuli (e.g. one's own face) can be enhanced. Moreover, this enhancement can be detected as early as one tenth of a second. With traditional psychological measures, a phenomenon such as this is simply unobservable. Yet, with neuroscience measures, especially with event-related potentials (ERPs; which have extremely high time resolution), a variety of hypotheses regarding early visual processing or early spontaneous attention can be tested with relative ease. Initial neural evidence is indicative of strong cultural effects on such processing (Park et al., 2009; Sui et al., 2009; Ishii et al., in press).

Moreover, with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), it is possible to identify specific brain regions that are recruited in a variety of psychological operations such as perception, judgment, and decision making (see e.g. Adolphs, 2009; Lieberman, 2010, for reviews). With putative functions of these regions of the brain reasonably specified, the technique enables researchers to specify the nature of brain mechanisms underlying such psychological operations. Again, culture has proven to be quite powerful in modulating psychological processes. As we will see, when solving simple arithmetic problems, native English speakers engage the left perisylvian cortices—areas that are typically involved in linguistic processing. Surprisingly, however, native Chinese speakers show very little activation in this area. Instead, they show marked activation in a pre-motor association area (Tang et al., 2006). A finding like this is especially powerful because it demonstrates that the same behavioral outcome is accomplished by different brain pathways. This suggests that people carry out the same tasks by recruiting varying component neural operations depending on their social or cultural backgrounds.

In what follows, we will present a brief review of recent cultural neuroscience evidence that demonstrates the degree to which brain pathways are shaped by culture. We will document that cultural tools and cultural practices have powerful influences on brain pathways. Importantly, there is a growing body of literature demonstrating that symbolic aspects of culture, including certain normative mandates of culture such as independence and interdependence, also influence brain pathways. We will then ask a more fundamental question of exactly how culture might influence the brain. Our answer is premised on the hypothesis that recurrent, active, and long-term engagement in scripted behavioral sequences (called cultural tasks) can powerfully shape and modify brain pathways. Relying on this idea, we will propose a theoretical framework for understanding the culture–mind interaction. We will then examine some implications of the framework to suggest several future directions of research in cultural neuroscience.

Read the rest of the article:


Sunday, September 05, 2010

Self-Regulation Required for Nutritional and Exercise Adherence

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/SelfRegulation/SEC-IMG/phase1.jpg

Great new research article from Biosocial Medicine, a very cool open source journal. Anyone who has ever worked with those trying to lose weight or get healthy know that the issue often is not knowledge but adherence.

Most educated people know what is healthy, but the problem is actually doing it. I see so many of my clients who know how to eat healthy, and know they need to come into the gym five days a week (or at least exercise five days a week), but actually doing it is where things fall apart.

The primary skills, see below, being taught are "long- and short-term goal setting, annotating incremental progress, thought-stopping, cognitive restructuring, stimulus control, self-reward, preparing for specific types of barriers, and recovery from lapses."

These would seem to be the ideal skills for use with clients, and I use many of them. Perhaps what is needed is a more focused session of training around this skills during the first three months of training.

Relations of self-regulation and self-efficacy for exercise and eating and BMI change: A field investigation

James J Annesi and Srinivasa Gorjala

BioPsychoSocial Medicine 2010, 4:10doi:10.1186/1751-0759-4-10

3 September 2010

Abstract (provisional)

Objectives: This study aimed to assess relations of self-regulatory skill use with self-efficacy for exercise and appropriate eating, and the resulting change in weight associated with participation in a nutrition and exercise treatment supported by cognitive-behavioral methods.

Methods

Adults with severe obesity (N = 95; mean BMI = 40.5 +/- 3.9 kg/m2) participated in a 6-month exercise and nutrition treatment emphasizing self-regulatory skills. Changes in self-regulatory skills usage, self-efficacy, overall mood, and BMI were measured. Relations of changes in self-regulatory skill use and self-efficacy, for both physical activity and appropriate eating, were assessed, as was the possibility of mood change being a mediator of these relationships. Indirect effects of the variables associated with the present treatment on BMI change were then estimated.

Results

For both exercise and appropriate eating, changes in self-regulation were associated with self-efficacy change. Mood change partially mediated the relationship between changes in self-regulation for appropriate eating and self-efficacy for appropriate eating. Self-efficacy changes for physical activity and controlled eating, together, explained a significant portion of the variance in BMI change (R2 = 0.26, p <>

Conclusion

Findings suggest that training in self-regulation for exercise and eating may benefit self-efficacy and weight-loss outcomes. Thus, these variables should be considered in both the theory and behavioral treatment of obesity.

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

The method is essentially a CBT intervention, but anything that works is useful. [Use of the food pyramid is crap, but any good nutrition theory would work.]
Procedure

Participants received access to a YMCA wellness center and were enrolled in a nutrition and exercise treatment based on tenets of self-efficacy theory. The exercise support portion of the treatment consisted of 6 one-on-one meetings of 45-60 minutes each, with a trained wellness specialist over 6 months (5 meetings in the initial 3 months, with thefinal meeting being a review), conducted primarily in a private office and supported by a computer program [20]. Instruction in an array of self-regulatory methods (eg, long- and short-term goal setting, annotating incremental progress, thought-stopping, cognitive restructuring, stimulus control, self-reward, preparing for specific types of barriers, recovery from lapses) was the primary focus of the initial 12 weeks. An orientation to available exercise equipment and facilities was also given. Cardiovascular exercise plans were based on each subject’s preference and tolerance, but uniformly progressed from 20 minutes at a light-moderate to moderate intensity 3-4 days per week [21].

The nutrition portion of the treatment consisted of 6 1-hour sessions over the initial 3 months [22]. They were lead by a wellness specialist in a group format of approximately 15 subjects. Examples of program components were (1) understanding macronutrients, (2) using the US Food Guide Pyramid, (3) developing a plan for meals and snacks, and (4) use of self-regulation methods. The self-regulation skills taught were similar to those in the exercise component, but focused on managing eating behaviors.

Wellness specialists were blind to the purposes of the investigation. For both the nutrition and exercise segments of the treatment, the development of self-regulatory skills and selfefficacy was emphasized. Compliance with treatment protocols was assessed by YMCA wellness administrators under the direction of a study investigator. Assessments were administered in a
private area at baseline, week 12, and week 24.


NPR - Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous?

Depends on your developmental stage and life conditions, in my opinion. Where is Robert Wright (The Evolution of God) in this discussion?

Jesse Bering's mother died of cancer on a Sunday, in her own bed, at 9 o'clock at night. Bering and his siblings closed her door and went downstairs, hoping they might somehow get some sleep.

It was a long, hard night, but around 7 a.m., something happened: The wind chimes outside his mother's window started to chime.

Bering remembers waking to the tinkle of these bells, a small but distinct sound in an otherwise silent house. And he remembers thinking that those bells carried a very specific message.

"It seemed to me ... that she was somehow telling us that she had made it to the other side. You know, cleared customs in heaven," Bering says.

The thought surprised him. Bering was a confirmed atheist. He did not believe in any kind of supernatural anything. He prided himself on being a scientist, a psychologist who believed only in the measurable material world. But, he says, he simply couldn't help himself.

"My mind went there. It leapt there," Bering says. "And from a psychological perspective, this was really interesting to me. Because I didn't believe it on the one hand, but on the other hand I experienced it."

Why is it, Bering wondered, that even a determined skeptic could not stop himself from perceiving the supernatural? It really bothered him.

It was a very good question, he decided, to take up in his lab.

God, Through The Lens Of Evolution

For decades, the intellectual descendants of Darwin have pored over ancient bones and bits of fossils, trying to piece together how fish evolved into man, theorizing about the evolutionary advantage conferred by each physical change. And over the past 10 years, a small group of academics have begun to look at religion in the same way: they've started to look at God and the supernatural through the lens of evolution.

In the history of the world, every culture in every location at every point in time has developed some supernatural belief system. And when a human behavior is so universal, scientists often argue that it must be an evolutionary adaptation along the lines of standing upright. That is, something so helpful that the people who had it thrived, and the people who didn't slowly died out until we were all left with the trait. But what could be the evolutionary advantage of believing in God?

Bering is one of the academics who are trying to figure that out. In the years since his mother's death, Bering has done experiments in his lab at Queens University, Belfast, in an attempt to understand how belief in the supernatural might have conferred some advantage and made us into the species we are today.

In one experiment, children between the ages of 5 and 9 were shown to a room and told to throw a Velcro ball at a Velcro dartboard. They were told that if they were able to hit the bull's-eye, they'd get a special prize. But this particular game had an unusual set of rules: The children were told that they had to throw from behind, they weren't allowed to throw the ball while facing the dartboard, and they had to use their nondominant hand — rules that basically made it impossible for any of the children to win the game unless they cheated.

The children in the study were divided into three groups. The first group was left alone and told to play the game as best they could. The second were told the same, with one difference — the children in the second group were told that there was someone special who was going to watch them. The experimenters showed the kids a picture of a very pretty woman — a character that Bering had made up whose name was Princess Alice.

Princess Alice, the kids were told, had a magical power: Alice could make herself invisible. Then the children were shown a chair and were told that Alice was sitting in the chair and that Alice would watch them play the game after the researcher left. The third group of kids was told to play the game, but the researcher sat with them and simply never left the room at all.

The question that Bering sought to answer was this: Which group of children was least likely to cheat?

The children in the first group — the completely unsupervised kids — by far cheated the most. But what was surprising was the behavior of the second group.

The children who were under the impression that Princess Alice was in the room with them were just as likely to refrain from cheating as those children who were actually in the room with a physical real-life human being. A similar study Bering did with adults showed the same thing — that they were dramatically less likely to cheat when they thought they were being observed by a supernatural presence.

Deities From Around The World

A Change In Behavior

Bering has a credo, a truth he says he's learned after years of studying this stuff.

"I've always said that I don't believe in God, but I don't really believe in atheists either," Bering says. "Everybody experiences the illusion that God — or some type of supernatural agent — is watching them or is concerned about what they do in their sort of private everyday moral lives."

These supernatural agents, Bering adds, might have very different names. What some call God, others call Karma. There are literally thousands of names, but according to Bering they all have the same effect.

"Whether it's a dead ancestor or God, whatever supernatural agent it is, if you think they're watching you, your behavior is going to be affected," he says.

In fact, Bering says that believing that supernatural beings are watching you is so basic to being human that even committed atheists regularly have moments where their minds turn in a supernatural direction, as his did in the wake of his mother's death.

"They experience it but they reject it," Bering says. "Sort of override or stomp on their immediate intuition. But that's not to say that they don't experience it. We all have the same basic brain. And our brains have evolved to work in a particular way."

Why would the human brain have evolved to work in that way?

For Bering, and some of his friends, the answer to that question has everything to do with what he discovered in his lab — the way the kids and adults stopped cheating as soon as they thought a supernatural being might be watching them. Through the lens of evolution then, a belief in God serves a very important purpose: Religious belief set us on the path to modern life by stopping cheaters and promoting the social good.

God And Social Cooperation

Dominic Johnson is a professor at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom and another one of the leaders in this field. And to Johnson, before you can understand the role religion and the supernatural might have played in making us the people we are today, you really have to appreciate just how improbable our modern lives are.

Today we live in a world where perfect strangers are incredibly nice to each other on a regular basis. All day long, strangers open doors for each other, repair each other's bodies and cars and washing machines. They swap money for food and food for money. In short: they cooperate.

More From The Human Edge

This cooperation makes all kinds of things possible, of course. Because we can cooperate, we can build sophisticated machines and create whole cities — communities that require huge amounts of coordination. We can do things that no individual or small group could do.

The question is: How did we get to be so cooperative? For academics like Johnson, this is a profound puzzle.

"Explaining cooperation is a huge cottage industry," Johnson says. "It dominates the pages of top journals in science and economics and psychology. You would think that it was very simple, but in fact from a scientific academic point of view, it just often doesn't make sense."

It doesn't make sense because there's often tension between the interests of the group and the interests of the individual. Johnson gives an example. Recently he was on the subway in New York and as he was going through the turnstile a little child ran in with him and got through the barrier. He got onto the subway without ever paying.

"Now we only have the Metro if everyone pays," Johnson says. "But there's an advantage for everyone if they don't have to pay themselves."

And what's true of the subway is true of everything.

Why fight in a war, risk your own death, if someone else will fight it for you? Why pay taxes? Why reduce your carbon footprint?

These all have clear costs, and from an individual perspective, you and your offspring are much more likely to thrive if you don't get killed in a war or pay your taxes — if you behave like the child in the subway.

The problem is that even a relatively small number of people who choose to behave like the child can affect the functioning of the whole.

"Even a few cheats undermine cooperation," Johnson says, because once people realize that they are paying for the same thing others are enjoying free, they become less willing to cooperate.

Punishment And Deterrents: Enforcing God's Law

Today, if you cheat — if you decide to pass on paying Uncle Sam or if you steal a car — there are systems in place that will track you down and punish you. And this threat of punishment keeps you on the straight and narrow. But imagine if you lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

"We know that punishment is very effective at promoting cooperation," Johnson says. "The problem is: Who punished in the past before we had police and courts and law and government? There wasn't anyone formally to carry out the punishment"

In those early human communities when someone did something wrong, someone else in the small human group would have to punish them. But as Johnson points out, punishing itself is often dangerous because the person being punished probably won't like it.

"That person has a family; that person has a memory and is going to develop a grudge," Johnson says. "So there are going to be potentially quite disruptive consequences of people taking the law into their own hands."

On the other hand, Johnson says, if there are Gods or a God who must be obeyed, these strains are reduced. After all, the punisher isn't a vigilante; he's simply enforcing God's law.

"You have a very nice situation," Johnson says. "There are no reprisals against punishers. And the other nice thing about supernatural agents is that they are often omniscient and omnipresent."

If God is everywhere and sees everything, people curb their selfish impulses even when there's no one around. Because with God, there is no escape. "God knows what you did," Johnson says, "and God is going to punish you for it and that's an incredibly powerful deterrent. If you do it again, he's going to know and he is going to tally up your good deals and bad deeds and you will suffer the consequences for it either in this life or in an afterlife."

Differing Views

So the argument goes that as our human ancestors spread around the world in bands, keeping together for food and protection, groups with a religious belief system survived better because they worked better together.

We are their descendants. And Johnson says their belief in the supernatural is still very much with us.

"Everywhere you look around the world, you find examples of people altering their behavior because of concerns for supernatural consequences of their actions. They don't do things that they consider bad because they think they'll be punished for it."

Of course there are plenty of criticisms of these ideas. For example one premise of this argument is that religious belief is beneficial because it helped us to cooperate. But a small group of academics argue that religious beliefs have ultimately been more harmful than helpful, because those religious beliefs inspire people to go to war.

And then there are the people who say that cooperation doesn't come from God — that cooperation evolved from our need to take care of family or show potential mates that we were a good choice. The theories are endless.

Unfortunately it's not possible now to rewind the movie, so to speak, and see what actually happened. So these speculations will remain just that: speculations.

As unknowable — ultimately — as God himself.