M. ERNANDES
&
M. WINKELMAN
Theopoiesis
or
The Production of “God” Concepts by
Brain Structures and Operators
in Early Humans
Michele (Michael) Ernandes:
Department of Historical-Archaeological, Socio-Anthropological and Geographical
Heritage,
Palermo University, Scientific Centre of the Polytechnic of the Mediterranean, Italy.
(i. e., Dipartimento di Beni Culturali Storico-Archeologici, Socio-Antropologici e
Geografici, Università di Palermo, Italia)
Email: ernandes@unipa.it
Michael Winkelman:
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
Email: michael.winkelman@asu.edu
Short Abstract
Religious ideas have the peculiarity of being universal, so we may suspect yhat they
have some kind of genetic basis, or that religion may be rooted in genetic
predisposition, that operates through the development of encephalic structures.
MacLean elaborated the “Triune Brain” model, and located in it three principal
phylogenetic structures, termed as R-complex, Limbic System and Neomammalian
brain. The R-complex is fundamental for genetically constituted behaviors as
imprinting, or forming social hierarchies.
In a behavioral sense, religious activities consist in submissive displays performed
to appease a dominant individual. According to evolutionary psychology, all
human behaviors are products of internal mechanisms, in conjunction with inputs
that trigger their activation.
In this paper we indicate the acquisition of the consciousness of own mortality as
the input, and in the action of R-complex on the Neocortex as the main mechanism
by which, in the human evolution, the “God” concept emerged.
Long Abstract.
Religious ideas have the peculiarity of being universal, so we may suspect that they may
be rooted in genetic predisposition, that operates through the development of encephalic
structures.
MacLean described primate’s brain as formed by three principal philogenetic structure
that have been super- imposed and have been integrated during evolution, and termed
them as R – complex, Limbic System, and Neomammalian Brain. The R-complex is
fundamental for genetically constituted forms of behavior as hunting, homing, mating,
breeding, imprinting and forming social hierarchies. The Limbic Ssystem may be seen
as a regulator of the R–complex, and most of this regulation seems to be inhibitory,
while the Neomammalian brain is the main seat of mind capabilities as, in humans, selfconsciousness or the connections of causality.
The most important religious displays consist in the gathering of several human groups
who perform repeated and prolonged demonstrations of submission toward dominant
individuals. These dominant individuals take different forms in each culture but they
share some characteristics including an immense power. For what concerns the genesis
of the ideas of such immense power beings, some scholars (as Freud or Morris) felt that
such beings could be the projection result of the figure of the dominant male of
primate’s “Single Male” breeding group. But, on the basis of the sexual dimorphism
noticed in fossils, and inferring social behaviour from it, most scholars think that in
ancient groups of Hominini endowed with low sexual dimorphism (as in genus Homo),
there wasn’t any individual that could act as realistic example of a “Being with immense
power”. How did it happen, therefore, that among human beings with a low male-male
competition social system we can find a projection in the super- human world of a being
with immense power that should have to be associated with a high male-male
competition social system? A possible answer is that the human brain preserved
structures and hierarchy forming functions in its R-complex. Consequently we can
deduce that at some time in the course of human evolution the hierarchy forming
structure of the R-complex has been set free from the inhibitory action of the Limbic
System; this was presumably a consequence of a strong external stimulus which,
causing a psychic trauma, weakened the inhibitory action of the Limbic System. Indeed,
according to evolutionary psychology, all human behaviors are a product of internal
mechanisms in conjunction with inputs that cause activation of those mechanisms. We
may presume that the “input” for the Prehistoric man consisted in the acquisition of the
awareness of his own mortality. Homo sapiens is conscious of being mortal, but he does
not recognize this fact as a natural datum. Instead he feels that death is a violence he has
to suffer: we may presume that in this way death could have been considered by early
humans. As Neocortex seeks to determine agents who cause phenomena, early humans
tried to find the cause of death, but failed to find an empirical cause. Because of this
shock, the Limbic System activity on R-complex would have had a variation that caused
the activation of hierarchic R-complex structures and that led the Neocortical structures
to accept the idea, proposed by the R-complex, that a “Powerful, but unseen, Being”
was the agent of death. After this, the Neocortical association areas, in relations to
environment, developed various systems of religion.
§ I. Definition, observations and assumption concerning the Biological Basis of
Religion
Tylor (1871) defined religion as belief in immaterial and extraordinary beings as
souls, ghosts, saints, angels, demons, and gods. This definition has been emphasized by
many authors, such as M. Harris (1989), who characterized religion in terms of belief in
the existence of one or more of such beings. There are other broader definitions of
religion, but the supernatural agent concept is invariably central, as it is for our present
purpose.
Since the 16th century, ethnographic studies have suggested that such religious
ideas are universal. In 1744 Giambattista Vico noticed that all cultures have had three
institution: Religion, marriage, and burial. Contemporary scholars also asserted the
universality of religious ideas, such as A. Brelich (1970): “No society has been found,
even among the most ‘primitive,’ which was devoid of any faith in divine person-like
beings.” Such sentiments were elaborated by Rappaport (1971, p. 23), who claimed
“Neither history nor anthropology knows of societies from which religion has been
totally absent” and echoed more recently by Boyer (2003, p. 119) who asserts that
“Religious beliefs and practices are found in all human groups”.
Many anthropologists would concur that when an aspect of behavior is universal to
human societies, it is likely that it has some kind of genetic basis. It seems reasonable to
suppose that religion has a biological basis given that it is universal, and surmise that
some aspects of religious behavior and thought may be hardwired in a genetic
predisposition. Spirits seem naturally conceivable, thinkable, to the human mind - and
the human brain must have certain anatomic and physiologic structures which have
favored the birth of religious ideas that subsequently become a part of the cultural
heritage. In this vein, Boyer (2003, p. 123) notes that “Cognitive science and
neuroscience suggests a less dramatic but perhaps more empirically grounded picture of
religion as a probable, although by no means inevitable by-product of the normal
operation of human cognition.”
Religious thoughts and behaviors may be studied at various levels:
a first level may regard the biological bases, neurological or ethological, of
religious thought (Mandell 1980, Gazzaniga 1985, Alper 1996, Burkert 1996, Ernandes
& Giammanco 1998, Winkelman 2000, W. and Baker 2008, Boyer 2001, 2003, Hamer
2004);
a second level, phenomenologic-structural, the subordinate relationship of human
beings to divine beings (Hubert and Mauss 1898, van der Leew 1933, Widengren 1969,
Burkert 1972), as well as semeiotic values of religious thoughts and behaviors;
a third, the relationships between social structures and peculiar shapes of credence
and rituals (Weber 1904/05, Durkheim 1912, and their sociological schools) or the
social value of religious rites (Sosis and Bressler 2003);
a fourth, the economic-ecological one, the material goods used for religious rituals
(Firth 1963, Harris 1977).
These four approaches can coexist and interact synchronically with a fifth one, the
historical or diachronic aspect.
Obviously, for a given religion, results of studies carried out on one level must be
coherent with the results obtained for other levels, since a comprehensive study must be
non-contradictory. Until now the tendency to favor a particular type of study to the
exclusion of others has prevailed (Pals 1996). This may have been reasonable in the
past, as these various approaches were discovered little by little, but it is less excusable
now. In 1966 C. Geertz noted stagnation in the field of anthropology of religion and
foreboded the utilization of other disciplines such as philosophy, history or hard
sciences with the aim of achieving a thick description of religion.
As noted by Sosis and Alcorta (2003, p. 264), “the multiple roles and complex
functions of religion render it difficult to capture within a single theoretical approach”,
so it requires different methodological tools. In the present article we start from
biological evolution, neurobiology and ethology with the aim of furnishing the ground
for a multilevel study of religion.
Returning to Tylor's definition, religious thought consists of belief in extra-natural
power beings. We conceptualize an “Immense Power Being” as the most general and
comprehensive of these beings, defined as a supernatural being with immense power
over human lives. As has been established by Kant (1781), it is impossible to prove
rationally the existence or the non-existence of any “Immense Power Being” (or, in
Kant’s words, “God”). Consequently, our purpose is not to know if “God” exists or does
not, but rather consists in an effort to understand why “God” concepts exists so
naturally and comfortably in the human mind, why such ideas exist universally in
human beings. It is pertinent to investigate such a question by means of the natural
sciences, because “Thoughts and beliefs are necessarily dependent on neurophysiological activity of the brain” (Delgado 1969).
According to evolutionary psychology, all human (or animal) behavior is a product
of mechanisms internal to the person (or to the animal), in conjunction with inputs that
trigger the activation of those mechanisms. No mechanisms, no behavior; no input, no
behavior (adapted from Buss & Shackelford 1997, p. 607). If we consider the
production of ideas as a particular kind of behavior (an “internal” brain behavior), our
aim then consists in investigating the internal mechanisms and the input that had lead
human mind to conceive the “Immense Power Being” concept.
§ II. MacLean’s Triune Model of the Brain
Genetic predisposition operates through the development of encephalic structures.
In Vertebrates the Central Nervous System grows up as a dorsal tube that,
subsequently, is surrounded by vertebrae (the spinal cord) and by skull (the
encephalon). A canal goes along the tube and forms at first three vesicle with
surrounding swellings (forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain). These formations then
become five ones: telencephalon (endbrain), diencephalon (interbrain), mesencephalon
(midbrain), metencephalon (pons and cerebellum), and myelencephalon (medulla
oblongata). (Fig. II. 1).
At the end of the development, the hindbrain vesicle is termed fourth ventricle, the
midbrain vesicle becomes thin and is called aquaeductus mesencephali (or cerebri), the
interbrain vesicle forms the third ventricle.
The telencephalic vesicle, in growing forward impeded by the frontal bone, in its
development overturns and covers the diencephalon, splitting and forming two lateral
ventricles. In a section of each telencephalic vesicle we may note four parts: the lateral
and medial basal ones, and the lateral and medial dorsal ones. (Fig. II. 2 a).
In the basal parts neurons form some masses (called nuclei or ganglia), while in the
dorsal parts neurons are disposed in layers (normally three).
P. D. MacLean (1970-1990) elaborated a model of brain structure and evolution.
He described it as a “Triune brain”, because he located in it three principal phylogenetic
structures that have been superimposed and that have become integrated during
evolution. He termed these three basic types reptilian (Protoreptilian, R-complex), old
mammalian (Paleomammalian, Limbic System) and new mammalian (Neomammalian). The heuristic value of this model, for a long time underappreciated, has
been revalued by many scholars (Winkelman 2000; Cory & Gardner 2002; Oatley 2004;
Whybrow 2005). Here we examine the triune brain model, reappraising it in relation
with recent knowledge in neurobiological and evolutionary sciences, and in terms of its
applicability to explaining the neurological basis of the “Immense Power Being.”
The R-complex
The protoreptilian brain represents a fundamental core of the nervous system: it
consists in the upper spinal cord, parts of the midbrain and the diencephalons, and the
lateral basal part of the telencephalic vesicle. The lateral basal telencephalon consists in
the striatum and pallidum as main components, and in the substantia nigra, ventral
tegmental area and subthalamic nucleus as smaller components. The striatum comprises
dorsally the caudate nucleus and putamen, ventrally the nucleus accumbens and the
olfactory tubercle. The globus pallidus (or pallidum) consists in three parts: the internal
and the external segments, and the ventral pallidum (fig. II. 3). The ventral part of the
striatum and the ventral pallidum are also called “paleostriatum”, the dorsal striatum
“neostriatum”: however there is no evolutionary evidence supporting these names, that
must be considered old-fashioned (fig. II.2 c).
The medial basal part of the telencephalon gives rise to the septum, while the dorsal
part forms the pallium (or cortex): these structures are not included in the R-complex,
not because they are absent, but because they are less developed and are not
indispensable in determining the fundamental behaviors in Reptiles and Birds (so that
the term Striatal complex is more accurate but less suggestive than R-complex). The
presence of the R-complex as a stage in the brain evolution from Fish to Mammals has
been corroborated by subsequent research in anatomy and physiology. Reiner, Medina
and Veenman (1998) have found that both striatum and pallidum are typically much
more cell poor in Anamniotes (Fish and Amphibians) than they are in Amniotes
(Reptiles, Birds and Mammals). Moreover, neural pathways connecting basal ganglia
and the telencephalic cortex are less important in Reptiles and Birds than in Mammals
(Striedter 2005), as it is shown in fig II. 5 f.
According to MacLean, the R-complex in the brains of existing mammals derives
from a form of mammal-like reptiles that, in Permian and Triassic geologic periods,
populated the earth in large numbers. Even if for comparative neurobehavioral study, no
existing reptiles are directly in line with mammals, it has been noticed that most ancient
mammal-like reptiles were lizard-like in appearance, so that MacLean and following
scholars have favored the use of lizards in their comparative studies. Moreover, the
lizards chose are ones in which the cortical part of telencephalon is small, and not those
ones provided with evident pallial gyri, as the tegu lizard (Tupinambis teguixin), which
has a paleo and an archeo cortical gyri surrounding a neocortical gyrus.
MacLean (1973a, p. 8) wrote that “the counterpart of the reptilian brain in
mammals is fundamental for genetically constituted forms of behavior as selecting
homesites, establishing territory engaging in various types of display, hunting, homing,
mating, breeding, imprinting, forming social hierarchies, and selecting leaders”. In
mammals, “the R-complex is necessary for ritualistic displays and the averbal
communication associated with them. At the human level … certain behavioral
tendencies are due to an inheritance of dispositions mediated by this same, primal brain
region. These include certain violent reactions, the preference for routine or “ritualistic”
actions, and some forms of displacement activities” (Isaacson 1982, p. 246).
The Limbic System.
From Fish to Reptiles, the basal parts of the telencephalon are more abounding in
neurons than the dorsal parts, which appear as a thin mantle (the pallium) or cortex that
covers the lateral vesicle. In Mammals the cortex expands a lot, wrapping the basal part
of the telencephalon. Ariëns Kappers (1909) termed the lateral cortex (whose main
derived region is called piriform cortex) as paleopallium, and the medial cortex (whose
main structure is the hyppocampus) as archipallium. In these nouns the paleo- and
archi- prefixes have no more the temporal or evolutionary significance that first XX
century authors intended give them. Their significance, related to pallium, is now only
spatial (fig. II 2 b, c and d). Paleo- and archipallium neurons are disposed in three
layers: this disposition is termed allocortex. In the phylogenetically subsequent
neocortex, derived from the dorsal pallium, neurons are disposed in six layers to form
the isocortex. Paleo- and archi-pallium form the largest regions of the Limbic System,
which also includes the olfactory bulb, septum, fornix, amygdala, and cingulated gyrus.
“The paleomammalian brain, or the limbic system, represents an advance in neural
tissue because it represents a device for providing the animals that have this tissue with
better means of coping with the environment. Parts of the limbic system are concerned
with primal activities related to food and sex; others are related to emotions and
feelings; and still others combine messages from the external world with those from
inside” (Isaacson 1982, p. 246).
MacLean (1990) has identified three main limbic subdivisions located respectively
in the amygdale, septum, and thalamus that are a source of afferents to the limbic cortex
(fig. II. 4).
I) The amygdalar division comprises the amygdala together with the frontotemporal
limbic cortex; the amygdala is also connected with the hippocampus. This division is
primarily involved with fear, aggression, and mimic judgment (Morris et al. 1998;
Adolphs et al. 1998).
II) The septal division projects to the entire hippocampal formation and also
includes the entorhinal cortex (gyrus hippocampi). This division is mainly connected
with sex activities. The amygdala and septum serve as telencephalic internodes for
neural circuits relating the rostrally located olfactory apparatus: all together they form
the rhinencephalon.
III) The thalamocingulate division is comprised of the mesocortical cingulated
areas receiving afferents from the anterior and other thalamic nuclei. It also comprises
mammillary bodies of the hypothalamus. Differently from other parts of Limbic
System, the thalamocingulate division seems to have no representation in the reptilian
brain (MacLean 1990, p. 247). This division is concerned with three cardinal behavioral
developments that, in addition to endothermy, characterize the evolutionary transition
from ancient Reptiles to Mammals. Namely: 1) Nursing, in conjunction with maternal
care; 2) audio-vocal communication for maintaining maternal-offspring contact; and 3)
play (MacLean 1990, p. 380). Nursing is due to the action of oxytocin, the mammalian
hypothalamic hormone that derives from the reptilian hormone mesotocin. This change
may be considered the biochemical border marking the transition from the primordial
Limbic System of Reptiles to the regular Limbic System of Mammals (Insel & Young
2000).
Another important modification has affected the vagus nerve. Only Mammals have
a myelinated, and therefore faster, vagus, so that heart activity may be quickly linked to
the Limbic system’s emotions. According to the polyvagal theory (Porges 2001), in
mammals, both neocortical and reptilian strucutres, but primarily Limbic ones, control
the activity of the vagus and other cranial nerves that govern facial expressions and
vocalizations in social interactions: such non verbal communications of unconscious
emotions and conscious intentions constitute the bases of Primates’ social life.
The Limbic System may be seen as a regulator of the R-complex. Most of this
regulation seems to be inhibitory and acted via the serotonergic system. Laboratory
stimulation of the Limbic System often produces a suppression of R-complex ongoing
behaviors, whereas lesions made in it often seem to “release” various reptilian activities
(adapted from Isaacson 1982, p. 246). This means that the mammalian R-complex is not
exactly the same as the reptilian R-complex: in fact the mammalian one receives new
inputs from limbic structures and it has also fit receptors (often different compared with
reptilian ones) for neuromodulators or neurotransmitters that mediates these inputs.
Furthermore, as early noted by MacLean (1970), alterations of the usual activities
of the Limbic System, e. g. by epileptic episodes, can produce various experiences and
feelings, as those associated with knowledge of fundamental truths, feeling of
depersonalization, hallucinations, and paranoid feelings.
Other observations about the action of the Limbic System on the R-complex will be
shown in the subsequent section (§ III).
The cerebral cortex is the most evident part of human encephalon, and it is divided
in two hemispheres, which are connected by three fibrous structures: the corpus
callosum, and the anterior and posterior commissures. Each hemisphere is constituted
by numerous convex formations called gyri, divided each other by sulchi. In each
hemisphere we may also note four regions called lobes: the frontal lobe comprises the
upon ocular socket area and behind the forehead up to near the top of the brain, where
the central sulcus divides it from the parietal lobe; the temporal lobe is located under
frontal and parietal lobes and it covers a little lobe, the insular one; the occipital lobe
forms the back of the brain (fig II. 5 a).
In a side view of a cross section of the brain (fig. II. 5 b), we can see a large gyrus
surrounding the corpus callosum: it is called cingulate gyrus and is constituted by
mesocortex, which is intermediate between allo- and isocortex. The cingulate gyrus, in
the basal brain, continues as piriform cortex (derived from the ancient lateral pallium).
Inside this latter is a structure derived from the ancient medial pallium (archicortex),
which is called hippocampus. Cingulate gyrus, piriform cortex and hippocampus
constitute the limbic cortex. Cingulate and rhinal sulchi divide the cerebral limbic
cortex from the Neocortex, that in apes and humans constitutes the major part of the
cerebral hemispheres.
The Neomammalian brain
The Neomammalian brain consists of the Neocortex and structures of the brainstem
with which it is connected, as lemnisci, pyramidal tracts, and neothalamus. The
Neocortex is, on the human level, the seat of language and, in general, it is the seat of
those behaviors that allow a person to tackle new and unexpected situations. The ability
to foresee the future resides in it. We owe conscious thought to the Neocortex: it is the
main seat of mind capabilities as self-consciousness or the connections of causality, as
we’ll see in the following III §.
The whole brain. As MacLean (1973a: 7; 1973b: 114) has made clear, the three
basal brain types show differences both in structure (1) and chemistry (2), and so they
are capable of functioning somewhat independently; but they are in no sense separate,
autonomous entities: they must intermesh and function together as a triune brain.
(1) As regards the structure, we have seen that in the R-complex neurons form
masses (nuclei or ganglia); in the Limbic System besides nuclei there are pallial (or
cortical) structures, in which neurons are disposed in three (allocortex) or more layers
(mesocortex). Neocortex has neurons disposed in six layers (isocortex).
(2) As regards the chemistry, researchers have found less marked differences:
while, for example, acetylcholine is typical, but not exclusive, of the R-complex
(MacLean 1990: 38-43), dopamine and serotonin are well allocated in all three brain
types.
Dopamine is synthesized by hydroxylation and subsequent decarboxylation of the
amino acid tyrosine (that may also derive from phenylalanine). In Mammals there are
four main dopaminergic pathways: (a) the nigro-striatal, (b) the infundibular, (c) the
mesolimbic and (d) the mesocortical ones (fig II 5 d, modified from Kandel et al. 1996).
They function respectively most in (a) tuning of sensori-motor programs, (b) regulation
of hormone release in the pituitary gland, (c) modulation of sensory perception,
maintaining reward values from life experiences and, thus, motivation up to addiction or
aversion, (d) regulation of frontal cortex activity (Kandel et al. 1996).
Dopamine reward system originates in the ventral tegmental area of the midbrain
and projects to the nucleus accumbens of the ventral striatum. This system is termed
“mesolimbic” by Kandel and colleagues, who don’t use the triune tripartition. In the
triune brain conception, it is more properly a reptilian subsystem (so in fig. II. 5 d we
have emphasized this pathway).
Serotonin (or 5-Hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT) is a compound produced in some
nervous centers starting from the amino acid tryptophan, and it exerts its effects by
acting as a classic neurotransmitter or as a neuromodulator (these effects are due to
postsynaptic receptors: 5-HT receptors are many and diversify serotonin’s effects in the
various encephalic regions. See Baumgarten & Göthert 1997). Serotoninergic neurons
are present in all animals that possess nervous systems, both Protostoma and
Deuterostoma . In Vertebrates, nervous centers in which 5-HT is produced are raphe
nuclei. In fig. II. 5 e the various mammalian raphe nuclei and their main projections are
shown. According to ten Donkelaar (1998: 1417) “In reptiles, only two raphe nuclei can
be distinguished: i. e. the rostral, mainly small-celled nucleus raphes superior and the
large caudal nucleus raphes inferior containing medium-sized to very large cells”. The
caudal part of the inferior raphes nucleus may correspond to the raphes pallidus of
mammals, the rostral part to the mammalian nucleus raphes magnus. In the reptilian
nucleus raphes superior may be hidden a primordium of the mammalian nucleus raphes
dorsalis. It seems that the mammalian raphes obscurus has no homologue in the
reptilian brain. Following MacLean’s model, in the serotonergic system we can
distinguish a reptilian part (i.e. of the R-complex) and a mammalian part (i.e. of the
Limbic System), the latter being formed in particular by raphes obscurus and dorsal
raphes nuclei. Ascending fibers extend from the pontine nuclei to several telencephalic
regions, among which are basal ganglia.
So, the serotonergic system’s evolution is an example of the evolution of the brain
according to MacLean’s model. In fact we may distinguish in it a reptilian part which is
a regulator system inherent to the R-complex itself and to the spinal cord; and a limbic
part which greatly increases control over the R-complex and moreover has connections
with the Neocortex, in particular with prefrontal cortex which, according to MacLean
(1978), helps us to see deeply into other peoples’ feelings. Given its numerous
projections, the serotonergic system provides the most powerful system of integration
and coordination among MacLean’s three brain types identified till now.
§ III. Brain and Mind, Modules and Operators.
According to evolutionary psychologists, the human “mind is organized into
modules or mental organs, each with a specialized design that makes it an expert in one
arena of interaction with the world. The modules’ basic logic is specified by our genetic
program. Their operation was shaped by natural selection to solve the problems of the
hunting and gathering life led by our ancestors in most of our evolutionary history”
(Pinker 1997, p. 21). We obviously agree with the main lines of evolutionary
psychology, going over our hunter and gathering ancestors’ past: in the evolutionary
landscape we have depicted we search the biological bases of god concepts in steps,
first in Reptiles, ancient Mammals and finally Primates.
Considering the global functioning of the Brain (i. e. the Mind), d'Aquili and
Newberg (1999) have considered its primary functional components, which they have
referred to as cognitive operators, which have specific functions that are localized in
specific regions of the brain and perform activities that underlie the capacities of the
mind. Newberg and d’Aquili (2001) have described eight cognitive operators: the
holistic, the reductionist, the causal, the abstractive, the binary, the quantitative, the
emotional, and the existential ones.
As these authors noticed (2001, p. 187), the cognitive operator concept is clearly
“similar to the concept of cognitive modules in that both are functions and are
localizable to one or more specific areas of the brain.” … However “Cognitive operators
differ from cognitive modules”, because cognitive modules represent more specific
functions that are localized to particular brain structures, whereas cognitive operators
refer to more generalized functions of many areas of the brain: modules are concerned
more the anatomy of the brain, operators more the physiology of the brain (or of the
encephalon).
However brain functions also produce behaviors and unconscious knowledge. Let
us extend the operator concept from cognitive ones to encephalic ones. Encephalic
operators may be defined as behavioral, emotive or cognitive operators that are specific
functions performed by specific parts of the encephalon.
Proceeding along the evolutionary scheme of the triune brain, we may define, in the
R-complex, some behavioral operators, such as:
1) the specific operator, that allows the acquisition of species identity by the
imprinting (i. e. a fast form of learning that occurs only during a critical period
in the development of the organism);
2) the sexual operator (for male or female distinct behaviors): its primary
component may be located in the hypothalamic medial preoptic nucleus, which
produces gonadotropine releasing factors, that has different size in male and
female individuals, and that is “crucially involved in the consummatory phase of
masculine copulatory behavior” … and “also plays a prominent role in feminine
sexual behavior” (Voogd et al. 1998, p. 1871); another behavioral important
component of this operator lies in the nucleus accumbens.
3) The territorial operator: animals mark their territory with smells or other signals
of boundaries, warning other (conspecific) animals not to intrude;
4) the isopraxic (or mimetic) operator: it allows the animals to act in a like manner
and it is “implicated in conspecific recognition and in most forms of
communication involved in self-preservation and in the procreation of the
species” (MacLean 1990, p. 144) and, in the opposite sense, it serves to promote
species isolation; it is evident when conspecific animals behave in the same way
at the same time (group or mass isopraxis);
5) the hierarchic operator, whose primary component most likely lies in the
pallidum, and that is fundamental for engaging in various types of display.
R- complex may be also produce cognitive operators such as:
6) the space operator, that allows an animal to know its territory;
7) the time operator, that permits the chronology of events;
8) the sequence operator: from the interaction of the former two operators, an
animal can know that after an event a specific one follows or may follow;
9) the semiotic operator: it allows the right understanding, often species-specific, of
behaviors and non verbal communications between individuals inside the same
species (and to some extent, interaction with different species). It moreover
permits a symbolic codification of some behavior (for example, in Primates, the
penis display made by a male towards another male is not a sexual presentation,
but a challenge display), and let the animal receiving the message to decode and
correctly interpret the behavior it sees (e.g., the male to whom penis display is
directed must understand it as a challenge display and not as a sexual
presentation). Summarizing, the semiotic operator allows the correct
coordination of behavior operators’ actions listed above.
The main site of these cognitive operators seems to be the dorsal striatum (Parent and
Hazrati 1995).
The Limbic System may be considered the main site of several emotional operators, as
the follows:
10) the fear operator. It allows graded behavioral outputs in regard to safe, unsafe
and life threatening environments. Its main nervous center is the amygdale,
which acts in connection with the cortex, the hypothalamus, the parasympathetic
(mainly the vagus nerve) and the sympathetic systems. Porges (2001) has fully
discussed the connections among these nervous and endocrine organs. When
sensations received by sensory cortex are judged by the amygdale as caused by a
safe environment, the amygdale stimulates vagus action both directly and by
hypothalamic oxytocin, which is released to the sensory and motor portions of
the vagal complex and systemically to visceral organs. Oxytocin fosters a calm
or “anti-stress” state, and the sympathetic nervous system is not stimulated.
When the amygdale judges the environment as unsafe, it stimulates the
hypothalamus to release the hormone vasopressin: the vagus is inhibited, the
sympathetic system stimulated, and the animal is ready for fight or flight
behaviors.
A life-threatening environment may elicit immobilization (i.e., feigning death or
passive avoidance) and fight-flight behaviors are inhibited. According to Porges’
polyvagal theory, the neural regulation of the autonomic nervous system is the
result of three evolutionary stages, each with a connected behavioral strategy.
The first stage is characterized by immobilization behaviors due to the action of
a primitive unmyelinated vagus that responds to threat by depressing metabolic
activity (and this causes immobilization). The second stage is characterized by
the sympathetic nervous system that is capable of increasing metabolic outputs
and inhibiting the visceral vagus to foster mobilization behaviors necessary for
fight or flight. These two stages of the “fear operator” characterize the reptilian
limbic system. The third stage, unique to mammals, is characterized by a
myelinated vagus that can rapidly regulate cardiac output to foster engagement
and disengagement with the environment. As a rule, mammals are active in the
second and third stage of this evolutionary operator, but in threat environment
may regress to the first stage, and subsequent immobilization.
11) The aggression operator: it seems that we may distinguish various aggression
operators, as, at first, between predatory or interspecific aggression and the
intraspecific one. The last is linked to the hierarchic operator of the R-complex
and has its limbic component mainly in the amygdala.
12) Also the mimic judgment operator has its focus in the amygdalar complex. It is
very important for those mammals that are able to change their face expression,
as mainly primates do. Face expressions are linked to the Autonomic Nervous
System, as Porges (2001, p. 123) has remarked: “The neomammalian vagus is
neuroanatomically linked to the cranial nerves that regulate social engagement
via facial expression and vocalization”. A primordium of the mimic judgment
operator also exists in the brain of vertebrates that are each other stimulated by
visual signals. In reptiles and birds emotional or intentional (as aggressive,
sexual and other) signals are not given by facial muscles’ movements, but by
skin color changes, ruffling up of feathers, shows of cutaneous appendixes (i. e.
skin capes or fans as in the genus Amphibolurus). Humans employ plumages,
mantles, headpieces and other various outfits to show their rank or their well or
ill disposition towards other humans: the human R-complex unconsciously and
immediately decodes and interprets these signals.
13) The “falling in love” operator allows pair bonds establishing. The
neurobiological bases of this behavior have been studied only recently: Pair
bonds are not very frequent in mammals, but, in the species in which they exist,
seem to be linked to the activity of the rhinencepha-lon, and to the each other
smell recognition of the individuals.
It seems that in the human pair bond instauration there is the involvement both
of the serotonergic (Marazziti et al. 1999) and dopamine (Aron et al. 2005)
systems. The initial serotonin tone deficiency (observed by Marazziti et al.) may
have the role of paving the way to the reward function of the subsequent
dopaminergic action (observed by Aron et al.).
14) The call operator activity is triggered when the pup feels to be neglected by its
parents and in turn triggers in them:
15) the nursing operator activity, that, as we have said above, depends on the
oxytocin release. The call and nursing operators are not in action only, or
towards, infancy: in some emotional circumstances they are active even and
towards adults (all the more reason it happens in Homo sapiens that is a
neothenic species, in which infancy features and behaviors persist or could
reappear along the life).
16) The attachment operator allows the establishment of a peculiar bond between
pups and parents. It does not operate from birth in all the species, and this makes
possible the adoption of a forsake (or an orphan) pup by other adults. Its action
becomes evident when the pup is able to distinguish one another its neighbors,
preferring some of them and fearing others.
17) the play operator allows pups to learn their specific behaviors according to the
various circumstances. So behaviors of Mammals are less fixed and stereotyped
than behaviors of most Reptiles and Birds. (Ethologists have observed play-like
behaviors in some birds). Acquired behaviors and knowledge are, as a rule,
proportional to the playing age period, which varies among the species, and
within a species, among individuals (in the human species, experimental
scientists may be considered boys that are playing despite their adult feature).
The Limbic System may be considered the primarily seat of a cognitive operator, the
existential one.
18) The existential (or ontological) operator assigns a sense of existence or non
existence to the sensory information processed by the brain. It likely gives also
the sense of existence to the thoughts elaborated by other parts of the
encephalon, such as the R-complex or the Neocortex. In other terms, this
operator gives a sense of reality to beliefs, regardless of whether they might be
non contradictory or contradictory, or counterintuitive, according to Neocortical
operators.
Emotional and existential operators may be assumed as generally functioning in
Mammals. In humans, the existential operator, that is cognitive but not necessarily
rational, is linked to limbic emotional operators. MacLean wrote (1973 b, p. 123)
concerning the feelings associated with knowledge of fundamental truths: “It seems that
the ancient limbic system provides the ingredients for the strong affective feeling or
conviction that we attach to our beliefs, regardless of whether they are true or false!”
The Neocortex is the main site of most cognitive operators.
The following list summarizes data from d’Aquili and Newberg (1999) and Newberg et
al. (2001) for human mind operators, from the holistic to the quantitative one. To these
we add the linguistic, the insight, and the metacognition operators.
19) the holistic operator enables the organism to view reality as a whole (gestalt). It
likely rises from the activity of the parietal lobe in the non dominant hemisphere
(i. e., in most humans, the right one);
20) the reductionist operator allows the mind to see the whole broken down into its
component parts; it functions in the opposite manner to that of the holistic
operator, and it resides primarily in the dominant parietal lobe (i. e., in most
humans, the left one), that so is involved in reductionist and analytical processes,
while the non dominant parietal lobe is involved in holistic and synthetic ones.
The corpus callosum allows connection between the two parietal lobes,
permitting the mind to combine the holistic and the reductionistic approaches.
21) The causal operator enables the mind to interpret all of reality as a sequence of
specific causes and effects. It is believed to result from the connections between
the left frontal lobe and the left orientation association area; it spontaneously and
actively tends to impart a sense of causality on all the events. This function of
the mind is genetically hardwired in all humans, and may be called as the causal
imperative, or, according to Levy-Bruhl, the need of explanation.
22) The abstractive operator permits the organism to form general concepts. These
abstract concepts are constructed from the perception of individual facts and
various individual objects, derived from inductive functions. These operators
likely reside in the inferior portion of the parietal lobe. V. Ramachandran has
shown experimental evidence that the angular gyrus, belonging to the inferior
parietal lobule, plays a major role in metaphoric understanding.
23) The binary operator organizes reality by reducing the most complicated
relationships to simple pairs of opposites. According to d'Aquili and Newberg it
resides in the inferior parietal lobe on the dominant side. However, as its activity
appears as a stereotyped one, this operator may have its unconscious origin in
the R-complex, likely in the caudate nucleus, which has numerous links with
neocortical association areas, so it may become conscious in the parietal lobe.
24) The quantitative operator permits the abstraction of quantity from the perception
of various elements, and allows mathematical operations but also the estimation
of time and distance, the awareness of amounts of things as food or enemies
approaching, and the need to order objects or sequences of events by some
numerical system. It likely resides in the general area of the inferior parietal
lobe.
25) The linguistic operator has two neocortical components: the Broca’s area in the
frontal lobe and the Wernicke’s area in the superior temporal gyrus, near the
inferior parietal lobule. The former area permits to speak correctly, the latter
allows understanding of the meanings of words or sentences that have been
heard. We may note that this area is contiguous with abstractive (and
metaphoric) area. The linguistic operator may be considered the cortical
correspondent and extension of the reptilian semiotic operator.
26) The insight operator let us to succeed in problem solving in a sudden way, after
and by an unconscious elaboration and not by attempts and errors: the solution
reach the consciousness suddenly, often while the subject is thinking or doing
other matters. Remembering the exclamation shouted by Archimedes when the
solution of a problem suddenly rose to his consciousness while he was in the
bath, this operator may be termed “eureka” (I found!) operator.
27) The metacognition (or empathy) operator permits the awareness of one’s own
mental states and relates behaviors to social or environmental circumstances; it
allows the development of a “theory of mind”, i. e. an awareness of other
people’s minds’ content. It likely resides in frontal lobes, mostly in the right
hemisphere (Stuss et al. 2001), and “mirror neurons” (Gallese 2005) may
contribute to this operator. “Theory of mind”, “metarepresentation”, “metacognition”, “mind reading” and “mental state attribution” are terms that refer to
the “awareness of one’s own mental states, beliefs, attitude and experiences, the
relationship between these and external events, and also of the mental states of
others and the implications for their motives and intentions”, as summarized by
Stuss et al. (2001, p. 279). They note that only humans and a few species of
great apes are capable of attributing mental states to others, making us, as
Kirkpatrick noted, “all amateur psychologists” (2005, p. 274).
We may assume that some of these cognitive operators are functioning in Mammals
based on both to neocortical development and to complexity of connections among
cortical centers. The holistic, reductionist, abstractive, quantitative, insight and ethical
operators may be assumed working in a variable way in the different Orders of
Mammalia, presumably more in Proboscidea (elephants), Cetacea (dolphins) and
Primates (apes). The binary operator seems to be typically human, as well as the
quantitative operator and its connections with other operators (as the linguistic and
abstractive ones) to allow symbolic mathematics rising (but see Hauser et al. 2002 with
regard to animal cognitive abilities and quantitative and linguistic functions).
The causal operator, as it is endowed with an high abstractive ability, is produced
thanks to human neocortical complexity: on the grounds of our knowledge, it seems to
result from the inclusion and development of a mammalian neocortical operator (which
has more or less abilities according to the various species), and that may be termed as
“agency detection operator”: it attributes an intentionality as the concrete causes of
phenomena.
A first description of an animal behavior that we may refer to this operator has been
reported by Darwin (1871, p. 67): “my dog … was lying on the lawn during a hot and
still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol …
As it was, every time … the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have
reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner that movement without any
apparent cause indicate the presence of some strange living agent, and no stranger had a
right to be in his territory”.
Agency operator evolved in Mammals, by means of natural selection, not only for
intruder detection, but also for predator detection: Barrett (2000) has termed this brain
function as agent detection device. As exposed by Boyer for humans (2001, p. 145),
“Our evolutionary heritage is that of organisms that must deal with both predators and
prey. In either situation, it is far more advantageous to overdetect agency than to
underdetect it. The expense of false positive (seeing agents where there are none) is
minimal, if we can abandon these misguided intuitions quickly. In contrast, the cost of
not detecting agents when they are actually around (either predator or prey) could be
very high.” Thanks to this over-developed neocortex, Homo sapiens can be said to
possess a developed agency detection operator, termed by J. Barrett (2000) as
Hyperactive Agent-Detection Device (HADD), extended also in a more abstract form, in
the causal operator.
In Reptiles and Birds, R-complex has the ability of recording temporal sequences of
events. Such sequences in order of time do the function of sequences in order of cause:
this leads to routine activities, in conformity with precedent situations, ritualistic
behaviors or associations between events and behaviors that may involve both Central
and Peripheral Nervous Systems. Pavlov's conditioning experiments have shown that an
animal may unconsciously and automatically put in connection stimuli and answers that
normally have no link.
Natural selection has favored survival and reproduction of those animals that,
provided with a rudimentary forebrain, succeeded in linking and recording events that
happened in a temporal sequence. Individual provided with such an ability had more
fitness because they could anticipate favorable events, repeat positive and avoid
negative experiences. Indeed, if it is true that not all the events that happen in a temporal
order are also linked by a casual order, it also true that all the events that have a causal
connection have also a temporal sequence: temporal relations are redundant in respect to
causal ones, but for animal surviving it is better overloading than lacking. This “pseudo
causal” association made by the R-complex is the fundamental, and almost the only,
link among events Reptiles and Birds may “think”. It is basic also for Mammals, but
they can elaborate sensorial or recorded data by means of the Neocortex. A mammal, in
comparison with a reptile, more easily forgets a connection if it does not happen
afterwards: this ability is linked to brain complexity.
In Mammals, the R-complex is connected with the Neocortex in a more complicated
way than in Reptiles and Birds. In Primates, as shown by Parent et al. (1995, p. 135),
inputs from the frontal lobe (motor cortex) terminate mostly in the lateral putamen to
constitute the sensorimotor striatal region (SMSR in fig. III. 1). Inputs from the
hippocampal and parahippocampal gyri, the cingulated cortex and the amygdala,
terminate in the nucleus accumbens and part of the olfactory tubercle to constitute the
limbic striatal region (LSR). Inputs from the prefrontal cortex as well as from
associative areas of the parietal and temporal lobes terminate in the head of the caudate
nucleus and the rostral part of the putamen to constitute the associative striatal region
(ASR). So in the mammalian R-complex we may locate at least four components: 1) a
behavioral one, made up by globus pallidus and nucleus accumbens, that is the main
seat of behavioral operators as the specific, sexual, territorial, isopraxic, and hierarchic
ones; 2) a senso-motor component (which shows its weight in the Parkinson’s disease);
3) a limbic component and, 4), an associative one, as above described.
In Mammals the R-complex maintains the ability of fixing pseudo causal
connections among phenomena (post hoc, propter hoc). In the associative component of
the mammal R-complex may occur both the link among real events and the association,
mostly unconsciously, of ideas, memories or emotions originated in other brain areas
such as the Limbic System or the Neocortex. Particularly in humans, the associative
striatum may link not only real events, but also events “imagined” by Neocortex,
Moreover, the pseudo causal sequence may be reversed: not only from the “cause” to
the “effect”, but “given an event” then “connect it with a cause”. These “free
associations”, unconscious and reasonless, made by humans in ways that are structural
similarly, but whose contents are various in each being, had been discovered by
psychoanalysis long time before their cerebral origin had been located.
The thought processed by the reverberating circuit Neocortex – R-complex –
Neocortex – etc., is called “magical thought” and it may be expressed by language.
Magical thoughts, as “that events which have been observed to occur simultaneously or
to follow a particular sequence will continue to follow the same pattern” or “that like
produces like” (Vernon 1962, p. 65), may lead the development of ritualistic actions,
also up to obsessive and compulsive behaviors.
The Limbic System, particularly its serotonergic component, aims to inhibit the
magic and ritualized activity the associative striatum tends spontaneously to generate.
But the Limbic System, if it fails in doing so, then adds an emotive component to
ritualistic or compulsive behaviors, producing a released condition when they are
completed, and an anxious condition when they are brusquely interrupted or changed.
The Neocortex, as we have seen, has “induction” and “causal” operators, so that
from the particular observations that different phenomena are effects of certain causes,
it infers that “every phenomenon is the effect of a cause”. The abstractive operator lies
in the inferior portion of the parietal lobe, and the causal operator results from the
connection of the left association area /in the parietal lobe) with the frontal lobe: the
parietal part of the causal operator is close to the abstractive operator, and it seems that,
for its activity, the causal operator utilizes previous or almost contemporary
investigations done by the abstractive operator.
Therefore, the Neocortex, by means of its cognitive operators, allows humans some
rational way of interpreting, or explaining, the reality: it is able to do this more or less
well, according to its knowledge.
Summarizing, the link among phenomena elaborated by the whole brain may be :
a) a rational and verifiable one, if the Neocortex can find the cause-effect nexus;
b)a magic one, that is not verifiable, that is characterized by more or less high
levels of fancy, and that is held by faith. Magical thought has its unconscious origin
in the R-complex, and is made conscious by the Neocortex, which tries to give it an
appearance of rationality.
§ IV. Dominance-Submission Behavior in Religion, and the Principles of
Uniformatism and of Correlation.
In 1821 F. Schleiermacher wrote that “religion is the feeling of sheer dependence
on God” (quoted by Burkert, 1996, p. 80), who afterwards adds: “religion is generally
accepted as a system of rank, implying dependence, subordination and submission to
unseen superiors. The awareness of rank and dependence in religion is particularly clear
in all the ancient religions. God means power, rule, and honors due.” (p. 81). As noted
by Morris (1967; 1994 p. 121) “... in a behavioral sense, religious activities consist of
the coming together of large groups of people to perform repeated and prolonged
submissive displays to appease a dominant individual. The dominant individual
concerned takes many forms in different cultures, but always has the common factor of
immense power.” This notion of more powerful beings who determine the fate of
humans is a widespread tendency, if not the nucleus of religion.
Utilizing data from sciences as different as Neurobiology, Paleontology, and
Compared Ethology, we apply the Principle of Uniformitarianism, that, in its broader
form, affirms natural laws we observe in the present world are the same that operated in
the past and the same will operate in the future. In general terms, natural laws are
invariable both in space and in time. We seek to therefore understand the source of our
“Supreme Power Being” in the evolutionary pre-history of dominance and submission
relations in the animal kingdom.
The Principle of Correlation proceeds from the principle of uniformitarianism: if
particular phenomena, or peculiar features, of living beings regards their environment,
or regards themselves, are in correlation in the present world, we may infer that they
were in correlation also in the past. It implies that the knowledge of some documented
by fossils features allows us to infer the presence, in those beings of the past, of other
non fossil, but with the previous ones correlated, features.
However, the correlation principle must be used with caution, as two phenomena or
two features may show themselves together by chance. So we can correctly utilize the
correlation principle either when we know the causal relation which determines the
correlation, or when the statistical analysis allows us to exclude a more chance
correlation.
The hypothesis that religious behavior, religious thought and the origin of the
“Powerful Being” idea are natural may be substantiated by evidence of the roots of such
behavior among Hominids and non-human Primates. For confirmation of the validity of
this hypothesis we find the existence of a dominant “chief figure,” potential or in action,
to whom others show submission behavior.
§ V. Dominance-Submission Behavior in Primates
In Primates strong links have been established between sexual organ or behaviors
and territoriality and dominance-submission behaviors, so that male genitals and sexual
behavior signify dominance on a territory or on a social group, while female genitals
and behavior become symbols of subordination. Wickler (1967) has described the so
called sentinel behavior in baboons: one, or more, male dominant individuals sit at
lookout sites thighs spread and a display of partial erection. This display is regarded as
an optical marker of boundaries, warning other monkeys not to intrude (fig. V. 1 a). The
male squirrel monkey, seeing another male or its own image on a mirror, “flexes the
head to one side, retracts the corners of the mouth while making high-pitched, peeping
vocalizations, spread one or both thighs, and makes thrusting movements with the fully
erect phallus” (MacLean 1990, p. 171) (fig. V. 1 b).
The rostral two-thirds of the medial segment of the globus pallidus seems to be the
main site involved in mirror display and therefore in aggressive intraspecific behavior,
or, in other words, this part of the pallidum seems to be the main site of the hierarchic
operator.
Such valences of sexual behavior and genitals are also evident in Homo sapiens.
MacLean (1990, p. 233) refers that Gajdusek (1970) “has called attention to the parallel
between the display behavior of squirrel monkeys and certain rituals of Melanesian
tribes”, or that some New Guinea groups when frightened, excited or surprised meet the
event by a penile display dance. This dance is similarly used to express both dominance
and aggression. At the present time the rugby team All Blacks displays the Maori haka
dance before any game. In many cultures in the world, house guards (stone or wooden
monuments showing an erect phallus) have been used to mark territorial boundaries
(fig. V. 1 c). In ancient Athens stylized statues of Hermes, endowed with an erect
phallus, were posed at street corners. (Fig. V. 1 d). The erect phallus, symbolized by
some means as, for example, the middle finger, is an human challenge display utilized
by male or female individuals (fig. V. 1 f).
For more than two centuries, Occidental men have found a discrete form of phallic
display: the neck-tie. Perhaps it is superfluous as a masculine signal, since bearded men
more easily give up tie in habitual dressing.
Returning to Primates, the mounting threat is a form of rank demonstration, and it
can be performed both by a male towards another male (fig. V. 2 b) and by a female
towards a lower rank female (fig V. 2 c). Female sexual presentation can be used by low
rank individuals in order to acquire group chief’s support (fig V. 2 d). Primate female
sexual presentation may be observed in some human profane (fig. V. 2 e) or religious
(fig. V. 2 f) submissive gestures. Sometimes female sexual presentations are utilized as
challenge displays: doing so, the displayer means that he/she considers his/her opponent
as impotent.
§ VI Primate social behaviors and sexual dimorphism.
Primate societies may be grouped according to breeding systems as follows:
a) Monogamous breeding systems (Mo);
b) Single male breeding systems (SM);
c) Multi-male breeding systems (MM).
Several scholars (as Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1977; Leutenegger and Kelly 1977;
Harvey et al. 1978; Pickford and Chiarelli 1986; Hinde 1987) have attempted to
correlate these systems with male/female sexual dimorphism in body size and in canine
tooth size. These studies have shown that, at first view, monogamous species show a
very low dimorphism, while single-male and multi-male species show a variable
degree: as Buss (1999, p. 286) has summarized these studies “the greater the effective
polygyny the more pronounced the sexual dimorphism”. However, results from in-dept
studies have shown less linearity: after a long series of studies (as Plavcan et al 1992,
1997), Plavcan (2001) has made clear that sexual dimorphism is more related to malemale competition levels than to breeding systems.
Plavcan and van Schaik (1992) classified primate species into four “competition
levels”, labeled from 1 to 4, on the basis of the “intensity” and “potential frequency” of
male-male competition.
Competition level 1 contains low-intensity, low-frequency species.
Competition level 2 contains low-intensity, high-frequency species.
Competition level 3 contains high-intensity, low-frequency species.
Competition level 4 contains high-intensity, high-frequency species.
Low-frequency competition is typical of breeding groups that contain only a single,
adult male: so monogamous species belong to level 1, while single-male species belong
to level 3. But species in which single male breeding groups come together to form
large groups daily, such as Papio hamadryas, Theropithecus gelada, and Nasalis
larvatus, belong to level 4 because they are high frequency species. Multi-male species
mainly belong to competition levels 2 and 4.
Primates’ breeding and social systems, some representative species and their
competition levels, as estimated by Plavcan and van Schaik (1997, p. 347-348), are
shown in table VI. 1.
§ VII. Dominance-Submission Behavior in Hominin Phylogeny.
Homo sapiens is an African ape, belonging to the order of Primates, infraorder
Catarrhinae, that is now formed by two superfamiliae, Cercopithecoidea and
Hominoidea. Evolution of Catarrhinae occurred in Africa and Eurasia. The first family
of catarrhins was Propliothecidae, whose main genera were Propliopithecus and
Aegyptopithecus. This latter one, a cat size monkey, tail having and showing an evident
canine size sexual dimorphism, is considered as the ancestor of both Cercopithecoidea
and Hominoidea, the first ones having a tail and quadrupedal walk, the second ones tail
absence and the possibility of braching gait. Proconsul, Dryopithecus, Oreopithecus,
and Ouranopithecus are the main genera of Miocene fossil Hominoidea. The 8 Myr ago
common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees “was chimplike forest dwelling and
predominantly arboreal and fruit-eating” (Wood & Brooks 1999, p. 219).
The tectonic fracture series forming the African Rift Valley system caused, about 86 Million years ago, a geographic barrier that divided Hominoids apes in two distinct
populations, and the differentiation of the eastern environment respect the western one.
This latter remained, and still does, an equatorial forest, while in the east side, owing to
a growing dry environment, as a result of disturbances in atmospheric circulations
caused by the Rift Valley, disperse woods succeeded in the first millennia, and then
savannah developed.
The eastern (future Hominini) and the western (future Panini) populations of
Hominids were so each other isolated and became subject to increasingly different
selective pressure, as Hominins faced at first disperse woods and subsequently the
savanna, while Panins remained in equatorial forest, where they differed into two
species, Pan throglodytes and P. paniscus.
The most ancient Hominini so far discovered, and dated back to 5.8 – 5.2 Mya,
have been assigned to the species Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004).
Fossils happen chimplike and the environment in which they lived was still wood. The
most likely competition level attributable to this hominin species is the second: A.
kadabba most probably lived in multi male social and breeding groups, as present Pan
species do.
In subsequent Hominini, such as Ardipithecus ramidus (4.5 Mya), Australopithecus
anamensis (4.2 – 4 Mya), and Australopithecus afarensis (4 – 2.5 Mya), we may note
improvements in bipedalism and increase in sexual dimorphism. A. afarensis lived
mostly in savanna.
Primate models of ancient hominin behaviors.
Reconstructing hominin evolution and social behavior, some scholars (as De Waal
2000), privileging genetic proximity, have chosen chimps as a species model; others,
giving more consideration to environmental influences, have chosen baboon species.
Both of these approaches have their strengths, but neither alone is a complete model for
Hominins, who must be studied as Primates that, genetically and morphologically
chimp-like, underwent an environmental selective pressure that might give them
behavioral baboon-like traits, as we know that similar ecological pressures produce
similar adaptations even in genetically different animals (convergent evolution) (e.g.,
see C. Jolly 2001).
As summarized by McFarland (1985, pp. 159-60), comparative studies have shown
that in harsh environments baboon troops are dominated by a single male, whereas in
rich environments the troops are multi-male. Papio hamadryas and Theropithecus
gelada are typically SM, while Papio cynocephalus lives in rich environments and has
typical multi male troops. Papio anubis and P. ursinus (Chackma baboons) live in
intermediate environments. They have multi-male troops and dominant males have
privileged access to females. Often some dominant males form a “central hierarchy”
and cooperate in maintaining their social position against rivals, in protecting mothers
and infants and in defense against predators. Male anubis baboons have a smaller but
evident cape, and show a marked sexual dimorphism in body and canine teeth sizes.
Each male hamadryas baboon that possess an harem of females does not try to mate
with a female of another harem, while male anubis baboons try. From this and other
behavioral differences, it follows that “hamadryas males exhibit affiliative and mutually
supportive behaviors in a variety of social contexts in which anubis males tend to be
indifferent or hostile to each other” (Kaplan et al. 1999, p. 518). The neurobiological
basis of these different behaviors mostly lie in the serotonergic system’s activity, that is
lower in anubis than in hamadryas males, as shown by observations carried out in
anubis and anubis-hamadryas hybrid males (Kaplan et al. 1999). It follows that, within
the fourth level, hamadryas baboons are less competitive than anubis baboons.
As stated by Plavcan and van Schalk, “increasing sexual dimorphism in both canine
tooth size and body weight is strongly correlated with increasing competition level”
(1997, p. 353). Such correlation allows us to assess competition level from sexual
dimorphism, and vice-versa: we may control this statement in extant species and infer it
for fossil species.
As it lived in harsh environment, we may reasonable suppose that A. afarensis,
which showed a marked body size sexual dimorphism, underwent a selective pressure
that gave baboon-like its behavior and social organization. According to the correlation
principle, we may chose Papio hamadryas or Theropithecus gelada as species that
better may give us a model of A. afarensis male behavior (high male – male
competition) and social/breeding organization (SM breeding groups that daily come
together to form large groups). So the most likely competition level attributable to A.
afarensis, and to the precedent species A. anamensis, which appears to have been very
dimorphic too (Ward et a. 2001), is the fourth one. As noticed by Flinn et al. (2005, p.
26), “Australopithecus body mass dimorphism suggests that these early hominins were
polygynous, as significant mass dimorphism is not associated with monogamy in any
extant primate (Plavcan 2001)”. So, we may likely suppose that A. afarensis had an SM
breeding system and an MM social system.
Sexual selection in hamadryas and gelada baboons favors males with large hair
capes: in harsh environment, males that seem to be bigger are more fit than males
actually larger (that are more expensive in nutrition and easilier victims for predators).
According to an hypothesis that has had Lovejoy among its first author (1980), it
might have been that, in a hominin SM breeding system group (likely belonging to A.
afarensis), it were born by chance a female having a concealed ovulation (i. e. without
estrus or sexual swellings and perhaps with a little masculine appearance, having a little
hair cape). In this case, the dominant male might have no close watch on her, and she
could more easily mate with a subordinate, and so less dimorphic, male. From such
mates it could be born both sons having little dimorphism and daughters having
concealed ovulation and probably a continuous sexual receptiveness.
These modifications very probably gave origin to a new species: Australopithecus
garhi is the fossil hominin most likely depict it. Male individuals of such a new species,
being less dimorphic and less competitive each other, could easily co-operate in defense
against predators and for food gaining. Moreover, if A. afarensis males behaved as
Papio hamadryas males do at present, they might exhibit supportive behaviors in
various social contexts: this condition might be a pre-adaptive feature for more
supportive behaviors in A. garhi. It seems that A. garhi was gatherer and scavenger,
rather than hunter, because its body was small and its legs were short.
Fossils of the subsequent genus Homo are characterized by low body size
dimorphism (competition levels 1 or 2), and absence of canine tooth size dimorphism,
which may imply breeding and social systems unique among primates (Ruff 2002).
Concealed ovulation and female continuous sexual receptivity formed two behavioral
selective factors because of males that insisted in mating with the same female gained
more reproductive success compared with males that tried to mate with all the females,
risking impregnating no one. Such a situation lead to form some adaptations supporting
long-term mating relationships and pair bonds, towards the success of monogamy in a
primate species in which, owing to its basic genetic inheritance, both males and females
were polygamous. Because of this complex interactions between “towards monogamy
adaptations” and “basic polygamous inheritance”, we have chosen to term “pseudoMo” the human breeding system from early Homo to hunter-gatherer Homo sapiens.
Subsequently, depending on environmental and cultural circumstances, Homo sapiens
has produced various kind of marital systems: in some there has been a reappearance, at
least in part, of an SM breeding system, with lawful or tolerated polygyny.
As regards environmental adaptations, according to Bramble and Lieberman (2004,
p. 345), “endurance running, defined as running many kilometers over extended time
periods using aerobic metabolism ... is unique to humans among primates”. Fossil data
suggest that this capability evolved in Homo habilis/rudolfensis for scavenging, and
subsequently in Homo ergaster/erectus for hunting. Endurance running, as remarked by
Bramble and Lieberman (2004, p.351), “may have made possible a diet rich in fats and
proteins thought to account for the unique human combination of large bodies, small
guts, big brains and small teeth” (see also Fialkowski 1986, 1987; Aiello & Wheleer
1995). Fig VII. 1 shows fossil species, which are thought to be inside the human
phylogenetic tree, disposed according to their estimates of male-male competition
levels. Scheme VII. 1 correlates the human evolution with breeding systems.
As regards social organization, combining data from body dimorphism, ecological
environment and stone tools, there is a general consensus that humans lived as hunter gatherers until a few thousands of years ago (that is, until the rising of agriculture, in
some regions before, in other after, in other never), and that these social groups were
egalitarian as regards the distribution of resources and reproduction, that is they had
MM social system and pseudo-Mo breeding system.
§ VIII. The Immense Power Being as a projection of primate’s group chief:
Freud’s and Morris’ hypotheses and criticism.
Since religious displays are characterized by submission to a dominant individual,
they may be the expression of an SM social system which has its neurological
background in the hierarchy operator of the R-complex, as described in § III. On the
other hand, according to evolutionary psychology principles, a dominant individual may
not be conceptualized by a brain which is not prepared to conceive individual relations
as hierarchic relations. Therefore, the “Immense Power Being” concept must have been
the result of the projection of the image of a group’s dominant individual in a
superhuman world: an example of such a model concerning the origin of religion is
found in Freud’s Totem und Taboo (1912/13).
In this work, which aims to explain the origins of totemism and exogamy, rather
than religion, Freud utilized the concept of the “primitive horde” hypothesized by
Darwin in The Descent of Man (1871), and the concept of the sacramental sacrifice of
the totemic animal described by W. R. Smith in Lectures on the Religion of Semites
(1889). According to Freud, in the “primitive horde” the father forbade his sons to mate
with their sisters, that he kept to himself: one day, the excluded brothers came together,
and killed and devoured their father, putting an end to the paternal horde. Eating him,
they fulfilled a sort of identification with him, and each of them took possession of a
part of his power. But afterward, as Freud hypothesized inferring by means of
psychoanalysis, they felt remorse for their action, and, as dead, the father became more
powerful than he was as live: his sons, owing to the “posthumous obedience”, inferred
from psychoanalysis, prohibited the killing of father’s substitute, the totem, and mating
with their sisters (from which the origin of exogamy).
In order to explain the persistence of totemism and exogamy in subsequent human
societies, Freud assumed memories, that are acquired and individual characters, as
genetically hereditary characters, while geneticists were showing acquired characters
were not. For that reason, now we may consider Freud’s tale only as a myth regarding
the passage from SM hominin societies to pseudo-Mo ones.
In The Naked Ape (1967; 1994, p. 121-122), D. Morris has proposed a sort of
biological updating of the Freudian hypothesis. He has wrote that before human
ancestors evolved into cooperative hunters they lived in social groups dominated by a
single male. But “with the growth of the cooperative spirit so vital for successful group
hunting, the application of the dominant individual’s authority had to be severely
limited if he was to retain the active, as opposed to passive, loyalty of the other group
members. They had to want to help him instead of simply fear him. He had to become
more “one of them”. The old-style monkey tyrant had to go, and in his place there arose
a more tolerant, more cooperative naked ape leader. … This change … nevertheless left
a gap. From our ancient background there remained a need for an all-powerful figure
who could keep the group under control, and the vacancy was filled by the invention of
a god. The influence of the invented god-figure could then operate as a force additional
to the now more restricted influence of the group leader”.
We are in agreement with Morris about the basic point that the “all-powerful being”
is a projection of the ancient “old-style monkey tyrant”, but Morris’ fast reconstruction
presents some points that need explanations, so that it must be regarded as a further
research stimulating model rather than a complete theory. Let us discuss two of this
points:
1) Morris does not state precisely the period of the human evolution in which the
“old-style tyrant” was eliminated and the god-figure was invented: in his reconstruction
these two events are regarded as or almost contemporary. But:
a) we may reasonably assert that the ability of thinking abstract, superhuman and
invisible beings was achieved only by hominins endowed with a large brain,
presumably after Homo sapiens speciation.
b) We know, from the reconstruction of hominin social behavior based on fossil
data dimorphism, and above reported, that the “old-style tyrant” was replaced by more
cooperative leaders about two million of years ago.
Therefore, if Morris’ postulated “invention of god” happened after Homo sapiens
speciation, his reconstruction does not hold in due consideration the very long time
passed from the “old-style tyrant” cessation; vice versa, if it happened immediately after
this cessation, it cannot be considered reasonable because the brains of two millions
years ago hominins could not think superhuman and invisible beings.
2) A “gap” is not a stimulus, but the absence of a stimulus. It is necessary a
stimulus that, as it is inexplicable, suggests a “gap” of power that must be filled.
Returning to our reconstruction, from the evolution of social behavior we have
depicted, it logically descents that, in groups of lacking dimorphism Hominini
(especially from early Homo), there were no individual who, as dominant male in SM
social groups, might act as a concrete example of an “Immense Power Being”. In other
words we can reject the possibility that the divine being idea might have been originated
by a projection of a dominant male actually living in those groups.
How did it happen, therefore, that among human beings with a documented low
male-male competition social system we can find a projection in the super-human world
of a being with immense power, that should have to be associated with a high malemale competition social system, supported by a strong hierarchy operator’s activity?
Although inhibited by the Limbic System, the human brain R-complex preserved
(and still preserves) structures and hierarchy forming functions which give rise to
conceive powerful leaders. The neocortical elaboration of the concept of an “Immense
Powerful Being” can only be created, according to the triune brain model, after a
proposal of the R-complex to the Neocortex. Consequently we can deduce that at some
time in the course of human evolution such a nervous structure was set free by the
inhibitory action of the Limbic System, presumably as a consequence of a strong
external stimulus which, causing a psychic trauma, weakened the inhibitory action of
the Limbic System.
§ IX. Towards a Neurobiological and Evolutionary Psychology Explanation:
a) The Traumatic and Triggering Stimulus.
We could presume that this traumatic stimulus consisted in the acquisition of the
awareness of own mortality. Indeed, as the human brain, presumably in Homo sapiens,
achieved the complexity that allowed it to think over it happened in surrounding
environment, human beings realized that whereas animals died because another animal
killed them, human beings could die even if no animal killed them: For example, at a
certain point of his life, with no apparent cause, an human being felt ill, also pain, and
died. This event, in various ways, occurred always: Every human being had not a
predator’s (or accident’s) victim, invariably died anyway.
The abstractive operator, from every single death event, inferred that every human
being had to die, i. e. it allowed human beings to be aware of their own mortality.
Thanks to the linguistic operator, this awareness of death became collective: Even
human beings who had not arrived alone at the concept of the universality of death
came to know of it by other humans.
We can presume this awareness was very shocking.
Most scholars agree that human are, and always were, troubled by their own
mortality, and some of them had explained many cultural human features as derived
from this awareness (Terror Management Theory: See, for example, Greenberg et al.
1997, or Salzman 2001). Moreover, as Hinde has noticed (1999, p. 59), among presentday humans, even if “most people profess to accept the prospect of death, indirect
methods … indicate that unconscious fear is widespread (Beit- Hallahmi and Argyle
1997; Hood et al. 1996)”.
Ethnological research of the past two centuries has shown that preliterate people do
not think death as a natural datum: “On the contrary, all the narratives on the origin and
cause of death have shown in evidence, without exceptions, the unnaturalness of death”
(Widengren 1969).
So we may infer that Homo sapiens is the only animal who knows he is mortal, and
that he does not immediately recognize this fact as a natural datum: he may think so by
means of a rational effort. Homo sapiens, as historical and ethnographic data show,
rather and immediately feels that death is a violence he has to suffer: all the more reason
it could have been considered so by the first Homo sapiens who were conscious of
death. We cannot know when this awareness took place.
McBrearty & Brooks, in their very expansive review of the origin of modern human
behavior (2000), refer (p. 519) that “earliest evidence for burial among H. sapiens is
found in the Levant at the site of Qafzeh”, that these are dated to ca. 120, - 90,000 years
ago and that at least one may be associated with grave goods.
b)
A scheme of the Triggered Psychic/Neurobiological Mechanism.
On the basis of our neurobiological knowledge, we can try to reconstruct the
psychic mechanism triggered by first death awareness in ancient humans, roughly
locating the involved brain structures using the triune model, as follows and as it is
depicted in fig. IX. 1.
1) Homo sapiens perceived death.
2) The Neocortex realized the awareness that all human beings had to die, and in
the same time death was felt as a violence.
3) Neocortical causal operator, as it spontaneously tends to impart a sense of
causality on all the events (the causal imperative or need of explanation), tried
to find the cause of the mortal violence exerted over humans. But it obviously
failed in finding an empirical cause.
4) The Limbic System received the awareness of death and the anxiety derived
from the lack of any empirical explanation, and, as it was shocked by them,
turned them into a distressing stimulus affecting the Neocortex and R-complex;
at the same time its inhibitory action on the R-complex decreased.
5) According to R-complex way of thinking (due to its behavioral operators),
violence must be performed by a dominant individual. To a similar conclusion
ancient Homo sapiens’ R-complex had unconsciously to come owing to its
internal neuronal circuits linking cognitive operators of the caudate nucleus (the
“thinking” part of the R-complex and main site of the pseudo-causal operator)
with behavioral operators as the hierarchic one lying in the pallidum.
6) The result of such a reptilian elaboration was projected to Neocortex, where it
became conscious. The Neocortical causal operator, as no other active and
empirical cause he might find, had to recognize in the reptilian concept of a
dominant individual the agent of the mortal violence inflicted on humanity.
Such a recognition was not difficult to causal operator, because, as we have said
above (§ III), it includes an agent-detection device. Therefore:
7) The Neocortex formulated the “Immense Powerful Being” concept.
8) However it was still an indefinite concept. The neocortical association areas, in
relation to the ecological, cultural and social environments (9 a), and with more
or less relevant contributions by the caudate nucleus (thank to the reverberating
circuit Neocortex – Associative Striatal Regions – Neocortex – etc., as we have
described in § III), developed various systems of myths (9 b) in order to explain
mankind-god relations (first the reason of mortal violence inflicted to humans)
and systems of rites allowing the establishment of some kind of communication
between humans and the Powerful Being(s). Inside the neocortical association
areas that tried to explain the reason of mortal violence inflicted by the
“Immense Powerful Being” to the humans, an important role might be
performed by the “metacognition” or “theory of mind” operator.
Finally, but it is fundamental, it must be emphasized that every system of belief
may be felt as true only if the Limbic System’s existential operator (9c) gives it a
sense of reality. In other words, in the presence of equivalent fantastic tales
(regards neocortical judgment) the existential operator chooses which are fancy
products and which are sacred, or revealed (and so absolutely true), tales.
Thanks to the activities of above mentioned operators, we may agree with Geertz
characterization of religion, as well as a totalitarian ideology, as a system of symbols
which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in
humans by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these
conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem
uniquely realistic (Geertz 1966). However, in Geertz’s view, religion, or a totalitarian
ideology, is a Cultural System, in our view it is a Bio-cultural System based on
neurognostic development, driven by the logical emergent properties of our innate
operators.
Cognitive or behavioral operators, such as the hierarchic one, may correspond to
Jung’s archetypes. As remarked by MacLennan (2002), archetypes are not innate
images but dynamical structures of perception and behavior. They reside in the
collective unconscious, for the archetypes are unconscious until they are activated, and
they are collective in that they are common to all humans. They become images after
they are activated by a sign stimulus. In the present reconstruction of the “Powerful
Being Concept” rising, hierarchic and agent detection operators are the most important
archetypes, and the awareness of death is the sign stimulus.
c) The “Soul” Concept
As the invisible “Powerful Being” is the “chief” of human beings, he is like them,
that it is to say human beings are like him, and so also humans have an invisible part,
the “soul”. This more or less, might have been the line of reasoning that allowed the
first humans that produced the “Powerful Being” concept to produce also the “soul”
concept.
This reconstruction of the relation between “Spiritual Beings” and “soul” is
symmetrical, or anti-parallel, in comparison with that one of Tylor, according to humans
first postulated souls in all of nature and then proceeded to postulate “spiritual beings”
or gods.
We think that the triggering stimulus we have proposed to elicit the god concept as
first is more fit than that one proposed by Tylor to elicit the soul concept as first.
The typical human capacity of thinking insensate beings has probably been favored
by oneiric activity. The “World of Dreams”, in fact, could have been explained by the
first human beings as a reality - apart from, different from, the sensate one, but not less
real. In support of this idea, we note that in religious thought dreams have often been
seen as a form of communication with the divine
§ X. Reptilian, Limbic, and Neocortical Divine Beings
As Divine Beings result from the projection of a brain activity, their features must
be result from the mixing in various parts of projections arising from the R-complex, the
Limbic System and the Neocortex. We subsequently examine each of the main features
these three brains that contribute to the emergence of the “Immense Power Being”
concept.
Reptilian Divine Beings
In the “Immense Power Being” projection of the group-chief, independent of
cultural variations, we note the manifestation of a more or less complete SM groupchief prerogative: it exercises its power on a territory, dominates other males, which
behave submissively, and has priority in access to food and to females. In the same
manner, its supernatural projection exercises:
a) Territorial domination. This may take the form of control over a single people or
be more wide, to include all of the world.
b) Domination over males. This may be shown in various ways in which males:
- assume positions that denote submission and originate from the female sexual
presentation; genuflection (from the Latin words genu, knee, and flectere, to bend)
is an euphemistic word or action rendering an unconscious primate female sexual
presentation to a dominant male (fig V 8 e).
- submit themselves to sexual mutilations (such as circumcision) that symbolizes
castration or a reduction of masculinity, so that full masculinity remains an
exclusive attribute of the “Powerful Being,” and others are required to abstain
from sexual relations
c) Priority in food access: ritual offers, especially of early fruits.
d) Ownership of females: matrimonial rites, consecration of virginal maidens to
the service of the god, or, on the contrary, sacred prostitution, by which the god
shows his magnanimity towards submissive males. In some cases the priority in
female possession is delegated by the god to his representatives on earth (“ius
primae noctis”). It is not surprising that if males must assume a submissive
attitude toward the “Powerful Being”, females must do likewise.
In summary, a Reptilian Divine Being is obsessed with sex and the control of his
subordinates’ sexual activities, as an SM Primate group-chief does. We may tell that a
Reptilian Divine Being is not only “anthropomorphic”, but, more properly,
“pithecomorphic” (pithec- being the Greek root for “monkey”).
Limbic Gods.
Limbic Divine Beings show features arising from limbic operators, mainly the
“falling in love” and attachment operators but also nursing and call ones: these
operators constitute an attachment system (see Kirkpatrick 2005).
The mammalian attachment system was selected to make the organism acutely
aware of the whereabouts of caregivers who can provide protection. Research on wide
range of mammalian species illustrates the desire of the infant to remain in close
proximity, even in contact with the mother, illustrating a special kind of psychological
bond . Virtually any threat to the infant activates this attachment system, leading the
infant to seek physical contact with the caregiver, or vocalizing distress to attract the
caregiver. The attachment system is an evolved mechanism, an adaptation for
maintaining close proximity of a dependent infant with the caregiving parent. This
contact reduces fear and the anxiety, and induces a feeling of security, a basis from
which a sense of mastery of the environment emerges. This bonding with the care giver
is so fundamental to mammalian survival that the failure to bond may produce a
withering away syndrome leading to death.
This need for protection is not limited to the infant phase, but persist as an
underlying need during adulthood. This mamalian attachment bond between infant and
mother maybe generalized to a variety of other caretakers, as well as peers and mates.
These attachment processes are lifespan issues, being significant factors in emotional
adjustment from birth through end of life. Romantic love, for example, has been
characterized as the integration of the attachment system with the caregiving and
reproductive systems.
According to Kirkpatrick (2005), the attachment system constitutes the basis for the
relationships with the most important significant other--God. In many religions, God is
often portrayed as an ideal attachment figure, as well as a model for one's own
caregiving and attachment behaviors. Kirkpatrick provides a detailed analysis to
illustrate how Christian relationships with God constitute attachment relationships that
provide a sense of safety and security. He reviews a range of psychological studies that
illustrate that the attachment relationship with God is “real”, and functions similarly to
parent child relations during childhood.
Kirkpatrick reviews a variety of studies to illustrate the major ways in which God
functions as a substitute attachment figure. For those with deep religious commitment,
their perceived relationships with God parallel the expressions of emotional love that
are found in attachment relationships with parents. “In particular, beliefs about what
God or gods are like, and the ability to have personal relationship with God, appear to
be consistent with one's experience in human relationships with attachment figures”
(Kirkpatrick pp.125-26). This is one of correspondence, where and God and human
attachment relationships are similarly structured. Another is an opposite pattern of
compensation, and where people who lack secure attachment relationships find in their
relationships with God the interpersonal relationships that they lacked and interaction
with others. This pattern of attachment relationship with God is often characterized as
“falling in love”, and often manifested as a dramatic religious conversion. This latter
pattern has generated many theories of the origins of religion, suggesting that the basic
dynamics of beliefs and a God reflects a substitute relations for beliefs and the caring
power of a father or other caregivers.
A variety of empirical studies indicate that God relationships not only function
psychologically as attachment relationships, but that in doing so they provide a range of
psychological benefits. The extent of one’s religious commitment contributes directly to
an internal locus of control, a sense that one is personally competent and able to address
the problems that one confronts. This sense of religiosity inhibits feelings of anxiety and
contributes to a sense of optimism about the future. People who experience a sense of
the presence of God during prayer or other ritual experiences are likely to have higher
levels of well-being. This sense of intrinsic religious orientation, a genuine commitment
to one's religious beliefs, is popularly associated with a variety of measures of health
including inducing a sense of personal competence and control and freedom from
worry.
Summarizing, Limbic Divine Beings show feature of parents (father or mother
like), or brother/sister. These features do not exclude feelings of fear, but sometimes
they permit some licences: after all a swearer is like a child strongly protesting against
his parents.
Neocortical Absolute Beings.
The human being has subsequently elaborated the “Perfect Being” concept. Such a
Being is the fruit of philosophical elaboration in the Neocortex.
Theological and philosophical speculations have tried to conciliate the “Powerful”
with the “Perfect” Being, mainly trying to rationalize and justify actions associated with
belief in the Powerful Being which seemed incompatible. with human moral standards.
So the human being has reached various conceptions of the Perfect Being, such as
Spinoza's “Deus sive Natura,” the deism of most of followers of the Enlightenment, the
Idealistic Absolute Spirit, the Masonic Great Architect of the Universe. We can make
no choice in this regard, even if we think much more likely the existence of a “Perfect
Being” which is his neocortical image rather than one of reptilian origin, such as the
“Powerful Being”.
Reptilian, Limbic, and Neocortical Gods in human history.
Returning to our § IX b scheme, the first Powerful being that emerged in human
mind presumably was primarily endowed with Reptilian features. However, the
subsequent development of the concept of a soul that, being similar to the Supernatural
Being, was believed to be immortal, attenuated the fear of death. Also human beings
had supernatural features, and other spiritual beings, more human-like, i. e. more or less
good, more or less bad, might be conceived to exist.
As ancient hunter-gatherers most likely lived in egalitarian societies, the conception
of a Reptilian God was in some aspect antithetical regards their social organization: We
may presume that rapidly the Supreme Being assumed Neocortical and Limbic features,
the first or the second ones prevailing according to other factors influencing the cultures
and ideas development, whereas Reptilian features became more properly typical of less
important spiritual beings, ghosts, devils and similar.
We may think these conceptions broadly spread and persisted in hunter-gatherers
till now: This form of religion is called shamanism, a topic on which we refer to
Winkelman’s studies.
In the regions of the world in which the demographic growth was faced by
agriculture (Harris 1977), more complex social entities such as chiefdoms began to
appear, followed by kingdoms and empires, as summarized by Summers (2005), who
adds that the development of these societies was associated with increasing despotism,
in term of control of resources and differential reproduction. As the history of ancient
civilizations (Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, Greece and Mesoamerica) shows,
Divine Beings that we may consider “reptilian” became very important, and often the
more expensive rituals and sacrifices were addressed to them.
In most agricultural chiefdoms, patrilinear lineages were subsequent to matrilinear
lineages (as females first practiced agriculture and had the ownership of the fields), and
in many civilizations this sociality lasted till our historical period. Pettazzoni (1956)
illustrated that the Supreme Being Concept assumed various features according to the
civilization he was belonging to: So in a patriarchal civilization the Supreme Being had
father’s features, in agricultural matrilinear societies had the Mother Earth female
features.
Nevertheless, whereas the male Supreme Being was omniscient and all-seeing, the
female Mother Earth never was so: The power of the two kinds of Supreme beings was
different, and Pettazzoni failed to find the cause. On the basis of our knowledge of
Primate societies, we may now suggest an explanation: As in Primates the male sex
means dominance and the female sex means submission: the Mother Goddess, although
she might rule most natural events, could not completely assume Immense Power
Being’s features.
In other words the conception that reptilian deities were the first and limbic and
neocortical ones were subsequent in a progressive sequence is conceptually wrong, as it
was been disproved by ethnological studies about early cultural evolutionary theories,
such as Tylor’s or Frazer’s ones.
In summary, in a Neo-Darwinian perspective we may study the cultural history of a
population and may distinguish in it some stages, but they are not in a pre-defined
sequence, nor they are necessarily in a progression of increasing values.
In most hunter-gatherer human group is (and was) present the believe in a Supreme
Being that is thought as not involved in human affairs, as a “Neocortical” Divine Being
can do, whereas in most agricultural groups (necessarily originated from hunter-gatherer
groups) are present one or more Divine Beings that are involved in human affairs, claim
sacrifices and often are obsessed with the control of human sexual life as a primate
group-chief might do, so that we may call them “reptilian” deities.
§ XI. Divinized human chiefs and charismatic leaders.
In the course of history, human beings that, by birth or historical events, achieved
absolute or complete power on other humans did not usually (or, as we know, ever)
show their power as having human nature, but as endowed with divine nature, or as
invested by Gods. For example, ancient Egypt’s kings, Inca, Chinese and Japanese
emperors were gods or gods' sons. Also Roman emperors, clashing with the traditional
laicism of the previous consular power, claimed to be regarded as gods.
In ancient Israel, kings as Saul or David were such since they were anointed by a
prophet who acted on divine behalf. In the Holy Roman Empire, emperors were
crowned by Catholic Popes. In the European feudal system, kings, feudatories and
vassals claimed their authority over common people was based on divine behalf, as
sanctioned by the Holy Bible, such as in Pauline Letters (Rom 13, 1-2: “1Let every
person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from
God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Thereforehe who resists the
authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment”).
We may state that from studies carried out on human societies by syncronic or
diacronic methods, it seems that every absolute power cannot be presented as merely
“human”, but only as “divine”.
This suggests that, after the transition from SM breeding and social systems to
pseudo-Mo breeding and MM social systems, no human could claim to be endowed
with an absolute power. When thousands of years later, an absolute powerful being was
conceived as the agent of death, he was conceived as superhuman. The Immense Power
Being idea proposed by the R-complex had to be projected outside the mankind: the
new “group chief” was similar to human beings, but he was not human. And when, at
least from the development of chiefdoms, an human being was able to achieve a sort of
absolute power, he could not be considered a simple human being, but someone
endowed with divine features. The deified group chief returned among humans deifying
in turn a human chief.
An intriguing figure of chief is formed by charismatic leader. It’s generally about a
human being that is not a chief by birth but that is able to convey towards his/her person
people’s expectations in a particular historical time. He/she proposes the answer to such
expectations exposing an ideological system that rapidly spreads not because its
rationality rather because it stimulates audience’s emotionalism. This implies that who
proposes himself as leader must have especially rhetorical abilities, since rationality is
less important. Emotional stimuli destabilize in audience the control action of the
Limbic System: as we have said above (§ II), according to MacLean, alterations of the
Limbic System’s activities can produce various experiences and feelings, as those
associated with “revelation” of truths, and strong feelings attached to systems of beliefs
(that, in this case, are in progress), regardless of whether they are rational or irrational.
When the Limbic System, instead of inhibiting, takes a function of emotional
stimulus, R-complex’s operators may be disinhibited, particularly two of them: the
hierarchic and the isopraxis ones.
The hierarchic operator’s action, in the followers, causes that who was able to
become a charismatic leader assumes a very strong power upon followers, and as a rule
he is called and rewarded as a “leader” (dux, fuhrer, helmsman, and the like) that will
be able to go with his followers towards a mythological end assigned to the History. If
such an end is conform to a religious faith, the charismatic leader become the person
chosen both by people and by divine being, the Anointed of the Lord, the Man of the
Providence, the God’s Prophet and the like, and his power become total.
At the same time the isopraxis operator causes the followers to imitate leader’s
movements, or to respond to his harangues marching or dancing all together for him,
and singing his praises; in such a way they standardize their behaviors and their mental
attitudes. They become easily indoctrinated and execute even most despicable orders
without any objection. What might be considered as inhuman or dreadful if done by a
single human, can become a lawful or holy action if it is done by altogether owing to
leader’s incitement.
§ XII. Conclusive remarks on our hypothesis.
The biological bases of religion, that we have supposed from § I, consist in
summary in a few generalized characteristics of the human way of thinking, owing to
brain structures and operators, as:
1)
the inductive capacity of abstracting from single observations general rules
(inductive operator);
2)
the necessity of finding a cause-effect nexus among observed phenomena
3)
4)
5)
(causal operator), and, more properly,
that some causes indicate the presence of some living agent (agency
detection operator);
the capacity of projecting one’s own thought and emotions in others (theory
of mind, or metacognition , operator);
the capacity to accept dominant and subordinate roles in a hierarchic
society, accepting rewards vand punishments by dominant individuals.
These generalized structural characteristics have been produced by natural selection
because they allowed Mammals (and Hominini in particular) to face better the
environment. So religion, regards its origins, must be considered an emergent product of
naturally selected mind functions. This perspective might be seen as in agreement with
scholars such as Maser & Gallup (1990), Kirkpatrick (1999, 2005), Boyer (2003),
expressed in the conclusions of Atran & Norenzayan (2004) that “religion is not an
evolutionary adaptation per se, but a recurring cultural by-product of the complex
evolutionary landscape that sets cognitive, emotional and material conditions for
ordinary human interactions” (A. & N. 2004, p.713).
We may reasonably differ from this perspective in seeing the superordinate god
concept as an evolved mechanism for allowing the integration of larger groups of
humans, making a “Dominant other” so distant and yet powerful that it could unite
millions to a common cause. The “Immense Power Being” concept certainly has shown
its ability to foster reproduction and survival in its members in the major religions of the
world today. In allowing humans to extend male-male bonds, provided a major
evolutionary extension of the human ability to live in groups supordinated to a common
hierarchical power. While the “Immense Power Being Concept” exapts many prior
dominance structures, as well as social and personal operators, it provides something
more in the conceptualizations of a omniscience, omnipotence and superordinate
identity. The Immense Power Being concept take the conceivable possibilities beyond
human pale, symbolically representing further possibility for human modeling and
development. This moves developmental goal beyond the genetically driven selfish
interests of individual inclusive fitness to permit a commitment to supporting a larger
non-kin social group that helps ensure intergroup competition for survival. In these
sense, the Immense Power being concept provides a mechanism for integrating larger
groups that intensifies intergroup selection (D.S. Wilson).
Our “agency detection mechanism” evolved to respond to things “out there” that
were vitally important for our ancestors to recognize; it come to be focused on other
groups, humans’ most important competitors and predators. But it was extended to
connect with for all sorts of phenomena, particularly those causal systems involving
unknown complex agents, designs and origins. Spirit concepts involve these kinds of
agents with capacities beyond ordinary human capabilities. Spirit beings possess a
variety of personal and social characteristics of humans, as well “non-intuitive”
properties that “contradict” both the ordinary principles of the Universe and the ways in
which our brains understand the Universe. Spirits “supernatural” abilities expanded
beyond our human behavioral capacities.
What pre-adaptation constitutes the basis for the exaptation providing the basis for
super human capabilities manifested in the supernatural? What exaptation provides the
counterintuitive properties we ascribe to the supernatural? The lack of an apparent
answer to these questions suggests that religion may provide an adaptation through
those aspects of the supernatural premise that relate to these non-intuitive,
contradictory, and “super”-human capabilities.
The supernatural concept represents an extreme manifestation of the symbolic
process that makes it possible for us to represent and thereby conceive of “things” we
can never actually see or touch as empirical objects. This leads to another way in which
religion’s supernatural assumption is adaptive. For the belief that “supernatural others”
have access to our thoughts helps to inhibit deception and encourage group loyalty and
sacrifice. Wildman points out that this provides a basis for a compelling interest in
adhering to moral standards established by the supernatural. As the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant contended, moral reasoning requires a religious framework in order for
it to be rational, assuming an ultimate moral authority that establishes standards and
allocates rewards and punishments. To the extent that the omniscient (all-knowing)
properties of the supernatural engage possibilities beyond that of our innate mental
hardware, religious thought provides an adaptation. The supernatural concept may offer
an additional advantage by expanding our ability to internalize these “supernatural
others” and their super human capabilities, thereby providing a basis for addressing
problems of reliability in assuming the honesty of others. The super human capabilities
that enable omniscience can provide a policing function and assure one’s adherence to
normative expectations, even if our normal social others—the other members of our
society—are not capable of detecting our behavior.
However different natural or social environments may act different selective
pressures on the different genes that constitute the biological foundations of brain
operators. For example, in some societies a well-functioning hierarchic operator
(producing submissive individuals) may be fitter that a minor one (producing anarchic
individuals). So, as submissive individuals may have more reproductive success than
anarchic individuals, parallel reptilian gods may have more followers than limbic or
neocortical gods. Another case may be done by genetic drift, in which a particular gene,
for example that favoring magic thought, or mystical behaviors, may be abundant in the
group that founds a new population in a new land.
In this respect, the adaptative value of religion, that some scholars (as Bulbulia,
2004, or Sosis, cited) are studying, has to be investigated. But in an other paper.
Figures
(Draft that has to be retouched)
Fig
Telencephalon
Diencephalon
II.1
Endbrain
Mesenc-
Metenc-
Myelen-
ephalon
ephalon
cephalon
Mid-
Hindbrain
Interbrain
F o r e b r a i n
brain
E n c e p h a l o n
S p i n a l C o r
d
Abbreviations.
BG: basal ganglia; CB: cerebellum; D CTX: dorsal cortex (neo-cortex);
HY: hypothalamus; L CTX: lateral cortex (palaeo-cortex); M: medulla oblongata;
M CTX: medial cortex (archi-cortex); P: pons; SP: spinal cord; T: tectum;
TG: tegmentum mesencephali; TH: thalamus.
Fig. II.3
Scheme of the R-Complex in Saimiri (adapted from MacLean)
Fig. II:4.The three main regions of the Limbic System (adapted from MacLean)
Abbreviations: A.T.: Anterior Thalami Nucleus; HYP.: Hypothalamus; M.: Mammillary body;
M. F. B.: Medial Forebrain Bundle; OLF.: Olfactory; PIT.: Pituary gland, or hypophysis.
Fig. III.1 (a: section at anterior commessure level; b: more rostral section).
Abbreviations:
AC: Anterior Commissure; Acc: Nucleus Accumbens; ASR: Associative Striatal Region;
CC: Corpus Callosum; CD: Caudate Nucleus; GP: Globus Pallidus;
LSR: Limbic Striatal Region; PUT: Putamen; SMSR: SensoriMotor Striatal Region.
Fig. V.1 a
Fig. V.1 b
Fig. V.1 c
Fig. V.1 d
Fig. V.1 e
Fig.V.1 f
Fig. V.2 a : copulation in Papio
Fig. V.2 b : a male mounts a
Fig. V.2 c : a female mounts a
hamadryas.
subordinate
subordinate
male
as
rank
demonstration.
female
as
demonstration
Fig. V.2 d
A low rank individual acquires group chief’s support against an high rank male.
Fig. V.2 e
Homages to an ancient Egyptian dignitary.
Fig. V.2 f Christian fundamentalists in prayer.
rank
Table VI 1
Breeding groups
Social Groups
Representative species
Competition levels
Mo or Pair
Hylobates spp.
Symphalangus spp.
I° level
I° level
MM
Lemur catta
II° or IV° level
Pan spp.
Papio cynocephalus
Papio ursinus
Papio anubis
II° level
IV° level
IV° level
IV° level
Gorilla gorilla
III° level
Pongo pygmaeus
Presbytis cristatus
Presbytis obscurus
Presbytis entellus
III° level
III° level
III° level
IV° level
Papio Hamadryas
Theropithecus gelada
IV° level
IV° level
Mo
MM
MM
MM
SM
SM
Multi SM
Fig. VII 1
Homo sapiens
1200-1500 cm3
] Low sexual dimorphism.
] Pseudo Mo , but also SM
]
and MM breeding groups.
Homo
ergaster/erectus
≈ 1000 cm3
] Low sexual dimorphism
] Probable pseudo Mo breeding
Homo
rudolfensis/habilis
≈ 600 cm3
Australopithecus
≤ 500 cm
] and MM social groups.
] Dimorphism reduction; probable
3
garhi
] passage from SM to pseudo Mo
] breeding groups.
Australopithecus
< 500 cm3
afarensis
] High sexual dimorphism;
] probable SM breeding groups.
Australopithecus
anamensis
] Medium (chimp-like) dimorphism;
Ardipithecus kadabba
< 500 cm3
4
] probable MM breeding groups.
2
Male-male competition levels
(Plavcan and van Schaik)
Scheme VII 1: Figure’s VII 1 table
Cranial
capacity
Sexual dimorphism
and breeding system
Fig. IX. 1 (“Fig. 10” refers to a former numeration: it has to be deleted).
References
Adolphs R., D. Traner & A. R. Damasio
1998
The human amygdala in social judgement. Nature 393: 470-474.
Aiello L. C. & P. Wheeler
1995
The expensive-tissue hypothesis: The brain and the digestive system in human and primate
evolution. Current Anthropology 36: 199-221.
Alper M.
1996
The “God” Part of the Brain. New York: Rogue Press. (5th Edition: 2001).
Ariëns Kappers C. U.
1909
The phylogenesis of the palaeo-cortex and archi-cortex compared with the evolution of the visual
neo-cortex. Arch. Neurol. Psychiatry (London) 4: 161-173.
Aron A., H. Fisher., D. Mashek, G. Strong, H. Li, L. L. Brown
2005
Reward, motivation and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. J.
Neurophysiol 94: 327-337.
Atran S. & A. Norenzayan
2004
Religion’s evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 713-730.
Barrett J. L.
2000
Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 29-34.
Baumgarten H. G. & M. Göthert (eds.)
1997
Serotoninergic Neurons and 5-UT Receptors in the CNS. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Beit-Hallahmi B. & M. Argyle
1997
Religious behavior, belief, and experience. London: Routledge.
Boyer P.
2001
Religion Explained: Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.
2003
Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7
(3): 119-124
Bramble D. M. & D. E. Lieberman
2004
Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature 432: 345-352.
Brelich A.
1970
“Prolegomenes à une histoire des religions”. In: H. Ch. Pucch (ed.), Histoire des Religions. Paris:
Librairie Gallimard.
Bulbulia J.
2004
The cognitive and evolutionary psychology of religion. Biology and Philosophy 19: 655-686.
Burkert W.
1972
Homo necans: Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten un Mythen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
1996
Creation of the Sacred. Tracks of Biology in Early Religions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Buss D. M.
1999
Evolutionary Psychology. The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Buss D. M. & T. K. Shackelford
1997
Human Aggression in Evolutionary Psychological Perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 17 (6):
605-619.
Chaline J., A. Durand, D. Marchand, A. Dambricourt Malassé, MJ. Deshayes
1996
Chromosomes and the origins of Apes and Australopithecines. Human Evolution 11(1): 43-60.
Clutton-Brock T.H. & P.H Harvey
1977
Primate ecology and social organization. The Journal of Zoology 183: 1-39.
Cory G. A. & R. Gardner (eds.)
2002
The Evolutionary Neuroethology of Paul MacLean: Convergences and Frontiers. Westport:
Praeger.
d’Aquili E. G. & A. B. Newberg
1999
The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Darwin C. R.
1871
The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray.
Delgado J.M.R.
1969
Physical control of the Mind. Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York: Harper & Row.
DSM III
1985
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders, III ed. Washington: American
Psychiatric Association Press.
Durkheim E.
1912
Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse (Le système totémique en Australie). Paris: F. Alcan.
Ernandes M. & S. Giammanco
1998
MacLean’s Triune Brain and the Origin of the “Immense Power Being “ Idea. The Mankind
Quarterly 39
(2): 173-201.
Feuerbach L. A.
1841
Das Wesen des Christenthums. Leipzig. (The Essence of Christianity, G. Eliot tr., 1989, Prometheus
Books//1958, P. Smith// 1942, Harp C.).
Fialkowski K.
1986
A Mechanism for the Origin of the Human Brain: A Hypothesis. Current Anthropology 27: 288290.
1987
On the Origins of the Human Brain: Preadaptation vs Adaptation. Current Anthropology 28: 540543.
Firth R.
1963
Offering and sacrifice. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 93: 12-24.
Flinn M. V., D. C. Geary, C. V. Ward
2003
Ecological dominance, social competition, and coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved
extraordinary intelligence. Evolution and Human Behavior 26: 10-46.
Freud S.
1912/13
Totem und Tabu. Leipzig: Heller. (Totem & Taboo, 1989, Buccaneer Bks//1976, Amereon
Ltd//1960, Random).
Gazzaniga M. S.
1985
The Social Brain. Discovering the networks of the mind. New York:Basic Books Inc.
Geertz C.
1966
Religion as a cultural system. In: Banton M. (ed.) Anthropological approaches to the study of
religion, p. 1-46. London: Tavistock.
Haile-Selassie Y., G. Suma, T. D. White
2004
Late Miocene Teeth from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, and Early Hominid Dental Evolution. Science
303: 1503-1505.
Hamer D.
2004
The God Gene. New York: Doubleday.
Harris M.
1977
Cannibals and Kings. The Origins of Cultures. New York: Random House.
1979
Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. N. Y.: Random House.
1989
Our Kind. New York: Harper & Row.
Harvey P.H., M. Kavanagh. & T.H. Clutton-Brock
1978
Sexual dimorphism in primate teeth. The Journal of Zoology 186: 475-485.
Hauser M. C., N. Chomsky & W. T. Fitch
2002
The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science 298: 15691579.
Higley J. D., P. T. Mehlman, D. M. Taub, S. B. Higley, S. J. Suomi, M. Linnoila, J. H. Vickers
1992
Cerebrospinal Fluid Monoamine and Adrenal Correlates of Aggression in Free-Ranging Rhesus
Monkeys. Archives of General Psychiatry 49: 436-441.
Hinde R.A.
1987
Individuals, Relationships and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1999
Why Gods Persist. London – New York: Routledge.
Hubert H., Mauss M.
1898
Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifica. L’Année sociologique 2: 29-138.
Insel T. R. & L. J. Young
2000
Neuropeptides and the evolution of behavior. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 10: 784-789.
Isaacson R. L.
1982
The Limbic System. Second edition. New York: Plenum Press.
Jacobs B. L & F- C. Azmitia
1992
Structure and Function of the Brain Serotonin System. Physiological Reviews 72 (1): 165-229.
Jolly C.
2001
A proper study for mankind:Analogies from papionin monkeys and their implications for human
evolution. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 44: 177-204.
Kandel E. R., J. H. Schwartz & T.M. Jessel
1996
Principles of Neural Sciences (3rd edition). Appleton & Lange.
Kaplan J. R., J. Phillips-Conroy, M. B. Fontenot, C. J. Jolly, L. A. Fairbanks, & J. J. Mann
1999
Cerebrospinal Fluid Monoaminergic Metabolite Differ in Wild Anubis and Hybrid (anubis
hamadryas)
Baboons:
Possible
Relationships
to
Life
History
and
Behavior.
Neuropsychopharmacology 20 (6): 517-524.
Kant I.
1781
Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Riga: J. F. Hartknock (Critique of Pure Reason, Politis V. ed., 1993, C.
E. Tuttlel// Meiklejohn J. M. tr., 1990. Prometheus Books// Smith N. Y. ed., 1969, St Martin).
Kirkpatrick L. A.
2005
Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion. New York: The Guilford Press.
Koestler A.
1978
The ghost in the machine. London: Hutchinson and Co.
Leutenegger W. & J. T. Kelly
1977
Relationship of Sexual Dimorphism in Canine Size and Body Size to Social, Behavioral, and
Ecological Correlates in Anthr. primates. Primates 18(1): 117-136.
Lorenz K.
1973
Die Rückseite des Spiegels. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte menschlichen Erkennens. München: R.
Piper & Co. Verlag. (Behind the Mirror: A Search for a Naturai History of Human Knowledge,
Taylor R. tr., 1978, Harcourt Brace, P. Smith)
MacLean P.D.
1970
The triune brain, emotion, and scientific bias. In F.O. Schmitt (ed.), The neurosciences: Second
study program, pp. 336-349. New York: Rockefeller University Press.
1973a
A triune concept of the brain and behavior. In T. J. Boag & D. Campbell (eds.), The Clarence M.
Hincks Memorial Lectures, 1969, pp. 1-66. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
1973b
The brain’s generation gap: some human implication. Zygon, Journal of Religion and Science 8:
113127.
1973c
Effects of pallidal lesions on species-typical display behavior of squirrel monkey. Fed. Proceedings
32. 384 ...
1978
A Mind of Three Minds: Educating the Triune Brain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1985a
Evolutionary psychiatry and the triune brain. Psychological Medicine 15: 219-221.
1985b
Brain Evolution Relating to Family, Play, and the Separation Call. Arch. of General Psychiatry 42:
405-417.
1990
The Triune Brain in Evolution. Role in Paleocerebral Functions. New York: Plenum Publ. Co.
MacLennan
2002
Evolutionary Neurotheology and the Varieties of Religious Experience. In: R. Joseph (ed.),
Neurotheology: Brain, Science, Spirituality, Religious Experience, pp. 305-314, University Press,
California
Mandell A. J.
1980
Toward a Psychobiology of Transcendence. God in the Brain. In: Davidson & Davidson (eds.), The
Psychobiology of Consciousness. New York: Plenum Press.
Marazziti D., H. S. Akiskal, A. Rossi, G. B. Cassano
1999
Alteration of the platelet serotonin transporter in romantic love. Psychol. Med. 29: 741-745.
Maser J. D. & G. G. Gallup
1990
Theism as a By-Product of Natural Selection. The Journal of Religion 70 (4): 515-532.
McBrearty S. & A. S. Brooks
2000
The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human bahavior. Journal of
Human Evolution 39: 453-563.
McFarland D.
1985
Animal Behaviour. Harlow (UK): Longman Scientific & Technical.
McNamara P.
2002
The motivational origins of religious practices. Zygon. J of Rel. & Sci. 37 (1):143-160.
Mehlman P. T., J. D. Higley, I. Faucher, A. A. Lilly, D. M. Taub, J. Vickers, SJ. Suomi, M. Linnoila
1992
Low CSF 5-HIAA Concentrations and Severe Aggression and Impaired Impulse Control in
Nonhuman Primates. American Journal of Psychiatry 151 (10): 1485-91.
Morris D.
1967
The Naked Ape. London: Jonathan Cape. (1994, London: Vintage Books/Random House).
Morris J. S., A. Öhman & R. J. Dolan
1998
Conscious and unconscious emotional learning in the human amygdala. Nature 393: 467-470.
Newberg A. B. & E. G. d’Aquili
2001
Why God won’t go away. Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books.
Niewenhuys R., H. J. ten Donkelaar & C. Nicholson (eds.)
1998
The Central Nervous System of Vertebrates. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Oatley K.
2004
Emotion:Brief History. Blackwell Publishing.
Pals
1996
Seven Theories of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Parent A., Hazrati L.-N.
1995a
Functional anatomy of the basal ganglia. I. The cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loop. Brain
Research Reviews 20: 91-127.
1995b
Functional anatomy of the basal ganglia. II: The place of sub-thalamic nucleus and external
pallidum in basal ganglia circuitry. Brain Research Reviews 20 (1): 128-154.
Pettazzoni R.
1956
The All-Knowing God. London: Methuen. (Or.: L’onniscienza di Dio. Torino, 1955).
Pickford M. & B. Chiarelli (eds.)
1986
Sexual dimorfism in living and fossil primates. Florence:. Il Sedicesimo.
Pinker S.
1997
How the mind works. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Plavcan J. M.
2002
Sexual dimorphism in primate evolution. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 44: 25-53.
Plavcan J. M. & C. P. van Schaik
1992
Intrasexual competition and canine dimorphism in anthropoid primates. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 87:461-477.
1994
Canine Dimorphism. Evolutionary Anthropology 2: 208-214.
1997
Interpreting hominid behavior on the basis of sexual dimorphism. Journal of Human Evolution 32:
345-374.
Porges S. W.
2001
The polyvagal theory: phylogenetic substrates of a social nervous system. Int. J. of
Psychophysiology 42: 123-146.
Povinelli D. J. & J. Vonk
2003
Chimpanzee minds: suspiciously Human? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7(4): 157-160.
Raleigh M.J., G. Brammer, A. Yuwiler, J. W. Flammery, M. T. McGuire, E. Geller
1980
Serotonergic influences on the social behavior of vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops
sabaeus). Experimental Neurology 68 (2): 322-34.
Raleigh M.J., M. T. McGuire, G. L. Brammer, D. B. Pollack and A. Yuwiler
1991
Serotonergic mechanisms promote dominance acquisition in adult male vervet monkeys. Brain
Research 599: 181-190.
Rapoport J. L
1989
The Biology of Obsessions and Compulsions. Scientific American 260 (3): 62-69.
Rappaport R. A.
1970
The sacred in human evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2: 23-44.
Reiner A., L. Medina & C. L. Veenman
1998
Structural and functional evolution of the basal ganglia in vertebrates. Brain Research Reviews 28
(3): 235-285.
Ruff C.
2002
Variation in Human Body Size and Shape. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:211-232.
Smith W. R.
1889
Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. Edinburgh: Blackwell.
Sosis R. & C. Alcorta
2003
Signaling, Solidarity, and the Sacred: The Evolution of Religious Behavior: Evolutionary
Anthropology 12: 264-274.
Sosis R. & E. R. Bressler
2003
Cooperation and Commune Longevity: A Test of the Costly Signaling Theory of Religion. CrossCultural Research 37 (2): 211-239.
Spinoza B.
(posthumous; written: ante 1677). Epistularum liber, XIX, (Correspondence, Wolf A. ed., F. Cass).
Stuss D. T., G. G. jr Gallup, & M. P. Alexander
2000
The frontal lobes are necessary for “theory of mind”. Brain 124: 279-286.
Swanson L. W.
2000
What is the brain? Trends in NeuroScience 23 (11): 519-527.
ten Donkelaar H. J.
1998
Reptiles. In: R.. Niewenhuys et al. (eds.), pp. 1315-1524.
Tylor E. B.
1871
Primitive Culture. London: J. Murray.
van der Leeuw G.
1933
Phänomenologie der Religion. Tübingen
Vernon G. M.
1962
Sociology of religion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vico G.
1744
Scienza nuova terza (3rd ed.; 1st: 1725), Napoli. En. trans.: New Science, 3rd ed. London: Penguin,
1999.
Voogd J., R. Niewenhuys. P. A. M. van Dongen and H. J. ten Donkelaar
1998
Mammals. In- R. Niewenhuys et al. (eds.), pp. 1636-2097.
Ward C. V., M. G. Leakey, A. Walker
2001
Morphology of Australopithecus anamensis from Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Journal of
Human Evolution 41:255-368.
Weber M.
1904/5
Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und
Sozialpolitik 20/21: ...; Book edition: 1922. Tubingen: Mohr.
Weiger W. A.
1998
Serotonergic modulation of behaviour: a phylogenetic overview. Biological reviews of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society 72: 61-95.
Whybrow P. C.
1999
A Mood Apart. The Thinker’s Guide to Emotion and Its Disorders. New York: HarperPerennial.
2005
American Mania: When More is not Enough. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Wickler W.
1967
Socio-sexual Signals and their intra-specific Imitation among Primates. In : D. Morris (ed.)
Primate Ethology, pp. 69-147. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
1969
Sind wir Sunder? München: D. V. Th. Knaur Nachf.
Winkelman M.
1998
Aztec human sacrifice: Cross cultural assessments of the ecological hypothesis. Ethnology 37: 28598.
2000
Shamanism: The Neural Ecology of Consciousness and Healing. Westport: Greenwood.
Winkelman M. & J. Baker
2008
Supernatural as Natural. A Biocultural Theory of Religion. Prentice Hall.
Widengren G.
1969
Religionsphänomenologie. Berlin: Walter de Gruiter.
Wolters J. O., H. J. ten Donkelaar, H. W. M. Steinbusch, A. A. J. Verhofstad
1983
Distribution of serotonin in the brain stem and spinal cord of the lizard Varanus exanthematicus: an
immunohistochemical study. Neuroscience 14: 169-193.
Wood B.
1994
The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371: 280-1.
Woob B. & A. Brooks
1999
Human evolution: We are what we ate. Nature 400: 219.
Sources of Figures: they have to be added