Natural Science Religion Articles

Alexander Nevzorov: A Million Years of Dementia

kolhui 1 - Александр Невзоров: Миллион лет слабоумия


Religious faith can be compared with the hair that covers our body. At the first stages of evolution, thick, greasy hair on a man was quite appropriate. It warmed, protected, and provided with a light breakfast: it was always possible to catch caloric parasites in its thickets. But several million years have passed, and the process of hairlessness has begun. At first a naked face appeared from the dirty mat and tangle. Then came the era of general human baldness. Evolution inexorably freed him from the pelage, from its edible inhabitants and the sweetness of constant itching.

Of course, it was very cruel. But this was unavoidable. It was necessary to go bald, as, slightly rising up the hierarchical ladder, homo sapiens got access to the carcasses of large dead animals. And this product required a deep immersion. Liquid and semi-liquid putrefactive substrates impregnated the wool and finally turned our great-grandfathers into a walking trash. So the spread of a man happened for the same reason that the neck was exposed to the vultures. But the vulture is a delicate bird. She did not go deep into the carrion and therefore kept most of the plumage. But homo go naked almost completely.

Perhaps it was not exactly what it seems to me. But it does not matter. For one reason or another, a man has got rid of a cozy covering coat. And it proved to be extremely useful for its development, reproduction and survival.

Approximately the same thing had to happen with the pelage of his mind, with religious faith. Once for a primitive savage mindset, it was natural and comfortable. She warmed and gave the sheer sweetness of prayer. It’s got nice itchy beliefs. But as the intellectual environment changed, this “wool” also had to disappear.

Nevertheless, this did not happen. So far, it is worn by 90% of people. This “wool” is tinted, curled and cut according to religious fashion and local culture. Of course, there may be large or small bald spots on it, but nevertheless, contrary to all the laws of development, on the whole it remains.

It has hundreds of names: Kabbalah, Orthodoxy, Shinto, Buddhism, Islam, metaphysics, et. But, despite the many names and colors, this is a single phenomenon that has one nature and one purpose. Attributes of the cults are different, but they have a common sense: the presence of external control of the world.

This “wool” was ripped apart by scraps of science and plucked publicism. But it grew as if nothing had happened. Finally, quantum mechanics dissected the reality itself. In its depth, a set of physical phenomena was discovered that generated all visible and invisible matter. Of course, no “external management” there and did not smell. But “wool” easily survived this.

Cultivating anger and bans, she always frankly interfered with the development of man. At its sublimity, precious centuries were wasted. It was religion who launched the “social” elevators, elevating the most primitive representatives of the species to power. Obvious and its uselessness: any banging forehead in the floor in front of the symbol of any deity at least ineffectual.

According to all the laws of development, only funny memories should remain about faith. But this “wool” is not going to get down, but still determines the world view of the absolute majority of people.

The mass nature of religious faith does not prove its validity or need. You can take 200 million ducks and learn them to quack at the sight of an inflatable ball. Duck unanimity, of course, will make a shock impression. But it will not be proof of the extraordinary properties of the ball, but rather a characteristic of ducks.

In other words, the mystery of faith should be sought where it is: in the core features of homo sapiens. That is, where our knowledge is so defective, and thanks to the efforts of anthropology and psychology, every year it gets worse.

The fact is that to understand the phenomenon it is necessary to know its origin.

Fundamental qualities of man were formed at that time when the concept of “saving one’s skin” was used in a direct, not figurative sense. The so-called “prehistoric period” was the longest and most important for our species. Then it was decided what kind of person to be. The whole mechanism of our higher nervous activity is the fruit of precisely the period when homo was a schooled animal, who traded in carrion and cannibalism. For a few million years, all kinds of behaviors and biological habits were built and consolidated. Absolutely all the basic qualities of a man come from that era. Including the property that encourages kissing boards with pictures or cut off the head of adherents of a different religion.

The influence of this period is also evidenced by the figures: the so-called “prehistoric” period is at least 200 thousand generations, and the so-called “historical” – only 200. Notice that biology teaches us that every organism has a fluctuating sum of properties of all its predecessors .

All that the fixed history shows us (200 generations from Sumer) is a trifle. By the time writing arose, homo sapiens finally formed and only realized its features.

It should be understood that the powdered wig or helmet with the star was donned not by someone, but by the great-grandson of the Pithecanthropus, the heir of all the properties of this sweet creature. He thought about gravity, built pyramids and clanked the doors of gas chambers.

The image of a witch burner, a military killer, an eternal rapist, a sophisticated executioner does not fit well with the humanistic concept of human evolution. But one has only to remember that rape, murders and all derivatives of these amusements were man’s main business for many millions of years – and everything immediately falls into place.

However, we do not have ambitions to characterize the whole path of this smart animal. Our task is much simpler: to understand what properties of a person still retain the covering hair on his mind.

How the religious faith originated and what it was made of is more or less clear. Let me remind you, the question is not this, but in those deep qualities of homo, which provided the faith with amazing vitality. So, we must descend the chronological scale for a couple of million years and look at the cunning eyes of our great-grandfathers.

And here the problems begin. We have no one to ask for help and facts. As it turns out, the evolution of man is not concerned with fundamental science, but a certain descriptive discipline, infused with fantasies and dangerously bordering on elegant belles-lettres.

115 years have passed since the establishment of the Nobel Prize. The medal with the profile of a handsome inventor of dynamite was the main criterion of the so-called “scientific”. Of course, those who have not got it and will not get it do not always agree with this. But today there is no more authoritative registrar of credibility and importance of knowledge than the Alfred Nobel Prize.

Of course, the Nobel Committee was not always flawless in its assessments of the “personal contribution” of scientists. It happened that he offended the great and glorified the insignificant. However, this only concerned personalities. Directly the disciplines themselves, which expanded knowledge about the universe and its contents, were regularly showered with Nobel gold. The physiology of digestion, relic radiation, genetics and quantum mechanics have always received what was rightfully theirs.

Of course, the committee’s proceedings have had the opposite effect. The “Nobel” circle was outlined, outside of which everything that has nothing to do with genuine science remains. The outline was made “painfully, but neatly”. There was no kindling of interdisciplinary discord in the spirit of Rutherford, who maintained that “science is divided into physics and the collection of stamps.” The division into “real science,” “not very science,” and “not science at all” was accomplished as it were by itself. Without declarations. Through the inexorable and consistent suppression of attempts to “small knowledge” to get into the main circle.

A good illustration is the example of so-called “psychoanalysis”. Eleven times it was nominated by its fans for the award and as many times was rejected. Also rejected were Astrologers, historians, anthropologists, linguists etc. have not once seen the icy smile of the Nobel Committee, which returned their work “as unrelated to fundamental science.”

So, the verdict sounded long ago.

In 2009, an attempt was made to appeal him and allow “not entirely science” to be considered by the commissions of the Royal Academy. But the initiators of this idea politely whipped, and the topic was closed. We should especially note that by default it is customary to spare the feelings of representatives of “small knowledge” and as few as possible to call things by their proper names. Moreover, it would never enter anyone’s head to scoff aloud at their glossy volumes, over their collections of stones and bones with fantastical interpretations of these artifacts. It is believed that the very fact of rejecting “small knowledge” in the Nobel disciplines explains everything and does not require comments. And the dissenters are given the freedom to run out of poison in any quantity.

According to the “Nobel Account” inside the category of “not sciences” are: astrology, ufology, psychology, linguistics, history, anthropology, archeology, palmistry, demonology, philology, theology, sociology and a few more “logies” that are younger and more controversial. These different wisdoms are bound by common misfortune. All of them are absolutely sterile. Accurate historical knowledge is as impossible as summoning a demon.

And inaccurate knowledge has one small problem: it is simply not knowledge and is suitable only for fun. However, we will not once again disturb the wounds of “not sciences”.

All this does not mean that archeology is forever placed on a par with ufology, and anthropology with chiromancy. Of course, this is not so. Both archeology and anthropology have a chance to become real sciences. Perhaps these disciplines will someday overcome their “inferiority”, they will acquire their own Einsteins and come for Nobel’s gold. Of course, this chance is ghostly, but it exists. Unlike demonology, anthropology, for example, still deals with reality. But will anthropology  learn to treat reality so masterly to offer the world the conclusions that are equal to the constants of physics – a big question.


Of course, the futility of anthropological research could remain a personal matter of this discipline. Strictly speaking, all its failures can not harm anyone, since they have no influence on the processes of cognition of the world. Of course, the density of the pubic hair of the Mongoloids is a very important issue, but with clenched teeth one can do without its solution.

If the matter were limited to this and similar tasks, then no one would disturb anthropology in its distant closet.


On her own misfortune, it was the student of such an inflamed topic as the evolution of man. In the middle of the XIX century, Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel pointed to the extremely “low biological origin” of homo. Moreover, they bequeathed to the descendants to unravel the nature and meaning of the transmutations of this animal. “Ancestry” volunteered to be anthropology. She really wanted to become a popular and important science. But for 150 years, of course, she could not understand the reasons for the transformation of the animal homo sapien into an art critic.

However, we must pay tribute to the anthropologists. With the technical part of the job they coped: dug, washed and beautifully laid out sets of pebbles and bones. With the help of such installations, it was possible to outline in vain the changes that have occurred with the body of the animal homo for several million years.

But, as it turned out, to the riddle of man and the origin of his properties, all this has not the slightest relation. Bones, of course, do not explain the reasons for the evolutionary career of homo sapiens, do not decipher the reasons for its strange phases and do not give an idea of ​​the motivation that forced this animal to change.

In other words, we see a complete fiasco. All questions remained unanswered. And there is no hope that the answers will appear.

How could such an important matter be administered in such a low-power discipline?

The answer is simple. Real science in the issue of human evolution has nothing to do. But not for the reason that the subject of study is not interesting, and only because there is nothing to work with. There are no verifiable facts that could be put into a self-sustaining system. The very one that generates large-scale guesses, and then discoveries.

An example of such an addition we see in physics, chemistry, physiology, biology. In anthropology this did not happen. For many reasons.

It’s hard to believe, but among the authors of anthropogenesis there has never been somebody equal to Planck, Born, Feynman, Galileo or Pavlov. For all of its existence, this discipline has not produced a single great or even a loud scientific name. Intellectual elite of mankind has never dealt with the theme of human development.

This most important question was given to a set of “muddy grandfathers”, unknown to anyone outside the circle of interest. For 150 years now these average people write off each other’s conjectures about an animal, which in some magical way was pre-progressed to mortgages and condoms.

This lack of “names” is amazing. After all, the solution to the evolution of homo promised and promises grandiose laurels. Theoretically, the whole intellectual power of Europe should have focused on this issue. But … even the most predatory and ambitious intellectuals never visited it. Only for one reason: there was no smell of profit. There are no facts – there is no science, and consequently, there is no real fame or great gold.

However, where there is no science, as a rule, very amusing speculations take root and flourish. Which, in fact, happened.

Let us recall the “theory of primitive society,” which predominates in one form or another in paleoanthropology. It mimics, changes names, makes “skirts” of advanced phraseology, but its essence remains unchanged. What is this theory? We will expound it briefly and without ceremony.

This is a beautiful story about a motivated Pithecanthropus who dreamed of becoming a man. For this, he cultivated himself and mysteriously passed his experience on to the next generation. In the absence of writing, this was difficult, but the Pithecanthropus coped. In a couple of million years, he finally managed to grow his brain to the right size. The brain became quite suitable for the invention of underpants and the revolver. But our Pithecanthropus continued to be modest and content with the role of a schooling animal, darting about in search of a carrion. He compensated for the insignificance of his position by philosophizing at the fire, and also by desperate promiscuity and cannibalism. Probably, it seemed very romantic to him. Periodically our hero loitered the stones and hid his crafts in different places. So he spent another million years, but suddenly remembered his old, almost forgotten dream. And then he changed: he covered his genitals and stopped eating relatives. It was this mysterious metamorphosis that was called the “Neolithic revolution”. And it had already led the man to the home stretch of the pharaohs, the Mozarts and the electric chairs. The dream finally came true.

Of course, such an outspoken rubbish must have very amusing roots.

Let’s look. And it is easy to find these roots in the “cave” entertaining novels of the early twentieth century by J. Roni’s “The Quest for Fire (La Guerre du feu), “Cave Lion” and “Wamireh”; In the stories of D’Ervil and Claude Senak. There beauty cries in the caves, and heroes wave with clubs and in every way encourage instrumental and social progress.

Obviously, it was Vamirekh’s idiot who pointed the anthropology of the vector of development. She obeyed and obediently went in the direction indicated. Recall that with the intellectuals in this discipline has always been bad. Critically comprehend imposed by culture falsehood and nobody rebelled against it As a result of this sad combination of circumstances, the works of the pillars of anthropology – Weinerts-Alekseev-Zubov-Gunter-Nesturkhov et., Are, in fact, a fierce retelling of the fiction of D’Ervily and Roni Sr.. And nothing more.

How could such an embarrassment happen? Very simple. The tragicomedy of “small knowledge” began at the end of the XIX century, when the anthropologists, anthropologists, Zimmermann, Weitz, Claach, Ranke etc. gave birth to the first studies of homogenous phylogeny. They managed to collect almost all the nonsense and fables about the “antediluvian inhabitants of the planet” and expound them with academic pathos.

Publications of these works inspired writers to create literary images of cave people. Naturally, “primitive” novels were written on the patterns of love-heroic dramas. It’s not difficult to notice that all the “vamirekhs” and “gamlets” are standard types of the tabloid genre of the early 20th century. They think, act and suffer according to its laws. Of course, they are dressed in skins, are lit by bonfires and can chew bone. But on the bridge of these Pithecanthropus traces of a pince-nez are visible.

“Cave” theme was victorious and quickly captured the book market and the mass media. The romantic savage Vamireh snarled from all the newspaper pages and covers. Of course, the painters and sculptors immediately flew around. In the forcing of falsehood, the artists managed to outdo even the writers. Vernissages filled with “the brave of the Stone Age.” Brushes and incisors of Kunert, Fevra, Kremie and others like them quickly formed the necessary aesthetics, and she easily gave birth to the stereotype of the “hero-hunter” and the ancient progressist. The stereotype became massive and easily entrenched: a brave dreamer with a club fully met the strictest requirements for “great-grandfather.” Such an ancestor was not ashamed, he did not destroy the narcissistic myth of culture, and even added piquancy to it.

Young and still very puny anthropology could not resist the highly experienced monster of culture and “fell under it.” In other words, culture here again knocked out science, imposing on it an absolutely false image of an ancient man.

Under the influence of cultural stereotype, of course, fell the next generation of anthropologists. (I recall that the Rutherford and Heisenbergs were not among them.) It began to serve a stereotype – and “the dog bit its tail”. The eternal rotation of anthropogenesis around the fiction of the tabloid novelists began. The circle is closed. As a consequence, a “theory of primitive society” arose, not from facts, but from opinions and fictions. It is for this reason that “little knowledge” is not capable of answering any question, including the one that is considered by us.

Of course, there is nobody to blame, we see an accident. But the whole stupid story keeps its influence to the present. The poor Vamiriha continue to milk in the hope that scientific truth will finally come from him.

Of course, no one encroaches on the sacred right to remain a fool. But let the anthropologists themselves goggle in their podoynik. How will we know… maybe a miracle will happen: it will be filled with constants, and the Nobel Committee will recognize anthropology as a science.

However, in the fact that she does not yet have it, there are also advantages. We get the right to “walk around the buffet, not refusing anything”. Where there are no constants, there can be no mistakes.


To solve our problem, of course, we must first of all sweep out of the topic all the semantic debris accumulated by anthropology over 150 years. Including and “vamirekhov”, and specific terminology. It is good only for creating a “smoke screen” that hides the futility of this discipline.

Probably, the true story of the early homo was completely different and was based on completely different principles than anthropology believes. However, we will never know its details. Of course there are excavation “semifacts” and hints, but their number is negligible, and the emptiness between them is huge. One must have the courage to leave emptiness in emptiness, and not fill them with fantasies and speculations.

However, not everything is so hopeless. Something we have. We can objectively and accurately determine the “mental state” of an ancient person. Having done this, we can easily calculate some of its fundamental properties. (Perhaps among them lies the very thing that allows religious faith to persist to the present time.) We can learn what being died a million years ago by the principle of exclusion, through a simple calculation of what it was lacking.

A full enumeration of what was not known to the Pithecanthropus is a pointless thing. This is almost everything that a person is made of. And this does not apply to the quanta or Pavlov’s works. No, we are talking about the simplest knowledge and concepts that are mandatory for every person.

So, we take the collective image of a person and begin to subtract from him the position behind the position. Having deducted everything that the early homo simply could not know, we will get a being that does not even reach normal dementia. With the appropriate habits and behavior. This is our great-grandfather. We will see that his “mental capital” is much less than that of the eternal prisoners of the regime psychiatric clinics. Nevertheless, judging by the enormous duration of the “prehistoric era”, the Pithecanthropus in its dementia was quite cozy. But the first experiments of thinking were to cause him almost pain, destroying the comfort of habitual thoughtlessness.

Pithecanthropus is not to blame. He could not be different. But for millions of years, dementia absorbed into the form and became one of the modes of operation of the central nervous system. Its function is to protect against discomfort caused by development. Over time, it became prettier and became a very powerful force, providing a person with a lot of simple joys. Probably, including religious faith. Every victory of dementia over development has been gilded by culture, assistingly turning the next stupidity into an object of “world heritage” and “a landmark of civilization”.

A simple example is the pyramids of Egypt. In fact, this is the first visible symbol of the triumph of dementia. Their erection meant that the future destiny of mankind will in many respects be determined by its demented past.

Let us explain.

After a mysterious “Neolithic revolution” homo lost its way into large flocks. There was an inevitable socialization. Its consequence was the writing and accumulation of practical experience with the treatment of stones, clay, wood, metal et. The Egyptian era refined and aggravated this primary set of knowledge. It, for the first time in the history of the species, combined these technologies with the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people and as a result erected pyramids.

But why did she do it? Why did you need huge structures that cost thousands of hernias and deaths? As it turned out, only to put a couple of dried dead in them.

Perhaps this is a coincidence, but this approach is very typical for the clinical picture of dementia. A weak-minded patient, having mastered some new skill or subject, as a rule, comes up with the most idiotic application for him.

Annals of psychiatry keep a memory of the prisoner Salpetriera, a quiet and quiet Alain Morsone. He was in good standing and sometimes helped to put the enema violent sick. These procedures so impressed the quiet that one day he could not stand it and stole the device. Morson retired with him to the roof of the hospital, where he used the cliché as a telescope for observing the stars. According to almost all patients, he managed to open many new planets and constellations. All of them were mysterious and beautiful. True, one of the planets Morson for some reason was covered with thick wool.

1 Comment

  • Reply
    Тофик Оруджев
    06.11.2018 at 20:51

  • Leave a Reply