|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ted Peters On Genetic Determinism & Free Will
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
hatless, I have not read Julian Jayne. It's added to "The List" now. Thank you.
As for science and philosophy falling if the human mind is determined, I fight to resist the pun. My reaction is that both science and philosophy are attempts at understanding, and so will stand regardless of the nature of those trying to do the understanding. However, I would suspect that much science and philosophy might be rendered moot for any being that can see a fixed deterministic design of the human mind (if that can even happen). I guess that means I'm largely in agreement with Timothy.
Ley Druid, you seem to have wandered off on your tangent again. We've started some tongue-in-cheek speculation on the nature of free will, NOT anything about trying to dismiss it. The word you randomly chose, "dismiss", was meant to be applied to the theories provided by others. As for your sad self-contradiction about design and randomness, I'll just see if JimT can drag something meaningful out of you.
JimT, that's just beautiful. I'm not sure I really understand what it means, I can't think of a way to implement it, and I'm pretty sure I disagree with the parameters you chose. Still, the fundamental method certainly bears some consideration. I hope to ponder it some more and come up with some thoughts and/or embellishmets.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Ley Druid, I don’t quite get you here:
quote:
If a human designs a program, it will be designed and not random, therefore humans could never design a program with free will.
I don’t get the insistence on randomness. I can see different outcomes being one way to show that perhaps choice might be happening, but I don’t see a need to demonstrate randomness in choices. In fact, randomness would seem equally likely to demonstrate no choice-making at all: pure “noise” with no structured analysis based on beliefs, values, and probable outcomes. Apart from that, randomness can be built into programs and they can be made self-modifying, even though they are designed.
If I understood your OP, you were suggesting that investigations are continuously decreasing the freedom of the self, by providing explanations for behavior based on genetic and environmental factors.
As limit to this reduction in freedom I have argued for a "hard free will", whereby some choices are not determined by anything -- they are free. A human being also accepts ownership of them and acts upon them.
The only way to separate the "noise" from these free choices would be to ask the person.
Please explain the design of a program that wouldn't cause identical choices, given identical conditions when the choice is made.
[ 08. November 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
If I understood your OP, you were suggesting that investigations are continuously decreasing the freedom of the self, by providing explanations for behavior based on genetic and environmental factors.
Yes, I was saying for the sake of argument let's accept Ted Peter's breakdown of the determinants of behavior being genes, environment, and self.
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
As limit to this reduction in freedom I have argued for a "hard free will", whereby some choices are not determined by anything -- they are free.
I hear you saying that as a matter of opinion or belief there is a hard limit to what genes and environment can do in determining behavior, so there will always be room left over for free choice. I'm willing to grant it for the sake of argument, but personally I really don't know if it's true or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Please explain the design of a program that wouldn't cause identical choices, given identical conditions when the choice is made.
It is correct that identical conditions lead to the same outcome for computer programs. But people don't face the exact same choice twice, under the same exact conditions. The second time, at a bare minimum it is different because they have been through it before, learned, perhaps changed their beliefs and values, and things like that. I have heard of "self-modifying programs" that do the same.
Now let me turn it around and ask you: how is it possible for two genetically and environmentally identical organisms (assume parallel universes or time travel back to the same instant and state) to make different choices under identical conditions? What is the source of their "hard" free will? Perhaps, as I said above, you simply take it as a foundational belief?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freehand
The sound of one hand clapping
# 144
|
Posted
Actually, there are computer programs that respond differently to identical conditions. All that is required is to add a random factor in the weighting of the decision. I've even heard of simulations without implicit randomness that diverged in their solution over time. I think that the divergence was due to small rounding "errors".
That being said, randomness isn't freewill.
Posts: 673 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freehand
The sound of one hand clapping
# 144
|
Posted
I keep banging on the same issue, but I think that freewill has everything to do with consciousness. We have (or appear to have) freewill because we are aware of the decision process.
Stage 1:
The first stage of a simulation would be to generate a "being" that appears to have freewill. Perhaps we have already achieved this as there already are simulations that make complex decisions.
Stage 2:
The next stage would be to develop a consciousness within the "being" so that it can be aware of making decisions based upon values. For example, the "being" would have to have competing alternatives in different domains: concern for self preservation, preservation of the social group, and awareness of the suffering of others and a desire to alleviate it. This would involve some sort of symbolic or abstracted understanding of the world and an ability to map the values into concrete actions. Eventually, these symbols may take on value in and of themselves and may manifest themselves in a goal that does not appear to have any connection with basic survival such as aesthetics.
Stage 3:
In the last stage, there would be a need to communicate thoughts and feelings to other members of the social group and to us as the creators of the simulation. However, perhaps I have confused the order a bit. Perhaps the symbolic understanding arises out of the use of language and Stage 2 and 3 are concurrent. The Turing test is certainly a good start.
Another issue that comes out is how much the simulation is an extension of the identity of the programmer. How much intelligence is hardwired into the "being"? Is the "being" an entity in and of itself or is it an extension of the creator. There are some theological parallels here.
Posts: 673 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
how is it possible for two genetically and environmentally identical organisms (assume parallel universes or time travel back to the same instant and state) to make different choices under identical conditions?
All observations are limited by inherent uncertainty in the universe. The variation may be smaller than our ability to measure it. If we can measure the variability, then even if we could re-establish the same conditions in a system, we could observe the same variability.
Writing a program (or thinking up a model) is not subject to the uncertainty of our observations. These can be defined arbitrarily as accurately as we want.
Even with a self modifying program, the program will define exactly what to do given a set of conditions.
Freehand,
If someone made a program trying to simulate free will, pointing out that the choices were due to a randomness factor or number rounding wouldn't show they were chosen freely. Furthermore, given the same input of the randomness factor or the number rounding, the program would always give the same choice.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
how is it possible for two genetically and environmentally identical organisms (assume parallel universes or time travel back to the same instant and state) to make different choices under identical conditions?
All observations are limited by inherent uncertainty in the universe. The variation may be smaller than our ability to measure it. If we can measure the variability, then even if we could re-establish the same conditions in a system, we could observe the same variability.
My question was about people, not electrons. There is uncertainty in measurement of position and momentum of electrons, yes. But there is no uncertainty in measurement of whether someone lied, did not lie, or evaded the question. Suppose you know your company was just successfully sued and your boss says to a prospective customer, "We've never been sued, isn't that right Ley Druid?" You will say something along the lines of, "That's right" or "Not counting the one in progress" or "The legal department could say for sure." Your only possible courses of action are to tell the whole truth, a partial truth, or a total falsehood. An objective and intelligent observer will be able to tell which you have done with 100% certainty.
Your genes provide you with fear, perhaps fear of loss of your job. The environment you grew up in may make you inordinately afraid of those in authority. If so, does your Self really have freedom to choose among full truth, partial truth, and no truth, or is it a foregone conclusion that you will lie because of your genes and environment?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freehand
The sound of one hand clapping
# 144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Writing a program (or thinking up a model) is not subject to the uncertainty of our observations. These can be defined arbitrarily as accurately as we want.
Even with a self modifying program, the program will define exactly what to do given a set of conditions.
The model that I heard about was entirely deterministic, without radomness. They would start the simulation with exactly the same conditions but after a matter of time the models would diverge.
quote:
Furthermore, given the same input of the randomness factor or the number rounding, the program would always give the same choice.
The whole point of randomness is that it is never the same twice. But again, this is irrelevant to the discussion as randomness does not equal freewill.
If there is freewill, our choices our determined by our character, by our identity. So, in that sense, the choice is not free. The question is what our character is made of.
Posts: 673 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I'm tempted to call bullshit. There seems indeed to be a specific deterministic response to things humans think, or at least there seems to be a perceived template for it. I think it's swept together under the labels of "common sense" and "morals", and given these two things most people seem to feel that most people would and should arrive at identical conclusions.
Despite these common expectations, I suspect that there are vastly complex algorithmic formulae we all have derived independantly and constantly modulate and refine to give us our primary responses to various things. Because of their independant origins, I think that there must inevitably be differences. These differences mean that very few of us agree on everything - if you discount the weak-willed and those especially able to lie to themselves.
I'm still thinking about your model, JimT. Hopefully I'll come up with something before this thread dies.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Keep thinking about your model, RooK. One thing:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
These differences mean that very few of us agree on everything
This is true, but it does not mean that there aren't some root things upon which we all agree, which I think you were getting at in your first paragraph.
Going back to models, as Freehand says, at some point there is both a Self and a Perception of Self. I believe that these are the Freudian Ego (Self) and Super Ego (Perceiver of Self). My Greed and Terror would be the realm of Id. The Super Ego does its best to sense needs from the Id and uses Rationality to explain them to the Ego. When things go right the satisfied Self has a Compassionate view of itself, rounding out the Freehand/JimT hybrid that models Freud. Except for the unconscious, which is so problematic we probably shouldn't go into it.
The big irony to me is that, in humans it is possible for the Self to hate itself and therein lies the root of evil in Freudian and Christian thinking. Is Man perhaps the only creature capable of Self-Hatred?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
how is it possible for two genetically and environmentally identical organisms (assume parallel universes or time travel back to the same instant and state) to make different choices under identical conditions?
All observations are limited by inherent uncertainty in the universe. The variation may be smaller than our ability to measure it. If we can measure the variability, then even if we could re-establish the same conditions in a system, we could observe the same variability.
My question was about people, not electrons. There is uncertainty in measurement of position and momentum of electrons, yes. But there is no uncertainty in measurement of whether someone lied, did not lie, or evaded the question.
If this were true, then adjudicating perjury would be trivial. It isn't.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not restricted only to electrons. This may be unimportant for observations of macroscopic systems, but it remains a limit. You asked me to explain the variability of choices given identical conditions -- the uncertainty principle requires at least a minimum amount of variability in any measurement.
Variability is a salient feature of measurements in neuroscience. Free will is completely compatible with this variability.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
OK. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle remains the ultimate limit for free will: we will always have at least as much free will as an electron, no matter how much science can explain our metaphysical behavior with genes and environment, because our electrons can do whatever Heisenburg allows. I'll accept that as a "hard" limit to human free will. No one can take that away.
But I'm going back to the macroscopic scale and assert that 0% uncertain measurement can be made for some moral questions. You are asked to either sign a legal deposition as is or not at all. By signing, you indicate that it is true. But not signing, you indicate unwillingness to assert that it is true. Once you make your choice, the witness is 100% certain of your decision. Otherwise, there would be no job for notary publics. Moral choice, 0% certainty in measurement.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
OK. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle remains the ultimate limit for free will: we will always have at least as much free will as an electron
You are confusing unpredictablilty with freedom.
"Uncertainty" is not the same as freedom. Arguably it acts against freedom because it randomises the outcome of freely chosen actions.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You are confusing unpredictablilty with freedom.
I suspect that you are confusing irony with retort. About a hundred posts ago on this thread, we flayed the idea of predictability in connection with "free will" and determined it to be fruitless. Reading JimT's other posts, he shows a clear understanding of uncertainty versus unpredictability, and I interpret his last post as being a loss of patience with Ley Druid.
With respect to the nebulous concept of "freedom", let me say this:
For any observed system, there is no perceptual difference between a lack of constraints and constraints that are not recognized.
JimT, with regards to the model, I think the part I have difficulty with is the vagueness in definitions of the parameters. Perhaps some better descriptions would be arrays of the following:
- self-preservation (measures individual harm)
- social-preservation (measures group harm)
- self-promotion (seeks individual gains)
- social-promotion (seeks group gains)
- wisdom/deciseveness (measure of how much thought and time taken to contemplate actions)
Whatcha think?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
OK. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle remains the ultimate limit for free will: we will always have at least as much free will as an electron
You are confusing unpredictablilty with freedom.
"Uncertainty" is not the same as freedom. Arguably it acts against freedom because it randomises the outcome of freely chosen actions.
Not exactly, ken. I was, with very mild irony, conceding a minor point that I consider largely irrelevant in order to try and get Ley Druid to address the more metaphysical question of how much moral latitude we have when our genes and environment are done with us. I suppose if I had not been going out of my way to avoid being antagonistic I would have added a ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) to my concession.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
What a cross post!
I will definitely get back to you on the model, RooK. Just have a few minutes now. You wouldn't believe the seminar I went to this morning: Genetic Determination of Sexual Behavior in Drosophila. A woman at Oregon State has mapped every single nerve cell and every gene coding for the development, maintenance, and interaction of each nerve with with every hormonal and neurotransmitter gene that causes sexual behavior in fruit flys. A single gene, with three different ways of splicing its RNA, exerts hierarchical control of "following" (where males locate and follow females), "singing" (where males and female strum wings at varying pitch and rhythm to announce their species and readiness to mate), "attempted copulation," and "completed copulation." She closed with studies on mice and speculated about human control of sexual behavior. The individual cell mapping was incredible--she used green fluorescent protein to locate individual cells affected by individual gene expression.
I asked her if she was at the Ted Peters lecture and she said no, but she had wanted to go. I asked her about the notion of an emergent "self" in humans that makes a final choice based on its genes and environment and she seemed fine with it. But she agreed that there will be rapid advancement in the future over how much "influence" and "control" genes have on human behavior.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I promised RooK a response and as it appears that this is dwindling to a private conversation I will have to triple post to do so.
In a nutshell, RooK’s model seems to conceptualize human choice of action as a matter of estimating the time it would take to think up how to best balance individual gains and harms against social gains and harms. Presumably, the path most likely to produce the optimum result is refined until an implementable optimum is perceived, and this optimum plan is then implemented. Do I have that right?
If so, I confess it has a bit of a sterile taste to me; I suppose the richness of RooKian human experience would emerge from the specific “gains” and “harms” that are “sought” and “measured.” I use the more vivid language of “greed” and “terror” instead of “gain” and “harm,” perhaps because the Pentecostal Appalachian hills I inhabited as a child were on average much warmer than the chilly forests and icy lakes that suckled my agnostic Canadian cousin. However, I will grant that “gain” and “harm” are more general words with greater utility in implementing a machine simulation of humanity.
I note that in RooKian human reality, one “measures” preservation but “seeks” gain. This is a bit of a puzzle. One could as well “seek” preservation while “measuring” gain. My assumption is that the primary RooKian motivation is action toward gain, while keeping an eye out for individual and group harm. This reflects the personality of a risk-taking person with self-assurance and confidence, whose basic physical and emotional needs have been met. I believe that other personalities deficient in physical and emotional needs would act in an opposite manner. That is, their primary motivation would be action toward preservation while forgoing gain beyond what is required for preservation itself, or simply keeping an eye out for possible gain.
I am left with this curiosity: the Heart of RooKianity seems centered on “seeking” and “gaining.” How does the RooKian Robot “seek” and what does it wish to “gain?”
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
JimT, your proclivity for Myers-Briggs is shining through.
I confess that the model attributes I proposed focussed more on ambition than survival. This is because what I'm interested in having the model accomplish is seeing if it sustains some manner for planning ahead and contemplating consequences. This is the realm of "self" that I feel is worth exploring. The issue of survival is usually addressed in times of stress by motivations of instinct, and I speculate that these are less a matter of consciousness or choice.
With a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek, if such an experiment would show a clear trend towards developing a unified and peaceful group throughout a range of initial conditions and permutations, I'd feel even more content to dismiss religion as merely an evolved means for humans to attempt this.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
You wouldn't believe the seminar I went to this morning: Genetic Determination of Sexual Behavior in Drosophila. A woman at Oregon State has mapped every single nerve cell and every gene coding for the development, maintenance, and interaction of each nerve with with every hormonal and neurotransmitter gene that causes sexual behavior in fruit flys.
You will no doubt be well aware, but some of the others reading this might not, that the layout of insect nervous systems - in fact their whole body - is determined genetically in a way that is not the case with mammals.
For mammals its a case of "use it or lose it". Whatever we excercise gets stronger - and that applies to the brain as well as the muscles. If you think a lot about maps the bit of your brain that thinks about maps gets bigger. And if you lost that bit of your brain when you were a kid, but are more or less functional, then another bit takes over and that gets bigger.
Insects are "hard-wired" in a way that we aren't. It you take an insect embryo at the 256-cell stage and cut it in half you get two half insects. If you do that to a mammal you get two smaller mammals. Our cells have much more capability to be reprogrammed than theirs do.
Similarly you can draw a "fate map" of the insect cells, showing which one becomes the ancestor of which tissues and organs. If you remove one of them at that stage then that tissue or organ will not develop. If you transplant one then it can develop in the wrong place - files with legs growing out of their heads. In mammals nothing like that goes on.
In C. elegans (not an insect!) the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells. In humans the final number can vary by a few billion either way!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In C. elegans (not an insect!) the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells.
If you grew two C. elegans, one in a medium containing something that inhibits a gene product (an anti-apoptotic factor, for example) and the other in a medium without the inhibitor, it would be possible to have two C. elegans with identical genes with different numbers and positions of adult cells. What would it mean then to say that
quote:
the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells.
In this case, did the genes determine the number and position, or something else?
From the beginning of this thread we never have got a great definition of what "to determine" means.
[ 13. November 2003, 00:04: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freehand
The sound of one hand clapping
# 144
|
Posted
I've been wanting to add more posts to this thread but I'm getting too busy. One small clarification.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm tempted to call bullshit.
I don't know what you are referring to. That post was as obscure as some others on this thread. It was terribly unRooKian to be so vague. If, by any chance, it was from when I said:
quote:
Originally posted by Freehand:
The model that I heard about was entirely deterministic, without radomness. They would start the simulation with exactly the same conditions but after a matter of time the models would diverge.
I should have said that it was programmed with entirely deterministic intent. Small inconsistencies in rounding errors lead to gradual divergences in the model.
Later,
Freehand ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 673 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm interested in having the model accomplish is seeing if it sustains some manner for planning ahead and contemplating consequences. This is the realm of "self" that I feel is worth exploring.
Yes, well, do keep exploring. But I would think you would be interested in this: the same person who is interested only in planning, consequences, and problem solving, posted that what life is all about is "pain." Intelligent creatures with excellent skills in planning, forseeing consequences, and successfully solving problems should experience nothing more than temporary pain and the primary theme of life would be the joy of success, would it not? This is why my "NF" leaning self posits that the primary needs are in the metaphysical realm and not the physical. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would likely add.
Yes ken, I was aware that insects are very hardwired and that work had already been done to knock out single components of behavior, map cell fates in development, and deduce "wiring." I didn't know that it is now a pretty trivial task and that they are starting on mice. I had also forgotten that fruit flys have all the same neurotransmitters we do and that most of the differences between them and us are simply structural. Still, we obviously have another whole realm of existence that they don't. One thing is sure: research and knowledge will continue to explode, as it has for the last few decades.
[ 13. November 2003, 19:01: Message edited by: JimT ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Well Freehand, the "bullshit" wasn't directed at any specific post, but rather our whole rejection of determinism in this thread. I'll readily agree that I doubt human minds are likely to ever have a deterministic description applied... but it feels like there is indeed the perception among many humans that there are "correct" answers to moral questions. I only wondered if that didn't imply a certain amount of determinism.
JimT, now you're trying to cross threads. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
It seems most likely (to me, anyway) that contemplation of the nature of "self" and sentience might be most fruitful if started in the realms of planning, consequences, and problem solving. I think it might be narrow-minded to leap directly to "what life is all about". My view about "pain" is merely an observation about how I perceive the most common overlap of the physical and the metaphysical - for I don't believe us to be beings of purely one realm or the other. Nevertheless, I don't see it as a key for understanding the mechanics of all thought.
Perhaps one of us needs to make up a crackpot theory about instincts and emotions, because that might help cast the "self" into some sort of metaphorical contrast.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In C. elegans (not an insect!) the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells. In humans the final number can vary by a few billion either way!
...which variation must come completely from the environment, mustn't it? After all, humans do not consciously choose and will the final number, do they?
Despite the fact that it was proven in the movie Ghostbusters that crossing the threads is actually the only way to triumph over evil even though it's very dangerous, I'll take a pass on developing any more crackpot theories for the moment. I have too many (supposedly) serious ones to learn!
[humor]
My wife has been following this thread and left this Foxtrot cartoon on my desk Tuesday.
[/humor]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In C. elegans (not an insect!) the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells. In humans the final number can vary by a few billion either way!
...which variation must come completely from the environment, mustn't it? After all, humans do not consciously choose and will the final number, do they?
The fact that some neurons aren't the result of a choice, doesn't mean that no neurons are a result of choice. Nor does it mean all neurons are the result of a choice.
The external environment that I choose (school, relationships etc.) and the internal environment that I choose (health, nutrition, drugs etc.) can affect neuron number and plasticity.
The uncertainty as to which choice I will make may only be resolved after I make the choice. To suggest that choice "A" was "caused", "determined" or "comes from" my genes and environment would curiously be exactly the same argument if I had made choice "B".
The observation of the choice is necessary to deduce what the genes and environment are doing. If I make the choice, but you are unable to observe it, then you remain uncertain as to what my genes and environment are doing.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
