Clarification of Terms

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

...humans because of their "bigger" brains are busy in the main with cultural activity! Humans are more engaged with propagation of information, or pass on knowledge into next generation, than to spread genes...

Danger...warning...sensors detect presence of unstated assumptions.

Throughout the animal kingdom there are examples of ritualized combat between males in competetion for females for the purpose of breeding. Such contests may be decided according to some system of rules. Often, these are limited to 'displays', stopping far short of actual death or injury to the participants. Human culture might be viewed as such a system -- significantly more complex and abstract, but nonetheless concerned primarily with the spreading of genes and the associated status posturing. Viewed as such, things like the erection of a skyscraper might be viewed as having an explicit (and rather simple) 'meaning'.

 

[jan]

Peter, I fail to see the point in your post!

Instead, I just see some exclamation marks!

 

[Dorian Gray]

NOT in terms of the Laws of Physics they aren’t.

The fatal flaw with your entire line of reasoning is that you cannot prove we know all there is to know about physics. Therefore, you cannot prove that we are governed by TLOP. The best you can hope for is claiming that we are governed by what we know of TLOP so far.

For all you know, our current understanding of physics is equivalent in development to the belief that the sun revolves around the earth.

Are you implying that you are personally responsible for the behavior of certain subatomic particles? If this is true, then why haven’t you claimed Randi’s million dollar prize by demonstrating your Mind’s command over the “matter” and the laws of physics?

Because everyone can do it, so it's not remarkable in any way. It is not surprising that someone as tunnel-visioned as yourself cannot even grasp the fact that simply exhaling can cause particles to move and eating can cause particles to interact. That is 'making decisions' about particles. I can choose to eat or not, and to breathe or not, therefore I can choose to manipulate particles or not.

As a Materialist I have no doubt that it is well beyond your ability to grasp or comprehend.

It would be analogous to attempting to explain genetic mutations role in evolution to a young earth creationist.

It would be analagous to a completely insane person trying to convince a large mass of intelligent people of his theories by using selective and flawed reasoning and ignoring any contrary or conflicting evidence or arguments.

Okay, not analagous. That IS the situation.

If I am incorrect, perhaps you could give me an example of this “thing” you refer to which does not fall under the omnicontrolling, omnipresent Laws of Physics?

If I am incorrect, perhaps you could provide proof that all current LOP are all there are and nothing further will ever be discovered.

Ohhh, but someone like us already does …

Then why are you wasting your time here? You should be publishing works in all the peer-reviewed physics journals your amazing proof that all physics-related knowledge that has ever existed is now known, and that physicists should all quit and choose another profession.


Another thing to consider - why would matter and TLOP cause people to disagree? Nothing else that humans have deemed to be without sentience ever disagrees.

Another - what do TLOP have to say about concepts such as love, freedom, honor, etc.? Show how TLOP directly control such concepts.

 

[hammegk]

The fatal flaw with your entire line of reasoning is that you cannot prove we know all there is to know about physics.

Who makes such an assertion?

For at least some of us, TLOP is shorthand for the math-physics map of "what-is" to "perceived reality" that homo sap has at the moment.

Do you contend "reality" is defined by the "math"? I have never seen good disproofs of that idea that I recall.

 

[jan]

For at least some of us, TLOP is shorthand for the math-physics map of "what-is" to "perceived reality" that homo sap has at the moment.

If TLOP is just the link between the thing itself and the perceived reality, how can TLOP rule anything? It would be the "what-is" instead, I would assume.

And if you concede that "TLOP" stands for those parts of the link man "has at the moment", it becomes even more puzzling how TLOP could be able to rule anything.

Also, I used to think that the "what-is" and the "perceived reality" is the same thing for you. Have you become a Materialist recently?

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Revolt in New York!

Danger...warning...sensors detect presence of unstated assumptions.

Throughout the animal kingdom there are examples of ritualized combat between males in competetion for females for the purpose of breeding. Such contests may be decided according to some system of rules. Often, these are limited to 'displays', stopping far short of actual death or injury to the participants. Human culture might be viewed as such a system -- significantly more complex and abstract, but nonetheless concerned primarily with the spreading of genes and the associated status posturing. Viewed as such, things like the erection of a skyscraper might be viewed as having an explicit (and rather simple) 'meaning'.

Soderqvist1: The utility function of DNA is to maximize DNA's survival!
The fabric of genes exerts phenotypic effects on the organism, and so makes the organism horny, since horny organisms are more eager to spread their genes. But why do humans refusing to have as many children as they are able to, and why do they use contraception, if genes are the " only rulers in New York"? Isn't this clear-cut evidence; that the New Yorkers, and others have a tendency to revolt against the selfish gene's dictatorship?

 

[hammegk]

If TLOP is just the link between the thing itself and the perceived reality, how can TLOP rule anything? It would be the "what-is" instead, I would assume.

And if you concede that "TLOP" stands for those parts of the link man "has at the moment", it becomes even more puzzling how TLOP could be able to rule anything.

Also, I used to think that the "what-is" and the "perceived reality" is the same thing for you. Have you become a Materialist recently?

Words are tricky aren't they? Look, 2 choices are: either TLOP are just the math-physics we currently have to guide us, or they refer to the the terrain itself, "what-is".

A third meaning is also available: TLOP refers to both -- math for materialists, as well as the actual terrain of "reality". Now stating the actual terrain of "reality" controls the physical for materialism -- that's the way it is. If you consider the math-physics "map", that aspect doesn't (necessarily) control anything -- unless you believe that math IS reality; if you get my drift.

Can we agree "what-is" is the terrain itself. Perceived reality is the third person view provided by our bags-of-bones (also part of perceived reality) that for myself I call *me*, as opposed to *I* that thinks (thinking being the only objective data point I'm sure of).

The only way I avoid solipsism is by gentlemens' agreement; *I* think, and so do the rest of you.

 

[Whomp]

I just know I'm stepping in it here, but why does this have to be so complex?
The "Laws" that we currently have are humanity's current best guesses about how matter interacts.
There is nothing that states that matter MUST behave this way, just that so far from our observations it seems to.

They are human constructs. Going back to the chessboard analogy, if we were to watch two people play chess for a time, we could postulate a set of "laws" that define the rules of chess.
But until we watched and studied long enough, our "laws" would likely be incomplete, because there are some non-intuitive rules that aren't used very often.

Just a thought.

Whomp!

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

Isn't this clear-cut evidence; that the New Yorkers, and others have a tendency to revolt against the selfish gene's dictatorship?

Making connections between causes and effects is always an ambitious undertaking, but when applied to the interplay between two such complex systems as human genetics and human society, clear-cut evidence is likely to be a particularly rare commodity.

It seems to me that you can do what you want, but you can't want what you want. A human being is a bundle of urges. These may be experienced as like inner voices. If you pay attention, you can almost watch these urges bubbling up from the electrochemical substrate, looking for words to use to announce their presence. If an urge is strong, and well-defined enough to be clearly expressed, resisting it may come at a cost of considerable discomfort (as anyone can testify who has ever had to give up smoking, or heroin, or a bad relationship). When a genetically driven urge is overruled, how can we know that it was not simply shouted down by an even stronger urge to do something else, that urge itself also a result of genetically driven behavior?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Whomp

I just know I'm stepping in it here, but why does this have to be so complex?
The "Laws" that we currently have are humanity's current best guesses about how matter interacts.
There is nothing that states that matter MUST behave this way, just that so far from our observations it seems to.

I think that why this has to be so complex goes directly to how our understanding about things is inevitably limited by the necessity of forcing fits to pre-defined categories. We already know what obeying the law means, so what is meant by obeying the laws of physics comes for free (or so we think -- without noticing that we think so).

Maybe a different analogy will help.

So a guy is driving down the road in his car, and he's obeying the posted speed limit. He does this because that is consistent with an internalized set of rules he has formed for what kind of person he is, and what is to his best advantage in the long run in terms of interacting successfully with others in the society he depends on for survival. Or maybe he just doesn't like to go fast because it's too scary. Whatever. So we might say that he has certain properties that emerge when he's driving that tend to cause him to observe the speed limit -- but we wouldn't ordinarily refer to these properties as laws. They're more like guidelines really. Without necessarily dissecting his motivations down to a genetic level, we could say, in simple terms, that he chooses to obey the law.

The car might also be said to have an internal speed limit, that being something that emerges as a product of the aerodynamics of its design, its power-to-weight ratio, etc. We could make detailed observations about the relationships between all these factors, and (expressing them mathematically) come up with an estimate of the vehicle's top speed.

Now the law says the speed limit is whatever it is, and all drivers must obey this law. This meaning of the word 'law' is the one that gets us into trouble (so to speak) when we start talking about the laws of physics. Attempting to derive a vehicle's top speed by any application of the word 'law', in this sense, is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

 

[jan]

Words are tricky aren't they? Look, 2 choices are: either TLOP are just the math-physics we currently have to guide us, or they refer to the the terrain itself, "what-is".

A third meaning is also available: TLOP refers to both -- math for materialists, as well as the actual terrain of "reality". Now stating the actual terrain of "reality" controls the physical for materialism -- that's the way it is. If you consider the math-physics "map", that aspect doesn't (necessarily) control anything -- unless you believe that math IS reality; if you get my drift.

Can we agree "what-is" is the terrain itself. Perceived reality is the third person view provided by our bags-of-bones (also part of perceived reality) that for myself I call *me*, as opposed to *I* that thinks (thinking being the only objective data point I'm sure of).

The only way I avoid solipsism is by gentlemens' agreement; *I* think, and so do the rest of you.

Your post leaves me a bit puzzled. Dorian Gray was attacking the view of another well-known poster that TLOP rules, by stating that TLOP is just the map. You tried to refutate Dorian by claiming that TLOP is just the map. I replied with the remark that claiming that TLOP is just the map isn't such a good idea if you want to disprove that TLOP is just the map. Now you seem to say that TLOP can be interpreted as the map or as the territory. Well...




Dynamics,

I add to the list of clarified terms law and guideline.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO DYNAMIC

Making connections between causes and effects is always an ambitious undertaking, but when applied to the interplay between two such complex systems as human genetics and human society, clear-cut evidence is likely to be a particularly rare commodity.

It seems to me that you can do what you want, but you can't want what you want. A human being is a bundle of urges. These may be experienced as like inner voices. If you pay attention, you can almost watch these urges bubbling up from the electrochemical substrate, looking for words to use to announce their presence. If an urge is strong, and well-defined enough to be clearly expressed, resisting it may come at a cost of considerable discomfort (as anyone can testify who has ever had to give up smoking, or heroin, or a bad relationship). When a genetically driven urge is overruled, how can we know that it was not simply shouted down by an even stronger urge to do something else, that urge itself also a result of genetically driven behavior?

Soderqvist1: what explanation do you have for your allegation that "a gene for curbing its self-propagation" has become dominant in the gene pool rather than recessive, when organisms with strong religious urge for celibate, etc, should fade away through the Arms Race competition? I mean we should suspect the opposite since genes' utility function is to maximize DNA's survival! Here is my references online, note my emphasis in bold type by me, that the E. O. Wilson is the founding father of Sociobiology, The New Synthesis!


The Selfish Gene By Richard Dawkins, Chapter 11: Memes The New Replicators
I think that Rose and his colleagues are accusing us of eating our cake and having it. Either we must be `genetic determinists' or we believe in `free will'; we cannot have it both ways. But -- and here I presume to speak for Professor Wilson as well as for myself -- it is only in the eyes of Rose and his colleagues that we are `genetic determinists'. What they don't understand (apparently, though it is hard to credit) is that it is perfectly possible to hold that genes exert a statistical influence on human behavior while at the same time believing that this influence can be modified, overridden or reversed by other influences. Genes must exert a statistical influence on any behavior pattern that evolves by natural selection.

Presumably Rose and his colleagues agree that human sexual desire has evolved by natural selection, in the same sense that anything ever evolves by natural selection. They therefore must agree that there have been genes influencing their sexual desires -- in the same sense as genes ever influence anything. Yet they presumably have no trouble with curbing their sexual desires when it is socially necessary to do so. What is dualist about that? Obviously nothing. And no more is it dualist for me to advocate rebelling `against the tyranny of the selfish replicators'. We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them. As already noted, we do so in a small way every time we use contraception. There is no reason why we should not rebel in a large way, too. It is our own species that really shows what cultural evolution can do. http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html

Life In the Universe Lecture By Stephen Hawking
This has meant that we have entered a new phase of evolution. At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information. But in the last ten thousand years or so, we have been in what might be called, an external transmission phase. In this, the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly.

But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage, has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes. We may be no stronger, or inherently more intelligent, than our cave man ancestors. But what distinguishes us from them is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, over the last three hundred. I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race.

There is no time, to wait for Darwinian evolution, to make us more intelligent, and better natured. But we are now entering a new phase, of what might be called, self designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. There is a project now on, to map the entire sequence of human DNA. It will cost a few billion dollars, but that is chicken feed, for a project of this importance
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html

 

[jan]

What explanation do you have for your allegation that "a gene for curbing its self-propagation" has become dominant in the gene pool rather than recessive, when organisms with strong religious urge for celibate, etc, should fade away through the Arms Race competition?

Example of a successful "gene for curbing":

Suppose you are a young male in a tribe of social animals in which males gather harems. Now there are several possible strategies:

-Attac the oldest male (probably futile)
-Try to cheat (try to mate while the boss is absent)
-Wait your turn

The third possibility could be most successful, depending on circumstances.

How can life-long religious chastity be explained? Could be a pathological effect, or a genetically determinated urge going in the wrong direction ("wrong" in terms of self-propagation) due to circumstances that changed rapidly, or divine inspiration.

Besides, where did Dynamic use the term "gene for curbing"? Your quote makes it more likely that he (or she?) was talking about something like "if you are hungry, you forget sex" (or, more complicated: "If you care for your grandchildren, you forget sex").

And besides, what have the quotes of Dawkins or Hawkings to do with this?

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

What have your reply to do with it????

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

What explanation do you have for your allegation that "a gene for curbing its self-propagation" has become dominant in the gene pool rather than recessive, when organisms with strong religious urge for celibate, etc, should fade away through the Arms Race competition?

Actually I didn't say anything about "curbing". Evidently you got me confused with Richard Dawkins, whom (as you noted further down in your rather difficult to parse post) said: "Yet they presumably have no trouble with curbing their sexual desires when it is socially necessary to do so." And I especially like the part where he said: " What they don't understand [snip] is that it is perfectly possible to hold that genes exert a statistical influence on human behavior while at the same time believing that this influence can be modified, overridden or reversed by other influences." I didn't say any of that, but it is very much in the same spirit as what I did say. Confuse me with Dawkins anytime you like.

But I think you are getting rather ahead of things by correlating behaviors with genes so directly. I certainly don't see how we can go so far as to discuss them in terms of being dominant or recessive, and I would never make any such allegations.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Maybe we can sort things out here?
My contention is that genes as alleles compete with each other for a loci on a chromosomal spot! The gene on that locus is dominant, and its allele is recessive, and vice versa! Is this usage of dominant and recessive correct?

 

[whitefork]

Will will will - Jan brought this to mind

A brief Entr'acte. Does anyone wish to hazard a guess as to what "will" means here?

Sonnet 135

Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy 'Will,'
And 'Will' to boot, and 'Will' in overplus;
More than enough am I that vex thee still,
To thy sweet will making addition thus.
Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious,
Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?
Shall will in others seem right gracious,
And in my will no fair acceptance shine?
The sea all water, yet receives rain still
And in abundance addeth to his store;
So thou, being rich in 'Will,' add to thy 'Will'
One will of mine, to make thy large 'Will' more.
Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill;
Think all but one, and me in that one 'Will.'

Sonnet 136

If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy 'Will,'
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there;
Thus far for love my love-suit, sweet, fulfil.
'Will' will fulfil the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckon'd none:
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy stores' account I one must be;
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something sweet to thee:
Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
And then thou lovest me, for my name is 'Will.'

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

My contention is that genes as alleles compete with each other for a loci on a chromosomal spot! The gene on that locus is dominant, and its allele is recessive, and vice versa! Is this usage of dominant and recessive correct?

Not exactly, but you're pointed in the right direction. Chromosomes come in pairs. If the two alleles at a particular locus on the two chromosomes are the same, the organism is said to be homozygous for those alleles; and if they are different, heterozygous. A dominant allele is one that will be expressed if it appears on either chromosome, whereas a recessive one requires the presence of two like alleles to be expressed.

My larger point is that genes don't code for behaviors, they code for proteins. At any point, the particular behavior that achieves actual implementation is the current winner of a struggle between alternatives. Each of the alternatives is in turn a product of a massive number of neurons being in certain states (neurons which potentially might have been in other states). It represents a statistical trend among elements whose structures represent a statistical trend in the production of specific proteins at specific times in developing cells (cells which, had they instead been in slightly different states at those times, would have produced different proteins). But of course, this is simplifying things considerably (let's don't even get into protein folding).

We should consider ourselves extremely lucky if we are ever able to reach down inside all this chaos and complexity and make definitive statements about this or that gene coding for this or that behavior.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO DYMANIC

You wrote 10-29-2003 02:29 PM: Not exactly, but you're pointed in the right direction.

Soderqvist1: Your answer is correct!

Chromosomes come in pairs.

Soderqvist1: yes in general, except in Haploids!

If the two alleles at a particular locus on the two chromosomes are the same, the organism is said to be homozygous for those alleles; and if they are different, heterozygous. A dominant allele is one that will be expressed if it appears on either chromosome, whereas a recessive one requires the presence of two like alleles to be expressed.

Soderqvist1: Yes, and unread genes are labeled recessive too!

10-22-2003 04:16 PM When a genetically driven urge is overruled, how can we know that it was not simply shouted down by an even stronger urge to do something else, that urge itself also a result of genetically driven behavior?

10-29-2003 02:29 PM: My larger point is that genes don't code for behaviors, they code for proteins.

Soderqvist1: This is not consistent!
My proposal is that; genes code directly for proteins, and thus indirectly for behavior!
One particular gene X influence all other genes in the organism, and all other genes influence gene X, in a pleiotropic interrelation, but under the condition that everything else in the gene's environment is equal, there are in the gene pool, particular genes which, when one of them are in "the chromosome 12 on locus X", have a higher probability than other genes to influence the phenotypic expression in a particular direction, say; brown eyes, or violent behavior, and various "eye color alleles" say green, black, etc competes with each other to reach that particular spot X.

At any point, the particular behavior that achieves actual implementation is the current winner of a struggle between alternatives. Each of the alternatives is in turn a product of a massive number of neurons being in certain states (neurons which potentially might have been in other states). It represents a statistical trend among elements whose structures represent a statistical trend in the production of specific proteins at specific times in developing cells (cells which, had they instead been in slightly different states at those times, would have produced different proteins). But of course, this is simplifying things considerably (let's don't even get into protein folding).

Soderqvist1: this is how I see it; the genes have a program, and the neurons - the thickness of cerebral cortex, especially the frontal part is (the processor)-. The bigger the processor is, the more able the processor is, to modify the organism's behavior!

We should consider ourselves extremely lucky if we are ever able to reach down inside all this chaos and complexity and make definitive statements about this or that gene coding for this or that behavior.

Soderqvist1: See my earlier illustration!
I have some books in my home about chaos, complexity, and nonlinear dynamics. James Gleick, Making a New Science, and 3 books by Stuart Kauffman, one of them is: Origins of Order, adaption on the edge of chaos! I have lot of books in my home, as a rule of thumb; my ideas stems in general from my bookcase, and close to never from the top off my head, frankly; I buy more books than I have time to read, the fact I have more books, than time to read them all, make me sad!

But I think that is something a voluptuous reader like me has to live with!

Best regards

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist

Yes, and unread genes are labeled recessive too!

No, it's really not the same thing. Introns as well as exons may be either homozygous or heterozygous. Non-coding segments of DNA aren't referred to as 'genes' anyway, that being defined by phenotypic effects.

My proposal is that; genes code directly for proteins, and thus indirectly for behavior!

I agree, with much emphasis on indirectly.

When I use the phrase, 'genetically driven behavior', think of a person driving a flock of ducks before him. I don't know if you have any experience herding ducks, but suffice it to say that while one may exert an influence over the path such a herd will take, that influence will fall far short of anything like actual control, and will at all times be very dependent on other factors such as local terrain and the whims of individual ducks which, for all practical purposes, may be considered random.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that behavior, human behavior in particular, is a complex composite of what might be called sub-processes, some co-operating with each other, some competing, and some of which are, in turn, composites of sub-sub-processes.

A behavior is not expressed in a phenotype any more than a melody is built in to the structure of a musical instrument. But an instrument may be designed and built in such a way as to make certain types of melodies easier to play, and others difficult or impossible. A simple, primitive behavior (like flinching when someone pokes a stick at your eye) may quickly produce predictable results by limiting the number of available choices, making it easier to say that this is an effect produced by this or that (or these or those) genes. But as the number of potential 'notes' increases, it becomes harder (either for us or the genes) to predict the results, and exactly what behavior is being coded for becomes less and less definable; at best we can only talk about types of behaviors being statistically influenced.

You mentioned pleiotropy, another example of the convoluted nature of the path from DNA to behavior (or any other phenotypic effect). Even if we can establish a connection between a particular DNA sequence and a particular effect, how do we prove that the same sequence can not have other, unknown effects?