 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 293 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2615856 Today 9 Topics 127670 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have some questions. Mostly molecular biology, I think.. dna, proteins, etc... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my wife's friend does. i can forward your question to her via letter if you wish. expected response time : 2 weeks |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What's the question? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(s) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok.. 1: I remember being at a lecture/talk (on biology) and someone saying something like even with a 1,3% difference in hereditary material (1,5: as far as I can gather, this concept extends beyond only what is called genes?) amounts to as many differences as full body hair, opposing thumbs on feet, etc (human to chimpanzee = 1,3% difference or something), so even a very small percentage difference could amount to lots and lots of actual differences? 2: From another talk I remember someone saying that even if you share the same genes (I may not be using the correct term here, but hopefully you can get what I'm talking about from the description), one gene doesn't in fact only create one result, but can be the source of many different mutations; if two people share the same genes, they could still have lots and lots of differences, even if they are only on a strictly biological level..? 3: We believe from research that it isn't a one-sided relationship between biology and social behaviour; how you view yourself can change, for instance, your testosterone levels (I remember something about an experiment where the alpha male in a chimp flock was replaced for another chimp and his testosterone levels fell drastically), implying that it isn't necessarily so that you're born with a high testosterone level and that this brings you to where you are, but rather that where you have been brought to could have effected your testosterone levels, but I just want to make sure that this doesn't modify the genes themselves, just the behaviour of certain things in your body..? remember that I don't study biology so there may be some very silly things in there, and I'm not able to formulate things as precisely as I'd like, but I'd like to actually talk to someone if they know about stuff like this, maybe via msn or gtalk or something? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Aight, it's because one of my friends studies biology, i could show him this thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah, right well, the thing is I'm kind of looking for something right now; a quick fix. I just need to get past this part of my paper, and if it's going to take too long even here, I have a friend I could ask, but he's not available at the moment... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Aight, he says that it's basically correct what you say. About hormones, it's sort of a combination of BOTH being heredatory, and dependant on your current situation. (Arv & miljø) Like, womens hormone levels change when they have their period is not heredatory. Teenagers etc. So you can write the stuff you said there, no probs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah, ok. thanks! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you use XLT to cheat, you are really desperate :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha, it isn't cheating if I didn't ask here, I'd just take a walk up to the science faculty and ask a professor, but I'd rather not disturb them while they're working. I'm just dismissing a large part of sociobiological ethical reasoning especially when it comes to genes determining behaviour. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
On a personal note, i think thats bullshit as well. There was this whole fad, where you blamed the genes on everything (mostly when gene researching was still pretty new) Some guys believed that genes defined EVERYTHING about a person. If he's going to be criminal or an upstanding citizen... Bullcrap i say. But it's the whole debate of "arv and miljø" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've had High-school Biology (3BI), and "psychology-biology" but it's always been my weakest link :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've always believed that "miljø" has more to say, but reading a lot about twin studies concerning this and that, has changed my opinion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, I know.. it's still ongoing, though.. some researchers just tried finding "the gene for religious belief" by doing some tests on some very pious nuns, but they turned up blank. They have also been searching for the homo gene, the fatso gene, etc, but don't seem to be able to find anything.. this hasn't deterred anyone from keeping up their searching and relentless theorising about it. Of course they should be allowed to theorise, but with a theory of that sort (a very empirical and nature science like one), they should be able to come up with some evidence soon... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what about that 60 minutes story on twins where they did research on twins where one was gay and the other wasn't? Even when they'd been growing up in the same home (!) it was possible for them to be one gay one straight... the only thing I think you inherit via genes is a predisposition towards certain purely physical conditions, like an over-active testosterone production or hereditary diseases; there's still no evidence to prove that if your father and mother are both criminals, you'll inherit ciminal tendencies from them via your genes, and to say that we do would go against one of the main parts of evolution in that you don't genetically inherit learned abilities, as these aren't coded into your genes, and crime is social behaviour, which in all essence is learned behaviour (you can't act wrong without knowing what wrong is, and you aren't born with a concept of what sort of behaviour is wrong). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thats pretty interesting |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"the only thing I think you inherit via genes is a predisposition towards certain purely physical conditions, like an over-active testosterone production or hereditary diseases; there's still no evidence to prove that if your father and mother are both criminals, you'll inherit ciminal tendencies from them via your genes, and to say that we do would go against one of the main parts of evolution in that you don't genetically inherit learned abilities, as these aren't coded into your genes, and crime is social behaviour, which in all essence is learned behaviour (you can't act wrong without knowing what wrong is, and you aren't born with a concept of what sort of behaviour is wrong)." Fuck me, that's a long sentence. Whilst criminal behaviour is certainly learned, I'd argue there is some (albeit slight) genetic influence. Losing your temper and commiting "crimes of passion" like spur of the moment murder, road rage, etc. is influenced by genetic factors such as testosterone production. You could even argue that a low level of production of dopamine might lead you to be more bleak and nihilisitic in your outlook, which would in turn influence your behaviour. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dont know much about genetics, i wish i did. great stuff. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha, yeah, I get criticised for having too long sentences all the time... the ; is a sort of full stop (.), though, only with implications. what I'm mainly saying (in my paper), though, is that even if there is a possibility that certain aspects of your social behaviour is effected by your genes, etc, that is no excuse for any behaviour, nor does "natural" behaviour (what is that? I don't know, no-one knows) necessarily constitute good behaviour (are natural things subject to ethical judgements?). I personally believe genes (and our biology in general) play so small a part in our everyday activities, that it has virtually no effect on anything any more, but I can't be as bombastic in the paper (I need to be "fair" to whatever I'm critiquing or else I wouldn't be satisfied with my own output). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thats a good point. Maybe the genes for what could be considered "good" behaviour (in a modern western soceity) as in, being lawfull and kind and unaggresive, wouldnt apply very succesfully to for example the stone age, where high testoserone level/stealing might be an necesity for staying alive |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
exactly and on that note, I'd also say that it isn't very likely that our genes have changed in any substantial way since ancient times, our ethics and society has changed immensely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
seems to me like a problematic statement. to what extent can be proven that certain behavior is, or is not dependent on genes? lets say that genes indeed play a role. how can you quantify that role? and to what extent does the behavior you take into account effect the outcome? for instance, if i look at a certain decission i made today the role of my gense would probably be very small, like you state. but if i look at the way i grew up, the role would be pretty big. and somehow, although a gene is not directly related to a gene. indirectly it can play an important role. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*in the second last sentence replace the last "gene" with " decision" ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well the thing is it isn't necessary to prove that behaviour isn't effected by genes to state that it isn't, but it would be necessary to prove that it is to state that it is; the one positing the existence of something needs to prove it. What sociobiology has is a whole lot of loose speculation with little data to back it up except statistics. As the nature of statistics is, any connection found in statistics is most likely contingent, meaning that any conclusion drawn from it isn't definite; you need something else to back it up. If this other thing is something of which we know the existence (say, society), you have yourself a theory, and you are able to try this theory. If this other thing is something we haven't got any proof of (the gene controlling criminal behaviour), you haven't really got anything at all except something to prove. Now, if you take into consideration what I said before about genes not changing significantly while social attitudes do, the theory that society/environment is what governs your social behaviour is the strongest one. Also, if you consider what "mild" sociobiological theories say when it comes to people not acting how one would expect them to act if they were determined by their genes, that your genes only predispose you to certain behaviour, you're in effect not saying more than I would say by saying "your body having hands predisposes you to behaviour where you use your hands"; it is impossible to make any sort of prediction because even if you have the genes, there is so little of a necessary connection between having the genes and acting as they would have "programmed" you to that you would have to consider society anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to a certain degree i think we agree: sociobiology, in the context of the behavioral effects of genes, consists mainly of loose speculation. but where you are pointing at the lack of proof, i'd argue that the concept of genes influencing behavior is based on a misconception of what genes do. genes control development. i believe the misconception is based on a category mistake (Ryle). to use Ryle's analogy: seeking for a direct relatonship between genes and behavior is like explaining to a freshman how a campus was actually built instead of showing him how to get around on campus (what things he should/not do, etc). i think i've got a bit of different take on the matter. perhaps it's useful for your paper. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm doing Marine Biology and did a bit on this last year, it seems like you got ti sorted now though. On a side note, my twin brother decided to be gay for about two years before he decided to get married. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree that genes control physical development to a certain extent, yes (like, even with purely physical things like height, for instance, it's possible that you don't fulfil what one could say was your genes potential due to sickness or malnutrition or something). When it comes to behaviour, however, I believe the relationship goes no longer than to, for instance, having hands or if you have some sort of hereditary disease, this will of course effect your life. and yeah, I may try and work your point of view into the paper.. I'll probably have to remove something, though, as my paper is about all attempts to justify some sort of objective moral truth, and I have only gone through a few of them yet, but I'm running out of space (they only want 4000-6000 words for some silly reason.. all other papers I've written have been much longer, but someone decided this year they'd shorten them). I'll just hope they let me exceed the limit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
many people |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree that the effect is probably slight though. Also, I agree with (I think you're implying this, but correct me if I've got the wrong impression) your idea that we shouldn't treat people differently/be easier on them just because they have more criminally inclined genes. Otherwise, before you know it, people will be getting themselves tested and then using it as an excuse to do whatever they please. It smacks a bit of the parents who say "Oh he's hyperactive" to explain away their shit parenting in relation to their badly behaved child. Yes, of course some are, but there are a lot who use it as an excuse. I know you and I don't see eye to eye on some things, but I agree with your idea of "personal culpability". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, you got the part about it not being an excuse right, but the most important part of it to me isn't really other people, but rather the person him/herself.. this is what my other paper this semester, in existentialism, is going to be about: relieving oneself of responsibility. There are many many ways of doing this, and they're not all bad (like just living in a society), but one of the unwanted ones is appealing to genes, another is saying something is addictive and another one is "being polite." Anyway, the main point is that in many cases, though "everyone else" blames the person, the person may not personally feel the responsibility that he actually has because he blames things outside himself for what he voluntarily did. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't blame it on sunshine Don't blame it on moonlight Don't blame it on good times Blame it on the boogie |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm in a biology library right now reading about genes and stuff, can I be of assistance? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you probably could, but I think I got the answers.. I've also moved on to "essence and intuition," the most common mistakes one make when talking ethics in everyday settings; "oh, but that's just obvious!" no. actually, we should forget the word obvious ever existed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
genetics is fucking dull anyway |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
According to Chomsky, genetics controls not only the nature of human language but human knowledge and belief — “our systems of belief are those that the mind, as a biological structure, is designed to construct” |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
didnt he get disproved a bit with that south american jungle lot who cant understand anything |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think he's just mistaking brain for mind. the brain hasn't got anything to do with it except it's where the mind "runs." Just like the computer doesn't know what windows is, your brain doesn't know what your mind is; your mind is created not only in internal relation to itself, but in external relation to the world around it and other people. He's right in so far that having a brain enables you to make use of the sensory equipment of your body, and that this external something that you experience is what restricts your way of thinking, but not if he means that the brain itself is what restricts your way of thinking unless you count the brain and your bodys sensory equipment to be external to the mind, which you could very well do, meaning you can blame the fact that we don't see ultraviolet light and this restricting your mode of thought, but that again is only the eyes, not the brain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
To continue with your computer analogy... The computer is where Windows runs. Some other programs could also run in a computer. But not some shit I could write in Sanscrit. So, the computer puts the limits on what can run on it and what cannot. And that's just different programs... Try to make coffee with the computer and tell me how it goes. Same for brain and mind. The brain puts the limits to the possible minds that can run on it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, as you say.. the brain is a limit. Limits don't create. Your beliefs, your language, etc, is not created by the brain, but by external relations to the world around you. I have an example about language too, but I'll take that when I get back 'cause now I need to get to the lecture and ask if I can write a longer paper. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It IS created by the brain. It's not just the limit as you say. It's also the generator of those beliefs, language, etc. The different forms it generates from one person to another are a product of those external relations, that are different for everyone. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*theothy is the word we hustlas use for the vulgar term theory |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And what you say is more kinda this |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if it is created by the brain, you should be able to put a newborn baby in an empty room and he'd still develop beliefs, language, etc because the brain is still there, but they don't. They die instead, even if you keep them well fed (this must've provided them with some stimuli, but it would be hard to do this any other way back in those days I guess). I remember from history of ideas that some german count or something tried this in some dark dark age, but I can't remember his name. I think it's where the matrix people got that idea that the bodies just died if they didn't hook them up to the computers or whatever from... The point is that the brain initially has no content; it is merely a signal processor. Empty. And from nothing comes nothing. Thus, to get something from it, you need some input. This input is by definition and exclusively external; there is nothing in the brain that, in your childhood years chooses and chooses away what you percieve, nothing that really differentiates you from what you percieve; as far as we're concerned, babies don't even know that they are anything apart from what they're seeing. Now, appealing to similarities in natural languages (which, I might add, are in no way omnipresent in all cultures.. look at the trobriands, for instance) can be more properly explained by the languages being needed to point to or express the same thing: both germans, norwegians, japanese and italians need to be able to refer to snow, thus they have words for it. As for the grammatical rules, these seem to be more randomly developed through the years, probably based on cultural differences in perception of oneself and the world; if ones culture doesn't distinguish any "I" from the rest of the world, there is no need for any words referring back to the speaker, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
