Ierrellus

snatchbalance " Abstraction is symbolized genetic activity?"

Yes. The genetic blueprint materializes in a range of probabilty.

Ierrellus

snatchbalance

Ierrellus


Yes, our particular genetics allow us to form abstractions. The validity of the abstractions relies on confirmation by the group.

John Page

Symbolization is abstraction.
By substitution: "Abstraction is abstracted genetic activity?"

Not sensible. There are many activities in the brain. Some of them are not genetic. Therefore asserting that "Mental content consists of symbolized genetic activity." is not a valid theory. If you said "may partly consist" I would concede this. You theory is like saying that the process of building a house is the same as living in one.

Ierrellus

John,
The example you gave of the house and whoever lives in it may fit the genetics of a Chambered Nautilus or of a turtle, but not that of a human being. An example of static properties in no way describes those that are dynamic.
^0^ <---this is a gnat. Actually this is the only representation of a gnat which I can make on this computer. It is a static representation. Using a good microscope, I could reduce the gnats nervous system to a few polypeptides.
In experience this gnat in my apt. loves beer. It will actually get polluted and die in a drop on the rim of a can. This gnat is a living organism. On the microscope slide it is a dead slice of organic materials.
In genetics, essence becomes existence through motion. Clone a plank of that house, and I
will agree to that argument. Show me one brain function not predetermined by genetic activity, and I'll agree that the theory is fallaciuos. But please don't embarrass my beer gnat.

Ierrellus

excreationist

This book was *published* in 1986 when the fastest PC would have been about a 16 or 33 MHz 386. Now there are computers that are about 1000 times faster.

But how about this approach...

We have 100 billion neurons in our brain. If you take the cubic root of that you get about 4642. So you could put the neurons in a cube that is 4642 x 4642 x 4642. Then to make it a similar size to the brain (10 x 10 x 10 cm), each neuron would take up about 0.02 x 0.02 x 0.02 mm, including the wiring.

Computers can be made to have a low power usage - e.g. laptops - and it wouldn't need the monitor on or the hard-drive. And to simulate the brain it would only be going at 40 Hz! And most of the time neurons wouldn't even fire at all.

Anyway, I think in maybe 5 decades computing power will reach that level... and then keep on doubling about every 18-24 months... ("Moore's Law")

John Page

Love the analogy!

However, I agree that analogies are unreliable because, essentially we don't have enough knowledge about our topic.

Against genetics predetermining thought, I agree they are a (significant) driver. I think there is empirical evidence from the study of 'identical' twins that shows unexpected (for me anyway) similarity of likes and dislikes - even in cases of separation after birth or soon thereafter.

What I'm rebelling against is the notion that genetics is the only driver. Surely the differences that do exist between 'identical' twins are proof that thought is additionally influenced by other operational mechanisms than genetics.

I have a sneaking suspiscion that we will find DNA activity does play a role in the ongoing function of cells, not just to build the cell. (I seem to recollect geneticists have already found switches that do this). In this sense my "building" analogy is likely incorrect.

To conclude this post, genetic activity is clearly a 'layer' in the building of a working human being. However, to conclude that is solely and directly responsible for 'abstraction' seems unsustainable - abstaction itself occurs through differentiation of any two signal pairs.

Family duty calls... I'll check back in later.

Cheers!

Ierrellus

Walrus,

Excellent response. If I were not a product of the 20th century, I would probably see mathematics as religion as Pythagoras did! I believe the model you suggest for a brain simulation computer is not far off in the future.

Perhaps you may have an opinion on the following. Columbia Encyclopedia states that "junk" DNA makes up 97% of DNA in the human genome. It defines junk DNA as that which does not code for proteins and states that this DNA is still necessary for the functioning of genes. What do we have here? Codes in reserve?

John,

I'm glad I made you smile! Yes, we know little of genetics. But we can only know more by questioning what we know. I believe we will understand the genetic situation of identical twins when we can understand such a situation in identical clones. Unfortunately, our society finds it immoral to clone humans who could tell us of their dispositions.

In any event, the theory at least needs revision. Your criticisms are not without merit. I must read Piaget before becoming more adamant in my beliefs. Well, I must go celebrate Astarte, Goddess of fertility. See you soon.

Ierrellus

John Page

Correction, going from your earlier post "fartility".

excreationist

My guess is that these are mainly just traits that have been turned off - like having a tail, or scales or gills. As species evolve they have to be fairly compatible with those they mate with so they can't constantly be trimming unnecessary DNA. And this is evidence that our DNA wasn't perfectly designed.

<a href="http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html" target="_blank">Some Piaget info</a> - the thing is that babies and kids would have to interact with their environment to progress through these stages of increasing intelligence. I mean if you put a newborn baby in a sensory isolation tank for a few decades I think it would be at the lowest stage.

Bill

Actually, a baby learns a great deal just while in the womb. If you put mom into a sensory isolation chamber at the time of conception, and the kid in such a chamber for as few as five years, I think you would have an uneducatable moron.

I base the above on the studies of "early childhood development" which show that the synapses grow in the brain, even before birth, based upon what the developing child senses in its surrounding environment. And these same studies seem to show that there is no building those synapses up after a certain period of time (my best guesstimate of the time is that by age three, a child's brain has most of the synapse development it will ever have).

Some key language skills appear to develop while the child is in the womb. A predisposition towards learning one language instead of another most likely occurs prior to birth (it would be interesting to study "host mother" childbirth where the host mother commonly spoke a different language than the "after birth" mom -- this might make clear to just what degree that predisposition controls subsequent language abilities; my personal guess is that it is only a slight predisposition rather than a substantial control - based upon the ease with which very young Spanish speakers can learn English).

=====

My wife's degree is in psychology, and she tells me that virtually every study of "nature versus nurture" ends up finding that both nature AND nurture have important contributions to make. In other words, you need genetics to supply the basic "hardware" of our brains, while culture (language, etc.) supplise all of the key "software" pieces. Once again, this is verified in substantial scientific research as described in <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=625" target="_blank">Terrance Deacon's book</a>.

== Bill