And we are so much more than DNA.
Not only that, but we are what we are not merely because of the “internal” stuff, but we are what we are because of “external” things like glasses, Hindu-Arabic numerals, pharmaceuticals, airplanes, … These things change the circumstances in which we develop as organisms.
Those external circumstances would make no sense without internal precidents for understanding them.
We create from what is available to us as well.
And those internal precedents would be (and often are) useless if the environment doesn’t enable them (else you would be rich right now). You are in the state that you are in because you had “internal precedents” of a specific type AND you were in an environment of a specific type.
Agreed.
You and I seem to be seeing the same thing through different ends of the spectrum of organism/environment.
And?
These “internal precedents” don’t need to be very much or very influential.
But they are necessary. Without them you could not adapt to an environment.
Ierrellus?
If an infant is infected with a neurological disease that scrambles his brain (which would include easily 90% of the West), the person becomes very different than he would have been. So is it the DNA that made him what he has become or the environment into which he was born?
Excellent question. I’m usually not into the nature vs nurture dead end debates. No one knows what anyone might have been. The infant’s brain is, of course limited by the limitations of its environment. This does not negate the fact that one adapts from what he has.
duplicate post
…by the dictates of what he encounters.
You cannot place blame or credit on merely one or the other.
DNA is not solely responsible, nor is the environment.
You are the harmony of the mix, nothing less and nothing more… always.
So interactionism spells out the sum of organic development. Does this mean that one cannot study the organism without reference to the environment? Should research of alzheimers disease be a matter of studying environmental affects or gene markers?
Once again, please read “What Makes Us Think” (Changeux/Ricoeur). It’s a lively debate between a neuroscientist and a philosopher. You can probably read it in one afternoon. I’m on Changeux’s side, which might help explain where I’m coming from here.
Regardless of sides, both arguments have their pluses.
duplicate post
There is NO question that almost all psychological disorders are given from the environment to the victim.
But today, due to retro-virus technology, that gift can come even before the victim is born.
No question? Surely you jest. On what authority do you make such a claim? It takes complicity between environment and genes for these disorders to happen.
Besides that, and back to the OP, do you not agree that if proposition 1. is true, proposition 2 must follow?
I agree with Wm. James that humans simply have more instincts than do other animals, not less. Ethics may be instinctual. (see Changeux/Ricour–"What makes Us Think). If that is the case, Hume’s idea that an “ought” cannot be derived from an “is” is false. It’s a matter of human hubris that we find the ontological sources of thought to be too primitive to explain anything. Hume was unaware of neuroscience and based his opinion on logic. He did not understand that logic has precedents in the human experience of being structured.
Only to a limited degree, so “no” that is not an accepted logic premise.
As above, only to a limited degree. Grammar is far more affected by the physical construct of the person than math. Math has almost nothing at all to do with the genetic nature of the person, with the exception of the genes establishing whether the person can actually follow math. Math doesn’t change with genetic origins, only skills at it. The same is true with Logic. Both math and logic (being virtually the same thing) are independent of their source and destination. A square is a square, regardless of genetic makeup or even of physical reality itself.
They each depend upon the ability of people to agree on thoughts. Thus genetic make up will certainly affect which religions or philosophies are useful. Christianity would be completely pointless in a society of monkeys (which explains why today Islam works better).
The successful religion must be one that fit the minds and hearts of the population at that time. And the minds and hearts of the population has a dependency on their genetic make up to allow for agreements between them. So different populations will require different religions until a single religion is proposed that any gene combination could utilize. So void of having such a religion, it is always proposed to simply get rid of anyone who couldn’t accept the religion. That in turn affects the evolution of that population.
So in the long run, the religion that began in a population depends upon the genetic makeup of the population, but after a while, the genetic makeup of the population depends upon the religion/philosophy.
And all of that, along with many other concerns is why I hold to the only philosophy that I can see that is applicable to all sentient beings. But note that even with that, there must be sentience and thus still a genetic dependency to a degree.
Thanks, James, for agreeing in part.
About math and logic: Construction requires math. It involves time, distance, energy and velocity. Geometry appears basic in the trajectories of cellular growth. Cells divide, multiply, add and subtract. This activity , which is personal and visceral, translates into thought as concepts of math and logic. That personal development of these characteristics owes to environment goes without saying. It does not negate from where their sources come.
Eperienced patterns of our construction are recognized in brains and are there categorized as math, logic, etc. This is true because there are few or no interruptions in the development from genes to brains. If anyone can find another source of these. I’d be interested in hearing about it. We bring to environments what we are. Although environment hones our dispostions, it does not create them.