From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 8:15 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Chris Sakal wrote: > > >There is none. If a creature displayed such a quality, it would proove > > that the creature wasn't a product of evoltuion, which is what I just > >said in that email. This was one of Darwin's own falsifiable tests that > >could > >potentially disproove evolution, for obvious reasons. [snip] > At first this did present some difficulties for evolutionary theorists, > but now it is realized how such a behavior could be the result of > evolution. Although a creature may sacrifice itself, if it can save family > members, then it is still playing a role in passing it's genetic makeup on, ...or birds that lead predators away from their nests. True, it's helping your offspring, but it is self-sacrifice. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 8:33 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Chris Sakal wrote: > > Well, actually, the belief that behavior is a straight function only of > genetics is not well accepted in the scientific community, and by that I > mean that it's pretty much universally accepted that it's false. The Who are you talking to? Sociologists, for the most part, ignore any studies that don't support their belief that nurture is the only important part. As more studies mature, and follow successive generations, the indications grow that genetics pretty much determine the path of your life. Note that this is in broad strokes only, but it can be said that you'll be more likely to go to jail, or make it through college, or be upper management, or stick to one job, or whatever. This isn't absolute, but if you're looking at populations, the statistics hold pretty well. This is true even when you're looking at a population like children adopted at birth whose parents were jailed. Can you find exceptions? Of course. But the trend holds true, and that's all you can really research. Nowadays, the people hanging on to the belief that genetics don't influence behavior much do so for personal reasons relating to religion, the transcendency of human intelligence, or some such, rather than because of the research. Anyone taking an objective look at the evidence generally gets the willies and then agrees that perhaps nature has a larger sway than they'd thought. And before anyone asks, I'm collecting references. They'll be along in a couple of days. > nature/nurture debate rages on, and the only thing we can be sure of is > that they each have a contribution to behavior, though nobody can agree on > the amount each side contributes. If what you are saying is true, then > identical twins would be absolutely the same in every way, and I happen to > know empirically that's not the case, I've known several sets of twins, and > none of them have been exactly the same as the other. But their responses to stimuli will be more similar to each other than any randomly selected group of strangers. That's what the genetics do. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 8:18 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Chris Sakal wrote: > > It's not evolution when humans use technology to adapt to their > enviornment (i.e. heating has made it possible for humans to live in cold > climes in much larger numbers than they would otherwise we able to) and [snip] But the intellegence necessary to make the tech is evolved, making the tech a product of evolution, if only by association. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 12:20 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) >Who are you talking to? Sociologists, for the most part, ignore any studies that don't support their belief that nurture is the only important part. As more studies mature, and follow successive generations, the indications grow that genetics pretty much determine the path of your life. Note that this is in broad strokes only, but it can be said that you'll be more likely to go to jail, or make it through college, or be upper management, or stick to one job, or whatever.< As a student of sociology, I must object. Most sociologists will tell you that genetics create a predisposition toward certain behaviors, which, under specific social and cultural influences, can manifest as those behaviors. This is basically the same stance doctors take when they say genetics can cause predispositions toward certain diseases, which, under specific environmental conditions, can manifest as those diseases. The point here is that predispositions are an eventuality, not an inevitability. >This isn't absolute, but if you're looking at populations, the statistics hold pretty well. This is true even when you're looking at a population like children adopted at birth whose parents were jailed. Can you find exceptions? Of course. But the trend holds true, and that's all you can really research. Nowadays, the people hanging on to the belief that genetics don't influence behavior much do so for personal reasons relating to religion, the transcendency of human intelligence, or some such, rather than because of the research. Anyone taking an objective look at the evidence generally gets the willies and then agrees that perhaps nature has a larger sway than they'd thought.< Actually, people today have a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that biology drives behavior because of certain bad experiences with eugenics earlier in this century. But that's beside the point. Genetics, as I said, can cause behavioral predispositions. They cannot force a person to behave a certain way. All human action above the most basic biological concerns (eat, drink, sleep, excrete, etc.) is driven by learned behaviors, which have almost nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with environment. And all the studies that seem to indicate hereditary criminality or depression or psychoses or whatever almost never take into account the fact that most of the test population grew up in environments that encourage whatever behavior. Sure you're going to notice higher instances of crime among the urban poor: the conditions in which people grow up in the ghetto are almost custom built to smash aspirations and drive individuals to deviant means of subsistence. And taking them out of that environment at an early age does not wipe the memories from their minds. A child that was abused or neglected before being placed with a foster or adoptive family is still going to have vague and frightening memories of his biological parent(s) that will cause psychological distress well into adulthood. I'm sorry, but the idea that human beings are nothing but the sum of their genes is irresponsible. Society cannot shrug off responsibility for its problems because it's suddenly popular to accredit them to biology. If biology were the only cause, we'd have developed a drug by now to cure crime, poverty, and corruption . . . and innovation and individualism and all the other things that destabilize society. >But their responses to stimuli will be more similar to each other than any randomly selected group of strangers. That's what the genetics do.< Even if you subjected a set of identical twins to the same stimuli throughout their entire lives (impossible, but this is all hypothetical anyway), you would still not end up with two identical personalities, for the simple reason that their perspectives would be different. People develop unique perspectives based not only on their experiences, but on the meaning and importance they give those experiences. One twin, though his experiences would be a mirror of his sibling's, will have a slightly different perspective of events (if anything, because he cannot occupy the same time and space as his sibling), which will ultimately lead to a divergent personality. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: c718678@showme.missouri.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 2:37 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) Self-sacrifice for offspring or even for other family members is NOT the same as self-sacrifice for another species because when mama sacrifices herself to save her baby birdies or whatever, her babies live and pass on her genes. The same can work for brothers and sisters, too, which is why there are insect species with sterile classes (bees, ants). HOWEVER, self-sacrifice for another SPECIES wouldn't pass on the genes that cause the self-sacrificial behavior and wouldn't become a common trait in that species. While we may agrue about the amount of influence of genetics in human behavior, its pretty clear that genetic instinct is the driving force behind non-intelligent life, so behavior that solely helps (or hurts) another species WOULD NOT GET PASSED ON. This is why Darwin said that if it were shown that any species had a behavior that solely helped (or hurt) another species, with no positive effects on the species doing the behavior, then his theory of evolution would be disprooved, and he was correct to say so. Since the aborigines do help other species (the rest of native POseidon) with no positive effects on their own survival or reproduction, its a potentially observable fact that aborigines are NOT a product of evolution. If somehow someone managed to observe this without getting mind-controlled, killed, or discredited, it would mean big trouble for anyone on a listserve that debates the origins of life. Later, Eva @@@(* > *)@@@ On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Auberon wrote: > Chris Sakal wrote: > > > > >There is none. If a creature displayed such a quality, it would proove > > > that the creature wasn't a product of evoltuion, which is what I just > > >said in that email. This was one of Darwin's own falsifiable tests that > > >could > > >potentially disproove evolution, for obvious reasons. > > [snip] > > > At first this did present some difficulties for evolutionary theorists, > > but now it is realized how such a behavior could be the result of > > evolution. Although a creature may sacrifice itself, if it can save family > > members, then it is still playing a role in passing it's genetic makeup on, > > ...or birds that lead predators away from their nests. True, it's > helping your offspring, but it is self-sacrifice. > > -- > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= > > "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" > - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: c718678@showme.missouri.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 3:27 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Robert P. Stefko wrote: > > As a student of sociology, I must object. Most sociologists will tell you > that genetics create a predisposition toward certain behaviors, which, under > specific social and cultural influences, can manifest as those behaviors. Its more than just a predisposition. As an analogy, think of an irregular lump of limestone (representing the brain or soul or whatever you think it is that directly controls decisions) with acid rain falling on it (representing stimuli). The initial shape of the lump represents genetics, and the shape at any given time represents the personality of the person. When one drop of rain falls on the rock, the shape of the rock together with the nature of the droplet (size, shape, velocity) determines exactly where the droplet will run over the rock, disolving a channel there and slightly changing the shape of the rock. Not only does learning change the shape of the personality, it changes the way the next "droplet" will affect the personality, as "grooves in the rock" run together. Two lumps that are shaped differently will have vastly different-shaped grooves cut by the same exact droplet. Even if the rocks are only slightly different shaped, a two identical drops falling over congruent spots may fall in totally different directions, affecting the shape and the path of subsequent droplets on the rocks. As for your twin example, that works becauseif we start with two identical lumps of rock and drop two almost identical drops of acid rain, the drops may go very different ways based on the slight differences in their mass, velocity,etc. But the initial shape of the rock (genetics) determines the final shape of the rock. Evevn if a whole lot of rain falls and vastly changes the personality over time, the initial shape is what determined where the first gooves would form, and those grooves in turn determined where the next grooves would form. That's how I see the genetics vs. learning behavior argument. They both affect it, and since genetics determines the way in which stimuli affects the personality, its kinda meaningless to ask which affects it "more". A whole lot of potent acid dumped in one spot, like a tramatic experience, will create a similar-shaped groove in almost any shape of rock, which is why people with certain types of experiences tend to exhibit similar behaviors, but not everyone of them does. Also, the first bunch of droplets that fall have more influence over the final shape than any other droplets since they cut grooves for the subsequent droplets to fall in, which is why the experiences of the first few years of life are so important to the developement of a person. Later, Eva @@@(* > *)@@@ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 7:05 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) "Robert P. Stefko" wrote: > > As a student of sociology, I must object. Most sociologists will tell you > that genetics create a predisposition toward certain behaviors, which, under > specific social and cultural influences, can manifest as those behaviors. More correctly, certain conditioning can prevent expression of hardwired traits, or the stimulus necessary to certain responses may never come up. > This is basically the same stance doctors take when they say genetics can > cause predispositions toward certain diseases, which, under specific > environmental conditions, can manifest as those diseases. The point here is > that predispositions are an eventuality, not an inevitability. This depends on which diseases you're talking about. Most cancers seem to be caused by errors in certain genes happening in a very specific chronological sequence. Some people are more susceptable to those errors. Other diseases, like hemophilia, either you've got the gene or you don't. If you do, you've got the disease. Just depends which condition you're discussing. Also, a lot of diseases are assumed to be gene-linked, but haven't been proven to be. It could simply be that if (for instance) all the kids in a study are raised in the same houses their parents were, that the house is the factor, not the genetics. > Actually, people today have a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that > biology drives behavior because of certain bad experiences with eugenics > earlier in this century. But that's beside the point. Genetics, as I said, And we (myself firmly included) want to believe that we exercise control over what we do. The fact is, that's only true within the boundaries set by our genetics. > can cause behavioral predispositions. They cannot force a person to behave a > certain way. All human action above the most basic biological concerns (eat, > drink, sleep, excrete, etc.) is driven by learned behaviors, which have > almost nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with environment. I respectfully disagree. > And all the studies that seem to indicate hereditary criminality or > depression or psychoses or whatever almost never take into account the fact > that most of the test population grew up in environments that encourage > whatever behavior. Sure you're going to notice higher instances of crime Several studies have been conducted only on children of parents who displayed a certain trait, where the children had been adopted into a very different environment (suburban upper middle class, usually). > among the urban poor: the conditions in which people grow up in the ghetto > are almost custom built to smash aspirations and drive individuals to > deviant means of subsistence. And taking them out of that environment at an > early age does not wipe the memories from their minds. A child that was > abused or neglected before being placed with a foster or adoptive family is > still going to have vague and frightening memories of his biological > parent(s) that will cause psychological distress well into adulthood. I'm But these mental scars are not, unto themselves, sufficient explaination for them following so well in their parents footsteps. > sorry, but the idea that human beings are nothing but the sum of their genes > is irresponsible. Society cannot shrug off responsibility for its problems > because it's suddenly popular to accredit them to biology. If biology were > the only cause, we'd have developed a drug by now to cure crime, poverty, > and corruption . . . and innovation and individualism and all the other > things that destabilize society. Biology isn't the only thing, but you can't ignore it, either. Everything can not be explained by your neighborhood, parenting experiences, and school. People are just different from one another. > Even if you subjected a set of identical twins to the same stimuli > throughout their entire lives (impossible, but this is all hypothetical > anyway), you would still not end up with two identical personalities, for Even if the stimuli were exactly the same, minor differences in neurochemistry due to any number of things are going to result in sleight differences in perception which would add up over time. Even so, I never said you'd end up with the same person. It has to be noted, however, that they will tend to have similar traits: If one of them is addicted, the other will likely be addicted to the same or a similar substance, if any exposure has happened. They will tend to have similar hobbies; one may be an extreme skateboarder, while the other skis out of helicopters, but the sports are similar in that they're both thrill-seeker sports which give good "rushes", as opposed to, say, computer geekery. > the simple reason that their perspectives would be different. People develop > unique perspectives based not only on their experiences, but on the meaning > and importance they give those experiences. One twin, though his experiences > would be a mirror of his sibling's, will have a slightly different > perspective of events (if anything, because he cannot occupy the same time > and space as his sibling), which will ultimately lead to a divergent > personality. Divergent personalities, yes. But similar behaviors, which is what I was talking about earlier. Very rarely, if ever, are you going to end up with one twin being a Ghandi, while the other is a Hitler. My point here is that the person involved is irrellevant. They may have totally different reasons, on a concious level, for doing what they do. The observed behaviors will be similar, because their body chemistry, a result of genetics, will be very similar. We're biochemical critters. Barring extremes of experience, we respond to stimuli based on the way our biochemistries alter in response to it, and that determines what we do. If you like confrontation, you could be a thug, a boxer, or a policeman -- very different trades, with very different reasons for existing, but you'd get the stimulus you want any way. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 8:36 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) >I think that there is very little ground >for assuming that they [aborigines] would all think the same way. > >>>>>Just to play devil's advocate, check out the references to a collective >conciousness among the aborigines - BP 158 and 160. I mean apart from that ^_^. Actually, I play, but don't run, so I've been careful not to read the access denied sections, so I didn't know that, my bad. Also, what I was refering to when I said that was the arguments from genetic similarity, obviously, it makes me look a bit stupid to find out that the main book disagrees with what I'm saying, I can only plead ignorance because I'm such a good, restrained player ^_^. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 8:38 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) I think that you may have mistaken what I said, I never claimed that genetics play no role in personality or behavior, I said that they are not the only player and that the amount of influence genetic background and life experiences have on behavior is currently a subject of much debate and is not known. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 10:49 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Abo conciousness (ACCESS DENIED) I once read an interesting application of the nature-nurture debate in a sociology class here at Pitt. Prior to World War II, two Jewish twins were separated by their parents, one fleeing with his mother to the U.S. (the parents could not afford to send both children) and the other remaining in Germany with his father. To protect the child that stayed behind, the father converted and raised his son as a Christian. In the years leading up to the war, the twin in America developed an easygoing, open-minded personality, while the twin in Germany became a reactionary bigot and an active Hitler Youth (much to the dismay of his father). Some time after the war, the twins were reunited. The German twin was devastated to learn that he was a Jew and became bitter toward his brother. Still, despite their vastly different personalities, they still shared certain behavioral quirks, such as flushing the toilet before and after using the bathroom. This is a true story; it seems to demonstrate the importance of both nature _and_ nurture in the development of individual personalities. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.