October 24th, 2008, 03:27 PM
Hi, I think I've got a handle on death now, thanks guys :-D
What about birth ? I know we are born with mum and dad's genes. And we inherit certain characteristics from them. I have 2 moles in exactly the same places as my dad, left side of the face, left side of the tummy. The exact same places ! But when it comes to something like nerves, he's a rock and I'm a jelly !
We inherit physical characteristics, yes ? but do we also inherit behaviour ? I think behaviour is the correct word ?
BARCUD
I don't believe behavioral characteristics can be inherent in a literal sense, but because behavior is based on how you were tough and raised as a infant, your parents and inherit there behavior on you, as well as many other sources.
Unless that is if A.D.D is considered a behavioral characteristic, rather then a disorder with a part of the brain.
Thar, that is not exacly correct. My father was adopted. For the longest time he thought he was unique in his sense of humor... till he became 25 and finally met his father. It was like a spitting image.
Tharghana, I'm afraid you are incorrect. Behaviors most certainly can be inherited, because many behaviors have a genetic component. Now, most complex behaviors are the result of a combination of genes and environmental influences. So for the most part it's best to think of it as though we have certain predispositions, certain tendencies - things we are most likely to do, though it's not completely set in stone.
Just think about it - your behavior comes from your brain. Your brain, just like any other organ in your body, has evolved in specific ways to best increase your reproductive success. How you behave is crucial to how you survive and reproduce. Behavior is subject to natural selection, just like physical characteristics are.
The best way I can think of to figure this out, is to make an objective comparison between the vast array of cultures found on this earth. A large chunk of our behaviour can, for instance, be directly attributed to our social nature. We live in groups with limited females and levels and roles of social structure and status. Analysing our behaviour while keeping this in mind can really illuminate a few things!
Well that is quite interesting, I didn't know that behavior had a physical form that it could be passed on, I had thought it was tough by an animals parent from birth.
Paralith, quote :
'predispositions, certain tendencies'
The answers to my question don't surprise me. If I replaced Paralith's quote with the word 'instinct', would I be on the right lines ?
Lot's of species that I am aware of are left on their own straight after or not long after they are born. Snakes for instance. With no role models to teach them the skills of hunting and what things to eat then they must be born with some inbred instinct. I might be wrong, but I assume I see instinct in observable behaviour. Again would I be right ?
BARCUD
Most behavioural patterns are hardwired.
You eat when you are hungry.
You sleep when you are tired.
In humans there is some social behaviour that is partly learned, but most is still based on the limitations that are hardwired.
They teach you to kill in the Marines. But they use human psychology (the wiring that is shared by all) to teach you to perform an extreme behavioural pattern.
Similarly suicide bombers are trained by applying simple group behaviour principles to the individual. Nobody would normally perform a suicide attack, but apply the right buttons (hardwired) and they will.
Of course most people like to think they are special and have a shitload of free will.
And the minute their brain says: "we need to take a dump", they are off to the toilet.
As the others have said, much about the person you are both physically and mentally is defined by the genes you inherit. This is called your genotype. Obviously, the environment (including other people) can modify the body (and thus mind) that is generated by the genotype. How you were raised, whether you have been injured in accidents, exposure to disease and pretty much any other influence you can imagine will all modify the body generated by the genome. The genotype remains the same, but the body is altered.
Very roughly:
Genotype (unchanging) + environmental influence = phenotype.
The phenotype is what you are.
On the other hand, we are hardwired to rebel against our hardwiring. This id-curdling force enters with the "terrible twos", when children reject precisely what they most want, e.g. given the option of a cookie, they must decide "No! I don't wanna cookie! No no no!" The inner rebellion is pre-programmed, involuntary, and so torturous that children actually writhe on the floor in conflict with their selves alone. Then something similar happens to teens too.
Well, maybe not technically involuntary. The tantrums are I think the voluntary urge in raw, aimless form, attacking our neat "genotype + environment" recipe. It is a shitload of free will, or "voluntary behaviour", and it's the way we master... shit.
The second re-wiring is more ingenious. Basically, where we see this, we want that. One feels compelled to go against upbringing & rage against environment. But that's so late in the game most of us just tilt the machine for a while, then get back into the program.
When teen rebellion sticks for life we carry a sort of Othello game played over generations. If you're opposed to your parents, and they're opposed to their parents, and so on. Swap swap swap. So we inherit this board and get to play a few tokens in life. It feels like freedom, until we pan out and see the pattern. "Just the opposite" isn't real freedom.
Pong, I can't help but point out that your statement "we are hardwired to rebel against our hardwiring" simply doesn't make sense, if by "hardwiring" you refer to our genes. (Unless you are referring to intragenomic conflict, which I don't think you are.)Originally Posted by Pong
On the other hand, we are hardwired to rebel against our hardwiring. This id-curdling force enters with the "terrible twos", when children reject precisely what they most want, e.g. given the option of a cookie, they must decide "No! I don't wanna cookie! No no no!" The inner rebellion is pre-programmed, involuntary, and so torturous that children actually writhe on the floor in conflict with their selves alone. Then something similar happens to teens too.
Well, maybe not technically involuntary. The tantrums are I think the voluntary urge in raw, aimless form, attacking our neat "genotype + environment" recipe. It is a shitload of free will, or "voluntary behaviour", and it's the way we master... shit.
The second re-wiring is more ingenious. Basically, where we see this, we want that. One feels compelled to go against upbringing & rage against environment. But that's so late in the game most of us just tilt the machine for a while, then get back into the program.
When teen rebellion sticks for life we carry a sort of Othello game played over generations. If you're opposed to your parents, and they're opposed to their parents, and so on. Swap swap swap. So we inherit this board and get to play a few tokens in life. It feels like freedom, until we pan out and see the pattern. "Just the opposite" isn't real freedom.
Nor do I see how anything you described above "attacks" the genotype + environment recipe. And, by the way, it is not a "neat" recipe. The complexities of genetic expression and their interaction with the complexities of the environment (and by environment we mean ALL external factors, not just the habitat) are, at this moment, far beyond our complete understanding. It will take many decades of research before we can remedy that situation.
You can't understand reality by modeling full reality.
I don't mean the genes themselves. I mean instincts, and any behavior that "comes naturally" regardless of environment (environment in the broadest sense). The thing is, humans have mechanisms innate, independent of environment, that creatively work against our instincts. For example every child must inevitably try holding her breath... as long as possible... perhaps until she passes out. Every child must try looking into the sun. And so forth. This is not cultural, not learned. It's an urge beginning at a certain stage in development, "hard-wired" if you will.
Humans are funny 'cause we get a kick out of defying our natural selves. As hinted above, the urge first shows with "terrible twos" and its first great victory is with the potty. Soon we get into liking and disliking certain foods for purely whimsical reasons, like, won't eat anything orange or yellow, or anything beginning with the letters A, B, or C. The whole point is to exercise will. Children everywhere just do this without encouragement from parents. So this urge must be innate, and paradoxical because it directly opposes the innate. It does oppose the obvious phenotype because that's what it's for.
We are programmed to rebel against our programing.
I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're working on a different definition of the word instinct than I've usually seen used.
1) You don't mean the genes? Where are instincts coming from if they're not coming from the genes? Either it's our genes or it's some aspect of our environment, which would not make them innate or independent of the environment at all.
2) From what I understand, instincts are innate, and yes, some of our genes are less influenced by the environment than others, and some may even be completely independent of our environment. So, are you saying our instincts work against our instincts? Again, this simply doesn't make sense. Repeating it doesn't make it true.
Hmm. I would take issue that your "every child" statements are true. I will accept, however, that a majority of children may try to harm themselves in some way at some point in their lives because they are attempting to control their parents' behavior in the only way available to them. I would call that an aspect of weaning conflict, and it is completely expected of our "natural selves."For example every child must inevitably try holding her breath... as long as possible... perhaps until she passes out. Every child must try looking into the sun. And so forth. This is not cultural, not learned. It's an urge beginning at a certain stage in development, "hard-wired" if you will.
Humans are funny 'cause we get a kick out of defying our natural selves.
I will also accept that that the majority of children will sometimes do something silly or even downright dangerous out curiosity, because they are young and still learning their limits, and are trying to understand the world that they are going to have to function in when they grow up. This is also expected of our "natural selves."
Around the age of two is when human weaning conflict begins, when children are starting to gain some control of themselves but also begin to attempt to control their parents, when they are curious but they still don't understand their limits, when they are first learning contingency rules and first learning to exercise their own choices, etc.As hinted above, the urge first shows with "terrible twos" and its first great victory is with the potty. Soon we get into liking and disliking certain foods for purely whimsical reasons, like, won't eat anything orange or yellow, or anything beginning with the letters A, B, or C. The whole point is to exercise will. Children everywhere just do this without encouragement from parents. So this urge must be innate, and paradoxical because it directly opposes the innate. It does oppose the obvious phenotype because that's what it's for.
We are programmed to rebel against our programing.
And what is the programming that all this is acting against? According to you, what is the programming that they would be following at this point were it not for that other programming pushing them in the opposite direction? I'm sorry, but I simply do not find any of your examples to be so paradoxical as you describe.
Correct. I mean the expressions of our genes as they play out. For example if we're talking about baby language acquisition we can say that's driven by genes but at this level we'd better speak of language instincts, not the genes themselves. You wouldn't insist discussion of the heart's function restricted to genetic terms. In this discussion, we're talking about instincts and I'm sure we share a common definition ...if we want to.I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're working on a different definition of the word instinct than I've usually seen used.
1) You don't mean the genes?
You're finding specific causes ...or stages... perhaps genetic, for behaviour that contradicts established instinct. I believe we do have some innate, particular contradictions. But more generally, I think we have an urge to escape feedback loops. You can't answer that case-by-case, because the possibilities are endless. I believe we have some general, innate mechanisms for breaking behavioral loops, or willfully rebelling from the obvious. Not just metabolic, but conscious.
Consider the children of smokers, alcoholics, and stamp collectors. They'll probably hate it or embrace it, without moderation. This polarizing is innate, and we could track it down to genes but suffice to say we have a general inborn urge to novel behaviour, for the sake of novelty. Maybe some more than others?
That innate urge matters to discussion about human phenotype because it willfully monkey-wrenches phenotype it perceives as natural and obvious, i.e. "certain predispositions, certain tendencies - things we are most likely to do."
It's also kinda sad to contemplate how many SIDS deaths are caused by newborns deliberately holding their breaths too long - a behavior they're known to dabble in.
You can die by holding your breath too long?It's also kinda sad to contemplate how many SIDS deaths are caused by newborns deliberately holding their breaths too long - a behavior they're known to dabble in.
Pre-birth, we sporadically practice breathing in fluid. Newborn breathing is often irregular, as in, they breathe too fast/slow, deep/shallow, or just stop breathing altogether for a while. Whether or not that's responsible for sudden unexplainable crib deaths is of course unknown.
Ok, but are you making a distinction between conscious and subconscious holding of breath? Or rather between voluntary and involuntary? The reason I ask, and you must have thought about this, is that a voluntary holding of breath surely can't be responsible for crib deaths? I mean, once you pass out you switch back to autonomous breathing, or am I missing something?
Newborns blur the line between voluntary and involuntary. They do a lot of seemingly random behaviour, that is mapping nerves and establishing what someday will be 100% involuntary. To you, controlling the esophagus to push food one way or the other is unconscious reflex, but to a newborn that's just where the leading edge of consciousness is, creatively testing possibilities and learning.
SIDS, I guess what might be happening, is, yes babies pass out after holding it a little too far, but then automatic breathing fails to kick in.
Nah. Trust me on this one. I do biology.
Well, now you're talking about phenotype, not instinct. The heart's function is overall related to how the genes and the environment produce the resulting organ. A baby has the instinct to learn language, and that instinct, that desire, is based on our genes. A baby is able to learn language, and is very good at learning language, thanks to its genes. But the language it eventually learns is based on those desires and abilities, the environment of the language it is exposed to as its grows.
If you're trying to separate the word "instinct" from genes, then no, I don't think we share a common definition.
I repeat, WHAT established instinct? You keep speaking of acting against our nature, acting against our genes, and then go on to describe what I find to be very natural, gene-based behaviors. So: what are the natural behaviors, the established instincts that babies ought to be doing when really they're not?You're finding specific causes ...or stages... perhaps genetic, for behaviour that contradicts established instinct.
"..we have an urge to escape feedback loops." While I don't necessarily agree with you on this, think about what you just said: We have an urge to do something. Fine. Where does that urge come from? Our genes, perhaps? There's no need to explain things on a case-by-case basis. We have a basic urge, driven by our genes, and we have the ability to learn and think of different ways to satisfy that urge. And there you have it - all cases explained.I believe we do have some innate, particular contradictions. But more generally, I think we have an urge to escape feedback loops. You can't answer that case-by-case, because the possibilities are endless. I believe we have some general, innate mechanisms for breaking behavioral loops, or willfully rebelling from the obvious. Not just metabolic, but conscious.
Well, now it appears you agree with me. Again, I may not exactly agree that children of smokers are doomed to either hate or love the habit, but from what you're saying they have a gene-based desire to do so, and, probably based on genetic variation and environmental influences, that desire can vary from person to person.Consider the children of smokers, alcoholics, and stamp collectors. They'll probably hate it or embrace it, without moderation. This polarizing is innate, and we could track it down to genes but suffice to say we have a general inborn urge to novel behaviour, for the sake of novelty. Maybe some more than others?
I don't really understand what you're trying to say in that first paragraph. And in the second, I'd like to see a source for that claim. Usually when a person holds their breath for too long, they pass out, and automatic breathing takes over. I highly doubt that willfully holding one's breath is a significant cause of SIDS. Unless you can show me a verifiable source to the contrary.That innate urge matters to discussion about human phenotype because it willfully monkey-wrenches phenotype it perceives as natural and obvious, i.e. "certain predispositions, certain tendencies - things we are most likely to do."
It's also kinda sad to contemplate how many SIDS deaths are caused by newborns deliberately holding their breaths too long - a behavior they're known to dabble in.
OK call it "sudden random involuntary apnia" if you just can't handle the suggestion babies have any control over their own functions. Either way, the cause of death in SIDS is cessation of breathing.Nah. Trust me on this one. I do biology.
What?! No!
LOL. Why are so determined to find disagreement?
A new tack: Why don't we get stuck in positive feedback?
On metabolic level, would you agree that healthy balances can be maintained by two ...oh God I'm gonna say it... opposing thresholds? Why/why not?
On behavioural level, would you agree that people are naturally fickle, so that we escape ruts of our own device? Why/why not?
The point I'm trying to make regarding the OP is that yes we inherit particular traits from our parents, and yes those manifest more or less depending on our environment, but we also inherit irresistible mechanisms, whose function is to put us off our own inheritance and environment, and rewrite the script so to speak.
But are you saying that those irresistible mechanisms do not come from our parents? That they do not come from the environment? That's one problem I've had with what you've been describing - something that's like an instinct or a gene based urge, yet it seems that you really don't want to call it either of those - in fact, you want to say it acts against such things. But I don't really see how an urge like the one you describe could otherwise be programmed in an organism other than through genes..
It's also difficult for me to pinpoint the exact mechanism you're trying to describe. You've listed a wide variety of examples and only just now are you describing it as an urge to escape a rut, to escape a positive behavioral feedback loop. That I can perhaps understand - a desire for novelty, a general resistance to monotony.
But then at the end you go back to say that we have some ephemeral inherent mechanism that acts against genes and environment - the ONLY two factors that effect the ultimate phenotype of an organism. Your example of metabolism seems, to me anyway, to contradict what you are saying. Multiple gene directed, environmentally sensitive pressures working together to maintain a balanced homeostasis.
I've never heard of this hypothesis on the cause of SIDS before. As I understand it the actual cause is not known with any real certainty.
People unable to escape cognitive or behavioural loops tend not to reproduce. So we have the means to escape such loops or we are selected against. Whilst I'm hesitant to bring all explanations back to evolution, this is an easy one.
So we have inherited behaviour and inherited behaviour that tells us to defy our inherited behaviour? Isn't that actually just a really awkward version of the conventional view that we have competing urges that we must prioritise? Not one element defying the other, but many that must be balanced. It's almost like you're trying to bring some supernatural element into this. If we inherit something that drives us to defy our nature then that's just another layer of our nature surely. I think you're just making the whole thing quite unnecessarily complicated really.
No I am not. Both you and Paralith agree with me, whilst straining to interpret my words as disagreeable.
Let me make clear that when I say "this instinct opposes that instinct" I am not suggesting some supernatural factor invalidates or replaces genetics. OK? I am saying instinct/gene set A counters instinct/gene set B. Mechanical analogy: you keep your head up by counterbalancing muscles - these muscles work in opposition - there is net tension. Developmental example: You miss your parents, but you're a freaking teenager and say screw that crap. In that case one innate urge totally overrules another. My saying that humans have inner contradictions, on all levels, regardless of environment, is not IMO "making the whole thing quite unnecessarily complicated". It's relevant to the OP question about inherited behaviour... I only wish I'd worded the point better in the first place.
You're stressing cooperation. I'm stressing dialectic (in the sense of juxtaposed forces). We share the same definitions but when I said "this opposes that" you thought I meant "this disproves that". No! The mechanisms that wake you in the morning do not invalidate the mechanisms that put you to sleep, nor do they redefine the social behaviour of late-night forum browsing in any way. Even in apparent conflict.
Nope. No argument there. I'd even say aging "comes from our parents" because it's basically genetic, preset clock. Trust me we all agree on what's genetic and what's environmental, and how they constitute phenotype.
Gee, neither do I.
The disagreement stems from incredulous reaction to a dialectic view, which is just an angle. I think I'm trying to enlighten a pseudo-Gaian view, in which the whole organism works in harmony, and innate contradictions are painted as cooperative. I asked about feedback because feedback... well, blows Gaian cooperation out of the water. To understand feedback one must acknowledge innate contradiction. Parts of a system work against each other. Feedback also promotes dramatic change, including reversals. It's very dialectic.
Like I said, my motive in asserting that we're "hardwired to rebel against our hardwiring" is mainly to champion our innate changeability. In contrast to the (necessarily uncomplicated?) impression that: you take some genes, place them in environment, and Bob's your uncle. I want people to know that variation from that apparent predestination is inevitable, because humans are innately unstable. Remember the context here is inherited behaviour. I think my point is valid!
It's not the cause of SIDS it's the cause of death. We don't know what causes SIDS.
Autopsies suggest the breathing stopped before the heart stopped, and everything's consistent with the baby just... ceasing to breathe. All else is grasping straws. There might be some tissue scarring or malformation where the brain regulates breathing (as we'd suspect), but it's inconclusive. We looked for breathing irregularity in newborns who later died of SIDS and paradoxically they show less irregularity than control babies. And if you didn't know already SIDS babies are by definition perfectly healthy and well cared for as far as we can tell.
My hypothesis is that some babies for whatever reason retain the mechanism responsible for fetal breathing movement, after birth. This takes over later, quite inappropriately, and kills them.
Babies in the womb do practice breathing, off and on. It follows a daily pattern too, which I think might relate to the fact SIDS babies usually die when they're unattended and supposedly asleep. Anyway, this practice breathing regime, like the reverse-flow fetal heart, must follow different controls than the newborn regime. So at birth a number of systems get shut down as completely as is possible, and others start up. We have found the cessation of fetal breathing movements an excellent predictor of labour onset. That suggests to me the fetal breathing regime really is incompatible with independent (real) breathing, and something destroys that mechanism for good... normally.
When a newborn fails to fix its heart properly at birth, that's apparent. We can say, "oh, look, the heart didn't close completely". But with breathing there's just nothing to see. Whatever brain mechanic caused the fetus to stop breathing, safely in the womb, may linger unobserved. All it needs is a certain threshold, and a pathway, when normal breathing is most idle, to resume control. I guess.
So why do SIDS babies breathe more regularly than normal babies? Perhaps the regular breathing depends on relatively low levels of positive feedback. That's why it's stable. But, being less intense, it is more susceptible to overwhelming by the obsolete fetal mechanism. I would like to see if breathing does grow less intense (in terms of neural activity) as newborns "settle", because this would fit the quirk of SIDS hitting babies only after their systems stabilize (SIDS between 1 and 12 months).
Pong, your language prior to this was obtuse and difficult to understand. Your insistence on using phrases like, "against our natural selves," "attacks the neat gene + environment equation," "inherent mechanisms that act against our instincts," "put us off our inheritance and environment" all made it sound like you were trying to define something outside of a gene based mechanism. If a different angle of description is SO different that it's confusing to to those you're directing it to, it's probably not a good angle to use.
No one in this thread stated that everything within a human was all cooperation and harmony. We said that multiple factors interact to create a certain outcome, and they do. We simply never went into detail about exactly how they interact, because Barcud is new to the subject and still getting a handle on the basic concepts.
Yes I suspect we're actually all on the same page here but losing ourselves in differing explanations somewhat.
What we all seem to agree on is that our coded behaviour is highly complex and in many respects self-antagonistic. Just look at the classic antagonism between our exploration instinct and survival instinct.
Dead on. Agreed. Apologies to all.
| « The BIG C | IS THERE A DIFFERENCE . . . » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
