|
Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks. |
|
|
|
Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Consilience (long) posted by May Belt on April 9, 2011 at 11:01:47:
I agree with Geoff. E.O. Wilson’s emphasis is that “genes are everything” !! Even Richard Dawkins who I have a great deal of respect for (and who is into genes in a big way) wishes E.O. Wilson would not be SO deterministic.
Yes, genes have a role and quite often a serious role. Yes, E.O Wilson gives the odd reference to certain anomalies but they are ‘cursory’ acknowledgements and references to those anomalies soon fade into the background.
Whereas other scientists see the SAME anomalies as ‘clues’ to ‘something else going on’ other than E.O. Wilson’s concept that the genes are the primary and dominant force even, in his opinion, governing such as behaviours of nations, communities large groups of people etc !! Such as Wilson assumes (or is seriously suggesting) that innate behaviour is ‘programmed’ or ‘coded’ in the DNA. There MAY be some innate behaviour coded for – but surely not so overall that a whole book is devoted to such.
Other scientists see the anomalies as pointing to the genes not actually always being the primary and dominant governing factor but as (a lot of the time) being possibly a ‘receiver’ ‘tuned into’ ‘information fields’ !! More like a circuit of a radio. The actual radio circuit cannot produce, on it’s own, just by existing, all the radio broadcasts of the world. It is passive in that respect. Until the circuit is activated by external ‘influences’ – until it receives the radio broadcasts from around the world - then the world, from within it, “sings”
From E.O. Wilson’s deterministic viewpoint the genes coding for the ‘simple eye’ will make a ‘simple eye’.
But other scientists have found otherwise. THEY have found an anomaly. When the genes coding for a ‘simple eye’ are introduced into an organism which uses a ‘compound eye’ – the genes for the simple eye DO NOT make a simple eye – they will make a ‘compound eye’ !!!
Such anomalies cause SOME scientists to realize the need to expand THEIR thinking further and away from the conventional !!
And, once many of them have expanded their ‘thinking’, they find it impossible then to go back to their original way of thinking i.e. As deterministic in their thinking as they had been before !!
They have to begin to think along the lines of :-
1) If the genes which code for a ‘simple eye’ (say hypothetically ABCD) are introduced into an organism which uses a ‘compound eye’, WHY isn’t a ‘simple eye’ created from those very same genes ?
2) In the host organism which has the genes to code for a ‘compound eye’ (hypothetically AABBCCDD), could those genes also have a coding to dominate other genes ? In other words, could the coding AABBCCDD dominate over the coding ABCD ? Which means that the genes coding for a simple eye (ABCD) are NOT as deterministic as E.O. Wilson would suggest. E.O. Wilson’s ‘determinism of the effect of genes’ would have the genes for a ‘simple eye’ ALWAYS creating a simple eye (or certainly far more than a Maybe they will or Maybe they wont).
3) Could the genes for both simple eye (ABCD) and compound eye (AABBCCDD) be merely the basic circuitry primed for ‘tapping into certain specific ‘external information fields’ ??
4) Very much like my example of a radio receiver’s circuitry. The basic circuitry of a radio does not have the information of a particular radio broadcast within it but has the ability, given the correct (or important circumstances) to tap into the ‘information field’ it needs to ? Like needing to ‘tap into’ the specific weather/shipping forecasts if you are wanting to sail on the high seas !!
5) That in the case of the genes coding for the ‘simple eye’ within a host organism which uses a compound eye – the ‘outside information field’ for a ‘compound eye’ could be “swamping” that organism’s circuitry and therefore THAT is the major information the ‘simple eye’ genes ABCD might be receiving and being influenced by?
6) In other words, the genes coding for the ‘simple eye’ are NOT everything - other things are influential?
7) This then brings into consideration and criticism any heavily deterministic outlook !!
8) And, a “genes are everything” outlook is heavily deterministic !!
When one (someone calling themselves a scientist) is aware of such anomalies, then SURELY they cannot then write a book around the concept that “genes are everything” and that genes can even govern and be the basis of behavioural attitudes of large groups of people, communities, even Nations !!!!
>> “His (Wilson’s) use of examples straddle many fields and thinking” <<
Of course Wilson uses examples of other fields and thinking – he cannot ignore them, but those references fade into obscurity fairly quickly and he is then back to his main theme - ‘genetic determinism’.
If the genetic coding for a ‘simple eye’ cannot create a ‘simple eye’ in all circumstances, then it would appear rather simplistic to generalize that genes could play a significant role and be a governing factor in such as the behavioural patterns of large groups of people, large communities etc !!
It would be like suggesting that there is a gene for Royalist (hierarchical) behaviour and another gene for Republican (egalitarian) behaviour.
To explain the SAME people still with the SAME gene switching over allegiances to the opposite side (but, obviously, not acquiring the opposite gene !!!) when necessary – that then brings into the discussion Richard Dawkins “memes” (ideas) concept !!!! (That outside ideas could be stronger than genes) Which then brings into the discussion how scientists follow and investigate different and sometimes conflicting ideas – which is then away from certain ‘genes’ dominating the scientists and what they (the scientists) might do.
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Consilience (long) - May Belt 08:45:13 04/10/11 (1)
- Funny - unclestu 12:06:53 04/11/11 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]