Genes made me do it

[sunspot]

There was a comedy variety show back in the 60's, which is still around in reruns, led by the comedian Flip Wilson. One of his characters had the explain-all line "the Devil made me do it!". No matter what the character did inappropriately for laughs, the "Devil made me do it", explanation shifted all the responsibility to a third party, so the character could get away with anything for laughs. It is funny. The modern psycho-science uses a line very similar to Flip Wilson, "genetics made me do it!"

 

The question I have is, with psycho science unable to define consciousness in any consensus way, how can they extrapolate genes into an output behavior, without any valid bridge? Was this line borrowed from Flip Wison and modified enough to avoid copyright violations?

[joema]

...how can they extrapolate genes into an output behavior, without any valid bridge?...

In general I don't think any reputable scientist says genes are uniquely responsible for specific human actions. However there may be uncommon narrow exceptions (see below).

 

Genes can INFLUENCE certain behaviors. This is obvious from studying identical twins who are separated and raised in different environments. Such identical twins have identical genes but their family, nutritional, and educational environments are totally different.

 

There's apparently significant genetic influence of varying amounts across many areas. The degree of influence varies depending on the specific item. E.g, if one twin develops schizophrenia, there's about a 50% chance the other will, which is vastly higher than background probability. Outcome isn't predestined and environmental triggers play a part, but genetic influence is dramatic and inarguable.

 

It also appears there's significant genetic influence on temperament, aptitudes, intellect, etc, but the degree varies. I don't know what the current literature says for these.

 

So you can't generally blame solely your genes for specific behaviors. However there are possible exceptions to this. E.g, if you heard someone in a restaurant start loudly cursing, you'd attribute this to "behavior" (which he's responsible for), not genetics. However maybe he has Tourette Syndrome, a likely genetic problem that can cause such behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_Syndrome

 

In animals (esp. lower animals) it's obvious there's a genetic basis for specific behaviors. E.g, nobody teaches ants how to build tunnels. But what we loosely call "instinct" is actually genetic behavior encoding. How that works is one of the greatest mysteries in biology. Figure it out and you'll unquestionably win a Nobel prize.

[lrokwild]

Id like to comment on and embellish some of the ideas and concepts mentioned in this post.

 

It took a short period of time for scientists to accept Darwin’s theory that we are all born as a "blank slate" and it was cognitive experiences that ultimately created our personality. It took even longer for scientists to realize that this is not interiorly true. Yes, it is true that our cognitive experiences from the minute we are born, play a major roll in the development of our personality, but we do have some genetic "hardwiring" that is almost like a set of "default" instructions that we developed as a fetis.

 

Monozygotic twins which are twins developed from the same embryo have "identical" genetic make-ups. There was a study done on a few hundred pairs of monozygotic twins that were separated and raised apart from birth. Even though the pairs were raised in completely different environments they shared many physiological correlations and idiot-syncracies.

[sunspot]

I agree with both lrokwild and joema that genetics play a part but that environmental is also important.

 

There's apparently significant genetic influence of varying amounts across many areas. The degree of influence varies depending on the specific item. E.g, if one twin develops schizophrenia, there's about a 50% chance the other will, which is vastly higher than background probability. Outcome isn't predestined and environmental triggers play a part, but genetic influence is dramatic and inarguable.

 

The example that there is a 50% chance that identical twins can both develop schizophrenia, also suggests that environmental influences can have a strong or 50% impact on altering the predestined effect of genetic predispositon; mind over matter. This suggests the opposite being true, negative mind over matter, can create conditions that are attrbuted to genetic predispostion. If Flip Wison's character used morality the devil may not make him do it. Or if behavior and environmental conditions are such, genetics can be overcome or exaggerated.

[lrokwild]

When Schizophrenic patients seek effective treatment and their symptoms go into remission, they are more likely to experience schizophrenic relapse if a negative environment surrounds them. So you could easily hypothesize that environment can change psychological “hardwiring”.

 

BTW, that 50% figure is inaccurate, but close enough. I actually have a university lecture on my computer with a bunch of factual correlations with monozygotic twins.

[sunspot]

In animals (esp. lower animals) it's obvious there's a genetic basis for specific behaviors. E.g, nobody teaches ants how to build tunnels. But what we loosely call "instinct" is actually genetic behavior encoding. How that works is one of the greatest mysteries in biology. Figure it out and you'll unquestionably win a Nobel prize.

 

The psychologist Carl Jung correlated this for humans 50-60 years ago. He called the genetic predisposition behind innate collective human behavior the archetypes of the collective unconscious. The archetypes amount to personality software, genetically ingrained in the brain at birth, that makes human nature similar on all humans independant of culture.

 

The personality software is empty as birth but represent molds for structuring the data that makes up various aspects of the personality. The archetypes are essentially genetic neural data molds for structuring environmental (plus internal) data. The archetypes usually work in the background, but can sometimes take on a life of their own.

 

For example, falling in love, is a collective human expression that has probably not changed in thousands of years and can create personality dynamics the ego can not normally create for itself. The "Devil made me do it" is probably a better analysis for the archetypes than "genetics made me do it", since the genetic mold is generic but the jello in the mold is data collected and organized sometimes over decades. The archetype mold will make one fall in love, but the jello in the mold may cause one to fall in love with something inanimate, with the archetype compulsion being strong enough to appear like natural instinct. The archetypes are a limited set and all the personality abberations, even within socially acceptable behavior, are jello affects.

[joema]

...The example that there is a 50% chance that identical twins can both develop schizophrenia, also suggests that environmental influences can have a strong or 50% impact...

Environmental factors can trigger the inherited genetic weakness that causes schizophrenia.

 

This doesn't mean environmental factors cause 50% of the symptoms, merely that statistically roughly 50% of identical twins, on average, will develop the condition if their twin does.

 

It's similar to certain types of cancer which have a clear genetic component. E.g, women with the BRCA gene mutation have a 33% lifetime chance of breast cancer, vs 12.5% for the background population. This doesn't mean that environment has 67% of the influence in whether the cancer happens in BRCA cases. If you took 100 women with the BRCA mutation, put them to sleep and fed them intravenously for years, despite identical environments a higher than normal percentage would still develop the disease.

 

Whether schizophrenia, Tourette Syndrome, or cancer, once the condition happens, you've got it. Environment may play a role in whether it happens, but once it happens genetics greatly determine development and progression.

 

With behavioral aspects the situation is more complex. You generally can't attribute complex actions like murder solely to genetics. There may be rare exceptions, say a hallucinating schizophrenic, but generally we consider people responsible for their actions. However this may not be totally correct.

 

E.g, your mood and emotional state are affected by substances like alcohol, caffeine, or illicit drugs. Consider someone having 8 cups of coffee then yelling at their co-worker. Or someone having 6 drinks at an office party and insulting their manager. After having consumed those substances, should they have simply mustered the self control to guard their behavior? After consumption, to what degree is their behavior determined by their conscious control vs what degree by the substances they took?

 

Most people would agree it's a combination of both.

 

Just as a person's mood and behavior can be influenced by external substances, with some people mood and behavior is similarly influenced by internal biochemical or genetic factors. Some people may be born with an inherited genetic temperament similar to the person who drank 8 cups of coffee. Does that mean he's not responsible for his actions and can blame his genes? No, but we also cannot say his genes have no impact on his behavior.

[lrokwild]

Are any of us fully in control of our actions?

 

"My brain made me do it"

 

What about temporary psychosis? Are we to blame for our actions then?

 

When are we ever really to blame for our actions? Our actions are just movements of consciousness.... at any given second our brain can malfunction and cause us to do something that is not acceptable among the masses...committing murder for example.

[aguy2]

In animals (esp. lower animals) it's obvious there's a genetic basis for specific behaviors.... what we loosely call "instinct" is actually genetic behavior encoding.

 

As far as I know there is no observational evidence that 'behavior' is encoded in the genenome. There is little doubt that instinctive behaviors seem to 'parallel' genetic inheritance, but no evidence of codes - hence the mystery.

 

aguy2

[lrokwild]

Is instinct simply subconscious/preconscious thoughts/reactions to stimuli?

 

and

 

Could you argue that the only common instinctive behavior is to survive and reproduce?

[aguy2]

Is instinct simply subconscious/preconscious thoughts/reactions to stimuli?

 

We can't even find things like 'memories', that would seem to be good canidates for being 'findable', let alone things like thoughts or consciousness.

 

aguy2

[lrokwild]

We can't even find things like 'memories'' date=' that would seem to be good canidates for being 'findable', let alone things like thoughts or consciousness.

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

Are you trying to tell me that there is no such thing as consciousness or thoughts?

[ecoli]

It's nature versus nurture with a different hat on.

[lrokwild]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=242568#post242568

 

I talk about instinct as motives or drives in this thread....might help explain.

[joema]

As far as I know there is no observational evidence that 'behavior' is encoded in the genenome. There is little doubt that instinctive behaviors seem to 'parallel' genetic inheritance, but no evidence of codes - hence the mystery.

You may be narrowly correct, but I haven't checked the latest literature. There is no doubt lower life forms inherit biologically pre-coded highly specific behaviors. Whether the location of the pre-coded information is gene-expressed proteins or something else, we don't know.

 

However from the standpoint of this discussion, it makes little difference other than semantically. IOW whether you inherited a specific behavior via a genetic pathway or some other bimolecular pathway, the end result and associated controversy is the same -- inherited biologic influence on behavior, and what degree of individual responsibility ensues.

 

Just from deduction there's a good chance lower life form "instinctive" behavior is genetically based, whether directly or indirectly. Genes determine the form and structure (even on a minute level) of the developing organism. Regardless of the exact details of the biomolecular pathway, it seems very likely genes are involved somehow, else how would the behavioral data be passed down? Where else would it be stored during the earliest part of gestation?

[aguy2]

the end result and associated controversy is the same -- inherited biologic influence on behavior' date=' and what degree of individual responsibility ensues.

[/quote']

 

1) I am not familar with 'IOW', could you help me out?

2) When I hit the QUOTE button I found another paragragh that wasn't apparent in your post. Was this due to editing on your part?

3) 12 steppers generaly agree that there are probably inherited predispositions to getting diseases like alcoholism. If this is the case the individual is not morally responsible for catching this disease, but once the individual realizes they have contracted the disease and finds out there are ways and means to mitigate the consequences, the individual becomes morally responsible to do something about it.

 

aguy2

[joema]

IOW = In Other Words.

 

Yes, immediately after posting I added the last paragraph. If there's more than a 1-2 minute gap, I usually write "edit/add" before the addition, but if it's immediate I don't do that. The forum software indicates at the bottom when and whether the message has been edited.

 

once the individual realizes they have contracted the disease and finds out there are ways and means to mitigate the consequences, the individual becomes morally responsible to do something about it.

That's an excellent point and I agree.

 

Regarding the genetic basis for inherited behavior in lower life forms, upon further reflection it seems almost certain genetically based, at least in some cases. Why?

 

Even an ant starts as a single fertilized egg. At that moment it consists only of a single cell. In some cases you can remove that cell and grow it in a lab. Yet the resultant fully developed ant knows how to dig tunnels, how to walk, etc, and no other ant teaches it. Somehow, somewhere in that single fertilized cell all those behaviors are encoded. Where else besides the genetic material could that be stored? The cytoplasm? Transmitted via ESP from the parents? Anything is possible but genetic encoding seems the most likely.

[aguy2]

Are you trying to tell me that there is no such thing as consciousness or thoughts?

 

What? I would ask you to show were I implied any such thing, but I would be giving you an impossible task. I placed memories, thoughts, and consciousness on a sliding scale of 'findability'. With the hows and wheres of discrete memories being that which should be the easiest to find and concrete evidence of how consciousness works being the hardest to find.

 

We are collectively batting zero on how and where memories exist. "If we can not do the easy, how can we expect to do the hard?"

 

aguy2

[aguy2]

IOW = In Other Words.

Anything is possible but genetic encoding seems the most likely.

 

A lot of good teams have been looking for a good long time and they have not come up with 'zip'. Personally I think 'microtubules' are the next best candidate.

 

aguy2

[quantum.INF]

Just a thought but if as some have said in this forum that an ant (as well as many other organisms) have naturally been genetically programed at birth to be able to perform certain basic functions (ie. walking, tunneling, ect). What would happen if humans were capable of the same thing? The ability to have a set of skills programed into themselves at birth.

The idea of a futuristic war of born soldiers comes to mind. Any thought?