Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

GuanYin

Originally posted by Myksyk
Hmmm ...

If people are, in your opinion, making weak arguments I can undestand your disappointment. Why on earth would this shake your opinion of societies like the Irish Skeptics?

No, I apologise, it just seems that alot of the skeptics I have read from this board, think skeptically in one direction only and take an almost religion like stance with science. Looking back, it was a gross generalisation, my bad.

GuanYin

I've gone through the genetics on this thread already, I didn't bother repeating because I was "skeptical" about thenature of the poster.

Originally posted by Hobart
Firstly you make a statement here that not only bears absoloutely no relevance to what you quoted but also brings "journalism" into the equation for some unknown reason.

Journalism was brought in much earlier. I meant science journalism which was the source that WG put forth for most of his references. Its a sorry fact that alot of the journalistic interpretations of science, in particular genetics, are well off the mark and are constantly quoted in arguements of this type.

Originally posted by Hobart
As a race that is just in the begining of begining to understand what genetics is I am amazed that you can come out with such a statement. Maybe you can tell me where you gleen this amazing fact from in relation to genetics?

I gleaned this fact from professional experience. We understand genetics to a satisfactory level, I don't know why you think we're only just beginning to understand it. Its proteomics and glycomics we don't quite have the hang of. Generally speaking (because its early and I don't have time to go into the asides and exceptions, any text book will have them), genes code for proteins. They say when and where to make a protein (that is at the end of the day, a chemical structure). Other factors come along and make the protein functional and directional and these are non-genetic.

Originally posted by Hobart
and then you follow with that. What absoloute ignorance. I mean really. How can you "try" to totally debunk a theory on genetics, which simply does not exist, and then try to 'backup' your thesis with a statement like that? And then the so called cherry on the genetic cake?

Now, nerve impluses and stimuli and most of our cerebral fuctions are driven by electrical and ion transport. These are chemically induced responses that would govern everything from pain to emotion. A few problems come into the fray when we try and use a reductionist model of this system based on genetics. Firstly, the genes that code for neural connections are ten orders of magnitude less in number than the actual amount of individual type of connection. So a non genetic factor, possible a prion accounts for the configuration. Secondly, alot of the chemically induced responses are generic. Same neuro-chemical-same transmitter, different result. Often we get a release of these chemicals based on an environmental change (instinct) and we may have the urge to react. This may be genetic, but unfortunately in humans many will react differently to the same response and some will not react at all. This sort of genetical behaviour I accept but not in the manner the original poster, or anyone else who has stated that it governs our behaviour, has put forward.

Originally posted by Hobart
Priceless, based on the previous assertion.?

Oh god, thats just petty and childish. I'm mindful that this is a board for debating and not complex scientific essays. If someone can say something as brash as "our morality is based on our genetic dsiposition" without any explanation of why, then I don't think any counter arguement needs to be meatier in technicalities.

Just because we know enough about an area to rule something out, doesn't mean we can't be afraid to admit we're not all knowing. We know quite abit about teh makeup of the brain. We don't know anywhere near enough to be able to understand exactly how it works in relation to our cognitive abilities. What we do know amounts to its components, most of its genetic regulation and some of the ion transport that deals with host mediated response. None of these seem to be directly attributable to our conscience. What can be asserted is that even with the combination of alleles expressed among any genetically diverse group it just isn't enough to account for human understanding or personality. No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber. Genes make proteins that interact with each other and thats about it [/B][/QUOTE]

williamgrogan

I find it amusing, to say the least, that williamgrogan would attempt to bolster his position by referring to a way of thinking that contradict everything he has so far said. OUTRAGEOUS! Especially since Game Theory is a theory that has more to do with the 'philosophy' of Jeremy Bentham and 'positivist economic philosophy' of John Stuart Mill.

John Nash Department of Mathematics Princeton University Princeton, NJ

When Philosophers and Economics do Science then they are OK. I regard Newton as a Scientist when he wrote about Physics because he did Science and not as Alchemist. If a someone who rode horses produced a scientific study on the biology of horses would we say that it was the work of a jockey?

ecksor

We wouldn't go around saying that being a scientist and being a jockey were mutually exclusive either.

Have you revised your opinion of Descartes then?

williamgrogan

Have you revised your opinion of Descartes then?

Has anyone seen the film, "Dark Star"? In it our hero is trying to stop an intelligent planet destroying nuclear bomb going off due to a malfunction.

For several minutes he argues with the bomb that its instructions to go off were false and that it should return to the bomb bay. After a philosophical argument he convinces the bomb that it cannot be sure it got valid instructions because in can never be sure that it can believe its inputs.

It looks like everything is OK until the bomb chirps up again with, "I think therefore I am - let there be light." BANG!

I am beginning to see the light myself. Many of you Agnostics throw insults such as “Reductionist” & “Scientism’ist” and quote Philosophers to back up your contention that Religious people & Agnostics can be Skeptics. I am beginning to realise that there is a strong possibility that your problem is that you started off or currently believe in religion and a “spiritual dimension” to reality which is why you say that “Science cannot understand everything” and look for some magic in the way the brain functions. However what is happening is that you are actually superstitious, probably due to a genetic disposition, and are grasping at linguistic straws to try and convince yourself that your position is not illogical & superstitious.

williamgrogan

We wouldn't go around saying that being a scientist and being a jockey were mutually exclusive either.

When is the last time you described a Scientific paper as being published by a homosexual or a married man or a short women?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
When is the last time you described a Scientific paper as being published by a homosexual or a married man or a short women?

What does that have to do with asserting that being a scientist is or is not mutually exclusive with being anything else?

Many of you Agnostics throw insults such as ?Reductionist? & ?Scientism?ist? [..]

Why is it that dogmatic believers in science as the ultimate source of knowledge get insulted when you question their beliefs?

GuanYin

Originally posted by ecksor
Why is it that dogmatic believers in science as the ultimate source of knowledge get insulted when you question their beliefs?

Its one of those paradoxial ironies. Perhaps there is a gene that codes for the need to believe in something that all humans have and that in the absence of theological and religious beliefs the gene makes a protein that influences the host towards an unshakable belief in science. This would explain why so many of these people are as black and white about science as many religious people are about religion.

Remember, it wasn't religion that caused such things as the inquisition, it was the type of people behind the religion.

ecksor

I especially distrust his use of stories from his childhood or scenes from movies. It is a modern form of parable, and it has been said that one of the most common users of parables are religious people, who by 'explaining' via parable hoodwink people into thinking they have some logic & proof.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Journalism was brought in much earlier. I meant science journalism which was the source that WG put forth for most of his references. Its a sorry fact that alot of the journalistic interpretations of science, in particular genetics, are well off the mark and are constantly quoted in arguements of this type.

The first line of my post should have indicated what I meant by the quotation.

Its proteomics and glycomics we don't quite have the hang of. Generally speaking (because its early and I don't have time to go into the asides and exceptions, any text book will have them), genes code for proteins. They say when and where to make a protein (that is at the end of the day, a chemical structure). Other factors come along and make the protein [..].

Thanks for the science lesson it's not needed.

Oh god, thats just petty and childish. I'm mindful that this is a board for debating and not complex scientific essays. If someone can say something as brash as "our morality is based on our genetic dsiposition" without any explanation of why, then I don't think any counter arguement needs to be meatier in technicalities.

Your posting was vague, contradictory and incorrect in places, as is this. If by me pointing that out is "petty and childish" well boo-hoo.

No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber. Genes make proteins that interact with each other and thats about it

Really? Has your "professional experience" thought you that? Any person with a passing interest in genetics would have come across the MAO gene. And just in case you have not the MAO gene, in a certain mutation, has caused the person to become violent, prone to commit rape and arson and carries a fleet of other anti-social traits. While I can only recall one example of this mutation been caused in humans, there are many examples of lab trials where this genetic mutation in mice has made them more aggressive.

In order to try to prevent you going into another leaving cert lesson on chemistry and genetics let me state the following. I accept that it is not the gene that causes this behaviour, but rather a chemical imbalance in the brain. However this chemical imbalance would not exist but for the mutation of the gene. So no mutation no violence.

Now while it would be incorrect and absurd to call monoamine oxidase the "gangster gene" you cannot fail to say that gene's do give us traits. i.e. a propensity to be more or less likely to do a certain thing if we have one version of a gene that another.

I admit that environment is as important to our tendencies as our genes. But to totally discount those tendencies is wrong.

williamgrogan

I especially distrust his use of stories from his childhood or scenes from movies. It is a modern form of parable, and it has been said that one of the most common users of parables are religious people, who by 'explaining' via parable hoodwink people into thinking they have some logic & proof.

I could say touché but I was just telling you about one of my favorite movies. The Philosophy wasn't much use and didn’t save their lives either. (OK I will avoid recommending any more movies.)

I do believe that you can be a jockey and a scientist but I was referring to DadaKopf’s OUTRAGOUS comment that I was quoting an Economist or was it someone with a mental disorder?

insults such as “Reductionist” & “Scientism’ist”

Who said I thought they were insults? I think you think they are insults. I think they are complements.

Perhaps there is a gene that codes for the need to believe in something that all humans have and that in the absence of theological and religious beliefs the gene makes a protein that influences the host towards an unshakable belief in science. This would explain why so many of these people are as black and white about science as many religious people are about religion.

You could be on to something here. I also suspect thought that the gene or genes produces in the case of the religious person gullibility, insecurity, fascism, an inferiority complex, lower IQ, etc. whereas in the case of the rationalist it produces someone logical, with lateral thinking abilities (PS I’m not a homosexual), Skeptical, strong willed etc.

Anyway the main thing here is you are beginning to get the idea.

PS Has anyone noticed that the horse tips on this thread are 100% accurate? I decided this morning to back Hobart’s tip but then realised it was Wednesday’s.

Hobart

Originally posted by williamgrogan
PS Has anyone noticed that the horse tips on this thread are 100% accurate? I decided this morning to back Hobart’s tip but then realised it was Wednesday’s.

Its' got to do with my genetic makeup*

*Half man half horse! Oh, and they are not 100% accurate. But I have been constantly in profit since October of last year.
But once more we digress.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I could say touché but I was just telling you about one of my favorite movies. The Philosophy wasn't much use and didn?t save their lives either. (OK I will avoid recommending any more movies.)

That is exactly how I'm taking them, but they do distract from the point and it's not exactly clear why you're talking about them at all.

I do believe that you can be a jockey and a scientist but I was referring to DadaKopf?s OUTRAGOUS comment that I was quoting an Economist or was it someone with a mental disorder?

I haven't seen the movie about him or read the book, but his greatest achievement was the embedding theorem I believe, which nobody outside of mathematics seems to have heard of.

Who said I thought they were insults? I think you think they are insults. I think they are complements.

You said "Many of you Agnostics throw insults such as ?Reductionist? & ?Scientism?ist?", which was all I was referring to. Scientism has been referred to alright, but either it represents your position or it doesn't (and if they do, then you seek to defend them). My understanding of reductionism is that it can be easily misused and lead to false conclusions but can also often be valuable, however I haven't actually used that term myself on this thread, so perhaps I'm missing another definition in this context.

So, you must decide yourself if they are insults, but you have to realise that for me to mean the scientism as an insult would also mean that I regarded the name of any other religion as an insult, which I do not, even if I do think that those religions are flawed.

Dasilva94

Originally posted by syke
None of these seem to be directly attributable to our conscience. What can be asserted is that even with the combination of alleles expressed among any genetically diverse group it just isn't enough to account for human understanding or personality. No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber. Genes make proteins that interact with each other and thats about it

According to recent research here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040113075403.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3392143.stm
a gene called the ASPM has been identified as being involved in the evolution of the human brain from that of other primates. So perhaps it is not too reductionist to say that conscience and morality, what separates us from other animals, does have a genetic basis.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
Really? Has your "professional experience" thought you that? Any person with a passing interest in genetics would have come across the MAO gene. And just in case you have not the MAO gene, in a certain mutation, has caused the person to become violent, prone to commit rape and arson and carries a fleet of other anti-social traits. While I can only recall one example of this mutation been caused in humans, there are many examples of lab trials where this genetic mutation in mice has made them more aggressive.

In order to try to prevent you going into another leaving cert lesson on chemistry and genetics let me state the following. I accept that it is not the gene that causes this behaviour, but rather a chemical imbalance in the brain. However this chemical imbalance would not exist but for the mutation of the gene. So no mutation no violence.

Now while it would be incorrect and absurd to call monoamine oxidase the "gangster gene" you cannot fail to say that gene's do give us traits. i.e. a propensity to be more or less likely to do a certain thing if we have one version of a gene that another.

I admit that environment is as important to our tendencies as our genes. But to totally discount those tendencies is wrong.

Its funny how you use MAO as an argument and then point out why its not a very good argument. I can further go on and say its not just the gene mutation that causes the behaviour but the interaction of several systems along the way. There are tons of examples like this. A certain genetic mutation causes a misfold in one enzyme and leads to tourette-like behaviour. However, its not the gene for swearing. The point is that you often see things like "The gene for Alzheimers" or "The gene for aggresive behaviour" These "genes" do not exists in that sense. Everyone has these genes and they often do something totally unrelated to the effects they exhibit if a mutation occurs. The MAO mutation leads to a build up in adrenergic stimulants which is why you get the behavioural problems. But this doesn't mean that MAO is a gene for behaviour. The gene you refer to makes an enzyme that breaks down dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine (theres another class I can't remember right now).

A good example for highlighting the estranged disease-gene relation is Lesch-Nehman Syndrome has a point mutation that results in one of the enzymes that breaks down Uric acid not being produced. The result is a tourette like syndrome with self mutilation, auto cannibalism (they eat there faces and hands) and spasticism. Now uric acid is hardly something that plays a role in any of these, especially on a behavioural level.

What is incorrect about the genetics? The only reason I gave the in-depth science was because you said my previous posting was insufficient. I'm not having a go at you but what exactly ar eyou looking for except for me to agree with your point?

I'm not disputing that our behaviour is biologically driven, nor am I disputing that genes play a role in our development. What I am disputing is that genes govern our freewill, or at least what we call free will. That reductionist model is discarding too many other things that have a far greater impact.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Its funny how you use MAO as an argument and then point out why its not a very good argument. I can further go on and say its not just the gene mutation that causes the behaviour but the interaction of several systems along the way. There are tons of examples like this. A certain genetic mutation causes a misfold in one enzyme and leads to tourette-like behaviour. However, its not the gene for swearing. The point is that you often see things like "The gene for Alzheimers" or "The gene for aggresive behaviour" These "genes" do not exists in that sense. Everyone has these genes and they often do something totally unrelated to the effects they exhibit if a mutation occurs. The MAO mutation leads to a build up in adrenergic stimulants which is why you get the behavioural problems. But this doesn't mean that MAO is a gene for behaviour. The gene you refer to makes an enzyme that breaks down dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine (theres another class I can't remember right now).

Phenylethylamine. And will I accept your point of the chemics I would still mpoint out that in order for this "anti-social" behaviour to happen there must be the initial mutation. So your contention that there "No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber" is not correct. Or at least unproveable in the current understanding of genetics.

. What I am disputing is that genes govern our freewill, or at least what we call free will. That reductionist model is discarding too many other things that have a far greater impact.

What about the scenario whereby a genetic mutation has caused such a chemical imbalance as to lead to severe mental imparement? Is that not a case wherby gene's have had a bearing on the persons freewill?

GuanYin

Originally posted by Dasilva94
According to recent research here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040113075403.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3392143.stm
a gene called the ASPM has been identified as being involved in the evolution of the human brain from that of other primates. So perhaps it is not too reductionist to say that conscience and morality, what separates us from other animals, does have a genetic basis.

Be very interesting to see what that gene does. It may actually single out one specific evolutionary theory. I'm also curious as to where EFA sourcing comes into the equation as they'd be required for increased neuron production.

In any case, the BBC article was tosh compared to Science Daily. Every animal alive today is on equal footing on the evolutionary ladder to humans. They are just not specialised to have big brains. If we were to judge evolution on night vision or speed (as perhaps a cat might) then we would be more primative animals by that arguement so its all relative.

And it still doesn't explain consciousness or morality or the like. For all we know, cats and dogs and cows may have their own system and version of these.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
Phenylethylamine. And will I accept your point of the chemics I would still mpoint out that in order for this "anti-social" behaviour to happen there must be the initial mutation. So your contention that there "No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber" is not correct. Or at least unproveable in the current understanding of genetics.

Nope because the persons brain is not functioning in the same way as a person without the mutation. They can't develop morality in the same way as a person with no mutation so the comparison is inadequate seeing as these people don't have the same freedom of choice of morality.

Originally posted by Hobart
What about the scenario whereby a genetic mutation has caused such a chemical imbalance as to lead to severe mental imparement? Is that not a case wherby gene's have had a bearing on the persons freewill?

Again it is, but biologically speaking (and you will excuse me if this sounds Nazi-ish) these two brains are not functioning in the same way. The only apt comparsion, like the previous example, would be a comparison of morality and free will between two people with the same mutation, perhaps manifested to different degrees.

williamgrogan

And it still doesn't explain consciousness or morality or the like. For all we know, cats and dogs and cows may have their own system and version of these

I’m sure they do which brings us back to that fact that morality and consciousness or whatever we call it evolved.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I’m sure they do which brings us back to that fact that morality and consciousness or whatever we call it evolved.

Never disputed that. Its just not in the dumbed down simplified way you seem to think it did.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Nope because the persons brain is not functioning in the same way as a person without the mutation. .

Ok. So maybe I lost the wood in the trees here but is not your contention that genetics has no bearing on a persons morality disproved in what you yourself say above? The fact that the persons brain is not functioning in the same way as a person without the mutation is because of a genetic mutation? Am I correct?

Originally posted by syke
They can't develop morality in the same way as a person with no mutation so the comparison is inadequate seeing as these people don't have the same freedom of choice of morality

Does that not debunk your previous assertion that:

No gene makes you more or less moral, the same way no gene makes you an armed robber

And maybe I am reading you wrong but you seem to be suggesting that a genetic mutation which occurs naturaly in humans can have an affect on your "freedom of choice of morality" ?

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
Ok. So maybe I lost the wood in the trees here but is not your contention that genetics has no bearing on a persons morality disproved in what you yourself say above? The fact that the persons brain is not functioning in the same way as a person without the mutation is because of a genetic mutation? Am I correct?

Its a question that opens up a whole other can of worms that I don't want to get into, mainly because scientific labelling of people with disorders is quite cold and I don't always agree with them.

The fact is that a genetic mutation is the underlying cause. However, some types of brain trauma or a stroke could have the same effect.

In summary I would say that a persons ability to display morality and a persons morality are two entirely different things. One could be a result of genetics, the other is not. I don't know if you will accept that or not.

Originally posted by Hobart
Does that not debunk your previous assertion that:
And maybe I am reading you wrong but you seem to be suggesting that a genetic mutation which occurs naturaly in humans can have an affect on your "freedom of choice of morality" ?

No, a genetic mutation in you may effect your ability to have freedom of choice or morailty in the same way that a non mutated person would. Again brain damage or disorder, by whatever means can have the same effect. But you wouldn't say that someones diet (stroke) or a blunt object(trauma) can have an effect on someones morality. It could damage or disregulate the part of teh brain where morality is governed, or interfere with the pathways that allow free choice or morality. But its a separate thing.

Dasilva94

Originally posted by syke
Its a question that opens up a whole other can of worms that I don't want to get into, mainly because scientific labelling of people with disorders is quite cold and I don't always agree with them.

Surely the subjectivity of whether something is warm or cold has little place in a scientific or clinical discussion. This is completely separate from any give doctor's bedside manner.

The fact is that a genetic mutation is the underlying cause. However, some types of brain trauma or a stroke could have the same effect.

In summary I would say that a persons ability to display morality and a persons morality are two entirely different things. One could be a result of genetics, the other is not. I don't know if you will accept that or not.

No, a genetic mutation in you may effect your ability to have freedom of choice or morailty in the same way that a non mutated person would. Again brain damage or disorder, by whatever means can have the same effect. But you wouldn't say that someones diet (stroke) or a blunt object(trauma) can have an effect on someones morality. It could damage or disregulate the part of teh brain where morality is governed, or interfere with the pathways that allow free choice or morality. But its a separate thing.

Well when a stroke or trauma do have an effect on cognition leading someone to have a differant moral outlook I don't see why one couldn't say there is an effect on morality...

GuanYin

Originally posted by Dasilva94
Surely the subjectivity of whether something is warm or cold has little place in a scientific or clinical discussion. This is completely separate from any give doctor's bedside manner.

Bingo!

Originally posted by Dasilva94
Well when a stroke or trauma do have an effect on cognition leading someone to have a differant moral outlook I don't see why one couldn't say there is an effect on morality...

If you had a close, loved family member with alzheimers who entered mid-stage and suddenly started displaying strong negative feelings towards you, would you say it was her that had changed and decided she didn't like you or would you pin it down as a manifestation of the damage done by the disease.

In short, would the person act this way if there was no damage. That is why you cannot compare the two cases. Behavioural studies often highlight this difference.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Its a question that opens up a whole other can of worms that I don't want to get into, mainly because scientific labelling of people with disorders is quite cold and I don't always agree with them.

Ok. I accept and understand that, and it was not my goal to label people.

The fact is that a genetic mutation is the underlying cause.

That was the crux of my argument.

However, some types of brain trauma or a stroke could have the same effect.

While this is true it is also irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

In summary I would say that a persons ability to display morality and a persons morality are two entirely different things.

I do not disagree with that. However that was never what I was trying to "prove". I put the word prove in inverted comma's as I would aslo pothesise that this is unproveable.

One could be a result of genetics, the other is not. I don't know if you will accept that or not.

As you seem to be in agreement with me it would be foolish of my not to agree with you.

No, a genetic mutation in you may effect your ability to have freedom of choice or morailty in the same way that a non mutated person would.

I don't deny that, in the context of genetics, however I never contended that every mutation would resort with the same "abnormalities". I did contend that those mutations would involve the same tendencies, in conjunction with the individuals environment. But my main thrust was that genes' are a factor.

Again brain damage or disorder, by whatever means can have the same effect. But you wouldn't say that someones diet (stroke) or a blunt object(trauma) can have an effect on someones morality. It could damage or disregulate the part of teh brain where morality is governed, or interfere with the pathways that allow free choice or morality. But its a separate thing.

True. But irrelivent in the context of the current debate.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
. True. But irrelivent in the context of the current debate.

Not really, because its like with like.

You can't argue that someone with a non-functioning brain is or can more or less moralistic (is that word) than someone else because of genetics, diet or a baseball bat.

Its not the gene that causes or even regulates the disorder. So if you want to argue that genetic disorders can lead to behaviour changes, I say yes, so can trauma. This, however, does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that genetics are what make us act the way we are or give us our morality, which, unless I am mistaken, is what was originally contended.

Hobart

Originally posted by syke
Not really, because its like with like.

It's like with like as far as the symptoms are concerned and that is it. But brain injury as a result of assault by a blunt instument is not a genetic fault, unless you want to contend that in that instance the assailaint may have been suffering from a genetic disorder.

You can't argue that someone with a non-functioning brain is or can more or less moralistic (is that word) than someone else because of genetics, diet or a baseball bat.

I did not think I did??? I never brought the contention of trauma caused by an external agency versus genetics into this debate. You did.

Its not the gene that causes or even regulates the disorder. So if you want to argue that genetic disorders can lead to behaviour changes, I say yes, so can trauma.

Good. I don't disagree with you. Howvere I never said Trauma did not. So what is your point. Are you trying to "muddy the waters" on this issue?

This, however, does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that genetics are what make us act the way we are

I'm sorry. You are wrong. Genetics have a part to play in the way we act. You have said this yourself, more or less, when you said in reference to people with some mental disorders

The fact is that a genetic mutation is the underlying cause

Now how can you say that in one breath and contradict yourself in another?

or give us our morality, which, unless I am mistaken, is what was originally contended.

and once more I will quote you:

No, a genetic mutation in you may effect your ability to have freedom of choice or morailty in the same way that a non mutated person would.

Notice your use of the word "may"

williamgrogan

When I originally said that to understand the mind that you would have to understand evolution for example, I could have said brain trauma instead. Much of what we know about the mind is related to the scientific study of those with serious brain injury.

My favourite one is Dr Sachs story of the “dead head fan” (Grateful Dead) who suffered from a brain tumour and ended up with the Moonies or was it the Hari Krishna’s? They thought he was very spiritual as a result of becoming slowly fatter and more stupid from the effects of the brain tumour. His parents managed to extract him from the religious sect and he had a brain operation. After the operation his short term memory, (RAM if you like) stopped working. This had weird effects. When he was told his father died and he was told he was very upset. But he soon forgot. The awful problem was that every time Dr Sachs visited him in the hospital he had to tell him his father was dead and the patient had to relive the pain of learning this over and over.

If this isn’t an example of reductionism I don’t know what is.

Ties nicely in here I think.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Hobart
It's like with like as far as the symptoms are concerned and that is it. But brain injury as a result of assault by a blunt instument is not a genetic fault, unless you want to contend that in that instance the assailaint may have been suffering from a genetic disorder.

I did not think I did??? I never brought the contention of trauma caused by an external agency versus genetics into this debate. You did.

Good. I don't disagree with you. Howvere I never said Trauma did not. So what is your point. Are you trying to "muddy the waters" on this issue? I'm sorry. You are wrong. Genetics have a part to play in the way we act. You have said this yourself, more or less, when you said in reference to people with some mental disorders Now how can you say that in one breath and contradict yourself in another? and once more I will quote you: Notice your use of the word "may"

While I see your angle on this I think you are playing agame of semantics.
Genetics effecting behaviour in the way you suggest is not the same thing as behaviour in a normal person.

When I said underlying cause, I said it is the underlying cause of a disorder. The mechanism for that disorder and for the behaviour exhibited in a normal person are not related. So whats your point. Is it that "in one case or another outside the average person genetics may have an effect on behaviour"? I can conceed that point easily.
Is it that genetics is the root cause of all behavioural traits in people? If thats the case you are wrong. Can you explain to me how this is the case?

My references to trauma and stroke were to underly the difference between a healthy brain and a disorder. Behaviour as a result of unhealthy brains can happen for many reason and although in the case you highlighted a gene is the cause root, it is not to say that genetics are the mainframe for behaviour in a healthy person any more than trauma or stroke. That was my point.

So again, I say, no genetics do not regulate behaviour of the healthy normal individual on aday to day basis *sigh*

Hobart

While I see your angle on this I think you are playing agame of semantics.
Genetics effecting behaviour in the way you suggest is not the same thing as behaviour in a normal person.

Semantics and genetics in the same sentance. Believe me semantics have nothing got to do with my arguement. You are the "scientist" purveying the line that genetics do not "code for behaviour in any way what so ever" and then try to skew that thesis into a world full of "normal" people. When stating my rebuttal, to the post I initally replyed too, you never mentioned nor defined what you mean by "normal". Your introduction of this term at this juncture simply belies the fact that, a bit like the journalists you quote, we really know very little about the role genes play in our day to day lifes. Yes I conceded the point of a gene having no "on-going role" in how we live day to day. But to put an analagy to you would we blame the driver of a car who crashed, while knowing that the code written for the machine which built it was faulty, and actually caused the crash?

So whats your point. Is it that "in one case or another outside the average person genetics may have an effect on behaviour"? I can conceed that point easily.

Good. That was my point.

Is it that genetics is the root cause of all behavioural traits in people? If thats the case you are wrong.

No, it's not. I don't think I ever put forward that case. If I did please point it out to me.

My references to trauma and stroke were to underly the difference between a healthy brain and a disorder. Behaviour as a result of unhealthy brains can happen for many reason and although in the case you highlighted a gene is the cause root, it is not to say that genetics are the mainframe for behaviour in a healthy person any more than trauma or stroke. That was my point.

and I still say that you were muddying the waters.

So again, I say, no genetics do not regulate behaviour of the healthy normal individual on aday to day basis *sigh*

Again say? *sigh indeed*