tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069087.post110826775639605137..comments2023-10-03T08:36:02.818-04:00Comments on KrisKraus: Stick to Foreign PolicyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069087.post-1108680648981124212005-02-17T17:50:00.000-05:002005-02-17T17:50:00.000-05:00You make a good point bringing up Wolfram's ideas....You make a good point bringing up Wolfram's ideas. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, because I figure it would be wiser to read it only after getting a full conventional science background (i.e. college). In order to apply, the basic idea has to be correct on its own(which doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch if you consider things like fractals). But also, it must be correct with respect to biological genesis, in particular gene-phenotype interactions. This seems like a harder thing to establish, and I'm not sure if he's trying to establish it as a causal genetic mechanism. Essentially it would amount to saying the genes code for algorithms, rather than proteins which interact according to the rules of molecular biology.<br /><br />On the point of the biological basis of religion, I wasn't trying to aruge that religion is not a genetically derived phenomenon, "in our genes" so to speak. In fact I assume it is. I was trying to argue that trying to reduce it to a correspondence to transmissible particular genes seems like a dubious task.<br /><br />I'm aware that I may have been missing the point, and that the editorial was only trying to say something like "the factors that go into making us spiritual are contained in directions in our genes." If this was the argument, then I wouldn't disagree. But it would be a little like saying, "we make friends because it is in our genes." One of the achievements of sociobiology in the last century was to assert pretty convincingly that the cultural and the biological cannot be separated.<br /><br />How to reconcile this with the assumption of freewill? I'm not sure. The problem of free will is not uniquely problematic the genetic case for religion. We accept some other things as definitely genetic in origin, like for example personality traits or addictive personality, yet all the while personality and addiction are two things with a massive free will component. You could rule out free will altogether and say that, somehow, these things are all traceable to materialist causes, and hence genetic causes. But it seems easier to accept, from experience, that there is free will involved in these traits, and yet at the same time we know they are partially genetically determined. So the fact that religion is a conscious activity does not make it exempt from possibly being a biologically or genetically based activity, any more than a lot of other genetically-linked behavior traits.<br /><br />If you care to know about me I'm a college student currently going to Amherst college. I have never taken a biology course, but I have taken some physics and psychology. So that's why I may have neglected some very basic things.Adam Kraushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07678314698350831793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069087.post-1108447764191748012005-02-15T01:09:00.000-05:002005-02-15T01:09:00.000-05:00do pardon the typo.do pardon the typo.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14363311128428661742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069087.post-1108425965802221052005-02-14T19:06:00.000-05:002005-02-14T19:06:00.000-05:00"Genes code for simple things. In particular, ever..."Genes code for simple things. In particular, every gene codes for a specific protein which, when the gene is activated, is constructed in accordance with the rules in the genetic code."<br /><br />not true. genes don't code for simple things. first of all, "one gene one protein" is violated with, for example, gene splicing and differential protein folding (see: proteomics).<br /><br />more saliently, however, genes do not code for "simple things." genes can have rather subtle chemical effects that cause complex interactions (see Wolfram, "A New Kind of Science" which may be bullshit but has valuable things to say on how complexity arises from simple causes).<br /><br />...in any case, none of this matters when it comes to religion. just because religion is a concious, complex choice doesn't make it exceptional or somehow extra-biological.<br /><br />and it certainly doesn't make it any less a denial of the human condition.<br /><br />in any case, hi. I don't know who you are. care introducing yourself, since you seem to take issue with practically everything I right?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14363311128428661742noreply@blogger.com