RE: We are NOT our DNA

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 13:56:50 MDT


On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, gts, responding to my comments wrote:

> Actually if you've ever studied the endocrine system then you know it is
> extremely complicated.

Hmmm... Reaching up above my desk I pull down "The Neuroendocrine
Theory of Aging and Degenerative Disease" by V. M. Dilman and Ward Dean.
So I think I'm aware to some degree of its complexity.

> The feedback loops that control hormone levels
> are very complex and still not completely understood. That information
> is however contained in our genes.

I would say that "some" of that information is contained in our genes.

It may be entirely possible that a significant fraction of our endocrine
system may be regulated at the protein level (without any genetic
interaction). [I'll willingly admit that fraction might vary from
1% to 99% -- so I believe it would be more accurate to state that
the information is "contained in our genes or the products thereof".]

The point being that if one had an alternate protein manufacturing
system (or a manufacturing system producing protein "equivalents")
then the genes would be irrelevant.

> It's true that we might eventually learn to change our personalities in
> new ways, either via gene therapy or via some far more advanced method.
> But we need to start by first codifying our existing personalities.

Into the swamp we go. If we can't really understand each others
experiences how can we begin to codify our personalities?

> Sexual desire affects our day-to-day thoughts and behaviors and
> personal interactions in subtle ways even when we are not focusing on
> it... we are very sexual beings. If we eliminate the sexual effects of
> sex hormones then our personalities will change quite dramatically (and
> life will be much less fun. :) Is this what we want? I think not.

I think Eliezer would step in here -- if one wires the pleasure that
sex generally confers into the circuit for creating symphonies then
one gets very productive composers (based on some of his ideas regarding
generalized "fun" if I'm not misinterpreting them).

We would all have friends inclined to compose better-than-Mozart operettas
on napkins at restaurants where we might dine.

Robert



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:27 MST