From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 22:24:53 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> For the sake of my clarity in discussing this I'm going to shuffle
> the order of some of the response -- I hope people will not object.
I have no problem with that. I sometimes do the same. Also I hope people
don't take offense when I do not quote and respond to every paragraph.
When both parties do so it tends to result in long messy messages
involving multiple simultaneous disagreements, some of which should
logically be resolved before others.
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, gts wrote:
>
>> You'll recall the research I posted in the motivation
>> thread in which it
>> was discovered that a certain personality trait can be predicted
>> statistically by the polymorphisms of the dopamine receptor
>> genes found
>> in the DNA of the test subject.
>>
>> ABSTRACT: D2 and D4 dopamine receptor polymorphisms and personality.
>> Am J Med Genet 1998 May 8;81(3):257-67 (ISSN: 0148-7299)
>
> Actually, I hadn't read this previously but I'm happy to see it
> posted and referenced here -- I've been making similar arguments
> for years (mostly from a "logical" framework) and its nice to see
> some hard data coming along to back it up.
>
> (If it isn't clear, my position would be that we non-trans-humans
> *are* currently "largely" our DNA -- at least more than most people
> would like to admit.)
Good! This is exactly my position also. Currently I am puzzling over the
last part... why do people seem so loathe to acknowledge the influence
of DNA on personality? The evidence is clear that genes influence
personality -- I've already posted three research abstracts to support
my case -- so why are people in such denial? I suspect also that I would
not see so much resistance from non-extropians. I posted a separate
message to point this out. I hope you will reply to it.
> *But* based on nutritional aspects alone -- I could deprive you of a
few
> essential vitamins or amino acids and I would have a significant
> impact on your personality.
Of course, but think a bit why that is true... it is true largely
because those nutrients are substrates in the chemical reactions
initiated by and controlled by genes. The amino acids tyrosine and
phenylalanine, for example, are substrates in the synthesis of dopamine
and norepinephrine, two neurotransmitters that have very important
effects on personality. Similarly, the amino acid tryptophan is a
precurser in the synthesis of serotonin. Amino acid therapy can be very
effective in the treatment of personality disorders.
> (I'm fairly convinced that this
> was the case with myself personally recently -- so arguing
> it is entirely "in the genes" is going to be a hard sell --
> I didn't change any of my DNA -- I simply fixed my nutritional
> levels.)
Did you see the research I posted last night in which seasonal affective
disorder was found to be associated with a specific polymorphism of a
gene that codes for a receptor of serotonin? This really shouldn't be
such a hard sell. :)
> So while I would agree that "genes contribute to personalies"
> I'm rather reluctant to use the term "indispensable"...
> The reason (at least to me) is obvious -- I can run an atomic
> level molecular dynamics simulation of the atoms in your body
> and still get out the same "personality" (with no actual
> "real" testosterone involved).
You're misunderstanding my position here if you think the words above
conflict with it. I don't propose any need for the physical molecule
called testosterone or for the physical molecules that comprise our
genetic material. I propose only a need for the codification of their
functions. I define genes (and hormones) by function rather than form.
I'm pretty sure you see it the same way based on your next paragraph:
> So long as a transhuman includes the functionality that
> testosterone is supposed to perform (either as similar
> or better "hardware" or completely artificial "software")
> then I'm uncertain where there is a problem unless there
> is some assertion that its hormonal "function" *cannot*
> be performed by alternative systems. This is a systems
> engineering problem.
Right, as above.
re: cell memory
> The "empirical proof" is easy to produce. Just go do a PubMed
> search on the topics of membrane fluidity and lipid free radical
> reactions.
Okay, I see where you're going and that's fine. I don't object,
especially in light of the long-lived nature of neurons. However I think
you are missing a much more important argument along the same lines:
brain plasticity. The brain is very plastic in nature, meaning that the
connections between neurons change constantly. That I think is a far
better example of "cell memory" than are changes in membrane fluidity.
It seems intuitively obvious that our personalities would be affected by
these plastic changes in brain circuitry. However, once again, this
aspect of who we are cannot be separated from the genes that code for
the synthesis of the proteins neeeded to construct and modify the
dendrites involved in these cellular changes.
> At least some of the changes in "personality" that occur with age
> *don't* occur because our DNA is changing -- the occur because
> the rest of the hardware isn't working as well as it once did.
That's also true, but as I said I am not arguing against the existence
of non-genetic influences on our personality. I am arguing against the
absurd proposition that our personalities exist independent of our
genes.
> I would be more comfortable with the claim that "the
> functions that our genes perform are indispensable for our
personalities".
That's my position exactly.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:29 MST