RE: We are NOT our DNA

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 18:55:58 MDT


>> gts wrote:

> I mean that it's clear that the brain is affected physically by
> external events in one's environment and that those effects are *in
> part* a function of one's genes. Seasonal affective disorder is
> another excellent example. Those with a specific polymorphism of a
> certain serotonin receptor gene are likely to become depressed in the
> winter. There is therefore *something* in the instructions coded in
> that gene that has a direct bearing on personality. If we upload a
> person who has this gene in the summer, then we must include a
> codification of the instructions from that gene if we want him to
> react as he normally would to the next winter.
>
> Are we starting to get closer to agreement on this, Rafal? Your
> recognition of the need for the "rules of modification of these
> [neural] elements" leads me to believe that we are.
>

### Yes, I am beginning to think there is no material difference between the
concepts we have in mind, except I have no problem with calling "genes" the
"blueprint" (which means they are discarded once the system, the "rules of
modification of these
> [neural] elements" is up and running).

Rafal



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:34 MST