minds and brains

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Mon Dec 14 22:17:14 EST 1998


[meant to respond earier, but forgot, at the "time", to do so. kpc]

Doug wrote:
> 
> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> >
> > CLARIFICATION:
> >
> > kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Doug wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can't accept the notion that when the mind
> > > > perceives something such as causality it is to
> > > > be construed as accumulating knowledge haphazardly.
> > >
> > > Think about it in terms of the "knowledge" that's handed-down
> > > intergenerationally. Whatever's Familiar to one generation tends
> > > strongly to be "taught" to the next generation, even though it's =only=
> > > that which is merely-Familiar to the first generation.
> >
> > This statement of mine needs CLARIFICATION. I was addressing what is,
> > Verifiably, =only= that which is merely-Familiar.
> 
> It is a concept from basic biology that *acquired*
> things be they acquired physical abilities or acquired
> knowledge are not, no, cannot be passed onto the next
> generation genetically.  They must be taught.
> 
> Science concerns itself with quantitatively defining
> pertinent parameters, constructing a repeatable and
> verifiable experiment, drawing conclusions from results
> ideally in reference to a null experiment in an attempt
> to glean out false positives and/or true negatives.
> 
> I am supposing you're expressing mere opinion.

No. I was discussing the dynamics of intergenerational Learning. Such
has a Deceptively-"genetic"-like quality be-cause folks tend,
so-strongly, to Teach, preferentially, that with which they are
merely-Familiar.

If you want to "chew-on" something with respect to
"Genetics-and-Behavior", it's my position that all so-called
"twin"-studies are Indeterminant until Researchers do the work necessary
to include the entirety of the pre-natal environment's influence upon
development.

Since Twins, share the same pre-natal environment, it may be the case
that it's that shared developmental environment that is what's showing
up, and, possibly, being Misinterpreted as "following from Genetics", in
the "twin" studies.

With Certainty, the pre-natal environment does, in fact, influence fetal
development... birth of Infants who are cocain-addicted fetal alcohol
syndrome, etc., Verify that such is the case. And if one looks a bit
further, one Hypothesizes that, if a woman is highly-stressed while
carrying her Infant (if, for instance, she is malnourished, her mate is
Abusive, or there's a war going on, which requires her to be continually
"ducking for cover", or if she's homeless, etc.), it's
entirely-"appropriate" for her Infant to be born ready to cope with the
level of stress that she endured while carrying her Infant... that
failing, the Infant's chances of Surviving would be diminished to the
degree of such Mother's stress. Instead, prepared by the
chemo-communication of Mother's stressed "state", the Infant "comes-out
Fighting", prepared to Survive in the midst of the environment that
so-stressed the Infant's Mother.

I've never heard of this Hypothesis being Tested.

Note, my position, here, is not in-extremum. I'm just addressing the
work that needs to be done to remove this obvious source of
Indeterminancy with respect to "twin" studies as they're invoked with
further respect to the "Nature/Nurture" question.

But in my prior msg, I was talking about strictly-Learning stuff, which,
never-the-less, has the Illusion of "being Genetic".

The prevailing Ignorance with respect to such =routinely= Ravages the
Lives of Hundreds-of-Millions of People.

With our modern Communication "armament", this Ravaging-Ignorance could
be Swept-Aside, in one-fell-swoop, if Neuroscience Chose to Remove it's
Blinders. K. P. Collins



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list