[Neuroscience] Re: motor programs in the brain

Entertained by my own EIMC via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au)
Tue Aug 7 08:26:05 EST 2007


"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000 from yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186453888.744220.278080 from g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> But the genes direct the assembly of the neurons which can be accented
> to these various songs. We need a standard that can make it clear
> three areas of activity; activities completely determined by the
> genes, 2 activities of a mixed nature via nurture and 3 completely
> learned and little effect from the genes that direct the assembly of
> these capacities. I would wager that most activities in all animals
> are the second (2) variety, because I like Ridley's view of nature via
> nurture;
>
> Is it nature or nurture that makes us who we are? The question itself
> is a false dichotomy;
>
> [someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where
> in fact other alternatives exist or can exist]
>
> There are copious examples from human and animal behavior, which
> present the notion that our environment affects the way our genes
> express themselves.
>
> The switches controlling our 30,000 or so genes not only form the
> structures of our brains but do so in such a way as to cue off the
> outside environment in a tidy feedback loop of body and behavior.
>
> We have genetic "thermostats" that are turned up and down by
> environmental factors.
>
> The proof is in the pudding for such touchy subjects as monogamy,
> aggression, and parenting, which we now understand have some genetic
> controls.
>
> Nevertheless, the more we understand both our genes and our instincts,
> the less inevitable they seem.
>
> Not only are nature and nurture not mutually exclusive, but genes are
> designed to take their cue from nurture.
>
> Genes are not unchanging little bits of DNA: their expression varies
> throughout a person's life, often in response to environmental
> stimuli.
>
> Babies are born with genes hard-wired for sight, but if they are also
> born with cataracts, the genes turn themselves off and the child will
> never acquire the ability to see properly.
>
> On the other hand, stuttering used to be ascribed solely to
> environmental factors. Then stuttering was found to be clearly linked
> to the Y chromosome, and evidence for genetic miswiring of areas in
> the brain that manage language was uncovered. But environment still
> plays a role: not everyone with the genetic disposition will grow up
> to be a stutterer.
>
> Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience,
> and What Makes Us Human, by Matt Ridley
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060006781/
>
> The Agile Gene: How Nature
> Turns on Nurture, by Matt Ridley
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006000679X/
>
>

Dear Immortalist,
I grew to like your aptly encompassing overview of how and why our nervous
(actention selection serving) systems work how they do.

[However I did only _after_ I got past this early passage of yours:
> We need a standard that can make it clear
> three areas of activity; activities completely determined by the
> genes, 2 activities of a mixed nature via nurture and 3 completely
> learned and little effect from the genes that direct the assembly of
> these capacities.]

You should consider leaving that out 'next time'. :-)

P






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list