A NEW VIEW OF BEHAVIOUR AND THE OMNI-ENVIRONMENT.
December 30th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: A NEW VIEW OF BEHAVIOUR AND THE OMNI-ENVIRONMENT. :: A NEW VIEW OF BEHAVIOUR AND THE OMNI-ENVIRONMENT. :: A NEW VIEW OF BEHAVIOUR AND THE OMNI-ENVIRONMENT.** :: A NEW VIEW OF BEHAVIOUR AND THE OMNI-ENVIRONMENT.**
In a message dated 30/12/2007 22:17:48 GMT Standard Time, Bernx at aol.com
writes:
In a message dated 12/30/2007 11:44:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
THE NATURE OF BEHAVIOUR
For the human brain, ensconced on high in its protective bony carapace, the
human body is as much a part of the environment as anything else. I do not
hold with a psychological environmental dualistic model of environmental
intrinsicality – extrinsicality. There is plenty of empirical evidence to support
the view that corporeally we are a result of our genes. For me behaviour is
the brain’s manner of exercising control over its own constitutional
(corporeal ) environment together with, and in an overall response, to the
exterior environment. This article must be read in the sense that the word
*environment* refers to the brain’s somatic milieu, as well as the exterior
environment of which the human holism is a part.
>From that I see no reason why other (normal) behaviours should not be
genetically programmed, default, instinctual, gene-engendered, drives and traits
responding and undergoing modification to the changing omni-environment. I
agree with those experts who define behaviour as BOTH standard physiological
responses (the tortoise withdrawing into its shell) and *intentional
activity* or *purposeful behaviour* - the emotional and aggressive throwing of a
brick through the window of a child molester perhaps? In that sense if I run
away from a man with a gun, or throw an egg at a corrupt politician I am
responding in a way my genes dictate – and my genes are determining who I am.
Does that mean, Jud, that your genes are immutably predisposed, fixed in
*moira* or *kismet?* I thought you had read my article on “The New Determinism”
(PREDETERMINATION AND A QUESTION OF ALTERNATIVES , “A Critical Review:
Hyperobjective Reality and the New Determinism” by Bernard X. Bovasso:
http //members.aol.com/bernx/bohm1.htm ). Or perhaps you have not heard
about the epigenetic trend among evolutionists and the re-polishing of Lamark.
Bernard
Jud:
I shall certainly re-read your excellent “The New Determinism”
Predetermination And A Question Of Alternatives. And no, I do not maintain that genes are
immutably predisposed, fixed in *moira* or *kismet - but rather as I say
above *gene-engendered, drives and traits responding and undergoing modification
to the changing omni-environment. I am also working on linking the idea of
behavioral genetics to the biological homeostasis of the human behavioural
entity, which maintains its genealogically prescribed environmental
temperature, sugar, seratotin and adrenaline and other levels over a wide ambient
inner bodily spectrum. Epigenetically the human gene adapts itself to
exterior influences and ingested substances. It is a very subtle process in which
no *single gene* is responsible. In fact it is now apparent that no
individual gene is responsible for ANYTHING - many genes are needed to interact to
produced Down’s, Homosexuality etc. The > “inheritance of acquired characters”
of Lamarckism was cutting edge in the eighteenth/nineteenth century, but by
present genealogical standards is passe and almost childlike in its naivety..
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)
“The greatest of all the spirit’s task is to produce a worldview.
The reconstruction of our age can begin only with a reconstruction
of its theory of the universe. There is hardly anything more urgent
in its claim on us than this which seems to be so far off and abstract.”
-From The Philosophy of Civilization by Albert Schweitzer
