Slashdot Mirror
The Taste of Pain
An anonymous reader writes "The more the human genome is unraveled and previously non-genetic based attributes are now associated with a specific genetic function, such as physical and emotional pain and taste, it seems, to me, that our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes." A related article links your sense of taste to your risk for cancer, heart disease, etc.
The taste buds on your tongue are simply sensors, like your eyes, ears, nose, and hands. In fact, taste buds represent the least of all complex sensors of the human body. A taste bud is simply a receptor, waiting to bind to a molecule in solution in your mouth. Once the receptor binds to the molecule, it generates a signal that says, "bitter!" or "sweet!". Combinations of types of "bitter" and "sweet" represent the taste of the food, excluding molecules in the gas phase which are picked up by the nose. I read there were 27 or so types of "bitter" and only two types of "sweet".
Even a human nose is more sensitive than human taste buds. There are over a hundred different types of receptors in the human nose. (And thousands in the dog nose.) Looking at one's ears or eyes, the complexity involved in generating a highly analog signal, over time, and having that signal correctly analyzed is incredible.
And..we are not yet even talking about cerebral functions like reason, imagination, moods, memory, or even behavioral instinct!
Yes, finding the genes that code for the receptors of the tongue is really great. But do not assume that the amazing complexity of the human body, even excluding the brain, will be fully understood for quite a bit of time.
Salis
Favorite
It seems to me, on a philisophical note, that as the genome continues to be explored, we will continue to be surprised at what's found. However, the really interesting part will be when the project is finished, and we discover what was NOT found.
_Am
I'm sick of people saying we don't really have free will. Really it's not their fault; it's the stupid default definition of free will that most people seem to have that causes the problem in the first place.
;)
Just because your mind behaves in an orderly way doesn't mean you don't have free will. Having "free will" means you have the capacity to make decisions and think as you please.
So we really have two definitions of free will:
Intelligent definition: I have the freedom to make decisions.
Stupid definition: I have the freedom to make decisions on how I make decisions.
You see how absurd it is? Even computers have a kind of free will, and if they were complex and dynamic enough then there would be no difference between a computer's decision making process and the human brain's. And think about this, any "soul" that people could have that makes decisions for them would have to be either governed by rules and order or simply act randomly. Your thoughts are either random or determined by natural regularity and laws. But that does *not* mean we don't have free will. Even simple computers can weigh options and make choices, and that's exactly what human brains do.
Off topic BTW, feel free to mod me down
It cannot be completely blamed neither upon genetics or enviromnent. It's a mix.
The body, including the brain, is mostly determined by the genes. The brain is a net of interconnected neurons, that everyone knows. What not everyone knows is that whatever we knows is not actually "recorded" on the neurons, but in the synapsis, that is, the brain interconnections.
We learn and reason mostly by electrical impulses flowing through the aformentioned net. There are basically 2 types of impulses: inhibitive and excitative. The results of a reasoning (that is, initial input everything you can "sense", final output your reaction) depends on how these impulses flow, what depends what sort of impulse reaches each neuron.
The ways these impulses flows depends on each neuron and each neuron is more likely to propagate one sort of impulse rather than the other (e.g 30% chance to propagate inhibitive and 70% excitative). But the sort of impulse that flows through a neuron can make it change its tendency (say, if a neuron gets more inhibitive impulses than excitative, in time the neuron raises its own lilkeliness to propagate inhibitive impulses).
Thus, the learning process depends, initially on two factors: the structure at time 0 (the initial structure, e.g. the brain when you are born) and the structure at the time a person receive the impulses (the brain after experimenting and processing all the impulses one got up to now). That means, genetics influence your behaviour because your brain is biased by the structure it has when you are born, but the environment is the one that provides the impulses, and because the sort of impulses can change the neuron's tendencies, you may not develop some tendencies you had when you were born.
In the end, your personality is a result of what you were in the beginning and by everything that happens. You may have a tendency to kill, but not develop it because a nice environment, and otherwise you may be initially a good natured person, and yet because a bloody murderer if you live in an environment that demands it.
The thing that worries me most about tagging personality to genes is that it gives some scientific justification for being racially prejudiced.
At the same time, it would also make possible the prospect of eliminating racial prejudice in the future via gene therapy.
As to whether or not prejudice is genetic or not - I would have to lean towards the idea that prejudice in general is genetic. It's a survival trait. Ugg Caveman was more likely to live longer if he was predisposed to determine "rabbit = food" and "lion = stay away."
However, how you discriminate would have to be social, I would imagine. Everyone immediately classifies others as "white," "black," "asian," etc... but not everyone classifies them along with the same assumptions.
I'm not quite sure whether eliminating prejudice is a good idea, though. There are still forms of prejudice that are useful. For example, if I'm walking down a street at night, and I see a group of shady-lookin characters wearing gang apparel, it's probably better I'm able to think to myself "it's best I steer clear," instead of a simple "hey, look... it's some other people!"
Interestingly enough, prejudice is actually directly related to the article. Prejudice allows us to classify foods as well, and our sense of taste is our main vehicle to provide the "how" part of the equation. If something tastes good, people generally will tag it as "good to eat" subconsciously. If you are predisposed to like fatty and sugary foods, you're going to be more likely to eat those foods.
However, don't ignore the fact that human beings are sentient, thinking beings. I can say to myself "I like ice cream, but it's probably better I not have it all the time."
We can alter how we categorize foods just like we can for anything else. The whole concept of "acquired taste" should be proof enough of this. For some people(including myself), coffee tastes terrible. We can train ourselves to tolerate the taste, and if we do this long enough, we may even like it. These alterations may take quite some time, though. If you're predisposed to like fatty and sugary foods, for example... you can't expect to change at the drop of a hat. Altering any kind of prejudice isn't easy.
I certainly hope we're not doomed to live out our genes.
At this point, I think it's inevitable. Watch Gattaca for a glimpse of the future.
My guess is that genes provide the interface to the world, but the mind interprets it based on experience.
I would submit that our genes provide the interface and the initial frame of reference, and that our minds can mold this preference as necessary or desired. This isn't altogether different from your idea, except that it argues the possibility that we may not be born a blank slate.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
If everyone has such free will why do we all act so similar. Of the billions of combinations of activities a person can do every day why do we all choose nearly the same thing; get up, go to work/school, eat at 'regular' times, sleep later that night.
I think it is because we all like food and shelter and that is what it takes to get it.
So tell me... what got you inflicted with the baby-producing disease known as heterosexuality? Were you born that way? Of course not, you decided somewhere along the way that you just simply like the opposite sex. Is my sarcasm showing yet?
If you felt like your sexual choices were natural, then why do you assume (out of ignorance) that gays didn't feel their sexual development was natural as well? Why would anyone choose to be discriminated against???
On the other hand, if you clearly believe you decided to be straight, then embrace freedom and let others make their own choices.
Either way, your tired old thinking is so... twentieth century!
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
This has linked COMT with a gene. (for those who didn't read the article it "cleans up" after a dopamine chemical linked in sensing pain)
Is it really all that revealing that COMT production is genetically based. Anymore than it is to say insulin production is genetically based.
Regardless, the whole "nature v. nurture" debate is a futile argument when it comes to explaining individual action and the personality that defines those actions.
Esp. when one has a much more reliable and immediate explanation for one's actions, which is to say conscious "choice." Something which we have a much more intimate connection to.
(Sure it's easy to say our conscious choices are mere illusion created from a chain of causation in a reductionist universe... of course doing requires that "illusion" to believe in the reality of reductionism.)
At best genetics and enviorrment are probability guidelines in judging the possible future actions/personalities of an individual. However they are a piss poor way to explain human actions as a whole.
Trying to prove their ideas "scientifically" is an idea that has been taken up by the far left and the far right in the past, and many of the scientific conclusions of both left and right have over time been shown to be ridiculous. On the left you have the Marxist tradition of "scientific socialism" that "scientifically proves" that there is a dialectically material force of history that will lead to the unstoppable triumph of communism. On the right you have eugenics, the Bell Curve, and "science" proving socially darwinistic ideas, and that human behavior is genetically determined. These ideas, both the scientific socialist and eugenic science ideas were very popular in the late 19th century and early 20th century, but time has shown massive gaps in both of these body of ideas, and they both also lead to some extent to the massive exterminations carried out under Hitler and Stalin. But aside from the toll of ideas, is the simple fact that I think time has shown that many of these so-called scientific ideas have a lot of holes in them.
When a scientist points his telescope at the sky, it doesn't really have much of a social effect on earth nowadays (although centuries ago, Galileo Galilei was convicted of heresy for touting the Copernican system, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his works on Copernican astronomy). When the lens is pointed at humans however, especially human behavior, you are sure that there will be plenty of people grabbing "scientific" research and using it to push their social agendas. So much so, that I have an enormous amount of skepticism about virtually any "scientific" model of human behavior, including psychiatry and psychology. That someone has "scientific" proof of some aspect of human behavior, in this case, that it's predetermined by genetics, really has to be taken with a grain of salt. As do anthropological and sociological studies that show humans are generally better off cooperating and working for the greater good (social anarchism) as opposed to competing (capitalism). These kind of ideas usually break down into left wing and right wing people either supporting or disputing the theories, breaking down among political lines, and so on and so forth, I can't think of anything more unscientific than that. That it's been scientifically proven that "our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes" is the epitomy of what sounds like political propaganda - the nurture versus nature debate is an ancient philosophical debate, and from my discussions with scientists who know more about the genome project than I do, they are barely able to use the information they have cataloged to solve medical problems (despite the hype - which is needed for funding), never mind have scientifically set in stone the answer to a fundamental philosophical question about human nature. I take this news with a huge grain of salt.
Why such loaded words? According to the research cited, subjects felt different amounts of pain from the same stimulus. If I feel pain that I'd rate at 6 on a scale of 0 to 10, and after the same stimulus someone else rated their pain a 3, all that says is I am feeling more pain than the other person. It does not say anything about how well I can withstand pain.
It extremely common for people to believe that the same amount of tissue damage causes the same amount of pain for anyone. However, pain researchers knew long before this study that this belief is a fallacy. [Pain: The Science of Suffering by Patrick Wall, Columbia University Press, 2000.]
Perception of pain is a complex event, modified by genetics, culture, experience, anxiety level, perceived purpose of the pain, expected duration, etc. This study is looking at a single variable, and the only thing really interesting is that it suggests that some of the inherited variability is tied to a alleles of a specific gene.
Denise
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
First of all, there is little to no genetic basis for race- it's been pointed out that more genetic variation exists among the tribes of apes living in one river valley in Congo than exists among every human being on this planet. At some point in the history of our species, there was a bottleneck or founder effect, and nearly every homo sapiens is thus very nearly genetically identical.
;)
There is, however, an epidemiological basis for classifying humans into genetic groups that correspond to race- as chance would have it, groups of humans became isolated as they spread across the planet, creating founder effects that eventually led to distinct physical appearance. There are also distinct invisible genetic differences among races, and it would be foolish to ignore these in the name of political correctness- the higher incidence of Caucasians having cystic fibrosis genes, or Africans having sickle-cell or Ashkenazaic Jews having Tay-Sachs genes. Can these genetic traits extend into personality? Perhaps they can. However, while they get compared to blueprints, genes are really more like algorithms- iterative processes dependent on inputs, which can sometimes be completely random, or at least effectively so. Look at the case of cc, that cat clone- looks very little like the animal she was cloned from. Physical appearance is extremely complicated, with multiple genes acting in concert and in opposition with each other. Nurture of course also plays a role as well. Isn't it logical to assume that personality traits in humans will be at least as complicated? What genes do is chemistry, and can influence behavior and personality only in the sorts of ways that chemicals can. Look at the present psychopharmacopeia: antidepressants, tranquilizers, stimultants- but none of these change who you are.
However, referencing yout comment about being able to escape one's culture, I cannot wait until some team of researchers finds "the gene" that determines whether you are going to be more or less likely to try to rebel from your culture.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Ask any modern psychologist and they'll tell you that the only people who talk about Nature versus Nurture are Psych 101 students. The concept is old and buried (as the field has come to the realization that psychological principles are more unified in nature).
A correlary would for someone to say that big iron and dumb terminals are the way of the future because your Comp Sci 101 handbook published in 1978 says so.
Someone else mentioned the pseudo-science of eugenics and social darwinism. Both are known to be BS. The problem is that it took a long time for the field of psychology to shake them and become a formal science.
The problem is that most people think it is so "obvious" that the field can be mastered in a sixteen week freshman level course. People like that are the Script Kiddies of the psych world.
What is music when you despise all sound?
For some information on gene regulation (on/off, etc) see e.g. Lecture 16 here
(I know too little about biology and evolution to have any really hard opinions, so take this with a grain of salt. If you haven't heard about gene regulation, study more.)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
We already know that there are genetic variations in populations. What we don't know is whether or not any of these genetic differences amount to significant behavioral differences of the sort that a regular person could recognize and understand. Some populations could be smarter, more empathic, stronger, more easily angered, whatever. We don't know, we don't understand our genome and our brains well enough to answer those questions. But there's no reason that we know of currently that says it necessarily isn't so, and there are a variety of things that indicate that it may be.
One thing that we do know is that most human populations are pretty homogenous relative to the populations of many other species. The fact is that there aren't any subpopulations that have really been that isolated from each other, in relative terms, for that long.
But what does this have to do with race?
Nothing, actually, since race is not genetic. It's cultural. There's no genetic basis for the concept of "race". All modern ideas of "race" are built around distinctions on the basis of a few, pretty arbitrary and loosely defined gross morphological traits. And those traits do not reflect genetic similarity. People think that they do, and so they think that continuing evidence for genetic components of behavior and population divergences all validate the idea of race and their (mostly subconscious) bigoted ideas of how they think about people of other races.
So, yeah, as long as people are ignorant of the fact that the modern idea of "race" does not reflect genetic reality, then this sort of work can be used as fodder for racism.
However, correcting that ignorance doesn't solve the related problem implied in my first paragraph. A lot of the modern liberal democratic society is built around egalitarianism. What happens when you've knocked down irrational barriers that unfairly discriminate against many groups as we've done (by proving that that those barriers had been justified on the basis of an ignorant falsehood) only to find that people are different in some important ways--just not in the ways that we supposed? What then? But I think we'll find a solution.