A Model of Gene and Non-Gene

• Human Genome Project: Implications by Brian Robinson, 10/2/98
  • (...)
    
    • Looking for analogies by Brian Robinson, 10/4/98
      
      

David and John recently created this duet on the Paleopsych Listserve. They agreed that I could pass it on. Jim Brody

The industrial image of heredity, of original and copy, is wrong. We inherit not an exact plan but a range of possibilities. (I have heard geneticists say they would like to ban the word ``error'' from discussions of mutation.)

From genes up, the components of living things work in teams, and each actor is a member of several teams at once. So it must be an error to say what a particular gene or cell or organ is ``for.'' What it is for depends on what demands have arisen and what other potential teammates are around. Actually, come to think of it, what it is for depends on what question we ask of it. (This is not to imply that our questions are arbitrary or meaningless, just that they have a local habitation in time and space.)

Living things are dynamic, always changing through time, and contingent -- what happens next depends on what happened before. So theory should try to predict patterns of change and response, not invariable timeless states. Brains, not THE brain.

A central paradox of life is that boundaries need to be well-maintained (this is inside the cell, that is outside the cell) yet porous. Is a membrane there to keep things out or let things in? It depends on context.

The shorthand we use to keep things clear at the beginning comes back to haunt us later. Thinking in terms of design tends us to impose our awareness of past and future onto genes, cells, organs, which know no past or future. They just are. They respond to their environment; we decide if that response is in accord with a plan we imagine we see.

What people here have said about genes and brain modules is also true of people in their social existence. I too am a member of many different clusters and what I am about depends on my surroundings. Can anything meaningful be made of this? Or is the resemblance so grand and vague that nothing unvapid can be said about it?

Apologies for the absence of clarity here. I'm posting this not to try to persuade anyone of anything but to check my impressions.

David ================== and posted immediately afterwards ==================

> Living things are dynamic, always changing through time, and contingent -- > what happens next depends on what happened before. So theory should try to > predict patterns of change and response, not invariable timeless states. > Brains, not THE brain.

PERFECT! > > A central paradox of life is that boundaries need to be well-maintained > (this is inside the cell, that is outside the cell) yet porous. Is a > membrane there to keep things out or let things in? It depends on context.

THAT IS A VIEW I WOULD SUPPORT (CHEER FOR) > > The shorthand we use to keep things clear at the beginning comes back to > haunt us later. Thinking in terms of design tends us to impose our > awareness of past and future onto genes, cells, organs, which know no past > or future. They just are. They respond to their environment; we decide if > that response is in accord with a plan we imagine we see. > > What people here have said about genes and brain modules is also true of > people in their social existence. I too am a member of many different > clusters and what I am about depends on my surroundings. Can anything > meaningful be made of this? Or is the resemblance so grand and vague that > nothing unvapid can be said about it? > > Apologies for the absence of clarity here. I'm posting this not to try to > persuade anyone of anything but to check my impressions.

DAVID: I APPRECIATE YOUR REMARKS. AS FAR AS I CAN DISCERN YOU AND I ARE SPEAKING PRETTY MUCH THE SAME LANGUAGE. (My impression is that your impression about my impressions is correct.).

THESE ARE, TO ME, FASCINATING A CRITICAL CONCEPTUAL ISSUES, THAT TOUCH UPON MUCH IN SCIENCE, AND BEYOND "SCIENCE". THE ISSUES ARE

ISSUES BECAUSE THE TOUCH UPON THE VERY BOUNDARIES OF OUR THOUGHT

Thanks,

John

• A musical metaphor by Brian Robinson, 10/12/98
  • Notes and Other Sounds by John Fentress, 10/17/98