- Fushuan [he/him] ( @fushuan@lemm.ee ) English1•51 minutes ago
We are genetically conditioned to learn from our experiences while we grow up, which are influenced by our environment.
- Queen HawlSera ( @HawlSera@lemm.ee ) English2•3 hours ago
Free Will Denial is pseudoscience
- Wes4Humanity ( @Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee ) English3•11 hours ago
Genetics= nature, neural structures= nurture… Human brains aren’t developed at birth, it takes a couple decades for the neutral structures to develope completely and it’s everything going on around the person that decides how those structures get wired (nurture)
- BluJay320 ( @BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English14•1 day ago
There’s an arguable overlap in neurobiology and neuropsychology, but the gap hasn’t been bridged yet.
In the same vein, all biology can be explained by chemistry, and all chemistry can be explained by physics. Doesn’t mean we have all the pieces to effectively due so, though
- Comment105 ( @Comment105@lemm.ee ) English3•12 hours ago
I’ve personally accepted that it’s basically predictable/deterministic, but due to how complicated and unknowable the system is there’s no practical way for an outside observer to get all the information.
I’m guessing the lower resolution imaging methods might still allow more or less accurate prediction, though? We don’t need to know the details on every air molecule to do fairly accurate weather forecasting, so maybe the same approach can work to predict mindweather. Maybe it’s possible to know a person’s brain well enough and accurately adjust predictions very fast after random encounters/events influencing them – like the people they meet, the things they see, and a myriad of other things – and in that way get something more and more capable of predicting behavior?
I don’t really know much about either field, though.
- barsoap ( @barsoap@lemm.ee ) English2•10 hours ago
Even if you had perfect knowledge of the current state of the universe, knew all the laws, you still couldn’t predict shit. The reason is chaos, more precisely: There are no closed-form solutions to chaotic systems. To simulate them you have to go through all the time steps (assuming, without loss of generality1, discrete time), simulate every single of them one after the other, arguably creating a universe while doing so. And you have to do that with the computational resources of the universe you’re trying to simulate. Good luck. Chaos also means that approximate solutions won’t help because sensitivity to small perturbations: There’s no upper bound to how far your approximation will be off.
1 I can wave my hands faster than you. I dare you. I double-dare you.
- Comment105 ( @Comment105@lemm.ee ) English2•5 hours ago
First statement is a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? We already predict a lot with useful accuracy.
But I get that in some things, chaos inhibits useful prediction.
- JackGreenEarth ( @JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee ) English11•1 day ago
Nature and nurture are just different levels of the same idea. Nurture is just a higher level version of nature, just as Python is a higher level language than assembly, but they both ultimately work by turning on and off transistors.
It’s like when you’re watching a YouTube video. You can choose to explain how the creator digitally edited the video, the lighting, the chapters, the topic of the video. Or you can explain how packets of data are being sent over radio waves, and a complicated series of transistors turn on and off in complex ways, leading to certain pixels being displayed on your screen. They’re both describing the same phenomenon, just in different ways.
In the same way, while describing human minds in terms of motivation, logical thinking, phobias, memory, etc may be useful for the higher levels of psychology, noticing that higher levels of dopamine are correlated with higher levels of hallucinations in people with schizophrenia, and noticing the complex ways neurons and biochemical indicators interact, is the same idea, just at a lower level.
Both are useful, and both are true, they’re just different ways of thinking about it.
- itsgroundhogdayagain ( @itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml ) English4•1 day ago
We’re just a vat of chemicals fighting each other
- mexicancartel ( @mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English4•1 day ago
We are just stardust obeying physics laws
- flora_explora ( @flora_explora@beehaw.org ) English3•1 day ago
I don’t think this is a majority opinion in biology though. Especially not regarding humans.
- WldFyre ( @WldFyre@lemm.ee ) English1•9 hours ago
What else would influence human behavior at a basic level?
- flora_explora ( @flora_explora@beehaw.org ) English1•3 hours ago
You are posing a different question though. The argument in the meme is that all behavior is explainable through genetics and neurobiology. This would be true for someone with absolute knowledge, but no biologist is able to fully explain human (and most other animals’) behavior by genetics and neurobiology.
Regarding your question: the building blocks and involved factors might be simple, but you can still have synergies at play that are not fully described by the basic level parameters.
- WldFyre ( @WldFyre@lemm.ee ) English1•3 hours ago
Oh I 100% agree with you here! I thought your first comment was more of a free will/non-deterministic universe POV. I guess I read more into the “CAN BE” part of the meme.
It always annoys me how determinist viewpoints are misappropriated by racist “all nature no nurture” morons instead of the provably true and effective systemic approaches instead of the dumb individualistic ones.
- Phineaz ( @Phineaz@feddit.org ) English3•1 day ago
Well, what else is there to human behaviour? There are some serious hypothesis about the interface between neurology and quantum mechanics, but if you break humans down to their foundations they will invariably die. Don’t do that, it’s bad.
- flora_explora ( @flora_explora@beehaw.org ) English1•3 hours ago
The difference is between having absolute knowledge or being limited in our knowledge (like we will always be). We cannot fully explain human behavior by genetics and neurobiology. Biologists who say otherwise are not serious scientists. There is a lot of bullshit in neuroscience that gets projected onto the brain and that gets debunked some years later.
- fckreddit ( @fckreddit@lemmy.ml ) English3•1 day ago
A lot of factors influence behaviour. I highly recommend a book called Behave by Robert Sapolsky.