I'm not repeating a fallacy, I am pointing out that any assumption of bottom-up causality necessarily takes top-down causality for granted. My professional involvement in the internet can only be understood from a cultural, social, and personal perspective. Genetics may provide some general tendencies which would steer me in the direction of working with certain kinds of things, but that is really as irrelevant as the composition of bricks are to the shape of the Taj Mahal. Structure can only determine anything if there is a capacity for physical interaction which supports 'structures'. If I program a universe, I can link any kind of structure to any behavior I want. When a fruit fly lands on a rubber ball, then a random galaxy disappears. Beneath all of the possible interactions of rubber, of balls, of rubber balls, of a certain temperature range and size, there is sensory-motor presentation rather than programmatic representation. This is the feature - the aesthetics of perception and participation, which is unexplainable by any means and which therefore stands alone as the sole universal property. All computation and physics depend on presence and locality, but not just a conceptual presence of self-reference or arithmetic process, but actual concrete participation and direct perception. > >> For something as complex as sexual orientation, for > >> example, there must be something in the brain that either determines > >> that a person will be homosexual or determines that a person will be > >> homosexual given certain environmental factors. > > > > > > Sexual orientation deals specifically with physiology and reproduction > so it > > is not surprising that a given individual's orientation would be > strongly > > correlated to biological factors. Even so there are many personal and > > cultural variations within gender which would be ridiculous to assign to > a > > biological influence. (http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6300433_f520.jpg) > > As I said, genetics determines how the brain is influenced by > experience and environment. But genetics are also influenced by experience and environment which also feeds back on how the person makes use of their genetics and their environment. I think that the changing figures in those studies over the last 60 years show how really little we know about the correlation between genetics and personal characteristics. It is clear that there are strong correlations, but it is also clear that it is not the whole story. If it were, I would expect to see at least a 90% match of sexual orientation in identical twins. It seems, to the contrary, that the more subjective the characteristics, the less they have to do with genetics. > Genetically identical brains may evolve > differently over time due to a difference in environment. Even if the > environments were exactly the same (not an experiment we could ever do > in practice) genetically identical brains may evolve differently due > to random quantum events. > Nothing can ever evolve identically to anything else because of different quantum events, but also because the entire universe is expressing different conditions in every instant - some random, some determined, and yes some consciously *intentional*. No view which ignores this is useful for understanding consciousness because in my understanding consciousness is uniqueness itself - it is privacy and proprietary significance. Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.