Philosophy Now Forum

Raymond Keogh has a science-based take on personal identity.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/DNA_and_The_Identity_Crisis

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:05 pm Raymond Keogh has a science-based take on personal identity.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/DN ... ity_Crisis

The return of racism right here in front of your eyes.

I don't know about all that.

DNA is foundational but not definitional.

To borrow from another thread: DNA determines what Abner is, but a whole whack of things (not the least of which is Abner himself) determine who Abner is.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:07 am

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:05 pm Raymond Keogh has a science-based take on personal identity.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/DN ... ity_Crisis

The return of racism right here in front of your eyes.

I don't think so, as the author says "Our genes don’t correlate well with our commonly used tools of human classification, such as race, ethnicity, culture or nation."

I think the problem is more that genes don't actually connect in any useful way to the questions philosophy explores. Things like individual identity, religion and nationhood exist in society. But, as the author says there, they don't exist at the level of genes.

That's very different to saying they don't exist at all. Our world can't work without them. It would be nice if we could reject a tax demand on the grounds that it relates to a person who no longer exists, and the fact I can remember the PIN number on his debit card is no proof of continuity with that person. But its just nonsense.

Study of genes won't help much. Its just a repeat of the same pointless conundrum of Mary, studying the wavelength of different colours while living in a black and white room. Saying I've such and such a gene sequence is not the same as saying I enjoy the Star Wars movies.

And to be fair, I don't think scientists even claim that genes are that deterministic. They'd say something like genes, as described by evolutionary theorists, only exists as explanatory concepts. There typically isn't "a" gene for this or that, but a combination of sequences may (in certain circumstances) entail this or that.

A useful article, but I wasn't convinced the approach was much good.

PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:52 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:07 am

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:05 pm Raymond Keogh has a science-based take on personal identity.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/DN ... ity_Crisis

The return of racism right here in front of your eyes.

I don't think so, as the author says "Our genes don’t correlate well with our commonly used tools of human classification, such as race, ethnicity, culture or nation."

Exactly my point.
People are obsessing about it. Actually paying money for some idiot to tell them they are 50% Viking, 40 % Anglo Saxon and 10 % goat.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:53 pm
People are obsessing about it. Actually paying money for some idiot to tell them they are 50% Viking, 40 % Anglo Saxon and 10 % goat.

They would only gloat if they proved they were of goat.

"I'm sure of goat! What's my proof? My gout."

The famous golfer, Lous, fathered Jack Nick O'lous.

And all those Amy Republicans, are descendants of pelican.

The marriage of an eagle to a beagle created legal fecal.

And the most famous hamster ever gave us the line of hampsted heathers, among whom the elder Barry smelled suspiciously of elderberry.

Science shits all over Raymond's idea.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-turm ... -20190423/

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:01 am Science shits all over Raymond's idea.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-turm ... -20190423/

How so?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:39 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:01 am Science shits all over Raymond's idea.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-turm ... -20190423/

How so?

From the article above.

The work has implications for how scientists think about the interactions between genetic and environmental effects. It also “raise[s] the ghosts of the possibility that we overestimate … how important genetics is in contributing to differences between people,” said Rasmus Nielsen, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

If it's way more nurture than nature, then DNA-as-identity is a poor idea.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:38 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:39 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:01 am Science shits all over Raymond's idea.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-turm ... -20190423/

How so?

From the article above.

But the article did no such thing.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:45 am But the article did no such thing.

Yes. I totally made up the quote. If you actually read the article, you will find that the sentence I copy-pasted is not in the article I copy-pasted it from.

Mea culpa.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:46 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:45 am But the article did no such thing.

Yes. I totally made up the quote.

You PC twits may as well give it up because you trip yourselves up all the time.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:47 am You PC twits may as well give it up because you trip yourselves up all the time.

"Us PC twits?". So we are supposed to ignore science when it tells us that the DNA-determinists get it wrong?

In a way, you make it really easy. I guess racism is genetic, and we can totally do eugenics to eliminate racists.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:49 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:47 am You PC twits may as well give it up because you trip yourselves up all the time.

"Us PC twits?". So we are supposed to ignore science when it tells us that the DNA-determinists get it wrong?

I a way, you make it easy. I guess racism is genetic, and we can totally do eugenics to eliminate racists.

Because it depends on how PC the scientist is who is interpreting the information.
So now you are throwing around the 'r' word. How very unexpected.
I'm 'racist'. I absolutely loathe PC fuckturds. I wonder what gene is responsible for those wankers?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:52 am Because it depends on how PC the scientist is who is interpreting the information.

I guess you don't understand how statistical analysis works, or how science identifies errors in prior work?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:52 am So now you are throwing around the 'r' word. How very unexpected.
I'm 'racist'. I absolutely loathe PC fuckturds. I wonder what gene is responsible for those wankers?

I could have thrown any word around. Maybe your pea-brain can't comprehend it?

If all human traits are genetic and reducible to a detectable gene, then we can solve all social problem via eugenics.

Racism-gene, Murder-gene, Thief-gene, Lazy-stoner-low-life-gene, Narcissism-gene, PC-gene, PC-loathing-gene, Sexual-orientation-gene, Pea-brain-gene, Low-IQ-gene - if we just select out all those undesirable genes, Utopia is right around the corner!