“There is nothing so horrible in nature as to see a beautiful theory murdered by an ugly gang of facts.”
Benjamin Franklin
You can find my other favorite quotes here: http://mathoda.com/quotes
I’ve always been interested in the nature vs. nurture debate. What is an inheritable trait? What is learned from the behavior of others?
If an aspect of human behavior is universally similar in all people, such as using certain facial features to signify major emotions (the smile, frown, etc.), does that mean it is genetically encoded by multiple genes?
Of course even traits that result from genes are shaped in how they are expressed by the environment. And since most of the molecules that are in your brain now weren’t there when you were born, the effects of the environment shouldn’t be underestimated. The brain is very good at adaptation. Some aspects of behavior are definitely unique to particular sets of people, from particular geographies. Cannibalism is practiced by some tribes as a way to honor the dead friends that are being eaten, or to steal from the strength of dead enemies. Then there’s the practice in some parts of China of hiring strippers for funerals. Such aspects of behavior appear to be shaped more by one’s environment.
It’s an interesting phenomena that all humans actually recognize a smile.
According to the Free Dictionary, the definition of cyborg is:
cyborg (cy·borg) n. A human who has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by mechanical or electronic devices.
Arguably, by this definition, any grandparent with a pacemaker is a cyborg.
Yet the connotation of cyborg is clearly something more invasive feeling than that. It is of a half human, half machine. That has never seemed like a very good definition to me, because the human body is itself a machine, composed partially of organic parts (ie, carbon compounds). Yet there has clearly been a significant divide between organic machines and non-organic machines.
The organic vs. non-organic divide is often confused with a natural vs. synthetic divide. But in a world where organic parts are rapidly becoming synthesizable, that distinction may eventually fade.
The clearer separation is between organic parts (flesh, plant matter) and non-organic parts (plastics, metals, etc.), and the separation between organic parts (brains) and non-organic parts (chips).
Those divides have recently shrunk:
Organic parts (flesh) can now be interfaced with non-organic parts (plastics, metal) seemlessly. Researchers at University College London, studying how antlers interface with flesh and skin, have created prosthesis that bond with flesh (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5140090.stm).
Organic parts (brains) can also now be better interfaced with non-organic parts (chips). As the journal Nature reports, researchers at Brown University have developed a system that improves the previous state of the art of technology that allows a paralyzed man to move a computer cursor, open e-mail and control a robotic device simply by thinking in a particular way about doing it (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13830825/).
