I have much respect for your work and thanks for the above. One comment:
TRUE
"Complex human behaviour emerges out of a hyper-complex developmental network into which individual genes and individual environmental events are inputs. The systematic causal effects of any of those inputs are lost in the developmental complexity of the network. "
NOT TRUE
"individual differences in complex human characteristics do not, in general, have causes, neither genetic nor environmental."
This, to me, is a non-sequitur and therefore a non-explanation of cause.
It confuses that which is cause and effect with that which is measurable due to complexity and random noise.
> Spoiler alert: in the domain of human behavior, there aren’t any.
The sun is a major cause of human behavior! ☀️ It makes people see things (and therefore react to them), get out of bed, etc.. On longer timespans, it makes people eat and therefore survive.
Though obviously the sun doesn't explain individual differences in persistent traits. But also, to an extent, that seems to be because the persistence is an illusion. For instance most personality traits are not expressed at all times (e.g. during sleep), so the assumption that they exist at those times is not really justified until we understand their root causes.
> Divorce, to trot out my standard example, has no essence.
Two thoughts:
1. Divorce is kind of a one-time transition event, so that makes it hard to get enough information about the specifics to explain.
2. ... But one can understand what the couple in question find attractive or repulsive about each other.
“Name me one fucking medical disorder that is known to work that way!”
Yes, he was right. So what is the basis for assuming mental disorders would behave differently? Only that you are holding onto the idea that there must be a genetic basis.
Hi Eric,
I have much respect for your work and thanks for the above. One comment:
TRUE
"Complex human behaviour emerges out of a hyper-complex developmental network into which individual genes and individual environmental events are inputs. The systematic causal effects of any of those inputs are lost in the developmental complexity of the network. "
NOT TRUE
"individual differences in complex human characteristics do not, in general, have causes, neither genetic nor environmental."
This, to me, is a non-sequitur and therefore a non-explanation of cause.
It confuses that which is cause and effect with that which is measurable due to complexity and random noise.
> Spoiler alert: in the domain of human behavior, there aren’t any.
The sun is a major cause of human behavior! ☀️ It makes people see things (and therefore react to them), get out of bed, etc.. On longer timespans, it makes people eat and therefore survive.
Though obviously the sun doesn't explain individual differences in persistent traits. But also, to an extent, that seems to be because the persistence is an illusion. For instance most personality traits are not expressed at all times (e.g. during sleep), so the assumption that they exist at those times is not really justified until we understand their root causes.
> Divorce, to trot out my standard example, has no essence.
Two thoughts:
1. Divorce is kind of a one-time transition event, so that makes it hard to get enough information about the specifics to explain.
2. ... But one can understand what the couple in question find attractive or repulsive about each other.
“Name me one fucking medical disorder that is known to work that way!”
Yes, he was right. So what is the basis for assuming mental disorders would behave differently? Only that you are holding onto the idea that there must be a genetic basis.