• Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    20 hours 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@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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.

      • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        idk why youve accepted that when its not proven at all. In fact newer ideas on the matter point toward the opposite. That consciousness may involve nanotubes that cause wave function interactions on the quantum level. If that is the case then it would function as a superimposed variable in the way our minds work, and completely break determinism. Think of it like a math equation. If one of the numbers was superimposed youd get different solutions everytime you solved the same equation. Or more accurately youd solve the equation and get a solution that was a superposition of multiple different solutions.

        https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 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@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour 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.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      As a biologist,

      We can’t even get the actions of water bears down.

      We have the entire genetic code and brain mapping of a fruit fly, and can get, very slow, good guesses about how they respond to very basic stimulus.

      Let’s not even get into epigenetics.

      I would never downplay the importance or difficulty of psychology.

      But I get nothing but kicks on this house of “science” memes.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      They would, but like… It’s just it’s such a broad statement that it’s kinda meaningless. As a term it encapsulates basically everything that’s going on in your brain.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours 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.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Psychologists are trying to get in on the act with ‘evolutionary psychology’. An exciting new field of unfalsifiable just-so bullshit.

  • fckreddit
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    A lot of factors influence behaviour. I highly recommend a book called Behave by Robert Sapolsky.

  • 10_0
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    People still think that nature and nurture aren’t intertwined

  • flora_explora@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t think this is a majority opinion in biology though. Especially not regarding humans.

    • Phineaz@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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.