Phenotype And Mind

[Legion]

I am begining to suspect that mind is phenotypic and is an organization arising within an open natural system (like a river) and it is being shaped by both genotype and environment.

 

I would be interested in hearing if some of you have candidates for natural systems which adapt. I thought of these possibilities... Species, societies, nervous systems, immune systems?

 

Do you agree or disagree with that list and why? Would you add any others?

[bornagainathiest]

Hi Legion!

 

Your message intrigues me, but could you help me out a bit?

 

I could just hop on over to Wiki and look up phenotype and genotype, but is there any link or quote you could give me (and anyone else at my level) to explain what these things are, what they mean, etc.?

 

Once I get a decent grasp of the concepts, then I can add some input.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

BAA.

[Legion]

Please understand BAA. I am still learning and these things are complex. I think your questions are reasonable. I regret that I don't have a link to offer and what phenotype consists of is a hotly contested domain. But in general, phenotype is what can be measured or observed about an organism. Genotype is evidenced indirectly by its effects on phenotype.

 

What did you think of my question? Can you offer any suggestions for natural systems which adapt?

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Legion, that's cool.

 

What do I think of your question?

 

Well, it seems to me that you've listed two different types of natural systems - living ones (species, societies, nervous systems, immune systems) and non-living ones (a river) and then lumped them together.

 

Was this your intention? I ask because I categorize both things differently. The first type is not just passive, but can change itself in new, unexpected and dynamic ways, whereas the second can only change in a limited, purely passive way, in response to outside forces acting upon it. Perhaps I'm making a false dichotomy here, in my ignorance of these things?

 

Anyway, I'll go away and read up a bit, before coming back at you, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Legion]

Well, it seems to me that you've listed two different types of natural systems - living ones (species, societies, nervous systems, immune systems) and non-living ones (a river) and then lumped them together.

First, thank you for participating here BAA. I am very grateful for this prod to think.

 

I must be clear that all of this is built upon many constructed dualities. I am making many discernments! I am Legion!

 

Of all natural systems I am discerning between open and closed. Among all open systems I am discerning between living and non-living. I agree that a river is non-living. Let me draw an analogy if I am able.

 

Say we have a single cellular eukaryote. Suppose it's possible to correlate phenotype with cytoplasm and genotype with nucleus. I am thinking that if we remove the nucleus, the cytoplasm that remains is like a river. It is now non-living.

[bornagainathiest]

Well, it seems to me that you've listed two different types of natural systems - living ones (species, societies, nervous systems, immune systems) and non-living ones (a river) and then lumped them together.

First, thank you for participating here BAA. I am very grateful for this prod to think.

 

I must be clear that all of this is built upon many constructed dualities. I am making many discernments! I am Legion!

 

Of all natural systems I am discerning between open and closed. Among all open systems I am discerning between living and non-living. I agree that a river is non-living. Let me draw an analogy if I am able.

 

Say we have a single cellular eukaryote. Suppose it's possible to correlate phenotype with cytoplasm and genotype with nucleus. I am thinking that if we remove the nucleus, the cytoplasm that remains is like a river. It is now non-living.

 

Hey Legion!

 

Just checking that the terms we use are the same. Otherwise, we run the danger of going off on diverging lines of thought.

 

Re: Open and Closed systems.

Are these definitions (taken from the Wiki page on Thermodynamic systems) ok?

 

Open system

In open systems, matter may flow in and out of the system boundaries. The first law of thermodynamics for open systems states: the increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by matter flowing in and by heating, minus the amount lost by matter flowing out and in the form of work done by the system.

 

Closed system

In a closed system, no mass may be transferred in or out of the system boundaries. The system will always contain the same amount of matter, but heat and work can be exchanged across the boundary of the system. Whether a system can exchange heat, work, or both is dependent on the property of its boundary.

Adiabatic boundary – not allowing any heat exchange

Rigid boundary – not allowing exchange of work

 

So, as I read it, a living thing must be an open system and only non-living things can be closed systems?

 

Therefore, our single-celled eukaryote, because it is a living thing, must be an open system? Yes?

 

So, if the eukaryote's genotypic potential resides solely in it's nucleus (your proposed paradigm) and we remove the nucleus, it changes as follows.

 

Before.

The eukaryote is a living thing, an open system and has phenotypic and genotypic potential.

 

After.

The ex-eukaryote is now a non-living thing, but it is still an open system. However, using these definitions...

 

"A phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two.

The genotype of an organism is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code. Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Similarly, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype."

...it has no genotypic potential whatsoever.

 

Lacking a nucleus, the ex-eukaryote can now only interact with it's environment in a much more limited way, specifically by the cytoplasm decomposing into a more disordered state. Entropy takes over and the non-living (i.e., 'dead') biological material degrades and is absorbed into the surrounding environment. This absorption comes about because it is still an open system that can interact with it's environment.

 

I therefore conclude that the removal of the nucleus removes the eukaryote's ability to adapt to it's environment. No genotypic material = no genotypic/adaptive potential.

Also, it remains an open system until all of it is changed and absorbed in the environment. At no point does it become a closed system.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

I'm still struggling with what a 'closed system' is.

Can there ever be any natural closed systems or are they only, ever artificial products of human design?

[Rev R]

I am beginning to suspect that mind is phenotypic and is an organization arising within an open natural system (like a river) and it is being shaped by both genotype and environment.

 

I suppose my first question would be: exactly what do you mean by "mind"?

[Legion]

Hey Legion!

 

Just checking that the terms we use are the same. Otherwise, we run the danger of going off on diverging lines of thought.

Hey BAA. Thank you. Good idea I think. I can see your mind working, and I like it. I am going to address the remainder of your post later, but I wanted to drop in and let you know that I am still on this and that I value this discussion.

 

I suppose my first question would be: exactly what do you mean by "mind"?

That's what I'm trying to get at Rev.

[Rev R]

then we should start at the beginning by asking "what are we observing?"

 

for example:

is an organization arising within an open natural system

 

What leads you to suspect the above?

[Legion]

then we should start at the beginning by asking "what are we observing?"

The behavior of people.

 

for example:

is an organization arising within an open natural system

 

What leads you to suspect the above?

That's a long long story Rev. And it may only be the beginning of a longer story still. I'm trying to objectify mind.

[doomguarder]

Hello Legion, may your many minds converge for clarity…hehe.

 

I would interject the concept of phenotypic plasticity to the conversation, the basic idea being that organisms respond to the environment by expressing various genotypes available within the DNA chain. The expression of a genotype is a phenotype.

 

ex. A baby gestated during a time of great want (say famine) exhibits a phenotype that slows the metabolism to need less sustenance. When the person is an adult in a environment free of such want, diabetes, obesity and other health issues result because of the expressed phenotype.

Another example, more relevant to your mind concept, is the triggers that cause a person with the genetic markers for abnormal physiological behavior to display such. Not all persons with markers for schizophrenia ever display even the most rudimentary symptoms. What combination of the influence from the open system (inputting information and interpersonal interaction) and genotype availability actually causes a phenotypic response is a source of much study at this time.

 

So to go back to this…

 

Legion: I am beginning to suspect that mind is phenotypic and is an organization arising within an open natural system (like a river) and it is being shaped by both genotype and environment.

 

Yes to the open system for mind because we interact with others and the world in general. As for mind itself being phenotypic, I am not sure if this is entirely accurate. Yes, the mind is an expression of genetics, how you nerves fire, number of brain cells, in the nature and number of connection between various centers of the brain is generally considered ‘phenotypic’, but what of those individual who after traumatic brain injury find they are very different from the being who had the body before? Although genes and environment are important in development, the structure itself is far more important in determining the characteristic of mind.

 

Interesting topic, I await your response.

 

Doom

[Legion]

Doomguarder, I'm glad you jumped in here. I don't have any time at the moment, but I want to try and address yours and BAA's posts as soon as I can. Please be patient with me. When I respond I'll send you both PM's so you'll know.