You Really Can Blame Your Parents for Everything

[DBT]

But our consciousness, our ability to control its focus of attention and the contexts of that consciousness all impact our future thoughts and actions in a kind of feedback loop. For example, consciousness determines how long awareness of an experience event in held in awareness and the nature of what else it re-activates, which in turn greatly determines the impact of that stimuli/experience upon our additional thoughts, emotions, and actions produced by those.

No, consciousness is after the fact, after the event, after input, after propagation, after processing.

Consciousness (while active) is constantly 'refreshed' by the underlying interactive activity of input and memory feeding information into what is essentially a representation of readiness potential...Libet, Haynes, Hallet, etc, etc.

 

[ronburgundy]

But our consciousness, our ability to control its focus of attention and the contexts of that consciousness all impact our future thoughts and actions in a kind of feedback loop. For example, consciousness determines how long awareness of an experience event in held in awareness and the nature of what else it re-activates, which in turn greatly determines the impact of that stimuli/experience upon our additional thoughts, emotions, and actions produced by those.

No, consciousness is after the fact, after the event, after input, after propagation, after processing. Consciousness (while active) is constantly 'refreshed' by the underlying interactive activity of input and memory feeding information into what is essentially a representation of readiness potential...Libet, Haynes, Hallet, etc, etc.

So, after being conscious of something you never have any more cognitive processing of anything? Of course that is quite silly. Something only enters consciousness after some degree of processing, but everything in cognitive science shows that processing continues after that point and the nature of the representation, its spreading activation of other stored memories/concepts are all causally impacted by consciousness, the precise state of that consciousness and the manner in which it is used to deliberately direct attention. In addition, all those impacts that consciousness has on the depth, quality, and attentional focus of processing during one instance has long term impact on how any related stimuli are processes both initially at pre-conciousness and post-consciousness.
Present stimuli so quickly that it doesn't reach consciousness and it is processed, but quite differently and with different impact upon behavior and future processing than if presented long enough to allow conscious awareness of it to alter that processing.
Most of what falls under the heading "Executive control" are conscious processing directed by conscious goals, and executive functions are massively influential on how information is processes and the ultimate cognitive and behavioral outcomes of that processing.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That headline from Time is a plain example of how the blank slate dogma does much more harm than good. Poor parenting of toddlers is blamed for EVERYTHING. Journalists of science need to be held accountable. For me, this is one more reason to disregard Time.

 

[DBT]

No, consciousness is after the fact, after the event, after input, after propagation, after processing. Consciousness (while active) is constantly 'refreshed' by the underlying interactive activity of input and memory feeding information into what is essentially a representation of readiness potential...Libet, Haynes, Hallet, etc, etc.

So, after being conscious of something you never have any more cognitive processing of anything? Of course that is quite silly.

Where did you find anything in my reply that would even suggest that? I even carefully stipulated that the underlying cognitive process of sensory inputs, propagation, correlation, etc, continually feeds into conscious activity.

Something only enters consciousness after some degree of processing, but everything in cognitive science shows that processing continues after that point and the nature of the representation, its spreading activation of other stored memories/concepts are all causally impacted by consciousness, the precise state of that consciousness and the manner in which it is used to deliberately direct attention. In addition, all those impacts that consciousness has on the depth, quality, and attentional focus of processing during one instance has long term impact on how any related stimuli are processes both initially at pre-conciousness and post-consciousness.

You are missing the point entirely. Of course the cognitive process continues, but any instance of conscious representation of information must necessarily follow sensory input and processing of that instance of conscious representation...and of course events and cognition move on in the flow of time.


The point being, every instance of conscious representation follows input, and it is the input and processing that alters and 'refreshes' conscious perception/experience.

Most of what falls under the heading "Executive control" are conscious processing directed by conscious goals, and executive functions are massively influential on how information is processes and the ultimate cognitive and behavioral outcomes of that processing.

Executive control is subject to the same physical principles as any other form of brain activity. Executive control is a function that follows sensory inputs, propagation, processing, etc, preceding the conscious experience of perception and thought.

Objects and events in the external world ->input of information from objects and events ->propogation of information throughout the neural networks of the brain -> conscious perception of that information forms ->conscious feelings and emotions emerge ->conscious thoughts and deliberations emerge -> a conscious impulse to respond (the conscious will to act) -> a conscious action is performed.


Quote
''It seems obvious that we exist in the present. The past is gone and the future has not yet happened, so where else could we be? But perhaps we should not be so certain.

Sensory information reaches us at different speeds, yet appears unified as one moment. Nerve signals need time to be transmitted and time to be processed by the brain. And there are events – such as a light flashing, or someone snapping their fingers – that take less time to occur than our system needs to process them. By the time we become aware of the flash or the finger-snap, it is already history.

Our experience of the world resembles a television broadcast with a time lag; conscious perception is not "live". This on its own might not be too much cause for concern, but in the ...''

 

[fromderinside]

So, after being conscious of something you never have any more cognitive processing of anything? Of course that is quite silly.

Where did you find anything in my reply that would even suggest that? I even carefully stipulated that the underlying cognitive process of sensory inputs, propagation, correlation, etc, continually feeds into conscious activity.

Something only enters consciousness after some degree of processing, but everything in cognitive science shows that processing continues after that point and the nature of the representation, its spreading activation of other stored memories/concepts are all causally impacted by consciousness, the precise state of that consciousness and the manner in which it is used to deliberately direct attention. In addition, all those impacts that consciousness has on the depth, quality, and attentional focus of processing during one instance has long term impact on how any related stimuli are processes both initially at pre-conciousness and post-consciousness.

You are missing the point entirely. Of course the cognitive process continues, but any instance of conscious representation of information must necessarily follow sensory input and processing of that instance of conscious representation...and of course events and cognition move on in the flow of time.


The point being, every instance of conscious representation follows input, and it is the input and processing that alters and 'refreshes' conscious perception/experience.

Most of what falls under the heading "Executive control" are conscious processing directed by conscious goals, and executive functions are massively influential on how information is processes and the ultimate cognitive and behavioral outcomes of that processing.

Executive control is subject to the same physical principles as any other form of brain activity. Executive control is a function that follows sensory inputs, propagation, processing, etc, preceding the conscious experience of perception and thought.

Objects and events in the external world ->input of information from objects and events ->propogation of information throughout the neural networks of the brain -> conscious perception of that information forms ->conscious feelings and emotions emerge ->conscious thoughts and deliberations emerge -> a conscious impulse to respond (the conscious will to act) -> a conscious action is performed.


Quote
''It seems obvious that we exist in the present. The past is gone and the future has not yet happened, so where else could we be? But perhaps we should not be so certain.

Sensory information reaches us at different speeds, yet appears unified as one moment. Nerve signals need time to be transmitted and time to be processed by the brain. And there are events – such as a light flashing, or someone snapping their fingers – that take less time to occur than our system needs to process them. By the time we become aware of the flash or the finger-snap, it is already history.

Our experience of the world resembles a television broadcast with a time lag; conscious perception is not "live". This on its own might not be too much cause for concern, but in the ...''

I agree with DBT that consciousness is after the fact, social justification for actions,etc.

I disagree that any of this is relevant to the time article or Perspicio's OP. Those opins ore dismissed with "parenting is genetically determined ...." as I pointed out above.

Why argue? We are self aware biological machines subject to principles of the Standard Model.

 

[DBT]

I agree with DBT that consciousness is after the fact, social justification for actions,etc.

I disagree that any of this is relevant to the time article or Perspicio's OP. Those opins ore dismissed with "parenting is genetically determined ...." as I pointed out above.

Why argue? We are self aware biological machines subject to principles of the Standard Model.

Yeah, it's off topic. Things tend to drift this way or that way depending on how the wind is blowing.....

 

[Togo]

I agree with DBT that consciousness is after the fact, social justification for actions,etc.

Whereas I've long argued that DBT's contention is wrong, and that the evidence doesn't support those conclusions. Ronburgundy seems pretty much on the money here, since he recognises that the order of initial processing is only relevent if processing doesn't loop.

If we want to discuss this again, we should open a different thread.

More on topic, there are problems with dismissing something as being genetically determined, or enviromentally determined. The two aren't incompatible. It's entirely possible for someone's responses to be based on enviromental factors, and for the pattern of reactions to enviromental factors to be based entirely on genetics. In such a case you don't get a 50/50 split or a 90/10 split - both sets of factors could entirely determine the outcome.

So when someone says that parenting is genetically determined, they may well be correct. But that doesn't in itself mean that good parenting advice or techniques don't change the outcome - it just means that their response to that advice and the outcome you get from that advice will vary by genetics. Which we knew anyway - there isn't one set of advice that you can give everyone that will produce the same outcome every time.

 

[Perspicuo]

.

I would like to see you produce actual evidence from scientific research concluding all those factors are preeminent except parental rearing--whereas there is plenty evidence that upbringing is crucially important.

Parent rearing and upbringing guidance are genetically determined......

Chicken and egg...

So you don't believe in learning? It has been determined, for example, that fear/nervousness has an innate component, but good upbringing can bring it down, while a lack of the genetic component for fear/nervousness is no obstacle for learned nervousness from bad upbringing, according to the research of, for instance,  Jerome Kagan.

See: http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/emotion/Kagan.html

 

[DBT]

I agree with DBT that consciousness is after the fact, social justification for actions,etc.

Whereas I've long argued that DBT's contention is wrong, and that the evidence doesn't support those conclusions. Ronburgundy seems pretty much on the money here, since he recognises that the order of initial processing is only relevent if processing doesn't loop.

If we want to discuss this again, we should open a different thread.

More on topic, there are problems with dismissing something as being genetically determined, or environmentally determined. The two aren't incompatible. It's entirely possible for someone's responses to be based on enviromental factors, and for the pattern of reactions to enviromental factors to be based entirely on genetics. In such a case you don't get a 50/50 split or a 90/10 split - both sets of factors could entirely determine the outcome.

So when someone says that parenting is genetically determined, they may well be correct. But that doesn't in itself mean that good parenting advice or techniques don't change the outcome - it just means that their response to that advice and the outcome you get from that advice will vary by genetics. Which we knew anyway - there isn't one set of advice that you can give everyone that will produce the same outcome every time.

Sure. you have argued. But you were wrong then and you are still wrong now. It's a simple matter of physics, sensory input cannot magically become an instance of consciousness before processing. Nor can processing become an instance of consciousness before that information achieves readiness potential.

You can't get around it, Togo.

You have no case to argue.

You never have.

The latter part of your post is completely irrelevant. This is not about nature/nurture or genetics, simple the sequence of the cognitive process from sensory input to conscious perception/experience.

The content of consciousness, how it is expressed, behaviours, nature/nurture is another issue.

 

[fast]

If a good loving mother is very attentive to her child and is brought up in a caring home and not overexposed to peers brought up to the contrary, the outcome will significantly outweigh any opposing genetic predispositions in a positive way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a good loving mother is very attentive to her child and is brought up in a caring home and not overexposed to peers brought up to the contrary, the outcome will significantly outweigh any opposing genetic predispositions in a positive way.

Any routine genetic predispositions. There can be serious defects no parenting can overcome.

 

[Togo]

Whereas I've long argued that DBT's contention is wrong, and that the evidence doesn't support those conclusions. Ronburgundy seems pretty much on the money here, since he recognises that the order of initial processing is only relevent if processing doesn't loop.

If we want to discuss this again, we should open a different thread.

Sure. you have argued. But you were wrong then and you are still wrong now.

Well, if you want to discuss it again we can open a dedicated thread.

It's a simple matter of physics, sensory input cannot magically become an instance of consciousness before processing. Nor can processing become an instance of consciousness before that information achieves readiness potential.

Fortunately Ron wasn't arguing that they need to. Again, further discussion should be in a seperate thread.

The latter part of your post is completely irrelevant. This is not about nature/nurture or genetics, simple the sequence of the cognitive process...

Eh, I thought I signalled pretty clearly that I was going back to the topic of the thread. Yes, the latter part was totally irrelevent to the idea of consciousness after the fact.

I was simply making the point that nature and nurture aren't, strictly speaking, alternatives to each other, even though much of the older literature treats them as opposites. The OP appears to implicity assume that demonstrating something is genetic denies a role to educational process, and vice versa, when I'm not convinced that's really the case.

 

[DBT]

Sure. you have argued. But you were wrong then and you are still wrong now.

Well, if you want to discuss it again we can open a dedicated thread.

I'll leave it up to you.

Fortunately Ron wasn't arguing that they need to. Again, further discussion should be in a seperate thread.

What exactly do you think I was responding to?

Eh, I thought I signalled pretty clearly that I was going back to the topic of the thread. Yes, the latter part was totally irrelevent to the idea of consciousness after the fact.

I was simply making the point that nature and nurture aren't, strictly speaking, alternatives to each other, even though much of the older literature treats them as opposites. The OP appears to implicity assume that demonstrating something is genetic denies a role to educational process, and vice versa, when I'm not convinced that's really the case.

Fair enough.

 

[Perspicuo]

If a good loving mother is very attentive to her child and is brought up in a caring home and not overexposed to peers brought up to the contrary, the outcome will significantly outweigh any opposing genetic predispositions in a positive way.

Any routine genetic predispositions. There can be serious defects no parenting can overcome.

"... no parenting can overcome"? Do you have research evidence for this?



-------------------------------------
-------------------------

In the meantime I found this, from the University of Washington website:

Facts About Prevention of Mental Illness

Fact 1: There is much evidence that reducing biological and psychosocial risk factors can prevent mental disorders. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/home.html

Fact 2: Several exemplary programs exist to prevent biological and psychosocial risk factors. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/545.pdf

Fact 3: There is credible evidence that certain well implemented programs can achieve significantly more benefits than costs to taxpayers and that prevention of mental disorder pays. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf

Fact 4: Scientists agree an interaction between genetic and environmental factors influences mental health.

-Genetic factors. Scientists believe some individuals have a genetic predisposition for mental illness. Although genes influence the development of mental illnesses, they do not preordain it. Certain environmental conditions must also be present. Schizophrenia is considered highly heritable. The likelihood that identical twins will both have the disorder is 50 percent. This means that in half the cases, one twin will not have the disorder, suggesting that environmental factors exert a significant influence in the onset of schizophrenia.

-Environmental factors. Damage from exposure to alcohol, illegal drugs, and tobacco; low birth weight; brain injury or oxygen deprivation; infection, poor nutrition, or exposure to toxins in the environment may negatively affect the development of the fetus and newborn contributing to the onset of mental disorders.

Children that experience stress from poverty and abuse and neglect are vulnerable to developing depression, anxiety, and antisocial behaviors that may continue into adulthood. Research has found that parental mental health problems increases the risk for mental health problems in their children. There is also a relationship between traumatic life events, such as parental death or divorce, and the onset of major depression in young children, especially if they occur in early childhood and lead to a permanent, negative change in the child’s life.

Source: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_prevention.php

This is also interesting:

Question:

Is There A Genetic Predisposition To Mental Illness?

[...]

Answer:

I would like to comment on three major areas.

1. Usually disease is not inherited. Instead, vulnerability to disease is inherited.
2. There are many effective treatments for depression, and intensive research further improves the hope for additional more effective and better tolerated treatments in the future.
3. Details should be discussed with your physician.

Many traits, such as red hair, blue eyes, and some facets of our personality and temperament are inherited, but most disease is not inherited. A few exceptions are diseases associated with a genetic defect such as-hemophilia, Huntington's, Tay-Sach's, Gaucher's, etc. The significance of genes is apparent when we see that identical twins often demonstrate similar personality traits. For example, one set separated since birth had very different developmental backgrounds.

One was raised Jewish in Africa, while the other was raised in the Nazi Youth Movement. Although they never met, they both wore rubber bands on their wrist, and both enjoyed scaring people by sneezing in elevators. There are many other similar examples demonstrating the significance of genes in determining many facets of personality. In contrast, however, most diseases do not show a 100% correlation in identical twins, or the disease may be present in a very different degree of severity. There is not a 100% concordance for depression in identical twins. In regard to severity of illness, there was one instance in which all five identical quintuplets all had some signs of schizophrenia, but they all demonstrated a very different degree of the illness. There are about 100,000 genes in the human genome,and about 50,000 affect the central nervous system. We all have some vulnerabilities, but whether or not these vulnerabilities progress to disease is strongly impacted by many different life events.

We inherit vulnerabilities, not conditions. There are people going around with the genetic predisposition for psychopathy, leading normal (common) lives.

Take neuroscientist James Fallon, who found his own brain resembled that of psychopaths as compared to other members of his own family, he researched and he found he had many murderers and criminals in his family tree. See the whole, and fascinating, article here: NPR: A Neuroscientist Uncovers A Dark Secret.

 

[DBT]

We inherit vulnerabilities, not conditions.

True up to a point. Neural plasticity may compensate for lesions, underdeveloped neural structures, malfunctions, etc, to a degree. But if the condition surpasses the ability of networks to compensate for the condition, the related behavioural symptoms are certain to manifest. Like drug addicts, for instance, when the damage caused by drugs reaches a point where the addict can no longer function rationally. Neural plasticity itself is an inherit trait of a brain.

 

[Trodon]

My parents did the best they could with what they had. As I grew up, for me home was a place of security and comfort where I knew I was loved. I cannot think of what they could have done better. I can think of things I could have done better.

 

[fromderinside]

Parent rearing and upbringing guidance are genetically determined......

Chicken and egg...

So you don't believe in learning? It has been determined, for example, that fear/nervousness has an innate component, but good upbringing can bring it down, while a lack of the genetic component for fear/nervousness is no obstacle for learned nervousness from bad upbringing, according to the research of, for instance,  Jerome Kagan

See: http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/emotion/Kagan.html

.

Let's start with Kagan. Fear isn't a scientific term. Aversive behavior can be operationalized. Since I predate kagan I'm aware of an argument during the 20's between radical behaviorists and functionalists that actually meant something before it descended into pellets and bollae. The discrimination is, as I point out above, one of being able to operationalize. One cannot legitimately operationalize fear in a scientific context without getting emotional feedback. Learning is something vertebrates use to modify responses to stimuli so that they are more useful to the learner. That capability is evolutionarily derived genetically. You might benefit by reading some  T. C. Schneirla

Having disposed of the fear component lets move on to nervousness. As I understand this it is a tendency to oscillate behavior in conditions of uncertainty which I find to be better than nervousness for which anyman can give you personal phenomenological replies. Preseveration of such behaviors can generalize to more biased tendencies. Again the basis to this behavior and the its components lie in our genetic makeup which is impacted by associations. Whether some social configuration in a western culture signals behavior or environmental determinant is probably quite suspect. I'd rather study underlying tendencies of humans in general that lead to similar pathology as Kagan 'explains' with his anyman terminology.