dNATE.com

Genetic diseases

A startling recent discovery has overturned much of what we know about disease.  As usual, Nicholas Wade in the New York Times sums it up well:

• Until [recently,] researchers have looked only at common mutations as possible contributors to the risk of common diseases. [However] common variants have turned out to explain only a fraction of the genetic risk of common disease. 
• It now appears that large numbers of very rare genetic mutations may underlie common human diseases like schizophrenia and cancer.

What's it all mean?  Certainly it will be difficult to map every single DNA unit to a disease, as there are 3 billion DNA units in each person, and "only" 7 billion people in the world.  Everyone will have a different response to drugs, with no simple genetic test.

Nicholas Wade goes on:

• A rare variant occurs in one out of every 17 DNA units, of which the human genome has some three billion.  313 genes out of the 25,000 in the human genome carry rare mutations.
• Detecting the roots of common disease will [now] prove much more difficult. Mutations with small effect must be studied in large numbers of patients to be detectable ... raising doubts as to how soon genome sequencing will become a routine medical test. 
• Rare mutations [may be] specific to particular populations, with Africans and Europeans having sets that do not overlap much. This means that medical knowledge about rare mutations may have to be developed independently for each population. 

Age of Innocence

Study after study shows that success is in the genes.  The latest was published in the Journal for Personality:

Genes to play a much bigger role than lifestyle, with self-control particularly etched into our DNA. Our genes also largely determine how determined and persistent we are.  This is important in terms of success, as someone who refuses to give up is more likely to achieve their dreams than someone who throws in the towel.

Still, there are many deniers out there, especially genetically elite meritocrats:

To suggest that “success” is genetically determined assumes that “success” can somehow be defined outside of our cultural frames. While I feel that my American Studies PhD should constitute a sign of “success,” others would define “success” more narrowly – say, making a lot of money as a CEO or corporate lawyer. Now, I’ll certainly be the first to argue that one’s success in life isn’t all about hard work and determination. It’s also about socially defined privileges. ... Perhaps I just don’t want to admit that my accomplishments were hard-wired into my biology. But more likely, the “success gene” simply represents another gene of the week. 

David Brooks proclaims it the Age of Innocence, but I would call it the Age of Denial.  We've seen the collapse of No Child Left Behind, but many commentators continue to bury their head in the sand.  The most sinister are meritocrats like David Frum who fear their position atop society is at risk, and will do anything to defend the status quo.

A genetic signature for autism

I'm interested in how the New York Times struggles to cover stories on genetics.  For example, they report that a "tiny fraction" of autism cases are explained by having certain rare genetic mutations. Scientists hope to explain 10-20 percent of autism cases by identifying yet more rare gene mutations in the next couple of years.

OK, first, why call them "mutations"?  We're each born with different gene variants, that's what makes us unique.  When I think of "mutations" I think of DNA damage caused by exposure to radiation, which it's not.

Second, the article complains that "There are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rare mutations that could disrupt brain development enough to result in social and developmental delays."

So what?  There's no single gene variant for autism.  Instead, there may be thousands.  But if you sequence someone's entire genome, it's no harder for a computer to scan for thousands of variants than it is to find one.

In other words, there's an emerging "signature" for autism in our genes, not a single gene.  That might make it harder to develop a genetic test for autism, but not that much harder, especially when the price of a full genome scan falls below $1000.

At that point, anyone with a family history of autism will be encouraged to have a genetic test, similar to a test for Down Syndrome.  It will be a test for the "genetic signature" of a disease.

What is Confabulation?

Michael Gazzaniga writes in Who's in Charge that "listening to people's explanations of their actions is interesting ... but often a waste of time." [p.78] "The left brain uses what it has and ad libs the rest." [p.88] Confabulation is the brain's hard-wired impulse for "giving a fictitious account of a past event."

In the book, Gazzaniga explores some of the hottest issues in the study of the human mind, including consciousness and free will.

"Consciousness is distributed everywhere across the brain," says Gazzaniga [p.64]. For example, patients with a localized brain stroke may lose conscious awareness of their left arm, even believing it belongs to someone else. "Consciousness involves a multitude of widely distributed specialized systems and disunited processes" [p.102] Any sense of unity in consciousness is merely confabulation.

To some extent, says Gazzaniga, we humans are hard-wired. "The medial frontal cortex gives one the feeling of the urge to move". [p.113] The lateral frontal lobes are responsible for "sequencing behavior" like planning [p.49]. Specific areas in the temporal lobe allow you to recognize animals and fruits [p.50]. We have specialized brain functions for detecting cheaters and making moral judgements [p.69].

However, Gazzaniga says that "social interactions make us free to choose" [p.215], which I find odd. Perhaps it would be better to depersonalize it. Human impulses come in sets or pairs. People constantly balance competing desires (using their frontal lobes). The desire to steal from a rich man is (usually) counterbalanced by the fear of punishment. The cortex mediates between competing impulses in the context of new information from the senses.

How does the cortex do this? Gazzaniga doesn't know. "These interactions will only be understood with a new vocabulary" [p.107]. "A unique language, which has yet to be developed, is needed to capture the thing that happens when mental processes constrain the brain." [p.220]

Gazzaniga believes in "emergence" but I have my own explanation, which is Resonance. Think back to the days when physicists explained black body radiation in terms of oscillators. Billions of neurons in the brain, each firing 200 times per second, are like oscillators that constrain all the other oscillators in the brain. The mind is a statistically emergent phenomena - the lowest-energy state of these oscillators - but it often takes time for the brain to re-adjust after it has been perturbed by new information. In a sense, the mind is a set of resonance frequencies (or standing waves) derived from the brain's activity, but the brain doesn't affect the mind deterministically, since there's always quantum uncertainty from one level to the next.

This also opens the possibility of genetic encoding of desires, fears and impulses.  If indeed the cortex reduces our experiences to multidimensional resonance frequencies, perhaps the frequencies have a unique signature that can be coded in the genes and retrieved during brain development.

Gazziniga doesn't discuss human difference. Yet our genes constrain our impulse thresholds, and genetic variations among us are responsible for human individuality. Your genes define what you want, and who you are. While Gazzaniga admits that "overall [brain] connectivity pattern is under genetic control" [p.21] and "if the capacity is not built-in, it does not exist" [p.19], he shies away from the key question: Why do some people enjoy being serial killers and others don't? Why do some enjoying leading, while others enjoy following?

Finally, I don't believe that consciousness is required for free will. By my definition, free will is the freedom to follow your design, whether you're conscious of it or not.

How to increase your willpower

USA Today has a dilemma.  Tell the people what they want to hear, or report the truth.

On one hand, telling people what they want to hear sells more newspapers.  But if they report falsehoods, they lose credibility.

To their credit, USA Today is transparent about their crass motives.  In a recent article, they acknowledge that most people (71%) "think willpower is something they can learn," so they cravenly devote most of the article to reinforcing this (false) popular notion by publishing the discredited theories of a crackpot psychologist who advocates that people "work on ways to delay instant gratification" and "practice self-control".

Again, to their credit, USA Today seeks to retain a modicum of credibility, by quoting one of the country's foremost experts (executive director of the American Psychological Association), who throws cold water on most of the article's content.  "Studies show that some people are better at resisting temptation than others, he says.  'They seem to innately have more self-control'."  (In other words, willpower is not learnable.)

It's a neat trick, popularized by such noted charlatans as Dr. Phil.  Tell the majority what they want to hear, and hope they miss the few sentences that you devote to the truth.

A review of Sam Harris' Free Will

Sam Harris, in his new book, asserts that we humans don’t have Free Will.  First, I'll discuss why I disagree, and then I'll state what I think is the real issue.

Harris agrees with me (and Schopenhauer) that we humans have the freedom to do what we want.  But we can’t choose our wants themselves.

However, "wants" (or genes, for that matter) are not something you have; they are who you are.  They define you.  I consciously choose based on who I am, based on my design, including my genetically constructed brain, with its cognitive abilities and specialized brain modules that implement primal needs/preferences/ desires/interests.  Implementing "desire" in neurons is no easy feat, but that's another topic.

And what is consciousness?  The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each connected to 7,000 other neurons (or to the senses), each firing at 200 times per second.  The whole brain begins to hum and resonate with the environment like a tuning fork.   We are continually thrown off balance by external stimuli or internal wants/interests/desires that perturb the system, and the brain struggles to regain resonance.  Past memories and future plans/predictions are all thrown into the multi-dimensional resonance mix.  We often have competing desires (e.g. fear and greed), which the brain’s resonance engine resolves in the environmental context.   But we only sense and retain things for which we were genetically built. 

Consciousness (by my definition) is the emergent “pop” of resonant frequencies (or semi-stable standing waves) in the brain.  Perhaps one day we'll invent conscious computers by this very principle.

So if we are free to do what we want (based on who we "genetically are"), and consciousness emerges from the resonance of the human brain with its internal and external environment, then what is the real issue?

It's the unfairness of genetic diversity.  It's the fact that we’re all born unequal, with different wants/ desires/ interests, which essentially come from our unequal genes (and the unequal “resonance engines” they construct), and which lead to inequality in pay, opportunity and status.  (According to Business Week, "needs, desires, and weaknesses [are] coded into our DNA.")

Are genetic inequalities within the realm of justice?  Not for those already living, since our genes define who we are.  I decide freely based on who I am (by my design).  If your “wants” aren’t in sync with social expectation (e.g. you want to kill people), then you’ll end up impoverished and perhaps incarcerated.  The legal system will throw you in jail for being “you”.  Laws are written by genetic beings to control other genetic beings, whom they fear.  But you can’t change someone’s genes without changing who they are (the exception being non-development genes). 

In the future, with the advent of affordable genetic testing, parents will decide their children’s genes before they are conceived.  This will restore fairness and equality in society.  Create a future generation who freely choose the things that will make them more prosperous, and eliminate those who freely choose to be serial killers.

Why America's politics are so polarized

I'm reading Charles Murray's new book, Coming Apart, in which he asserts that high-IQ individuals are increasingly segregating themselves from the rest of society. They meet at top universities, inter-marry, live in gated communities, get astronomically high-paying jobs in finance, business, law, etc... and rarely mingle with the common folk.

With the rise of highly-leveraged financial markets and hedge funds, control over billions of dollars in physical assets is consolidated by relatively few individuals. (Contrast that with a day laborer who controls only the fruits of his own labor.) It makes sense for corporations to seek out high-IQ talent and pay them millions, since an additional two or three IQ points may net an additional $100 million in profits on financial transactions.

It used to be that small towns across America had more high-IQ citizens scattered about to shape, nuance, inform, moderate, or otherwise influence local opinion, perhaps serving as mayor or town council members. In short, to act as community leaders, to inspire and motivate others. But now, high-IQ students are whisked away after high school graduation to attend an elite university like Harvard or Yale or Stanford, and they rarely return (nor do their children).

America's average towns are suffering a brain drain. Those left behind are more easily incited and influenced by simple-minded, all-or-nothing, charismatic zealots on television, like Rush Limbaugh. And since the high-IQ elites are overwhelming liberal, when they move away their hometowns become even more conservative on average.

Resonance, or, Genetic memories

We humans have 100 billion neurons in our brain, but only 23,000 genes. That's only one gene for every 4 million neurons, hardly enough for the genes to be determining the action of every neuron.

Yet, abstractly, neurons are all alike, even as some are long wirey threads, and others resemble dense bushes. We certainly have enough genes to act as recipes for basic neural development, neural migration and placement, and neural activity.

Once developed, the brain's neurons begin to fire at a rate of 200 times per second. Each neuron connects with 7,000 other neurons. Pretty soon, the entire brain is vibrating in harmonic oscillation.

But it's not just random oscillation. Neurons receive input from the environment via the senses. The brain then begins to resonate with the environment in characteristic ways. If two people see a bird, the experience causes a similar resonance in their brains. If two people feel anger, there's also a similar resonance pattern of neural firings.

Can resonance patterns be reduced to a characteristic signature, or unique sequence of numbers? I'm not a mathematician, but I know that complex wave functions can be reduced to a Fibonacci sequence. Perhaps the resonant oscillations of the brain can be reduced this way as well.

Numbers can easily be represented in the genes as a sequence of DNA bases. For example: AA=0, AT=1, AG=3, AC=4, TA=5, and so on... So if the same environmental object always produces the same resonant signature in the brain, it's possible that these memories can be stored in (and recalled from) the genes.

And not just objects. Perhaps traits, behaviors, desires and interests can also be reduced to unique resonance signatures of neural firing patterns. It would be a possible mechanism for genes to encode innate character traits.

Introverts - a Quiet critique

Susan Cain, the author of a recent book on introverts, argues that human society is similar to a beehive. Each of us has a specialized role to play. It takes all types. The introvert does the deep analysis, and the extrovert does all the talking and leading.

However, corporations discriminate. Introverts are paid less than extroverts because they’re not considered promotable. As Jack Welch writes, "introverts stagnate in large organizations. They can work hard and deliver to expectations or beyond, but they rarely get their due… Extroverts tend to outshine introverts [because] their outsize personalities earn them chances to make presentations to higher-ups, always a good way to accelerate the career-changing process of getting out of the pile."

In other words, you can always hire an introvert if you need an analyst, or someone to check your ego. Then, when they're no longer needed, you can drive them away by switching to an "open office" plan.

Schools like Harvard Business School are filled with extroverts, with nary an introvert in sight. Extroverts are the future leaders of business, the top 10% who will make 50% of the money, and grab the lion’s share of society’s resources.

“Extroversion is in our DNA,” writes Cain. But not in everyone’s DNA. Half of us (or more) are introverts. Corporations fight over the rare group of extroverts with additional desired traits (intelligence, lack of shyness), by offering exorbitant compensation and stock option packages. (See the book: Leadership is Innate). Sure, there are a few introvert leaders around, but they are the exception.

That's OK, according to Cain, because introverts are not usually money-motivated. But if you replace the words “introvert” and “extrovert” with “women” and “men,” would it still be OK? Is it OK for society to direct resources to one genetic class over another?

Does an introvert choose to be that way of his own free will? It certainly feels like free will to follow your innate interests, desires, and comforts… However, the question should be: can we choose our interests themselves? And the answer is, of course not. Our interests, desires, motivations, passions are what's genetic, part of our design, who we are. (Like an elevator that "chooses" to go up and down of its own free will because that’s the way it’s designed.) An introvert (freely) chooses introverted behavior because that’s the way his brain is wired. If you don’t want something different, it’s the same as not being able to choose it.

Cain says people do what they're "expected to". But feeling pressure to live up to social expectations is simply another innate trait. Most people do, but others do not. For example, if you’re born gay and your parents put pressure on you to conform, you will rather endure great difficulty than live up to their expectations. People only do what society expects if it resonates with their inborn nature.

Genes are recipes for the development of the brain. But just because the brain is a complex and dynamic system doesn't mean traits are not innate. Yes, the brain has an internal state (memory) and the ability to vary its outputs based on inputs (context sensitivity) and its internal state (model). There is no contradiction to say that traits may be both situational and innate. We're wired for many eventualities and situations: being in a group, being alone, etc. Yet, given the same situation (e.g. being in a group setting) without an overriding trait or passion (e.g. Bill Gates overcoming his introversion at a software conference), the trait tends to be more fixed.

Evolutionary experience shows that having a distribution of traits, or specialized actors, makes society more robust. A gene is merely a special form of matter that transports past evolutionary experience to the present. But that doesn't make it fair.

Introverts are "born that way". Given this, assuming we don't know ahead of time whether we'd be born an introvert or extrovert, how should we design society to be fair to all genetic parties? Most likely, with a system of redistribution, from the genetic-haves to genetic-have-nots, until such time everyone can choose extrovert genes for their children. However, some elites, like Harvard's Michael Sandel, are fighting to limit that option.

What is Biology?

Interests and choices must come from somewhere. From personal preferences? Then where do preferences come from? Society and culture and family? Why would you bother to listen to the voice of society unless it resonated with your preferences?

Indeed, gay teenagers endure harsh and negative social criticism, but that doesn't persuade them to change. For the rest of us, it's just a coincidence that our preferences are socially accepted, even as we falsely attribute this coincidence to our strong moral character and willpower.

No, ultimately, our interests and choices boil down to Biology. Yet biology doesn’t determine outcomes. It merely constrains the set of possibilities. An elevator can bring you to any number of different floors. Which floor is not predetermined. But the elevator can't drive you across town.

Freedom of choice is another way of saying you choose according to your design. (Design is just another word for Biology.) Like an elevator that chooses to go up and down, functioning according to your design is the very essence of free choice. It's being who you are.

Being "born that way" refers only to being born with a certain developmental plan. Biology operates over time. A girl is not born with breasts - they arrive later - yet breast development is certainly biological. Development is not necessarily one way, either. The script (the programming) is what’s biological. But like a computer program, the script can be full of loops and conditionals.

The brain itself is constructed by a biological script (or rather a set of specialized scripts), thus what we can learn is constrained by what we’re hardwired to learn. We humans can learn language, but dogs can't, because they lack the biological script to properly wire their brain.

Biology has an internal state. The brain is the best example. We remember things, and this “state” (a memory of things past) becomes part of our current environment. It affects the outcome of our choices (which button on the elevator gets pushed).

Our interests, wants, needs, desires, etc, are coded into the brain, and vary based on our Biology, i.e. variations in our genes. Different people have different scripts. That's why people differ in their preferences, traits and capabilities.

A simple blood test for Down Syndrome

A simple blood test for Down Syndrome is now available for women who are 10 weeks pregnant. It's more accurate than amniocentesis, and safer for the mother and child.

A recent article asks: Do All Women Need Genetic Testing Before Pregnancy?

More than half of pregnant women do some kind of prenatal screening or testing of their fetus ... The vast majority of women undergo [disease] carrier screening based on their ethnic background, although many, regardless of their heritage, are also screened for cystic fibrosis. Traditionally, certain ethnic groups — especially Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern European descent — have been advised to consider carrier screening for various fatal conditions including Tay-Sachs and Canavan diseases.

[GenPath recently announced a test to detect] 160 diseases in a single genetic screening test. Indeed, GenPath is presenting the new test as a way to level the genetic playing field and expand testing to any woman, anywhere.

This is just the latest of a battery of new blood tests that can determine everything from fetal sex to Down syndrome to paternity.

Bacteria and cancer

Scientists have found a link between bacteria and colorectal cancers.

"Tumors and their surroundings contain complex mixtures of cancer cells, normal cells, and a variety of microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses," says the study's senior author, Matthew Meyerson, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber and the Broad Institute. "Over the past decade, there has been an increasing focus on the relationship between cancer cells and their ‘microenvironment,' specifically on the cell-to-cell interactions that may promote cancer formation and growth." 

While the relationship between colorectal cancer and Fusobacterium is unclear, there are intriguing hints that the bacterium may play a role in the cancer, says Meyerson.  "At this point, we don't know what the connection between Fusobacterium and colon cancer might be," Meyerson observes. "It may be that the bacterium is essential for cancer growth, or that cancer simply provides a hospitable environment for the bacterium."

Recent studies have also found a link between bacteria and pancreatic cancer.

The buzz on genes and behavior

Researchers have long worried that correlating genes and behavior was "too complex to fathom, because so many factors can act together to regulate behavior."

Now new research shows how a few "master genes" can switch on and off complex behaviors, at least in bees.  

Researchers found that "naturally occurring behaviors are under the influence of discrete regulatory networks in the brain ... there is a close relationship between changes in gene expression ... and behavior."

They also found "a high degree of modularity in the regulation of genes and behavior, with distinct behavioral states".  Words like "discrete" and "modular" are important, as they show that complex networks created by genes can be controlled and achieve a steady state.

"The team focused their analysis on ... genes implicated in ... foraging, such as scouting for flowers ... maturation, ... and aggression, or hive defense."

Look for more informatio on the BeeSpace project which developed "a catalog of genes that turn on or off in the bee brain in response to social cues, environmental changes or as a result of hereditary factors."

A virus that cures cancer

Scientists have recently discovered that certain viruses can selectively kill cancer cells.  Here's how it works:

The virus, which is injected into the bloodstream, targets only cancer cells that express a certain high-growth factor.  Once inside a cancer cell, the virus triggers an immune response that kills the cell, leaving healthy cells unaffected.

World's coolest robot

The Nao is officially the world's coolest robot.  See the video.

But it's not just the physical robot that's cool.  The robot's activity can be fully simulated on a computer.   See, for example, a soccer match conducted either with real, physical robots, or purely virtual - in silico.

 

Are identical twins identical?

Identical robots (i.e. robots with identical programming) aren't necessarily identical.  Consider, this program:

set red_light_exposure = false;  // initial state

loop

    if (red_light_detected()==true)

       then // cause permanent change to internal state

         set red_light_exposure=true;  

    if (red_light_exposure==true)

       then run_scenario_A

       else run_scenario_B;

repeat loop // endlessly

Two robots with this same programming (i.e. same DNA) would operate differently if one was ever exposed to red light (and the other wasn't).  Different sections of code would be executed, and the change would be semi-permanent.

Epigenetics in humans operates by the same mechanism.  It causes a semi-permanent, extra-genetic change, triggered by one's experiences.  If one twin has a certain experience (and the other doesn't), then it's possible the twins will develop different behavior or appearance.

It also appears - contrary to recent scientific belief - that identical twins may also have slightly different genetic material, known as copy number variations.

Does this invalidate twin studies, which seek to clarify nature/nurture effects, as some believe?

It depends.  The only experience that can affect us must be wired into our innate detection circuitry.  Otherwise, that experience is ignored.  The robot example (above) shows that exposure to "red light" (but not blue light) can cause a permanent change to our internal state, because it's explicitly included in the programming.

So we'd need a better understanding of which environments are innately detected, and whether an innate switch (or latch) retains the experience.

We're 99% microbe

A nice article in the New York Times points out that we humans are 99% microbe.

99 percent of the functional genes in the body are microbial. Researchers [are uncovering] how genes in this microbiome — exchange messages with genes inside human cells.

Most DNA, for example, was long considered junk — a netherworld of detritus that had no important role... [However] signals coming from both regions of the genome participate in the delicate balance between normal cellular behavior and [cancer] malignancy.

Some 90 percent of the protein-encoding cells in our body are microbes. We evolved with them in a symbiotic relationship, which raises the question of just who is occupying whom.

As I've previously described, this mechanism is also a possible engine of "directed evolution".

Don't like your DNA? Replace it!

Hemophilia, a straightforward genetic disease, can now be cured in mice. There's no reason the technique can't be applied to humans as well. 

Here's how it works.  Using a specialized enzyme, snip out the offending gene, and employ a virus to deliver a new, better functioning gene in its place.

The mice had been engineered to carry a human gene for hemophilia, and the enzymes and virus had been specifically engineered as well: the enzymes would cut only certain sequences of DNA, patterns that were known to appear on either side of the defective gene, and the virus, which naturally infects the liver cells where the clotting factor is made, would swap in an unmutated gene, instead of the viral genes it would carry in nature.

How genetics will solve the debt crisis

According to the New York Times:

WHEN we think of the qualities we seek in visionary leaders, we think of intelligence, creativity, wisdom and charisma, but also the drive to succeed, a hunger for innovation, a willingness to challenge established ideas and practices.

By implication, not everyone has these qualities. Key leaders and highly productive managers and employees - i.e. the people who pay most of the taxes - are fairly rare. So where do these qualities come from?

Republicans believe that you're just "born that way". (See the Bell Curve, for example.) They oppose excessive government spending on education and social programs, because they believe such efforts are wasted, and that existing programs have largely failed (e.g. the collapse of "no child left behind").

Democrats realize this, yet their political constituents demand these programs (in return for votes). And why not? If Republican claims are true, it only bolsters the rationale for redistributionist social programs. What's the alternative? Throw people without the "right" innate traits out on the streets?

Yet America can no longer afford all the social programs. There are too few highly productive workers to be taxed to supply the revenue. Unemployment is high in the U.S. because goods can be produced in China and elsewhere more cheaply.

So what's the answer? Genetics.

Here's how it works. Identify the genes held by those with the "New York Times" traits for success. Then transfer those genes using artificial chromosomes into the rest of us. (You don't need to know which gene does what. Simply transfer all the genes - around 6,000 of them - that are active in the brain of elite individuals.... and throw in some Michael Phelps sports genes while you're at it.).

As the next generation of workers receive these artificial chromosomes, America will experience a renaissance in productivity. New ideas, faster, cheaper, more efficient. Businesses will boom, paying more taxes. Enough to solve the debt crisis, to be sure.

The Brain on Trial - errata

It's good to see the legal community finally grappling with the implications of biology. David Eagleman writes in the Atlantic about criminal behavior and culpability, and concludes that

Whether in empathy, intelligence, impulse control, or aggression … People are not created equal … Not everyone is equally “free” to make socially appropriate choices … If free will does exist, it has little room in which to operate … [there is a] myth of human equality

Eagleman argues that “blameworthiness should be removed from the legal argot”. Regarding the choices a criminal - or anyone else - makes:

it no longer makes sense to ask, ‘To what extent was it his biology, and to what extent was it him?’ because we now understand that there is no meaningful distinction between a person’s biology and his decision-making. They are inseparable.

Here's my issue. The desire to commit crimes (or lack of control) comes from my wants, impulses and interests, which come from my genes (i.e. genetically constructed regions of the brain). Yet I freely choose, based on who I am (what I innately want). In other words: "I am my genes". I commit crimes based on who I innately am. That's perfect free will - freedom to follow your innate programming. What you want and what you choose (and who you innately are) are all identical.

This implies that the legal system is simply a set of rules imposed by one set of genetic beings over another. This has its origins 15,000 years ago, when human civilization began its differentiation into specialized roles of leaders and followers, to allow society to grow and scale. (Perhaps ancient “hierarchy genes” stored in our junk DNA were brought back for this purpose to re-establish our specialized roles as worker bees, drones, and queens.)

By this account, there is no right and wrong in the law. There's no implied fairness for individuals. Laws are a control mechanism to allow society to function more smoothly, a cultural reflection of genetic specialization. If you have the “poor impulse control gene” then you're incarcerated. Like quantum physics, there is no separation of law-giver and law abider, just genetic beings interacting with other (specialized) genetic beings.

Sure, we can try “customized rehabilitation” of criminals and “tailor sentencing and rehabilitation for the individual” based on genetics (or brain hardwiring) as Eagleman suggests. We can try to encourage people to tune their frontal lobes to control impulses using biofeedback. But all this complexity will add confusion and reduce the law's clarity and impact.

Sooner or later, we will all ask the question: why accept this genetic hierarchy, when with a few genetic changes we can pluck out our innate “poor impulse control” and “aggression” and replace them with new genes for success (and no jail time)?

A critique of David Brooks' The Social Animal

I’m fascinated by David Brooks new book "The Social Animal", not because the ideas are originally his, but because Brooks synthesizes recent findings of researchers in many fields.

The message is an essentially negative and pessimistic one, especially if you believe in free will:

• "The unconscious parts of the mind are most of the mind – where most of the decisions and many of the most impressive acts of thinking take place"
• The unconscious realm includes "emotions, intuitions, biases, longings, genetic predispositions, [and] character traits"
• “The conscious mind merely confabulates stories that try to make sense of what the unconscious mind is doing of its own accord.”
• This “removes the conscious mind from its privileged place at the center of human behavior”

Yet Brooks tries to put a positive spin on it. “This is the happiest story you’ve ever read,” he writes. Brooks invents imaginary characters – Harold and Erica – with an admirable set of rare innate traits:

• “persistent after setbacks”
• “possessed enough confidence to take risks”
• could “control their worst impulses”
• could “read people”
• “you could put them in front of a crowd”

Sure, it’s a happy story if you’re born with the “predispositions” of the meritocratic elite. But how about the rest of us? “More than a quarter of high-school students drop out” and 70% of adults never graduate from college.

Today’s corporate CEOs struggle to find such talent who are comfortable in their own skin and can be “put in front of a crowd”. These are the “seedbeds of accomplishment”, according to Brooks. Yet most people simply want approval from their superiors. Most of us don’t want to stand out. And certainly, we get panic attacks when presenting in front of crowds.

Brooks tries to have it both ways. He writes that “the conscious mind can influence the unconscious” and the emotions can be “properly nurtured” and “educated” and “don’t control our lives”. Yet how can the conscious mind choose to go against the unconscious mind, if "what we want [and] how we perceive the world” are determined by the unconscious? The conscious mind doesn’t have preferences of its own. So how can it override the subconscious? Even Brooks admits that “mental processes ... inaccessible to consciousness organize our thinking, shape our judgments [and desires, and] form our characters”.

Brooks refers to an “outer mind [that] hungers for status, money, and applause, [while] the inner mind hungers for harmony and connection”. In reality, there is no inner/outer distinction. Need for status is unconscious. Power-hungry people are not conscious of why they feel that way. Traits are not something you have; they are who you are.

“Character is formed,” says Brooks, and this is certainly true. Nobody is born power-hungry. But how does it develop? Certainly the brain requires experience in order to wire itself. But it’s not just any experience; it’s expected experience. Any other experience is essentially ignored.

We evolved in a social context. Our genes expect other people to be around. Our genes hardwire us to suckle at our mother’s breast. Our genes hardwire us to turn our heads and look up, and remember what we see. Later, this imprinted memory of “mother” can be exploited by the genes for other purposes. For example, the genes can establish a hardwired reaction to our mother, once we learn to recognize who she is. So (expected) experience is required for proper hardwiring to occur.

The development of character proceeds in a similar way. Some people are excited by the presence of others, especially those who can help them socially or politically. The mental capacity to perceive the “right people” takes years to develop. But it all starts with interest. If you’re not interested in forming networks – if you’re a homebody or a shy loner – you won’t do it. If you can’t stand kissing up to power, you probably won’t get promoted.

The unconscious mind “coats things with emotional significance”. But no two people are alike in their interests, and thus their capabilities.

If you’re born with the (unconscious) traits to be a meritocrat (as Brooks is), it must be a happy life of easy connections, influence and easy money. Your wants, desires, and passions are highly rewarded by society. Yet the rest of us struggle with an unconscious that leads to introversion, insecurity and followership. We’re easily exploited by the Oprah-esque meritocrats who tell us we can change with conscious effort to be just like them ("just buy my book!"), and who possess the confidence to pat us on the back, without their own need for approbation.

Evolution is not random

For once, I agree with the Pope. Evolution is not random.

Evolution is a process by which genetic changes are passed from parents to children. Children live or die, depending on the success they have with their new genes in the current environment. If they survive to bear their own children, the new genes are passed along to the next generation.

Nothing random about that. It's the environment that determines which new genes remain and which disappear with the death of the childless organism. The genes that remain somehow resonate with the environment. Thus, genes reflect evolutionary experience.

And the genetic change from parent to child is not random either. "Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not" according to a new study. Why? I assume it's because the genes have long ago evolved strategies to direct their own evolution.

So the recent announcement of new fetal DNA testing techniques should come as no surprise.

If you're planning children ... you may want to know if you're a carrier for a serious single-gene disorder such as Tay-Sachs; if close relatives have had breast cancer, you may want to learn whether you have the mutation that significantly raises your risk of the rare familial form of the cancer.

[A new] technique being developed analyzes fetal DNA that is collected from women's blood as early as five weeks into a pregnancy. So-called "noninvasive prenatal diagnosis," or NIPD, may hit the market as a test for Down syndrome later this year. [With] NIPD you'd simply give a little extra blood at the lab at your first prenatal checkup. [Painful amniocentesis would become a thing of the past.] There would be no risk at all to you or the fetus. And you'd get the results [and choose whether or not to keep the fetus] before you were visibly pregnant, before you'd told your mother or your friends.

Scary, but it's the latest example of genes (i.e. the organisms that develop from genes) choosing to direct their own evolution.

The problem with David Brooks' "new humanism"

Political and social commentator David Brooks has written a new book called "The Social Animal" in which he tries to elevate the role of human emotion and the unconscious mind into the political debate. He appears to agree with Dennis Overbye who writes,

A bevy of experiments in recent years suggest that the conscious mind is like a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control. [Our] conscious brain [is] only playing catch-up to what the unconscious brain [is] already doing.

Our preferences, says Brooks, have deep innate underpinnings, of which we are not consciously aware.  Most human decision-making emanates from the unconscious mind, where emotion provides a largely hidden ability to assign value to our decision-making options.  A man without emotion is not rational, but rather indecisive and lost. 

Brooks asserts, however, that you can learn strategies to control your impulses through repetition, and thus gain self-control. Brooks claims that "character" can be trained through rigorous "discipline" and 10,000 "small repetitions" to develop "habits and strategies" that can overcome your perceptions.  You can "learn to see" things differently through absorption of new "norms". 

What Brooks won't tell you

Is it true?  Can we "learn strategies to control impulses" through practice?  Certainly you can teach yourself anything if you're interested and motivated.  But if you're not interested, you'll stop practicing.

The philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, said that we can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will. In other words, you can't change your (innate) preferences (consider this case for example).  What people don't understand is, if you don't want to do something, it's the same as not being able to do it. Some people don't want to practice, because of who they genetically are.  Freedom to follow your innate preferences is not really "free will".

Genes place a leash on our capacities, because they determine what things interest us enough to practice them.  Practice leads to habit, and gradually to expertise.  Since we all differ genetically, we all have different interests, desires, cravings, and passions. Different interests lead to different practice regimens, which lead (deterministically) to inequality in talent.  Psychologist William James "believed in free will on 'ethical grounds,' [but] he did not believe that there was evidence for it on scientific grounds."

In Mischel's famous marshmallow test, for example, "the ability of 4-year-olds to postpone gratification by leaving a marshmallow uneaten for a time as a condition of receiving a second marshmallow was a very good predictor of success in life."  Brooks writes: "The kids who could wait a full 15 minutes had, 13 years later, SAT scores that were 210 points higher than the kids who could wait only 30 seconds”. He doesn't mention that differences among children in the ability to delay gratification are genetically linked.

The truly novel implication that Brooks doesn't fully explore is human diversity; that we're not all the same, genetically speaking. While Brooks hints at these issues (the "meritocratic class re-inforces itself through genes" and "kids are born with a certain temperament"), he describes the mind as an "emergent system," a product of murky nature/nurture "interactionism".

Brooks can't have it both ways.  He cites "parental sensitivity" as the "causal arrow" of a child's success (a little lie to boost book sales among the Oprah crowd), even as he admits that 30% of abused children turn out just fine, since they possess an innately resilient temperament.  In other words, genes trump environment, but only if you're a member of the genetic meritocracy, as Brooks is.  Born leaders have traits like high energy, passion, ability to motivate others, fascination with power hierarchies, and extreme self-confidence. These are rare traits, which is why leaders are so highly compensated for their rare gene variants.  In other words, they're paid just to be themselves, i.e. who they genetically are.

Obviously both political parties would shun Brooks if he followed this argument to its logical conclusion, which is why he cloaks his message in muddy sentiment. Yet even as Republicans promote individual responsibility, they secretly believe in a natural God-given hierarchy in society.  Democrats, on the other hand, endlessly exploit the human hardwired belief in "free will" (despite evidence to the contrary), and thus gain political power by cynically promising that anyone can do anything with the right government programs. 

Yet the Democratic myth remains, for now, the more politically compelling one, until such time we can rectify the unfairness of natural inequalities in society.

Race and drugs

The FDA recently approved a new drug for lupus, even as that drug (like all drugs) doesn't work for everyone:

African American patients ... did not appear to respond to treatment with Benlysta. ... To address this concern, the sponsor has agreed to conduct an additional study of people with those backgrounds.

The FDA has approved drugs for specific racial groups before. For example, "BiDil" was approved in 2005 for Blacks only, prompting critics to complain that,

by approving a drug for one group, the FDA was using race as a crude shortcut for genetic typing ... Endorsing a drug for one race gave official government imprimatur to the discredited notion of race as a biological category.

Computer beats human at Jeopardy

IBM's Watson computer recently beat a human opponent at Jeopardy by employing an exciting new approach as described by Peter Norvig, Google's director of research:

This approach of relying on examples — on massive amounts of data — rather than on cleverly composed rules, is a pervasive theme in modern A.I. work. It has been applied to closely related problems like speech recognition and to very different problems like robot navigation. IBM’s Watson system also relies on massive amounts of data, spread over hundreds of computers, as well as a sophisticated mechanism for combining evidence from multiple sources.

The current decade is a very exciting time for A.I. development because the economics of computer hardware has just recently made it possible to address many problems that would have been prohibitively expensive in the past. In addition, the development of wireless and cellular data networks means that these exciting new applications are no longer locked up in research labs, they are more likely to be available to everyone as services on the web.

Genetic Bill of Rights

Massachusetts is proposing a Genetic Bill of Rights to address gaps in the federal Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), passed three years ago to prohibit genetic discrimination in employment and insurance coverage.

Hopefully the bill will also address the usurpation of individual genetic rights now practiced by the FDA.

According to CGS the Massachusetts bill would establish:

• a right to privacy with respect to genetic information and material
• that genetic information and material are personal property
• that health care facilities cannot deny treatment & wellness services solely based on the discovery of a genetic marker
• that genetic information and material may not be used in conveyance of life, long-term care and disability insurance
• that auto insurers cannot use genetic information in establishing policies and rates
• other protections, making identity theft stemming from misappropriation of genetic data a criminal offense, for example, and forbidding bankers from using genetic profiles.

Molecular Motors

Two of the strangest proteins in the human body - helicase and kinesin - act as molecular-size motors.

When DNA unpacks itself from tightly wound chromosomes during cell division and gets twisted and tangled, like yarn carelessly pulled from a hank, helicase makes a cut in the DNA, allows it to spin and untwist, then repairs the cut.  Nifty.

Kinesins, on the other hand, are crawlers. During cell division, they drag replicated chromosomes into one of the two new cells.  Using cellular rope called "microtubules," kinesins alternatively grasp, pull and let go - hand over hand - to draw the chromosomes into position.  There are 124 different types of kinesins in a cell.  Very cool.

 

Why machines will one day surpass the human mind

A recent cover story in the Atlantic magazine claims that artificial intelligence and machines "will never beat the human mind". While it's easy to make trivial objections to this argument (e.g., "never" is a long time, and "the brain is itself a machine constructed of squishy, organic parts"), the claim has some validity.

We humans have predicted artificial intelligence and friendly talking robots for decades now, and they never arrived.

But I'm not pessimistic. Certainly we'll need another Einstein or Niels Bohr to make the next theoretical leap, and it's difficult to predict the timing of such creative insight. It could come next week, or in 100 years. For now, we're stuck in our current paradigm.

To get unstuck, we must open our minds to new approaches to the problem. Don't just write a computer program that "acts like a brain". Conduct a thought experiment, as Einstein might do:

• Consider this: If you stare at an object without looking away, the object eventually disappears. Perception requires change.
• Also consider this: If you live next to a railway and have grown accustomed to hearing a train pass at 3am every night, you'll wake up if there is no train at 3am. Perception is prediction.
• Everything in the brain is about perceiving sequences (of events, objects, etc) through time and space. But perhaps the brain represents time spatially? Or by "multiplexing"?
• Forget language. Focus on emotion. Try to create a robot that's shy in certain situations.
• The number of different emotions we can feel is finite (e.g., jealousy, happiness, etc) and genetically prescribed. Yet the object of emotion is not, e.g. I can be jealous of someone else's brand new computer. How is this implemented in the brain?
• Some people are born extroverts, some are born introverts. How is that implemented in the brain?
• How would you construct a robot that enjoys practicing, and can direct itself to those things it must practice to gain skills and talent and expertise?
• Imagine a robot that can balance and walk on two broom handles in a wind storm. No one has solved that problem yet. There's no reason to build a physical robot. Everything can be simulated on a computer these days, including the laws of physics.
• Imagine an ant or cockroach. No one has ever simulated them accurately in a computer, and their brains are tiny. Start small.
• The brain doesn't represent the world so much as resonate with it. Like particles in quantum physics, perhaps concepts in our brain don't exist until interaction causes them to exist.
• Study the brain for clues. The human brain contains 100 billion neurons. That's 100 billion machines acting semi-autonomously, receiving signals from thousands of other machines every second. And yet there is an emergent effect of thought and intelligence
• Computer beats human at the game of Jeopardy by employing massive numbers of examples, not elegant rules

And so on... Yes, the brain is a machine. We don't understand it yet, that's why it appears magical and unbeatable to us. For now.

We can handle the truth

The FDA has been attempting to censor an individual's right to know our own genes, by shutting down access to personal genetic testing.

Thomas Goetz, who is just as outraged as I am, writes: "The controversy here rests on a single assumption: That the typical ... American isn't prepared to learn about their DNA ... We can't handle the truth."

Fortunately, Scripps has recently offered supporting evidence for those who oppose such government overreaching.

In any case, there is a face-saving alternative for the FDA, which is to partition the two activities (offering genetic testing services, and making scientific claims on genetic variants).  Perhaps no single entity or private company should do both.  But don't take away our right to know our own genes, under the guise of consumer protection.

Genetics and social networks

A new study finds that people tend to "friend" others who have similar or complementary genes:

Researchers from the University of California, San Diego found that gene clusters were comparable among friends, even after accounting for the predisposition to befriend others in the same geographic area.

"It does blur the line between nature and nurture, that's for sure," said study author James Fowler, a professor of medical genetics and political science. "We show in this paper that our environments, in part, are based on the genes of our friends. What the study brings to light is that genes of other people are part of what affects our environment."

The team was surprised to find that individuals also tend to befriend those with opposite but complementary traits. People who carried a gene known as CYP2A6, which is associated with an open personality, tended to form friendships with others who lacked that genotype.  [In other words, innate leaders tend to befriend innate followers.]