'Identity'-&-Identification

[John Dailey]

Bob_Mac: (See? I DID finally get to it!)

~ This is picking up from your comments/queries in V. Pross' "QM" thread. THERE, you say...

post #19-

[1] I have a hard time understanding how the law of identity has any real meaning at all. [2] Since there is no restriction on what something could be, there is nothing that something cannot be - know what I mean. [3] If something can be anything other than what it's not, then I don't see how that's any different than saying "Something can be anything" and I get no meaning out of it.

~ I'll take your [2] and [3] statements as explanations for your [1] statement.

~ I'll start with your [2] statement: no, unfortunately, I don't know what you mean. Apart from the fact that there ARE 'restrictions' on what something could be, given what it already is, I think that one must be terminologically careful in trying to even talk about this subject. "Something" is not the same as "anything", and neither one is acontextually synonomous with "everything." --- Now, re 'no restrictions', you might be attempting to mean that 'any' conceivable existent (yet undiscovered/identified) could exist, like, oh, a pegasus. Um-m-m, nope. "A is A" doesn't really imply that. True, "A pegasus is a pegasus" as much as "A square-circle is a square-circle." THIS is not what "A is A" is all about: replacing 'A' with any random meaningless (or supposedly'meaningful') term regardless whether or not the term has an actual referent or not.

~ As you put it though, it sounds like you interpret it as some new Identification of a sensorially 'empirical' fact ("The car is purple"), rather than an Identification of an INDUCTION ("Light is an electromagnetic wave" [yes, LATER empirically verified]). --- I STRESS the term "Identification" here. That's what "A is A" is...supposed to be...all about. If one hasn't IDENTIFIED it's applicability to all known (and, ergo, yet-to-be-discovered) existents, but merely sees it as a meaning-lacked or informationally-empty 'statement,' (as, say "ALL S is P" or "If P then Q" or "Not-some S is then no-Q") then, I don't know what else to say...other than maybe one should re-think what one 'means' by "statement"/"proposition" as opposed to 'empty' formalistic presentations of such.

~ The 'law of identity's corollary "A is NOT non-A" (and one 1st has to establish that "A Negation IS a negation" derived from, guess what?) explicates the metaphysical restrictions on an existent (presently identified, OR yet-to-be-discovered/identified) A-N-D the epistemological manner of Identifying them; any-and-all 'things' (actual, not merely conceivable) are thence to be regarded as NOT being what they are not. A car is not a truck, a syllogism is not 'faith', an induction is not an 'empirical' observation, cats do not have baby elephants, horses do not fly, and alien-sentients, if existing, do not use a fundamentally 'different' logic than we do, a tautological definition of a 'tautology' is not a rationally valid empirical description of the 'meaning' of an abstract induction; the law-of-identity is not a mere 'empty' (can one say 'floating'?) abstraction using a mere concrete propositional-form for merely repeating (as in 'tautology') alphabet letters. What it is, in short, is a way to mentally stay clear about what one's talking/THINKING about...and...what one's not. To ignore it, or it's 'meaning', is to produce confused mental activity...and confusedly label such as 'thoughts.' Self-enclosed, reality-meaningless, 'tautological'...thoughts.

~ Re this epistemological 'law's other corollary "Either A or not-A": this seems irrelevent to this discussion, hence, I'll not get into it; clearly, it can be a thread all on its own.

~ A last thought on the carelessly-interpreted 'meaning'-lack of the (lest we forget was intendedly implied) induced (which, clearly, others HAVEN'T) abstraction "A is A": think about the mathematically-deduced (I'll not get into the induction relevent to the basic concepts which start the base of the logic chain) equation "E=mc2." All said and done, does THAT statement REALLY have any 'meaning' to a non-physicist? Sure don't to me. Oh, yes, I can consider it as an 'acronym' and rattle off "Oh, well, it 'means' that Energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light." Uh, yeah, that's really full of 'meaning' to me; about as much as the 'meaning' of the speed-of-light...being 'squared!' Might's well talk about the 'meaning' of i. --- No 'abstraction' has any personally-understood 'meaning' to one who sees no connection-to-it from what their own 'personal' knowledge base is. At best, it has a rationalistic 'meaning' to most who think they 'know' what it 'means'; actually, no derogatoriness re 'rationalistic' intended there; most mathematical frontiers require such a thinking-style; it-has-it's-place...to-a-point. B-u-t, at some point, one has to come back to earth for the 'meaning' to be REAL rather than be left 'ethereal'.

~ Anyhoo, contrarily to my point about us general populace re understanding the 'meanings' of the ilk of 'E=mc2', one of Rand's points about "A is A" is that it's accessible...in 'meaning'...to all who are rational about their own environment. It is 'deep', but, it's neither merely mathematically, nor even psychologically, all that 'esoteric.' It applies to all things in terms of their having some kind of 'Identity'...and to all Identifiers concerned with rationally Identifying Identifications of any Identity of any 'thing', whether sensorially or mentally, perceptually or conceptually, concretely or abstractly. One makes the effort to make the varied level Induction Identifications of the Identity of the thing(s), and clarifies it into a 'statement', or, one misses it; others, upon hearing/reading the 'statement' recognize it for what it is, or, one just sees nothing more than an abstract-sounding alphabet-repeating, empirically-irrelevent set of ('meaningless'?) written symbols that, as to a parrot, 'mean' nothing; and criticize (not to be confused with 'questioning') it, just as meaninglessly.

~ As you phrased your statement [3], I'm really not clear on it, hence, have to let it go.

post #40

~ I'll not quote you here since it's summable in the following: you ask about the nature of any given existent/entity's "Identity", whether coffee mug, you 'Bob' (I'm tempted to ask "What About Bob?" [an old Bill Murray flick]...but I shan't), 'beaming' on the Starship ENTERPRISE, etc.

~ Definitely a question on "Identity" far, far, different from Rand's "A is A" epistemologically-'Identifying' LAW.

~ In a later post, MBM takes up this post of yours (in his post #113) where he refers to another forum that discussed an un-named, but very famous ship: Theseus' Ship. If you wish to check out some historical 'deep' thinkers' thoughts re this Heraclitean-oriented prob of "Identity" (relationship of 'change' with 'identity'), check out (otherwise known as Wikipedia)...

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Theseus's+Ship

~ Many ancients and contemporaries have worked (and disagree with each other) on this prob of yours. This prob you bring up, btw, *I*'ve always found...hell...'fascinating.'

~ *My* take on it is: mainly, it's not a prob of 'Identity' per se (as such would be in 'beaming' [which I'll discuss next], however similar they seem), so much as one's having a solid and set standard for 'Identification', to distinguish one-entity(identity)-from-another; ie, clarifying 'distinctions'...even if only in terms of 'past-present' continuity. Robert Nozick brings this aspect up in Possible Explanations re one's 'history' (akin, strangely, to Relativity's idea of a Space-Time 'Line') as a source-'meaning' in speaking of "Identity"; Identifying (my word, not his) 'X'-with-it's-changes according to its history. I'll not continue with Theseus' Ship here, but, elsewhere, if you wish. I'll merely caveat that if the (ahem!) "2" supposedly-'different' ships cannot be considered autonomously functional, and, if Theseus is going to be using the ship(s?), they are one and the same (Think Venus, re 'morning star' and 'evening star'; "2" apparently 'different' things). Here, I'm using 'autonomous' and 'functional' as an "Identifying" criteria for "Identity." Other criteria may be rationally necessary in other situations/contexts! --- I'll not get into "If one ADDS a shelf to Theseus' ship, is it STILL the 'same' ship?" Such requires a clear definition of 'same'...a-n-d, one's criteria re trivial-vs-substantial 'differences.'

~ As a side, but related consideration: just exactly how, and 'why' does one regard two billard cue-balls 'identical'...yet...'different'?

_______________________________________________________________________________

~ "Beaming." Oh, boy!

~ I hate to say it, but, I really gotta go with Bones' attitude on this. Being 'fragmentized' is for the birds. Can one say 'destroyed', as in 'killed'? Let me prelude 1st.

~ A while ago, a short novella was written called The Fly. (Google it.) Then, the movie was made; quite good for it's time, (but the 'sequels' were only what a 6yr-old could appreciate.) Of course yrs later the 'remake' was done (not bad, I might add; its own sequel interesting as well with it's Trumanesque plot line.) The idea of course was of a matter-transmitter (and receiver) that atomistically-fragmentized any 'entity' within to its constituent atomic elements, then sent them to the receiver (you must know how the story went: a fly snuck in there and fouled up the transmission) to be 're-assembled.' --- Around this time-period, Alfred Bester, a noted sci-fi author of the time wrote The Stars My Destination where a character ('new-human' mutant) could do this, called 'jumping', (akin to Nightcrawler in X2) just by mental power: 'disappear' here, 'appear' there, but, without needing a 'receiver'. Being able to move from A to B 'at the (minimum, though max was never discussed) speed-of-light' is what it all amounted to.

~ Then, Star Trek showed up (1st series called TOS nowadays:TheOriginalSeries [Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura {humma!} etc.]) with its budget-concerned cost-effective idea of not showing ships landing and taking off planet-to-planet, but instead...'beaming' all concerned from the ship to the planet. Same idea as The Fly, but in terms of techno-'jumping'. Later, ST-TNG started indulging in what everyone then called 'Technobabble' (I think we can see some descendants of this way of 'explaining' in some "O'ist"-newbies, in some blog/forums...ahem) where a pseudo-sounding 'explanation' was given re some scientifically-radical-appearing new situation the crews found themselves in. Hey, it wasn't all totally 'pseudo.' The writers often tried to stay up on present-day (of then) science's 'frontier' thoughts and speculations and did a fair-to-good job in working them into the 'Technobabble' explanations. Certainly good enough for Stephen Hawking to cameo in a poker game or 2 with the main crew (Some actors really ARE lucky!). Anyhoo, the 'transporters' did the same as the matter-transmitter/receiver, except the 'receiver' was not needed (as in Bester's 'jumping'); only spatial-coordinates relative to the transmitter (Transporter-Room) were needed, for 'sending' AND 'receiving', and, of course, 'range' became a plot factor in some stories.

~ Ntl, and here is the 'prob': the explanation about the 'person' (not to be confused with the mere physical body) was said to be that the ship's computer kept an on-going psyche-monitoring of all personnel and thereby sent the 'pattern' (copy?) to the transmission-location. Hence, *you* are fragmentized (bodily destroyed) 'here,' and, are totally re-assembled 'there'...soul and all. --- 'Rationally'-based believability? Um-m-m...nope. Fahgedaboudit. (And, *I*'m an ST fan; indeed, with no shame, I admit that I'm a 'Trekker'! --- Just don't confuse us 'Trekkers' with those fanatical 'Trekkies', ok? We're in different galaxies...let's get that straight!)

~ Anyways they never explained why, if your 'psyche-pattern' is sent, the atoms comprising your body always have to be fragmentized (body destroyed...'here' anyways). They ALWAYS do? Suppose there's an abundant supply 'down there' of all atoms/elements in your body and just your psyche 'patterns' were sent? Ergo, *you*, at the transporter wouldn't have to be fragmentized? Now one could have not only a physical clone, elsewhere, but a psychological one as well. This would raise a new prob re 'Identity:' Which is the 'Real' one? (Not to mention how to tell 'the Original'). But, ST-TNG never got into that.

~ Strangely, however, TOS itself did get into that, sorta. There was a story (forget the name) where Spock got transported back to the ship, in an opening sequence. After he and all left the transporter room...he arrived...again. (Don't ask where the 'extra' atoms came from; I assume there was an emergency cache of atoms for such...glitches.) Anyhoo, now there are 2 Spocks; you can guess the complications THAT gave, especially when each argued that they were the 'Real' one (Nm who arrived 1st!) The plot itself was oriented elsewhere, but, that this very idea of 'Identity' was made use of and debated within the script was...(ok; hit me) 'Fascinating.'

~ Well, as a 'gedankanexperiment', such ideas are quite thought-provoking (like Al's 'riding-a-light-beam'). But, like Time-Travel (because of the consideration ignored/evaded re killing one's grandfather in all stories I've read [but for 1 Heinlein short story that made this concern, and a continuing 'future' of the time-loop-closed protagonist, irrelevent]), I consider 'beaming' not to be Science-'Fiction' but Science (supposedly)-Fantasy. To accept the idea of 'beaming' as rationally 'potentially'-Possible (no, not a redundancy), one should quote HAL-9000: "I'm sorry Dave. I can't do that." --- NevaHappen. Not with 'living' subjects (even plants) that have internal physical (nm 'mental) dynamics constantly changing every nano-second. (How long to fragmentize the totality of an 'existent'?) --- Besides, to 'transmit' a mental state is like 'transmitting' a physiological one; physiology is not 'static', like a corpse's femur, nor, 'atomizable' to begin with (let's not get into 'brain-state' identification of mind, puh-leeze). The atom-transmission, sure. Maybe one could, someday, 'beam' a rock, or statue (the latter's been done, actually...sorta...'pattern'-wise, with all 'atoms' available at the receiver) or corpse. But, living matter with any of it's simple internal dynamics and most especially it's constantly-changing 'system'-dynamics? Nope. Too many complicated changings for any 'immediate' 'computer'-identification-cum-transference idea to be rationally believable. --- Ergo, consideration of this idea is a moot point in analyzing the nature of 'Identity.'

~ The more relevent idea to contend with is: CLONES. But, I'll leave that for others to bring up.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: (Can't get away from 'em) re 'atoms' etc comprising one's 'Identity': such is a trivial consideration for the subject. A thing's (or person's) Identity is in what is 'fundamental' to what, or who, they are. A person's hair color (or...other things...if I may add) is as irrelevent to their metaphysical identity as which atom is where in their body at any given moment. Same goes for a re-painted truck or a larva-become-butterfly which is no longer a larva, but is still the 'same' insect. The only time atomic structure is relevent is where it's 'fundamental' to its identification...such as the elements. The only time 'hair-color' is relevent in defining is in hair-color groupings (as in The Breck Girl...or...you know, those non-PC jokes about some dumb...) The trick is in Identifying ('defining') according to context...and I gave mine for Theseus' ship, having nothing to do with structure, gross or atomic.

P.P.S: Bottom line, what I'm trying to get across is that to talk about 'Identity' 1st REQUIRES that one clearly explicate (to one's self) one's methodology of 'Identification.' Ontology-analysis is an Ourobourous-senselessness without an Epistemologically-accepted (and rationally-justifiable) base. --- One does not need an ontology/metaphysics base to justify rationality. One merely has to see rationality as to being useable in seeing a life-workable metaphysics/ontology.

P.P.P.S. OK, can't stop this...addiction. Upon checking back and seeing no responses...yet...had to 'add' some stuff. SO, any commenters that may add to this thread criticizing anything, I suggest one re-read my post.

Edited October 6, 2006 by John Dailey

[heusdens]

If a fish is a fish and never begets anything but a fish...... how come we are here????

There ARE no fixed entities or identities in nature, that is an idea contrary to ALL of science!

A 'fixed' identity which is immutable, is an invention of subjective mind, but is not a real intrinsic aspect of the objective material world.

A body in free fall does not move according to it's identity, but according to the metric of spacetime.

Quantum entanglement also shows that the outcomes of such experiments CAN NOT be based on some local hidden variable theory (which assumes a 'fixed' identity for such local particles).

Nature intrinsically does not have an objective form of identity. It all takes place in the mind and is subjective.

Edited March 2, 2007 by heusdens

[Darrell Hougen]

Nature intrinsically does not have an objective form of identity. It all takes place in the mind and is subjective.

So, everything is the same as everything else?

Darrell

[John Dailey]

heus:

~ I don't know why I'm bothering to ask this of you (I'll probably kick myself after I 'send'), but...

which subjectivistic-view of 'Nature' are you talking about within whose subjectivistically-oriented 'mind'?

LLAP

J:D

(kick-kick-kick-kick)

Edited March 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

heusdens,

Let me add to the comments. I have the impression that you do not understand the contextual nature of knowledge as presented in Objectivism. Your objections seem to be more in trying to impose epistemology on metaphysics.

I do agree that there can be no knowledge without the knower. But there are facts without the knower. The things that exist are absolute, regardless of what they are called. Knowledge of them is not, except within a certain context (at one point in time, within a specific situation, from a specific viewpoint, and according to a specific backlog of previous knowledge). Facts are absolute. Knowledge is relative.

Part of the absolute nature of things is to exist in time and change form in specific manners, so mentioning these attributes is not really an argument against their existence. Absolute does not mean that something is frozen in time and unchanging.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ I think that Darrell has little basic knowledge about O'ism's view of the relationship 'twixt metaphysics and epistemology: epistemology is the starting point with the question "HOW do I know What I *know* (about epistemology/knowledge AND the basics of the world-affecting-me [metaphysics]), which may be, somehow, 'knowable'?"

~ Hate to say it, but, I see Darrell's continually provocative 'questions' as...not really improving a discussion so much as debating-for-debating's-sake...and I don't mean as a mere Devil's Advocate. Either that or...he needs to either read more Rand...or...'digest' what he's read before his next 'pronouncement' about subjectivism being inherently within objectivity-oriented...'stuff'.

LLAP

J:D

Edited March 11, 2007 by John Dailey

[BaalChatzaf]

If a fish is a fish and never begets anything but a fish...... how come we are here????

Accumulate enough variations and you have a new species. Like does not always beget like. Like sometimes begets something slightly different.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

If a fish is a fish and never begets anything but a fish...... how come we are here????

Accumulate enough variations and you have a new species. Like does not always beget like. Like sometimes begets something slightly different.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My father was the keeper of the Eddystone Light!

He slept with a mermaid one fine night!

From this union there came three,

A porpoise, a porgie

And the other was me!

Yo, ho, ho--

The wind blows free,

Oh for a life on the roiling sea!

--Brnat

Edited September 12, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[John Dailey]

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER' Dept:

Darrell:

~ My comment about *you* was really meant for/about huesdens. Mixed up your last name -Hougen- with his (don't ask how; probably my glass[es]). Sorry.

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

If a fish is a fish and never begets anything but a fish...... how come we are here????

There ARE no fixed entities or identities in nature, that is an idea contrary to ALL of science!

A 'fixed' identity which is immutable, is an invention of subjective mind, but is not a real intrinsic aspect of the objective material world.

A body in free fall does not move according to it's identity, but according to the metric of spacetime.

Quantum entanglement also shows that the outcomes of such experiments CAN NOT be based on some local hidden variable theory (which assumes a 'fixed' identity for such local particles).

Nature intrinsically does not have an objective form of identity. It all takes place in the mind and is subjective.

But Nature does have its symmetries and its associated conserved quantities and invariants. This is how one can account for a changeable Herikletian River. The population of water molecules change but the symmetries stay put. This has been of the the Original and Still Unsolved problems of philosophy. The problem of the Many and the One. The problem of the Changeable and the Constant. It has been kicking around for at least 3000 years and there still is no final resolution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Yes. Even Neo had that prob with Mr. Smith. --- If we go by Feynman, we already have that prob with electrons (ergo, Ishtar knows what else.)

~ Maybe (to get a bit Zen-ish) 'The Many' IS 'The One'? --- However, that still leaves the question of the converse (or is it obverse? No, 'converse', definitely...I think...um, reverse that...no, wait...umm).

~ Will we (or our descendents) ever know?

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal:

~ Yes. Even Neo had that prob with Mr. Smith. --- If we go by Feynman, we already have that prob with electrons (ergo, Ishtar knows what else.)

~ Maybe (to get a bit Zen-ish) 'The Many' IS 'The One'? --- However, that still leaves the question of the converse (or is it obverse? No, 'converse', definitely...I think...um, reverse that...no, wait...umm).

~ Will we (or our descendents) ever know?

LLAP

J:D

Don't bet on it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

Re the 'fish' question:

~ Akin to what Baal says, and, I think relatable to Orwell's THE ANIMAL FARM where George points out how leaders (for him, Communism; for me, any Politik) think that "Some are more equal than others", not all fish are...identical clones. --- Some fish are more 'fish' than others; yes, this does sound fishy, but, one must agree that even in 'Kinds' there are degrees of such. I mean, look over a platypus.

~ Now, as to the presumably ignorable 'others', well...How'd that Italian saying (in English) go? "Thingsa Changa."

~ As far as those fish (or chickens or eggs) go, we are the X-MEN! --- Question is: can 'we' live up to the idea's potential?

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 10, 2007 by John Dailey

[UncleJim]

If a fish is a fish and never begets anything but a fish...... how come we are here????

There ARE no fixed entities or identities in nature, that is an idea contrary to ALL of science!

A 'fixed' identity which is immutable, is an invention of subjective mind, but is not a real intrinsic aspect of the objective material world.

A body in free fall does not move according to it's identity, but according to the metric of spacetime.

Quantum entanglement also shows that the outcomes of such experiments CAN NOT be based on some local hidden variable theory (which assumes a 'fixed' identity for such local particles).

Nature intrinsically does not have an objective form of identity. It all takes place in the mind and is subjective.

But Nature does have its symmetries and its associated conserved quantities and invariants. This is how one can account for a changeable Herikletian River. The population of water molecules change but the symmetries stay put. This has been of the the Original and Still Unsolved problems of philosophy. The problem of the Many and the One. The problem of the Changeable and the Constant. It has been kicking around for at least 3000 years and there still is no final resolution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't see the problem.

The purpose of philosophy is not to make the truth but to describe what it is.

[Brant Gaede]

If a fish is a fish and never begets anything but a fish...... how come we are here????

There ARE no fixed entities or identities in nature, that is an idea contrary to ALL of science!

A 'fixed' identity which is immutable, is an invention of subjective mind, but is not a real intrinsic aspect of the objective material world.

A body in free fall does not move according to it's identity, but according to the metric of spacetime.

Quantum entanglement also shows that the outcomes of such experiments CAN NOT be based on some local hidden variable theory (which assumes a 'fixed' identity for such local particles).

Nature intrinsically does not have an objective form of identity. It all takes place in the mind and is subjective.

But Nature does have its symmetries and its associated conserved quantities and invariants. This is how one can account for a changeable Herikletian River. The population of water molecules change but the symmetries stay put. This has been of the the Original and Still Unsolved problems of philosophy. The problem of the Many and the One. The problem of the Changeable and the Constant. It has been kicking around for at least 3000 years and there still is no final resolution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't see the problem.

The purpose of philosophy is not to make the truth but to describe what it is.

Then what use do we have for philosophy but for a philosophy of science only? This is bullshit! Man makes things but he also makes himself!

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Then what use do we have for philosophy but for a philosophy of science only? This is bullshit! Man makes things but he also makes himself!

--Brant

Not so. Humans cannot arbitrarily alter their genome.

Man wishes. Nature determines.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Then what use do we have for philosophy but for a philosophy of science only? This is bullshit! Man makes things but he also makes himself!

--Brant

Not so. Humans cannot arbitrarily alter their genome.

Man wishes. Nature determines.

I'm referring to mental processes and their consequences on one's philosophy and psychology combo--in a human being the two are experienced and expressed as one. That's why Objectivist ethics aren't enough even to the extent they are correct. You cannot pull philosophy out of yourself and replace it with another as if you were changing computer chips. Effective cognitive psychotherapy requires altered states of consciousness. You cannot just think your way into a better place or better personhood. Someone lecturing you won't work either. You can alter your behavior and achieve beneficial results over time, but they will tend to be generally unsatisfactory--not enough.

However, technology seems to be opening the door to a kind of self-evolution and humans may soon be sticking things into themselves to make them more intelligent, for instance. This has nothing to do with altering the genome.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

However, technology seems to be opening the door to a kind of self-evolution and humans may soon be sticking things into themselves to make them more intelligent, for instance. This has nothing to do with altering the genome.

--Brant

That might be so. Still it is an alteration from what we are naturally to what we ain't naturally.

I suppose we may change ourselves by becoming bionic. Even so, the changes are still constrained by physical laws. That we can't change.

Man Wishes. Nature Determines.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

I'm convinced that environmental conditions can somehow result in changes to the DNA structure but I have no idea idea what the mechanism is. It just seems to me that a 2-way relationship must exist between genes and environment.

[Dragonfly]

I'm convinced that environmental conditions can somehow result in changes to the DNA structure but I have no idea idea what the mechanism is. It just seems to me that a 2-way relationship must exist between genes and environment.

The environment can induce changes in the DNA in the form of random mutations, e.g. by energetic radiation or certain chemical reactions. In most cases this will not result in an improvement of the living being. But if some mutation happens to be beneficial, this may result in a better chance of survival of that particular gene while the organism with that gene is better adapted to its environment. Hey, we just discovered evolution! So the direct influence of the environment on the DNA is only random, but the DNA may change in the course of many generations in a way that gives a better adaptation to that environment, so you could say that it has an indirect adaptive influence on the DNA in the long term, thanks to the random influence and the selection pressure.

[tjohnson]

I'm thinking along the lines that after several generations of musicians, like the Bach family, could result in changes in genetic structure so that offspring would be "musical" at birth. Not sure if that is what you mean.

[Dragonfly]

I'm thinking along the lines that after several generations of musicians, like the Bach family, could result in changes in genetic structure so that offspring would be "musical" at birth. Not sure if that is what you mean.

No, that's not possible, that would be Lamarckism. Studying and playing music doesn't create more musical genes.

[UncleJim]

I'm thinking along the lines that after several generations of musicians, like the Bach family, could result in changes in genetic structure so that offspring would be "musical" at birth. Not sure if that is what you mean.

No, that's not possible, that would be Lamarckism. Studying and playing music doesn't create more musical genes.

That can't be true.

Experiences do alter generic structure. This is the basic principle underlying evolutionary change.

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm thinking along the lines that after several generations of musicians, like the Bach family, could result in changes in genetic structure so that offspring would be "musical" at birth. Not sure if that is what you mean.

No, that's not possible, that would be Lamarckism. Studying and playing music doesn't create more musical genes.

That can't be true.

Experiences do alter generic structure. This is the basic principle underlying evolutionary change.

Only changes to the DNA of the eggs an sperm cells count. Future generations "know" nothing of what changes to somatic DNA have occurred.

Ba'al Chatzaf