*I dislike and disagree with the propensity, in many disciplines, to explain away human behaviour as ancient baggage*

Well forgive me Squeers, but the above was good enough for me,
to assume that you understimate the power of genetics! The
Tabula Raza theory was so much the "in thing" in the psychology
and philosophy departments, some years ago.

*our intellectual efforts translate and rationalise rather than explain nature, behaviour etc?*

I would certainly disagree with that. Neuroscience has opened up
a huge can of worms, which basically shows how much those primordial
parts of the brain matter, even if we are not aware of it.

The explantions are becoming more and more meaningful, the more
we learn. Free will, as many imagine it, is not so free at all.

there is a tendency in both religion and ideology to make humans different from other animals and not recognise our shared heritage with the rest of the animal kingdom. In the monotheistic religions humans between god and the rest of creation. Some ideologies promise that changing society can produce a new man - that we are basically plastic and can be changed in nature.

Our bodies show what we are. Predators such as the eagle and the tiger have binocular vision. their eyes can focus on a prey. Doves and rabbits have eyes on each side of their head so they can look in all directions for a possible attacker. We are predators. the wiring of our brains is not visible as is our phenotype, but we are wiring for particular behaviour.

Within limits we can change our behaviour but only within limits.

we can sepperate 'twins' as much as we like
[ignoring their rights to know what they are]
[who comes up with these things]

but try as you migght..they had the same conditions
till their joint emergance into divergent realities

se the thing is genes need stimulous to switch on
the same stimuli will stimulte the same reaction

its said big noses and long fingers
indicate stess has turned on certain genes

i speculate the mutilation of boys at the 8 day stage
of their being ..also turns on cetain genes..

we are not so much ruled by genes..as much as limited in our action[or rather reaction]..that stimulates them ..*into affect..[or non affect..according as to lifes events[for good or ill each has their fruits]

its said we are like the beasts
only as much as..the same god created us all
we and the beasts are moderated by our limitations
was can only be what our genetic inheritance..allows us to be

yet we are still more than genes
to think genes is to stop thinking
to feel all is explained..

but yet if you dont know fully why
/how the genes do their thing..you got nothing

just like any simple answer
the truth is far more complex
than any would chose it to be..had one a choice

but we dont have that chosing
one size dont fit all

if you think you got the only answer's
chances are you dont got the right question's

i refuse to be sure
even on that...

i just know that which i personally know
and dare not guess on how much i never can know

i got enough troubles with that
i do know true..to bother about rebutting that i know to be faulse..we may claim to have an instinct..to 'create[invent/imaginate or delude]

but creation is beyond instinct
if it cant be made real
its all in ya mind

Forgive "me", Yabby, but I believe I have a more up to date understanding of the topic and its relations than you do.
I stand by my comment above: "I dislike and disagree with the propensity, in many disciplines, to explain away human behaviour as ancient baggage. It's such a convenient rationale, with no empirical evidence to back it up; it's just so damned intuitive it must be right.. Wrong!"
Considering science is so proud of its analytic method, it's rather a glaring and a priori leap of faith to automatically assign human behaviour to entirely material causes. Of course according to the lights of our day, we "automatically" rule out quasi or even meta physical possibilities, or at least we dismiss them as religious hangovers or wishful thinking. The physical reality we put such faith in, after all, is mere finite "form".
I'd remind you too, David, that Humanism is itself an anthropocentric and hubristic doctrine.
The fact is that after decades of trying, scientists still can't explain the mind-body problem in purely materialistic terms, and now in their desperation they are turning to more exotic, actually archaic, possibilities--pre-eminently, dualisms.
I don't often read analytic philosophers--a forbidding breed that for my money puts too much faith in the ability both to infer and transcribe their findings.
But as I say, they're learning modesty.
I'm currently reading "The Waning of Materialism", whose 23 eminent authors explore other possibilities. One offers "emergent dualism, which affirms that a mental 'substance' emerges, under suitable conditions, from a functioning brain and nervous system" as the explanation "for the role of the physical organism in generating consciousness, as well as the distinctively 'mental' character of consciousness".
Another even has an explanation for human transcendental consciousness contra other animals. Another says other animals too project this sort of ectoplasmic consciousness. Another actually revisits Thomism and defends Aquinas' proposition of a soul!
These are hard-bitten analytic philosophers mind you! The fact is, they still haven't got beyond Kant.
I cleave to my ignorance.

*Considering science is so proud of its analytic method, it's rather a glaring and a priori leap of faith to automatically assign human behaviour to entirely material causes*

I think it makes perfect sense, Squeers. The world is full of dreamers.
The way that I understand it, its up to those people
to show evidence that their claims are more then dreams or flawed
thinking. The larger the claim, the more evidence required, fair
enough.

If there is another law of physics that we don't know about, so
show it and win the nobel prize.

But there are no ghosts in the machine and until somebody can
prove that there are, materialism is what we have.

One cannot prove a negative, its up to claimants to prove their
claims, not up to science to try to do so.

But don't expect to be taken seriously, until you do actually have
some evidence for your claims.

Yabby,

If you ever took the time to look beneath the surface, you'd realise that human experience is defined by more than conscious associations.

There is a bridge between the material world and its meaning to us. It is found in the patterns and harmonies that we instinctively recognise around us.

It's our perception that rules our lives.

Materiality is not a static notion, but one that transcends its solidity by imbuing our consciousness with symbols and geometry which in turn infuses our minds with meaning.

You can't separate the material world from the metaphysical meaning that we glean from it.