__The point is that we can change BOTH genes and brain structure, so running around in circles about how one limits the other.__

But then if you say 'it's still genetic determinism because it's still genes in the driving seat', then what determined the decision to change those genes?

And what determined the decision to decide that? And what social structures determined and influenced this?

**Remember, I can always make you a part of this: something that you did influenced such decisions. It changed the economy in a certain way, even if it was a miniscule way. It changes the superstructure, it changes culture too. I brought up the 'Butterfly effect' for this reason.**

It's the 'infinite studies' argument again. You need to prove that YOU are also biologically-determined.

'Biology changes biology into new biology' is not a valid argument because now there is a new kind of motion involved. That new biology cannot be described using the same models that would work for the old biology, and nor can the process of transformation between those biologies.

__We already have tools in the biological sciences to deal with this, but there is something which cannot be dealt with using biological models: *human thought and memory*, i.e. HISTORY.__

**This dimension is something which you completely fail to mention anything about because it's just not part of your fixation.**

```I never talked about reductism other then the times you brought it up , You are creating strawmen.
```

Another big dodge.

**That you didn't talk about it doesn't matter because it is precisely your position.**

```If i am the punching bag, then why are you getting baited so much, also this puching bag keeps giving you knock downs that cause massive amnesia in you
```

***Backpedal!***

Wtf is happening

An American junkie is screeching and I'm here to laugh at him.

***>you fall for non-bait
>you're getting baited
>OH BY THE WAY LEMME PING YOU HAHA PLS GIB ATTENTION***

```Where did i take such a postion ? i would ask if you imply much, but i already know that awnser :smile:
```

Your very selective screenshot implies that you dodged the bits underneath that.

```You used me taking kratom as a means of slander, clearly the paragraps of ad hominem assaults on charcter indicates your hypocitism. One side you slander me for taking some alkaloids that have a enhancing effect, the other side you claim you dont hate the use of pscycoactive substances.```

They don't have an enhancing effect at high doses, *which is why I asked you how much you took*. Yet another dodge.

```i never dodged this, I proclaimed that you were silly in the head to think that past facts are not relevant because of the chenging future. Your argument here is, you dont know what happens in the futuire, so you cant look at the past its facts.
You dodge whole decades long studies with this notion. And again igoring the gathered results of them, because theer are potential infinite studies. In which you "assume" that they would say something completly differnt
Saying theer are infinite studies in the future doesnt disputes facts of to day bud :smile:
```

***Big fucking straw man.***

My argument is not simply Hume's principle of induction. ***__It's about one's own inclusion in the world that they describe.__***

If you say that you are determined by something, then you have to prove it. If you said 'I can be completely described using biological model X', then even by thinking that, you've added to your own history, which the same biological model cannot describe.

You, thinking at the present moment, are not what you were before you thought of what you're thinking.

***Just by __thinking__, you have changed in a way which cannot be modelled using the science of biology since biological models EXPLICITLY do not deal with human thoughts themselves!***

Amerimutts bro

So it's not that 'we don't know what's gonna happen in future', it's that a generalised determinism cannot even deal with the present.

It follows that no amount of studies which say 'hurr genes and biological processes make people do this' can capture this present moment.

***It's neither DID nor Hume's induction principle. __IT'S LACAN'S SPLIT SUBJECT.__***

```So yes, you got the idea to start talking about biological reductiobnsm becaus eyou read this on the wiki :smile: like i daid and predicted```

Of course I got the idea from the page, but that does not mean that I'm wrong.

```Where did i said that it "completly"described everything? Again a assumtion that you build your strawmen on.
```

Your only get-out clause was that 'biology' and 'environment' affect each other.

But ignoring this, **you need biological determinism to fully describe human action so that you can justify your politics**. You claim that 'classes are inevitable', which is part of a more general claim that there is no universality between people that can concretely exist, hence you go on to say that there will always be irreconcilable differences between people and there will always be the need to enforce sustained compromises using the sort of violent means that only a state can provide. Your 'ethnic' take on 'Communism' requires this biological determinism and reductionism to be justified in any way beyond being something temporary.

***You seem to misunderstand that biological models don't ultimately give a shit about human thought, motivations and philosophies even if they try to explain their developments in some way.***

**For example, it is possible to understand movements like anti-racism to a great extent through a biological lens, but not the theory which stands behind anti-racism.**

***If we are able to control biology, then there is no ultimate need for ethnic separation. My focus is not on the fact that human bodies and brains are controlled by biological structures and processes such as genes and hormonal secretions, but on the fact that we are able to cultivate and control these.***

```As for the other clauses, they are still genetic workings (again you got this from the wiki ) just because you have polygentics that influances other genetics doesnt makes it less determinsim.
The wiki that you got your argument from is simply using teh "we dont know how these biological aspacts work" As biological reduction isnt a thing..
Which is a falacy because that argument rests on biological determinism being effected by more then on alle.
Try to steal argumentation that actauly hold up bruh :smile:```