An intelegence is in deed set and determinated by genetics

To which i already proved the statistical evidence

of the "past "

This is the pinicale. You are arguing against me whilst taking the same stance.
" I never said that because I never neglected the environment!'"

```When i clearly debunk your assumtion. I have said this numerous of times already. biology sets the potential, enviorment determinates if you reach it or not.```

I asked you if biological factors *cause* environmental factors. You replied "yes".

You are the one saying that the environmental changes are *entirely* owed to changes in biology and that biology is the main driving factor.

This is not just biological determinism but in fact *biological reductionism*, since you believe biology to be the fundamental determining factor.

So saying "Parrents have a influance on the child. So if their biology is bad the influance the child in a bad way. On top of this child having bad gentics" is not a get-out clause for you because you have already admitted to me that you believe that biology is what causes the 'environment' which the parents participate in and set up.

**My point is that this must stretch to include the actions of other people which enable the phenotype to express itself in the ways which it has done, and that 'other people' includes *you* - but at the moment that you try to prove the notion that you're determined by biological factors, you have already changed due to your self-reflective thinking about this.**

```its prety simple. yet you argue against sceince and statistical facts here
You dont even know that human is not a biological term but a poetic one```

Again, statistics don't reveal the whole picture (again, this is like using statistics to decide between epicycle theory and heliocentrism). All that you have shown is that correlations between biological factors exist, not that there is a *causal* mechanism which means that people act wholly in accordance with biological factors.

**Can you prove that Ptolemy, a key epicycles theorist, was wrong based in statistics alone?**

```you follow mainstream dogmas thinking evry one is human with out knowing the root meaing
```

Well, to be sure, 'human' *can* be used to mean *Homo sapiens sapiens*, but that's obviously not the focus here. It's not poetic but *philosophical*. I am talking about human subjectivity, which you seem so keen on neglecting to include your analysis.

**You talk about mainstream dogmas when in fact you're parroting a very major trend in philosophy: *the empiricist trend*.**

Empiricists argue that sense data (i.e. 'statistics') about the world is our primary if not our only source of knowledge about the world.

This is what you're doing when you say 'you're rejecting statistics and science'. You take the data to mean something in itself when it simply does not - there is no *moral* dimension which is inherently attached to data, for example.

You claim that we can know everything that we possibly can about ourselves entirely through statistics and 'science' alone, hence your biological determinism and reductionism.

**My argument - which you've been dodging the whole time - is that this must include you and your own actions.**

***The problem that you face is that __even if you picked up an infinite number of studies__ to show that you act in a certain way because your biology is at the very least setting the limits of what you can do, by doing this, you'd have something new to include: the very act of you thinking about performing that action and motioning to do so. There is a fundamental gap between what you've studied and what you are at the moment that you perform that study.***

__***Do you know how mainstream the empiricist dogma is? Have you even seen what the New Atheists and the Analytic vulgar materialists have been arguing for the last 50 years at the very least?***__

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Empiricism is quite diverse, yes - even encompassing traditions which deny that there is an objective reality outside our minds (idealism). But in the sciences, a vulgar materialism is dominant.

It is asserted that we can know about things which exist right now as we exist in them entirely through formalisations of them. This is seen in things like behavioural economics and sociobiology.

It also manifests itself in ideologies like ethical veganism, where it's asserted that since our social world is fundamentally similar to those of animal societies, we might as well raise animals to a similar ethical level as humans are placed upon.

It's even asserted that humans are acting in set ways completely independently of politics in things like neoclassical microeconomics (which is why some researchers have coined the term 'homo economicus' in reaction to this trend).

**In neuroscience, too, efforts are made to reduce psychological and thought-related processes to biological processes in the nervous system. The Global Workspace hypothesis, for starters, is an attempt to show that advanced neural nets and brain-like computers can be built without the need for any subjectivity whatsoever.**

```You are btw not human as you are so self absorebed trying to prove your that you are right when you dont have a single valid realistic point that even relates to a single thing. You are driven by this inner instictive rage. You are a biological being and a animal. I love how you made that argument earlier saying that homo sapien is not a animal.```

And what *is* a 'human' by your qualifications? 'Poetic term' by itself means nothing. Yes, I am a member of the species *Homo sapiens sapiens*. I am an animal insofar as I have parts of me which fit the criteria of behaving as 'animals' do as defined in biological sciences.

My point is that *so are you*, and hence you should be able to say that you are biologically determined too.

I never argued that humans or even *Homo sapiens sapiens* are not animals. Instead, we are not *just* that, and our subjectivities escape such a taxonomisation.

***Again, if you call yourself an animal, then you must be able to prove this. But at the moment that you say that all of your past and present actions can be accounted for by specific biological processes - regardless of whether or not you've proved this - you have already done something that you haven't done before which does not fit within the biological model that you've built.***

Of course I'm driven by rage and spite, but that's not just it. Why am I so angry? Why does my anger manifest itself in this way?

***But even if everything I did __was__ owed to biological factors, then biological factors are influencing themselves and changing themselves in ways which cannot be explained by looking at what they were once before. It follows that there is a new kind of movement which requires a different sort of model to fully understand.***

***__So even if 100% of my actions were owed to biological factors, the very fact that I am changing my own biology (even insofar as it means that I wind up having to gorge on drugs because some Big Pharma -sponsored doctor will put me in a hospital if I don't), then it means that there is something which cannot be explained by looking at my past biology which is going on.__***

```Like this line, in which you admit that your previous claims on biological reductism not being true are true , but false . Because it looks at the past and not at the current "neuroplastic " state
"Such quantifications can be warranted, but only insofar as they analyse the past, and in hindsight."
So if you look at the "plastic" state of it all it is not true what i say (your opinion) but in the past looking in hindsight it is true what i say .```

Notice the 'can be'. Not to say that *they are* of course, which is the stupid 'nuance' that you've driven out of the point.

You dodged the points on why you're wrong to even bring up IQ in the first place, of course.

***So I did not say that the quantifications in the studies and all the conclusions which you drew from those studies were definitely warranted. I could easily scream 'correlation is not causation', for starters. But I went much further than that, saying that only in hindsight can your just-so stories of how some biological processes made the environment this way ever make sense, and that this will always be the case no matter how many studies will bring up.***