it is teh nature of ppl

But honestly, what is your diagnoses.

some one sane would not keep this up so long

Which is the same thing as 'the nature of people', no?

i guess you could say that

but when you say of ppl

you generalize

The 'nature of people' would necessitate a given political system, would it not?

when the "ppl" who do the social engineering are but a few

so you are streching it

But they are still people.

sure

with different biological systems then other ppl who are also still ppl

But how is it causally owed to their biology?

If someone says that they're determined by their biology, then so must be the act of them saying that they're determined by their biology.

And the act of them recognising this act, too.

An infinite and paradoxical loop is created.

No biological basis upon which this paradoxical loop or anything like it depends has been isolated.

And it can never be isolated, because it's fundamentally different each time.

Our thoughts accelerate far ahead of our biology.

Biology is not fundamentally differnt each time

are you even ...

Do you know how genetics works

And I agree with you there. I'm saying that biology cannot keep up.

with markers and such being passed on to the offspring

resulting in simular offspring

No gene codes for the paradoxical loop.

That's why I said: "Our thoughts accelerate far ahead of our biology."

Yeah i dont know what you mean by that

you have to explain what your "idea" of of that is

It was all very clear. Thoughts explode into potential infinities, and they can be pushed infinitely further than manipulations of our genes can.

So there is no one-to-one correspondence between genes and thoughts.

In other words, no combinations of genes can be said to cause a certain thought.

This is an entirely different kind of thing. It exists, but it is not a thing which can be understood using biological models.

It's like 'aggression'. You can model something like it using biology, but only a set kind of 'aggression'. One can be 'cruel to be kind' or even 'kind to be cruel', for example.

Such an emotion or way of thinking cannot be wholly fitted into a biological model because it's too vague and too flexible.

You might be able to model brute-force 'aggression', yes, but what about the purposes of this aggression, the uses of such aggression and so on?

What if the most aggressive thing to do is to *not* be 'aggressive' in the usual ways?

Concepts by themselves run away and explode into many things. We must consciously understand what they were like at different times, either in our thoughts, or in terms of concrete history, or both of these.

We can then split these concepts up and differentiate between them. That old 'aggression' is not the same as the new 'aggression', for example.

We already have concepts to describe these kinds of aggression, from passive-aggression to pacifism - but if we didn't have those, we would have no way of appreciating differences between the stages of things which change over time.