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.

So we need to split these ideas open. It's like splitting 'fundamental' particles in a sense.

This is why I brought up the liar paradox.

The sentence 'this sentence is not true' contradicts itself and turns into something meaningless but only if we try to understand it as an unchanging thing.

**It is only absurd for those who have not yet grasped that the meaning of the sentence changes over time with each passing thought. When we look at how it contradicts itself, we find *two valid states* which, for a given moment, it can conform to: being true and being false.**

And there is also movement between being true and being false that we see in this picture.

This is closely linked to Hegel's dialectic: contradictory things are not just absurdities within a given system of thought, but they are things which necessitate a conscious division of the states between which they move - which implies that a new system of thought must be developed, often using pieces of the previous one.

**When applied to ourselves as people in general, it means that we cannot say that we are fundamentally determined by something which we can't ever be conscious of, because in our thoughts we can not only confront absurdities and meaningless things - dragging meaningful things out of them - but also, given the explosive paradox that I mentioned earlier, there's no way that we are static entities in any sense.**