juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Do you believe there is absolutely no affect of parental influence that cannot be reversed consciously?
Whoa…time out. That is not what I said, and I see you attempting to tag me with it repeatedly.
In what sense? Can we change the color of our hair or eyes? No, unless with hair dye or colored contact lenses, but that is temporary. The color of our hair and our eyes is genetic…it comes from our parents. However, even our genes do not determine our thoughts and behavior. There is a fantastic program done to answer this and related questions, done by PBS some years ago, it is called “Our Genes, Our Choices.” I highly recommend looking it up, last I checked it was still available about 6 months ago at the PBS online site.
Now, as to what extra-genetic influences our parents provide, I presume you are speaking of attitudes, prejudices, opinions, and general ways of thinking. I agree…when we are a young blank slate and effectively have no other source of input, then that parental programming serves as a master program from which we develop our character and personality, and to these things we will probably reference consciously or unconsciously for the rest of our lives. But you are speaking absolutes…as though every one of these foundational inputs is inviolable. That is simply not the case.
A person does not need to rewrite every parental program in order to exercise self-direction…they only need to have the *option* to rewrite even just one of those parental programs. Just one rewrite undoes the concept of absolute inviolable determinism. And it is frequent that a person will rebel against some of their parental programming at a later date once more input from other valued sources comes into play. I believe you mentioned teenage rebellion? That is one cultural expression of the self-directed challenge to the inviolability of the parental programming. By the time we are mature adults we have a library from which to draw and compare…and decide from and choose which to use to filter our character and personality (or ego and superego, if you prefer).
I speak English, and I've got an understanding of the logical basis for my argument.
Whew! For a bit there I was concerned I might not be qualified to speak to this matter…especially if a PhD / MD who was the head honcho for the Genome Mapping Project isn’t qualified to speak to issues concerning genetics and “deterministic” influence on thoughts and behavior. That is why I referenced him, so that his words could speak for themselves.
This isn't a courtroom and we aren't trying to establish the existence of something tangible. There can be no evidence presented in support of a logic-based philosophical assertion.
Then I guess your understanding of logic is different from mine. I understand the elemental syllogism to be [+a +b = +c; therefore –a +b does not = +c, and +a -b does not = +c]. Logic is not only a method to prove and validate an argument, it also provides a manner in which to invalidate it. Therefore a philosophical assertion, like any other assertion, should be able to be proven *and* disproven in order to rightly be called “logical.” In effect, all philosophical arguments attempting to assert a basis in logic must of necessity be tried in the court of public opinion. What is more, that trial demands evidence.
Otherwise that philosophy is not logical, is invalid and unsubstantiated, and effectively is no more than opinion, supposition, smoke and vapor and wishful thinking. Nothing more. Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but a simple look at a wiki on logic will support what I am saying.
As a concept understood and expressed by humans, yes. As an objective reality? Not really. Not as itself. Does hate exist? Yes, hate is, say, a pattern of human thought/behavior, thoroughly real as far as human understanding, but hate as a concept is not something tangible and measurable. So too is love. An umbrella term for a number of subjective, human realities. Do you disagree?
Now we get to start blending our previous posts. You said that an oil slick is evidence of motor oil, and circumstantially I agree. I find plenty of circumstantial evidence for love, and not only limited to humans.
For one, there is the recorded chemical activity in the human brain…I believe seratonin is the chemical, and it is an ingredient in chocolate. Funny how atheists readily point to seratonin to support their arguments that love is merely the effect of chemicals in the brain…at least until they learn that the exact same chemical is implicated in the “G-d process” of the brain as well. I would be happy to point to studies in brain chemistry that support my comments about seratonin, love and G-d.
While emotions in general *are* philosophically challenging…such as your assertions about hate and war…nevertheless emotions exist and there is a distinct chemical process that occurs in the brain, and not just human brains. The philosophical quandary though in this matter is; which came first? The chemical or the emotion? Does the sun rise because the rooster crows? I can reference logical fallacies if need be.
Social animals such as apes and monkeys do exhibit various emotions. Before it is raised, I am aware of the trap of anthropomorphization, the desire to see human behavior in other creatures. It is a valid concern. But anyone who has ever spent any time at all studying social animals, even beyond apes to others such as wolves or deer, cannot help but come away with the impression that there are certain emotions that convey back and forth between individuals. The best examples are the mother-child connection. I will be happy to share references to this as well if it would be appreciated.
So the emotive responses certainly leave an oil slick behind, which indicates that there is indeed some objective reality to emotions. And love is metaphysically the most potent emotive response traditionally, therapeutically and mythologically. Care for examples?
Edit to add: if occurs to me now that in so building my premise I have lost my train of thought as to how love impinges on determinism...but it will come to me. Ah yes! I remember now...love cannot exist in a deterministic environment, it must be able to be freely given and freely received, otherwise it is not love. And since love exists, as indicated by the circumstantial evidence above, a deterministic environment must not. How's that for a logical sylligism?
Last edited: