The first sentence is not parsable and the second is irrelevant,
-
-
Replying to @RightKenneth @KirkegaardEmil
(1) How's it "not parsable"? What's unintelligible? (2) Yes it is because he showed psychophysical and psychological laws do not exist, meaning mental states are irreducible to brain states and the mental is irreducible to the physical.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @RightKenneth @KirkegaardEmil
(1) genes cause variation in physical traits. (2) since genes cause variation in physical traits, genes cannot cause variation in mental traits (2) follows from (1) due to no psychophysical or psychological laws. As for (2), what do you mean by "moderated by genetic influence"?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
-
Replying to @Race__Realist @KirkegaardEmil
I fail to see how this is relevant. If there are any issues with my argument, then please do bring them to my attention.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RightKenneth @KirkegaardEmil
"Variation in genes would be responsible for a portion of the variance" There's no reason to privilege one developmental variable over another. (ie to make the claim that "Variation in genes would be responsible for a portion of variation in cognitive ability".)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Nevermind the fact that, again, psychophysical and psychological laws do not exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Race__Realist @KirkegaardEmil
I know not whether this is true, but it certainly is irrelevant. The example provided does not make reference to the existence of such laws, and yet, it is perfectly functional.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Please stop talking to RR on my timeline. I don't want a billion notifications, and my only other alternative is to ban him. He's not really misbehaving in a way that deserves a ban, so I don't want to do that.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.