You have been spaffing on about this for a while now, but you seem to be arguing against something you imagine has been said to you. It's quite odd.
-
-
Replying to @unwitod @arthur_affect and
The twin studies you are citing precisely require the distinction you seem to think should never be made (because "Nazi shit"): what is caused by underlying genetics vs what in the environment effects gene expression. That is why they are interesting
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @unwitod @arthur_affect and
Chu doesn’t see the difference between twin studies to determine the genetic and environmental influences on traits, and Nazis stitching twins together for shits and giggles. For him even your genes are just an ‘environment’.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Shatterface @unwitod and
I'm on record as saying I think if I had different genes I'd still exist and be me, at least to the same degree that I'd still exist and be me under the counterfactual where I was born in a different city or a different year
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
Was it sensible to go ‘on the record’ with that? In what sense would something with different genes and different environmental experiences be you? If this was possible why is there only one of you?
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Shatterface @arthur_affect and
Hahahaha he keeps getting better and better. Now a genetically different 'Arthur', subject to (necessarily) different environmental interplay with genes, is still the same person? Wow!
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @unwitod @arthur_affect and
This really is the end point of postmodernism. If you aren’t your genes, variation and the environment you are a free floating entity. If you can be anything then everything can be you. It’s Pan-Chuism.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Shatterface @unwitod and
Essentialism is the whole thing we are trying to oppose, yes There is no fixed definition of what makes you "you" - either it's all of it or it's none of it
1 reply 3 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
You’ve ‘gone on the record’ to say you could be you even if you had another body. You are claiming there is a ‘you’ that us entirely independent of your biological substrate. How is this not essentialism?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Shatterface @unwitod and
It's social constructionism My identity exists as a result of how I interact with and am perceived by others It's the only reason I'd still be "me" if I got conked on the head and woke up with amnesia
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
Which, by the way, would be a much more significant change than some retrovirus "changing my DNA" by inserting a bunch of junk into it, which happens regularly
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.