Children Never Get a Chance to Be Themselves

I didn't research anything yet. I also have a bias. I haven't heard a convincing argument against causal determinism. I believe determinism rules the universe whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not. My ideas are stemming from my denial of free will.

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

A little more background, I have a 13 month old child. Observing her develop sparks many ideas about parenting, education, learning, etc. My daughter, Jamie, has been a hilarious baby. Jamie knows how to work a crowd. She picks up what makes people laugh and what gives her positive feedback. She loves laughing and positive feedback. I don't think this makes her unique or special.

Readers should know what I mean by "true" or "own personalities." Writing philosophy is tough. Terms and words need to be unpacked, defined, and or explained. I'll try to be concise. I'm going to stick with the terms baby, child, and parent to sum up the interactions between children and whoever provides them care.

Today's Rant: Children are sculpted by their parents/caregivers/family/environment, so babies/children have no chance to develop their own/true personality.

The Argument (I'm working on this. It's a mess)

1) Genes and environment produce behavior and personality.

2) If parents dictate environment, offspring cannot create their environment.

3) If parents condition offsprings' behavior, offspring cannot create their personality.


Conclusion: Parents and genes dictate offsprings' personality.

The Reasoning and Analysis

I'm not suggestions that people's behavior or personality do not change or evolve later in life. I also know that friends, society, profession, schools etc. have huge impacts on personality.  But by the time these events take place, offspring have been sculpted so finely by parents, environment, and genes that offspring have no agency in their personality or identity. I'm saying that, Jamie, you, and I have no influence over who we are. Our identity and personality is determined

My daughter is confirmation bias for my predisposition.

I watch Jamie, and she laughs because we laugh. My wife and I especially are creating her sense of humor. Something happens; Jamie looks to us; we tell Jamie if it is funny or not; Jamie laughs or doesn't.

One day Jamie randomly or accidentally made a noise. I don't know what the noise sounded like, but my brain processed it close to "was dat." Of course, I started mimicking and pointing to Jamie, which reinforced Jamie learning to say "was dat." It was hilarious and random, but it became part of her personality and our relationship. I could have ignored it. I could have heard something different. I could have thought that wasn't. This might be a counter example to my argument, but the point is I not Jamie reinforced and conditioned us to.

Little things like this happen all the time. Now that Jamie is 13 months I can see how much I influence her. Jamie started head banging dancing last week. It's pretty awesome, and everyone loves it. So she keeps doing it. This along with everything else is teaching her what is funny.

I'll admit, I don't have full control over Jamie. I wish I did. When she gets hysterical, she has this unbearable screech. It's terrible and gives me a headache. But this behavior, and a few others, we try to change and condition.

Still I can't help think when I see her interact, how much "thank you"s, "no Jamie"s, clapping, cheering, etc shape her. She conditions us too, of course, but we condition her more.

How much does each of my actions affect her? How many behaviors that I inhibit would have lead to x identity or personality?

There isn't a double blind study to run. She doesn't have an identical twin that we could not condition. And I'm not worried. My worldview doesn't care much. But it's a trip to think about. What if I was more compassionate or tolerant of her cries and screeches? Would she develop into a more "true self?" I don't believe in a true self/personally, but it's a term that captures my idea best.

That's good enough. Please leave a comment if you're interested. I can add explanations where they are needed.

Jimbo Out

3 April 2022

This sounds like a bunch of nonsense now. I mostly agree with the ideas, but this isn't going to convince or change anyone's mind with a different idea.  


Jimbo out again

Tupac, Biggie, and 90s Gangsta Rap

29 May 2020 Update: listen to the 3rd season of the podcast Slow Burn. It is all about Tupac, Biggie, and 90s gangsta rap. I would recommend listening to episodes 1-7 of Slow burn season 3 then watch the series Unsolved and finish the Slow Burn episodes.

I'm on a serious Tupac Shakur and Christopher Wallace murder kick. This week I binge watched Unsolved: The Murders of Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G. We are working on guests to join us for Unsolved. Click here for our Spoiler Free Minisode or the Extended Discussion.

I have been scouring for responses to the series by some of the main living characters like Puff Daddy, Snoop Dogg, Suge Knight, and or Biggie's mother Voletta Wallace. Here is the best of what I found after hours of articles and videos.

Puffy's involvement is very shady. I'm searching but cannot find any response by Puffy to the USA series Unsolved. He has denied involvement in both the NYC and Las Vegas Tupac shootings. A NPR interview: What Did Sean 'Puffy' Combs Know? provides reports of Puffy's involvement.

Snoop Dogg responded to the series Unsolved. He denied knowing anything about the gangster activity of Dearth Row Records. Snoop Dogg did confirm the accuracy of the New York shooting at the set of Tha Dogg Pound "New York New York" music video. The series Unsolved surprised Snoop Dogg, but you should hear Snoop Dogg tell the story himself (video below too) when asked about Suge Knight.

Suge Knight is a couple years into a 28 year sentence for manslaughter. I cannot find any responses from Suge Knight to the series either. His manslaughter incident resulted from another hip hop beef between Knight and the NWA movie Straight Out of Compton.

Voletta Wallace put out a statement claiming to know who killed her son, but that the LAPD was covering up the murder. I cannot find any statement from Voletta Wallace in response to the series, so I tried messaging her. I didn't get any response. It is very possible the accounts I found, aren't hers.

Greg Kading, main character in Unsolved and the LAPD officer assigned to the 2006 task force investigating the homicide of Biggie Smalls, was a writer and producer for Unsolved. Before the series he wrote a book called Murder Rap, which inspired a documentary of the same name. In a Reddit Ask Me Anything, Greg Kading states the most important facts. You can read/follow his top comments. Or if you want further details, watch or listen to the best Greg Kading interviews below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfRgR717he4?start=2813]

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf2Fu8pe2eM]

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCk_cYI9GM]

peace,



Jimbo Out

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I have a close friend that is a Christian apologist (Christian apologetics is a branch of theology that defends Christianity against objections). For years he has been using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to prove the start, end, and creation of order and chaos. The first time he used it, I was unfamiliar with the concept. Since then I have looked it up several times, and I always have difficulty grasping and retaining what the 2nd law of thermodynamics means.

I finally understand it where I can briefly explain. This first part is more informational than a rant, but I'll post it anyway. This is a slightly modified email I sent. My rant will be below!

I used three videos from Khan to refresh (I recommend watching all three for a better understanding), along with an occasion google search to confirm my understanding was mostly accurate. I recently read a book called The Order of Time, it had the best description of the 2nd law I came across at the time. 

Info on the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics

The 2^nd law of Thermodynamics explains that, “we don't see a spontaneous transfer of heat from cold areas to hot areas… What we do observe is that if [we] were to put ice water in the middle of a room at room temperature, [we’re] gonna see the other way. [We’re] gonna see transfer of heat from the warmer regions to the colder regions.” The law is based on the transfer of heat from warm/hot to cold.

The transfer of heat leads to entropy. The 2nd law explains that entropy in a closed system only increases. Most scientist would consider the universe a closed system (deist that believe God interferes with the universe would make our universe an open system, and the 2nd law wouldn’t apply). If we consider the universe a closed system, the universe is constantly increasing in entropy. As the space of the expanding universe increases, so does the possibilities of different states. Therefore, the greater possibilities leads to greater entropy. The average temperature of the universe decreases, but the entropy increases because there is more space/possibilities of ordered states.

Rant Time

Christian apologists love the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It gives them a scientific argument for their God. Here is a good argument by Jeff Miller, a Christian apologists who has a PhD in engineering, click here for his article. It isn't bad.

"There are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe. Either all of the mass/matter/energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator."

Miller is referencing the first law of thermodynamics that states, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Miller's argument is still bad. He says the first two possible explanations are logically and scientifically impossible, but guess what? So is the remaining possibility. 

(side note) Lawerance Krauss wrote a book arguing how a universe could appear from nothing, and he is a theoretical physicist. So there must be some scientific possibility.

Miller makes a couple assumptions that are unsupported. The Big Bang theory describes the first moments in the universe, but it says nothing about what happened before. It's not that implausible to think the universe could have existed in some form prior to the big bang and rebanged. Also he describes the eternity of matter. Matter didn't exist in the first moments according to the big bang. Miller needs to explain more.

This is my problem with the few Christian apologists I know. They cherry pick science. Miller did too. He only applied scientific and logic to the arguments he was destructing, not his own. This is bad philosophy.

My friend who started my rant doesn't believe in science. Any science/theories that conflict with his beliefs result from wild conspiracies by secularists and atheists. 

Conclusion

My rant is losing steam, and in all honesty, I don't care. I'm in some universe, however it started, and knowing how it started and who did or didn't create it, isn't going to improve my life. Rant out!

Jimbo

Book Review: Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You by Lin-Manuel Miranda

Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You by Lin-Manuel Miranda
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

If you like the author, you might like this. If you like poetry, stay away!

I can't believe the person who wrote Hamilton would publish this.

The poetry is plagued with cheesy and simplistic writing. I don't follow his twitter, but i think he writes sappy tweets and his fans love them? So he published them as a book? Without revising them, of course? And if that's not what he did, it reads like it.

Then there are little illustration for each page. People complain a lot about Rupu Kuar, this is much much worse.

View all my reviews