How much of our personality is free will?

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is your first sentence related to your second bit because surely the second part is mainly relating to differences in social programming, not genetics?

Johnny, consciousness does effect us in some ways, even though it doesn't offer the wide variety of choices that it might seem like it does. Another thing I remember learning in 2000 is a theory that it works as attention selector, bringing parts of our unconcsious mind (which leads to automatic action) into out consciousness where we can reflect on it and adapt it so we can exude what is, to all intents and purposes, what free will we have. As I said earlier though, it depends on whether some of those apparent decisions are weighted without us knowing.

By 'consciousness', do you mean self awareness?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

They're all part of the soup.

The second thing was about social programming, but if person one is autistic from birth, and the second is a boisterous extrovert from birth, they too might react totally differently to the same stimulus.

OK, last thought from me for tonight....

Identical twins. Identical genetics, very similar social experiences (although of course they will experience different things and the comparison aspect between these differences are important in themselves). Along the way things will happen to them which will make them act differently. Do they have any conscious responsibility/choice in putting themselves in those different situations which continue to make them dissimilar or are they completely consciously passive?

Edit: yes by consciousness I'm largely meaning self awareness, not entirely though.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

OK, last thought from me for tonight....

Identical twins. Identical genetics, very similar social experiences (although of course they will experience different things and the comparison aspect between these differences are important in themselves). Along the way things will happen to them which will make them act differently. Do they have any conscious responsibility/choice in putting themselves in those different situations which continue to make them dissimilar or are they completely consciously passive?

Edit: yes by consciousness I'm largely meaning self awareness, not entirely though.

No, no responsibility.

Identical twins can act differently, but we know that they are alike in many ways, behaviourally speaking, that random people out of the population won't be, or even that fraternal twins won't be.

But they're really only 'identical' to the human eye, and even then, not totally identical. They are still genetically, behaviourally, and experientially NOT identical.

We just call them 'identical' because they look pretty much alike. But what a person is, is a lot more than their looks.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I thougt the whole thing about identical twins is that genetically they are identical (unless there is mutation when the first egg splits)

But anyway, I guess the point is that can people have some effect themselves, in albiet subtle ways, which lead to differences in their experience? You don't seem to think so, I'm still uncertain. I imagine there are others who would disagree strongly with you.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I thougt the whole thing about identical twins is that genetically they are identical (unless there is mutation when the first egg splits)

But anyway, I guess the point is that can people have some effect themselves, in albiet subtle ways, which lead to differences in their experience? You don't seem to think so, I'm still uncertain. I imagine there are others who would disagree strongly with you.

I'm being an idiot: of course they're genetically identical. But it's interesting: I've known one set of identical twins, and they didn't have identical features. Pretty close, but after awhile of knowing them, you could tel which was which when one of them walked down the hall toward you.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I'm being an idiot: of course they're genetically identical. But it's interesting: I've known one set of identical twins, and they didn't have identical features. Pretty close, but after awhile of knowing them, you could tel which was which when one of them walked down the hall toward you.

Well, of course genetic influences are not the only biological forces that we're under. Various different physical and most likely emotional experiences can effect the way they develop. Poor or good nutrition is one of the most well known experiences to effect how your genes take shape (whether you grow tall or not) but I'm sure there are many others that perhaps work in much more subtle ways. A different lifetime of experience/perceiving experience could caused different lines to form for example.

 

[Jonti]

I'm being an idiot: of course they're genetically identical. But it's interesting: I've known one set of identical twins, and they didn't have identical features. Pretty close, but after awhile of knowing them, you could tel which was which when one of them walked down the hall toward you.

Heh, there was a pair of identical twins in my high (secondary) school class. I was fairly good mates with one of them, but the other gave every impression of cordially disliking me!

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Heh, there was a pair of identical twins in my high (secondary) school class. I was fairly good mates with one of them, but the other gave every impression of cordially disliking me!

So you could tell them apart from the seething looks one of them gave you?

 

[rennie]

But what is free will? I mean my actions and thoughts can be mine but surely they don't just come out of nowhere? I decide to do things (for ex) based on a number of factors... some are social, others personal... but even who we are, our personality, is determined by our upringing, outside influences, genetics, learning etc...

so no, free will is a bit of a mute concept IMHO.

 

[RubberBuccaneer]

I'm glad I saw this before posting a thread about free will. IMO it isn't always possible to follow free will, and I'm not sure it exists.

Upbringing may shape the way you think but IMO doesn't affect your free will.

Examples against free will.

The right to smoke - free will choice ? until it becomes an addcition some can't break - where's the free will gone then. Someone pointed out that there's is a right to have an addiction. A right but free will is lost.

Economics - free will dictated by finance, organic veg from sainsbury or happy-shopper tinned peas?

Genetics - blood will out - I increasingly look in the mirror and see my old man, no matter what I wanted, how I thought, I see his mannerisms coming through to me as I get older, same as I can see expressions my sons pull, the way they behave, as mine.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Interesting thread

So would I be right in saying that some people on here believe strongly in fate?

 

[SubZeroCat]

Just seen this and my first thought was.....

God you need a job

 

[RubberBuccaneer]

Interesting thread

So would I be right in saying that some people on here believe strongly in fate?

Well I suppose if you mean a predestined life due to a higher being then no.

If you mean a predestined life due to social and financial/ class restraints then probably a bit more.

And if you mean your genes pre-destining you ( e.g. getting diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia ), then yes.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I was more referring to points one and two.

Hmm so out of that free will we do have, what importance do people attach to it? Is it not possible that as small as it might be that the sum of its part might be more important than all the choices we don't have?

 

[RubberBuccaneer]

I think people attatch importance to it...we all like to think we have a say in doings things, that we're not forced. But I think it's a bit of an illusion and is exercised less than we think.

Otherwise how do adverts work on us, fads, peer pressure , etc.

On of the biggest illusions akin to this is democracy, we think we have a free vote ( tho the choice is limited ), we defend the right to choose our government. But only every four years, in between elections we get no choice as to what they do, but I feel ( you may not ) that if you asked people in the street they would say they had free will.

 

[ICB]

Hmmm, I might start proferring views later, when I've engaged brain sufficiently. Meanwhile some traditional questions occur...

Isn't the question whether we are free or determined agents irrespective of what theory of personal identity we subscribe to?

Even if, from a theoretical standpoint, we've got no free will, might we not need to behave as if we have for pragmatic reasons? (social contract, moral imperatives, etc.)

and closely related...

What practical difference would any given answer make to our personal actions and what are the general implications for policy e.g. in respect of justice?

Bet you wished you'd never asked.

 

[Jonti]

So you could tell them apart from the seething looks one of them gave you?

Although they were identical twins, they were quite easy to tell apart. One was into weight-training

 

[Jonti]

... Time moves forward, instant by instant. The totality of existence at this instant, is the foundation for what will inevitably happen in the next instant...

You can't use Laplacian determinism as the basis for a life philosophy. It's a hundred years out of date, at least.

An intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain; and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

Chaos and QM have long been known to limit the usefulness of this classical determinist understanding. The future may well be underdetermined by the present, leaving room for choices to be made.

We can make tiny choices. To hit "send" or not. Can we not, then, make tiny choices of great consequence?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Agreed. As Ghandi said,

“Nearly everything you do is of no importance, but it is important that you do it”

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You can't use Laplacian determinism as the basis for a life philosophy. It's a hundred years out of date, at least.

Explain how it's wrong.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Chaos and QM have long been known to limit the usefulness of this classical determinist understanding.

Bullshit. If these undetermined events exist at the quantum level, why are they not reproduced at the macro level?

 

[colacho]

Bullshit. If these undetermined events exist at the quantum level, why are they not reproduced at the macro level?

No, not bullshit at all. Try getting just about any layman's explanation of quantum theory and it'll spell it out for you very nicely. Subatomic "particles" such as photons seem to "choose" where they end up in experiments. The implication, in vulgar terms, is that the universe isn't a machine whose motions can me predicted at every turn, but could always be in some way "otherwise". As for the macro level, well, you're spinning things a particular way- doesn't mean they are so.

There seems to be an enormous amount of befuddled thinking on this one anyway, which is not surprising because it's such a classic and intractable problem. When RB says that "And if you mean your genes pre-destining you ( e.g. getting diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia ), then yes", even that doesn't fit. Depends on the illness for example, and how you interact with the environment. Thus genes tend to give you a predisposition to certain illnesses, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will get them. Depends on what you do. In other cases it doesn't matter what you do- you're going to get them. So yes and no. Biology is startling in its genetically fuelled arrogance, in any case, a bit like 19th century physics.

When soulman (42) says "I don't recognise the old marxist determinist point of view Johnny", again this has nothing to do with Marx and everything to do with vulgar "Marxist" determinism which wanted to present the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as the next inevitable step in history. But that's not Marx. Marx was the guy who wrote "Man makes history, but not in circumstances of his own choosing" (or summat like that) which seems a good way of dealing with the determinism v free will problem.

Lot more to say, but have to fuck off and do some work now...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, not bullshit at all. Try getting just about any layman's explanation of quantum theory and it'll spell it out for you very nicely. Subatomic "particles" such as photons seem to "choose" where they end up in experiments. ...

The alternate explanation is that our ability to measure and understand what the particles are doing, is limited.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As for the macro level, well, you're spinning things a particular way- doesn't mean they are so....

The classic e.g.: if the subatomic particles upon which all matter is based can choose to appear or disappear at random, why has it never happened that most of them chose to disappear or disassemble at once in a mass, thus making the Tower Bridge disappear overnight?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Biology is startling in its genetically fuelled arrogance, in any case, a bit like 19th century physics..

And both 21st century biology and physics will appear limited and simplistic when compared with their 24th century counterparts.

 

[Jonti]

Chaos and QM have long been known to limit the usefulness of this classical determinist understanding.

Bullshit. If these undetermined events exist at the quantum level, why are they not reproduced at the macro level?

They are.

Or have you never heard the click of a Geiger counter?

 

[Fruitloop]

The classic e.g.: if the subatomic particles upon which all matter is based can choose to appear or disappear at random, why has it never happened that most of them chose to disappear or disassemble at once in a mass, thus making the Tower Bridge disappear overnight?

probability.

 

[Jonti]

You can't use Laplacian determinism as the basis for a life philosophy. It's a hundred years out of date, at least.

Explain how it's wrong.

It's just wrong as a matter of fact.

It turns out the future is underdetermined by the past. That is, there are many different possible futures (not just the one!) which can flow from the present circumstances.

The various quantum phenomena show this is the case -- including almost the simplest, that of radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus. There's no way of telling from the antecedent conditions whether or not a particular nucleus will decay (and cause a click on your Geiger counter) within, say, the next minute.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It turns out the future is underdetermined by the past. That is, there are many different possible futures (not just the one!) which can flow from the present circumstances.

You're just restating your conclusion. You haven't demonstrated why Laplacian determinism is wrong.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

probability.

Probability says it will happen if it can happen.