So, Deacon, do I have your implied permission to call you a self-acknowledged fool, now?
(god, where is a tiny coffee cup and saucer? I feel like I need one. And maybe a monocle.)
Correlation in what? In talents and personality? Yeah, genetics generally shape talents. But you must exercise those talents to become skilled. In the same way genetics determine the base personality through which experiences are perceived and on which experiences and the greater adult personality is built.
Lots of stuff. Talents and personality included. Criminal rates (IIRC). Rates of some psychological disorders. Religiosity. When I get back to my Developmental Psychology textbook I'll see if I can remember to dig up a good list and linked studies.
Still ... wouldn't differences in the base result in differences in the outcome, leading to at least some control and influence on our final, decision-making self being outside our control, thus at least closing off the field of choices? Which are then further limited by our intelligence, knowledge, cleverness, and all the other things that allow us to think of some possible courses of action and at the same time NOT think of or know about others. You can't take a secret passage you don't know about.
adciv wrote:HA! I thought exactly the same thing! Why, Fuggle? Because no two people share the exact same genetic personality tendencies as well as the exact same experiences. With each new experience we diverge a little more from alternate-timeline selves, so to speak. It's exactly the reason time travel would cause problems: change one tiny thing, and BAM! Everything could be different in the future because of that one change.
And? I don't see how that's an answer to anything. Minor diervences might not be enough to skew ethical calculi (wow, firefox recognizes 'calculi'), and even if it were - the case is still there for the individual's calculus for determining action being rooted to some degree or another in biology, because those who start out with a similar base of self are more appreciably more likely in many ways have a similar base of action to begin with, and prove perhaps somewhat hard to knock of those paths.
Of course, for a science already more archaeology (but it doesn't recognize archaeology?) than chemistry, ethics and the limits of understanding, processing ability, and tools mean that a suitable answer (one way or the other) is near impossible to find because it's so hard to even approach testing, and ethics make it impossible.
... should I be worried that I'm sad my ethics stop me from wanting to test such thing?
That's what Fuggle's arguing for, but I don't think he's considered that in doing so he's also saying one must take a stance of agnosticism on things like evolution and the big bang and such, too.
Oh? No. I accept that they're Theories. But I do think there's better evidence then there is for free will ... but I'll admit I haven't looked into this Chaos Theory thing, so I'll sit a bit on that until I've learned more.
Fuggle, lets at least hear what you think about this, instead of playing just the devils advocate.
Impossible. Fuggle only questions, never makes a definitive statement.[/quote]
Adciv: You've heard what I have to say. My point IS that, of sorts, of the devil's advocate. As I said. I don't know what the answer is. Deacon misses it because he has some sort of crippling intellectual wound that makes him adverse to questions. My point
is the questions that you can't seem to produce a deep and satisfactory enough answer for. My point, as I said, is that your point doesn't stand, which despite Deacon's inability to grasp, IS a point, and a somewhat important one.
Granted, I've yet to look into Chaos Theory, so I'll sit on that statement for a while, but up to that point, what I said above.
