I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm
Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?
By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?
I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWe may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?
We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.
I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.
At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?