rationalmind:
The immediate question that comes to mind is how same brain chemicals in one makes him have the propensity to bite and in another makes him detest biting.

Identical twins share DNA and guess what? They have different fingerprints. Similar to each others, yes, especially when compared to other people's, but nevertheless still clearly different.

These and other subtle differences begin to appear right from when those fetuses are in the womb; they are born with different fingerprints etc. One may receive more of nutrient x and therefore develop trait y more so than his twin. They may be twins but they go through different experiences.

So to answer your question; the environment.

On a related note, that's why we humans strive to ensure the best possible environment is available to nudge one into making the 'right' choice. For example, prisons aren't useful to many (sane) folk for punitive reasons; they are primarily necessary as means to build and environment which would make others think twice before committing a crime, ie, prevent future crimes. And of course, though often a failure in this regard, they attempt to rehabilitate, to 'better' the inmate (this made more difficult because prison isn't supposed to be a holiday, else people would be committing crimes just to get in! And 'rough' treatment does not typically produce the best results). That's what's it's about; building a safe environment, safer society

And back to the main issue, let's not forget you're talking about brains here, very likely a chaotic system. Which makes them, like the weather, completely unpredictable. Not even a theoretical perfect computer could make accurate predictions. The slightest change between a chemical in twin A from twin B could lead to drastically different results. We still don't know how the brain works so that's not a definite (but very, very likely). And if QM weirdness is indeed correct, compounding on this already chaotic systems? Well, I hope you can see the implications.

Doesn't mean twins won't usually be rather similar overall a lot of the time, but like their fingerprints they would ultimately be different. Always

And I just wasted time I don't have...kudos

rationalmind:

Good.

While I agree with part of your argument that actions are results of chemical reactions in the brain, I'll go one step further by saying they are also affected by our genetic make up and environmental factors.

Once one argues it's all about chemical reactions, then there's no basis whatsoever to pass moral judgment on anyone as you rightly said.

I however don't think one can't pass moral judgments on others.

Passing moral judgments on a theif for instance will turn out to be an environmental factor which subconsciously influences his actions and that of many others thereby making the world a better place to live in.

Agree with you here to some lenght.

I said it in the OP, the action, law executioner and judicial are all chemical reaction.

But let me ask, in the case of stealing, are we at any point owner of anything?

Like the popular Yrouba saying 'gbogbo wa ni Ole, eni owo ba ba ni bara o' meaning we are all thieves; the person caught in the act is Bara o (hausa word for thief). What I mean is what we own is of nature. It is free for all. At a point, we are all stealing from nature. Lets take for example, a piece of land. Are we the real owner of land? Which mean we are all thief and there will always be thief.

If thieving is our every act, is it necessary to morally judge this action?

wiegraf:

Identical twins share DNA and guess what? They have different fingerprints. Similar to each others, yes, especially when compared to other people's, but nevertheless still clearly different.

These and other subtle differences begin to appear right from when those fetuses are in the womb; they are born with different fingerprints etc. One may receive more of nutrient x and therefore develop trait y more so than his twin. They may be twins but they go through different experiences.

So to answer your question; the environment.

On a related note, that's why we humans strive to ensure the best possible environment is available to nudge one into making the 'right' choice. For example, prisons aren't useful to many (sane) folk for punitive reasons; they are primarily necessary as means to build and environment which would make others think twice before committing a crime, ie, prevent future crimes. And of course, though often a failure in this regard, they attempt to rehabilitate, to 'better' the inmate (this made more difficult because prison isn't supposed to be a holiday, else people would be committing crimes just to get in! And 'rough' treatment does not typically produce the best results). That's what's it's about; building a safe environment, safer society

And back to the main issue, let's not forget you're talking about brains here, very likely a chaotic system. Which makes them, like the weather, completely unpredictable. Not even a theoretical perfect computer could make accurate predictions. The slightest change between a chemical in twin A from twin B could lead to drastically different results. We still don't know how the brain works so that's not a definite (but very, very likely). And if QM weirdness is indeed correct, compounding on this already chaotic systems? Well, I hope you can see the implications.

Doesn't mean twins won't usually be rather similar overall a lot of the time, but like their fingerprints they would ultimately be different. Always

And I just wasted time I don't have...kudos

This guy?

Well excellent.

wiegraf:

Identical twins share DNA and guess what? They have different fingerprints. Similar to each others, yes, especially when compared to other people's, but nevertheless still clearly different.

These and other subtle differences begin to appear right from when those fetuses are in the womb; they are born with different fingerprints etc. One may receive more of nutrient x and therefore develop trait y more so than his twin. They may be twins but they go through different experiences.

So to answer your question; the environment.

On a related note, that's why we humans strive to ensure the best possible environment is available to nudge one into making the 'right' choice. For example, prisons aren't useful to many (sane) folk for punitive reasons; they are primarily necessary as means to build and environment which would make others think twice before committing a crime, ie, prevent future crimes. And of course, though often a failure in this regard, they attempt to rehabilitate, to 'better' the inmate (this made more difficult because prison isn't supposed to be a holiday, else people would be committing crimes just to get in! And 'rough' treatment does not typically produce the best results). That's what's it's about; building a safe environment, safer society

And back to the main issue, let's not forget you're talking about brains here, very likely a chaotic system. Which makes them, like the weather, completely unpredictable. Not even a theoretical perfect computer could make accurate predictions. The slightest change between a chemical in twin A from twin B could lead to drastically different results. We still don't know how the brain works so that's not a definite (but very, very likely). And if QM weirdness is indeed correct, compounding on this already chaotic systems? Well, I hope you can see the implications.

Doesn't mean twins won't usually be rather similar overall a lot of the time, but like their fingerprints they would ultimately be different. Always

And I just wasted time I don't have...kudos

Great post. I actualy agree with everything said here.

PS: I noticed you placed right in quotes. To prevent deepsight and co from pouncing on you I guess

Subscribing

#sendingtelegram to mnwankwo

Ah ha! Wiegraf and Chrisbenogor all of a sudden and on one thread. Folykaze you be magicksian. This your thread get power o!!

And to connect what Wiegraf said to what Folykaze OPed, just in case some don't get the obvious.... What happens in your environment, what nourishment you eat, events that you experience etc they all affect the neurochemical balance of your brain. A kid brought up in a happy environment will have a different neurochemical balance in his bloodstream from a child brought up in an unhappy environment , All other things being equal.

However, having said that I still believe in Free Will. Just in a different way from how a lot of others see it.

PastorAIO: Ah ha! Wiegraf and Chrisbenogor all of a sudden and on one thread. Folykaze you be magicksian. This your thread get power o!!

And to connect what Wiegraf said to what Folykaze OPed, just in case some don't get the obvious.... What happens in your environment, what nourishment you eat, events that you experience etc they all affect the neurochemical balance of your brain. A kid brought up in a happy environment will have a different neurochemical balance in his bloodstream from a child brought up in an unhappy environment , All other things being equal.

However, having said that I still believe in Free Will. Just in a different way from how a lot of others see it.

ant and sugar sontins.....

How do you see free will?


Off the record... There's some topics on the meaning of life and happiness and success.... That do not quite fall under religion per say. What do you think? Philosophy board?

Chrisbenogor:


Off the record... There's some topics on the meaning of life and happiness and success.... That do not quite fall under religion per say. What do you think? Philosophy board?

good luck with trying to get one. I'll reserve my energy if you don't mind.

Chrisbenogor:
How do you see free will?

E no easy but I go try. I know you don't believe in God, but hypothetically consider God and let's ask . . . Does God have free will? Or is God bound to his essential characteristics?
i.e Could God decide to do something ungodly?

When we make decisions, are these decisions contrary to our essential nature in anyway? If they aren't and they cannot be then are we not deterministic creatures. Are the things we do not bound to our essential nature?

Since we exist with characteristics it follows that our behaviour must be limited to our characteristics.

Yet we find ourselves molded by our environment. So is it the environment and the circumstances of our being that confer our characteristics on us? Or is there a radical and essential character that is the true I ? What if there are two aspects to our being? A malleable part and an Adamant part. The Malleable part is shaped by temporal circumstances and plays a part in determining the choices we make. Then the Adamant part is inert to circumstances and remains itself regardless of what occurs to it. it too can play a part in determining the choices we make.

Thus Free Will is not Actually Free (as in totally random) but rather it is Free (as in uninfluenced by circumstances).

rationalmind:

PS: I noticed you placed right in quotes. To prevent deepsight and co from pouncing on you I guess

Person don tire of their antics..

PastorAIO:


E no easy but I go try.

As usual. And I won't even pretend I fully grasp where you're going with this.

I would have asked the same question @chris asked, so if I may interject, quick(?) first question; would you say both aspects you speak of, malleable and adamant, have a material base?

Again ohhh, I am not trying to convince you there's no god. just to be clear... Just want to know your views

..and $hit, still wasting very valuable time. Kudos for now...

wiegraf:

As usual. And I won't even pretend I fully grasp where you're going with this.

I would have asked the same question @chris asked, so if I may interject, quick(?) first question; would you say both aspects you speak of, malleable and adamant, have a material base?

Again ohhh, I am not trying to convince you there's no god. just to be clear... Just want to know your views

..and $hit, still wasting very valuable time. Kudos for now...

Hmmmmm... Material versus non-material. You guys nor go take this matter (pun?) kill me. If I start asking for definitions I'm sure someone will jump down my throat. But a sticking point with me is that there is yet to be articulated an authoritative definition of Materialism, or naturalism or physicalism as some call it.

The Meaning of 'Nature' or 'Natural'

Danto's definition of a natural cause, while capturing very general features of natural causation and natural causal explanation, does not shed much light on what is meant by the term 'natural' itself. One obvious candidate for what is meant by the term 'natural' is physical. The earliest forms of naturalism, in fact, were versions of materialism or physicalism which maintained that everything that exists is physical. As I have construed naturalism, simple (reductive) physicalism maintains that everything that exists within nature is physical and solely influenced by physical causes. However, the prominent twentieth century debate over materialism in the philosophy of mind has revealed several difficulties with reductive physicalism as a solution to the mind-body problem.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html

Let me add to the confusion, or perhaps clear up the confusion, that materialist philosophers have with definitions. I want to presume that you mean Corporeality. ie. to rephrase your question, " would you say both aspects you speak of, malleable and adamant, have a corporeal base?"

In other words are they made up of Bodies extended in space. To which my answer is that I haven't properly thought about it in that way yet. However if you give me a couple of days, maybe till tomorrow (24 hours) then I'll provide some sort of an answer.