Personality.

[EddietheZombie]

One of the things I hear the most are "I'm my own person, I act the way I want because I want it that way" and "People can't change me". And I laugh because it is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. People and things are what make your personality, not you. Now, let me explain this further. If you were born and the same day you were born you were put in a blank nothingness. You survived all your life to where you are now with nothing to eat. This is fine though, because you never had the feeling of hunger. You look exactly the same as you do now, except with no clothing, hairstyle, or makeup. You have been in this nothingness your whole life, now, what do you think of when you are in this nothingness? Yourself, because that is all you've seen. You have no concept of any other color than what your body is, you have no concept of anything, except yourself. Now, how can you have a personality, if the only thing you know is yourself? You wouldn't. You wouldn't know what your favorite food is, or band, or clothes. People make up your personality, change you, and mold you like clay. So, I personally, don't think anyone can be born something. What does anyone else think?

[JamesSuperBoy]

It is not ignorant - just how some people are.

[Gamma Male]

I agree completely. Experiences and memory are what make up someone's personality. And there's no such thing as free will, since everything's that's ever happened, is happening, or ever will happen has already been predetermined by the laws of physics. Whatevers going to happen is going to happen, and we can't change the future whatever we're going to do is what we were always going to do.

[EddietheZombie]

I do believe in free will. I doubt the laws of physics dictate whether or not I pick a penny off the ground or what book I will find most interesting. I believe it is ignorant, because people haven't put the thought into it to think of these things. I constantly think about stuff like this. I'm a tad OCD so that may be part of it.

[Gamma Male]

I do believe in free will. I doubt the laws of physics dictate whether or not I pick a penny off the ground or what book I will find most interesting. I believe it is ignorant, because people haven't put the thought into it to think of these things. I constantly think about stuff like this. I'm a tad OCD so that may be part of it.


I disagree. The laws of physics DO dictate whether or not you'll pick that penny up off the ground.If not them, then what?

Are you familiar with determinism? Read this.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
They suggest instead that an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. Thus the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist. [46][47][48][49] Certain experiments looking at the neuroscience of free will can be said to support this possibility.

[Miserabilia]

I do believe in free will. I doubt the laws of physics dictate whether or not I pick a penny off the ground or what book I will find most interesting. I believe it is ignorant, because people haven't put the thought into it to think of these things. I constantly think about stuff like this. I'm a tad OCD so that may be part of it.

If you pick up a penny of the ground, you do so beacuse of electrical signals in your brain.

[abc983055235235231a]

Well the statement "I act the way I want because I want it that way" is (in most cases) correct. Even given that our desires (, etc) result from brain states which result from our biology/experiences/etc, it is still us who have those desires.

You gave that thought experiment thing about that like nothingness stuff. If anything, that should just demonstrate that what makes you *you* is your brain. You *are* your brain. So insofar as your brain develops as a result of your experiences, etc (which it does), *you* develop as a result of those things. So it might not really be correct to think that it is something external to *you* that is wanting things. It is *you*.

Also, you say that other people make us who we are. So you are responsible for shaping my personality, and my parents are responsible for shaping my personality, and people I interact with at school are responsible for shaping my personality, etc. To that same extent, I shape the personalities of those people I interact with. But if I can have such a powerful causal influence on others, why can't I have that same influence on myself? Not only can I indirectly influence myself through influencing others, but I can also do it directly by setting goals, and indeed simply by having desires (, etc).

[Mushin]

Yourself, because that is all you've seen. You have no concept of any other color than what your body is, you have no concept of anything, except yourself. Now, how can you have a personality, if the only thing you know is yourself? You wouldn't


I don't think this situation is clear enough. Even if you existed somewhere with no external stimuli, your body would still be experiencing internal stimuli (thoughts) and so a 'personality' would be created from your thought patterns. If however, you're unable to think, that would render you unconscious. A person isn't capable of being aware of not being aware. You wouldn't have a personality because a personality wouldn't exist, but that's not caused from a lack of external stimuli, that's all internal.

[abc983055235235231a]

I don't think this situation is clear enough. Even if you existed somewhere with no external stimuli, your body would still be experiencing internal stimuli (thoughts) and so a 'personality' would be created from your thought patterns. If however, you're unable to think, that would render you unconscious. A person isn't capable of being aware of not being aware. You wouldn't have a personality because a personality wouldn't exist, but that's not caused from a lack of external stimuli, that's all internal.

Well, no, you really wouldn't have much of a personality. Your personality is informed on the most basic level by social factors--namely culture alongside more immediate social relationships. Our internal stimulus is sort of like a feedback, but it requires that those other stimuli be present to begin with.

[EddietheZombie]

I don't think this situation is clear enough. Even if you existed somewhere with no external stimuli, your body would still be experiencing internal stimuli (thoughts) and so a 'personality' would be created from your thought patterns. If however, you're unable to think, that would render you unconscious. A person isn't capable of being aware of not being aware. You wouldn't have a personality because a personality wouldn't exist, but that's not caused from a lack of external stimuli, that's all internal.

Ok, you are awake in white nothingness. Like space, without stars or planets. From day one of your life to where you are now. Because you have not seen anything that you have in your life, you are not influenced in any way. You know no color, except what is on your body. Also, if you have no concept of language, when you think to yourself, what language would it be in?
Well the statement "I act the way I want because I want it that way" is (in most cases) correct. Even given that our desires (, etc) result from brain states which result from our biology/experiences/etc, it is still us who have those desires.

You gave that thought experiment thing about that like nothingness stuff. If anything, that should just demonstrate that what makes you *you* is your brain. You *are* your brain. So insofar as your brain develops as a result of your experiences, etc (which it does), *you* develop as a result of those things. So it might not really be correct to think that it is something external to *you* that is wanting things. It is *you*.

Also, you say that other people make us who we are. So you are responsible for shaping my personality, and my parents are responsible for shaping my personality, and people I interact with at school are responsible for shaping my personality, etc. To that same extent, I shape the personalities of those people I interact with. But if I can have such a powerful causal influence on others, why can't I have that same influence on myself? Not only can I indirectly influence myself through influencing others, but I can also do it directly by setting goals, and indeed simply by having desires (, etc).

Yes, you can influence yourself and make that your personality, but even that needs something to work with. If you are in a nothingness, then you wouldn't be much of anything. You wouldn't even know how to walk. If you have no concept of anything, what would you think of?
I disagree. The laws of physics DO dictate whether or not you'll pick that penny up off the ground.If not them, then what?

Are you familiar with determinism? Read this.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

I kinda understand it, but I'm confused on some, if there are an infinite number of possibilities, then isn't that having free will? Could you explain this further? If I'm right, it says it would be you and the situations you were in. Your personality, basically. If I was poor I may pick the penny up, if I was rich I might leave it. If I was greedy, I might take it. But, I still think that those can, but not always, dictate the outcome.

[abc983055235235231a]

Ok, you are awake in white nothingness. Like space, without stars or planets. From day one of your life to where you are now. Because you have not seen anything that you have in your life, you are not influenced in any way. You know no color, except what is on your body. Also, if you have no concept of language, when you think to yourself, what language would it be in?

Yes, you can influence yourself and make that your personality, but even that needs something to work with. If you are in a nothingness, then you wouldn't be much of anything. You wouldn't even know how to walk. If you have no concept of anything, what would you think of?

I kinda understand it, but I'm confused on some, if there are an infinite number of possibilities, then isn't that having free will? Could you explain this further? If I'm right, it says it would be you and the situations you were in. Your personality, basically. If I was poor I may pick the penny up, if I was rich I might leave it. If I was greedy, I might take it. But, I still think that those can, but not always, dictate the outcome.

The fact that our personality requires external stimuli does not mean that our own agency has nothing to do with our personality.



Determinism says, in one sentence, everything is determined by a combination of (1) the laws of nature, and (2) prior states of the universe. When you come across a penny on the street tomorrow, you are going to either decide to pick it up, or you will decide to leave it on the ground. Determinism says that the decision you make is decided by prior states of the universe (which are notably beyond your influence).

[EddietheZombie]

The fact that our personality requires external stimuli does not mean that our own agency has nothing to do with our personality.



Determinism says, in one sentence, everything is determined by a combination of (1) the laws of nature, and (2) prior states of the universe. When you come across a penny on the street tomorrow, you are going to either decide to pick it up, or you will decide to leave it on the ground. Determinism says that the decision you make is decided by prior states of the universe (which are notably beyond your influence).

Ok, thanks I get it now. I kinda agree with it. I can't put it into words why I don't fully agree with it. I don't know.....

I also agree that we can, to a minute extent, can change ourselves, but you would still need "Material" for that to work. You can decide if you like pizza or not, but you still need the pizza and/or someone to show you it.

[ksdnfkfr]

I think if you went back in time, kidnapped Hitler when he was a baby, and dropped him off on the doorstep of an Amish family, he would have been an ordinary Amish farmer.

[Capto]

Even if Hitler's art was just a tiniest bit better and didn't contrast with the general trend of art at the time, he would have been a painter, albeit poor and unknown, for his entire life.