Why does one man choose for B to influence him and another choose A?
I see you are attempting to lay some kind of logical trap, but immediately I see some errors in your reasoning:
Chief among them is the presumption that behavior is genetic based. There is simply *nothing* to confirm that, beyond some sketchy research pointing to a novelty factor in some, a tendency towards thrillseeking, and possibly a tendency towards seeking G-d. We should know more in a few years, but as it stands now the premise is built on shifting sand.
Now, as to why a person may choose one influence over another is elemental psychology: nature/nurture, environment, parents, teachers, religious leaders, peers...pretty much in that chronological order. From these a person picks and chooses and cultures their own unique preferences as they mature.
Then you have to concede, you do believe there are people who, for no reason at all, make bad choices, and others who for no reason at all make good choices? Why?
You want me to answer the million dollar question for you? Even if I did know, would you listen? Smart people do dumb things...it's all around, one need only open their eyes and observe. That is *not* evidence for determinism.
You believe rapists live in a different society than you? Do you think that, if a rapist had lived exactly your life up until the present day, they would not rape?
I have no desire to force myself on a woman against her wishes. Not even as a fantasy. So the short answer to your question is *no.* The caveat is *my mother raised me better than that,* with the addendum that I *do* exercise self-control and self-restraint.
You? Do you fantasize about rape? Do you exercise self-control? You seem awfully consumed by this subject...
And therein lies the point of the "complexity" clause. People are incredibly complex meat machines. We can't follow the atoms of the mind (non literal; think "very small realities" and not "atoms") and we can't know all the marbles clinking together in a person's experience. Spontaneity is nothing but a result of a pattern that is too complex (for us) to map.
Perhaps that is your conclusion, I think Mandelbrot demonstrated otherwise.
So, why does anyone make a choice differently from anyone else? Do you choose your sense of aesthetics? If you choose to listen to Rap instead of rock, is it simply an arbitrary exercise of choice, or do you choose because of a taste within you, one which you do not consciously cultivate? We can willing avoid thoughts we find objectionable, but you do not say to yourself "Today I will choose to find materialism objectionable, therefore I will choose to avoid thoughts leaning towards materialism." Or do you?
Difference between unique individuals is no proof of determinism. Even among what differences can be shown within a group, there are always collective group norms and values. And yes, I *do* think a personal aesthetic is cultivated. There are values and norms I carry forward from my parents, just as there are those aesthetic values I carry that distinguish me from my parents. This is no proof of determinism. Aesthetics are as much about fitting in among our *preferred* sub-culture peers, in some cases even *putting on airs,* still not proof of determinism.
Will you admit that people do differ in taste? And if we do not control our taste, why are we responsible for making taste-based choices? You don't hold the key, but you're still held responsible for unlocking the door?
Sure I can admit people differ in taste, but what purpose does it serve? It furthers my view, not yours. And since we *do* control our taste, cultivating our preferences, and those preferences can and do morph over time, your premise is faulty. Yes, we are still held responsible for unlocking doors, as you put it, because we do indeed have the keys.
The issue of free will has no practical application.
Sure it does. It teaches personal responsibility for actions and behavior, self-restraint and self-control. Where is a person at without these things? Is society better without these things? I have visions of anarchy in the worst possible sense of the term...
There is no free will, but we can't base our lives on that fact. "Nature:" genetic (and prenatal, metabolic, organic, whatever you so choose) influences affecting a person. "One's nature:" the content of a person's character. Are you pensive, abrupt? Rude or polite? Pious or Godless? What is your temperament? How do you react to stress? How do you express emotions? What do you like/dislike?
NOW you admit to a genetic influence. Interesting, considering you chastised me earlier for suggesting that was your position.
Now here you are attempting, and to an unquestioning person unfamiliar with the subject perhaps in a seemingly convincing manner, to equate autonomic metabolic systems with self-directed thoughts leading to behavior. You can't compare an autonomic system like the adrenal response to stress with the self-directed responses like outward expression of emotion. And yes, one *can* control these things in a public setting. Even the matter of polite or rude is a matter of self-directed control and preference. There is no such thing as a genetically happy person...a person chooses to be happy, each and every day. They choose to be sad, miserable, and on. Even clinically depressed people can change the degree of their depression by self-direction: they can choose to wallow in their depression or try to rise above it. And then there is love...is love *just* the reaction of chemicals in the brain?
"Just because" is not a reason at all. Do you actually believe anything has ever been done "just because"?
And that's the point, isn't it? "Just because" is often so far outside of what is logically predictable in light of the influences, that it makes no sense...hence "just because." And yet I see people frequently exercise this "just because" factor simply for the novelty and change of pace, to add a fresh and exciting new dimension to a stale routine. And since there is some research that does point in this direction, genetically, again the determinism argument is undermined.
And we choose how to feel about that thrill? Thrill seekers feel as they do because they choose to? Or is it an aspect of their nature they do not control?
How exactly does this defend determinism?
What difference does it make how we feel about rape? What difference does it make if we get a mental thrill from the thought or if we can see the error of imposing our will upon another violently? Either way, it is a matter of self-direction, whether we choose to restrain our behavior for the benefit of the community, or we exercise our self-gratification that we have cultured by entertaining taboo thoughts (psychologically, rape is not about sex, it is about power). If rape is against the social fabric of norms and mores, then a person who chooses to rape is responsible for their behavior and is liable to suffer the consequences for that behavior.
How can you hold a man responsible when his behavior can be traced to something as simple as an inclination (inborn or environmental, who knows) to get a kick out of teenage rebellion? He may "choose" to smoke a cigarette, but is it a free choice when it is in his nature to seek out that method of fulfillment? I like the feeling of rebellion, so I take a smoke from my dad's pack. I am responsible for making a choice, even if I wouldn't have made the choice had it not been my inclination?
"How can I hold a man responsible when his behavior can be traced to something as simple as an inclination?" Because you presuppose an inborn inclination when none exists. Show me which genes are implicated in *any* of these behaviors. I even helped you...look at the link I posted, there is another link to a site that lists all of the known genes and what they are associated with. No direct cause connections to behavior, and only indirect connections to novelty, thrill seeking and the search for G-d. No teenage rebellion there. Teen rebellion is a cultural thing, not a genetic one. Same with smoking. Therefore, a person is responsible for their behavior, because it hasn't been traced to any genetic or environmental influence...complex or otherwise.
Nobody. Scary thought, huh?
Faulty conclusion based on faulty premise, see above.
Explain to me why you think we are not also one of life's random cards? ...Or are we dealt along with it?
I didn't say that...regardless, it is irrelevent to the conversation. Nice attempt to move the goalposts though.
Very noble thinking. Unfortunately, selflessness is ultimately an extension of selfishness. Things we do out of love for others are because we love them. If we weren't satisfied in some way by what we perceive to be selfless behavior, we wouldn't do it. Ethics is ultimately an extension of the childish self-gratification that never really leaves us. Your values incline you to ethical behavior. But you don't choose your values, and hence don't choose ethics.
Surprise!, I agree selflessness is an extension of selfishness. Ever read any Ayn Rand? It still doesn't negate responsibility for behavior...in fact, Rand was *adamant* about self-responsibility and self-direction.