Individuality (Identity)

by David Turell , Sunday, May 24, 2015, 19:21 (3470 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: “Some of these differences” leaves plenty of leeway, and so does “more or less genetically identical”, but the second quote implies that individuality IS caused by the genes, and the first that it is not.
> 
> The whole subject is very rich. I have repeated my first comment, as it is a clear rebuttal of your own beliefs, David, that the so-called lower forms of life (bacteria, insects) are automatons. The rest raises the old and never resolved question of free will. If flies make different choices when confronted with the same options, one is tempted to say they have free will. But if their individual decisions are governed by their individual genes, they are individually preprogrammed to act the way they do. Why should not the same argument apply to humans?-I view bacteria like the cells in my body, doing an automatic job. My cells are indirect descendants of single cells which I still maintain are automatic reactors to stimuli, the reaction mediated by the strength of the specific level of stimulus.-I view insects as making some simple choices as seen in fruit fly experiments. Fruit flies have a brain. To equate them with a miniscule form of human consciousness is a real stretch. If you have time read this discussion of animal minds by v j Torley, whose Ph.D. thesis is on animal minds:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-immateriality-of-animal-consciousness-why-im-agnostic/-"Who is right in this dispute? I suspect that the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. Sentient non-human animals appear to be naturally incapable of entertaining concepts which can only be defined in terms of language. Since the concept of God is one such concept, there can be no hope of a Beatific Vision for Fido. However, these animals may nonetheless be capable of possessing certain primitive concepts (such as the concept of an object or the concept of self vs. others) which they can grasp but cannot articulate."