Citations needed.


Good luck proving that, it's a centuries old debate with strong evidence showing its a combination of experience and internal nature that define an individual.


The memory argument also eliminates the possibility of free will because two individuals with the same experiences would therefore take the same action and any possibility of another outcome is merely an illusion because they are incapable of following a different path due to the momentum of the past experiences.

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron}

^{Victor was the sum of his experiences. A feral child to the age of nine, he ran away from society eight times. Jean Marc Gaspard Itard refused to give up on him and over the course of five years taught him him empathy -- something Victor would never have needed to learn in the wild; infact, empathy would've likely led to his death if he'd known of it in the jungle.}

^{While Victor did not learn to speak the language that Itard tried to teach him, it seems that Victor did make progress in his behavior towards other people. At the Itard home, housekeeper Madame Guérin was setting the table one evening while crying over the loss of her husband. Victor stopped what he was doing and displayed consoling behavior towards her. Itard reported on this progress.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron#cite_note-12}

The Minnesota Twins Family Study conducted from 1979 to 1999 studied twins separated at very early ages and raised in different environments. The study looked at their behavior and choices, looking for similarities, of which a surprisingly large number were found. Since the twins had been raised in different environments, there was no shared experience. The study suggested that many of these shared behaviors and choices were likely the result of their shared genetics.

Oh you mean the guy who changes work orders so Synths have the chance to escape to the surface. Or the NONEXISTENT person who repograms synths to want freedom because that's NOT actually what it says in the game. He's getting Synths assigned to surface details not implanting the desire to be free in their heads.

Well according to Mama Murphy.

"You're standing with... the people. Working together. United. I see a land filled with hope again. Fear falls away as the brave step forward to join the ranks. You're a hero. A symbol for a better world. Our world."

Yes, in twins. Show me that in normal brother/sister relationships where they have also been separated at birth.

Brothers and sisters are irrelevant and would not work for the study. The purpose of the study was to determine how much of our behavior is the product of our environment, our upbringing and our experiences and how much of our behavior is the product of our genetics. For the study to work, they needed a way to determine if a behavior was the product of their experiences or their genetics. It is impossible to find two people with the same experiences. However, you can find people that have the same genes, twins. When twins are removed from their families and from each other at an early enough age, the amount of influence they have had on each other is negligible. With the twins placed in separate families, in different communities, their environment, upbringing and experiences are very different. If people are the sum of their experiences, then they should also be completely different people. The study found, however, that they were not. Certainly there were differences, but they also had a lot in common. They often had more similarities than could be accounted for by random luck. As such there must be some common factor that would produce these common behaviors and preferences. The only certain commonality was their genes. This study showed that a lot of who we are, our likes and dislikes, our behaviors and our choices are the product of not our environment or experiences, but rather our genetics.

The study was on monozygotic twins, which are essentially one person whose embryo was divided in the womb. They are alike because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPwzII_g6o. Their ancestors had habits and traits that were developed by acknowledging things that were happening to them and reacting to them repeatedly over time to the point that it was second nature.

I don't believe it's "nurture or nature", I believe it's both.

Now, the reason I said to use siblings that weren't monozygotic is because they would have the same ancestors, but you would see that the genetic memories might not be as strong in one area as the other. They might have some similarities, but they would be few and far between -- because the events of their lives shaped them differently. They aren't one person split into two twins. They're two wholly different people.

as for twins being together at young ages having no effec ton eachother, that's categorically false. Twins (as well as normal siblings, though it is rarer) often develop personalized languages in their early youths which only they can understand, some of which persist into advlthood.

Yeah, so, a person is not just the sum of their memories. Glad we got that straightened out.

A person is absolutely the sum of their memories. They just also have instincts.

Unfortunately, synths only have the memories with which they are programmed. If they are wiped, they have no instincts from past predecessors to draw upon.

Even more than humans, synths are the sums of their memories.

Hey you ever tried to talk with escaped synths during lost souls missions?I don't care what people say,synths that did not get s mind wipe and fake memories sound soo obvious! I could recognize one even if they were labelled "wastlander" and wore common clothes,I swear.

You're holding two contradicting viewpoints.


The core processes of the AI are different from the memories.Amari explains this during the Curie transfer. So there's synths actually have core programming which is informed by their memories but is a stand alone process for synths in the game world. This is the reason that Amari cannot transfer Curie into a human because while she can move the memories, she says she can't transfer the processes.

Yes. They are biomechanical and have data.

Yes. They know how to breathe, take orders, and perform orders.

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Play the game, transfer Curie to the synth body and listen to or read Amari's dialogue.


I am assuming you own a copy of the game but you may not which would explain a lot about your posts.

I did. Amari doesn't explain the difference in human and synth brains. just that humans can't process a robot's data or vice versa.

'The memories wouldn't be hard. We translate those from the brain to computers and back all the time here. It's how the Loungers work.


Her personality, though? All extra pieces of robotic, programmed decision making? A normal, organic brain wouldn't know what to do with them.'


- Dr. Amari

Okay. How does that refute their complete and utter lack of genetic memory?

They only have programming to run on. Which makes them a machine when they don't have a person's brain imprinted on their own, as Nick himself admits.

You're assuming a factory state which is what the recall code does. Amari is wiping the memories and she clearly differentiates between personality and memories. The personality would just have to incorporate the new memories.




The AI itself is the process. Based on comments made by a Courser asking a Synth about developing a stutter, this code is subject to irregularities developing as well which would mean that it become unique to that unit.


Nick admits that the memories formed his personality when he awoke but he even asks the SS how much is him and how much of him is the memories. Nick is also a mechanical Gen2 unit. Gen3's are working on an organic architecture so there may be differences between the two.

If you guys want to continue this argument, fine. I think that in the end, by reprogramming a Synth in such a way that they no longer know they are a synth (such as the case of Gabriel), then they are no longer a synth (meaning that the synth is effectively 'dead' due to the synth no longer knows it is a synth).

Simplest explanation is that if it knows what it is, it is truly what it is. Without knowing, it is no longer what it is, and therefore that thing is 'dead'.

Look at the internet pseudo-intellectuals you've created, Wikipedia.

No. I know a factory state is what the recall code does. https://youtu.be/no-w-4WsCTQ?t=711

The synth would not have a personality without genetic memory to draw on. It would be a blank robot.

Yes. Synths are created as blank slates, and any personality they might develop is formed solely through the experiences they accumulate during their time spent in the Institute, and the few hours/days they are on the run before they reach the Railroad. Erasing that essentially destroys any 'self' they might have formed previously. Anything the Railroad inserts into them at that point simply turns them into a facsimile of some human, but the original synth 'person' is gone forever.

Note that in the case of Harkness in Fallout 3 one can use a code to 'reset' A3-21 that makes him simply remember his previous life as a synth - and Pinkerton explicitly states A3's mind was not wiped, but rather his new human identity was superimposed over his old memories. If you rat Harkness out to Zimmer, Zimmer resets him for good, turning him into an empty shell. Not an amnesiac 'who am I, where am I' kind of person, but a 'please input data' thing.

The personality is alterations to the processes from the first set of memories. The alterations are not removed, just the initial data set. An additional data set is then fed into the altered processes.

Okay. Prove it.