Understanding Human Behaviour
I want to understand human behaviour. That's why I created the following model: 
Genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences play a foundational role in the lives of all living things. When my Dad's sperm fused with my Mum's egg, a zygote was formed. If I were to go back in time and replace the genes in that zygote with the genes of a planarian flatworm and change the cellular structures to match planarian flatworm cells, you would be able to behead me, and I would just be able to grow a new head and brain. Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences don't merely influence our choices. They determine our choices, and they constrain our choices. A planarian flatworm can't post my posts to you because he or she does not have my genes, my environments, my nutrients and my experiences. This is 100% certain. It is also 100% certain that no living thing chooses to come into existence, chooses their genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences. We can't be blamed or credited for the foundational variables of our lives that we did not choose at all. We all make choices, but our choices are never free from the determinants - which are genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences (GENE). Nor are our choices free from constraints. Also, our choices have consequences on ourselves, the world and others. I call this the GENE Causal Self Model. Genes + Environments + Nutrients + Experiences ? Desire (what we want to do) + Capacity (what we can do) ? Behaviour (what we actually do). What do you think of this model? Do you think it is accurate? Please explain your reasoning. Thank you very much.
Genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences play a foundational role in the lives of all living things. When my Dad's sperm fused with my Mum's egg, a zygote was formed. If I were to go back in time and replace the genes in that zygote with the genes of a planarian flatworm and change the cellular structures to match planarian flatworm cells, you would be able to behead me, and I would just be able to grow a new head and brain. Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences don't merely influence our choices. They determine our choices, and they constrain our choices. A planarian flatworm can't post my posts to you because he or she does not have my genes, my environments, my nutrients and my experiences. This is 100% certain. It is also 100% certain that no living thing chooses to come into existence, chooses their genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences. We can't be blamed or credited for the foundational variables of our lives that we did not choose at all. We all make choices, but our choices are never free from the determinants - which are genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences (GENE). Nor are our choices free from constraints. Also, our choices have consequences on ourselves, the world and others. I call this the GENE Causal Self Model. Genes + Environments + Nutrients + Experiences ? Desire (what we want to do) + Capacity (what we can do) ? Behaviour (what we actually do). What do you think of this model? Do you think it is accurate? Please explain your reasoning. Thank you very much.
Comments (75)
Which genes, environments, nutrients, or experiences, or combination of the four, gives us the capability to have or make choices? You use the word, "choice", as something we possess, but your post seems to also say that we don't have a choice. Which is it? What is a choice?
Quoting Truth Seeker
This is hard determinism. That being the case, what I think of this model is whatever I have to think of this model. If I agree, my reason must be that I agree based upon my "genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences" because that's what you asserted is the cause of everything.
I might offer you a long winded explanation for why I agree or disagree, and it might seem logical to you, or it might not, and it might be the very reason I think I agree with you, but, at the end of the analysis, we must assert that whatever I believe I must. I have no choice in the matter as you've indicated.
You have a choice, but it is not a free choice. It is a determined and constrained choice. A choice is the experience of choosing a behaviour from a range of behaviours, e.g. buying a lottery ticket or refraining from buying a lottery ticket.
All active genes, all environments, all nutrients, and all experiences determine and constrain our choices. I couldn't have typed these words right here, right now if I didn't have my genes, all the environments I have lived in, all the nutrients I have consumed since I was conceived and all the experiences I have experienced since I was in the womb. Just as you couldn't have read these words right where and when you are reading these words if you didn't have your genes, all the environments you have lived in, all the nutrients you have consumed since you were conceived and all the experiences you have experienced since you were in the womb.
To be determined does not rule out being more or less self-determining and self-governing. To say that freedom requires that our actions are undetermined is equally problematic, since what is wholly determined by nothing prior is necessarily spontaneous and random, which is hardly "liberty."
It needs an arrow from behavior going back to the other inputs, since our behavior shapes our environment, nutrition, experiences, etc. Indeed, our ability to shape our environment and to intentionally form habits, including habits that shape our desires, seems essential to freedom. Consider Aristotle's notion of virtue and vice as habits, and that the virtuous person learns to enjoy doing what is right (Harry Frankfurt's effective second-order volitions, being able to "want to want/not want"). Likewise, we assert control over our emotions and emotional responses.
So, I think the model works in ways, but it seems like it might lead to a very flat anthropology if taken by itself. The human being can be described in many ways, but I do find the division between epithumia (concupiscible appetites, pleasure/pain), thymos (spirit, the irascible appetites, hope/fear), and logos (the rational part of the soul, intellect and will and the desire for truth and goodness themselves respectively) to be very helpful because it shows how liberty and virtue involves the right ordering of these. And while this conception obviously dominated Western thought until the Enlightenment, it also had a huge impact upon Islamic thought, and there are isomorphism in Indian and Chinese thought. I do think the idea of harmonious ordering and cultivation are necessary for explaining "choice" as opposed to mere input and output. Choice requires the parts of man to be organized into a self-governing and relatively self-moving whole.
He itemized four governing factors that determined behavior (Genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences). Which of these is the "self" that "more or less" governs? And why do we add the new concept of "self" as a holistic entity when we already know the 4 factors that govern decision making.
There's obviously not an answer to the free will question. It's one of the perennial philosophical issues. At the end of the analysis, I think we must define free will as both incoherent and necessary. Incoherent in that it makes no sense that something can self-generate from nothing, yet the agent can be judged for what was generated. It also doesn't matter, as you've noted, whether the event was determined or not determined
It's necessary though because without it, we cannot pretend to offer reasons for our decisions, but must admit we did as we were regardless determined.
My solution is to accept the self as the governing agent, but I don't attach elements to it. It's mystical. Maybe a terrible solution, but no more terrible than the alternatives.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Henry Ford built the Model T and said you can choose whatever color you want as long as it's black. Is that what you mean by choice that is not free?
I do understand that free choice doesn't mean I get to choose to do anything, like I realize I can't choose to fly. But it would seem necessary that if you wish to call something choice that there must be at least one other option. It's like if you take your dog on a walk on a leash. He can choose to walk next to you or he can get dragged down the road. I suppose that's sort of a choice within contraints, but that seems different than what you suggest where you say the choice is "determined."
What would a free choice look like - experiencing the option to go get ice cream when you see your child drowning in a pool and choosing that option? Are you saying that a free choice would be a random choice that comes to mind that is irrelevant to the current situation?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Exactly. They seem to forget that there is a final determining factor to one's actions that lies within an individual, not outside of it. This is why they fail to explain why some people behave differently in the same environment. What would be the point in making a choice if the consequences do not logically follow from your choice?
Quoting Hanover
What is the self that is governed by the four factors?
One of the four factors is experiences. Aren't my experiences my own and not someone else's? Am I not the decider of which experiences I have? If I chose to listen to only one side of an issue, did not I not choose to constrain myself? Another was genes. Aren't we all genetically unique?
I agree. Thank you for your suggestion. I also agree that we can learn to enjoy doing what is right.
I made another image on the 4th of May 2025 which has arrows leading from our choices to our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences and also to the world and others. Please let me know what you think of this image:
No, that's not what I mean. Let's say my friend and I go to a shop. There are two types of ice-cream on sale - strawberry and chocolate. I don't like the taste of chocolate flavoured ice-cream. I do like the taste of strawberry flavoured ice-cream. Therefore, I choose the strawberry flavoured ice-cream. My friend likes the taste of chocolate flavoured ice-cream. So, he chooses the chocolate flavoured ice-cream. Neither I, nor my friend, chose which flavour we find tasty. The fact that we find different flavours tasty is due to differences in our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I had never tasted chocolate or strawberry flavoured ice-cream before, I would buy one of each to see how they taste to me. As you can see, my friend and I made choices but they were not free choices. They were determined and constrained choices. We could not buy vanilla-flavoured ice-cream because the shop did not sell any, even though my friend and I both love vanilla-flavoured ice-cream.
A free choice would be free from determinants and constraints. For example, if you behead me, I can't grow my head back. If you behead a planarian flatworm, he or she can grow his or her head back. If I had a free choice, I would have been able to grow my head back even though I lack the genes for growing my head back.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The self is not just governed by the four categories of variables i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The self is constructed by them. If you alter them, you alter the self.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Your experiences are your own. Your sense of being in a body, seeing the world through your eyes, hearing the world through your ears, tasting the world through your tongue, smelling the world through your nose, touching the world through your skin, feeling sensory pleasure or pain - these are all experiences that contribute to the choices you make. You are not completely free to decide which experience you have. Could you experience being all-knowing and all-powerful at will? Could you teleport from one place to another at will? Could you go back in time and change the past at will? No, you couldn't. Could you buy an ice-cream if a shop near you sold ice-creams at a price you can afford? Yes, you could. You make choices but they are not free choices. They are determined and constrained choices. We are all genetically unique. Even identical twins are not 100% identical in terms of their genes.
Identical twins also called monozygotic twins originate from a single fertilised egg that splits into two embryos. This means they start with nearly identical DNA. However, they do not have completely identical genes in every cell for life. Here's why:
At Conception:
Yes, they have the same genetic code because they come from the same zygote.
After Conception:
Differences can emerge due to:
Mutations: Small changes in DNA can occur in one twin but not the other after the split.
Epigenetics: Environmental factors like diet, stress, or illness can switch genes on or off differently between twins, even though the DNA sequence remains the same.
Copy Number Variations: Sometimes, sections of DNA are duplicated or deleted in one twin but not the other.
Mosaicism: If a mutation occurs in a few cells early in development, one twin may carry a mixture of cells with different DNA.
Mitochondrial DNA:
Identical twins usually have the same mitochondrial DNA (inherited from the mother), but rare mutations can cause slight differences.
Identical twins start with identical genes, but small genetic and epigenetic differences can appear over time. These differences may explain why some twins develop different diseases or have slightly different traits.
So your saying we can only be free if we live in a world where prior events do not determine our choice, but also our choices would not determine the consequences. Meaning you might make a choice but there is no link between your choice and the goal you wish to realize. So why make a choice? You would be at the mercy of randomness.
Quoting Truth Seeker
But you just said that you did choose the flavor which you find tasty.
The issue appears to be more about one's goals and not the means by which we obtain them. If you got the outcome you wanted then how were you not free? It seems to me that you're saying that freedom entails having the option to make a choice that works against your interests. Isn't it the opposite?
Our choices are not free choices. They are determined and constrained choices. You can prove me wrong by teleporting, even though you don't have the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences necessary for teleportation.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You have misunderstood what I said. No, I didn't choose to find the strawberry flavour tasty. I chose to buy the strawberry flavour because I found the strawberry flavour to be tasty. The reason I found the strawberry flavour tasty, instead of the chocolate flavour, is my unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
How does uniqueness and ownership correlate to free will? Does the fact that something has an experience and a unique body entail freedom? I don't see how that works.
When you say you have the ability to listen and decide one way or the other, that suggests a libertarian free will. It's not that I disagree with that, but describe how you were able to transcend determinism and make that choice independently.
Could you have chosen otherwise?
If you changed the determinants i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, then I would have chosen differently. For example, if the shopkeeper pointed a gun at my head and said that I must buy the chocolate-flavoured ice-cream or else he will shoot me in the head. This change in the variables would change my choice of which flavour of ice-cream I would buy.
But this is nonsensical. It is determinism that allows one to determine their own outcomes.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Ok, so now you're focusing on your goals, not just your choices (the means you obtain your goal) and how they are determined. What you're basically saying is that freedom is being able to choose to do whatever I want whenever I want. But how can you make any choice without having options and how can you have options without having information? It seems to me that you must possess some kind of experiences (the acquiring of information) to be able to make a choice (free or otherwise).
Quoting Hanover
I'm not saying I'm transcending determinism. I'm using determinism to my advantage to make a choice that determines an outcome that is advantageous to me.
I would say that uniqueness and ownership are characteristics of the will. Freedom is access to information. Free choices are informed choices. A will is free when it has access to information that allow it to make the most informed choice which improves one's chances of realizing the most beneficial outcome. We do not need access to all information, only relevant information - relevant to the goal.
Acquiring more information means that you have more experiences. So your experiences do play a role in the amount of freedom you can have when making a choice. Having more and different experiences than another means you have more freedom in making an informed decision that maximizes your benefit than another.
Why is it nonsensical? It is our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences that determine and constrain our choices. It is entirely evidence-based and logical.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, I am saying much more than that. I am saying that even my wants must be free from determinants for it to be free. For example, I am thirsty right now. This want is not free from determinants. If I was a brick, I would not be thirsty. Because to be able to be thirsty, one needs to be a sentient biological organism, such as a human or a dog or a cow, etc.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I didn't say you can make choices without options and information. I already said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I agree that acquiring of information is an experience e.g. looking at a menu in the shop to see what ice-creams are available and how much they cost.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, you can do that. So can other humans. My model supports this. The fact that you want an outcome that is advantageous to you is due to your self-serving desire, which comes from your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Your desires and your capacity to fulfil your desires are both determined and constrained by your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
Then what you're saying is that to be free of determinism is to not exist as any determinate thing (not exist at all). Is this why people say they are free when they die? When you're dead you can't make any choices - free or determined.
Quoting Truth Seeker
There is evidence in how societies judge individuals for their actions that supports the idea that individuals are the final cause of one's actions and not their parents. You're saying that societies that judge individuals for their actions are not evidence that we are not entirely governed by the factors in the way you say we are? It's our parents fault for the genes they provided and the environment in which we were raised and the experiences and nutrients we consume. So why aren't parents being rounded up for their adult child's bad behavior? That is the implication of what you are saying.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Then free choice is not having any goals at all. How can you make any choice - free or otherwise - without a goal in mind?
This just doesn't make sense. It's like saying a computer program takes advantage of its algorithem to choose an outcome. The computer does whatever it's programmed to do. Choice isn't in the picture in that analysis. You will do whatever is advantageous to do if that is what you are determined to do, and not if not.Quoting Harry Hindu
That doesn't make you freer. It just means you have more data driving your results. The role that data plays though remains determined if determinism is the case.Quoting Truth Seeker
You changed my question. My question was given State X (which includes whatever the exact set of determinants are in the world at that time), could you have chosen otherwise? You stood there looking at the ice cream flavors and you chose strawberry. Could you have chosen chocolate?
One major problem I see with your model is that all three factors on the lower tier - desire, capacity, and behavior - are equally influenced by the factors on the upper tier.
The model doesn't have tiers. It has a sequence:
[b]World + Others ?
Genes + Environments + Nutrients + Experiences ?
Desire (what we want to do) + Capacity (what we can do) ?
Behaviour (what we actually do) ?
Changes to Genes + Environments + Nutrients + Experiences + changes to the World and Others.[/b]
The world and others create genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, which construct the self, which has desires and capacities, which lead to behaviour, which leads to changes to genes, environments, nutrients and experiences and changes to the world and others.
As you can see from the second image:
Our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences come from the world and others (step 1). These construct the self which makes determined and constrained choices (step 2). The choices can alter our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences and the world and others (step 3).
I see your point. My answer is that I could not have chosen chocolate-flavoured ice-cream if the determinants that caused me to choose strawberry-flavoured ice-cream were not altered.
Thanks for the clarification.
It is difficult to identify a range of freedom vs. a range of determination and constraint. It might not matter, because whatever "the reality" is, we proceed forward doing what we do, thinking what we think, and being what we are. Predetermined? How would we know?
You are most welcome. Sorry, I wasn't clear from the beginning.
While an interesting idea, I disagree with some of it. People can overcome some of the these factors.
In your example with ice cream, even if somebody loves chocolate ice cream and hates strawberry (Vanilla man myself), they can still choose strawberry. It is not like it is impossible.
Additionally, with your example of being held at gun point. You could simply die. While sacrificing my life over ice cream is not something I see myself doing, it is still a possibility. Wrestling for the gun, running away. It is not as simple as chocolate or strawberry.
I think these two examples show how you can overcome experience and environments respectfully.
A choice is when multiple options are available to you, nobody can force another person to do something. You just overly consider the costs of refusing as impossible. (Which simply means you have a different value on life)
A different choice would only occur if the determinants (genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences) are changed.
For example, if I had received training in how to disarm assailants, I would use that training to disarm the shopkeeper holding the gun to my head and buy strawberry-flavoured ice-cream instead of chocolate-flavoured ice-cream.
Another example would be, if I were suicidal due to suffering from clinical depression caused by a different mix of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, I could choose to do suicide-by-shopkeeper by buying the strawberry-flavoured ice-cream when he demanded that I must buy the chocolate-flavoured ice-cream.
You are saying that only if you had training would you try to disarm the assailant. This is wrong, even without training you can try.
I think I understand the difference in our thoughts. Your points would work if you follow logic intensively.
However, I do not rely entirely on logic. You would ask yourself, how could I disarm the assailant without training. While I could consider acting regardless of my ability.
I understand that you are trying to avoid useless possibilities. Obviously if you are not trained to disarm a gun then you would very likely fail and die. However, while futile attempts they are possibilities and that possibility is a choice.
Logically futility is useless, but emotionally not trying is also a sin. If that gun was pointed at your head by a serial killer, who would kill you no matter what. Would you still think about whether you have the qualifications. No, you would try even if it is futile.
For things like choice, I do not think people can rule out possibilities based solely on their own thoughts.
I understand where you are coming from. Do you understand where I am coming from? Our thoughts don't occur magically out of thin air. They occur due to brain activities which are determined by genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Whether someone tries to disarm the shopkeeper or not, would depend entirely on the mix of their genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, i.e. their GENE Profile. To show this incontrovertibly, I would need to create another universe where all of the variables are identical to the universe we currently exist in. In that universe, there would be another me who would be posting the same posts I am posting on an identical forum because the other me's GENE Profile would be identical to my GENE Profile. As I can't create another identical universe, this hypothesis will remain untested.
Ahhhhh, I understand better now. I have thought about this before myself. Everything one does and will do is affected by everything.
However, is there a point to this? Are you separate from your thoughts?
Is a person not their own thoughts, not their own GENE? A person is made of these things even if it is influenced by others.
In the case of ice cream, is a person ever upset that they chose the flavor of ice cream that they like.
Some people might not like other people having an influence on them, but personally this is going too far for me. While our choices are not absolutely free and unfettered, there are choices that we like. You can overcome any outside factors, and you are at one with all internal factors. There is no problem here,
Additionally removing any influence from yourself is denying your connection with others. If your mother made a delicious food that you love, say pasta. Would denying your own love for pasta even if developed by another person be good? Would it not be saying that you deny those experiences?
(I started asking a lot of questions to be lazier)
While absolutely freeing yourself from others can seem desirable, you are also dooming yourself to be absolutely alone. I am glad that I turned back before I went to far myself. The chains that bind you are also your connection to other people.
My sense of self is generated by my brain activities. I am not my thoughts, just as I am not my emotions. Thoughts and emotions are temporary mental states that I experience.
Quoting Red Sky
Yes, but what we like and dislike are not freely chosen by us. Our preferences are determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
Quoting Red Sky
This is false. If you abduct me and release me in the vacuum of space, would I be able to survive there by overcoming the lack of oxygen and the lack of heat? No, I wouldn't.
I am not one with all internal factors. I am constructed by the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. They preceded me.
Quoting Red Sky
I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.
Quoting Red Sky
I never said that we should free ourselves from others. Nor did I say that I want to be disconnected from others.
Yes. Only something that has never existed is always free from determinism.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I didn't say what you claimed. I am saying that laws are part of our environment (e.g. the laws of physics and the laws of various countries). We experience consequences for breaking social laws. We currently don't have the means to break the laws of physics, but it does not mean that we won't ever develop the means to break the laws of physics. Whether someone obeys social laws or disobeys social laws depends entirely on their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Given the fact that no human chooses to come into existence and no human chooses their genes, their early environments, their early nutrients and their early experiences, they do not deserve blame or credit for breaking laws or not breaking laws. We should change our legal systems to make them preventive, educational and restorative, by predicting who will break laws using their GENE Profiles and intervening to change their GENE Profiles so that they don't break laws. Those who do break laws should be quarantined until their GENE Profile has been altered so that they no longer break laws. Parents don't choose the genes of their children unless except in the case of designer babies, where traits are chosen in labs e.g. gender, eye colour, etc. Even in such cases, parents don't have total control over the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of their children. For instance, I don't have the capacity to choose the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences needed to make my children all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful, even though I want to do it.
You are not these but they are all a part of you. Do you know who you are? If you say all these things aren't a part of you, then what are you?
Quoting Truth Seeker
This one is highly related to the everything else. Are you mad that you chose the flavor of ice cream you like? Your preference is also a part of you.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Not exactly wrong but just extremely hard. If I drop you off in space, what if you prearranged to be picked up. While the idea is extremely difficult and would take a super genius to predict it is not impossible.
If I am trying to kill you and you are trying to save yourself there is a chance for either of us to survive. I don't win just because I want to kill you and made a plan. What you are saying is that there is a foolproof plan that could absolutely kill you. I think that you are thinking that you must have a way to survive, which is different from a possibility. If you fail, it could be because of incompetence instead of impossibility. While extremely hard now, possibilities in the future might make it easier and even commonplace.
Do we judge the world for what it is now, or what it can be in the future?
Quoting Truth Seeker
I believe you have stated that experiences play a role in your behavior, or something to the same effect. While another person influencing you could always seem bad, I might see it as a gift. The memories of the experience you have is a gift/burden/responsibility (One or more of these). I think it wrong to hate the influence other people have had on my life, just because I don't want them to influence my decisions.Quoting Truth Seeker
My original statement that provoked this response is based on the fact that others influence can be a gift. If it is a gift like I say then trying to throw it away is the same as freeing yourself from others.
My thoughts and emotions are not part of me. They are part of my subjective experiences. I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities. This sentient process is paused during dreamless sleep cycles and by general anaesthesia. When all of my brain activities stop permanently, I will cease to exist.
Quoting Red Sky
My preferences arise due to my brain activities, which occur due to my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
Quoting Red Sky
How would I know that you were going to abduct me and bring me to space in a rocket, then jettison me into the vacuum of space? I don't personally know people like Elon Musk who have the means to go to space, and I certainly am not rich enough to pay SpaceX to rescue me from the vacuum of space. Even if SpaceX rescue me for free, how would SpaceX know exactly where I am, given how vast space is? How would SpaceX get to me from Earth in the mere five minutes it would take for me to die?
Quoting Red Sky
I never said that I don't want others to influence my decisions, nor do I hate the influence others have on my life.
I think Joe will choose that object of all available objects which will lead in summary to Joe's greatest satisfaction. If Joe feels satisfaction in proving that there is a "free will", he will choose an object he dislikes just to demonstrate his alleged free will. But in fact he just compared the satisfaction regarding his preferred object with the satisfaction regarding the free-will-demo. During the comparison he found out that the free-will-demo will make more fun. So Joe was determined to do the free-will-demo. His personality and personal taste forced him to do this. Yes, there were other choices and they were free in the sense that nobody was threating him with a gun. Freedom requires a reference -- free of what? Free of threats. But the choices were not free regarding his personality and his personal taste. Joe likes the idea of a "free will". That's his ideological taste. So he is determined to construct a proof in order to satisfy his taste.
I agree.
We will just have to disagree, all of my emotions and thoughts are part of who I think I am. My emotions can't be others, my thoughts can't be others, they are mine and part of me. What do you find the difference between yourself and emotions, are they not yours. I understand that you think they are different from your thoughts but they are still part of you.
Quoting Truth Seeker
And I am saying that these are part of you. You are not just a soul, your body and factors you might consider temporary are also part of you. Your brain is a part of you, if it arises from your brain it is also yours.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Im not saying it is easy, but is it impossible? And I am talking about exactly impossible, that means no way no matter what you do it cannot happen. It is possible to talk to Elon Musk (Not easy, but certainly not impossible).
Quoting Truth Seeker
Then I assume you are being impersonal about it, you admit that these experiences have an influence on you. Originally you say that your choice isn't completely free, and my stance is that it is not better to desire to become that way,
I understand that without all the extenuating factors, like being held at gunpoint, a person would likely choose what they like. However is that always true?
In every single case in every single universe in all the multiverses, will it always hold true? I don't think so. It is possible even if it is unlikely.
I do agree with your point that you need a reference for freedom though. (That's some good stuff)
I am not convinced souls exist. I know that many people believe that humans are immortal souls and souls go to heaven or hell after death depending on their religious beliefs and practices, but I am convinced that these claims are false. Just as I am convinced that the belief that souls reincarnate based on karma is also false.
My thoughts and emotions are not part of me. They are temporary mental states. I am not an entity. I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities.
Quoting Red Sky
You didn't answer any of my questions about how I would know when and where you would jettison me in the vastness of space. Even if I were Elon Musk and owned SpaceX, I would still need to know the time and place.
Quoting Red Sky
Yes, my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain my choices. I am impersonal about it because it is impersonal. The universe is not conscious. It didn't intend for me to come into existence. It didn't plan what genes, environments, nutrients and experiences I would have.
I only used soul as a lack of a better word. I do not exactly believe in all that stuff either. You seem to be stating that you merely exist, which I don't understand as well. You keep on saying that you are merely sentient and able to perceive these thoughts and feeling. But that is not a definition of you. What is perceiving and feeling these experiences and emotions. Is it merely your consciousness?
You also state that experiences and emotions are temporary, you are also a temporary being and there is no shame in taking pride of these things.
Quoting Truth Seeker
My point is not the method but the possibility, I am not going to spend years of effort to precisely answer those questions. If it is not impossible then it is possible, and that means there is nothing foolproof.
If you think it is impossible then that is just as far as you can go, if you think it is impossible then you think there is no possible method that you are willing/unwilling to do. It is nice to think realistically, but it also dries up possibilities. Other people have probably done what you think impossible, what is the difference between you?
Quoting Truth Seeker
Yet you are still alive today as a human. You are part of the universe, and as such all the things the universe have given you are also part of your own being.
I guess I understand your thoughts. Here's just a linguistic-technical question: In your text you use the words "I" and "my" for a non-existing entity. What do these words refer to in your text?
Quoting Truth Seeker
So, process is a temporary sentient process generated by the process' brain activities?
My consciousness is experiencing my thoughts and emotions. My consciousness is temporary, but it lasts as long as I am alive and conscious, while my thoughts and emotions last mere seconds to minutes, then they are replaced by new thoughts and emotions.
Quoting Red Sky
That's fine. I understand your point.
Quoting Red Sky
All sentient biological organisms have different genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, which cause them to have different behaviours. What is possible for planarian flatworms is impossible for me, e.g. growing back my head after it has been chopped off. Just as what is possible for me is impossible for planarian flatworms, e.g. typing words on this forum.
Quoting Red Sky
I agree that I am part of the universe. Things such as genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences constructed me, so in that sense, they are part of me.
It seems like a lot of this has gone really out of hand.
The original topic was about the freedom of choice and underlying factors affecting it.
I have gone too far with some of my statements and for that I apologize. I did this because usually when a person states the kind of things you did, it means that they have lost the value of, are trying to deny, or put something in a bad light. However through our correspondence this doesn't entirely seem to be the case with you.
Anyway, I had some fun with this thread.
I will admit that underlying factors such as GENE have effects on our choice (Whether good or bad), But I will retain my point that you can overcome outside factors, such as environment and experience.
I called the thread Understanding Human Behaviour. If my GENE Causal Self Model has helped you understand human behaviour, then this thread is successful. I am glad you had some fun with this thread. What we can overcome and what we can't overcome is not free from determinants. In fact, it is determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
At this point I can't help but admit you right. It seems I was thinking too superficially again.
Yes, GENE determines what you can actually do, but it doesn't have as much influence on choice for outside factors. Simply because people can choose to do things they don't know is possible or not.
Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences determine all behaviours. What makes you say: "but it doesn't have as much influence on choice for outside factors. Simply because people can choose to do things they don't know is possible or not."?
I meant that is not limiting the options.
Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and limit what a sentient biological organism can do. That's why I can't do what planarian flatworms can do, and they can't do what I can do.
Determined? Predetermined? Not sure there is a significant difference here.
It doesn't seem like we can say that genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences operate in the continuous present, and not in the past. Don't determinants and constraints pretty much HAVE to operate in the past? How much of the immediate continuous present do we even perceive / experience? The bell that you hear ringing began to ring in the past -- before you heard it. The lightning bolt you saw had already changed by the time your brain registered the flash. Whatever caused you to choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate was in operation before you decided what to get. The past might be only milliseconds old, but it is still the past (of the high-speed CNS).
I don't like it that we make decisions before we are aware of what the decision is going to be, but like it or not, reality seems to work that way.
I mostly agree with you that "genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences" determine and constrain who we are, and the choices we might or might not make. The ideas I have about socialism, gay liberation, personal finances, religious practices, preferred foods -- so on and so forth -- didn't arise randomly. They were / are shaped by all sorts of factors. I didn't make up Karl Marx, Stonewall, double entry bookkeeping, prayer, or bananas.
If we look at dogs as an example (dogs are not an unflattering model for human behavior) we see that "genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences", for instance, produce millions of dogs who all do the same things. They all do some things because we all do some things--like feed them at the same time every day. If we let them run loose (which we used to do in small towns) they didn't beg for a walk. (On the other hand, they got run over by cars a lot more often.). Dogs are exceptional animals in that they readily follow the human gaze. Most animals don't. Dogs employ a hard stare, for instance, to compel us to act on their needs and wants -- "feed me now", "let me go outside", "let's go for a walk", etc. Dogs solicit play by the same posture -- front legs on the ground, rump in the air, mouth open, bright eyes. They attempt dominance by humping a leg (it's not sexual--males and females both do this).
Our brains are continuously processing information and making decisions - from regulating heart rate and breathing to deciding where to look or how to respond in social situations. The vast majority of brain activity is unconscious. For example, decisions related to motor control, language processing, and threat detection often happen without conscious awareness. Experiments (e.g. Benjamin Libets work in the 1980s and later studies using functional MRI and EEG) have shown that brain activity predicting a decision can occur hundreds of milliseconds to several seconds before people report being consciously aware of making that decision. For example, Libet found a "readiness potential" in the brain that preceded conscious awareness of the intention to act. Later research (e.g. Soon et al., 2008) showed researchers could predict a participants choice (e.g. left or right button) based on brain activity up to 7 seconds before the participant was aware of deciding.
Yes, the stimulus begins in the past (e.g. the bell ringing), but it is processed in the present by our nervous system. As far as subjective experience goes, we can only experience the present. For example, I can't experience the first time I flew in a plane on 21 September 1982 right now. I can recall the most memorable parts of it, but I can't experience the whole thing exactly as I did back then. Just as I can't experience right now what I will do tomorrow. A plane could be crashing on our house tomorrow (or sooner or later), causing my death.
Thank you for bringing my attention to the behaviours of dogs. I have a doggy friend who sleeps with me and does all the things you have said.
This is an odd thing to say. Something that does not exist can't make any choices, so you're pulling the rug out from under your own argument.
Quoting Truth Seeker
What does that even mean? What would it look like to break the laws of physics if not to say that determinism is not the case and everything is random?
Quoting Truth Seeker
Why would we quarantine an individual if they are not the agent of their actions? Doesn't this not support the idea that an individual is responsible for their actions?
The implications of your argument is that it is society that is to blame for an individual's actions, not the individual, yet you are trying to use society to punish the individual for society's own actions in creating an environment that determines the individual's actions. If society is the cause of one's behavior, then are you quarantining the individual from society or the society from the individual? In doing so, are you not setting the individual free of society's influence? Why would you now need to adjust their gene profile?
Why would you even need to adjust the gene profile to match what society wants if society is what determined their behavior in the first place? I could also say that if you have to adjust the gene profile then society had no deterministic effect on them prior and now society is trying to have a deterministic effect on them. :roll: It's a total contradiction and trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Isn't is the accumulated effect of all four that creates unique individuals? If we make everyone the same that will stifle diversity and competition and by extension - progress.
If something doesn't exist, it can't suffer, it can't enjoy, it can't make any determined and constrained choices.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Being able to move faster than light would require breaking the laws of physics.
The **laws of physics** are the fundamental principles that govern how matter, energy, space, and time behave in the universe. These laws are not laws in the legal sense they are descriptions, often expressed in mathematical form, of patterns we observe in nature. They are derived from empirical observations, refined through experimentation, and sometimes revised as new data emerges.
Heres a breakdown of the **core categories** and **major laws** of physics:
**Classical Mechanics** (Newtonian Physics)
1. **Newtons Laws of Motion**
* **First Law (Inertia)**: An object remains at rest or moves at constant velocity unless acted upon by a force.
* **Second Law**: Force equals mass times acceleration
* **Third Law**: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
2. **Law of Universal Gravitation**
* Every mass attracts every other mass with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:
**Electromagnetism** (Maxwells Equations)
3. **Maxwells Equations**
A set of four equations that unify electricity and magnetism:
* **Gauss's Law for Electricity**: Electric charges produce electric fields.
* **Gauss's Law for Magnetism**: There are no magnetic monopoles.
* **Faradays Law of Induction**: A changing magnetic field induces an electric field.
* **Ampère's Law with Maxwell's Addition**: Electric currents and changing electric fields produce magnetic fields.
**Thermodynamics**
4. **Zeroth Law**: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
5. **First Law**: Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed (conservation of energy).
6. **Second Law**: Entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. Heat flows from hot to cold.
7. **Third Law**: As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.
**Relativity** (Einstein)
8. **Special Relativity**
* Laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
* The speed of light is constant in all frames.
* Time dilation and length contraction occur at high speeds.
* Famous equation: E = mc^2
9. **General Relativity**
* Gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.
* Objects follow geodesics (the straightest possible paths) in curved spacetime.
**Quantum Mechanics**
10. **Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle**
* You cannot simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a particle:
11. **Schrödinger Equation**
* Describes how the quantum state of a system evolves over time.
12. **Pauli Exclusion Principle**
* No two identical fermions (like electrons) can occupy the same quantum state.
13. **Wave-Particle Duality**
* Particles such as electrons and photons exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviour.
**Modern Extensions & Theories**
14. **Standard Model of Particle Physics**
* Describes fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) and their interactions via the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.
15. **Quantum Field Theory (QFT)**
* Combines quantum mechanics with special relativity; particles are excitations in fields.
16. **Conservation Laws** (Apply across physics):
* **Conservation of Energy**
* **Conservation of Momentum**
* **Conservation of Angular Momentum**
* **Conservation of Charge**
* **Conservation of Baryon and Lepton Numbers** (in particle physics)
Important Notes
* These laws **describe** what we observe but don't necessarily **explain why** the universe is this way.
* Some laws are **approximations** (e.g. Newtons laws break down at relativistic speeds or quantum scales).
* Scientists are searching for a **Theory of Everything** that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics current candidates include **string theory** and **loop quantum gravity**.
If we could do things that go against the above laws of physics, that would count as breaking the laws of physices e.g. knowing both the exact position and the momentum of a subatomic particle such as an electron.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Harry Hindu
We would quarantine law-breakers and potential law-breakers to protect potential victims of crimes. We have a duty to protect potential victims from being murdered, tortured, raped, robbed, conned, etc. Once we have altered the mix of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences that cause crimes, we would let the law-breakers out of quarantine. A similar approach is taken if you catch a deadly communicable disease, e.g. Ebola. We don't blame the patients for being infected. We quarantine the patients to protect potential spread of the germs, then cure the patients and then release them from quarantine. If your car has an accident because the break cable snapped would you call your car evil and imprison it? No, you would call your car broken and you would bring it to a mechanic and when it is fixed you would drive it again. The same applies to people who break laws. They are not evil, they are damaged and need to be repaired.
Society is made of individuals. As I have said before, no one chooses to come into existence and no one chooses their genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences. Therefore, no one deserves any blame or credit for any choices. There is no contradiction in my model and approach to crimes. You simply misunderstood me.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, all four categories of variables i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences (GENE) are essential to construct every unique sentient biological organisms. I never said we should be making everyone the same. There can be diverse individuals who don't harm themselves and others, e.g. vegan egalitarians such as me and my vegan egalitarian friends. We are not clones of each other. We differ in terms of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences considerably. We have different genders, different skin colours, different eye colours, different types of hair, different heights, different weights, different education, different sexualities, and different careers. The only thing we have in common is that we are all vegan and we are all egalitarian.
As I already pointed out, a law-breaker is an example of someone where the society had no determined effect on them. You quarantining them and adjusting their gene profile would be an example of having a determined effect, but only after they have shown that society had no determined effect on them.
No. We experience the culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into. No one is free from the determining and constraining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Some of us follow laws, and some of us don't follow laws due to differences in our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. We don't deserve blame or credit.
That's what I said. We experience the society (culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into.) we are born into. If the society is based on laws and an individual breaks those laws then how can you say that the culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into has a deterministic effect on them? It would seem that genes overcame the determining factors of the culture, the religion, and the traditions they were born into.
Because it is not a simple situation. Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences interact in complex ways to form neural pathways which lead to choices. Both the law-followers and the law-breakers are making determined and constrained choices. Every human being is unique because every human being has a unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. It's a dynamic mix that is changing every millisecond.
How would you describe, in detail, the deterministic causal chain on someone that was raised in a certain religious environment but ended up rejecting it later in life?
I disagree with your definition of free choice because having access to information does not make a choice free from the determining and constraining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, as long as the individual can process the amount of information. Let's say, you are driving a car. While you are driving it, the passenger sitting next to you shows you videos on the laws of physics, the manufacturing process of cars, etc. All these information would overwhelm you and make you a worse driver. You don't need all of these information to drive the car well. You need to pay attention to the road to drive the car well and you need to know how to use tools such as the steering wheel, the gear stick, accelerator and clutch and brake pedals and mirrors, etc.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree. Science is a much better source of information than cultures, religions and traditions. Cultures, religions and traditions often perpetuate ignorance, superstition and harmful practices.
Would you agree that having access to more information equates to having more experiences?
Quoting Truth Seeker
Exactly. Some information is irrelevant to the current goal. I am talking only about relevant information in some specific instance or issue.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Exactly. So we can say that the person that was raised in a religious environment acquired more information outside of the environment they were raised in to make a more informed choice. In essence, more information "freed" themselves from their upbringing. Their current ideas are no longer constrained by their upbringing. Now, how can an individual that was raised to NOT question one's religious beliefs start to question their religious beliefs?
I would agree.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree, but they are still not free from determinism. They are only free from the religion they were born into. Most humans remain within the religion they were born into. Only some humans either change religion or become secular.
But you used religion as an example of a determining factor of one's current choices. So how can you say they are not free from determinism if I just showed that one of your own examples did not have a determining factor in their current choices?
Aren't we saying that one factor can override, or diminishes, the determining power of one or more of the other three?
Religion is not a determining factor on its own. There are four categories of determining factors: genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Religion comes under experiences. For example, someone I know was brought up to be a Christian, but when she was a teenager, she read the adult version of the Bible instead of the children's version of the Bible. She was horrified by the cruelties, contradictions, and injustices in the Bible and consequently left Christianity and became an agnostic. Many Christians never read the whole Bible. They read only the cherry-picked nice verses selected by priests. If you haven't read the whole Bible, I recommend that you read this: https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
Your friend acquired more information outside of her current experiences. She acquired new experiences, which allowed her to actually make a choice. Before, she had no choice because she didn't have access to new information.
I think I should make some clarifications.
By genes, I mean active genes. Genes can be switched on or off due to epigenetics.
By environment, I mean physical environment, e.g. growing up in the Amazon jungle in the year 1200 versus growing up in the desert in the year 700 versus growing up in London in the year 1900 versus growing up in Mumbai in the year 2025 versus growing up in a colony on Mars in the year 2100, etc.
By nutrients, I mean protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamins, minerals, etc.
By experiences, I mean all experiences, e.g. the taste of mango, the experience of being told that Jesus is the only way to Heaven when you are four years old, the experience of having your face deformed by acid, the experience of being told that Islam is the only true religion when you are four years old and that only Muslims go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell forever, the experience of being raped when you are fourteen, the experience of winning a Maths competition when you are ten, the experience of watching what happens in slaughterhouses, the experience of inhaling the scent of red roses, the experience of being tortured, the experience of learning English, the experience of having malaria, the experience of coming fourth in the 100 metre sprint in the Olympics, the experience of being told that you have Schizophrenia due to bad karma in your previous life by your Hindu parents, the experience of falling in love when you are fifteen, the experience of being constipated, the experience of having an injection, the experience of being beaten by your parents for years and years, etc.
One's physical environment inevitably affects one's experiences. It also affects what nutrients are available to one. For instance, if you abduct me and jettison me in space without a spacesuit, I won't have any oxygen, water, food or heat. Hence, I will die within minutes. The physical environment also affects which genes are switched on due to epigenetics.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No. She made determined and constrained choices since she was in the womb. We all make determined and constrained choices every second from being in the womb until we die. Most of our choices are unconscious. Her choice changed (i.e. she left Christianity and became an agnostic) as a result of a new experience, i.e. reading the whole of the adult version of the Bible, which horrified her.
A choice in that analysis would be an IF-THEN, ELSE IF-THEN, OR ELSE statement. That is basically the structure of a choice. Freedom comes in degrees that corresponds to the amount of information one has at a given moment. The more IF-THEN, ELSE IF-THEN, OR ELSE statements you have, or the more nesting of IF-THEN-ELSE statements you have, the more freedom you have. You can disagree with my definition of "free" here. All I care about is if you agree that the more relevant information one has the better it is for that individual and their choices.
We are all programmed to do what is best with the information we have at any given moment. I don't see a purpose for making a choice beyond this - to get the best outcome for myself. My point was that for me to get the best outcome requires an understanding that I can get there based on a choice that I make. I have more power to determine a certain outcome that is beneficial to me by making a choice, not by not making them. Outcomes do not occur randomly, or else there would be no reason to make a choice.
Quoting Hanover
Like I said, you can disagree with the term I'm using to refer to some state-of-affairs, all I care about is that you agree that the state-of-affairs exists.
You seem to be agreeing that the role data plays is important in determining an outcome and that the more data we have the better because it helps to ensure we get the outcomes we want.
To taste a mango means a mango was in your environment, and so on for every other example you provided. Exactly - One's physical environment inevitably DETERMINES one's experiences. So maybe you should redraw your diagram to show the environment as the foundation that determines everything else - the nutrients you have available, your experiences and the genes that are activated.
Your friend had a change of environment from one where there was only the children's version to one where there was both the children's and adult versions. Our environment is where we get information from so by changing environments (like changing the channel to a different news source) we get access to new information.
Perhaps I should redraw it.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, she didn't have a change of environment. She still lived in the same house in England with her parents. She just chose to read her parents' Bible instead of her own due to curiosity about the adult version of the Bible.
Ok, then her environment did not change, but the information she had did.
Yes. The Children's Bible is sanitised to exclude God's commands to commit genocides, rape, slavery, and non-Christians going to spend eternity in hell, etc. This is why she was shocked and horrified by the adult version of the Bible.
I agree that having different information, i.e. God's commands to commit genocides, rape, slavery, and non-Christians going to spend eternity in hell, etc. caused her to make a different choice, i.e. she left Christianity and became an agnostic.
So, within your brain is the if/then directive. If you the glove does not fit, you must acquit. The glove does not fit, so you acquit. Explain how that was a choice. You had to acquit. You lacked the ability to do otherwise.
What is a choice? It seems to me that you are not simply saying that free choice doesn't exist, but that choices don't exist.
The glove not fitting was only one aspect of the "evidence" (information) provided. There was other evidence (information) available. And OJ murdering his wife and the cops planting evidence can both be true. So, given all this you must deliberate on the information provided. That period of time when you have been provided the evidence and are going through it all and determining its value in reaching a conclusion of guilty or innocent is the moment of choice.
If "the glove doesn't fit" was the only evidence (information) provided, then yes, you are right, but it wasn't. That is why there was a choice - a deliberating process. The jurors had to pour over all the information and discuss the value of each in determining the innocence or guilt of OJ. It took time.
The more time it takes is relative to the amount of information one has. It also equates to more freedom, but if you don't like using that term to refer to this state-of-affairs that exists where an individual has more information to go through to make more refined decisions and that improves their individual fitness, that's fine - just as long as you agree that having more information at hand is better for an individual when making decisions and we should strive for us all having access to more relevant (less misinformation) information. I would like to live in a more informed (free) society than an less informed one, and if determinism determined that for me - I'm just fine with that.
This is why I am determined to inform others of this very fact - so that my voice might influence others to gather more information before making a decision (especially moral and political decisions), and to demand the media be less biased and simply report the facts, or that we have access to more and more varying sources to triangulate the truth - to spread the idea of freedom of thought and choice and speech.
I support your goal.