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. — Truth Seeker

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?

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences don't merely influence our choices. They determine our choices, and they constrain our choices. — Truth Seeker

What do you think of this model? Do you think it is accurate? Please explain your reasoning. — 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.

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? — Harry Hindu

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.

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." — Count Timothy von Icarus

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.

You have a choice, but it is not a free choice. It is a determined and constrained choice. — 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."

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. — Truth Seeker

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?

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." — 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?

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. — 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?

It needs an arrow from behavior going back to the other inputs, since our behavior shapes our environment, nutrition, experiences, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

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:

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? — Hanover

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.

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? — Harry Hindu

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.

What is the self that is governed by the four factors? — 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.

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? Another was genes. Aren't we all genetically unique? — 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.

A free choice would be free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

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.

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. — 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?

No, I am not saying what you are claiming.

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.

But you just said that you did choose the flavor which you find tasty. — 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.

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? — Harry Hindu

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.

Therefore, I choose the strawberry flavoured ice-cream. — Truth Seeker

Could you have chosen otherwise?

Could you have chosen otherwise? — Hanover

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.

No, I am not saying what you are claiming.

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. — Truth Seeker

But this is nonsensical. It is determinism that allows one to determine their own outcomes.

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. — 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).

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. — 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.

But this is nonsensical. It is determinism that allows one to determine their own outcomes. — Harry Hindu

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.

What you're basically saying is that freedom is being able to choose to do whatever I want whenever I want. — 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.

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). — 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.

I'm using determinism to my advantage to make a choice that determines an outcome that is advantageous to me. — 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.

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. — Truth Seeker

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.

It is our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences that determine and constrain our choices. It is entirely evidence-based and logical. — 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.

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. — 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?

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. — Harry Hindu

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.

Having more and different experiences than another means you have more freedom in making an informed decision that maximizes your benefit than another. — 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.

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. — 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?

What do you think of this model? — Truth Seeker

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.

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. — T Clark

The model doesn't have tiers. It has a sequence:
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.

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).

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? — Hanover

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.

The model doesn't have tiers. It has a sequence: — Truth Seeker

Thanks for the clarification.

You have a choice, but it is not a free choice. It is a determined and constrained choice. — Truth Seeker

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?

I didn't say our choices were predetermined. I said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. This happens in the present continuous, not in the past.

Thanks for the clarification. — T Clark

You are most welcome. Sorry, I wasn't clear from the beginning.

I said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

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)

I said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.
— Truth Seeker
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) — Red Sky

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.

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. — Truth Seeker

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.

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.
— Truth Seeker
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. — Red Sky

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.