Would you agree that having access to more information equates to having more experiences? — Harry Hindu

I would agree.

Some information is irrelevant to the current goal. I am talking only about relevant information in some specific instance or issue. — Harry Hindu

I agree.

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 ideas are no longer constrained by their upbringing. — 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.

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. — Truth Seeker

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?

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? — Harry Hindu

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

I would have thought that religion falls under environment. What does it mean to be brought up to be Christian if not that they were raised in a Christian environment? Doesn't one's environment dictate one's experiences? What would an experience divorced from the environment one finds themselves in look like if the environment is a determining factor on one's choices? Wouldn't the environment be a determining factor of one's experiences? How does one acquire experiences if not by living in a particular environment?

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 would have thought that religion falls under environment. What does it mean to be brought up to be Christian if not that they were raised in a Christian environment? Doesn't one's environment dictate one's experiences? What would an experience divorced from the environment one finds themselves in look like if the environment is a determining factor on one's choices? Wouldn't the environment be a determining factor of one's experiences? How does one acquire experiences if not by living in a particular environment? — Harry Hindu

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.

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. — 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.

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. — Hanover

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.

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. — 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.

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. — Truth Seeker

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.

So maybe you should redraw your diagram to show the environment as the foundation that determines everything else — Harry Hindu

Perhaps I should redraw it.

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. — 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.

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. — Truth Seeker

Ok, then her environment did not change, but the information she had did.

Ok, then her environment did not change, but the information she had did. — Harry Hindu

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.

Then you agree that having more information allowed her to make a more informed decision. You agree that more information gave her a choice whereas before there wasn't a choice to either accept that God is benevolent or not, which may lead to other choices like choosing to become an atheist or not.

Then you agree that having more information allowed her to make a more informed decision. You agree that more information gave her a choice whereas before there wasn't a choice to either accept that God is benevolent or not, which may lead to other choices like choosing to become an atheist or not. — Harry Hindu

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.

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. — Harry Hindu

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.

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. — Hanover

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.

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. — Harry Hindu

I support your goal.