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? — Red Sky

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.

My point is not the method but the possibility, I am not going to spend years of effort to precisely answer those questions. — Red Sky

That's fine. I understand your point.

Other people have probably done what you think impossible, what is the difference between you? — 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.

You are part of the universe, and as such all the things the universe have given you are also part of your own being. — 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.

However, from what I know the DNA chains shorten when cells split. (Or something of the like) Which is what makes us age.
Does this not happen to planarian flatworms? — Red Sky

You're absolutely right: in most animals, DNA chains shorten during cell division, specifically at the telomeres - the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes. Each time a cell divides, telomeres shorten, eventually leading to cell ageing (senescence) and organismal ageing.

But planarian flatworms appear to escape this fate. Here's how:

1. Telomere Maintenance in Planarians
Planarians do not show typical telomere shortening during regeneration and cell division.

This is because their stem cells (neoblasts) express high levels of telomerase, the enzyme that rebuilds telomeres.

In most humans, telomerase is active only in early development or cancer cells, but in planarians, it stays constantly active in their regenerative cells.

2. Eternal Youth via Neoblasts
These neoblasts are pluripotent and renew themselves indefinitely without ageing.

This allows planarians to:

Replace damaged tissues continuously.

Reproduce asexually by fission with no loss of cellular integrity.

Avoid senescence-related deterioration seen in most multicellular animals.

3. Experimental Evidence
Studies (e.g., Wagner et al., 2011) have shown that telomerase activity is critical for the planarian’s regeneration and longevity.

Inhibition of telomerase in planarians leads to impaired regeneration and tissue degradation over time, resembling ageing.

Summary
Planarians do not age the way we do because:

Their telomeres do not shorten dangerously thanks to active telomerase.

Their neoblasts can divide indefinitely and replace old cells.

They have molecular systems that prevent senescence.

Is their ability to regrow their heads the only reason you admire them? — Red Sky

No. Planarian flatworms are truly extraordinary organisms with several remarkable biological features that have fascinated scientists for decades. Here are their most impressive characteristics:

### **1. Regeneration Superpowers**

Planarians are famous for their **astonishing regenerative abilities**:

* They can **regrow an entire body** from just a **tiny fragment** - as little as 1/279th of the original worm.
* If cut in half, each half can regenerate into a fully functioning worm.
* This regeneration is powered by **pluripotent stem cells** called **neoblasts**, which make up around 20 – 30% of their cells.

### **2. Functional Immortality**

Planarians can potentially **live indefinitely** under the right conditions:

* Some species show **no signs of aging** (senescence).
* They can **rejuvenate themselves** by periodically regenerating tissues, essentially “renewing” their bodies.

### **3. Molecular Memory Retention**

Incredibly, planarians can **retain learned behaviors** even **after decapitation**:

* Experiments have shown that trained planarians, when decapitated and regenerated, still "remember" certain behaviours.
* This suggests that **memory may be stored outside the brain**, possibly at the molecular or epigenetic level.

### **4. Simplified Yet Functional Nervous System**

Despite their simplicity, planarians have:

* A **centralized brain-like structure** with two lobes.
* **Two ventral nerve cords** connected by transverse nerves, forming a **ladder-like** nervous system.
* Eyespots that help them **detect light**, enabling **simple decision-making** like moving away from light (negative phototaxis).

### **5. Asexual Reproduction**

Many species reproduce by **fission**:

* They **tear themselves in half**, and each part regenerates the missing half.
* This allows them to **clone themselves** without mating.

### **6. Highly Efficient Stem Cell System**

* Planarian neoblasts are **the only known adult cells** in animals that are **pluripotent**.
* This makes them a **model organism for stem cell and regenerative medicine research**.

### **7. Adaptability and Environmental Sensitivity**

* They respond to a wide range of environmental cues - light, chemicals, and electric fields.
* Their behaviors make them useful for studying **neurotoxicity**, **learning**, and **environmental sensing**.

### ⚖️ **8. Symmetry and Simplicity**

* They have **bilateral symmetry** and a **three-layered body plan** (triploblastic), unlike simpler organisms like cnidarians.
* Lack a circulatory or respiratory system; they rely on **diffusion** for gas exchange.

### **Applications in Science**

Because of all these traits, planarians are:

* A **model organism** in research on **regeneration**, **aging**, **memory**, and **stem cells**.
* Used to study the **evolution of body plans** and the **origins of centralised nervous systems**.

How exactly do they thrive? — Red Sky

They survive and reproduce in situations humans can't e.g. having their head chopped off. That's how they thrive. I would love to be able to grow my head back after it is chopped off. I really admire planarian flatworms.

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. — Red Sky

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.

Im not saying it is easy, but is it impossible? — 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.

Then I assume you are being impersonal about it, you admit that these experiences have an influence on you. — 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.

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.
— Red Sky

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. — Quk

I agree.

I am not talking about a role in their life, but more of their personality.
My original intent was that because of immortality many people would experience extremely similar or even exactly similar experiences. This would cause their personalities and some views to be exactly the same.
Genes are important to their life, but immortality is much to long that experiences become more important to personality than genes. — Red Sky

No human is currently immortal. So, I don't have any way to test how being immortal would affect a human. I have already tested how being immortal affects planarian flatworms. They thrive unless I kill them by denaturing their cells by heating them to 300 degrees Celsius. Since they can't talk using English, I couldn't ask them questions about their personality.

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? — Red Sky

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.

Your preference is also a part of you. — Red Sky

My preferences arise due to my brain activities, which occur due to my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

If I drop you off in space, what if you prearranged to be picked up. — 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?

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. — 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.

To what end?
I am not saying that it is not important at all, but only minimally so. In normal human life I would put a much greater emphasis on it, however if we were to talk about becoming immortal I think it would play a much less vital role. — Red Sky

All four categories of variables i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences are essential for the construction of a sentient biological organism such as a human or a dog or a cow.

There are already many biologically immortal organisms. Their genes, environments, nutrients and experiences make them so. Why would it play a much less vital role?

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. — Harry Hindu

Yes. Only something that has never existed is always free from determinism.

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. — 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.

However, is there a point to this? Are you separate from your thoughts?
Is a person not their own thoughts, not their own GENE? — Red Sky

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.

While our choices are not absolutely free and unfettered, there are choices that we like. — 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.

You can overcome any outside factors, and you are at one with all internal factors. — 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.

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? — Red Sky

I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.

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. — Red Sky

I never said that we should free ourselves from others. Nor did I say that I want to be disconnected from others.

You are basically agreeing with me that the Gene part in GENE is less important than the other parts.
The original topic was about immortality, if Genes are the least important out of GENE then what about immortals. How would their bodies deal with nutrients? Would they all not choose a similar environment or environments to live in? Would they all not have experiences so similar to each other that they aren't different. — Red Sky

No, all four categories of variables - genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences are essential. If you remove one, the others will be unable to create a living and sentient biological organism. If you removed my genes and replaced them with the genes of a bacteria, I would never be able to post anything on this forum. I would not even be sentient. Obviously, a bacteria obtains nutrients very differently from a human. Bacteria can survive in environments where humans can't. The organisms that are currently biologically immortal would never be able to type anything because they don't have the kind of brain and hands you need to be able to type words.

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.

GENE Profile is short for Genes, Environments, Nutrients, and Experiences Profile. I used the initial letters to create the acronym GENE. All four categories of the variables are important. The closer two organisms are in terms of their GENE Profiles, the more similar their choices are. If you took two genetically identical twins and raised one to be a malnourished, illiterate beggar with no eyes in India by removing his eyes and raised the other to be a Navy SEAL in the USA, their GENE Profiles would be hugely different because while they started out as zygotes with identical genes, they had very different environments, nutrients and experiences.

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.

I will check out your flash-fiction, thanks.
I am not convinced that having an infinite amount of time would cause me to procrastinate indefinitely on everything I want to do.
— Truth Seeker
I would disagree, sometimes it is just one slip up or letting something slide just once that changes your entire being. While it is possible to not give in a single time, it is very unlikely even more so over the long time of immortality. That is not to say that once you fall into Procrastination you cannot come out. However the main problem is if immortality is wide spread,if there is no stop in reproduction there could be huge amounts of people (billions, trillions, and even more) who are procrastinating.
Not to mention that I think everybody would be a near carbon copy of each other. If you think about life as a funnel, everybody would end up at the same place after long enough time. (Their experiences would barely be different from each other)
For you personally, procrastination might be a different problem. You yourself state that immortality wouldn't make you procrastinate on the things you 'want' to do. What about the things you don't want to do. I think it would take a very special person to enjoy every part of life. Otherwise in your case, you would ignore the things you don't want to do in favor for the things you do want to do. (Which might not be a problem, but I would consider it so.) — Red Sky

Please see this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16045/understanding-human-behaviour for more details about the Genes, Environments, Nutrients, and Experiences Causal Self Model.

There are many biologically immortal organisms already - they are not all identical in terms of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Every sentient biological organism has a unique GENE Profile. Our choices occur according to our unique GENE Profiles. The closer two organisms are in terms of their GENE Profiles, the more similar are the choices they make. The biologically immortal organisms that currently exist get on with their tasks as per their GENE Profiles. They are not stuck due to procrastination.

Life is not a funnel. It's more like a tree. There is an unbroken line of living cells that connects each and every organism currently alive to the first living cell - LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). I am made of living cells. I began as a zygote. My zygote came into existence when a sperm fused with an egg. The sperm and the egg were both living cells and were created by other living cells. You can keep going back like this through all of my ancestors, who were all made of living cells.

All multicellular organisms, including humans, are composed of living cells that perform various specialised functions.

A zygote is the first single-cell stage of a new individual formed by the fusion of a sperm and an egg. It is a living cell that undergoes division and differentiation to form your entire body.
Both sperm and egg (gametes) are living, specialised reproductive cells. They are produced by germline cells, which are themselves living cells within the reproductive organs of your parents.
Your parents’ germ cells originated from their own zygotes, which came from their parents’ gametes — and so on. Every gamete and somatic cell arises through the division of a preexisting cell, tracing back continuously.

This unbroken line of living cells — forming a continuous cellular lineage — goes back through all of your ancestors, human and pre-human. Each generation passes on living cells to the next.
All currently living organisms — humans, plants, fungi, bacteria — trace their cellular lineage back to a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), a single-celled organism thought to have lived around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

This means there is an unbroken chain of cell divisions from LUCA to every living cell today, including yours, mine, and everyone else's. We are all connected to LUCA and each other. We are one.

Thanks for the clarification. — T Clark

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

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.

please explain how death gives meaning to our lives.
— Truth Seeker

Logically thinking things that are rarer (or in this case are around for less time) are more valuable. It is just very hard to put a value on life in the first place. For me it has more to do with the inspiration of life, why do anything and why not do anything when you live forever. You can always do it later and literally push it off for eternity.
It might be easier to specifically think of it in terms of time. When you have an infinite amount of time value loses itself because you can do everything. However when time is on a clock you can really only choose the things that are more precious. Would you waste a normal human life without reaching your dream?
Additionally immortality would be perfection, it would absolutely stop evolution. This is of less concern, because the method to gain immortality would override any imperfection in my mind. However the original intention with that is if humans as we are now gain immortality. Emotionally, I think it is impossible for humans to become immortal. The amount of time that passes would make anyone an emotionless robot. (However, I have not experienced immortality, so I wouldn't know =) A body would still be alive, but the mind and emotions of the person would be all but ruined. — Red Sky

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I certainly wouldn't impose immortality on anyone who didn't want it. I want to be immortal because it would let me have an infinite amount of time to have an infinite amount of experiences. I posted a flash-fiction I wrote: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15765/the-choice You may enjoy reading it.

I am not convinced that having an infinite amount of time would cause me to procrastinate indefinitely on everything I want to do.

I am not convinced that immortality would be perfection. There are already biologically immortal organisms that can live forever if not killed. They are not perfect. Nor is perfection required to be immortal.

I am not convinced that being immortal would make me or anyone else emotionless. I see no reason for emotions to vanish given how emotions are produced by our brains.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

I think that immortality is wrong, death is of course horrible but it is also a part of life. Personally it is what I believe gives meaning to our lives. — Red Sky

I am sorry I don't understand - please explain how death gives meaning to our lives.

getting every person's support is damn near impossible. — Red Sky

I agree. I wish there was an easy way to unite everyone.

Thank you very much for telling me the amazing story of Dorothy Day. I think every kind word and action makes a positive difference.

You can't. That's the job for someone with global influence. Keep your goals within your capacity to complete them. Be proud of what you've done. If 10% of folks tried what you've done, the world would be a better place. — LuckyR

You are right. I should indeed keep my goals within my capacity to complete them. Thank you very much.

Unless, I guess, you are a billionaire like Bill Gates. He’s done incredible things with his money. — T Clark

No, I am not rich with money, but I am rich with love. Yes, he has saved and improved many lives.

It is enough to achieve your goals though, in fact its all you can do. It seems to me the hidden problem for you is the timetable. You cannot achieve such lofty goals in a single lifetime, your goals are not something you can enforce or convince on the massive scale of the whole of humanity. Yours goals will take time. A lot of time. Look at history and you see how things, very slowly, change. It happens by leading by example, spreading your ideas and leading your life with those goals in mind.
So when I say keep doing what you're doing I dont mean because you cannot achieve your goals but rather because that is the way, the only way, to achieve your goals.
Make the best contribution you can while you're here and let the ripple effect of your hard work shape the future. Thats the only way progress to your goals that has ever been made, you just have to have the long view. — DingoJones

I see your point. I am being too impatient. I want to see rapid changes, but that is impossible. Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

Sounds like you're achieving your goals... at a scale appropriate for your level of influence. Kudos to you. Job well done. — LuckyR

Thank you - sadly, my capacity is limited. Although I have managed to save and improve some lives - the world is still full of suffering, injustice, and death. How do I unite everyone to achieve the objectives together?

If you're an American elector, supporting the Democratic Party would be a good start. The MAGA party seems intent on dismantling or opposing everything you're standing for. — Wayfarer

I don't live in the USA. I live in the UK. I don't agree with Donald Trump's policies.

Your list covers pretty much everything that might need doing. That's the main part of your problem. You've heard of hubris? add "Diminish my hubris" to the list. — BC

I don't have hubris. I am so sad about all the suffering, injustice, and death in the world. At least 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct. The climate crisis has placed the remaining 0.1% at risk of extinction. Humans have killed hundreds of millions of humans across the world and trillions of other species in the last 300,000 years. I long to change the past, but I can't. I long to change the present, but people keep doing selfish things, e.g. murder, exploit, rape, torture, cheat, steal, bully, etc. Less than 1% of the 8.23 billion humans currently alive are vegan. There is so much poverty, inequality, ignorance and disease in the world. I have failed to achieve my objectives.

How can I unite everyone to achieve the 14 worldwide objectives?

Look after your own actions; try to be the kind of person you wish we all were. — BC

I am already kind to everyone. It's not enough that I am kind to everyone or else the objectives would have been achieved many years ago. Everyone needs to be kind to everyone. How do I get everyone to be kind to everyone?

Not by yourself. That much is clear. — Banno

I totally agree. How can I unite everyone towards achieving the 14 worldwide objectives?

As a fellow dreamer of a better tomorrow whose tried more than one thing I can tell you that I, at least, had to recognize my limit as an individual. — Moliere

You are right in that I have very limited abilities. If I could unite all humans with the goal of achieving the 14 worldwide objectives, then we could make it happen. How can I unite everyone?

keep doing what youre doing? — DingoJones

The problem is that living things are suffering and dying every second. Keeping doing what I am doing is not enough to achieve the goals.