They could be thought of the qualities of your being. They are not direct effects and causes for your choices. Extending the effects and causes to your general qualities of being is committing the fallacy of relevance. — Corvus

My genes preceded me and formed the foundation of my existence and nature. I didn't choose my genes and I don't have direct control over them. The same goes for my early environments, nutrients and experiences. You should read "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will" by Professor Robert M. Sapolsky.

One tiny quantum event can (will) cascade into completely different weather in a couple months, (popularly known as the butterfly effect) so the history of the world and human decisions is significantly due to these quantum fluctuations. In other words, given a non-derministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, a person's decision is anything but inevitable from a given prior state. There's a significant list of non-deterministic interpretations. Are you so sure (without evidence) that they're all wrong? — noAxioms

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion about it. Please tell me more about how quantum events affect the weather. Is there a book you can recommend so I can learn more about this? Thank you.

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints.
— Truth Seeker
... and also not free of consequences. :100: — 180 Proof

I agree. Thank you.

Thank you for telling me more about the different types of determinism. Quantum indeterminacy is irrelevant because at the macroscopic level, all the quantum weirdness (e.g. quantum indeterminacy and superposition) averages out.

I agree that options are real. I have been in mazes but not labyrinths.
— Truth Seeker
Then you can always choose to do otherwise if you agree that options are real. The example of a maze is one. Think of a situation in which you have plenty of money but you are unsure about investing in the market. There are many examples in our lives in which we are unsure about the situations. This means that options in such situations are real so you can always choose to do otherwise.
6 hours ago — MoK

I am not convinced. I have been carrying out experiments on myself for many years to see how choices are made. Every single experiment showed me that the choices arise as a result of the interactions of four groups of variables. These groups of variables are genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present and experiences from conception to the present. I am 99.(an infinite number of 9s)% certain that all our choices are inevitable.

I am 100% certain of the following:

1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I know concepts e.g. what a square or circle or triangle is.
7. I know apparent facts about reality e.g. the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits the Earth.
8. I know how to walk, run, eat, drink, cook, shop, work, read, write, type, go to the toilet, cycle, swim, etc.
9. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
10. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I am almost 100% certain of the following:

1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are sentient beings who feel pain.
4. Being a non-consumer is more ethical than being an autotroph, being an autotroph is more ethical than being a vegan/herbivore, being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian, and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms make choices but they are not free from determinants and constraints. Our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible, albeit extremely unlikely, that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes do not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion I am experiencing. It is impossible to know about this with 100% certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body on a planet in a universe or I could be a body without any soul - I don't know these things for sure, hence I am an agnostic. There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

What are your thoughts about the above thoughts of mine?

Sure options are real. Have you ever been in a labyrinth? — MoK

I agree that options are real. I have been in mazes but not labyrinths.

I have proposed a small list of definitions of 'free choice' as distinct from choice that isn't free. I've also claimed at least 4 different kinds of determinism, but have not listed them in this topic. You've not clarified which ones are what you're talking about or not. — noAxioms

We make voluntary choices (e.g. my choice to post on this forum was voluntary) but we don't make choices that are free from determinants and constraints (e.g. my choice to post on this forum was both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences). Do you understand what I have said?

Please tell me more about the 4 different kinds of determinism. Thank you.

Genes, environments and nutrients are not philosophical concepts.  They are the concepts in Genetics, Sociology and Biology, which has nothing to do with philosophical ideas. — Corvus

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences are variables which determine and constrain our choices. They are real and their effects on our choices are real.

Those are not related to philosophical idea of free will. Constraints and determinants are the properties of your own being. They are not directly related to free will. — Corvus

Yes, they are. The second meaning of 'free will' is the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes". Our choices are never free from prior causes such as our genes, our environments from conception to the present, our nutrients from conception to the present and our experiences from the womb to the present. While we make voluntary choices, no one chooses their genes, their early environments, their early nutrients and their early experiences. As older children and adults we have limited choices about our environments, nutrients and experiences but even these limited choices are never free from the variables of genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present and experiences from conception to the present.

Well, that is a misunderstanding the concept free will, I am afraid. You have free will. — Corvus

I am quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

"noun
1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints.

I am not denying that I have a will. I am saying that my will is not free from determinants and constraints.

My point is not irrelevant. My point is that my choices are not free from my genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present and experiences from the womb to the present. If you went back in time and altered any of the variables, you would also change my choices.

Because it's not those variables that made the choice, it is how you process them into the chosen selection that matters. — noAxioms

It's the variables (genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present and experiences from the womb to the present) that determine my perceptions, thoughts, emotions, values, words and actions. For example, if I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, I would never have been sentient and hence I would never have been able to think any thoughts. If aliens kidnapped me when I was a baby and placed on the surface of Venus, I would have died from the heat. If I was deprived of all nutrients when I was a zygote, I would never have lived long enough to become a human who can post messages online. If I never experienced learning the English language, I would not have been able to post in English on this forum. As you can see from my examples, my choices are the products of variables.

Banana tree gene is irrelevant premise for your conclusion. It makes no sense at all. There are many other reasons why you typed the post, other than your genes. But most of all, it was your free will which typed your posts. — Corvus

If I had the genes of a banana tree, instead of my human genes, I would have grown into a banana tree, provided I was in the appropriate environment and received the appropriate nutrients. Since no banana tree is sentient and types in English, it would have been impossible for me to post anything on this forum.

What do you mean by free will? My will is certainly not free from my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I think my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.

if they are determined, then identical choices would result from identical variables. — Banno

I agree. How would I know with 100% certainty if they are determined or not?

If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, I would indeed have grown up to be a banana tree instead of an adult human provided I had the appropriate environment and nutrients. Since banana trees are not sentient, they can't experience anything. I am trying to work out if anyone deserves any credit or blame for their choices. If the choices we make are the products of variables we didn't choose e.g. genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, then how can we be credited or blamed for anything?

Are the choices we make not determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? If they are determined, then wouldn't identical choices result from identical variables?

But you might have done otherwise. — Banno

But I didn't do otherwise. Is it inevitable that I posted the original post and read your last reply and typed these words?

I am trying to understand how choices are made and if our choices are inevitable or not. Could I have refrained from posting in this forum? I don't know. Could I have posted a different question? I don't know. Was my post inevitable? I don't know.

There's a possible world in which you did not make that OP.

Simple application of modality. Time perceptions and quantum multiple universes are irrelevant. — Banno

How do you know this?

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?
— Truth Seeker
Unless the universe (of determinant forces and constraints on one) changes too, I don't think so. — 180 Proof

I think you are right.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?
— Truth Seeker
Depends on several factors. Ignoring choice of deterministic interpretation of things or otherwise, in what way would this entity that makes a different choice in the past be you, or relative to what would that choice be 'different'? What ties you (that choses vanilla) to the possible T-S that choses chocolate?

I didn't vote because the question was vaguely worded.

If we couldn’t ever have made a different choice in the past, we didn’t ever make any choice at all.
— Fire Ologist
This also depends on definitions, but you seem to be using one that doesn't distinguish choice from free choice, rendering the adjective meaningless. — noAxioms

What I am exploring here is whether our choices are inevitable or not. Are we free agents or are our choices determined by variables such as genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences?

Past cannot be changed, so you couldn't have made different choices for the past. But you are free to make choices for now and future. — Corvus

I am not talking about changing the past. What determines who chooses what? If the choices are determined by genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, are the choices free? If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, could I have typed these words? I don't think so.

Even if all the choices made by all sentient living things are inevitable, we still experience making them. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences that you have, would I not have typed your post and vice versa?

I picked "I don't know" because I don't know the answer. If I knew the answer, I would not have asked the question on this forum.

Having a permanent place to live is not essential. I and billions of humans don't have a permanent place to live. Lots of people pay rent instead of owning a house or flat.

When I did that exercise, I volunteered to leave the life boat. That response is directly related to the way I was raised. I was the oldest child and if my sister wanted I had and she wanted it, I was supposed to give it to her, because I was older. And if we were offered a piece of cake or cookie, we were to take the smallest one. It become a habit to put others first. — Athena

Like you, I was taught by my parents to be self-sacrificial. I have donated lots of blood, drinking water, food, clothes, money, etc. to save and improve the lives of others. I have volunteered thousands of hours since I was nine years old. If the universe ran according to my wishes, there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. We would all be equally all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

Would it matter if it were a man or woman who caught a spouse cheating, or if the person killed in a war, or someone who killed another in the process of a robbery? — Athena

That depends on whether we are morally culpable or not. If hard determinism is true, no one is morally culpable and no one deserves any credit or blame for anything.

I am a vegan and have been so for 18 years.
— Truth Seeker

Gooder than God. :lol:

I'm sorry. I already said that, but I hadn't realised your total fragility. Just ignore me, and I'll do likewise. — unenlightened

What do you mean by my "total fragility"? Vegans are strong and ethical. We are not fragile. What about examining "divine justice"? Might is right is wrong.

No you didn't. I didn't reference the Bible, you did. You responded to a dog whistle like a fanatic because I made a joke that involved the word "God". Other religions are available. — unenlightened

You said "divine justice". Since 31% of humans alive in 2010 identified as Christians, I brought up the Bible. We don't have religious population data for 2024 or else I would have quoted it. Once we have examined the Bible for divine justice, we can examine the Quran for divine justice as Muslims formed 23% of the human population in 2010. Once we have examined the Quran for divine justice we can examine the holy books of Hinduism for divine justice as 15% of the human population in 2010 were Hindus. We can keep going like this until we have have covered all the Gods of all the religions in the present and the past.

That's not justice.
— Truth Seeker
Of course it is. IF God made you, he fucking owns you. Go talk to your breakfast about justice and convince it it wants to be eaten. — unenlightened

I am a vegan and have been so for 18 years. I was a vegetarian before I became a vegan. I don't eat sentient beings. I want to be a total nonconsumer. If I could have genetically engineered myself to live without air, water, food and sunlight, I would have done so many years ago and would have offered it to others for free.

God or Gods can't own living things. Living things have intrinsic rights that God or Gods can't take away. Yes, if the Biblical God is real, then the Biblical God is able to kill living things but that makes the Biblical God evil, not just.

Don't proselytise dude, it's considered uncool on this site. And if you want to argue about the Bible, do it with someone who takes the Bible seriously - that's not me! — unenlightened

I didn't proselytise. I responded to what you said. The word proselytise means "to induce someone to convert to one's faith" - that clearly is not what I did. I offered you information relevant to your statement - that is all. I take the Bible very seriously because it has had and continues to have serious effects on billions of lives. It has altered the course of human history for both better and worse. It has been and continues to be the most influential book on Earth.

My garden - my rules. Slugs and caterpillars are sent to hell, and philosophers get fresh vegetables in due season. When you make a universe, you get to set the rules. You don't let your creation boss you about. — unenlightened

That's not justice. That's a tyranny without any ethical principles that underpin justice.

Divine justice is usually conceived as tautological. Think "I made the world and I make the rules, so I can do what I like." — unenlightened

How is doing what I like the same as justice?

I recommend that you read: https://www.evilbible.com and watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk3V0Qi8W30 Thank you.

Are you agnostic about Simulation Theory? — RogueAI

Yes, I am also agnostic about the Simulation Hypothesis as it is not possible to test this hypothesis.

:lol:

I don't think a planet of nonconsumers is a good idea. — Athena

What's wrong with organisms being nonconsumers? Surely, it is better to be able to live without consuming any air, water, food, sunlight, etc.?

what kind of human being would exterminate people with disabilities — Athena

The Nazis killed lots of disabled people. It's very sad but it happened.

Would you feel safe living next door to someone like that? — Athena

No, I would not.

Perfectionism is dangerous. How might we avoid that? — Athena

Cultivating empathy and compassion would help.

I agree.

I am an agnostic as I can't know whether God or Gods exist or not.

I wish you've created a poll in your OP. — L'éléphant

I have granted your wish! I have edited the original post to include a poll.

I

The point I am making is that we are not intelligently designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods.
— Truth Seeker

How do we know that? How do we know that without divine/simulation intervention, there would be ten times as many car crashes a day, but god/simulation designers are constantly intervening in an unnoticeable way? Once theism or simulation theory is taken seriously, we really can't say that evolution is not being directed. — RogueAI

Did you not read about all the design flaws in organisms and the extinction of 99.9% of all the species to exist on Earth so far? Why would all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods create flawed organisms? Why didn't all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death? Why not make all living things nonconsumers instead of making some autotrophs, some herbivores, some carnivores, some omnivores and some parasites? It's possible that there is/are one or more evil Gods and he/she/it/they made flawed organisms and caused suffering, inequality, injustice, and death because he/she/it/they are evil.

If so then unenlightened's point stands: there can be no mistakes when copying genes since we are not intelligently designed by a God or a team of Gods. — Moliere

I disagree. When a gene is copied correctly, there is no mistake. When it is copied incorrectly, there is a mistake.