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.

Evolution relies on what you call 'mistakes' as you well enough know. And the rate of copying 'mistakes' evolves itself because 'error correcting genes' are also a thing. Thus 'mistakes' or as I like to call them 'variations' are more common in some parts of the genome than others. — unenlightened

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

"correctly" implies that the gene was "correct" in the first place

No, it doesn't imply anything. It simply means that a sequence such as ATCG was copied by mistake as ACCG or ATTG, etc.

Every species came into existence as a result of genetic mistakes.
— Truth Seeker

You do recognise that this is strictly nonsensical. don't you? There can be no mistake unless there is a plan. :scream:

Yes, there can be mistakes when copying genes. When a gene is copied correctly, there is no mistake. When it is copied incorrectly, there is a mistake.

It's great that you have found Kiva.

But feeding people who go on to have children who will also be dependent on receiving food, increases the problem. We can not keep increasing the human population. We live on a finite planet and need to base our decisions on that. — Athena

We should certainly use contraceptives to keep our population at an optimum level for the Earth. I am not suggesting that we should be encouraging people to be freeloaders. I am suggesting collective equal ownership and contribution based on ability and receiving based on needs. I know a thirty-year-old autistic man who is still in nappies and is non-speaking. His condition severely limits what he can do. The Nazis would have executed him. I once met someone who believed in the ideology that if you can't defend your life you don't have the right to live. I believe that all living things have a right to life, not just the ones that can defend their lives. Vegan egalitarianism will reduce the amount of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death on Earth. It would be even better if we could genetically engineer all living things to be nonconsumers so that they can exist without consuming any air, water and food.

If I didn't have a duty of care to others,
— Truth Seeker

Sounds like faith. :naughty:

Sorry, I have been winding you up. It was not a serious comment in the first place, I was just amused by your religious phobia. — unenlightened

It's not faith - just circumstances. No apology is needed. I don't have a religious phobia.

Every species came into existence as a result of genetic mistakes. We are all mistakes of nature. It explains our flawed biology and the fact that 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct.

Quoting ChatGPT 3.5:

Here are several examples of design flaws in various organisms:

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in Mammals:

Description: This nerve, which controls the muscles of the larynx (voice box), takes a lengthy and circuitous route from the brain down into the chest, looping around the aorta (or subclavian artery on the right side), and then back up to the larynx.
Flaw: The detour is particularly extreme in giraffes, where the nerve travels an additional 15 feet down the neck before looping back up, instead of taking a more direct route from the brain to the larynx.

Human Spine:

Description: The human spine is a column of vertebrae that supports the body’s weight and protects the spinal cord.
Flaw: The spine is prone to issues such as herniated discs, scoliosis, and back pain because it evolved from a structure that supported a quadrupedal stance, not a bipedal one. The S-shaped curve in humans puts a lot of stress on the lower back.

Human Eye:

Description: The human eye has a retina that is inverted, meaning that light has to pass through layers of cells and blood vessels before reaching the photoreceptors.
Flaw: This setup creates a blind spot where the optic nerve exits the eye because no photoreceptor cells are located there. Some cephalopods, like octopuses, have more optimally structured eyes without this blind spot.

Prostate Gland in Males:

Description: The prostate gland surrounds the urethra just below the bladder.
Flaw: As men age, the prostate tends to enlarge, which can constrict the urethra and cause urinary problems. This placement and potential for growth cause discomfort and health issues.

Human Pharynx:

Description: The pharynx is a passageway that serves both the respiratory and digestive systems.
Flaw: The shared pathway for food and air increases the risk of choking. Unlike in some other animals, the crossover of these pathways can lead to fatal accidents if food enters the trachea instead of the esophagus.

Pandas' Thumb:

Description: Giant pandas have a modified wrist bone (the radial sesamoid) that functions as a thumb.
Flaw: This "thumb" is not a true opposable digit and is much less efficient than the thumbs of primates. It is an example of an evolutionary workaround rather than an optimal solution, allowing pandas to grasp bamboo but with less dexterity.

Vestigial Structures:

Description: These are remnants of organs or structures that had a function in early ancestors but are now either useless or repurposed.
Flaw: Examples include the human appendix, which is prone to inflammation and infection (appendicitis), and the pelvic bones in whales, which are remnants from when their ancestors walked on land.

These examples highlight how evolutionary processes often result in structures and systems that are not optimally designed but rather are modified versions of pre-existing anatomy adapted to new purposes.

The human birth canal presents several design challenges that can make childbirth difficult and risky for both the mother and the baby. Here are the primary issues associated with the "bad design" of the human birth canal:

Pelvic Structure and Bipedalism:

Description: Humans are bipedal, meaning we walk on two legs. This mode of locomotion requires a pelvis that is shaped differently from that of quadrupeds.
Flaw: The human pelvis has evolved to support upright walking, resulting in a relatively narrow birth canal. This narrowness makes it more difficult for the baby to pass through during birth, increasing the risk of complications.

Large Fetal Head:

Description: Human babies are born with relatively large heads to accommodate their well-developed brains.
Flaw: The combination of a large fetal head and a narrow birth canal can lead to obstructed labor, where the baby's head cannot pass through the pelvis easily. This situation can necessitate medical interventions such as cesarean sections.

Twisting Path:

Description: The human birth canal has a complex, curved path that the baby must navigate during delivery.
Flaw: Unlike in many other mammals, where the birth canal is more straightforward, the twisting path in humans requires the baby to rotate during birth. This rotation can add to the difficulty and duration of labor.

Risk of Birth Injuries:

Description: The strain on the mother’s body and the baby during passage through the birth canal can lead to injuries.
Flaw: For the mother, this includes tearing of the perineum, pelvic floor damage, and postpartum hemorrhage. For the baby, there is a risk of shoulder dystocia, where the baby's shoulders get stuck, leading to potential nerve damage or fractures.

Evolutionary Trade-offs:

Description: The evolutionary changes in the human pelvis and birth canal are a result of trade-offs between bipedal locomotion and the need to give birth to large-brained infants.
Flaw: These trade-offs have not led to an optimal solution for childbirth, creating a scenario where human childbirth is significantly more dangerous and painful compared to other mammals.

High Maternal and Infant Mortality:

Description: Historically, and even today in areas with limited access to medical care, the complications arising from the birth canal design have resulted in high maternal and infant mortality rates.
Flaw: The need for medical intervention during childbirth, such as the use of forceps, vacuum extraction, and cesarean sections, underscores the inefficiency and danger posed by the current design of the human birth canal.

These challenges highlight how the evolutionary adaptations for bipedalism and increased brain size have led to significant difficulties in human childbirth, reflecting a complex balance of competing anatomical requirements rather than an optimized design.

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just?
— Truth Seeker

Divine justice is usually conceived as tautological. Think "I made the world and I make the rules, so I can do what I like." Tautologies, of course, do not require evidence; whatever happens in the world is evidence of Divine justice. You, for example, will probably come to a bad end for asking such an impertinent question. Or, if Divine justice is tempered with Divine mercy, you may be forgiven. This is the great thing about God, it explains everything, and by looking at creation one can discern His character. It is so useful to any thinker who, when asked impossible questions can happily respond "God knows!" — unenlightened

Sounds like faith, rather than fact. How can the abundance of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world be considered just? I think all the Gods are either imaginary and evil or real and evil. I am an agnostic because I can't know for sure.

Thank you for explaining. I agree.

a) That would be tampering with the evidence and divine justice forbids. — unenlightened

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just?

The only objective reality, in my view, is the ever-changing present moment. — punos

I think the ever-changing present moment is a subjective reality because this is what we experience, nanosecond by nanosecond. How can this be objective?

I agree.

At the moment, private ownership exists. I agree that if no one owned anything, no one would be in a position to share anything. I don't think those who own lots would agree to ban private ownership and ban money. That would take away their privileges and luxuries.