Why do you wish that you had made different choices? — 013zen

Because of all the suffering I have gone through and others have gone through as a result of my choice to trust my psychiatrist instead of my parents. I was a first-year medical student when I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder on the 5th of March 1998. In September 2002, my psychiatrist instructed me not to attend clinical sessions during depressive episodes. I did what I was told, but the medical school expelled me on the 13th of February 2003 because I had not attended the clinical sessions. Listening to my psychiatrist didn't just cause 27 years of suffering and side effects, but it ruined my career as a doctor. I could go on and on about everything that has happened during the last 27 years, but I don't have the time to do that. Also, I don't think you have the time to read hundreds of thousands of words.

Imagine the world was such that everyone, always, made the best possible, optimal decision for themselves, leading to no regret, or second-guessing - would our decisions and their outcomes hold the same weight and import to us? — 013zen

Such a thing could only happen if everyone were all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. How else could everyone make perfect choices? Since all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful beings don't exist, such a scenario will always be imaginary.

What I mean is this, there are many things that, I think I could have done better, and its through reflecting on these things that I feel I've become stronger, and better equipped to deal with the world, and this makes my experiences unique and valuable to me. — 013zen

That's fine. I am glad your life is not as full of suffering as mine has been and continues to be.

I view life as we know it a good thing, so the diversity and predation and so on goes along with life as we know it. — boethius

Life on Earth, as it has been and currently is, comprises much suffering, injustice, and death. That's why I imagined energy beings who don't need to consume any air, water or food to live. The energy beings would not need to consume any sunlight or heat either. They would be eternally self-sustaining. I imagine them to be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. I am all too aware that these beings don't exist outside my imagination.

How can we implement widespread use of solar power for generating electricity and heat?

This is an odd thing to say. Something that does not exist can't make any choices, so you're pulling the rug out from under your own argument. — Harry Hindu

If something doesn't exist, it can't suffer, it can't enjoy, it can't make any determined and constrained choices.

What does that even mean? What would it look like to break the laws of physics if not to say that determinism is not the case and everything is random? — Harry Hindu

Being able to move faster than light would require breaking the laws of physics.

The **laws of physics** are the fundamental principles that govern how matter, energy, space, and time behave in the universe. These laws are not laws in the legal sense — they are descriptions, often expressed in mathematical form, of patterns we observe in nature. They are derived from empirical observations, refined through experimentation, and sometimes revised as new data emerges.

Here’s a breakdown of the **core categories** and **major laws** of physics:

**Classical Mechanics** (Newtonian Physics)

1. **Newton’s Laws of Motion**

* **First Law (Inertia)**: An object remains at rest or moves at constant velocity unless acted upon by a force.
* **Second Law**: Force equals mass times acceleration
* **Third Law**: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

2. **Law of Universal Gravitation**

* Every mass attracts every other mass with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:


**Electromagnetism** (Maxwell’s Equations)

3. **Maxwell’s Equations**
A set of four equations that unify electricity and magnetism:

* **Gauss's Law for Electricity**: Electric charges produce electric fields.
* **Gauss's Law for Magnetism**: There are no magnetic monopoles.
* **Faraday’s Law of Induction**: A changing magnetic field induces an electric field.
* **Ampère's Law with Maxwell's Addition**: Electric currents and changing electric fields produce magnetic fields.


**Thermodynamics**

4. **Zeroth Law**: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.

5. **First Law**: Energy cannot be created or destroyed — only transformed (conservation of energy).

6. **Second Law**: Entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. Heat flows from hot to cold.

7. **Third Law**: As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.


**Relativity** (Einstein)

8. **Special Relativity**

* Laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
* The speed of light is constant in all frames.
* Time dilation and length contraction occur at high speeds.
* Famous equation: E = mc^2

9. **General Relativity**

* Gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.
* Objects follow geodesics (the straightest possible paths) in curved spacetime.


**Quantum Mechanics**

10. **Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle**

* You cannot simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a particle:

11. **Schrödinger Equation**

* Describes how the quantum state of a system evolves over time.

12. **Pauli Exclusion Principle**

* No two identical fermions (like electrons) can occupy the same quantum state.

13. **Wave-Particle Duality**

* Particles such as electrons and photons exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviour.


**Modern Extensions & Theories**

14. **Standard Model of Particle Physics**

* Describes fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) and their interactions via the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.

15. **Quantum Field Theory (QFT)**

* Combines quantum mechanics with special relativity; particles are excitations in fields.

16. **Conservation Laws** (Apply across physics):

* **Conservation of Energy**
* **Conservation of Momentum**
* **Conservation of Angular Momentum**
* **Conservation of Charge**
* **Conservation of Baryon and Lepton Numbers** (in particle physics)

Important Notes

* These laws **describe** what we observe but don't necessarily **explain why** the universe is this way.
* Some laws are **approximations** (e.g. Newton’s laws break down at relativistic speeds or quantum scales).
* Scientists are searching for a **Theory of Everything** that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics — current candidates include **string theory** and **loop quantum gravity**.

If we could do things that go against the above laws of physics, that would count as breaking the laws of physices e.g. knowing both the exact position and the momentum of a subatomic particle such as an electron.

Why would we quarantine an individual if they are not the agent of their actions? Doesn't this not support the idea that an individual is responsible for their actions? — Harry Hindu

The implications of your argument is that it is society that is to blame for an individual's actions, not the individual, yet you are trying to use society to punish the individual for society's own actions in creating an environment that determines the individual's actions. If society is the cause of one's behavior, then are you quarantining the individual from society or the society from the individual? In doing so, are you not setting the individual free of society's influence? Why would you now need to adjust their gene profile?

Why would you even need to adjust the gene profile to match what society wants if society is what determined their behavior in the first place? :roll: It's a total contradiction. — Harry Hindu

We would quarantine law-breakers and potential law-breakers to protect potential victims of crimes. We have a duty to protect potential victims from being murdered, tortured, raped, robbed, conned, etc. Once we have altered the mix of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences that cause crimes, we would let the law-breakers out of quarantine. A similar approach is taken if you catch a deadly communicable disease, e.g. Ebola. We don't blame the patients for being infected. We quarantine the patients to protect potential spread of the germs, then cure the patients and then release them from quarantine. If your car has an accident because the break cable snapped would you call your car evil and imprison it? No, you would call your car broken and you would bring it to a mechanic and when it is fixed you would drive it again. The same applies to people who break laws. They are not evil, they are damaged and need to be repaired.

Society is made of individuals. As I have said before, no one chooses to come into existence and no one chooses their genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences. Therefore, no one deserves any blame or credit for any choices. There is no contradiction in my model and approach to crimes. You simply misunderstood me.

Isn't is the accumulated effect of all four that creates unique individuals? If we make everyone the same that will stifle diversity and competition and by extension - progress. — Harry Hindu

Yes, all four categories of variables i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences (GENE) are essential to construct every unique sentient biological organisms. I never said we should be making everyone the same. There can be diverse individuals who don't harm themselves and others, e.g. vegan egalitarians such as me and my vegan egalitarian friends. We are not clones of each other. We differ in terms of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences considerably. We have different genders, different skin colours, different eye colours, different types of hair, different heights, different weights, different education, different sexualities, and different careers. The only thing we have in common is that we are all vegan and we are all egalitarian.

I think this is a misunderstanding of freedom. Freedom does not mean freedom from the constraints of existence. That is death.

Think of it like a game of chess. You are not free to move pawns backwards. You are not free to move bishops sideways. The only way to do these things is to not play the game. And importantly, you are not free to win every game. But within the constraints of the game, you are afforded the freedom to choose any move you wish, so many choices that even the most powerful computer cannot explore them all.

Sometimes I feel free. Even when I do, I am still profoundly constrained by the environment, and by myself. Nonetheless, life affords a vast scope of choices. This can be agonizing, and wonderful. — hypericin

I agree.

Thank you very much for pointing out how other renewable energy sources compare to solar power. I agree that solar is the best option.

Highly debatable if it were better that there was no life as we currently know it. — boethius

Why wouldn't energy beings who don't need to consume air, water and food to live be better than the autotrophs, herbivores, carnivores, omnivores and parasites we currently have?

trees are really an extraordinary life form and taking care of them is foundational for a sustainable way of life. — boethius

I agree. I love trees, in fact, I love all autotrophs. I wish all organisms were autotrophs. In fact, it would be even better if all organisms were energy beings who could live without consuming any air, water and food.

Thank you very much for sharing your insights about numerical analysis. I am certainly anti-fossil fuel and pro-renewable energy. Solar is not the only option. Wind farms, wave farms, and geothermal power plants are also good options.

Thank you very much for your fascinating post about trees and the problems with human immortality. I learned some new things, which is great.

It's an evolved trait that optimizes over time for the survival of the species. — boethius

I am sorry that I don't understand. How can the ageing of most species and the non-ageing of some species be an optimised evolved trait? They are the opposites of each other.

As we don't yet know how to make humans and other species immortal, let's put that plan aside for now.

How do I get everyone to love everyone? We humans have killed hundreds of millions of other humans across the centuries and throughout the world in the name of colonisation, slavery, ideologies and religions. We have killed countless other organisms, too. If everyone loved everyone, there wouldn't be any wars or crimes or poverty or injustice or exploitation. Why doesn't everyone just love everyone and be vegan egalitarians? We should share resources equitably, and everyone should receive according to need and contribute according to abilities. If everyone loved everyone, there wouldn't be any wars or crimes or poverty or injustice or exploitation. Why doesn't everyone just love everyone and be vegan egalitarians? We should share resources equitably, and everyone should receive according to need and contribute according to abilities. If we can do this, all 14 worldwide objectives would be achieved.

This is really not how it works. — boethius

In that case, why do some organisms age (e.g. humans, cows, dogs, etc.) and some organisms don't age (e.g. planarian flatworms, hydra, Bristlecone pines, etc.)?

The premise that making people live longer achieves your objectives I also think is highly questionable. — boethius

Second, it is completely nonsensical to even consider extending human life without first being assured we are taking care of the environment and our economic activity derived from the environment sustainably. — boethius

On its own, making humans and other species immortal won't be enough to achieve all 14 objectives. In addition to making humans and other species immortal, we would need to build spaceships to transport humans and other organisms to other planets and moons in our solar system and to other planets and moons in other star systems so that we can spread life throughout the universe. If there is more than one universe, we should spread life to all universes. If we have an optimum population at each location, and everyone went vegan, and we stopped fossil fuel usage completely, and we stopped polluting the air, water and land with toxins, the environment would recover.

First, because there is a long list of more pressing matters of war and poverty and illness, that we have the knowhow to address already but it is a matter of political organization. — boethius

If we stopped being selfish and instead shared resources equitably (i.e. everyone receives according to needs and contributes according to ability) there wouldn't be any poverty.

Many illnesses are preventable, and many more are treatable. Again, sharing resources would make healthcare accessible to all. I have been trying for 37 years to get everyone to love everyone, but I have failed so far because people haven't listened to me. If everyone loved everyone, there wouldn't be any wars or crimes or poverty or injustice or exploitation. Why doesn't everyone just love everyone and be vegan egalitarians? We should share resources equitably, and everyone should receive according to need and contribute according to abilities.

Third, natural age is an evolved trait that nature has found to maximize our chance of survival as a species, and the wisdom of trying to reprogram evolution on these fundamental points resulting from hundreds of millions of years of genetic optimization is highly questionable. — boethius

Evolution is a deeply flawed process. Here is a list of biological design flaws in humans and other species that strongly suggest evolution through natural selection, rather than intelligent design. These features reflect evolutionary compromises, historical constraints, and trial-and-error processes typical of evolution:

Design Flaws in Humans
1. The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
What it is: A nerve that runs from the brain to the larynx but loops down into the chest first, detouring around the aorta.

Why it's a flaw: In humans and other species, the detour is wasteful. In giraffes, it's over 5 meters longer than necessary.

Evolutionary explanation: Inherited from fish ancestors where this route was more direct. Evolution could not rewire it completely without disrupting function.

2. Human Birth Canal and Bipedalism Conflict
What it is: Narrow pelvis for upright walking makes childbirth difficult and dangerous.

Why it's a flaw: High risk of obstructed labour, especially with large-brained babies.

Evolutionary compromise: Upright walking (bipedalism) came with a cost to birthing ease.

3. Wisdom Teeth
What they are: Extra molars that often don’t fit in the modern human jaw.

Why it's a flaw: Commonly causes crowding, impaction, and infections.

Evolutionary explanation: Our ancestors had larger jaws and more abrasive diets, which wore teeth down and made space for third molars.

4. Blind Spot in the Eye
What it is: A spot on the retina with no photoreceptors where the optic nerve exits the eye.

Why it's a flaw: Vertebrate eyes are "wired backward," so light must pass through nerve layers before reaching receptors.

Contrast: Octopus eyes evolved separately and don’t have this problem — their nerves are behind the retina.

5. Back Pain and Spinal Issues
What it is: Chronic back pain and slipped discs are common.

Why it's a flaw: Our spine evolved from four-legged ancestors and struggles with vertical weight-bearing.

Evolutionary compromise: Bipedalism is recent in evolutionary terms, and our skeletons are imperfectly adapted.

6. Appendix
What it is: A vestigial organ, once useful for digesting cellulose.

Why it's a flaw: Can become inflamed or rupture (appendicitis) without much function today.

Evolutionary holdover: Remnant from herbivorous ancestors.

7. Testicles Outside the Body
What it is: Human testicles descend into a vulnerable scrotum.

Why it's a flaw: Increases risk of injury.

Evolutionary reason: Sperm production needs cooler temperatures than core body heat.

8. Choking Hazard in the Throat
What it is: Humans share a passage for food and air.

Why it's a flaw: It increases the risk of choking to death.

Evolutionary constraint: Arises from the descent of the larynx to allow complex speech.

9. Poorly Designed Knees
What it is: Prone to injury (e.g. torn ACL).

Why it's a flaw: Knees evolved for quadrupedal locomotion and are not well adapted to the torque of upright walking and running.

10. Menstrual Cycle Wastefulness
What it is: Shedding of the uterine lining if fertilisation does not occur.

Why it's a flaw: Energetically costly and causes discomfort or anaemia.

Not all mammals menstruate: Most reabsorb the lining instead.

Design Flaws in Other Species
1. Flatfish Eye Migration
What it is: Both eyes end up on one side of the body.

Why it's a flaw: Awkward and inefficient anatomy reflecting a patchwork adaptation.

Evolutionary explanation: Adapted from symmetrical fish ancestors to lie flat on the ocean floor.

2. Panda's "Thumb"
What it is: A modified wrist bone used to grasp bamboo.

Why it's a flaw: Far less efficient than a true opposable thumb.

Evolutionary compromise: Makeshift adaptation rather than a well-planned structure.

3. Giraffe’s Long Neck with Same Number of Vertebrae
What it is: Despite its neck length, the giraffe has only 7 cervical vertebrae.

Why it's a flaw: Limits flexibility and increases the risk of injury.

Evolutionary constraint: Most mammals have 7 cervical vertebrae, and changes are highly constrained developmentally.

4. Flightless Wings in Birds
Examples: Ostriches, emus, kiwis.

Why it's a flaw: Waste of resources for animals that don’t fly.

Evolutionary vestiges: Wings are leftover structures from flying ancestors.

5. Male Seagull Mating Error
What it is: Male seagulls sometimes try to mate with anything that looks like a female, even dead ones.

Why it's a flaw: Behavioural overgeneralization due to evolutionary pressure to reproduce quickly.

Not intelligent behaviour: Just evolutionary instincts gone awry.

6. Cetacean Respiratory Limitation
What it is: Whales and dolphins must consciously surface to breathe.

Why it's a flaw: They can drown if unconscious (e.g., during sleep or entanglement).

Evolutionary constraint: Ancestors were land mammals; complete aquatic adaptation remains imperfect.

Why These Flaws Matter
If humans and other species were designed by an all-powerful, intelligent designer, we’d expect optimal, elegant, and efficient systems. Instead, we observe:

Redundancy

Vestigial structures

Inefficiencies

Developmental constraints

Painful trade-offs

These are consistent with natural selection, which works by modifying existing structures, not by designing from scratch.

It doesn't seem like we can say that genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences operate in the continuous present, and not in the past. Don't determinants and constraints pretty much HAVE to operate in the past? How much of the immediate continuous present do we even perceive / experience? The bell that you hear ringing began to ring in the past -- before you heard it. The lightning bolt you saw had already changed by the time your brain registered the flash. Whatever caused you to choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate was in operation before you decided what to get. The past might be only milliseconds old, but it is still the past (of the high-speed CNS). — BC

Our brains are continuously processing information and making decisions - from regulating heart rate and breathing to deciding where to look or how to respond in social situations. The vast majority of brain activity is unconscious. For example, decisions related to motor control, language processing, and threat detection often happen without conscious awareness. Experiments (e.g. Benjamin Libet’s work in the 1980s and later studies using functional MRI and EEG) have shown that brain activity predicting a decision can occur hundreds of milliseconds to several seconds before people report being consciously aware of making that decision. For example, Libet found a "readiness potential" in the brain that preceded conscious awareness of the intention to act. Later research (e.g. Soon et al., 2008) showed researchers could predict a participant’s choice (e.g. left or right button) based on brain activity up to 7 seconds before the participant was aware of deciding.

Yes, the stimulus begins in the past (e.g. the bell ringing), but it is processed in the present by our nervous system. As far as subjective experience goes, we can only experience the present. For example, I can't experience the first time I flew in a plane on 21 September 1982 right now. I can recall the most memorable parts of it, but I can't experience the whole thing exactly as I did back then. Just as I can't experience right now what I will do tomorrow. A plane could be crashing on our house tomorrow (or sooner or later), causing my death.

Thank you for bringing my attention to the behaviours of dogs. I have a doggy friend who sleeps with me and does all the things you have said.

I meant that is not limiting the options. — Red Sky

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and limit what a sentient biological organism can do. That's why I can't do what planarian flatworms can do, and they can't do what I can do.

What we can overcome and what we can't overcome is not free from determinants.
— Truth Seeker
At this point I can't help but admit you right. It seems I was thinking too superficially again.
Yes, GENE determines what you can actually do, but it doesn't have as much influence on choice for outside factors. Simply because people can choose to do things they don't know is possible or not. — Red Sky

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences determine all behaviours. What makes you say: "but it doesn't have as much influence on choice for outside factors. Simply because people can choose to do things they don't know is possible or not."?

It seems like a lot of this has gone really out of hand.
The original topic was about the freedom of choice and underlying factors affecting it.
I have gone too far with some of my statements and for that I apologize. I did this because usually when a person states the kind of things you did, it means that they have lost the value of, are trying to deny, or put something in a bad light. However through our correspondence this doesn't entirely seem to be the case with you.
Anyway, I had some fun with this thread.
I will admit that underlying factors such as GENE have effects on our choice (Whether good or bad), But I will retain my point that you can overcome outside factors, such as environment and experience. — Red Sky

I called the thread Understanding Human Behaviour. If my GENE Causal Self Model has helped you understand human behaviour, then this thread is successful. I am glad you had some fun with this thread. What we can overcome and what we can't overcome is not free from determinants. In fact, it is determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

I can definitely see how this could be a prime subject for research. — Red Sky

Lots of scientists are using planarian flatworms for many research projects.

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.