<span>What I see, what I feel, what I think, about what is there. What I want, desire, imagine, might come from deciding to do, go, this way or that. In any given moment, what choices may be available must depend on how I feel about myself, my life, and how much at peace I am.</span> The more at peace the less choice I need to take. The less I recognise there are choices that must be taken because I am here, now, and content to be so. I have made choices in my life that I had no doubt I wanted to make, only to come to feel at a later time differently. Were I to have felt then what I feel now that choice would not have been made, and yet it was only in making it that I came to realise that. Did the choice reveal this to me, or did I come to see what was really there once the choice was no longer one I needed to make? I used to feel I made pretty good choices, and yet while some could be made in an excited state, almost impulsively, without thought, others came out of stillness, sometimes without thought, but without needing to make anything happen. The latter tended to be better choices.
DirtyD wrote - Choices could easily be seen as simple opertunity... A turn where we pick a path..... an opertunity to move ourselves in a new direction... leaving the old behind... beginning something else.... And perhaps we choose nothing.... and those choices are as they would have been regardless... tho from here it seems I can effect said opertunity ... Yes, doing nothing is definitely a choice, one I am quite familiar with. Sometimes it feels like while it is a valid choice, if I'm choosing it because that is what feels right, that is good, but if I'm choosing it because of some anxiety the other choices might bring, not so much.
Everything we do is choices. Everything except body functions that is. Life is choices, death removes choices. The quality of your options is dependent on previous choices. You chose to make this thread. I don't get it.
Right, so it's a question of recognising whether what is there is based on excitement or comes from anxiety. Something that, strangely enough, I can see from both perspectives.
For one thing I don't get why you're having a conversation with DirtyD and he's not even here. He's just stating the obvious and you're agreeing with him.
Why not? It's good to do it a little differently sometimes And in a way he is here, as his comments are no different posted by me as they are posted by him. Sometimes stating the obvious, as you put it, is just what needs to be said. Yes, I chose to start this thread, see where it went, if anywhere. Still doesn't explain what you didn't get.
Just to point something out, ''choices'' do not exist unless there is a part of man that is immaterial.
If materialism is true then there cannot be a self-autonomous ''I'', and if there cannot be a self-autonomous ''I'' then there therefore cannot be ''choice/s'', because only an ''I/Self'' can ''choose'' between things.
Will you ever be able prove that there cannot be an autonomous "I" with materialism? I feel like the first statement is something you're going to have to prove rather than assume so you can continue on with the rest. Also, you don't need to say self autonomous.. the self is already covered with autonomous.
Autonomy depends upon there being some freedom from deterministic laws, deterministic laws are what govern the motions/reactions of all physical things. and considering how the brain is one of those physical things, it shouldn't follow that it can act under any influence other than those same deterministic laws that govern every other physical thing. ''Self-autonomous'' put's the point across more clearly..
Chocolate chip or blueberry muffins. The hardest choice known to man. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
The freedom to choice between deterministic laws is due to the countless variety of deterministic laws that would contradict each other is followed at the same time. It's not like for every experience there is only one option to chose from.. and with there being multiple choices to be made, a mechanism must be in play to make a choice between them all. Whether it comes from a material brain or immaterial mind.. it's obviously there. You didn't even bother to discuss how we make choices, you just poked your head in to say "If you want to believe you're making choices, you have to believe in immaterialism.." No thanks. So.. self-self-governing? ... ok..
The freedom to choice between deterministic laws is due to the countless variety of deterministic laws that would contradict each other is followed at the same time. What? I'm saying that because of deterministic laws there is no ''freedom'' to choose. I think we're probably referring to two different types of Determinism here.. but in case we're not I'll just go ahead and respond to the rest of your post anyway. It's not like for every experience there is only one option to chose from.. and with there being multiple choices to be made, a mechanism must be in play to make a choice between them all. Whether it comes from a material brain or immaterial mind.. it's obviously there. You can repeat the word ''choice'' as much as you want, you're not actually refuting anything I said above -- there is also no reason to say ''it's obviously there''.. why is it ''obviously there'', because it feels as though it's there? You didn't even bother to discuss how we make choices, you just poked your head in to say "If you want to believe you're making choices, you have to believe in immaterialism.." No thanks. I don't really care what people want to believe, all I wanted to do was to point out to the OP and others, that if he/they are materialists, then he/they cannot reasonably hold the opinion that there is such a thing as ''choice'' in the first place, (or at least that's how I see it, and you haven't persuaded me otherwise). But maybe I'm thinking about ''traditional'' materialism, perhaps there's a new version of it that I'm unaware of that is actually compatible with Free Will.. So.. self-self-governing? ... ok.. Just because ''Autonomous'' is a synonym of ''Self-governing'' it doesn't mean that they mean exactly the same thing.. ''Having the freedom to act independently'' can refer to any number of things, and not necessarily a ''Self''.
And there you go again.. "If you want to think you're making a choice.. you have to believe what I believe, immaterialism.." That doesn't work, it never worked.. and it will never work. That's equally as ridiculous as saying something like "God is real because God said so.." or "If you want to think you exist, you have to believe you have a soul.." It's clear I'll never be able to persuade you.. your belief dictates that. I don't really give a shit about what you believe, just how you think your belief is THE belief. Thing is, I am not going to try and say "If you believe you make choices, you have to believe the mind is your physical brain.." cause you prove it.. nor will you ever be able to prove it. Like I said, whether it is through a material way or immaterial, the result is the same thing.. you make choices. If you want to make the absurd claim that your belief is the ONLY way.. then provide some fucking evidence.. otherwise it's simply a belief. As for deterministic laws, what seems to escape you is that you're not under the influence of only one "law" at a time.. For every conscious thought, you have numerous subconscious thoughts. When you look at a banana, your brain is processing every single known action and thought related to a banana in the background. It's processing eating it, peeling it, throwing it.. pretty much anything related to a banana that your brain has taken in and recorded in your lifetime. If the brain tried to react to all of them at once, many would contradict one another. Like when you come up to an intersection, in your subconscious brain it is processing turning left, turning right, or going straight.. and you consciously chose which direction to take. Granted some neural pathways will be stronger, offer less electrical resistance influencing your decision.. at any moment you can consciously interject and change your decision. That is the brain's mechanism behind making a choice, conscious decision making.. It is a product of natural evolution because there is always more than one option that needs to be decided.. and because some decisions can prove to be the wrong choice and need corrected. If you want to pop in just to say "Believe in choice? Trollol, you now believe in immaterialism.." then provide some evidence for your immaterial belief system.
And there you go again.. "If you want to think you're making a choice.. you have to believe what I believe, immaterialism.." That isn't what I said though, I didn't imply it either, if you'd have kept the whole sentence intact rather than removing parts of it and inadvertently removing the context too.. Furthermore, I've actually given some statements that are at least reasonable to re-enforce what I said in that part you quoted - you on the other hand haven't, you've merely mentioned ''choices'' over and over again. As for deterministic laws, what seems to escape you is that you're not under the influence of only one "law" at a time.. For every conscious thought, you have numerous subconscious thoughts. When you look at a banana, your brain is processing every single known action and thought related to a banana in the background. It's processing eating it, peeling it, throwing it.. pretty much anything related to a banana that your brain has taken in and recorded in your lifetime. If the brain tried to react to all of them at once, many would contradict one another. Like when you come up to an intersection, in your subconscious brain it is processing turning left, turning right, or going straight.. and you consciously chose which direction to take. Granted some neural pathways will be stronger, offer less electrical resistance influencing your decision.. at any moment you can consciously interject and change your decision. That is the brain's mechanism behind making a choice, conscious decision making.. It is a product of natural evolution because there is always more than one option that needs to be decided.. and because some decisions can prove to be the wrong choice and need corrected. \nIf you want to know what I mean by ''Determinism'' then Google it..
Come on dude, stop playing dumb for once.. You are literally say choices do not exist unless you believe part of man is immaterial.. there's no other way to even take it. I'm not a determinist.. but the general idea of it is that for every thought and action you have, is because of pre-existing conditions.. giving you no real choice. A cause and effect.. what I am saying isn't that much different, but it is different. When experiencing an experience, your subconscious brain is processing every single determined action available for the experience.. and you use your conscious brain to make a choice between them all. It's not one cause for one effect.. it's a cause creating multiple effects and multiple causes leading to the same effect. So therefore, there needs to be a mechanism in play to be the judge between every possible predetermined action and determine which one to follow. Since I don't have a belief in the immaterial, metaphysical, or supernatural.. that leaves me with that mechanism being a product of the natural world.. the evolution of the brain. If you want me to believe your belief system, provide me with some proof rather than trying to say I can't believe I make choices if I don't believe in immaterialism.
Come on dude, stop playing dumb for once.. You are literally say choices do not exist unless you believe part of man is immaterial.. there's no other way to even take it. You're skipping between posts.. note the emboldened part, it's what's actually relevant. Note how I don't actually say or imply the following; (The emboldened part/important part). I was quite adamant about the possibility of being wrong, yet you to seem to have thought otherwise. Sure, the first post implied what you said it implied, but why aren't you talking about my proceeding explanation/s that led me to make that post? Isn't that actually what's important? . It's like me taking one of your posts, or a single part of one of your posts, and then being like, ''Oh look you said this here and you haven't given an explanation for it.'' - Actually the only difference between me doing this and you doing this is that when I do it it's justified, because you haven't actually given a logical explanation for why ''choices'' exist, you just keep repeating the word ''choices''.. it's boring. I'm not a determinist.. but the general idea of it is that for every thought and action you have, is because of pre-existing conditions.. giving you no real choice. A cause and effect.. what I am saying isn't that much different, but it is different. When experiencing an experience, your subconscious brain is processing every single determined action available for the experience.. and you use your conscious brain to make a choice between them all. It's not one cause for one effect.. it's a cause creating multiple effects and multiple causes leading to the same effect. So therefore, there needs to be a mechanism in play to be the judge between every possible predetermined action and determine which one to follow. Since I don't have a belief in the immaterial, metaphysical, or supernatural.. that leaves me with that mechanism being a product of the natural world.. the evolution of the brain. If you want me to believe your belief system, provide me with some proof rather than trying to say I can't believe I make choices if I don't believe in immaterialism. Materialism doesn't account for an ''I''/''Self''/''You'', therefore it cannot account for an ''I''/''Self''/''You'' making ''choices''.. I've already explained that, but there you go..
This obviously isn't working.. so let's try a lil role reversal. If I came in and the first and only thing I posted was "Just to point something out, ''choices'' do not exist unless there every part of man that is material." and you being me, would want me to back up my claim. You not believing my claim, while believing that you make choices.. would want some sort of evidence or at least a logical explanation. You have yet to provide anything like that.. In fact, your argument for your belief is lacking so much so that you had to comment on me using the word 'choice' in a discussion titled "What is choice anyway?" Lol, that's dumb blonde moment. "Like, oh my God.. it is soooooo totally boring when you use the word green while talking about things that are green.." While I wouldn't consider myself a materialist, my "materialism" comes from simply lacking a belief in things that are immaterial, there is nothing in materialism that states there isn't a material "I"/"Self"/"You".. that's a different discussion and if you'd like to make a thread about feel free. I doubt I'll post in it cause you might find me using the word 'self' in a discussion on the self to be boring.. lol