The dilemma of Choice

This a thought process leading to the negation of choice, please do not say you're wrong or right. Share arguments/counter arguments.

What if the nature of our mind functions in a single logic (not defining what logic is, that's not the point m trying to make).

What if the nature of us "realising" that logic, or "feeling" that concept is based on us being "aware" of that logic that is functionning behind the curtain up in our head (subconsciensly we might say). But the thought i'm trying to express is that what if the mind functions, but we never monitor it all the time, To be consciense of something is to monitor that thought process, which is an exhausting one that we don't do 24/7. Sometimes we allow ourselves to feel something rather than think about it. And that's when we allow our mind to function on it's own without monitoring it as we do when we "think".

What i am saying here is a bit too much out there, but it's been a thought i had. It's centered about control. The thought process that led to this idea was the What if we do not control our thoughts, we only can monitor them. We can control certain things as in the direction of our senses. Which might mean looking at a certain thing. But i do believe we can never control what we would see in that thing, and we definitly can not control the way we perceive that certain thing.

Anyway, a lot of thinkers tried to define beauty. It is almost an impossibility, to me we all think alone, never consider different consideration to the matter than our own (not generalising, but we can never truely sit in someone's head)

Anyway, the uncertainty about beauty and choice is a result of each of us trying to define it according to our own terms, thus there is no common ground on any theory that is presented on the subject. Since if i see it that way, then others might not. (i am trying to not include anything that might be "personal" on this subject)

The reason behind the difference of opinion, is that our mind is driven by knowledge mainly (or memories). And we never have similiar experiences, or even same biology.

my idea of beauty (which is one of the many), is that it is something we "understand", but is too complicated to be able to monitor that thought process and especially "remember" what we are actually thinking about. But the importan thing about it is that we truely understand it, thus we think it is beautiful, Sometimes we're simply awed by the thought process it drives us to. Without bothering too much with realising the sequence of it we just feel the high of it.

What i'm trying to describe here is that what if our mind works a lot more often than we give it credit for. We concentrate on actions, we do not concentrate on realising the meaning of those actions.

Another point is that we reject certain things we don't bother explaining why, or a lot of the things we cannot understand but know, because it is "strange", it is scary to some point, to have to "understand" why i love or hate something. Because we were taught that we Can love and hate.

And as i've observed in a lot of minds, some accept the odd concept (by that i mean if not affected by any social or "human" factors). some of us reject it. But that acceptance is based on our experience, and sometimes it's so obvious to predict a person's reactions and actions.

Now the idea of wether u'd accept or reject that concept i think is also based on our previous experiences, and the amount of things we previously liked, and hated.

Now, our mind is a horrificly subtle God.
And the fight we have with what our mind is trying to tell us, and what we can understand from it sometimes lead us to such presumtions on denying or approving of certain things we see.

The key idea i would love to express here is that "logic" or the thinking organ we all try to claim as our own might as well be our "sixth sense". and by that i mean it is uncontrolable as our other senses are.

The one thing we can control in our body are actions (me looking at something, me trying to follow up with my head).
So the seperation i'm trying to do here is basically based on 2 factors, input and control.
If we learn to accept that we cannot control our thought process, we can only control what we "remember" from it, or store inside a specific organ designed for us.

So then the senses would be seperated into more than 6.
we have the external senses, we have one internal sense of logic, and we have the controlling senses, which are memory and action.

After all we might just be electrical circuits, and to a matter bound body, we can control what our nerves allow us to.

I try to think of one thing, the ticking clock in my head. Would i ever be able to know if i want to think that way. Can i change the way i think about things. Which items i believe are valid, which i believe are invalid. Is that something i can change about myself.

Now what i'm trying to say here is that we cannot control all of what we sense (also in our innate sense of logic). as much as we cannot block out a certain sounds we hear.

We can only choose to remember the results(but are these choices based on a predictable logic based on our un-controlable senses, or is it just what we do, how we exist.

And thus our rejection or approval of certain things might be based on our inability to control how we perceive them.

That might be a bit weird to say out loud, but still.
(The one question i would ever ask is that can u say for certain there can be a parallel outcome to how u live ur life, the choices you've made)

Do not think of if u can change your past, think how would u have chosen another choice knowing what you knew back then (which is impossible to realise, since we're already tainted to be able to purify our thought process without thinking of consequence).
I believe we're here to understand our previous actions, since we can always change if we "chose" what we would focus on(meaning monitoring the uncontrolable thought process).

But that choice, is it a choice really. or is it based on our biological existance.

The question here can it be that the only choice we truely make is which way we get out of the womb.

I suspect "choice" is a matter of perception: A moment before, free will; a moment after, destiny. I suspect "choice" is an illusion -- that there is ALWAYS a reason that we make the "choices" we make. And if there's a reason we make a choice, then that "choice" is determined by the reasons, so is a consequence of circumstance, another product of a cause/effect chain, not truly a "choice" in the way many folks want to believe in.

In a number of cases, we know the "reason" we made one choice or another. But, just as often (and perhaps even more so), we really don't know the reason even if we think we do. And that's because a number of the aspects that motivate our "choices" operate at a sub-conscious level (emotional/reactive biases/prejudices/inclinations based on previous experience, rational or otherwise) -- in a very real sense, our "choices" are made for us, and we go along for the ride.

And I think this way because I suspect humans are just sophisticated versions of animals -- and animals don't really take the time to analyze all this stuff the way we do, and there's a reasonable question whether they have the brain power to do it even if they had the time.

Ultimately, this suggests that we're all "victims" of determinism -- but we are benefactors of the illusion of free will because we cannot possibly know enough of the details to precisely determine all the factors that contribute and cross-pollinate each other to cause a "choice". We do the best we can. The ability to alter outcomes based on past experience (out of which our notion of "choice" emerges) creates just enough of a survival advantage for this kind of "choice" to be reinforced through reproductive success.

The brain doesn't operate on what's true, or what's right, or what's good -- it operates on what WORKS. And what works only has to be true enough, right enough, or good enough to permit the organism to survive long enough to reproduce.

Now, I'm not saying that I LIKE this conclusion about the nature of choice, free will, determinism, etc. It's just that such an explanation appears to be fully sufficient to account for human behavior, explaining both the "rational" as well as "irrational" aspects of that behavior. And it's a relatively simple explanation, requiring either no intelligent design to create these circumstances -- or an "intelligence" that's quite literally as dumb as dirt.

Personally, I'd like there to be more to it than that. But existence has no obligation to abide by my personal preferences. I'm stuck with the truth of the matter just like everyone else is.

Ok, I'm now lost between posts.

Now in this one i denied the existence of something beyond logic in "living" creatures, in the other based on certain observations i managed to deduct (based on certain assumptions), that there might as well be something other than logic that drives logic.

both chains of reasoning seem to be valid "enough" (as you put it)

now here's the post from the other topic which drifted into this one.

quote:

---

First assumption (meaning is resolved through reason).

I think awareness is the essence that drives us into meaning.

Why?

Awareness is one of the most incomprehensible words in language (in my view). As in being aware of anything, nothing specific.

I'll follow some logical observations of all things perceived to us as 'living', 'alive'.

If we try follow the mind-body dichotomy to the end, we are left with one little problem, understanding how is it that we are aware of anything. I believe if we solve that problem we would know a whole lot more about "life", and what is it to be "alive" in comparison to objects or non-conscious existence.

Now if we talk physics, we might end up discussing "energy", to try solve the problem, going through comparisons between energy and matter (if we were to try to understand it through some of our fact-based sciences).

Well the answer to the question you stated is a mind boggling one, not in the same way of the chicken egg problem. But it leads us to a lot of realizations that might only lessen our toleration to this whole mess of existence.

Well I think it all circles down to our innate selfish ego (or awareness), I guess if we concentrate on the idea of 'self preservation' which is innate in all 'living' creatures. That might as well be the awareness we speak of. The idea I stated is innate in all creatures, if we ever stop to question why do creatures have this self preservation thing? We come closer to accepting that we might not all be just a dwell of action and reaction.

To better explain the self preservation idea, we try to ask why we are doing all of the things we do. Why are we alive, why do we do certain things, why do we do anything the way we do it. It all comes down to the fact that the best choice we ever take is ALWAYS and forever will be the one that keeps us alive, the one that helps us live better, (think of a chess match as being your life, and consider why u make a move).

Now in the matter of 'humans', and in specific the case suicide or self sacrifice, I think our minds as I might have stated in previous posts are capable of reaching 'objective' reasoning, not only subjective reasoning. Now this objective reasoning is the only thing that might drive us into such actions (or maybe some chemical imbalance that breaks the sanity of the person whatever sanity might be). I could go into how objective reasoning drives us to a lot of actions but that's not the subject here.

The whole point of this is to show what is it exactly that we have in common with all other creatures, and to me after the points I've stated it's 'self preservation' or 'awareness', I think both mean the same thing the first is if we discuss the creature's actions from an outside perspective, the second if we discuss ourselves inward.

Anyway as I've stated above we can think in 2 ways, subjectively and objectively, other creatures are (that we know of) incapable of such 'reasoning'.
if we try understand the why of the mind-body dichotomy it might as well lead us to the objective/subjective reasoning I spoke of, since all thoughts that we call purely mind relevant are objective, and all thoughts that we call body relevant are subjective (don't care what the words mean, trying to explain what I mean by objective and subjective)

So then is this method of objective reasoning innate in all creatures (to some level), or is it a distinct separation between 'Man' and 'Beast'. Meaning did we gain a soul, and other creatures don't have that 'soul'.

I find it more probable that our minds are simply a more evolved version of other creatures (how much is a very large factor but still is a factor) since we have similar biology and share a whole lot more in common that we dare to admit with all living creatures.

And if we can assume that all creatures (other than humans) do not have reason. (This is also another discussion, there are 2 answers. But surprisingly 99.9% of the populous deny reason to all creatures but humans)

I would say that awareness comes before reason, since it's innate in all of us. And Reason is acquired (might be through evolution, or just from experience).

Now this might not be in the same pigeon hole as you've stated it. But it might be an answer in more global terms, as in which is it that must have existed first.

The question relevant to a single person (thinking which he discovered first) is the one I cannot answer.
But the question relevant to the whole evolution process I would answer in that it is more probable that awareness came before reason (of course that is based on a few assumptions)

But I stand by my point.

(sorry if i drifted off the subject)

---

by the way, my statement above revolved mainly around the possibility of the creation of "life", and the question that was driven from that. IF we actually are able to construct a relativity approach logic(human brain functions as in comparing everything it senses onto other things they remember sensing, in more logical terms., Storage and comparison) attached to a set of senses. would that be a living organism. Or would it just be predictable cause consequence.

it is an observation on all animals/humans/one-cell organisms
and from that approach i deducted there has to be "awareness", or a soul behind "logic" because logic evolved after life was created (according to evolution).
Thus denying the possibility of "creating life" from logic.

The whole point of the matter i wanted to observe is the existence of something beyond logic in "living" creatures (a soul in simpler terms).

btw, my deduction was based on certain assumptions (as all deductions usually are made on relative terms, our mind is endlessly subjective to our senses, We are limited within our box of a body),

(my personal opinion is a bit different than both statements)


but, this is an observation i thought was worth mentioning here.

The idea I stated is innate in all creatures, if we ever stop to question why do creatures have this self preservation thing?

We have it because existence sorts itself in degrees of relative persistence -- which simply means that some things last longer than other things do. "Survival" is persistence in the biological domain. It's an unavoidable, predictable consequence of natural selection that biological persistence passes the keys to biological persistence onto succeeding generations -- because that's the only genome that survived long enough to reproduce to begin with. This is a positive feedback loop (a "perfect storm" for reasonably wide bandwidth of genetic selection and amplification) that can be expected to persist as long as circumstance permits it to -- action/reaction, cause/effect, mechanistic.

Anything more or less complicated than that appears to be unnecessary. It's no less a miracle in my eyes. Perhaps the most miraculous of all.

and from that approach i deducted there has to be "awareness", or a soul behind "logic" because logic evolved after life was created (according to evolution). Thus denying the possibility of "creating life" from logic.

I would classify myself as a "devout", or at least a conversant, evolutionist -- and I know evolution makes no claim about the "evolution of logic". It depends on what one means by the term. Nothing appears "illogical" about existence to me -- from that viewpoint, "logic" (defined as a reasonably consistent / predictable set of rules governing the behavior of an information field) is built into existence itself, if for no other reason than it has no other choice but to sort itself in degrees of relative persistence. Thus "logic" could (and does) create life.

On the other hand, the perception of logic is another animal. I think it's a tautaulogy to say that you can only have the perception of logic when there is something to perceive it. So the perception of logic wouldn't exist without life -- but that's not saying that logic doesn't exist.

Well in no way i was trying to deny the possibility of imitating life.

i wanted to observe the difference between if something looked alive, and something "is" alive.

hence the whole discussion, which all leads down to "choice" maybe, or just to have a sort of formed "unity" observing the uncontrolable actions we take.

both ways, with choice or no choice, the relevance of the subject at this specific point is that; does denying choice affect the "relevance" of "life".

are we alive because of choice, or something else.

and i'm trying to aimlessly discuss that dilemma.

Which most people would deny using "religion" or "God", or some other half baked human invention to resolve things we do not want to bother thinking about.

I say why is it we want answers for questions that would simply make us feel better. Feeling is an illusion based on chemical reactions, it can be altered if you understand it properly. And we don't NEED a specific explanation of the process in order to enjoy it.

The reason behind this discussion is in no way finding answers. But to dig deepeer into the rabbit hole.

it's no fun if people agree with u.

I guess I'm "answer" oriented -- not so much where I need an answer, but rather when I've got one that seems to address the question directly, where the other possible answers seem less sufficient or concise, I'm inclined to consider the issue resolved unless there's some new evidence that demands re-opening the question.

It's quite true that too much agreement tends to decrease the amount of communication about any given subject, because nothing further really needs to be said. In that sense, it takes some of the "fun" out of the discussion. From years of watching and participating in these communities, the communities with the most activity seem to be those where there's quite a bit of disagreement going on, which seems to spark verbal fusillades, raising the entertainment value. I've certainly participated in my share of verbal exchanges -- but I question the "fun" in that. Very often that has left me exhausted, feeling that I've just wasted my time -- and reinforcing my suspicion that many of these discussions have little or nothing to do with facts, reason, evidence, science, or rationality, and everything to do with psychology (perceptions, imagination, rationalization, defense/coping mechanisms).

So, somewhere in between too much agreement and too little agreement seems to be the most rewarding space for me.

well, disagreeing with something without some form of proof on "some common grounds" is just crazy talk.

Usually any type of proof is given on some form of assumption that sometimes we don't even question.

The way i see it, if the common ground we stand on is defined of course based on certain assumption. There is room for discussion.

in any other ways. it's simply a fight to see who says it louder.