The definition of "choose"

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

My experience is, about 90 percent of the content of philosophy revolves around the definition of choosing. The free will arguments, but also the materialism, and God arguments etc. It helps a lot to have a very exacting definition of choosing. One should look at how the word “choose” is used in conversation, to find the definition of it.

“I can go left or right, I choose left, I go left.”

Therefore, the logic of choosing is to make one of alternative possible futures the present.

Choosing is free, and anticipatory of a future of alternative possibilities.

In the same moment that left is chosen, the possibility of choosing right is negated, which is what makes choosing to be spontaneous.

Once left is chosen, the result of the decision is instantaneous. Which is because choosing is the mechanism for creation, it creates the new information of which way the decision turns out. So it is not possible to have an intermediate step between the decision and the result of the decision, because, where is that intermediate step supposed to originate from, without the mechanism for creation?

The decision-maker is subjective, which means that it is identified with a chosen opinion, and the result of the decision is objective, which means that it is identified with a model of it. As for example, the baby (objective), was born from love (subjective). What is subjective creates what is objective, by decision.

Choosing is often confused with selection.

I can go left or right, I evaluate the options left and right, the selection turns out left, I choose to go left.

With selection, I imagine going left, and going right, which delivers the options of going left and right. Then I evaluate these options with some values, which selects an option. And then I choose to follow the selection or not follow it.

So in selection the options are in the present, where they are being evaluated, as opposed to the alternative possibilities in a decision, which are in the future.

Also it is possible to not choose at all, and simply select behavior automatically. Then it would not be accurate to say that one can go either left or right, then it would mean that the selection forces to go left.

Selection is what happens with learned behavior. As like learning to drive the route home, then at first one is choosing which way to go, and once learned, it becomes automatic.

This is the efficient functional logic of choosing (and selection) as used in conversation. Deviation is not really possible, because the logic is tightly integrated. Deviation usually results in the concept of subjectivity being abandoned.

2

You didn’t talk about how sometimes you make the wrong choices and figure it out too late

3

Not sure what you have in mind here. I don’t think we choose our beliefs. You are either convinced that something is the case or you aren’t. I don’t accept that you can simply choose to be a theist or an atheist, for instance. It’s more about how you make sense of the world and how ideas “fit” within your intersecting values and axioms.

3 Likes
4

“A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.”

Arthur Schopenhauer

1 Like
5

And since we’re free, God exists :smiley:

1 Like
6

I think what I would call “choice” is what the OP calls a “selection”: a considered, reasoned determination.
The more it’s like a coin-flip, the less of a choice it is.

It’s part of why I think the whole concept of “free will” is incoherent.

7

That’s not how philosophy works, or it is how it works if “the love of wisdom” is just whatever you like. But you are supposed to like the integrated functional conceptual scheme.

In my experience people like to conceive of choosing in terms of it being a process of figuring out the best option, but the definition of choosing that works, is that it is defined in terms of spontaneity.

How subjectivity works, is found out by analyzing the rules that are used in subjective statements in conversation. Because that is where the idea of subjectivity comes from. And that logic says you can choose to believe in God or not, if God is defined in terms of being the creator. If you don’t like it, then you must still acknowledge the facts of how subjectivity works in conversation, and then present some alternative, and argue why it is better.

8

As before, first you must find out what actual logic is used in conversation with the word choose. Then if you think it’s wrong, you can present some alternative.

It is very obvious that you have no functioning concept of subjectivity anymore when you define choosing in terms of selection, as there are no subjective elements in a selection procedure. So you are not just throwing out free will, or redefining it as in compatiblism, you are also throwing out the entire concept of a subjective opinion. And that is a very severe deficiency in your alternative conceptual scheme.

9

Can you not just focus on the topic instead of the insults?

I will respond nonetheless to the only part which is not insults or poisoning the well. You made the claim “there are no subjective elements in a selection procedure”.
I disagree. For example in choosing whether I want to travel somewhere by bus or bicycle, many subjective elements come into play around comfort and enjoyment, as well as more objective elements like which is faster or cheaper.

10

There’s choosing, and action. The actor is like a line that’s swayed by options. You choose, and then you enact the chosen program.

Choosing itself is an action- so there’s a double jump.

The actor comes before the choice, some call the actor’s power, ‘will.’

Like a heartbeat.

11

I can only speak to my own experience. Over probably mentioned this before. I had been raised going to Sunday School at our Presbyterian church, and sometimes church service, also. One day, when I was around 9 or 10, I was watching tv, and someone said the only reason people believe in God was that they were afraid of going to Hell if they didn’t. At 9 or 10, I thought that was obvious not true. But the important thing is that I had never heard that there were people who do not believe in God. It had been presented to me as fact, and I had always accepted it as such, without considering it. Now I was hearing that it was not, that some people believed, and some did not.

I immediately realized I did not. I did not make a choice about it. I simply realized that, if it was a mastery of belief, or feeling, I had none. Nothing “in my heart”. The stories were now just myths, like those of the Greeks and Vikings.

12

The ultimate choice is choice of perception IMHO, which by extension will inform everything else from there.

Consciousness/The Self is a metaphysical and existential singularity of the NOW.

13

Those weren’t any insults, it was just pointing out the rules that must be followed.

In your example the subjective elements like enjoyment are converted to objective weights, by choosing the weights (choosing in terms of spontaneity), and then the weights are selected. So that the selection is still only on objective weights.

But you cannot choose in terms of spontaneity what weight to give enjoyment, because you use the logic of selection for choosing, so then you must select the weight to give enjoyment, and how do you think you will do that?

14

Yeah, I had the same experience. Except mine was the Easter Bunny–my brother telling me it was the parents.

The next morning I woke up and Yahweh was gone.

15

There’s no Easter Bunny?!?!?!?!?!? :flushed_face:

16

I agree with this, but many define it in ways that go well outside its dictionary definition.

Therefore, the logic of choosing is **to make one of alternative possible futures the present.

Funny wording, but again I can agree. There are those that argue that there are no alternative possible futures, and therefore no choosing is going on. That violates the dictionary definition, strangely asserting instead that it’s not you making the choice, but the mechanism by which choices are made that is making that one possible outcome take place.
Point is, you probably need to address that point if you’re going to soapbox about the way it is.

In the same moment that left is chosen, the possibility of choosing right is negated
Once left is chosen, the result of the decision is instantaneous

With this I disagree since it takes time to enact a choice made. I choose warm clothes, and upon opening the closet I realize all the warm stuff is in the dirty bin. It takes time to turn left. Things can happen in that time. One can remember a good reason to go the other way.

Likewise it is hard to pin down the moment when a choice is made. It’s a fuzzy spread out process some times, and it has been shown that a human isn’t consciously aware at first of the decision having been made. Quite often, action based on the choice is already going on before one becomes aware of the choice made. Less so with choices consciously made, but most choices (like turning left or right) are not of that category.

The decision-maker is subjective, which means that it is identified with a chosen opinion, and the result of the decision is objective, which means that it is identified with a model of it. As for example, the baby (objective), was born from love (subjective). What is subjective creates what is objective, by decision.

Choosing is often confused with selection.
…
And then I choose to follow the selection or not follow it.

You’re going to need to clarify that with an example of something selected but not chosen. What does it then mean to have selected that option?

Just identifying options is not how ‘selection’ is used in the language. The text following makes it sound like there are multiple agents. I can get on board with that, but I wouldn’t call it selection vs. choice. In the end, the primary makes the decision, whether or not it takes the advice of the lovely assistant. I have examples of this, but I don’t know if that’s what you’re talking about.

OK, I think we are talking about the same thing, because I’ve used this example. I just call the ‘automatic’ my subconscious (which is a far better driver, musician, and mathematician), and the ‘chooser’ is the conscious part, far less efficient/fast, but can work through harder problems. The subconscious is the boss and has veto power and isn’t particularly rational. The conscious part is more rational, but not necessarily fully rational. It does math the way it’s taught in schools with pencil and paper. Really slow, digital, and necessary in many situations like selling stuff. The fast subconscious math is analog and has little to do with the methods taught in school. It learns by practice.

One disagreement. Choice is followed by selection, not the other way around. The rational choice can be ignored (as in your example), where the ‘automatic’ (subconscious) part selects a different option. Example: choose to hold your breath. Eventually the subconscious will select to draw breath, overriding the conscious choice, even if there’s no air to draw in.

When it comes to machine intelligence, there is often no division between the two, which is a good part of why it’s hard for one to imitate a human.

I didn’t get that at all. What he calls ‘selection’ isn’t reasoned. The reasoned part (not always utilized) is what he calls ‘choice’. I don’t agree with the nonstandard terminology, but I understand what is being described.

Sometimes. Pascal’s wager gets into this. You can’t choose to believe in all the religions, but I strongly suspect Pascal already holds his cultural belief and he’s just looking for a way to rationalize what is otherwise admittedly irrational.
On the other side, my belief in Santa eventually was dropped. Was that a choice made? I think so, hence I cannot fully agree with your statement.
Santa is a god for children, and ‘God’ is just Santa for children with more mature core anxieties. I outgrew both.

In another thread I gave examples to the contrary. ‘I will to not want alcohol anymore, and I expend considerable effort to bring that change about.’

I agree, post 7 was out of line, as was his reply to this.

17

Yes, which is why Pascal’s Wager is a bit of a toothless argument. Not to mention that it’s not abundantly clear what you’re supposed to do if you bet on the wrong sect or religion being true.

18

Sorry, I’m unable to follow your language. What are you saying here?

It is abundantly clear that you can’t choose what you believe. Just try choosing to believe that I am God and that if you don’t give me US$100,000, I’ll banish you to hell.

If you find that you can “choose” a belief based on an argument you hear, then you have been convinced that something is true. You didn’t choose the belief; you were convinced by the argument.

1 Like
19

Right. And you can’t choose the kinds of things that will convince you, either. I can’t choose to accept people telling me they saw Jesus as evidence of Jesus’ existence.

1 Like
20

Good point.

Choosing is the wrong word if one is deliberating or trying to make a decision. Making a decision is not the same as making a choice. Definitely two different mental skills.

Choosing is a passive activity while deliberation, which includes argumentation, is an active cognitive skill.

1 Like