Do humans really have choice?

[Reliont]

Do humans have choice? This is the argument I am dealing with. I believe that humans do not have choice, but cannot seem to fully explain my theory so that people can understand it correctly.

Choice is the act of choosing. To choose is to take by preference which is to reguard something more highly than something else. We create values for different items by basing them upon past experiences of our life. Past experiences are things that have already happened, so if this is the case, choice is predetermined. Thus, every action in life is merely a reaction of a previous action. We are robots out of control.

"We create values for different items by basing them upon past experiences of our life." is the line in question of my theory. Some people want proof of this, but it seems like common sense to me. How do I better explain this idea?

Perhaps you would like to argue against my theory? Feel free to do so. I love debating such things.

[voodoo scientist]

Choice implies control. Control implies a controller, which begs the question of who controls the controller ad infinitum. Choice, more likely, is a psychological manifestation of our internal processing - practically speaking, we're not robots out of control, but neither are we in control, because control only exists in the context of human existence (again, because it's a psychological manifestation of humans' internal processing). It's part of the framework the brain uses to interpret the world's stimuli, not stimuli in the sense this reply (information) or touching your desk (tactile) is stimuli.

You can better explain the proposed idea by delving into the neurochemical reactions that experiences and items are psychological manifestations of. It's a matter of fact, not something that can be solved through induction alone.

[shivermetimbers]

It's part of the framework the brain uses to interpret the world's stimuli, not stimuli in the sense this reply (information) or touching your desk (tactile) is stimuli.

Here you refer to the "psychological manifestation" correct? i.e. psychological manifestation [is part of the framework]
I like this post. You should expound on "the world's stimuli." I have an idea of what you mean. My conception may differ from what you indicated, however.

[Bill Hemphill]

We respond like robots thus we are to be responsible. How? By prior experience a response is arranged in the subjective mind to a particular trigger.

[Karaten]

Ideally, choice is a construct of human interpretation.

When we make choices, there is always some stimuli for that choice, thus, it's not much of a choice at all.

Choice and will, which are different, on the basis that will implies the external action, while choice is the internal. For example, will is usually the result of choice. When we speak of free will, we speak of freedom of movement within the external world, which, ideally, humans have in most instances. Choice, however, would imply the active process of deciding the will. Now, choice cannot be chosen in base form, as choice within choice would be endless, therefore, choice is, inherently, not a free subject. Choice can lead to other choices, however, it must still have some basis for selection, which, could not be an endless string of choice, which is mathematically impossible. In order for a variable to become absolute, there must always be a concrete, a consistency.


We have choice, in the base understanding of the word, but it's not free, in the base understanding of the word.

[voodoo scientist]

It's part of the framework the brain uses to interpret the world's stimuli, not stimuli in the sense this reply (information) or touching your desk (tactile) is stimuli.

Here you refer to the "psychological manifestation" correct? i.e. psychological manifestation [is part of the framework]
I like this post. You should expound on "the world's stimuli." I have an idea of what you mean. My conception may differ from what you indicated, however.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

Stimuli here is meant in the sense of "something that is experienced." It could be direct sensory stimuli (i.e. visually seeing this reply), or the derivative experiences of the experience (i.e. your rationally grounded conclusion based on this reply).

In broad neurological terms, neurotransmitters and synaptic connections are the stimuli while the neuron somas, axons and dendrites themselves are the framework. Edit: For the drug types, call it set and setting.

[Bill Hemphill]

Karatan is correct to a degree. We can choose how we will respond with our subjective energy. Our drive can be chosen. We are responding, therefore we are to be responsible. Not simply accept whatever our subjective energy has attached to.

Some people are conformed to the outside world. They will say to others that they are not being "true to themselves" if they don't give in to unwanted drives, (in relation to neurosis).

[PsychVegas]

Assume Reliont is correct, we have no choice. We are but massive stimulus-response organisms. So what? If I accept the argument, what does this change?

[Karaten]

Assume Reliont is correct, we have no choice. We are but massive stimulus-response organisms. So what? If I accept the argument, what does this change?

Nothing. Nothing anyone states on this forum changes anything.

[voodoo scientist]

PsychVegas: If you truly internalized the argument, I suppose it would absolve you of responsibility for all your actions - which may sound nice, but would make you virtually non-functional in any normal sense.
Karaten: While that's kind of clever, he explicitly told you to assume he accepted the argument, which means something would have changed in this hypothetical situation.

[Karaten]

Karaten: While that's kind of clever, he explicitly told you to assume he accepted the argument, which means something would have changed in this hypothetical situation.

While, in literal terms, things always change, we were talking on a grander scale.

PsychVegas: If you truly internalized the argument, I suppose it would absolve you of responsibility for all your actions - which may sound nice, but would make you virtually non-functional in any normal sense.

Ideally, it would rid the moral justification for the act of punishment.

[RisingSun]

"The third great discovery in human history is the discovery that each individual, ultimately, is not in control even of himself." - Sigmund Freud

'Nuff said.

[PsychVegas]

So acceptance of Relionts proposition changes our moral responsibility? For society as a whole, the individual, or a combination thereof?

[Karaten]

So acceptance of Relionts proposition changes our moral responsibility? For society as a whole, the individual, or a combination thereof?

None of the above.

Nothing has changed, I thought I made that clear. We're simply describing something that already exists, we're not changing anything, just offering a semantic perspective.

[PsychVegas]

I agree, nothing has changed and we're are just offering a semantic perspective. But, isn't this perspective important to Reliont? He is the OP asking for arguments against the concept of determinism. I would think even if it is just a semantic argument it may be key to understanding why the literal acceptance of determinism is flawed. I point to the concept of justice as the perfect example of how determinism is not universally accepted as an affirmative defense to ones actions. I might also point to ones ability to go against what is in ones own best interest, such as electing not to scratch an itch for no other reason than to prove one has the choice.

So my semantic perspective in an unchanged world is that even if we accept Reliont's argument that determinism holds true, as a species we have accepted that regardless of determinism there is a concept called choice. By definition, in many actions throughout our lives we choose how we behave, how we act.

[Bill Hemphill]

Nice input PsychVegas. We really do have a choice. Some people condemn themselves as if they don't have a choice and follow to convict others.

I have noticed in opinions about religion that people will suggest that they have a subjective mind as well as a religious belief. They do not understand that the energy of the subjective mind is the "lamb" and it is to be guided. That subjective energy is to be taken in a path and not simply accepted for whatever social component it becomes attached to.

[SWM]

choosing is the making of a decision. the weighing of options. we do make decisions. we do choose. do we have choice, yes. many times i observe people in the decision making process, carfeully weighing the balance. we have the ability to select we all do and we have a good vocabulary and shared experience of going through this process. considering our options is how we choose. of course choice can also be made spontaneously without consideration. but having a choice and how we make that choice is only one aspect of the decision making process.

the other apsect and the one that i suspect is the actual elusive topic of the thread is why we make the decisions we make. this is the influence and conditioning surrounding the decision making process and apparatus, (ie. the organism, the organisms environment, the impact of the environemnt on the organism) the forces that influence the decision making process. would it be fair to say these thing are Why we choose?

the difficulty the OP is having seems to be in identifying and seperating the why from the how?


with respect to the above posts from Bill and PsychV i wonder if perhaps some people have greater awareness of their ability to make choices. ie, somebody who has a spontaneus and more impulsive decision making process is more likely to align with determinsitic philospsohy. i dont know, just a thought!

[Bill Hemphill]

SWM, consider the different individuals having problems with addictions  or, the unwanted morally wrong paths in life.

You will find that they believe "you are what you are" and can't change or decide for yourself while the rest think "that's a shame" .

Subjectivity is where understanding exists. They have created a paradox for themselves by believing something about thinking  that is wrong.

[voodoo scientist]

choosing is the making of a decision. the weighing of options. we do make decisions. we do choose. do we have choice, yes. many times i observe people in the decision making process, carfeully weighing the balance. we have the ability to select we all do and we have a good vocabulary and shared experience of going through this process. considering our options is how we choose. of course choice can also be made spontaneously without consideration. but having a choice and how we make that choice is only one aspect of the decision making process.

the other apsect and the one that i suspect is the actual elusive topic of the thread is why we make the decisions we make. this is the influence and conditioning surrounding the decision making process and apparatus, (ie. the organism, the organisms environment, the impact of the environemnt on the organism) the forces that influence the decision making process. would it be fair to say these thing are Why we choose?

the difficulty the OP is having seems to be in identifying and seperating the why from the how?


with respect to the above posts from Bill and PsychV i wonder if perhaps some people have greater awareness of their ability to make choices. ie, somebody who has a spontaneus and more impulsive decision making process is more likely to align with determinsitic philospsohy. i dont know, just a thought!

Some people certainly do seem to have greater awareness of their ability to make a choice. I think, however, that you accidentally inverted your correlation. Using your definition of choice (an intra-species definition), choice is simply a psychological manifestation - a "visualization" of your neurobiology and -chemistry. Humans have a choice in an intra-species context because humans per definition have a choice in an intra-species context; it's part of "being human." But we only have a limited choice: "we" are not in control of the criteria for selection of our choice, our brain (an individual component) is.

What's more interesting to discuss is whether or not we truly have a choice, in the sense that we are not simply making the decision, but also deciding the criteria for selection. Unless there's a hole in my logic, I see no way around the problem of true choice begging the question of "who controls the controller" repeated forever.

[SWM]

Some people certainly do seem to have greater awareness of their ability to make a choice. I think, however, that you accidentally inverted your correlation. Using your definition of choice (an intra-species definition), choice is simply a psychological manifestation - a "visualization" of your neurobiology and -chemistry. Humans have a choice in an intra-species context because humans per definition have a choice in an intra-species context; it's part of "being human." But we only have a limited choice: "we" are not in control of the criteria for selection of our choice, our brain (an individual component) is.

i am not sure i follow your point.

your saying: my definition of choice is a psyhcological manifestion of neurobiology and chemistry. and humans do have a choice because of the way that i define it. and the way i define it makes it part of being human. then you add that the choice that we have is limited because we cannot control the criteria for the selction of our choice. and it is not the self as an individual that chooses it is the brain ( a componenet) that chooses.

do i have that right?

What's more interesting to discuss is whether or not we truly have a choice, in the sense that we are not simply making the decision, but also deciding the criteria for selection. Unless there's a hole in my logic, I see no way around the problem of true choice begging the question of "who controls the controller" repeated forever.

so unless we can choose the criteria for selection then we the choice that we do have is not a true choice, is that what you are saying?

[voodoo scientist]

Some people certainly do seem to have greater awareness of their ability to make a choice. I think, however, that you accidentally inverted your correlation. Using your definition of choice (an intra-species definition), choice is simply a psychological manifestation - a "visualization" of your neurobiology and -chemistry. Humans have a choice in an intra-species context because humans per definition have a choice in an intra-species context; it's part of "being human." But we only have a limited choice: "we" are not in control of the criteria for selection of our choice, our brain (an individual component) is.

i am not sure i follow your point.

your saying: my definition of choice is a psyhcological manifestion of neurobiology and chemistry. and humans do have a choice because of the way that i define it. and the way i define it makes it part of being human. then you add that the choice that we have is limited because we cannot control the criteria for the selction of our choice. and it is not the self as an individual that chooses it is the brain ( a componenet) that chooses.

do i have that right?

What's more interesting to discuss is whether or not we truly have a choice, in the sense that we are not simply making the decision, but also deciding the criteria for selection. Unless there's a hole in my logic, I see no way around the problem of true choice begging the question of "who controls the controller" repeated forever.

so unless we can choose the criteria for selection then we the choice that we do have is not a true choice, is that what you are saying?

Yes.

Edit: With the addition that I believe our genes determine the criteria for selection.

[S. Earl Martin]

Choice and free will are interesting things. We as humans have a very limited understanding of our environment. No matter how much time and effort we put into researching something we can not be sure of the out come until we have actually commeted to a course of action. Even then we still can not accurately and with certainty predict the long term results. We do have the ability to make choices, both positive and negative. However we are finite beings.
A personnel example if I may. As I have stated before I have Leukemia. I am dieing. I have been encouraged by my relatives and doctors to have surgery and chemo. I have weighed the options of these procedures and have decided against them. It is true that they could possibly prolong the length of my life, but I would risk dieing from the procedures and it could diminish my quality of life. This is my choice. Do I know the outcome? No!
It comes back to what you know, what you think you know, what you don't know and what you can't know.
We all die eventually. In that we do not have a choice. Some decisions are made for us. We grow old, we suffer from adversity, we can also experience love and joy. Many times these things just happen. Other times we carefully cultivate them. However time will run out and then we move on to whatever is next. We have already discussed in detail the possibilities of that journey. I don't want to go there again. I know what I believe.

[voodoo scientist]

We have already discussed in detail the possibilities of that journey. I don't want to go there again. I know what I believe.

Please, please don't state your point and then conclude it with what amounts to "...but I don't want to debate it." If we all held that attitude, there would be no point to this forum - in fact, if that is really your attitude towards discussing your beliefs as a whole or a particular belief, you simply have no place in any discussion that involves those beliefs. It's a covert and manipulative move that intentionally blunts your own beliefs so that in the event of a challenge, you can fall back to an established safe base. Only through intense scrutiny and exchange of ideas can we reach the best conclusion - that is as true in religion as it is in natural science.

(Additionally: I'd like to note that I'm aware you didn't intend to be either covert or manipulative. However, the statement lends nothing to your actual point except that you don't believe in it enough to stand up and defend it. Because of that, this type of statement falls under 'impression management' - a technique used to minimize the range of possible responses (by creating a constant between the debating parties that only one party is aware of - their impression of the impression managing party), and thereby reduce the number of counter-responses you have to mentally prepare. While it is highly useful in a sales or business environment, it's less so in a discussion with no reward for the 'winner'. I don't hold it against you - to most, it's simply a standard debate tool or even more commonly an instinctive addition, not a rationally employed tool.)

Come to think of it, I may start a thread on manipulation techniques in the near future, so save your response to the italicized part - save it, don't forget it.

[S. Earl Martin]

voodooscientist: you give me way to much credit. I was not attempting to manipulate anyone. I was attempting to stay on subject. "We" meaning the forum at large had pretty much exhausted the subject of an afterlife and I was trying to redirect my comment to deal with the stated thread. Which is choice. I sort of approached the other and my statement that I didn't want to go there again was sincere. I made other points that you chose not to comment on. You love to look for perceived weakness. This can lead to negativity. Which can be productive, but is pretty harsh and not very much fun.
However it would be good to start a thread on manipulation. I have researched it at length and would love to discuss it with you. Motivational factors and positive reinforcement/De-motivational factors and negative reinforcement. Reward and punishment.
Also if you feel you have more to add about the other. Then continue to discuss it on the previous thread and I will join you to see what you have to say. That way we can use proper etiquette and stay on subject. It is your choice LOL!

[SWM]

i believe i am misuderstanding something about your point this is what i understand from the point you have made;

we have choice but the choice we have is not true choice. for us to have true choice there would have to be an infinite number of options, becaue to limit the number of options is to take away choice, if i can only choose between two items then i am not choosing.

we have two selectable options, a red button and blue button, if we could choose the criteria for selection then we could choose red, green, blue and yellow buttons. and the we could truly select a button of our choosing.


i think the bit i might be misunderstanding might be the criteria for selction part. i am not sure what you mean by the criteria for selection. i would understand the criteria for selection as being the options that we have to choose from. if the options that we choose from are the selection for criteria then it does not matter that we are unable to choose what we choose from because we still have a choice of the options that are present.

[voodoo scientist]

i believe i am misuderstanding something about your point this is what i understand from the point you have made;

we have choice but the choice we have is not true choice. for us to have true choice there would have to be an infinite number of options, becaue to limit the number of options is to take away choice, if i can only choose between two items then i am not choosing.

we have two selectable options, a red button and blue button, if we could choose the criteria for selection then we could choose red, green, blue and yellow buttons. and the we could truly select a button of our choosing.


i think the bit i might be misunderstanding might be the criteria for selction part. i am not sure what you mean by the criteria for selection. i would understand the criteria for selection as being the options that we have to choose from. if the options that we choose from are the selection for criteria then it does not matter that we are unable to choose what we choose from because we still have a choice of the options that are present.

Your metaphor is good, so I'll run with that. The "criteria for selection" part is meant to cover the internal factors and results of the choice. In practice we always have all the buttons, but some of the buttons we instinctively ignore because we perceive them to lead to undesirable results. With increased consciousness we can become aware of the ignored buttons, and when the reason we ignored them is wrong, we can even start pushing the buttons. Often however, the ignored buttons are ignored because they really do lead to undesirable results, and awareness of them becomes academic more than practical fact.

To have true choice, we would have to be able to program each button, not just push it: pushing preconfigured buttons only makes us an agent of whoever programs the buttons - what leads to a desirable versus undesirable result.  However, even if we could program the buttons or the rules governing the buttons, we could only do it by pushing other buttons, because that's how "we" do things. This is why it's more correct to approach choice as a part of the framework used to approach things in general, rather than something that can be observed and understood in a vacuum.

[S. Earl Martin]

Even though we are speaking metaphorically. I do not quite agree. We have some button's available to us, but we do not have all the buttons. In life we only have so many choices, not an infinite number. This is because we are limited creatures and are not omnipotent. I can't just chose to instantly be in another place or time. I can't go back and undo something I have done in a real sense. If I lost something I can't instantly make it reappear.
An example. A person is imprisoned. They desire to leave, but they can't. If all the choices, or buttons if you will, were available to them they could leave.  Sometimes we have to just play the cards we have been dealt. We can't chose the cards. However as a whole I like your analogy. In order to make the buttons we would have to be infinitely powerful. Not bound by time or space. We can make some buttons by choosing certain actions and manipulating our environment. You are correct we can only modify existing buttons to make new ones. Even human inventions and technology copy things in nature. The only original thing humans have come up with is money. To take a piece of paper and say this paper is worth X # of dollars or Euros or Yen. You don't find that in nature. Or to use creative accounting to make money just appear as the banks are doing today.
The only possible other exception is a perfectly straight line. All our machines copy natural processes.
Another aspect of choice is who is the one benefiting from the choice and what is the desired result of the choice? Selfishness vs selflessness. Can someone help themselves and help others at the same time?
I have always found it interesting how so many famous people chose to work so hard to become famous and then they chose to self destruct after they have achieved their goal.
Because of my circumstances I have become somewhat self absorbed. This is uncharacteristic of me. I will try to refrain from making personal references in the future.

[SWM]

Because of my circumstances I have become somewhat self absorbed. This is uncharacteristic of me. I will try to refrain from making personal references in the future. 

i think this last sentence is the most accurate reflection of the process that we are discussing here. the mind is reflecting on its the choices that it has previously made and choosing not act in this way again.

understanding this in terms of buttons metaphors you have been pressing a red button and discovered that the rewards of the red button are not as vaulable as you thought they might be when you started to press the button, you have now made the desicion (choice) to start pressing blue buttons.

[voodoo scientist]

You missed the point ever so slightly. It's true that this is how limited choice works (Red Button is inferior to Blue Button), but what decided that Red Button is inferior to Blue Button? There's clearly an implied frame of reference here, and our inherent lack of control over that frame of reference is what I'm talking about.

[SWM]

In practice we always have all the buttons, but some of the buttons we instinctively ignore because we perceive them to lead to undesirable results.

this ignoring could also be the considered as the decision making process but at a level outside of normal conscious awareness. example in a game of speed chess with a world champion chess master, choice of moves is made instinctively the processing of the choice >action >consequence is done outside of the awareness of consciousness.