GENIUS FORUMS

I'm moving my conversation with Cory over here from another forum. They have a problem over there with being seen as promoting the views of "QSR", which is any philosophy involving the concepts of "ultimate", "truth", "rationality", "genius", "A=A", "masculinity/femininity", etc. and I don't want to be a pest over there, so...

Anyway, I'm going to start over on this topic because it's a really ugly subject and many obscurities await. I'll try and write a better post than I did on the other forum.

The question I want to start with is: Is the realization of something a choice?

"The realization of something", the way I look at it, is when a person doesn't have the realization at 3:00 PM, the realization comes to him at 3:00:59, and at 3:01 he has the realization.

So, at what time would the choice occur? Did he even make a choice to have the realization? Is it even possible?

The choice can't come at 3:00:59 because he's occupied with the realization at that time, so the choice had to have come before.

The choice couldn't have come at 3:00:58 because at that time he can't choose what he's going to think of at 3:00:59 because he's busy thinking of the thought occupying him at 3:00:58. The thought at 3:00:59 seems pretty much determined by the thought at 3:00:58. But you could say that for any two times in light of our deterministic situation. But let's try to squeeze choice in there somehow by making "choice" not an instantaneous thing but a process that occurs over time.

So what about the process of choice starting at 3:00 and ending at 3:00:58? He starts trying to have the realization by thinking in the general direction of what he hasn't realized yet. He can't choose to think the exact realization because he hasn't realized it and so he doesn't know it to choose it, but what about just a general direction of thought with the assumption that he will recognize the correct thought when he realizes it? Is that how his choice occurs?

But if we figured out exactly when the choice occurs, what would become of the choice if the realization never came? Would that mean he chose the lack of realization then? I guess it would be a failed choice, like if you chose to pick up an orange and someone blew it away with a gun before you could pick it up.

I don't know, I get the feeling that "choice" is ultimately a non-concept, only good to give people the feeling that they are autonomous or whatever. If we can think of multiple possibilities then the concept of choice arises, but multiple possibilities isn't a real possibility. The only possibility is what happens and the others are just imaginary.

Matt Gregory wrote: Is the realization of something a choice?

We can take steps to lead us to a realization, and that would be a choice. The actual realization itself is probably beyond our ability to choose. Take someone who is severely mentally retarded, but wants to be smart. He may be able to work his way up to being mildly mentally retarded, but there are things he just isn't going to understand.

Take the rest of us - we have probably all had "aha!" moments where after we have worked on understanding something, and either not gotten it or thought we got it but didn't really have it - then hours/days later, the moment of realization hit. How many other "aha" moments do we never get? We can only choose to take the steps, but the final gift of understanding depends on more than what we have access to as individuals.

From memory, I think Kierkagaard said something quite interesting about how realisations arise - namely that it's impossible for them to do so, or something like that.

I'll have to go looking for it..

Matt,

I see the issue you are trying to resolve - and what comes to mind are more questions:

Where does the thinker and thought begin and end?

Does the thinker have any control over his thoughts?

Can the thinker know of a thoughts existence prior to it appearing as a thought?

Is each thought a separate entity?

In answer –

There can be no separation between thinker and thought, for the ‘thinker’ is also only ‘thought”. The thinker has no existence other than as ‘thought’.

Being thought, the thinker cannot stop thoughts from arising and then dropping away.

The thinker has no pre-warning that a particular thought is arising, nor does he know the exact moment that it will drop away. The thought and the thinker's knowledge of it, happens simultaneously.

We know from our experience of thoughts that they roll effortlessly out of, and over each other. A thought of traffic noise effortlessly becomes a sweet melodic tune, which changes into feeling thirsty, then falls away into searching for house keys to answering the phone and onto talking about tomorrow, thoughts about thoughts, love, truth, children, lies, self, being startled, genius, food, comedies, life, death… When we go to look at a thought, it has already become this thought, which has become this thought, which…

-

So we do have "choice" - it just doesn't come from us. They arise out of causes that are both timeless and purposeless.

-
Sue

A good post sue,

But when I am anxious about whether I should live in one way, or live in another and hence am caught between two choices, is the action that I decide to do really a decision?

I once had an argument with someone on this forum who said we can have choice/free will in a determined world, and that he agreed with Daniel Dennets view that there is free will.

I personally dont see it.

It seems to me that we are intelligent, strong and brave to a certain degree, then our lives are a manifestation of strength, health, intelligence and power, all of which are not choices.

Gnashing at the teeth between whether or not we should get married or live the life of philosophical martydom and hence getting caught between these two choices seems simply like the manifestation of weakness (relatively of course!).

If one was ideally strong then there would be no worrying about what is the right choice, it would be obvious to the strong man what is sane and what isnt.

The logic would allow for an action to be only sane, and hence there is just this involuntary expression of intelligence/stupidity to certain degrees in contrast to other inteliigences/stupidies.

The question I want to start with is: Is the realization of something a choice? So, at what time would the choice occur? Did he even make a choice to have the realization? Is it even possible?

You might need to examine what lead up to the realization? How did you get from point A to point B? As you say, it may take time…like a process with layers upon layers of small, insignificant realizations that assimilate over time into a transformation.

You bring up a good point about choice, but what is the alternative? Non-choice? Revelation? Mystics say that you must seek blindly and the Divine will reveal Himself in his time and his manner and as much or as little as he chooses. How does this play on will? If you are amenable to such revelations, would it not seem that the opportunity is ripe at any moment for the revelation given certain circumstances to be in place?

If you speak of Divine revelations, you have already chosen to seek that which you do not understand. If you fail to “choose” or comprehend the realization at hand, would it not seem plausible that the opportunity will come again, but with a different set of circumstances to point to it?

I don't know, I get the feeling that "choice" is ultimately a non-concept, only good to give people the feeling that they are autonomous or whatever. If we can think of multiple possibilities then the concept of choice arises, but multiple possibilities isn't a real possibility. The only possibility is what happens and the others are just imaginary

In Atlas Shrugged, a book I am reading, there is a character they call the “Wet Nurse”. If you haven’t read the book, it is primarily about Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, but the plot is about the death and rebirth of a man’s spirit. The Wet Nurse was a bureaucrat sent by the government to be a watch dog over this thinking industrialist. The government and greedy industrialists who advance by lobbying are called “looters” and create a code whereby every man lives, an immoral code. The Wet Nurse is inevitably transformed over time in minor “realizations” until he comes to admire and respect the very man he was sent to spy on.

You have a pattern of:
Status Quo thinking
Series of minor realizations
Transformation to Truth

A small real life example of this:

I’ve read numerous posts concerning the idea of “detachment” and wondered to myself what on earth these people were talking about. It was such a foreign notion to me. One day, I was downloading several CDs on my iPod and ran across a song by Loreena McKinnett by the name of “Dark Night of the Soul.” While the CD was downloading, I read the lyrics and the notations of the source – St. John of the Cross, a Carmelite priest. I googled him and found a paper written by him in the 16th century entitled: Ascent to Mount Carmel. I began to read this paper. He walked the reader through step by step, giving proof each step of the way, for detaching oneself from all things of the earth. At some point, I came to realize what detachment truly meant and suddenly what some of the people said here made a lot more sense. Yeah, I could have read a definition, but the application of what it truly means didn’t sink in until I began reading this paper.

Was the choice to fully understand detachment mine or something that I was led to realize?

If you haven’t dismissed these thoughts by now, let’s take it one step further: I began thinking about the “realizations” I’ve had over my lifetime. These realizations are spiritual and secular in nature. It seems that when I would have one of these moments of clarity, the next minute I was thrust into a space where nothing was clear, and it stayed that way, until I reached another one of these moments. Each unclear period being longer and more difficult, but the realizations would come – albeit small. Each realization took me further into an area where I have never been, an area that is foreign and where I have nothing on which to draw. In the end, will these series of realizations assimilate into a transformation? Is it my choice?

I think that I have chosen to question what I have been living without losing sight of my firm belief in a Supreme Being, who I call God. In that questioning, I have allowed myself to become open to alternative answers.

If you are 40 plus, think about it. Think back on your life and those moments. Connect from Point A to Point B and see where you were and where you are now. How you got there.

Sue you have some very interesting statements to ponder. One in particular is that the causes are timeless and purposeless. Why purposeless? What is the point of existence then? It sounds almost nihilistic. You value Man, so that cannot be.

...

Just as the mind defines what is a cause and what is an effect, so too does it define what is purposeful and what is not.

Meaning is purpose.

Cory Duchesne wrote:It seems to me that we are intelligent, strong and brave to a certain degree, then our lives are a manifestation of strength, health, intelligence and power, all of which are not choices.

You can choose whether or not to take the steps to become more intelligent, stronger, and braver - or to let your mind rot, weaken, and cower by foregoing what was meant for you in life to take what you're more sure you can achieve (of course, sometimes the trick is figuring out which one means you're cowering and which one is what is meant for you).

We have limited choices, but we do have choices.

If one was ideally strong then there would be no worrying about what is the right choice, it would be obvious to the strong man what is sane and what isnt.

The logic would allow for an action to be only sane, and hence there is just this involuntary expression of intelligence/stupidity to certain degrees in contrast to other inteliigences/stupidies.

Well, it is true that the strong would not "worry" about what is the right choice, but the right choice has to do with logic and rationality - not strength. Strength has more to do with carrying out the logical and rational decision than making the decision.

Often, if I am struggling with a decision, it is because I have insufficient data. Logic requires sound and complete premises, but much of life can not be known completely enough to make completely logical decisions - but there is enough data to make rational decisions as long as we don't get too caught up in emotions while trying to decide.

Having to decide acknowledges that there are choices. If things just were, then distress over the decisions would be illogical.

The only possibility is what happens and the others are just imaginary.

Yeah, I berated myself yesterday after making a post that contained a hypothetical situation. I've made a mental note not to use hypotheticals again, for the same reason you've said in the above.

Matt asked,

Is the realization of something a choice?

Elizabeth answered,

... We have limited choices, but we do have choices.

I agree with that. Our choices are limited to our perception.

And to what is our perception of choice limited?

Dan Rowden wrote:And to what is our perception of choice limited?

Could it be limited to our perception of causality?

Could be indeed! Hey Sapius. Thought you were on sabbatical?

Dan Rowden wrote:Could be indeed! Hey Sapius. Thought you were on sabbatical?

Hi Dan, yes I was, but what’s the big difference any ways… in a few days I will leave yet again to wander all over your island.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:So we do have "choice" - it just doesn't come from us. They arise out of causes that are both timeless and purposeless.

So would "choice" mean "what happens"? :-)

Actually, although it sounds stupid, it's a serious question.

Matt,

I understand that you're serious about this subject - I'm just not sure what you're asking exactly?

-
Sue

How do you define the word "choice"?

.

Choosing is as much a human mental function as any human mental function; and it is conditioned by circumstances as everything is. These need not be seen as mutually exclusive.

The problem is the historically religious attachment of the word "free" to willing and choice -- a word originally needed to describe the only kind of worshippers that the Christian god would accept coming to him; the only kind of arrival wanted -- one that is made by the individual human being out of his or her own impetus. "Free" is the modifier that comes between Judeo and Christian belief concepts.

We choose things all day long, and the greatest conditioner of these choices is awareness. The greater the awareness involved, the more conscious the process appears to be. Awareness begets more of itself, and in this sense belongs more and more to the individual conscious processes going on in the mind of the individual, instead of brute reactivity to stimuli (unconsciousness, or predictably herd-behaviour). Awareness conditions more awareness, and so on, such that the possessor of such awareness sees the greater range of response -- the open-ended nature of possible response -- instead of the single-response of brute reactivity. Their choice, then, is still conditioned by their level of awareness.

Choosing is "free" only in the sense that it belongs to the individual consciousness and is based on the level of awareness in that individual consciousness alone.

.

Dan Rowden wrote:From memory, I think Kierkagaard said something quite interesting about how realisations arise - namely that it's impossible for them to do so, or something like that.

I'll have to go looking for it..

Philosophical Fragments?

passthrough wrote:

The question I want to start with is: Is the realization of something a choice? So, at what time would the choice occur? Did he even make a choice to have the realization? Is it even possible?

You bring up a good point about choice, but what is the alternative? Non-choice? Revelation?

Yep. The alternative is that we are just like robots doing what we were preprogrammed to do. The idea that we have a choice is only part of the programming.

If we think of a "thing" as a finite piece of the totality of the Universe (which includes all of space, past, present and future), then its existence is the result of the state of all of the Universe that's not that thing. A "negative image of the Universe" as David Quinn put it. In other words, no thing exists without causes. Everything we do, think, feel or perceive is a revelation of the entire Universe.

An uncaused choice would somehow have to fully or partially escape the Universe, which is not possible by the argument above.

Jamesh wrote:The only possibility is what happens and the others are just imaginary.

Yeah, I berated myself yesterday after making a post that contained a hypothetical situation. I've made a mental note not to use hypotheticals again, for the same reason you've said in the above.

I don't see the connection between my statement and your conclusion. Hypotheticals can be useful for figuring out future decisions and figuring out past events.

Matt: Is the realization of something a choice?

Elizabeth: We have limited choices, but we do have choices.

Tharan: I agree with that. Our choices are limited to our perception.

Dan: And to what is our perception of choice limited?

Sapius: Could it be limited to our perception of causality?

Dan: Could be indeed!

Pinball, anyone?

Matt Gregory wrote:Yep. The alternative is that we are just like robots doing what we were preprogrammed to do. The idea that we have a choice is only part of the programming.

Ok, now I know my former response was way out there because someone questioned its value, so I am going to respond again hoping that this time it will make more sense…

If we are just like robots that are preprogrammed, what fun would that be for God? Although it is entirely wrong of me to personalize God so, but what would be the point of having automatons? Do you have children? I look at it this way…you have a child and you do your best to raise them in the manner that you think they should live to become independent beings capable of making their own decisions. There are times during their late teens and early twenties where they venture off into decisions that are not well thought out and they suffer the consequences. Then, they become a little wiser and ask for advice, which they ignore and suffer the consequences again. Then, perhaps, they become a little more wise, ask for advice and then finally take it, recognizing the benefit of a good choice.

We all know that not all children turn out this way. Some never get to the point of taking the advice and some never get to the point of asking for it either. The children who have eventually learned cause and effect will also learn to appreciate and respect you as a person, the child who never learns will die, spiritually and/or physically.

Putting this example on the level of God, who cannot even be remotely conceived, does it not seem possible that we are given choices…free will?

If we think of a "thing" as a finite piece of the totality of the Universe (which includes all of space, past, present and future), then its existence is the result of the state of all of the Universe that's not that thing. A "negative image of the Universe" as David Quinn put it. In other words, no thing exists without causes. Everything we do, think, feel or perceive is a revelation of the entire Universe.

Yes, which is what I was trying to say in my previous post. Assimilation of revelations leads you to ultimate union with the Universe [God] or at least that was my theory. You are cast out into the world being of purest thought the milli-second you were born (and even that could be questioned), degrading quickly minute by minute for the choices you make. Then, there comes a point in life where you begin to question your choices and, behold, revelations begin. Darkness comes, followed by more revelations, until the end.

An uncaused choice would somehow have to fully or partially escape the Universe, which is not possible by the argument above.

I don’t see how there is logic in an uncaused choice. Another point I was trying to make is that you are given choices, just like the child…you make the bad choice and you live with its effect. You continue to make the bad choices and you die. On the other hand, if you make the right choice, Nature will be revealed to you. In our pre-questioning state, we are not ready for complete revelation…it must come in stages.

I hate to keep borrowing from this book I'm reading, but in Atlas Shrugged, Francisco realized early on the degradation of societal morality but he could not explain these revelations to his lover, Dagny, because she would not understand them. She had to go through the process over twelve years in order to understand. I am currently at a point in the book where she goes back to this society in order to save it, so I don't know how it turns out yet, but the point I am making is the author, Ayn Rand, acknowledged in her fictional work a process which I am trying to explain...and not very well.

Did this make any better sense?

Passthrough,

Are you saying that the universe throws things in front of us, and then it is up to us to try and choose from that array what will be best for us?

What do we base our ‘choices’ on?

-
Sue

Pye wrote:.We choose things all day long, and the greatest conditioner of these choices is awareness. The greater the awareness involved, the more conscious the process appears to be.

This approach seems like the way to go for me here. It's a matter of becoming aware of the choices that one is making. Or was caused to make.

Pye wrote:Awareness conditions more awareness, and so on, such that the possessor of such awareness sees the greater range of response -- the open-ended nature of possible response -- instead of the single-response of brute reactivity. Their choice, then, is still conditioned by their level of awareness.

But would you say Pye, that awareness causes increase of some 'freedom of choice'? Personally I doubt it. For example, awareness is also a cause of reason and this reason will leave not much choice than to submit to its own process to maintain its integrity. So in some clear-cut case where there are 99 options available only one option becomes the way, and as such even the wise is not 'free' either, but finds freedom in knowing his way through and through.

Of course in situations where all things considered are equal, one submits to chance. Still no free will.