What is a choice?

[Proletar]

This is a question that's been bugging me for a while.


To start off, we are human beings. Not logical machines with a strong A -> B going on. We are emotional, and we have instincts.

Take for example a man that hangs himself. Choice, sure, but he also had to tie his hands behind his back to fend against his natural instinct to immediately resist the rope once it starts pressing against his neck. The same goes for a person trapped under water. Try it for yourself. Try to hold your own head under water until you drown. Spoiler: You can't. Once the oxygen is running low, you will start to feel increasingly stressed until you rise above water-level again.

In that moment when you can't fight the anoxia anymore and reach for air: Did you make a choice? I say no. The same goes for threats with guns like "Load the money onto the truck or I'll blow your brains out". That's is not a real choice either. Yes, true, it's two given alternatives, but the latter one is just an appeal to your human instincts.


What do You think?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'd argue that there's still a choice but that the options themselves are a result of deterministic laws. If one is trying to drown themselves in a toilet, they can intentionally manufacture a delusion that air is deeper in the bowl, and subsequently redirect their instinct to seek it there instead. What happens when a delusional individual takes a polygraph?

Some further input inspired by Kaligula Loves:


Might some people have more "choice power" than others, i.e. might some actually be able to drown themselves while others can't?


Isn't choice the conscious manifestation of free will, the expression of the primal energy that puts everything into motion, at the heart of every instinct?

 

[Proletar]

On the other hand, does a dilusional individual have even one alternative besides acting from his delusional perspective? To not understand the alternatives would make it even worse. Instead of instincts plus the logical dimension that we humans actually possess, only instincts.

I argue that the choice would exist only if the opposite were true. That is, no emotions; only logic. On the other hand, how can one define the value of emotions (or life) without experiencing them? A human being is not sane or even healthy without emotions. Therefore, the choice cannot be.

And therefore, Force is an actual reality.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

On the other hand, does a dilusional individual have even one alternative besides acting from his delusional perspective? To not understand the alternatives would make it even worse. Instead of instincts plus the logical dimension that we humans actually possess, only instincts.

I argue that the choice would exist only if the opposite were true. That is, no emotions; only logic. On the other hand, how can one define the value of emotions (or life) without experiencing them? A human being is not sane or even healthy without emotions. Therefore, the choice cannot be.

And therefore, Force is an actual reality.

Isn't perception in its most basic form (and therefore everything we do) a delusion?

Otherwise I officially agree... unusually quickly. The idea of instinct and reality of force hints at a deterministic mechanism of self-organization for the psyche. Choice exists, but it's contained.

 

[Proletar]

Some further input inspired by Kaligula Loves:


Might some people have more "choice power" than others, i.e. might some actually be able to drown themselves while others can't?

Maybe so. That would mean that some suicides could be proven ultimately justified by the suicident. If the police finds him in the bath-tub with his hands by his side (and no sign of struggle) they could possibly conclude that he never regretted his act.

But what about the implementation of Force? Does the occurance of choice justify the choices given by the gunman? (Edit: Exists, but contained. Got it.)

Isn't choice the conscious manifestation of free will, the expression of the primal energy that puts everything into motion, at the heart of every instinct?

I really don't see that.

Looking back at the evolution of life, we first have one-cell organisms in the ocean. Survival of the species was almost pure luck back then, with little differences between cells and cells. The first instincts, probably about breathing, eating or reproducting, was not put into place by thought but instead implemented by the principles of evolution. In time, more and more properties separated some life from other kinds of life. Like eyes, shells or instincts, different traits led to success. Instincts are one of them.

The choice is a very new occurance. It's hard to define where exactly the first choice was made, be it by a neanderthal or the first landcrawler, but it's a result of a process. Not some sort of deux ex machina, commencing the process to begin with.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I really don't see that.

Looking back at the evolution of life, we first have one-cell organisms in the ocean. Survival of the species was almost pure luck back then, with little differences between cells and cells. The first instincts, probably about breathing, eating or reproducting, was not put into place by thought but instead implemented by the principles of evolution. In time, more and more properties separated some life from other kinds of life. Like eyes, shells or instincts, different traits led to success. Instincts are one of them.

The choice is a very new occurance. It's hard to define where exactly the first choice was made, be it by a neanderthal or the first landcrawler, but it's a result of a process. Not some sort of deux ex machina, commencing the process to begin with.

Reproduction is the "mother instinct" in that life uses it to self-perpetuate, arguably making life the only true perpetual motion machine. Breathing, eating, et al are extensions of self-perpetuation (self-perpetuation being code for self-organization). Eyes and other traits are the result of evolution and are further extensions. The whole developmental process follows a fractal... In this sense choice is anything but new. It's both the result and the cause of the process.

 

[PhoenixRising]

imo, there is no such thing as choice as it is defined in the perspective of "free will". The mind, like all other things in the universe, is a product of causality. We react to things based on the preexisting patterns that define our psychology.

The only thing the mind can do is associate. If we had no instincts or memories to compare a specific event to, then there would be no basis for reaction. There may be a set of different reactions for each given event, but I would argue that there is no choice in the matter. The resulting descision is all about the small inferences of the situation. This, therefore that; association.

Emotions seem to be more like a sensation than a mental association. However, they are completely based on associations. If you have no basis to judge a situation as "scary" then there would be no fear reaction. I agree with @thehabitatdoctor, our experience of perception and all of the associations that result in the mind, are an illusion. The mind is only capable of deducing constructs, not raw data.

 

[The Introvert]

This is a question that's been bugging me for a while.


To start off, we are human beings. Not logical machines with a strong A -> B going on. We are emotional, and we have instincts.

Take for example a man that hangs himself. Choice, sure, but he also had to tie his hands behind his back to fend against his natural instinct to immediately resist the rope once it starts pressing against his neck. The same goes for a person trapped under water. Try it for yourself. Try to hold your own head under water until you drown. Spoiler: You can't. Once the oxygen is running low, you will start to feel increasingly stressed until you rise above water-level again.

In that moment when you can't fight the anoxia anymore and reach for air: Did you make a choice? I say no. The same goes for threats with guns like "Load the money onto the truck or I'll blow your brains out". That's is not a real choice either. Yes, true, it's two given alternatives, but the latter one is just an appeal to your human instincts.


What do You think?

Although it may be aided by instinct, choice does exist. If I really wanted to drown myself knowing that I would die, I could choose to do so by sticking my head in the toilet. The thing is, the cost greatly outweighs the benefit (uncomfortable, that whole dying thing) and I don't really have any reason to go kill myself; this is my instinct kicking in.

Of course, there are always involuntary actions that we cannot control (ie kicking your leg out when you get hit in the knee, or say, being allergic to something). This would fall under the category of instincts. I argue that you can still control instincts, at least artificially (via tying your leg down, or medical treatment). Does this constitute a change in choice? I say yes - you may disagree.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

A choice is not decided upon variables. The weather is an independent variable, the weather does not have will and so does not change. the only thing that changes is plans and at that there is a choice to follow through with the plan (say going to a picnic) or not. but if you think of Aristotle and determinism, the weather will be either rainy or sunny on the planned day of the picnic that much is assured. If the people wanting to go on the picnic decide that they will only go if it is sunny than the do not make a choice to go or not go. the weather determines it. If the weather is rainy on the day planned for the picnic and the people decide to go anyway then that is a CHOICE.

 

[joal0503]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bqMY82xzWo

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Reproduction is the "mother instinct" in that life uses it to self-perpetuate, arguably making life the only true perpetual motion machine.

Choice exists, but it's contained.

Wow, I've had similar thoughts.


I think in life, life itself and the paths you can take are determined, but it's the choice of the individual as to which deterministic path that will be. In the end, all paths lead to the same destination.

 

[snafupants]

Once the oxygen is running low, you will start to feel increasingly stressed until you rise above water-level again.

Isn't the panic feeling from a buildup of carbon dioxide?

If you curb carbon dioxide buildup, you may be able to peacefully drown.

Ah, nature, you cunning machine! Ceaselessly standing sentinel to prevent easy escape.

Well played, sir. Well played.

It has been known for some time that even small increases in carbon dioxide concentration can trigger a panic attack in anxiety-prone individuals. This led to the "false suffocation alarm" theory. Increases in carbon dioxide would trigger the oversensitive carbon dioxide sensors, which would tell the body that it is drowning, causing fear and panic. The carbon dioxide sensor could have evolved to warn oxygen-breathing individuals of impending death.

 

[snafupants]

Haha, I'm troubled by the article's conclusion.

The findings from this study may lead to new treatments for these and other people with panic and anxiety disorders. Now it will be possible to induce anxiety and panic attacks in the laboratory. This will make it easier to screen and test new anxiety drugs in controlled settings.

Yay! More side effect laden drugs and unethical experiments!

 

[Chad]

Here and idea not a fact just an idea. What if choice isn't just a conscious thing. What if chose is a balance between the conscious and the unconscious (I.E. instinct). Consciously someone may want to die however unconsciously they may still have a will to live.

In the drowning scenario the unconscious will to leave beats the conscious will to die. This is an internal struggle but you still made a choose. Even if it doesn't line up with what you may have wanted consciously.

From what little I know about suicide victims most of them fight death at the last moment. The truth is there will to live is still strong even they loss an attachment to it.

The arm robbery is similar. However, most people being robbed don't only act on instinct. Yes, the comply to protect themselves which is a normal choose however, people being robbed generally try to get the situation noticed somehow. They often general try to remember identification traits of the attacker. This is because they are being violated and while there are choosing to comply to protect themselves they still want stop the even. These are all chooses. Even when someone is faced with life threatening events they are still constantly making chooses.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Wow, I've had similar thoughts.


I think in life, life itself and the paths you can take are determined, but it's the choice of the individual as to which deterministic path that will be. In the end, all paths lead to the same destination.

(^Honorary interwebz BFF for the day.)

Run while you can

 

[addictedartist]

Choice is a slut, freedom is a bitch, logic is a whore.
Reality is an illusion of itself.

 

[Adrift]

We have an illusion of free will. All choices are made based off of a previous experience. Anytime a choice is made there is a reason that choice was made.
I don't really feel like going in depth explaining why I think this way because it is late. As of now I am "choosing" to sleep but the non-concious functions of my brain are telling itself that it is tired... blah zzz

 

[Duxwing]

Haha, I'm troubled by the article's conclusion.



Yay! More side effect laden drugs and unethical experiments!

Anxiety attacks can be debilitating, and their ability to strike at any moment means that those who suffer from them can never be sure if the day will be panic-free enough to work-- or even to play. Side effects are an unfortunate byproduct of the medications used to treat the aforementioned condition, but ultimately, they are a price that most are willing to pay. As for unethical experiments, the induction of panic attacks (I assume that your quarrel is with human tests) is necessary in order to test the medication, and inducing them in the controlled environment of a laboratory is far safer than testing them in vivo, wherein all sorts of terrible fates could befall the test subjects and those near them while they drive cars, fly planes, or operate heavy machinery. Therefore, laboratory tests are an unpleasant but as of yet necessary part of the drug development process, and side effects are simply the unfortunate collateral damage incurred when trying to return people to their lives.

-Duxwing

 

[Coolydudey]

While I'm no fan of Freud, his ideas are a useful starting point here:
While we have the choice to make, we may not alway make it consciously, e.g. due to biological impulses.

 

[snafupants]

While I'm no fan of Freud, his ideas are a useful starting point here:
While we have the choice to make, we may not alway make it consciously, e.g. due to biological impulses.

Choice is usually defined as perusing - weighing and discarding, to borrow Faulkner's terminology - an array of options and consciously selecting an option. In a very weak sense, instinct could be construed as selecting an option, but the process isn't necessarily or entirely volitional. I would define choice as having two or more presented options, consciously appraising those options and autonomously favoring one option. Of course, choice in a mate will be influenced by Will and instinct, but the decision ultimately rests with the subject and his adjudication; in an arranged marriage, however, there really isn't a choice per se; the "choice" in an arranged marriage rests with the parents who exchange a house for an eventual wife, for example. So, I would argue if the decision is entirely subconscious or instinctual or vicarious, no choice on the individual level has taken place. It becomes a species level puppeteering of the pawn-like individual or semblance of choice when others or Will "decides" for one.

 

[Coolydudey]

I personally think a choice is a selection of one out of multiple options. Ergo it doesn't necessarily have to happen consciously, however these are the most interesting types of choices in general. Perhaps we could refer to choice and conscious choice?

 

[snafupants]

I personally think a choice is a selection of one out of multiple options. Ergo it doesn't necessarily have to happen consciously, however these are the most interesting types of choices in general. Perhaps we could refer to choice and conscious choice?

I see choice as basically inherently conscious. The subject is choosing an option.

When you vote, you choose (cynics will disagree); you can, however, select either candidate. When instinct takes over, you're steered: less or no choice.

Haha, steer is the right word. I love that double meaning.

 

[snafupants]

I see brainwashing or subliminal messages as someone taking over, or attempting to take over, your Will and replacing it with their Will. So, the "choice" shifts to the agency promulgating the beguiling material. People (normally) don't choose to undergo brainwashing.

 

[MrKappa]

Etomology -

choice (n.)
mid-14c., "that which is choice," from choice (adj.) blended with earlier chois (n.) "action of selecting" (c.1300); "power of choosing" (early 14c.), "someone or something chosen" (late 14c.), from Old French chois "one's choice; fact of having a choice" (12c., Modern French choix), from verb choisir "to choose, distinguish, discern; recognize, perceive, see," from a Germanic source related to Old English ceosan "to choose, taste, try;" see choose. Late Old English chis "fastidious, choosy," from or related to ceosan, probably also contributed to the development of choice. Replaced Old English cyre "choice, free will," from the same base, probably because the imported word was closer to choose [see note in OED].





Looks like it's free will...

 

[H1N1]

Though slightly construed from OPs post, I believe that choices exist though free choices do not.

Humans are conditioned by social and economical factors to behave certain ways. These influence our decision making processes infinitely.

In the first post you state that a man who hanged himself tied his hands behind his back; of course he did. He made the decision to hang himself and he wanted it done effectively ergo he ensured that the means in which he achieved death would go undisturbed.

Your instincts are a choice you do not make. Overcoming these instincts is a choice you do. This is why the man ties his hand and the woman fills her pockets with rocks.

 

[Bonbonnom]

choice is the miraculous ability we have to go against instinct. a dog sees you with a treat, he runs for it. he may be hesitant if lets say he wants to play instead, but he's gonna go for the treat eventually. A human can say no to that treat for as long as he wants, providing the person has the willpower to do so.