Last one, and I really like this one; "Predicate Idealism" This notion establishes a foot print within the Ideal, while leaving the latter half of the statement absent of singular self subjectivity. We make choices that satisfy our impulse to harmonize within a cultural class, art-form, or metaphysical pursuit, where the inward choice also represents an act of inter-subjectivity.
Could it also be the folly of a learned helplessness, where tolerance, vain or contrived humility, evolved such an arrogance that set the stage for the grandest presentation of the emperors new clothes. Are we even making choices, or are we simply surrendering to the pseudo sequence of differently staged light pulses to alleviate the brains boredom. I think it is best to take Solomons advice, And to simply be happy in our work.
With a lot of reflection, I can't quite come to a conclusion, or I should say can't prioritize the key points you are trying to assimilate into into a descriptive statement. 'Causative formation' would work, but in reality it is only an antecedent to choice. 'cultured acquiescence' works but denotes more of a discipline not choice. what ever best describes it will have to encompass several key elements; subject+environment+social demography+physical capacity & normalcy. These for starters.
(cont) The above I would consider post formation attributes. The neural necessity to branch away from the norm of other evolutionary beings is the mystery of mysteries. Could it be so sublime, as to be the "proverbial wheel of the stone age" that in a millenarian epoch , will be seen as the shift that was required for man to finally shed the last remnants of his carnal ancestry.
Hi MrVisions, "subject+environment+social demography+physical capacity & normalcy" Yes!!! that :) I've been kicking it around in my brain for the last 12 hours or so, and I think the best word which captures all the above is "election"; damn the unwanted connotations..... (cont)
(cont, to MrVisions) In fact, I'm going to turn a drawback into a virtue, because it is not just singular entities which can make these kind of elections. A society can elect to go to war, or shareholders can elect a board of directors. This ties in very nicely with my whole intersubjectivity schtick. So congratulations, MrVisions, you win the palm.
I guess my 'choice' would be ;-) "Our elective disposition". It is an self determining, personalized statement of choice. We can elect to select "follow the status quo" or select to elect "determine our own path"
Being a retired techno-babilist you could easily inflate this theorem into a couple of hundred pages, no prpblem.
Hi MrVisions. You do have a talent with the wordsmithing. I want to use the word "disposition" later on in my argment in contradistinction with choices (I want to reserve a disposition as being a purely descriptive thing).....but (cont)
(cont, to MrVisions) actually just the word "election" (as in St. Paul saying we were "Elected by God") captures almost precisely what I'm getting at--of course, the context of primary season though, "election" brings in all kinds of connotations I don't want......is there another word I could use???
I'm going to brunch, right now with some friends, later as I roll around the couch in agony and remorse for not heading my on advise on gluttony, I will shake the cobwebs and see what comes up :-)
"Expressive Human Choice" would be the only thing I can come up with. Not very pretty but precise. A problem comes up for me when you try to make it exclusive to humans: i.e. all the examples of individual expression you gave can be applied to Bower Birds (piercings aside :P). I don't think the exclusivity is necessary, why do you feel you need it?
Hi oldiousnei, why do I need exclusitivity? Well, I want it only to apply to language users....its another whole discussion as to whether animals use language or not :-) Yes, no animals other than homo sapiens have every pirced or circumsised themselves; and no animal other than homo sapiens has ever been trained to respond correctly when somebody said "line up 10 green block in a row". Perhaps I should just give up on the exclusivity though and proceed already...
Ya the infinite gradations of complexity the illusory line of exclusivity breaks at the slightest tug, like an argumentative pinata spilling... O.o; Yes yes proceed let us not get caught up in this since it has no ready discreet answer, and its not crucial to the grand plan :D (which we are all wanna hear)
i think you are trying to emphasise "creative potential" of human experience. but creativity 1. need not be free (in the sense that you could choose otherwise given identical circumstances) 2. need not be rational. Creativity may be irrational, just as culture may be irrational. That we are "creative" may also merely be a species-centric account of our nature that is in fact shared by many animals within their own mating procedures.
Hi smotviddy, self-creation, yes, but a particular kind of self-creation--how we create ourselves through the choices we make. And yes, I explicitly want this concept of choice which I am defining here to be compatibly with a strictly deterministic universe. The locus for the "freedom" in my argument for free will isn't on this choice concept, it is elsewhere. I have yet to make that argument ;-) I just have to find the right vocabulary first so I can frame it.....
LOL maksiiskam2, yes, and we're the only species which thought of circumsizing male children on the 8th day too :-) "sell-differentiating" choices does capture part of what I'm trying to say about thes choices, that they do serve as a way to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world and to define ourselves. But I'd like a term which also expresses the _way_ in which this happens, in a symbolic way...
Kierkegaard wrote that "the moment of the decision is the moment of madness". Madness is the absence of a principle (or the principle, one principle, rather), decision is *indeterminate* decision. There can be no rational decision, because "decision" cannot be predetermined.
There is determinism implied in every 'why'. And even 'libertine' "free will" would still have a reason, that of it's subversion.
Hi matowana, I'm a Kierkegaard tyro, but I'm hoping that Kierkegaard was only arguing against "descriptive why's". yes, "descriptive why's" can be deterministic, but there another kind of why which isn't deterministic--the normative why (cont)
(cont, to matowana) e.g. my favorite example: somebody asks me why I'm not driving faster. I say "why am I not driving faster? because the speed limit here is 25mph". That doesn't determine _exactly_ what speed I'm going. I can drive for the why of the speed limit without being determined as to any particular speed I have to go.
I'd say that there is neither perfectly free nor perfectly determined decision. The horizon of possibilities can't go beyond our vision.
Determinism can of course always be imagined so complex it just cannot be understood. That there appears to be different causes from same effects can be imagined a mere illusion that hides the fact that the subtlety of "events" (a problematic concept, of course) is merely (so far, would the patient scientist say) beyond our faculties.
Interesting video..the song "Games peoples play" of Joe South keep's on popping up in my mind! I like it when you give you tube individual channel as an example of choice revealing.Salut!
Is 'deliberated choice' anywhere near what you mean? (ie non-automatic, choices you have to think about a little). Otherwise normalized choice sounds pretty good (especially if you're talking exclusively about choices that can be wrong).
also: It's a bit of a mouthful but I reckon it's important to use the full "non-human animals" when talking about our furry cousins ;)
Hi bitbutter, yeah, I like how 'deliberated' emphasizes that it was done for a reason; I don't like how it makes it seems like we have to explicitly think about it; I think some choices are made subconsiously. "normalized" isn't half bad; lets get some more condenters out on the table . . . . and yes, were animals as well :-) Featherless bipeds and rational animals.
Also bitbutter, I really love the phraseology you used in your vid on free will--just a randomly-acting will would "make Fred a puppet to a will not recognizably his own". This kind of ownership, this notion that our choices _pertain_ to us what I want to capture, and is what I think is the most devistating argument against the notion of "free will as randomness" or chaotic, unpredictable behavior. Choices say something about us, they are "recognizably our own."
Thanks. Well, i do think 'free will' (in anything but a compatibilist sense) would have to be random, and this is what i think makes the concept incoherent.
I really think that this version of free will is what most people are holding out for, which is why it's the one i'm interested in. Ppl hope they are "radically free" in a way they never could be, and are not be satisfied accepting illusion of absolute autonomy as a substitute.
Hi bitbutter, yes; of course, I want to steer between the Scylla of randomness and the Charybdis of determinism, all while holding on to this concept of the ownership of our actions...the bark I hope will get me there is the nondeterministic relationship which norms (e.g. the speed limit) bear to descriptions (e.g. the speed of my car). The speed limit can cause me to slow down w/o causing me to go any particular speed. Of course, there's lots of argument left to be done; lets see if I do it..
Last one, and I really like this one; "Predicate Idealism" This notion establishes a foot print within the Ideal, while leaving the latter half of the statement absent of singular self subjectivity. We make choices that satisfy our impulse to harmonize within a cultural class, art-form, or metaphysical pursuit, where the inward choice also represents an act of inter-subjectivity.
MrVisions 4 years ago
Could it also be the folly of a learned helplessness, where tolerance, vain or contrived humility, evolved such an arrogance that set the stage for the grandest presentation of the emperors new clothes. Are we even making choices, or are we simply surrendering to the pseudo sequence of differently staged light pulses to alleviate the brains boredom. I think it is best to take Solomons advice, And to simply be happy in our work.
MrVisions 4 years ago
With a lot of reflection, I can't quite come to a conclusion, or I should say can't prioritize the key points you are trying to assimilate into into a descriptive statement. 'Causative formation' would work, but in reality it is only an antecedent to choice. 'cultured acquiescence' works but denotes more of a discipline not choice. what ever best describes it will have to encompass several key elements; subject+environment+social demography+physical capacity & normalcy. These for starters.
MrVisions 4 years ago
(cont) The above I would consider post formation attributes. The neural necessity to branch away from the norm of other evolutionary beings is the mystery of mysteries. Could it be so sublime, as to be the "proverbial wheel of the stone age" that in a millenarian epoch , will be seen as the shift that was required for man to finally shed the last remnants of his carnal ancestry.
MrVisions 4 years ago
Hi MrVisions, "subject+environment+social demography+physical capacity & normalcy" Yes!!! that :) I've been kicking it around in my brain for the last 12 hours or so, and I think the best word which captures all the above is "election"; damn the unwanted connotations..... (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to MrVisions) In fact, I'm going to turn a drawback into a virtue, because it is not just singular entities which can make these kind of elections. A society can elect to go to war, or shareholders can elect a board of directors. This ties in very nicely with my whole intersubjectivity schtick. So congratulations, MrVisions, you win the palm.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I guess my 'choice' would be ;-) "Our elective disposition". It is an self determining, personalized statement of choice. We can elect to select "follow the status quo" or select to elect "determine our own path"
Being a retired techno-babilist you could easily inflate this theorem into a couple of hundred pages, no prpblem.
MrVisions 4 years ago
Hi MrVisions. You do have a talent with the wordsmithing. I want to use the word "disposition" later on in my argment in contradistinction with choices (I want to reserve a disposition as being a purely descriptive thing).....but (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to MrVisions) actually just the word "election" (as in St. Paul saying we were "Elected by God") captures almost precisely what I'm getting at--of course, the context of primary season though, "election" brings in all kinds of connotations I don't want......is there another word I could use???
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to MrVisions) *sigh* it really is regrettable that this is primary season. "election" is a really good word for it...
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I'm going to brunch, right now with some friends, later as I roll around the couch in agony and remorse for not heading my on advise on gluttony, I will shake the cobwebs and see what comes up :-)
MrVisions 4 years ago
"Expressive Human Choice" would be the only thing I can come up with. Not very pretty but precise. A problem comes up for me when you try to make it exclusive to humans: i.e. all the examples of individual expression you gave can be applied to Bower Birds (piercings aside :P). I don't think the exclusivity is necessary, why do you feel you need it?
oldiousnei 4 years ago
Hi oldiousnei, why do I need exclusitivity? Well, I want it only to apply to language users....its another whole discussion as to whether animals use language or not :-) Yes, no animals other than homo sapiens have every pirced or circumsised themselves; and no animal other than homo sapiens has ever been trained to respond correctly when somebody said "line up 10 green block in a row". Perhaps I should just give up on the exclusivity though and proceed already...
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Ya the infinite gradations of complexity the illusory line of exclusivity breaks at the slightest tug, like an argumentative pinata spilling... O.o; Yes yes proceed let us not get caught up in this since it has no ready discreet answer, and its not crucial to the grand plan :D (which we are all wanna hear)
oldiousnei 4 years ago
"like an argumentative pinata spilling" nice. RH's channel is like a magnet for all the best metaphors :)
bitbutter 4 years ago
i think you are trying to emphasise "creative potential" of human experience. but creativity 1. need not be free (in the sense that you could choose otherwise given identical circumstances) 2. need not be rational. Creativity may be irrational, just as culture may be irrational. That we are "creative" may also merely be a species-centric account of our nature that is in fact shared by many animals within their own mating procedures.
smotviddy 4 years ago
Hi smotviddy, self-creation, yes, but a particular kind of self-creation--how we create ourselves through the choices we make. And yes, I explicitly want this concept of choice which I am defining here to be compatibly with a strictly deterministic universe. The locus for the "freedom" in my argument for free will isn't on this choice concept, it is elsewhere. I have yet to make that argument ;-) I just have to find the right vocabulary first so I can frame it.....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Cinnamon...cheesecake? I MUST EAT IT
msa1985 4 years ago
:-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Found a way to talk about Azrienoch's Prince Albert... as if I wanted to remember that. :)
maksiiiskam2 4 years ago
maybe "self-differentiating choices" would fit what you want.
maksiiiskam2 4 years ago
LOL maksiiskam2, yes, and we're the only species which thought of circumsizing male children on the 8th day too :-) "sell-differentiating" choices does capture part of what I'm trying to say about thes choices, that they do serve as a way to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world and to define ourselves. But I'd like a term which also expresses the _way_ in which this happens, in a symbolic way...
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Kierkegaard wrote that "the moment of the decision is the moment of madness". Madness is the absence of a principle (or the principle, one principle, rather), decision is *indeterminate* decision. There can be no rational decision, because "decision" cannot be predetermined.
There is determinism implied in every 'why'. And even 'libertine' "free will" would still have a reason, that of it's subversion.
matowana 4 years ago
Hi matowana, I'm a Kierkegaard tyro, but I'm hoping that Kierkegaard was only arguing against "descriptive why's". yes, "descriptive why's" can be deterministic, but there another kind of why which isn't deterministic--the normative why (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to matowana) e.g. my favorite example: somebody asks me why I'm not driving faster. I say "why am I not driving faster? because the speed limit here is 25mph". That doesn't determine _exactly_ what speed I'm going. I can drive for the why of the speed limit without being determined as to any particular speed I have to go.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Thanks for your answer.
I'd say that there is neither perfectly free nor perfectly determined decision. The horizon of possibilities can't go beyond our vision.
Determinism can of course always be imagined so complex it just cannot be understood. That there appears to be different causes from same effects can be imagined a mere illusion that hides the fact that the subtlety of "events" (a problematic concept, of course) is merely (so far, would the patient scientist say) beyond our faculties.
matowana 4 years ago
Interesting video..the song "Games peoples play" of Joe South keep's on popping up in my mind! I like it when you give you tube individual channel as an example of choice revealing.Salut!
Boucrate 4 years ago
I'm glad you've chosen to be my friend ;-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Is 'deliberated choice' anywhere near what you mean? (ie non-automatic, choices you have to think about a little). Otherwise normalized choice sounds pretty good (especially if you're talking exclusively about choices that can be wrong).
also: It's a bit of a mouthful but I reckon it's important to use the full "non-human animals" when talking about our furry cousins ;)
bitbutter 4 years ago
Hi bitbutter, yeah, I like how 'deliberated' emphasizes that it was done for a reason; I don't like how it makes it seems like we have to explicitly think about it; I think some choices are made subconsiously. "normalized" isn't half bad; lets get some more condenters out on the table . . . . and yes, were animals as well :-) Featherless bipeds and rational animals.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Also bitbutter, I really love the phraseology you used in your vid on free will--just a randomly-acting will would "make Fred a puppet to a will not recognizably his own". This kind of ownership, this notion that our choices _pertain_ to us what I want to capture, and is what I think is the most devistating argument against the notion of "free will as randomness" or chaotic, unpredictable behavior. Choices say something about us, they are "recognizably our own."
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Thanks. Well, i do think 'free will' (in anything but a compatibilist sense) would have to be random, and this is what i think makes the concept incoherent.
I really think that this version of free will is what most people are holding out for, which is why it's the one i'm interested in. Ppl hope they are "radically free" in a way they never could be, and are not be satisfied accepting illusion of absolute autonomy as a substitute.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Hi bitbutter, yes; of course, I want to steer between the Scylla of randomness and the Charybdis of determinism, all while holding on to this concept of the ownership of our actions...the bark I hope will get me there is the nondeterministic relationship which norms (e.g. the speed limit) bear to descriptions (e.g. the speed of my car). The speed limit can cause me to slow down w/o causing me to go any particular speed. Of course, there's lots of argument left to be done; lets see if I do it..
randyhelzerman 4 years ago