This is a good philosophical answer, and it is a philosophical question. Why is it in human science? Note added later. I've just noticed that many of the human science topics are questions that would traditionally have been discussed under philosophy. Is it that a sub-species of philosophy has emerged. Or is it that the word philosophy and the prospect of discussing something with someone who will ride roughshod over your opinions, means that philosophy has to be disguised so that ordinary people can discuss it. I think I've answered my own question. Other comments welcome.
Choice could be defined as an organisms ability to manage probability in an adaptive fashion. Or mabye not.
ok why did the rabbit beat and kill the bear ??? cause he was smarter than the bear and wore him out and they have multiple and tricked the bear and when the bear went for the rabbit the bear fell on a very large pointy stick
cause hes simply smarter than the other people use their technique for survival or hunting or sumtimes cause they can
I guess the rabbit was "smarter than the average bear"...? Scientists sometimes like to believe that they are above or beyond philosophical problems, and employ only objective and empirical methods. This is sophistry, no-one can consider anything at all, without philosophical concepts appearing on the horizon. Science is not devoid of meaning. P.S. Science, the word, comes to English directly (i.e. not commuted in meaning), from a predecessor language (you may know which one). It means knowledge, or understanding. Philosophy, the word, from the same source, means "love of sophism". We all know what sophism is. P.P.S. My version of the "debate" betwixt the two "fields" of human thought: Scientists think philosophers think about things that aren't interesting. Philosophers think about why scientists think their science is "interesting"... Perhaps it's the same field, or paddock, or swamp, or whatever.
OK, adaptive is easy enough to get a handle on: it's behaviour, that gives a possible advantage. Manage, that's something that also implies agency and purpose. Been in a few mud-slingers about the topics of "agency" and (apparent) "purpose", before now. Probability comes into it, no doubt (heh). Note: I made a choice about correcting a typo or two in someones post (heh heh). (heh heh heh, 'cackle')
I thought choice was every beings right to decide. If choice be the menu , Decision is the chilli roast ham. Or choice is the options you have to make a decision. Frud had a choice whether or not to correct a typo in someones post ,the choices were there but the decision was his.
