Getting deep /I see where you come from, but I am saying your "praise' was inevitable. Why? It wasn't inevitable until it happened. Relative certainty can only be had in relation to one's past. Before an event, the likelihood of its occurence is wholly probabalistic in terms of predicting forcoming events. Certainly action leads to reaction, but you can't be sure the action happens until it does. (and of course you can't be SURE of anything, for the purposes here I mean know as in "are as sure as you can be". The same applies to choice. If you refer to the future, you have free will because you can choose now to strive meet with a moment in the future that matches your vision of it now. Maybe it boils down to a matter of will. If you have vision and will yourself to make it so, isn't that choice? If not please show exactly how it isn't. Seems to me the only way you can justify that it isn't would be through your perspective on time. /Besides, if you say that it is the most "enlightened thing" you've 'read in" your "life", then 'choices' become limited. Of course, a psuedo-sysetematic (so to speak, as actually this is based on the structure of your mind, which (very interestingly) is directly and indirectly shaped by the resultant of this process) culling of options. Choice. /The final solution is merely the integration/end process of related paths. "merely"? You seem to miss the significance of the limitation of the moment. As the present consists of no time, as in it is "dt", an infinitessimal slice of time, I find the "final solution" to be resolution to a possibility that preceded it in time, being resolved in the now. Passing into scrutiny such that it can feed back into itself - optimally tuning that particular (whatever choice it was) "algorithmish" thing such that it improves the minds ability to predict and process future input. I don't think you can deny choice as it is simply a juxtaposition of abstracts in time, experienced in the present. Choice is the abstraction of future experienced in the now, based on one's estimate of outcomes based on their experience. You choose now what your conscious aspect of self deems to be the path to get you where it wants you to be, given the limitations (including that which it places on itself). Habit is part of this cycle. You learn things that gratify you. Depending on your leanings toward particular gratifications.. hmmm.. rather, your habits are tricks you learn to accomplish things. Your "muscle memory" (they type of memory that allows you to drive a car for 500 miles while you're not really paying attention) so to speak even extends to your thought patterns in terms of the ability to influence your behavior? Why? Because to form a habit is to forgoe the analysis. Why? Because you already know the outcome because you've learned it and done it and repeated it and it is part of your being in the moment. You surrrender your option to analyze your choice in lieu of a known mode. Does that mean you didn't have a choice? I don't think so. I think it means you sacrificed your choice to a perception of gratification offered by completion of your habit (or ritual, as a habit (depending on its flavor and intensity) has with it a built in reward system, based on your personal tastes and what really scratches the sweet-spot in your personal mental structure. /Precisely, the future is an abstract. The past however is the amalgamation of all realizable experiences. Don't forget the sub-conscious! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (I'm sure you weren't) /It can still be experienced in the present. It is always experienced in the present. It seems Einstein showed us that a POV indeed determines the present, as it must be the fundamental reference point in time. It's always right now damnit. /People "see" a "choice" in the future because a future solution is still a variable as it depends on conditions that are uncontrollable by the individual. Right on, pretty much what I was saying. /Choice however implies conditions that controllable by the individual. I disagree. So quick to disagree? You should agree. Choose to agree. Isn't that point enough? What's worse is that during your eperience you, as I, will mostly likely agree and disagree. It's always "hey brain, what have you done for me lately?" isn't it? Heh. Anyway. It's exhausting to have simultaneous contradicting opininons, as keeping that structure patched requires effort. I suppose an interesting note is that apparently most people wouldn't bother, as lying seems to come somewhat naturally to the socialized human. IMO, that simply contributes to their poor mental health. For the sake of over-all effiency though, it is much more convenient for most people not to bother maintaining integrity, as it's a pain in the ass. Blah. /The thought processes depend on past processes that are shaped by outside influences undetermined, and biological processes already determined. "soul man" is bitching about the limitations of biology regarding conscious decision making? Hehe, I'm sure you know in your schema why that isn't contradictory, and I'm sure you probably realize why it seems that way to someone who just noticed the relationship. I think I've covered this already. The biology of the human mind is highly flexible and in a constant state of re-writing the details of its function. I don't think your assertion of biological processes contradicts my explanation of choice above. Choice is an abstract. /All uncontrollable variables exist outside the individual. What about the controllable variables? Oh there aren't any? If there are controllable variables then there necessarily exists choice right? /But there is no choice, because the individual does not control the outside influences. I don't believe you've shown that at all. /(hmm-- this is tricky. Can the individual control the outside influences or not? I have to think more...As of now, I think not) I can choose a lot of things about my influences. Haven't you heard the addage "never stay where you're not appreciated"? You think it bullshit because you have no choice of where you stay? Can't I move a few inches to the left if I choose? There. I just did. Only because I typed it. I thought it. I chose to act it. I moved a few inches to the left. It was sweeeeet. Meh. /No, not really. Denial would be telling yourself that every decision you made was the best under the context-- thereby absolving yourself from any responsibility. How does that absolve you from responsibility? DUDE. Denial is when you pretend that you DIDN'T make the best decision given context, oh man. It's when you pretend to yourself that some other context was really what you should have or were thinking about, so what actually happened is okay because you didn't really mean it, then you go on with your day without having learned a fucking thing from it. That's why smoking isn't necessarily denial. If you actually know something and are ignoring it, that is acceptance. If you should know something, but pretend that the something is something else in order to protect yourself from the anguish of acceptance, then you are in denial. Hehe, it's okay, you're a liberal you can't help it. LOL. Pardon. /Actually I think it is the reverse-- assuming the individual has one of the true beauties of denial -- choice, in place. It's those opposite definitions again eh? Hell no, superior analysis! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Teasing of course. /If you say whatever you do is the best, even if you have one 'choice', then whatever decision you made was clearly to the best of your ability and thus nothing really should be changed. You ignore output. If in retrospect the choice did not align with intent, you are in denial if you pretend nothing should be changed, because obviously the outcome did not meet expectations. /This would lead to complacency and I think it self evident the psyche does not work that way. No, your perspective leads to complacency because you have no choice. Choice and complacency meet at laziness. Lack of choice? Maybe that's ultimately Nihilism (wouldn't the god people love to hear that! I guess most of them believe in free will). I refute it profusely. /In the present or in the moment, even in your model, there is no categorization-- merely a decision. What? Where did this come up? Categorization? Who? /From your model, categorizations can only be made in the abstract-- after the event. Yup. See what I mean now?