A breakdown of how a choice occurs?

[futrethink]

---The following is a personal breakdown of how a choice occurs. I use it in discussions to prove points and wish to have it analyzed by as many individuals as possible to point out any possible errors.

---You will have to excuse my posting style, but I prefer to use the “---“ to show a tab/where the opening of a ‘paragraph’ has started (just following the teachings of basic English usage {and yes, I know that I will make obvious errors, so point them out if necessary}) and should anyone have knowledge of how to properly insert a blank space to replace the dashes, I would appreciate the information. My posting style also includes multiple and seemingly synonymous words with a “/” between them to show the overall and relatively objective concept described by all the words, but it is important for me to do so to try and avoid some predictable arguments arising from a miscommunication of an improper concept.

---I do not have a computer at home, so I must use library and internet café computers, so if some time passes before I reply to anyone’s post, please be patient.

 

---To any readers who think that this post is an insult to their intelligence, due to the multiple and blatantly obvious statements of information, I must mention that this is not how it should be seen. As with any hypothesis, the originator of such must present all their facts in connection with it and all the connections between those facts that brought it about.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

---A choice is defined, by most dictionaries, as one of two things: a noun or a verb.

---To my way of thinking, you can’t make a choice unless you have nouns with which to do the verb. Thereby, the entirety of the concept of an objective ‘choice’ is any and all nouns, from the past, present and possible future, in connection with and the verb/action itself.

---That being out of the way, on to the breakdown of how a choice occurs on the physical(matter) and/or spiritual(emotional) and/or mental(thinking) levels and seemingly instantaneously:

~~~~~~A choice is required as a part of a linear temporal existence. To make that choice, the following occurs; an objective concept is perceived/interacted with. This is either a massenergy object appearing within an individual’s perceptions or a path/need/ideal that is to be reached. Either way; the first thing that occurs is an interaction of perceptions. An individual doesn’t cooperate with something that it has just perceived, it just interacts with it.

~~~~~~Available facts/information/variables from past existence is taken and brought forward and acknowledged as a part of that individual’s existence.

~~~~~~The surrounding environment and all information pertaining to that point in space and time is perceived/accepted as being a part of the individual’s existence.

~~~~~~The original idea/belief/concept of what was expected to be the possible future, from the previous point in time, is brought forward, accepted/acknowledged and then examined in connection with the previously noted object/objective.

~~~~~~During the examination of the original future, the connection between the new object/objective and the new object/objective itself, the previously mentioned past and present information is brought forward and used to predict any and all, new possible futures that might result.

~~~~~~Examinations of the new possible futures are made.

~~~~~~The most likely/probable/positive/okay/good futures/timelines are selected and the remaining futures are discarded/removed/noted as negative/bad/evil from the choice process.

~~~~~~A single possible end-result is selected as the most positive choice. A period of time for that end-result is determined. The possible futures/timelines and the information needed for to reach the previously selected end-result are examined.

~~~~~~The information and the future/timeline that is considered/believed the most wanted/positive/possible to reach the single possible end-result are selected. All other information and futures/timelines are noted as/believed to be the most negative/least likely for to reach that single possible end-result and discarded.

---The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will cause/start that one singular future/timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result.

 

---I might have missed a few steps or thought that they were unimportant enough to put in, but the above is as basic as I believe is needed for now.

[tomgwyther]

That seems to make sense, although there are other variable in making choices.

The time allowed to make a choice being a big one (although this was briefly mentioned in the above post)

Choices which lead to other choices and variables.

Choices made due to emotional response rather than pure boolian logic.

Where are you going with this post? Do you have an objective hypothesis you wish to reach?

[futrethink]

---tomgwyther.

 

---Emotions and time are indeed mentioned, albeit obscurely, in the breakdown, “Available facts/information/variables from past existence is taken” and “The surrounding environment and all information pertaining to that point in space and time.”

---Everything that is available to the individual is included/involved in making the choice.

---Another point I try to clarify is that; the individual making a choice/having to choose could be any form of a singular being due to the objective and fully basic nature/existence of individuals, which can be described as massenergy or any other word/symbol/analogue known in any language/form of communication/transmission of information. This is, for the nonce, we’ll leave as any animal or vegetable.

---This is not to create the connotation that a mineral thinks (not counting the seemingly illusionary aspect of what will come to be for computers; if it is believed to think by organic/human computers, and it itself believes/calculates it thinks and feels emotions past its programming, other then by personal beliefs what objective proof is there to say that the illusion is an illusion), but that choice also is a part of its mineral existence.

 

---As for having an objective? My signature is my hypothesis which, as arrogant as it may seem, I am trying to find information for to prove it wrong.

[walkntune]

~~~~~~A single possible end-result is selected as the most positive choice. A period of time for that end-result is determined. The possible futures/timelines and the information needed for to reach the previously selected end-result are examined.

~~~~~~The information and the future/timeline that is considered/believed the most wanted/positive/possible to reach the single possible end-result are selected. All other information and futures/timelines are noted as/believed to be the most negative/least likely for to reach that single possible end-result and discarded.

---The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will cause/start that one singular future/timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result.

 

---I might have missed a few steps or thought that they were unimportant enough to put in, but the above is as basic as I believe is needed for now.

 

I believe humans don't have the freewill they think they do.I believe like all other animals instincts we make choices out of fear and faith. When a deer feels safe and full of faith it can think along the lines of finding green grass to eat and shade to lay in and such. Once it senses danger its line of thinking will change. It will seek out the danger, decide what direction to dart of etc.. Too much fear and maybe freeze. Humans are the same way.

the biggest mistake humans make is they try to use their thinking to control their emotions. We don't realize that in order to be happy, feel safe and full of faith all we have to do is release the fear or emotions.As we release the emotions our line of thinking actually changes like the deer in the field.People hold on so tight to emotions and refuse to release them and it causes the brain to be stuck in a certain mode of thinking.My personal belief is that eventually when you hold on to bad emotions long enough without releasing them they cause the mind to be stuck in a certain unhealthy pattern of thinking that eventually alters the chemicals causing chemical imbalances(mental illness) Even good emotions can cloud up the mind and clarity of thought.Releasing good emotions also has a great benefit to clearing the mind and so you can make better choices and keep bringing yourself up to a better state of thinking and feeling.The only way to feel good is to allow your self to feel and release the bad feelings no matter how bad they feel and don't allow them to dictate your thoughts or choices.(sometimes you just have to buckle the seatbelt and hang on) So I guess what i am saying is that are emotional state of fear and faith we are in actually dictates our line of thinking and how we make choices just like the deer.

So in order to summarize this I believe we are still dictated by faith and fear instincts that actually alter our thought processes depending upon which state we are in.If you want to think more clear and positive and make better choices, all you do is release the negative emotions and you climb to a positive state(state you were born and meant to be in ) automatically and your thinking changes automatically.(just like the deer).

Edited January 13, 2010 by walkntune

[futrethink]

---walkntune.

 

---I didn’t initiate this thread to debate the external/societal/environmental reasons for making a choice, the repercussions of a choice or the how/what/why society is the way it is, so if you wish to debate those points, we can take it to a sociological or philosophical (fate v freewill) area/thread.

---I merely wish to have this dissection of the process of choice looked at by others and for constructive criticism given if there are any errors so I may fine tune my explanation of it, but, for now I’ll answer the points you brought up.

I believe humans don't have the freewill they think they do.

---If you read through the breakdown, you will find out that an individual has multiple options for which to choose from (freewill), but they can to only make one choice and are fated to only make one choice, which is what fate is; having no other available options/choices to choose from and doing only that one thing.

---Humans have the same amount of free will as any other individual. That degree of free will is the exact same amount for a human in one situation as any other individual being in that exact same situation, even if it doesn’t feel like it, due to the differing emotions/past experiences/knowledge that each individual has as a part of their past.

I believe like all other animals instincts we make choices out of fear and faith.

---True and anyone who believes that human beings don’t have parts of them that are animal and that human beings are not animals at all are lying to themselves.

---As for the carrot and stick of emotions affecting our lives? Yes, they do. This can be proven, if it hasn’t already (I don’t have the time to look for links showing such proof) to affect how you live your life. One such example would be; how you live your life as an adult, because of your emotions from being a kid.

[walkntune]

---I didn’t initiate this thread to debate the external/societal/environmental reasons for making a choice, the repercussions of a choice or the how/what/why society is the way it is, so if you wish to debate those points, we can take it to a sociological or philosophical (fate v freewill) area/thread.

 

Sorry didn't mean to be taking the most off topic.If you were looking for a breakdown of how choices occur I believe some kind of concept is perceived and filtered through our fight and flight instincts and then rationalized in the mind.I am not sure what you are asking but I was only saying that before any ideas or concepts are perceived in the mind they go through our fight and flight instincts and not directly to the mind.

[futrethink]

---walkntune.

 

If you were looking for a breakdown of how choices occur I believe some kind of concept is perceived and filtered through our fight and flight instincts and then rationalized in the mind.

---Actually the first part of the process, at what you are looking at and thinking about, comes down to, “Do I choose to exist or not exist?” before it goes through the flight or flight process, because after making the choice of existing with what you already have or not, you then make the choice of (should the individual choose to exist) flight or flight and then another choice of what would be the best way to get the result of existence. Following that choice of what’s best is,” The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will cause/start that one singular future/timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result.”

---What you are not catching is what actually a ‘choice’ is and how many choices occur to any individual within any measured point in time.

[walkntune]

--What you are not catching is what actually a ‘choice’ is and how many choices occur to any individual within any measured point in time.

 

I understand that the mind can only see one point of reference at a time in a logical or rational perspective because of the theory of relativity and that awareness can be aware of all points of reference at a time or see one or all perspectives of time at the same time.

I also understand we can make choices from any of these perspectives we choose too.

Unfortunately if we choose to let our mind dictate what we see and guide us then we become unaware of so much of reality because our awareness lines up with our rational or logical minds but if we choose to open up our awareness then we have the ability to choose and see between many perspectives.

[futrethink]

---walkntune.

I understand that the mind can only see one point of reference at a time in a logical or rational perspective because of the theory of relativity and that awareness can be aware of all points of reference at a time or see one or all perspectives of time at the same time.

---True. That is an aspect/a part of the process of choice.

---Your possible error (I am not sure if you understand the entire objectivity of what ‘mind’ is) is in thinking that an organic mind is the only possible aspect (of an individual) capable of doing as you explained.

I also understand we can make choices from any of these perspectives we choose too.

---It is not that an individual can make choices, it is that an individual must continually make choices or the choices must be continually made for them.

---So, as much as an individual exists within time and space, instead of being time and space and while existing and not existing at the same time as the only existing thing within nonexistence (slightly confusing to explain, but some people get it without the explanation), choice is a continual part of every individual’s existence from the start of knowledge of that individual’s existence to the end of knowledge of its existence. It is also that not only our minds that make choices/have choices happen to them, but any individual (think objectively as to what an individual is and how it is defined) that exists.

 

---To try a different tack, “At a single point in time, does an electron (an aspect of what a brain and/or mind is) or a computer make a choice of the available options?”

Edited January 23, 2010 by futrethink

[mulreay]

It has already been proven that a human brain can make a decision at least 6secs before it becomes a concious thought. Does this mean we are not in control? No. All it means is that we find it difficult to imagine our brains even though it us doing things which would constitute action.

We do it all the time without 'thinking' we react, we keep our bodies alive (breathing, heartbeats).

To ask about thinking is to look into the void of all the stuff we don't understand.

My brain allows me to communicate with you and that feels comfortable as I feel I am making the decisions but my brain is also making decisions that do not need my 'conscious' thought. But there all in my best interest.

People need to stop thinking of the brain as a conscious organism it's not. Part is but not all of it.

As always my opinion is humble and may be wrong.

[futrethink]

---mulreay.

To ask about thinking is to look into the void of all the stuff we don't understand.

---Isn’t the meaning of life; To search for the answer to the question, “Is there nothing more?”

---To simply accept the unknown as too dangerous to try to understand, would be to accept that life is something which can never be greater then what it is right now, correct? Thinking that life of this level, especially human life, is the ultimate it can be is to be arrogant, is it not?

People need to stop thinking of the brain as a conscious organism it's not. Part is but not all of it.

---True.

Does this mean we are not in control? No. All it means is that we find it difficult to imagine our brains even though it us doing things which would constitute action.

---We, as individuals made up of individuals, make choices and we have choices happen to us (even from within our own bodies).

It has already been proven that a human brain can make a decision at least 6secs before it becomes a concious thought.

---Do you have any links to those studies or anything relating to showing this? I am not doubting your information, but it would help provide proof for me in my arguments with others.

 

---That being all said; can you find any errors in the breakdown?

---The breakdown fits for a computer’s manner of making a choice as it does for a human’s, correct?

[walkntune]

---True. That is an aspect/a part of the process of choice.

---Your possible error (I am not sure if you understand the entire objectivity of what ‘mind’ is) is in thinking that an organic mind is the only possible aspect (of an individual) capable of doing as you explained.

I think I am pretty much aware of where you are coming from. I believe energy is all that exists and our choices have to do with what frequencies are vibrating compared to our frequency.Fear and faith our the ability we have to change our frequency (the more faith the more your awareness is opened)which in exchange alters your choices.People in fear don't have as many choices and live in ruts tied to the same frequencies.When you overcome resistance through faith your frequencies change allowing to be more free and open to all posibilities.

[futrethink]

---walkintune.

 

---This post will include some things that you probably already understand, from what I can figure out about you from your few posts on this thread, but to be sure I still have to post them.

(the more faith the more your awareness is opened)

---If I understand your usage/definition of the concept of ‘awareness’ correctly, in that respect, yes it does affect awareness, but faith doesn’t affect the objective concept of awareness/perception/original interaction. It only alters what happens after the awareness occurs.

When you overcome resistance through faith your frequencies change allowing to be more free and open to all posibilities.

---Faith isn’t the only thing which opens possibilities, because faith/belief/a guess is a part of every choice made. The religious person has as much faith as the scientific person, but blindness affects them both equally.

People in fear don't have as many choices and live in ruts tied to the same frequencies.

---They have the same options to choose from as the brave person, who lives in ruts (different though they may be) too. This is because, the brave person considers acting cowardly as something that they can’t do, while the fearing person considers the options requiring acting brave as bad. A person in fear can have cause to fight, instead of flee, and use the same options as the brave person, should one aspect of who they are as a person see the need.

I believe energy is all that exists

---No, it isn’t. Simply seeing/having the knowledge of how the concept described as ‘energy’ might be the basis of existence, doesn’t negate the existence/presence of the concept described as ‘matter’ in how existence works. And no, I am not showing connotations of the 3 points/perceptions of balance; positive, negative and equal, because I understand/perceive there to be 6 points/perceptions.

[Tyler Durden]

Well, doesn't an entire half second (or more) pass between a bodily action and you actually being conscious of the action?

 

Wouldn't this mean that we are technically not in control?

 

From what I recall in biology, signals from muscles in the body to the brain (or vice versa), usually take only 1/10th of a second. So why does it take so long to be conscious of the action?

 

There's the "red-green light" experiment that explains this. Subjects had to pay attention to a wall where a colored dot would be shown (usually red), then the color would change to green very quickly and then back to red. Most of the subjects saw the green light, even though it was only shown for a less amount of time for them to actually consciously observe it. I don't know what that means, but they had to perform a conscious action if they saw the green light, and then the scientists measured the time it took for them to do this. Turns out that there's at least a half second "lag time" in life.

[walkntune]

, it isn’t. Simply seeing/having the knowledge of how the concept described as ‘energy’ might be the basis of existence, doesn’t negate the existence/presence of the concept described as ‘matter’ in how existence works.

For this to be true would be to prove string theory false which I believe matter is nothing more than a certain frequency of vibrating strings of energy.

[Tyler Durden]

For this to be true would be to prove string theory false which I believe matter is nothing more than a certain frequency of vibrating strings of energy.

 

This would mean that matter, fundamentally, isn't actually physical, it is entirely energy. Mind-blowing concept, isn't it...

[walkntune]

This would mean that matter, fundamentally, isn't actually physical, it is entirely energy. Mind-blowing concept, isn't it...

 

Especially when I think of empty space not existing and frequencies travelling through it like ripples in the water

[toastywombel]

For this to be true would be to prove string theory false which I believe matter is nothing more than a certain frequency of vibrating strings of energy.

 

It is kinda hard to make out your thought clearly, as your sentence structure is a little odd to me. It is rather common in the science community to refer to matter as stored energy. Kinda like what you are describing above, but that does not in anyway disprove string theory.

 

First it is important to ask what string theory are you talking about?

Superstring theory?

M-theory?

In either case, I don't see how the concept that matter is stored energy would violate or conflict with any of the string theories.

[walkntune]

It is kinda hard to make out your thought clearly, as your sentence structure is a little odd to me. It is rather common in the science community to refer to matter as stored energy. Kinda like what you are describing above, but that does not in anyway disprove string theory.

 

Sorry for not sounding clear but I I actually agree with you and the fact string theory is not disproved by this below.

it isn’t. Simply seeing/having the knowledge of how the concept described as ‘energy’ might be the basis of existence, doesn’t negate the existence/presence of the concept described as ‘matter’ in how existence works.

I lean towards m-theory but I am philosophical and not scientific.

 

It is rather common in the science community to refer to matter as stored energy

That's very interesting to me.

[futrethink]

---Tyler Durden and mulreay (as a proper answer to your post # 10)

Well, doesn't an entire half second (or more) pass between a bodily action and you actually being conscious of the action?

---A certain amount of time does pass between a physical choice or an unconscious choice and a conscious choice. I have never said there wasn’t and in fact, I specifically mention that the length of time for a choice to occur is “seemingly instantaneous.”

---But, the bodily action and first conscious interaction are of two differing choices.

Wouldn't this mean that we are technically not in control?

---We do have conscious control over bodily actions, but only to a limit. An extreme example of this is certain meditational techniques to allow lucid dreaming or control over certain aspects of the autonomic system.

---With practice it is even possible to cause the body to instinctively react in a manner which conforms to how you choose to have it: a fireman running almost automatically towards a fire, instead of away from it (even though the body’s physical reactions would still be the same of the flight or fight variety), because of their training or certain individuals feeling pleasure where others would feel pain.

 

---I am guessing that those aspects of choice were not what you were focusing on, correct? You will forgive me if I don't continue on that path of discussion, which you probably wish to continue on, and focus on the time point.

 

---As mulreay (post # 10) has already explained the same information as yourself, allow me to answer both you and them, because I did not really properly answer them when they brought it up. Both you and mulreay explain pretty well the same thing using different ways to describe it: mulreay, “It has already been proven that a human brain can make a decision at least 6secs before it becomes a concious thought.” And yourself, “Well, doesn't an entire half second (or more) pass between a bodily action and you actually being conscious of the action?” & “From what I recall in biology, signals from muscles in the body to the brain (or vice versa), usually take only 1/10th of a second.”

---The answer is in your explanations and is in tune with what I explain in the breakdown, but you both don’t catch it, because you consider what is happening as all one choice, when it is the end of one choice and the beginning of another: the body initiates an action/“The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur” and then, the conscious mind becomes conscious of what has happened/”an objective concept is perceived/interacted with” (which is the initial stage of the breakdown).

---I will be chastised for this but, there are many levels of choice occurring at all times and two easy ways to break down/describe the obvious levels for the human existence is to think of/describe them as the ego, superego and the id or as mind, body and spirit, if you prefer. As a side tangent that I haven't really looked into and don't really consider as likely, but possible, I think that the same concept shown by those two descriptions might also be broken down into not-so-obvious levels of their own and they might not be easy to describe, so, sorry on that point.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

---walkntune.

For this to be true would be to prove string theory false which I believe matter is nothing more than a certain frequency of vibrating strings of energy.

---As has already been explained to you, in a scientific manner, matter matters. Having the knowledge that matter exists only as interactions of energy fields and contains empty space, does not eliminate the perception of that door hitting you in the face and hurting your nose, when you are watching that fine-looking individual walking by and not paying attention to where you are walking or your (or anyone's) offspring crying when they fall off their bike and land on the hard pavement or the feel of a loved one in your arms and etc.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

---As a side note: I thank my readers/posters/opponents for causing me to note that the description of the objective concept, initially interacted with, should either be more elaborately described to include other specific perceptions or just left as an "objective concept."

[futrethink]

---Since there have been no criticisms, comments or compliments for a period of time pertaining to the main subject of the breakdown, if anyone wishes to continue the debate the subject of fate or free will (which is a part/an aspect of what I use the breakdown as basis/a proof for) on this thread, please do so.

---I did not wish to debate it, merely because I wanted to see if the breakdown was logical enough to pass any microscopic inspection on its on merits.