Red, if I may call you that, I don't consider intuition a fallacy when defined as you have defined it. That's more or less what I consider to be intuition. Because our personalities, whatever one believes them derived from, differ from each other as individuals, I think there exists a spectrum for choosing ranging from purely intuitive to purely logical. In fact I think our leaning towards one or the other as a means of choosing is a basic part of our psychological makeup, as you stated.

I missed the cause of this post but to argue about choices of others would be ludicrous to me because none of us can stand in the shoes of the person making the choice at the time with their past experiences and perceptions.

Now on the flip side of that will I stand firm on my choices if challenged, mostly. And I will point out the possible fallacy of my position but will stand firm that I made the right choice for me at the time. Some of the time, in retrospect, I will decide that my choice may have been wrong but we all choose based on the limitation of knowledge and capability at the time.

I choose to disagree but agree to the disagreement of the agreement proposed while agreeing with the disagreement originally. May we find agreement in the end though

Joad wrote:


Yes, you may call me Red. I stand corrected, as I did not clearly make the point I intended to.

So many people consider intuition to be in the realm of the paranormal. It seems that mosly women tend to think that intuition is related to receiving an 'external' message and if one is perceptive they will take heed of that message. In the area in which I was raised this was the typical definition of intuition. This is what I regard as a fallacy.

Intuition may have external implications, as it stems from a previous external experience. However, intuition is not in itself the external experience but rather an unconscious 'recal' of the mind that alerts the body to a state of readyness. This is what I consider to be intuition.

Thanks for the correction.

Well put.

Di,

You are absolutely correct when you say that my claim is that choosing, itself, is a conscious act.

When it is presented as an error, I wonder why...

I believe that there has been a slight difference between what I have written and that which was received. A difference which has it's basis in personal perception.



I am at a loss of understanding how any example provided throughout this thread does not fit into this description.

Is the confusion mine?

It seems as if there have been difficulties grasping the claim that choosing requires the subject's belief in the possibility thereof. Perhaps this is a simple case of mistaken recognition.

Using the presidential candidate premise...

Di, you believed that neither candidate would be capable of producing the type of future that you can envision. You believed that it was possible to choose a candidate which would not be able to do what you would like.




Blackball...



I understand.



You do...

It is not I who fails to recognize it.

Compare what you have written to what I claimed...



You tell me.

Preferences.

I saw it before Di...

This is displayed in your bakeware example. If the influencing factors involved were not held in conscious thought, as was suggested, then that experience and the available paths of pursuit were not deliberated on a conscious level. The result then, was not a product of conscious thought. It was one of unconscious perception, which is pre-determined and always based upon past experience.

When this is the case, then the subject is not perceiving the current experience as s/he may if it were being done so without the preconceived biases that envelope the unconscious content. If the subject is unconsciously acting in this way, then there is obviously no conscious consideration of current options because there is no conscious thought regarding the existence of those things.

In order to be able to choose, there must be a subject who is consciously aware of the choices available, there must be some form of conscious contemplation... volition. Anything less is not a choice, it is merely a response, and I think we can all agree that not all responses are chosen. We surely do not choose the unconscious content which affects our perceptual faculty, even though one may become aware of it's existence thereby allowing a deeper understanding of oneself.

To be aware of an option's existence is to consciously perceive the possibility thereof. If unconscious elements affect the subject's conscious perception in such a way that the subject is unable to perceive of an option's existence, even though it does exist, then that subject cannot possibly make that choice. Conscious perception is the key to awareness. Awareness is required to be able to know of an option's existence. One must be aware that both, "A" and "B" exist before one can even be able to deliberate and then choose between them.




I agree.



I agree.




I do not agree, though the fact that you found humor in yourself is good for you...



Is it for you, or for them?

Would you continue to go if you knew that more would die as a result of your going than would if you did not?








All of these things were believed, I do not understand how this contradicts anything. It seems to actually support the claim from this point of view, at least...




They are the believers...



The do decide ahead of time. They decide to believe in whatever it is that they believe in, or they would not choose to attempt whatever it is that they do.

My understanding has been assumed to be known by others in this thread. The projections... the projections... the projections...




Since the topic towards an underlying notion of a subject who gives his word or makes a commitment, perhaps this can be used an an opportunity to apply that perspective to the given framework.

Making a committment is to consciously choose to focus upon and/or work towards a goal. It is to be dedicated to a conscious effort. Should this effort include the well-being of others, then this effort would be considered by most as one of noble virtue. To place another's well-being higher on a priority list, a subject must consciously make decisions of comparitive measure.

If that committment is one of an impersonal nature, such as public services like police and fire rescue teams, then personal matters are not held in the balance of decision making. A fireman does not consider the personal nature of a rescue victim that s/he does not know on a personal level.

Considering an employment situation, an employee who gives his/her word to a supervisor is to maintain an agreement between the two... is expected to fulfill the commitment. This includes the personal interests of the employee to be of less importance than the company's best interest, should there be a discreprency between the two.

When one's word involves matters of the heart, such as in a committed relationship, one is also expected to keep the committment. This noiton underscores the importance of the priority of the committment. When two people decide to pursue the possibilities of a life-long relationship, are they not ultimately vowing to hold the other's well-being and best interest above their own?

Would one be keeping their word or breaking it if circumstances developed in such a way that caused a clarification in perception which constituted more than sufficient warrant to believe they could not possibly fulfill the other's needs? How can one be committed to another's best interest while simultaneously knowing that what the other needs is much more than s/he can possibly offer?

At that time, it becomes a conscious decision between remaining in a relationship(at the expense of the other) because of the fact that a committment has been made, or holding the best interest and well being of the other above it.

It becomes a conscious choice between the value which one places upon the actual act of committment, and the value which one places upon the well-being of the other, which IS the committment.

Just revisited the thread and caught this part again. Interesting and thought-provoking. Contradicts some of my paradigm. I'll have to consider it, though....

If such a situation were to occur then one deciding for the other without including them in the decision is unfair. One making a conscious decision about the relationship and not sharing it with the other in the relationship is unacceptable.

While the motivation may have the other's best interest in mind, one does not have the right to silence their voice in the matter.

What if they are wrong? Without conversation there can be no understanding. Decisions affecting the relationship should be made by both parties in the relationship don't you think?

Excuse me if I stomp a little here..................







Michael......

Really????


Come on!!!!!!


Sweetheart, as incredible as you are..... you are NOT the keeper of anyone's well being, balance, and growth, other than your own.

You have an agreement with two sons to guide and love them....as a parent.... don't confuse that with anything other than it is... and please, please, oppose the seduction of (ego) being the keeper of other people... other commitments of heart you have made....YOU ARE NOT THAT BIG>


It's a blinded and almost arrogant stance to take....


....and so not you.



(ok...stomp is over)



Oh!! And on topic???

Consciously making decisions for others.... (which is a self deluding mask, because you are ONLY making decisions for yourself)


.......who says that one's conscious mind is reliable???

And who says one's unconscious mind is reliable?

This thread was not about this ****...





Words have been long spoken but not heard. I will not explain further. Anyone who thinks they know something about my personal thoughts has had it all figured out with preconceptions and presuppositions in their own mind anyway. Label my person and intention as you see fit, things like this are one reason why I am intensely private...

I am not sure what the point of this entire thread is. It seems like things are being over analyzed when a simple direct statement would clear things up. Is this possible?

I think you summed it up quite well in just one word Jeannie.

Instead of spending forever analyzing what constitutes choosing, just make sure you have all your preferences in order and everything will follow from that.

I personally believe that everyone uses different methods to make their choices. Therefore to ask, "What Constitutes Choosing" would yield a different answer, not only for different people, but even for the same individual in different situations.

I think we may very well use different methods of choosing when we are in a work enviroment as opposed to a social enviroment, or even a more causal intimate environment.


So I guess from that observation I would say that I believe our environment plays a large roll in our choices.

Comfort and/or survival plays a roll in our choices as well. I a person is comfortable they are likely to continue doing what they are doing (that's already a choice). If they are uncomfortable they may very well change what they are doing (again, another choice driven entirely by a person's state of comfort).

Also, and think this is of paramount importance,... all people do not make the same choices.

Therefore to try to analyize what consitutes chosing in any absolute blanket manner would be futile, IMHO.

For example, I've been with people where we were in a bad situation, I would immeditely move my body to a safe place, then turn around and watch all these idiots just stand there and complain about the bad situation they are in.

Surely other people have wintnessed this as well.

So why did I choose to remove myself from the uncomfortable situation, and they chose to remain in the uncomfortable situation and just complain about it?

Wisdom?

Obvisously, people can only make choices based on what they believe are options (or what options they can think up).

Some people are just driven to complain. Others are driven to make a difference.

Some people act, others react.

And, of course, people can change.

Myself, I can't imagine anyone choosing to believe in a religion like Christianity. I'm sure that eveyone is more than well aware of this.

Yet look at how many people do?

It's true that I was born into the relgion myself as a child, but that's not genuinely choosing it, that's simply being taught that it's true by a bunch of idiots.

However, it is true that the mere fact that I had been raised in the environment my choices were affected by what I was taught to believe.

So belief clearly drives choices.

In fact, when I started reading this thread I starting thinking about choices and why I make them. As I read further I came to a post by Redykelous. As soon as I saw her avatar I sat up straight, pulled my chair in closer to the computer desk and preprared for a great read.

And then I immediately thought to myself, "Did I just choose to do that?"

Obviously I did. Somewhere along the way from having read many of Di's posts I've made the choice that she's worth reading!

And now I believe in that choice.

And I must say it was a good choice.

And now I'm asking myself why I'm sitting here blabbering away on a stupid Interent forum when I should be doing something more constructive.

Ah,... somewhere along the way I've made the choice to become an irresponsible lazy bum. Now I believe it, and I act out the part.

That was a bad choice.

Now I need to go change my choices.



Hmmm?

Preferences?

Thanks Jeannie!

That's a great keyword when thinking about choices.

You're welcome, anytime.

I personally find no reason to believe that unconscious contents which cause one to make decision(s) and/or take action(s) without thinking could be equated to conscious deliberation/choosing. This alone, it seems to me, necessitates warrant for a distinction between unconscious response/reaction and conscious choice.

As Di has already pointed out, one has a very hard time recognizing whether or not they are in a state of mind which has been invoked by unconscious content during that experience. The unconscious influence on our perceptive faculty overflows into everything we think about in some way, shape, or form.

While I would not consider decisions which have been determined by unconscious contents alone to be choosing, it is an indication of prior conscious thought. This however, does not constitute sufficient evidence for reason to believe that all unconscious content stems from prior conscious choice. It may or may not have been. Sometimes things are accepted without ever having the ability to consider a different perspective concerning the same notion.

The more a man's thought conforms to a collective sense of ought, the greater his individual immorality.

Know thyself.
Take responsibility.
Don't blame.

All choice begins with preferences, attitude and thoughts.

I think there's more going on than conscious thought, and perhaps even unconscious thought, although that would controversial I'm sure.

But what I mean is that there are clearly two major ways that we can make choices. We can follow are instincts or we can use rational thought.

In fact I would argue that we have more than one 'instinct'.

We may have an instinct to do something because we FEEL (not think) that we would enjoy it.

However, at the very same time we may have an instinct not to do that very same thing because we FEEL (not think) that something isn't 'right' about it. This isn't a necessarily a logical thought, it may simpy be a gut feeling.

We have gut feeling to do it (because it will feel good).

But at the same time we have a gut feeling telling us that we ought not to do it.

Then we may bring in the logical mind and start trying to analyize which choice to make.

And of course some people follow their gut feelings to just do whatever feels good.

Other people follow their gut feelings to do what they feel they ought to do (without necessarily thinking about why that's the case)

Other people are far morelogical and will actually try to extrapolate what benefits, risks, enjoyment, chasitisments, etc.

I think some people consider all three of these things, other may truly be driven primarily by only one of these factors.

I don't think our choices necessary reduce to logical thoughts within the brain. Some people simply don't think with their brain.

That's a fact.

And I don't think you'd have to convince too many people to believe that one.

So to try to analyize what consitutes choice in a generic blanket fashion would be futile. Everyone reacts to life differently. What's true for one person will not be true for another.

So what's to analyze in an absolute sense?

I mean, this is just my thoughts, and the question I would raise. I don't mean to be confrontational. I'm just sharing my perspective.

This is how I feel about it. Everyone is different so to analyze in general would seem to me to be kind of futile.

I'm currently trying to react to the world more on instinct and use less logical reasoning. Especially when it come to spontaneous situations.

In fact, many spiritual speakers say that this is the key to becoming one with the spirit. Don't think, just do! But follow that sense of ought, and not the sense of lust. Unless they coincide of course.

There's nothing wrong with oughtful lust.

Well the choice of choosing is a choice all unto itself because not choosing is a choice too.