madmax2976

Thanks for you thoughts, Synaesthesia. I don't believe "free will" exists in the sense that our will exists independent of exernal factors. Its obvious to me that it doesn't. We have the ability to "choose" one action over another, but the choices cannot be made in a vaccum.

Tell me if you concur with this:

While its true that the underlying physical matter that makes up our brains operates according to physical laws, consciousness (which provides the ability to choose), is an emergent property from a certain arrangment of matter. This property enables our brains to be more than just a sum of their parts.

While there are laws of energy, motion, gravity, etc. . There are no laws of "consciousness" anymore than there are laws of rolling, falling, seeing, growing or hearing. Each one of these properties does work in conjuction with physical laws, but possesses new qualities that are not present in the individual elements of matter.

I think the answer to the puzzle may lie in our definition of what a choice is, what physical laws are and perhaps what they are not.

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

bd-from-kg

madmax2976:

1. Regarding my statement that you are sure that the ability to choose is incompatible with determinism, you replied:

Glad to oblige:

Of course. Perhaps my reading skills have declined over the years, but I seem to recollect that the phrase “of course” indicates a fairly high level of confidence. In fact, last time I checked, saying “Of course X is true” meant pretty much the same thing as “I’m sure X is true”.

And thus. No need to argue the point; the nexus between “events happen according to universal laws” and “your ‘will’ is only an illusion” is too obvious to be in need of argument or explanation.

And therefore. Again the logical relationship between premise and conclusion is so plain that it doesn’t have to be explained.

The same thing. If the two are the same thing to you, you must be sure that the one implies the other. Or are you not sure whether X implies X?

Try reading your own words.

2. In response to my statement that you seem to be equally sure that an element of indeterminism cannot create the ability to choose meaningfully, you commented:

Well, it didn’t exactly come out of nowhere; it came out of your own statements:

Perhaps you think the word “sure” is never appropriate unless one has absolute, metaphysical certainty. But if so, we might as well strike it from the dictionary, because we never have absolute, metaphysical certainty about anything. In practice, it is normally used to refer to somewhat lesser degrees of certainty: “Honey, are you sure you locked all the doors before we left?” “Yes, dear, I’m sure.”

Note: In my opinion your analysis of the relationship between randomness (or indeterminacy) and choice is exactly right. Randomness cannot create or contribute to the possibility of meaningful choice in any way; in fact it is inimical to it.

3. Regardless of how “sure” you are of these propositions, you clearly feel that there is a “mystery” here to be “solved”:

But there is no mystery; there is only a question of how to define “choice”. In fact, you seem to be aware of this, since you say:

What kind of “mystery” is it that can be “solved” by a definition? Such a “mystery” is more properly referred to as “confusion”. As I pointed out before, this is demonstrated by your inability to describe a world in which you would say that we have the ability to choose, coupled with your unwillingness to accept the obvious conclusion that we don’t have it. The confusion is also indicated by the fact that you chose to title this thread “The Human Brain and The Laws of The Universe” when in fact neither the human brain nor the laws of the universe have anything to do with the problem, which is purely logical or conceptual in nature.

As you have already gathered, not everyone means the same thing by “the ability to choose”. The answer to the question of whether we have this ability depends on what you mean by it. There is no “right” answer to this question; whatever you decide is the right answer for you.

4. You say:

Actually I did so in my first post, but you didn’t like my answer:

You dismissed this with the comment:

And this is where I think you have gone astray. Of course even the causes of our actions that are “within ourselves” were in turn caused, and ultimately, if you go back far enough, these causes can be traced to things outside ourselves. That is to say, we are not self-existent beings; we are not the causes of our own existence. If this is what you require in order to have the ability to choose meaningfully, then we certainly don’t have it. Your unwillingness to accept that you don’t have it is an unwillingness to accept that you are not God.

But I don’t think that this is what you really mean. What you really want to say, I suspect, is that the “causes within yourself” that strongly influenced your choice were not themselves caused by another being, who deliberately “shaped” you in a certain way for his own purposes.

For example, say that you fall in love with a woman and marry her. Now if you met her more or less by chance, you fell in love with her because you like people with her kind of personality, find people who look like her beautiful, you happen to have similar interests, and find her conversation fascinating, it would be absurd to say that you didn’t “really” choose to marry her because you didn’t choose to meet her and all of your personal tastes that made her attractive to you can be traced to genetic or environmental factors. On the other hand, if you learn that she arranged to meet you “by accident”, investigated what kind of women you like and “made herself” into that kind of person, you would legitimately question whether you “really” chose to marry her: it might be more accurate to say that you were manipulated into asking her to marry you.

Another good example of this distinction can be found in two types of “education”. In the first type the teachers try to give you the best they know. They tell the truth as they know it, and they tell you where they are relatively certain and where there is room for serious doubt. They teach you how to reason about such things for yourself and to someday question everything (including what they taught) and draw your own conclusions. An education like this may well influence your later actions in many ways, but to say that it has therefore limited your freedom to make meaningful choices is absurd; on the contrary, it has enabled you to make meaningful choices. On the other hand, there is another kind of education better described as indoctrination. Only one point of view is taught, and the students are taught not to question it – in fact, to fear questioning it. They are taught that truth is to be found by consulting authority. This type of education does indeed limit your freedom to make meaningful choices, because you are being manipulated into thinking and acting in ways that the teachers (or those who hired them) find desirable. Thus again the distinction between free and unfree choice is seen to lie, not in the existence of causes for your actions, but in the nature of these causes.

It may also be helpful to look at the concept of “cause” itself. We are accustomed to thinking of “causes” as things that “force” other things to happen. But it is more accurate to think of “causes” simply as regularities in the course of events. Since we “experience” time as “flowing forward”, we naturally conceive of regularities in which B invariably follows A in terms of A “forcing” B to happen. But from a logical standpoint we could just as well think of B as “forcing” A to have happened. Neither point of view is “true” or “false”; it’s just that the former is more useful. But unfortunately it tends to make us think of our actions as being “forced” by what came before, and we tend in turn to think (subconsciously) of this as intentional forcing. In the case of factors that “cause” us to make a particular choice, we may come to think of ourselves as helpless pawns in the hands of these forces, much as we might be helpless pawns in the hands of a manipulative woman or a teacher intent on brainwashing us. But a little thought shows how false this picture is. We do not have forces driving us in a particular direction, but simply regularities in the course of events, among which are our own actions. Such regularities do not preclude meaningful choice, but are necessary conditions of it.

So that’s what I mean by the ability to choose meaningfully. On this understanding of choice, we sometimes have this ability. But you are free to choose some other definition, in which case this question might have a different answer.

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

madmax2976

Glad to oblige:
quote:

The human brain operates according to physical laws making its events/reactions predictable, in principle. The end result of this of course would be that humans really don't make choices.

Of course. Perhaps my reading skills have declined over the years, but I seem to recollect that the phrase “of course” indicates a fairly high level of confidence. In fact, last time I checked, saying “Of course X is true” meant pretty much the same thing as “I’m sure X is true”.

Well, keep practicing those reading skills. Just kidding.

The “of course” would apply to the, as yet, hypothetical scenario I am painting – which is really a question being pondered by this thread. I thought the “would be” qualifier would relay this succintly enough but since it didn’t, I’ll try to be clearer in the future.


quote:

Or do the events concerning you happen according to universal laws, and thus your “will” is only an illusion.

And thus. No need to argue the point; the nexus between “events happen according to universal laws” and “your ‘will’ is only an illusion” is too obvious to be in need of argument or explanation.

Well its reassuring that’s it obvious to someone. Can you clarify the obviousness for me?


quote:

Therefore, human events/actions are actually caused by universal laws and therefore any sense that we make choices is an illusion.

And therefore. Again the logical relationship between premise and conclusion is so plain that it doesn’t have to be explained.

Ah, so you don’t believe we make choices. Okey Dokey. Do you have any explanation as to why we so strongly believe we do make choices? Its seems very counter-intuitive to me to think that we don’t.


quote:

ohwilleke:
In other words, if there is only one possible future, which is already determined, then we as individuals are merely playing out a script, and this is not free will.

madmax:
Which, to me, is the same thing as saying we don't really make choices.

The same thing. If the two are the same thing to you, you must be sure that the one implies the other. Or are you not sure whether X implies X?

Since “X” wasn’t the subject, I don’t know what your talking about. But I was commenting on ohwilleke’s statement in any case – not offering my own certainty about anything. Again, this all seems like a mystery or a paradox to me. Like going back in time and killing your grandfather.


quote:

More of this "sure" business coming out of nowhere.

Well, it didn’t exactly come out of nowhere; it came out of your own statements:
quote:

How would an element of randomness enable people to make choices? If things we’re random, then events would just happen for no reason – which is what randomness implies. Therefore, thoughts would just pop into our heads randomly. Could we really say we make choices if our thoughts are random?

Indeed, without this deterministic behaviour, I don’t see how it would be intelligible to say humans make choices. If events were not predictable, then my choosing to shoot someone in the head might or might not cause severe injury or death – it would become completely arbitrary for me to decide one action over another. It seems we require determinism in order to make meaningful choices at all.
On the other hand, if things are random, your ability to make choices appears just as illusory. There would be no cause for you to be the way you are or do the things you do. You’d just do them.
If events are random, keeping the wallet or giving it back would be a random event – there would be no “choice” involved.
...I fail to see how randomness solves the mystery. If our thoughts are random, there would be no choice involved. We would just do what we do without reason.
I've already stated that it appears that determinism must be true in order for us to be able to make choices. If events were not predictable, making choices would be arbitrary and uninteresting.

Perhaps you think the word “sure” is never appropriate unless one has absolute, metaphysical certainty. But if so, we might as well strike it from the dictionary, because we never have absolute, metaphysical certainty about anything. In practice, it is normally used to refer to somewhat lesser degrees of certainty: “Honey, are you sure you locked all the doors before we left?” “Yes, dear, I’m sure.”

&lt;shrug&gt; I really don’t understand why you didn’t see this thread for the thought experiment it is. I thought the manner in which I had presented it – as a mystery/paradox, with all kinds of different questions and laced with “seems” and “appears”, would have made this clear. But know now that this thread was begun as a question, a poser, a puzzler. I’m curious as to other people’s thoughts on it.

Note: In my opinion your analysis of the relationship between randomness (or indeterminacy) and choice is exactly right. Randomness cannot create or contribute to the possibility of meaningful choice in any way; in fact it is inimical to it.
3. Regardless of how “sure” you are of these propositions, you clearly feel that there is a “mystery” here to be “solved”:
quote:

Its seems like there's a mystery to me. If you can offer solutions to clear up the mystery, by all means do so.
What I am interested in is your or anyone else's solution to my question of choice...

But there is no mystery; there is only a question of how to define “choice”. In fact, you seem to be aware of this, since you say:
quote:

... why don't you offer a definition that solves the mystery of choice in a deterministic and/or a random reality?



Well I’ve yet to see that the definition of choice is the “only” problem. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that. I believe you said the definition was the problem and I’m perfectly ready to accept that - which is why I asked the question of you.

What kind of “mystery” is it that can be “solved” by a definition? Such a “mystery” is more properly referred to as “confusion”. As I pointed out before, this is demonstrated by your inability to describe a world in which you would say that we have the ability to choose, coupled with your unwillingness to accept the obvious conclusion that we don’t have it.

Problem is that we do appear to have it nonetheless. That constitutes prima facie evidence that we do make choices and thus the possibility that we’re wrong about something else. Its worth looking at anyhow.

You dismissed this with the comment:
quote:

But what does this mean – “the causes lay within themselves”? Was there nothing that caused them to be the way they are...


I don’t understand how a question can become a “dismissal”.

And this is where I think you have gone astray. Of course even the causes of our actions that are “within ourselves” were in turn caused, and ultimately, if you go back far enough, these causes can be traced to things outside ourselves. That is to say, we are not self-existent beings; we are not the causes of our own existence. If this is what you require in order to have the ability to choose meaningfully, then we certainly don’t have it. Your unwillingness to accept that you don’t have it is an unwillingness to accept that you are not God.

I don’t understand how my lack of understanding of how we have the ability to choose constitutes an “unwilling” attitude to accept something. All that just from asking some questions?

But I don’t think that this is what you really mean. What you really want to say, I suspect, is that the “causes within yourself” that strongly influenced your choice were not themselves caused by another being, who deliberately “shaped” you in a certain way for his own purposes.

Er.. no. What I “really” want to understand is how the ability to choose is present in a deterministic or a random reality. As for “another being” shaping me in a way for its own purposes, that’s possible, but I find it unlikely. I’m an atheist so I don’t believe in any gods. I suppose aliens could be controlling me, but I have no evidence that’s the case.

…. An education like this may well influence your later actions in many ways, but to say that it has therefore limited your freedom to make meaningful choices is absurd; on the contrary, it has enabled you to make meaningful choices.

I thought you didn’t believe we make choices? Now I am confused.

On the other hand, there is another kind of education better described as indoctrination. Only one point of view is taught, and the students are taught not to question it – in fact, to fear questioning it. They are taught that truth is to be found by consulting authority. This type of education does indeed limit your freedom to make meaningful choices, because you are being manipulated into thinking and acting in ways that the teachers (or those who hired them) find desirable. Thus again the distinction between free and unfree choice is seen to lie, not in the existence of causes for your actions, but in the nature of these causes.
It may also be helpful to look at the concept of “cause” itself. We are accustomed to thinking of “causes” as things that “force” other things to happen. But it is more accurate to think of “causes” simply as regularities in the course of events. Since we “experience” time as “flowing forward”, we naturally conceive of regularities in which B invariably follows A in terms of A “forcing” B to happen. But from a logical standpoint we could just as well think of B as “forcing” A to have happened. Neither point of view is “true” or “false”; it’s just that the former is more useful. But unfortunately it tends to make us think of our actions as being “forced” by what came before, and we tend in turn to think (subconsciously) of this as intentional forcing. In the case of factors that “cause” us to make a particular choice, we may come to think of ourselves as helpless pawns in the hands of these forces, much as we might be helpless pawns in the hands of a manipulative woman or a teacher intent on brainwashing us. But a little thought shows how false this picture is. We do not have forces driving us in a particular direction, but simply regularities in the course of events, among which are our own actions. Such regularities do not preclude meaningful choice, but are necessary conditions of it.
So that’s what I mean by the ability to choose meaningfully. On this understanding of choice, we sometimes have this ability. But you are free to choose some other definition, in which case this question might have a different answer.

Actually that all seems reasonable, at least at first glance. I guess I just misunderstood you earlier.

I appreciate your thoughts on “regularities” and the “nature” of causes rather than just the existence of them. That’s an interesting take and something to chew on. Time runs very short so I must be off.

bd-from-kg

madmax2976:

This is mainly an attempt to clarify some things you misunderstood in my last post.

The “hypothetical” was “the human brain’s events/reactions are predictable”; the conclusion was that “humans don’t really make choices. The “of course” indicates that you think that the conclusion obviously follows from the hypothetical. A concise way of stating the hypothetical is “determinism holds”. Another way of stating the conclusion is “we do not have the ability to choose”. In other words, you were saying that “of course” the ability to choose is incompatible with determinism. Which is exactly what I interpreted you as saying.

While failing to follow my logic may be understandable, failing to follow your own is inexcusable.

It relayed it perfectly. You were saying that if the hypothetical were true the conclusion “of course” would be true.

As to the statements following “and thus” and “and therefore, they were obviously interpretations of what you said – specifically of what the “and thus” and “and therefore” in your comments implied. Obviously I believe that we do have the ability to make choices.

The “X implies X” comment referred to your statement that saying that there is only one possible future is the same thing as saying that we don’t really make choices. If these are two ways of saying the same thing, then by definition the one implies the other: any statement implies itself.

The fact that some statements in your posts contain words like “seems” and “appear” cannot reasonably be interpreted as meaning that all statements in them are to be understood as tentative.

But basically I understood quite well what you were getting at. You’re puzzled because you feel “sure” that (a) we have the ability to choose, yet are also “sure” that (b) the ability to choose is incompatible with determinism and that (c) it cannot be created by introducing a random element. That is, you feel “sure” of each of these propositions when you consider it in isolation from the others. But when you consider them together you have a problem: they’re logically incompatible. What you don’t seem to understand is that this “problem” does not lie in the “nature of things”, but in your understanding of what it means to have the “ability to choose”. That is, it’s a problem of definition.

Obviously. Until you do see this you will make no progress in resolving your confusion.

No, the problem is that you have no clear, logically coherent conception of what “it” is. If you did, you could describe a world in which you would say that it exists.

You didn’t just ask the question, you used it as a basis for rejecting my definition of what it means to have the “ability to choose”. This is obvious from the fact that you considered it unnecessary to discuss or consider it further. The “question” of course was rhetorical: the answer is obviously “Yes, there was something that caused them to be the way they are”. As far as you were concerned that was the end of the matter.

You’re not willing to say that you “really” have the ability to choose if the causes of your choice can be traced back to something outside yourself. But this is to say that you don’t have this ability unless you are the ultimate cause of your own being. But only God can be the ultimate cause of His own being. Thus, on this understanding of what it means to have the ability to choose, “unwillingness to accept that you do not have the ability to choose” logically implies “unwillingness to accept that you are not the ultimate cause of your own being” which in turn implies “unwillingness to accept that you are not God”. This does indeed derive ultimately from your lack of understanding of how we have (more precisely, what it means to have) the ability to choose. If you did understand this, you would understand how it is possible to have the ability to choose without being God.

Perhaps the word “shape” was ill-chosen. The examples I gave involved beings who were neither gods nor aliens, but ordinary human beings who manipulated other people into making the choices they wanted them to make for their own purposes.

General comments:

1. If a comment seems unresponsive to the passage it’s responding to, you are almost certainly not understanding it. If someone seems to be contradicting himself, most likely you are misunderstanding him. Try to be sure that you understand the logic of a post as a whole before you post a reply.

2. It’s a waste of bandwidth to quote another long post in its entirety. Try to quote just enough to make it clear what you’re responding to; the rest is available in the original post for anyone who cares. (This applies only to replies to reasonably recent posts in the same thread.) And while you’re at it, learn to use UBB code to format quotes properly. (My preference is to get rid of the “bolding” created automatically when you choose the “Reply With Quote” option; it seems to me to be overkill.)

madmax2976

Quote:

…. In other words, you were saying that "of course" the ability to choose is incompatible with determinism. Which is exactly what I interpreted you as saying. While failing to follow my logic may be understandable, failing to follow your own is inexcusable.

No more so than your completely failing to understand the point of this thread. Funny that you were the only one that didn't get it, but enough with the pissing contest already. Add constructively to the question or just bow out. If you think you have the issue mastered, then you might as well leave it alone and move on.

Quote:

The fact that some statements in your posts contain words like "seems" and "appear" cannot reasonably be interpreted as meaning that all statements in them are to be understood as tentative.

Whereas I believe the way I constructed my questions, considering the entire context, I did make it clear. Its unfortunate that you didn't get it and unfortunate that I didn't make it clear enough for you. That horse has been beaten dead by now so its okay to get off of it.

Quote:

But basically I understood quite well what you were getting at. You're puzzled because you feel "sure" that (a) we have the ability to choose, yet are also "sure" that (b) the ability to choose is incompatible with determinism and that (c) it cannot be created by introducing a random element. That is, you feel "sure" of each of these propositions when you consider it in isolation from the others. But when you consider them together you have a problem: they're logically incompatible. What you don't seem to understand is that this "problem" does not lie in the "nature of things", but in your understanding of what it means to have the "ability to choose". That is, it's a problem of definition.

Strange that you see fit to once again ignore the fact that I have clearly indicated that I am not "sure" about this issue and thus the reason for this thread. Does it make you feel better to purposely misrepresent me?

I've already stated my appreciation for your belief that the problem is a matter of definition and I've indicated its something I can look it. I'm not sure what else you want from me.

Quote:

You didn't just ask the question, you used it as a basis for rejecting my definition of what it means to have the "ability to choose". This is obvious from the fact that you considered it unnecessary to discuss or consider it further. The "question" of course was rhetorical: the answer is obviously "Yes, there was something that caused them to be the way they are". As far as you were concerned that was the end of the matter.

But of course. It couldn't possibly have been that I wanted you to expound upon the definition you offered.

Quote:

You're not willing to say that you "really" have the ability to choose if the causes of your choice can be traced back to something outside yourself. But this is to say that you don't have this ability unless you are the ultimate cause of your own being. But only God can be the ultimate cause of His own being. Thus, on this understanding of what it means to have the ability to choose, "unwillingness to accept that you do not have the ability to choose" logically implies "unwillingness to accept that you are not the ultimate cause of your own being" which in turn implies "unwillingness to accept that you are not God". This does indeed derive ultimately from your lack of understanding of how we have (more precisely, what it means to have) the ability to choose. If you did understand this, you would understand how it is possible to have the ability to choose without being God.

I'm totally baffled as to where all the "God" stuff comes into the picture, but lets not beat yet another dead horse. I understand your position that I don't have the "correct" definition of what it means to have the ability to choose. It only takes a few words to relay that point, so I'm unsure what the big speeches are all about.

Quote:

General comments: 1. If a comment seems unresponsive to the passage it's responding to, you are almost certainly not understanding it. If someone seems to be contradicting himself, most likely you are misunderstanding him. Try to be sure that you understand the logic of a post as a whole before you post a reply.

Good advice. It's clear to me that I'm not the only one that needs to heed it.

Quote:

2. It's a waste of bandwidth to quote another long post in its entirety. Try to quote just enough to make it clear what you're responding to; the rest is available in the original post for anyone who cares. (This applies only to replies to reasonably recent posts in the same thread.) And while you're at it, learn to use UBB code to format quotes properly. (My preference is to get rid of the "bolding" created automatically when you choose the "Reply With Quote" option; it seems to me to be overkill.)

Thanks for the formatting tips, but I have my own style. Sometimes I get in a rush and don't have the time to do things just the way I'd like.

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Kharakov

Will is only free if it is divorced from desire- if it does not conform to desire. Will would not act if it did not have desire. Therefore will is a slave to its desire until it achieves its desire, in which case Will will be free- and Will will then do absolutely nothing because it will have no desire.

Do you have a choice about what you desire? No.

Do you have a choice about the way you achieve your desire? No. You will do the best you can according to what is available to you. You cannot claim that you did not pursue your desire- whatever it is- although what you desire may change depending upon what influences act upon you. The fact that you desire one thing now, and another later does not change the fact that you always pursue what you desire with your full intent and will- which means your desire controls your will- not you.

You are just an observer of the acts of desire that you cannot control or change. Step back and watch as desire rules all around you, and bends all will to its control, yet remains unfulfilled, for if all desire was fulfilled everything would stop and all would be peace. Everything is commanded by desire, yet there is nothing that can control it, because in attempting to control desire- you surrender to your own desire . Life is about transcending desire- without desiring to transcend desire.

DRFseven

I don't see how you can say that life is "about" transcending desire; maybe that is the opinion of some people. It seems to me that life is about lots of things. Mentally, it seems that the object in life is to attain a balance of mental comfort.

I do certainly agree that will is desire and that the implication of desire being free of causes makes no sense. Desire is a product of experience; it can't be free of its cause.

excreationist

Well those who have thought about life a lot might want to escape the endless seeking of desires and arrive at a final destination. (e.g. nirvana, Heaven)

Yeah, but this is a continuous goal though - not a final goal. (Like those who believe in Heaven or nirvana might have)

I also agree that the will involves the seeking of desires. Our fundamental instinctual desires (e.g. avoiding hunger, seeking newness, etc) don't originate from experience. We can learn to repress some of our desires though by associating certain fundamental instinctual desires with pleasure (or pain) (Heaven or Hell).

crocodile deathroll

I believe it is not so much desire, but unconscious chemical reactions which are already in train about a second before we make the choice this finding was well verified by Benjamin Libet back in the 1960's.
We are chemical beings having chemical reactions, I do not have a problem with that.
But for a while I found it rather puzzling that we all share the same chemicals like dopemine and serotonin. I feel it is not so much the chemicals but the the pattern of activity those chemicals are making that make us feel individual. But you still cannot escape the fact that we all share the same chemicals and no one neurotransmitter is unique to one person unlees there is something pathologicaly wrong with it.
This may put a thread of truth in Jungs theories of his collective unconscious. His oservations that lead to his claims on collective unconscious have new been imperically verified.

croc

Devilnaut

MadMax, BD is correct in what he is saying. It isn't an attack, just a criticism of what you are saying.


As for simple definitions, here ya go:


Choice: to select from a variety of options. To decide.


Now, you apparently have a problem with this definition, because something similar was offered earlier in the thread. I believe that the only reason you have a problem with it is because it is too obvious, and kind of invalidates this entire issue, which you have obviously spent a lot of time on.

When a computer decides between two alternatives, yes, it is making a choice. Our brains are just extremely complex versions of this exact same process.

devilnaut