Consciousness and the illusion of choice

[Ten oz]

I think our internal choices are influenced by our past not dictated by it.

I think they might be an illusion. Consider the following analogy.

 

A parent plans out a family vacation to Disney. They schedule time off work and purchase a family package. The trip is 100% set. Then they tell their children that if they keep their rooms clean for a month they will reward them with a trip to Disney. In reality the trip to Disney is already a done deal. The offer to the kids is just a manipulation. The parents are presenting the kids a choice yet in truth no choice really exists. Yet it accomplishes a few different things:it gets the kids to buy into cleaning their rooms, makes the kids think they can earn things through good behavior, the satifaction of believing they earned the trip probably makes the trip more enjoyable, andetc, etc, etc.

 

Our descision process may work similarly. We present ourselves options and choice when in reality there are none. Then when we make the choice, which was actually dictated to us, we feel a sense ownership and accomplishment.

 

It isn't simple but, if I may join your discussion, I believe the answer is provided by how that quality likely evolved. I've often been accused of being a purveyor of reductionist views but, in my view, we would not be self-aware without the demands of survival. Self-awareness is merely a mechanism for survival and choice is a tool of that mechanism. Although all our choices may not involve life and death issues, they all emerge from our survival needs and desires. In mediating those survival demands, we've evolved or acquired several distinctive attributes of consciousness to efficiently effect our choices. I perceive those attributes as a divide between those that involve instinctual responses and those involving responses employing conscious consideration; i.e., thought. I envisioned our matrix of choice as addressing our most urgent survival concerns first and primary followed by those concerns without urgency that permit time for thoughtful consideration.

I don't disagree. I would like to add though that survival isn't what drives evolution. Reproduction is. Obviously one must survive to reproduce but amongst all those who survive there can still be individual things that are preferred for a variety of reasons not associated with survival. Like birds with more colorful feathers. In many cases the more colorful feathers have no advantage other than to help attract a mate. It is pure window dressing.

 

Perhaps having a consciousness separated from our unconscious made of more able to lie and cheat because we could hide our true intentions and feelings. That might have given us some advantage in scoring a mate while actually having few advantages for obtaining the basic needs for survival like foods, water, shelter, etc.

[DrmDoc]

I don't disagree. I would like to add though that survival isn't what drives evolution. Reproduction is. Obviously one must survive to reproduce but amongst all those who survive there can still be individual things that are preferred for a variety of reasons not associated with survival. Like birds with more colorful feathers. In many cases the more colorful feathers have no advantage other than to help attract a mate. It is pure window dressing.

 

What need have we for reproduction if not for the survival of our species? Therefore, I think most will agree that survival does indeed drive reproduction. If you truly believe reproduction drives evolution, then ultimately it is survival that drives evolution. It's a simple equation for me: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. For better or ill, this algebraic expression points to a route of logic our thoughts should follow as it relates to the basis for our ideas on the emergence of certain qualities of consciousness. I'm certain that most of us will agree that survival is at the evolutional root of all behaviors, which would include both conscious and unconscious behavioral responses. Very often, we do make choices contrary to our survival, which is merely evidence of the sort of developmental mutations that can lead to the extinction of a behavioral line; i.e., survival of the fittest.

[Ten oz]

 

What need have we for reproduction if not for the survival of our species? Therefore, I think most will agree that survival does indeed drive reproduction. If you truly believe reproduction drives evolution, then ultimately it is survival that drives evolution. It's a simple equation for me: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. For better or ill, this algebraic expression points to a route of logic our thoughts should follow as it relates to the basis for our ideas on the emergence of certain qualities of consciousness. I'm certain that most of us will agree that survival is at the evolutional root of all behaviors, which would include both conscious and unconscious behavioral responses. Very often, we do make choices contrary to our survival, which is merely evidence of the sort of developmental mutations that can lead to the extinction of a behavioral line; i.e., survival of the fittest.

Obviously, in the context of my post I was referencing survival in terms of life or death and a trait allowing one to survive (hunt and gather better). Not all traits help with survival.

Take for example the research which indicates all blue eyed people are related. Blue eyes come from a lack of pigment. It is not believe there was any survival (ability to find food, shleter, water, make fire, etc) advantage related to having blue eyes. Rather the population of humans at the time simply thought blue eyes looked good and bred it into the population.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

Edited May 6, 2017 by Ten oz

[DrmDoc]

Obviously, in the context of my post I was referencing survival in terms of life or death and a trait allowing one to survive. Not all traits help with survival.

Take for example the research which indicates all blue eyed people are related. Blue eyes come from a lack of pigment. It is not believe there was any survival (ability to find food, shleter, water, make fire, etc) advantage related to having blue eyes. Rather the population of humans at the time simply thought blue eyes looked good and bred it into the population.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

 

Your OP, if I understood correctly, regarded self-awareness as a device of mind for the purpose of choices. Conversely, my comments regarded my perspective of self-awareness as a device of survival compelled by evolution. We would not be self-aware, if not for the survival needs compelling that evolutional development. All traits have some evolutional origin and even blue eyes gave those with that trait some reproductive advantage. We would not have blue eyed populations if their ancestors didn't find that attribute reproductively preferable. If we agree that reproduction serves survival, then that which gives an advantage to reproduction does indeed help or serve survival.

[Ten oz]

 

Your OP, if I understood correctly, regarded self-awareness as a device of mind for the purpose of choices. Conversely, my comments regarded my perspective of self-awareness as a device of survival compelled by evolution. We would not be self-aware, if not for the survival needs compelling that evolutional development. All traits have some evolutional origin and even blue eyes gave those with that trait some reproductive advantage. We would not have blue eyed populations if their ancestors didn't find that attribute reproductively preferable. If we agree that reproduction serves survival, then that which gives an advantage to reproduction does indeed help or serve survival.

Which was point before.

 

I don't disagree with any you are saying. I think we are just negotiating term a bit here.

[nec209]

 

It isn't simple but, if I may join your discussion, I believe the answer is provided by how that quality likely evolved. I've often been accused of being a purveyor of reductionist views but, in my view, we would not be self-aware without the demands of survival. Self-awareness is merely a mechanism for survival and choice is a tool of that mechanism. Although all our choices may not involve life and death issues, they all emerge from our survival needs and desires. In mediating those survival demands, we've evolved or acquired several distinctive attributes of consciousness to efficiently effect our choices. I perceive those attributes as a divide between those that involve instinctual responses and those involving responses employing conscious consideration; i.e., thought. I envisioned our matrix of choice as addressing our most urgent survival concerns first and primary followed by those concerns without urgency that permit time for thoughtful consideration.

 

You talking about survival of the fittest. How a species must survive to live. Such basic instinct and subconscious playing big role or some what of a role.

 

But you did not say there been cases humans do things not beneficial to survive. Sure there been cases person done human cannibalism when starving but there case humans do not do cannibalism when starving. So where is the basic instinct here kicking in?

 

Or humans that smoke a pack a day or drink alcohol like fish everyday or speeding or drinking and driving!! Or driving recklessly on the road or skydiving or mountain climbing so on. None of these are beneficial to survive.

 

Some people that steal when starving and have no water and others just die on the street.

 

If you are saying humans are just animals with basic instinct of survival of the fittest why are there overlaps.

[iNow]

Because some traits that are selected for and which help us survive at far higher rates bring with them responses less helpful to our well being... that even cause us harm.

 

We evolved a strong response to fat and sugar because it helped us survive. Now, it harms us because those resources are abundant, yet our desire for them unchanged.

 

We evolved a trust of those around us and close to us, prioritizing what they say as valid without due diligence. Now, it harms us because we're more easily connected to people not proven and accepted or vetted by our local tribe...more exposed to those who wish to do us harm.

 

We evolved aggression and territoriality because it reinforced our pack strength and brought greater access to security, food, and mates, but now it often harms us because the world is getting flatter and is more connected than ever before with shared norms and codified expectations.

 

Not every behavior and not every trait we express requires some evolutionary "just so" explanation or well defined benefit. Sometimes there are unintended consequences. Sometimes negative things just happen.

 

Here's a comparison. We don't need to explain why we chose to pollute our air and warm the planet. We just need to acknowledge we benefited from having cars and centralized power and expanded those technologies faster than we could address their negative consequences.

 

The brain and evolution more broadly are no different. Some things were selected because they helped us a lot, but sometimes those things had peripheral effects.

Edited May 7, 2017 by iNow

[goldglow]

If you are saying humans are just animals with basic instinct of survival of the fittest why are there overlaps.

I think the basic needs for survival were, and still are, food and shelter. In earlier,poorer times and societies, finding food and shelter occupied all the time and energy of people, and the strongest were more successful at this. In our modern world, though, in more affluent societies, these basic needs are easily satisfied: we have supermarkets, malls, hospitals, nice warm houses with running water etc. so we have the time and energy, and opportunity, to do more than just survive and have the capacity for entertaining ourselves in many different ways: we can get on airplanes and ships and travel anywhere or, indeed , go skydiving and mountaineering and smoke cigarettes, if you want to. If all our needs are easily satisfied, we have to find ways to avoid boredom and lethargy. Also, now,not just the fittest can survive, as there is not the competition for resources as there once was - in richer countries, at least.In poorer countries, however,even today life can still be a continuous struggle to survive ( a disgrace in our time ) and many, many poorer people do not have the luxury of " leisure time " when they can pursue whatever they find interesting or exciting. All human beings ,it is true, still have these animal needs for survival but, psychologically, we are more than just animals You specifically mentioned cannibalism, nec209, when it wasn't necessary for survival to eat fellow humans : this was often because of primitive rituals, or a belief that , for example, eating another man's heart ( it was usually a man ) would give you his courage, or that eating his brain would give you his wisdom, or eating his muscles would give you his strength.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

"There have been a couple good threads recently which deal with awareness and consciousness which has gotten me thinking a bit about the function of consciousness and what it actually does and doesn't do. I consciously reason and make choices in life but only after I have unconciously interpreted things. I know instantaneously without any thought what I do and don't want or how I feel about everything. My consciousness chooses an action but the action chosen seldom ever changes what I want or feel."

 

From your OP.

 

And adding in everybody's thoughts, it seems to me that one very important "choice" we make, is the choice to live. If we find skydiving a good reason for living...well then, there you go, the choice was to enjoy life, and want to do it again.

 

What happens subconsciously, or in the serotine levels or dopamine levels in our brains, is not false. And if we feel good about life and look to solve the next problem, or eat the next peanut butter cup, or have our team win the next World Series, well then, the "choice" to buy the tickets to the game next Saturday has some survival value.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

 

You talking about survival of the fittest. How a species must survive to live. Such basic instinct and subconscious playing big role or some what of a role.

 

But you did not say there been cases humans do things not beneficial to survive. Sure there been cases person done human cannibalism when starving but there case humans do not do cannibalism when starving. So where is the basic instinct here kicking in?

 

Or humans that smoke a pack a day or drink alcohol like fish everyday or speeding or drinking and driving!! Or driving recklessly on the road or skydiving or mountain climbing so on. None of these are beneficial to survive.

 

Some people that steal when starving and have no water and others just die on the street.

 

If you are saying humans are just animals with basic instinct of survival of the fittest why are there overlaps.

Ironically there was a small window in our histry where these dangerous activities made one cool and attractive actually helped in finding a mate and increased their chances of reproducing.

Because some traits that are selected for and which help us survive at far higher rates bring with them responses less helpful to our well being... that even cause us harm.

 

We evolved a strong response to fat and sugar because it helped us survive. Now, it harms us because those resources are abundant, yet our desire for them unchanged.

 

We evolved a trust of those around us and close to us, prioritizing what they say as valid without due diligence. Now, it harms us because we're more easily connected to people not proven and accepted or vetted by our local tribe...more exposed to those who wish to do us harm.

 

We evolved aggression and territoriality because it reinforced our pack strength and brought greater access to security, food, and mates, but now it often harms us because the world is getting flatter and is more connected than ever before with shared norms and codified expectations.

 

Not every behavior and not every trait we express requires some evolutionary "just so" explanation or well defined benefit. Sometimes there are unintended consequences. Sometimes negative things just happen.

 

Here's a comparison. We don't need to explain why we chose to pollute our air and warm the planet. We just need to acknowledge we benefited from having cars and centralized power and expanded those technologies faster than we could address their negative consequences.

 

The brain and evolution more broadly are no different. Some things were selected because they helped us a lot, but sometimes those things had peripheral effects.

 

Amongst groups which do move towards most fit; that cantake many different forms. Humans came out of Africa in to Europe a couple different times. The first group became more physically fit to survive the colder environment. The developed shorter and stockier builds that could better withstand cold temps. They also developed more muscular frames which helped them hunt the available game. The second group came out of Africa with higher levels of social interaction and perhaps the imagination (intanginles). Both groups had the same size brain with relative capacities. The first group is dead and gone, extinct. The greater overall physical adaptations and relative similar intellegnce notwithstanding. Evolution has many twists and turns and certianly isn't linear.

Ten Oz,

 

"There have been a couple good threads recently which deal with awareness and consciousness which has gotten me thinking a bit about the function of consciousness and what it actually does and doesn't do. I consciously reason and make choices in life but only after I have unconciously interpreted things. I know instantaneously without any thought what I do and don't want or how I feel about everything. My consciousness chooses an action but the action chosen seldom ever changes what I want or feel."

 

From your OP.

 

And adding in everybody's thoughts, it seems to me that one very important "choice" we make, is the choice to live. If we find skydiving a good reason for living...well then, there you go, the choice was to enjoy life, and want to do it again.

 

What happens subconsciously, or in the serotine levels or dopamine levels in our brains, is not false. And if we feel good about life and look to solve the next problem, or eat the next peanut butter cup, or have our team win the next World Series, well then, the "choice" to buy the tickets to the game next Saturday has some survival value.

 

Regards, TAR

The choice to buy the next hit of a narcotic doesn't have survival value. Our currunt opioid crisis is an example of people making choices which make them feel good yet do not help them survive. I see no link between feeling good about a choice and that choice being useful to survival.

 

The following example is not an attack. I am using it an example of you clearly acting against what you consciously knew to be true. You acknowledged more than a few times prior to the election that Trump had silly politicies, was a liar, was incompetent to do the job, was bad for the country, and Clinton (though you didn't like her) would be the better choice for POTUS. Then you voted Trump anyway against your own rational judgement. I would agrue that the choice you made, think you made, in supporting Trump wasn't a choice at all. Your conscious mind reasoned and understood Clinton to be the superior candidate but your subconscioius had its mind made up. The reasons you tell yourself for making the choice you made are illusions. There was really never a choice. When the time came you were always going to make the choice you made regardless of what you conscioiusly thought. You subconscious allowed you to go through the motions up making a choice but in truth the decision was always in stone.

 

I think we all do this. We tell ours that if we get home from work early on tuesday we'll do X. Then tuesdays rolls around, we get home early, and immidiately find a reason to not do X. It is because we didn't actually believe we'd be home early on tuesday. Our subconscious was just allowing us to imagine. We do it all the time. We ponder about the things we would do if we were in this or that situation. However, despite the conclusions we imagine, people often don't know what they will do until they are actually in the situation. That might be because we aren't actually in the drivers seat consciously. Our fears, complusions, desires, and etc take over once a situation presents itself.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I am not in concert with the thinking of the resist movement in this country. Rationaly it makes no sense to resist your own government. Like cutting off your nose to spite your face. If Trump fails, the country fails, and with it all my countrymen and women. Rational thought is behind my decisions. Conscious, rational thought.

 

Regards, TAR

[goldglow]

In your OP, Ten oz, you wrote: " My consciousness chooses an action but the action chosen seldom ever changes what i want or feel " ; tar later wrote: " If we find....a good reason for living.... the choice was to enjoy life, and want to do it again ". ( My underlining ).

 

I think if we ask not " what " we choose to do, but " why " we choose to do it, then these two quotes complement each other: taking tar's point first, if what we do gives us pleasure ,we permanently store the memory of that pleasure in the brain and want to do it again. It goes without saying that, if our choice has painful repercussions, we also store that memory in order to avoid a repetition, if possible. ( We still have to go to the dentist ! " ). This is well-explained in the " Pleasure-Pain Principle " ( of Sigmund Freud ) on the changingminds.org website.

 

For Ten oz, if the chosen action doesn't seem to change feelings or desires, i think this may be because the chosen action can only be a temporary, partial satisfaction, so the desire for more pleasure, perhaps in different forms, or more wealth, or more possessions etc , will never be completely satisfied and will always remain ( we will always want more) as the desire to avoid suffering will always remain( we will always want less, if not none.... sadly, impossible.). I think this is all quite natural and necessary- we don't want to forget what it's like to get stung by a wasp!

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I am not in concert with the thinking of the resist movement in this country. Rationaly it makes no sense to resist your own government. Like cutting off your nose to spite your face. If Trump fails, the country fails, and with it all my countrymen and women. Rational thought is behind my decisions. Conscious, rational thought.

 

Regards, TAR

Support for the govt we have has nothing to do with what I posted. My point was that despite what you rationally knew to be true you acted in the oppisite manner. It is an example of the limits of our rational mind. That is no attack on you. We all do it in various forms.

In your OP, Ten oz, you wrote: " My consciousness chooses an action but the action chosen seldom ever changes what i want or feel " ; tar later wrote: " If we find....a good reason for living.... the choice was to enjoy life, and want to do it again ". ( My underlining ).

 

I think if we ask not " what " we choose to do, but " why " we choose to do it, then these two quotes complement each other: taking tar's point first, if what we do gives us pleasure ,we permanently store the memory of that pleasure in the brain and want to do it again. It goes without saying that, if our choice has painful repercussions, we also store that memory in order to avoid a repetition, if possible. ( We still have to go to the dentist ! " ). This is well-explained in the " Pleasure-Pain Principle " ( of Sigmund Freud ) on the changingminds.org website.

 

For Ten oz, if the chosen action doesn't seem to change feelings or desires, i think this may be because the chosen action can only be a temporary, partial satisfaction, so the desire for more pleasure, perhaps in different forms, or more wealth, or more possessions etc , will never be completely satisfied and will always remain ( we will always want more) as the desire to avoid suffering will always remain( we will always want less, if not none.... sadly, impossible.). I think this is all quite natural and necessary- we don't want to forget what it's like to get stung by a wasp!

Some women find themselves in abussive relationships over and over. It is too simple to say the good and bad experiences are stored and then repeated. There are many bad experiences people repeat. Many mistakes and traps we find ourselves falling into over and over. I think it reflects that the choices we make are to atleast some extent beyond our conscious control. We think we are making the choice when we are actually be led to the choice unconciously.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Ten oz

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Except choosing a leader is a very important decision any conscious entity has to make, which has distinctly evident survival implications. One could, in this discussion consider the U.S. a conscious entity, guided by rational thought and subconscious emotions and needs and drives and such, that may or may not be understood by the conscious mind. And as an entity, the U.S. has both friends and enemies, forces and ideas and countries that would be for the American way of life, or against it.

,

If during the election, Russia sought to weaken the country, to turn Americans against Americans, they certainly achieved their goal.

 

Survival-wise, it is better for me to think we are stronger together, than to think we are only strong if we are not Trump.

 

Especially difficult for me, a white, Anglo-Saxon-Prostestant, 63 years old, and living in the Suburbs, to think that my enemy is old white men, living in the Suburbs. Its just a blatantly false, narrative.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrmDoc]

But you did not say there been cases humans do things not beneficial to survive. Sure there been cases person done human cannibalism when starving but there case humans do not do cannibalism when starving. So where is the basic instinct here kicking in?

 

From a part of my previous post:

 

I'm certain that most of us will agree that survival is at the evolutional root of all behaviors, which would include both conscious and unconscious behavioral responses. Very often, we do make choices contrary to our survival, which is merely evidence of the sort of developmental mutations that can lead to the extinction of a behavioral line; i.e., survival of the fittest.

 

 

All behavioral aberrations humanity engages essentially serves the survival of our species including aberrations such cannibalism. Though it pains me to say, even suicide serves the survival needs of our species by either weeding out the weak or by compelling stronger survival efforts against that behavior; i.e., what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger.

[dimreepr]

I think they might be an illusion. Consider the following analogy.

 

A parent plans out a family vacation to Disney. They schedule time off work and purchase a family package. The trip is 100% set. Then they tell their children that if they keep their rooms clean for a month they will reward them with a trip to Disney. In reality the trip to Disney is already a done deal. The offer to the kids is just a manipulation. The parents are presenting the kids a choice yet in truth no choice really exists. Yet it accomplishes a few different things:it gets the kids to buy into cleaning their rooms, makes the kids think they can earn things through good behavior, the satifaction of believing they earned the trip probably makes the trip more enjoyable, andetc, etc, etc.

 

Our descision process may work similarly. We present ourselves options and choice when in reality there are none. Then when we make the choice, which was actually dictated to us, we feel a sense ownership and accomplishment.

 

If our past determines our future, completely, it would discount our, observed, ability to break free of destructive behaviors.

Even if we only make one fully conscious decision in our lives, you have to accept that not all our decisions are illusory; which leads one to suspect consciousness exists on a spectrum and what usually follows, is that most of us fit somewhere in the middle.

Edited May 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Your earlier reference to drug addiction, the feeling good, that is actually contra survival (the drug addict, just obtaining his hit, feeling victorious, euphoric, on top of the world, while lying penniless, friendless, and homeless, in his own vomit in the gutter,) is a central insight into a current central theme of mine, involved in solving the current opioid crisis. The dopamine reward system, instituted over the eons to cause life to want to keep on living, has been usurped by the heroin. The addict "feels" that to survive, he or she MUST have the drug.

 

In actuality, according to my dopamine theory, the one that helped me quit smoking three years ago (a good survival decision) it was important for me to learn to live without nicotine. Not, as it turns out required to learn to live without dopamine, just to learn to live without that one way, nicotine, of getting the dopamine, of feeling good, of feeling on top of the world, in the other 100 ways of feeling good, that are not illegal, not expensive, not harmful, or too risky. It turns out, we are "wired" to feel good when we do it right, when we make dinner for the wife, get a hug, hold a baby, make a retirement plan that will last 30 years, and such.

 

So the dopamine reward system can be short circuited, or falsely implemented in terms of chemical manipulation...or it can be engaged by actually doing this living thing right.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

 

If our past determines our future, completely, it would discount our, observed, ability to break free of destructive behaviors.

Even if we only make one fully conscious thought in our lives, you have to accept that not all our decisions are illusory; which leads one to suspect consciousness exists on a spectrum and what usually follows, is that most of us fit somewhere in the middle.

I am not saying all decisions are an illusion. I can speculationing that perhaps all our imagined choices are. That our unconscious makes the decisions and our conscious imagines the decision as a choice we have made. Whether a decision is made by our conscious or unconscious (subconscious) a decision is being made. I am not implying otherwise.

 

Additionally I am just speculating. I don't believe I have the answers.

[dimreepr]

I am not saying all decisions are an illusion. I can speculationing that perhaps all our imagined choices are. That our unconscious makes the decisions and our conscious imagines the decision as a choice we have made. Whether a decision is made by our conscious or unconscious (subconscious) a decision is being made. I am not implying otherwise.

 

Additionally I am just speculating. I don't believe I have the answers.

 

Me to, fun isn't it , great discussion .

Edited May 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

Except choosing a leader is a very important decision any conscious entity has to make, which has distinctly evident survival implications. One could, in this discussion consider the U.S. a conscious entity, guided by rational thought and subconscious emotions and needs and drives and such, that may or may not be understood by the conscious mind. And as an entity, the U.S. has both friends and enemies, forces and ideas and countries that would be for the American way of life, or against it.

,

If during the election, Russia sought to weaken the country, to turn Americans against Americans, they certainly achieved their goal.

 

Survival-wise, it is better for me to think we are stronger together, than to think we are only strong if we are not Trump.

 

Especially difficult for me, a white, Anglo-Saxon-Prostestant, 63 years old, and living in the Suburbs, to think that my enemy is old white men, living in the Suburbs. Its just a blatantly false, narrative.

 

Regards, TAR

 

As outlined in the OP I am of the impression that what we rationalize as correct doesn't actually have any impact on what we desire. In this example you clearly rationalized one candidate to be the more logical choice yet desired the other. The action you desired ultimately beat out what you had rationlized. That has nothing to do with the U.S. population being an entity of whatever. You are deflecting and avoiding the example for some reason. Perhaps your rationlized arguments against the action at the time were lies and you always intended to do what you ending up doing. I am posting on the assumption you were honest. If so it is a good example for this conversation. Your outlined rational reasons against an action and then committed to that action anyway.

 

From a part of my previous post:

 

 

All behavioral aberrations humanity engages essentially serves the survival of our species including aberrations such cannibalism. Though it pains me to say, even suicide serves the survival needs of our species by either weeding out the weak or by compelling stronger survival efforts against that behavior; i.e., what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger.

Just because one commits suicide doesn't mean they didn't reduce. What happens to an individual life after it already passed along its DNA for future generation isn't nearly important to evolution as the passing DNA along part is.

[goldglow]

 

If our past determines our future, completely, it would discount our, observed, ability to break free of destructive behaviors.

To me, this is very important, Our consciousness, our "self ", is our past. We can add to it by furthering our knowledge or new,( to us ), experiences but these then become part of that past which is our (un)consciousness or " self ". The action of our consciousness/self, as a whole movement, then, can only be a " reaction " from within the confines of itself: in other words, the action of the past which, passing through the present, is the action of the future. In this respect, the future will be the effect of the past. All our conscious future choices will then be informed by our past/consciousness. Psychologically, in reality, i see each moment as a brand new moment, totally untouched by the past but we carry our psychological baggage with us- perhaps because we are afraid of the future which is unknown to us if we leave the mistaken safety of the past.

 

It's not all doom and gloom, though, as i don't think, however, that it is impossible to be free from the grip of the past. When we become aware of this true nature of consciousness, we are already loosening it's hold over our lives. As i said somewhere else, we can never be free of the past but we can be free from the past.

 

To try to summarise, the " self " we attribute to everyone is another way of saying " consciousness " and we carry that " self " throughout our lives, and it is really the psychological death of that " self " that frees us from the past. There is still life after this " death of the self " but it is not touched, psychologically, by the past. Therein lies the " Free Consciousness " that doesn't choose.

 

Sorry to sound so dogmatic- i might be completely wrong, but ,at the moment, that is the best i can offer.

Edited May 7, 2017 by goldglow

[Ten oz]

 

If our past determines our future, completely, it would discount our, observed, ability to break free of destructive behaviors.

A copy is never exact. A copy of a copy is even worse. We can never truly replicate the past but we do try. All animals do. From a shark that hunt in specific waters at twilight because that is what has work for a million years to a humans in a bar wearing trendy clothes to attract a mate we all, everything, replicates behavior over and over and over. What has broken us (life) out of patterns throughout history has often been external. A storm washes the branch a lizard in on out to sea and the lizard survives the voyage to a new land where the environment dictates new behaviors.

[dimreepr]

A copy is never exact. A copy of a copy is even worse. We can never truly replicate the past but we do try. All animals do. From a shark that hunt in specific waters at twilight because that is what has work for a million years to a humans in a bar wearing trendy clothes to attract a mate we all, everything, replicates behavior over and over and over. What has broken us (life) out of patterns throughout history has often been external. A storm washes the branch a lizard in on out to sea and the lizard survives the voyage to a new land where the environment dictates new behaviors.

 

I'm not buying that, it doesn't follow, given our previous posts.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

However, I personally am an overthinker. I think deeply about not only my own thoughts and feelings, but yours as well. I am not willing to admit, that my vote was against my better judgement, and caused by some predetermined hidden impulse of some sort. My anti-Trump sentiments for instance, were during a time when I was pro Kasich. I have been a democrat and most of my family and friends are in academia or are progressive in thought and action. I felt in the last election, that Trump was falsely demonized, and put as the leader of the basket of deplorables by Hilary, which was reinforced, by Obama. I am white, and therefore more prone to consider white people as "we" than as "they". I was put off by Sander's constant demonization of the top percentages of the country, as if they are our problem, when in actuality they are our strength.

 

People listen to Trump and change their behavior in reaction to his words. He means what he says, and does what he says he is going to do. He is a leader. He does not smoke or drink, he gets his dopamine by winning, and wants America to win. I am American, and like the team (with the exception of Bannon) that he has put together. Strong, intelligent, capable leaders, that love America and my way of life. I did not vote for Trump by accident.

 

I am, in regards to this thread, not agreeing with you, that you make decisions contrary to your actual desires. Instead, I think that one's personal decisions are heavily influenced by the desires not only of their own, but by the desires of their friends and family and company and community, and club and organization, and Hollywood and the scientific community and the greater collective consciousness of the world.

 

No man (or woman) is an island.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 7, 2017 by tar

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

However, I personally am an overthinker. I think deeply about not only my own thoughts and feelings, but yours as well. I am not willing to admit, that my vote was against my better judgement, and caused by some predetermined hidden impulse of some sort. My anti-Trump sentiments for instance, were during a time when I was pro Kasich. I have been a democrat and most of my family and friends are in academia or are progressive in thought and action. I felt in the last election, that Trump was falsely demonized, and put as the leader of the basket of deplorables by Hilary, which was reinforced, by Obama. I am white, and therefore more prone to consider white people as "we" than as "they". I was put off by Sander's constant demonization of the top percentages of the country, as if they are our problem, when in actuality they are our strength.

 

People listen to Trump and change their behavior in reaction to his words. He means what he says, and does what he says he is going to do. He is a leader. He does not smoke or drink, he gets his dopamine by winning, and wants America to win. I am American, and like the team (with the exception of Bannon) that he has put together. Strong, intelligent, capable leaders, that love America and my way of life. I did not vote for Trump by accident.

 

I am, in regards to this thread, not agreeing with you, that you make decisions contrary to your actual desires. Instead, I think that one's personal decisions are heavily influenced by the desires not only of their own, but by the desires of their friends and family and company and community, and club and organization, and Hollywood and the scientific community and the greater collective consciousness of the world.

 

No man (or woman) is an island.

 

Regards, TAR

You are outlining how your feelings changed and then your logic followed. Back to the OP, I outlined how feelings are instanteous. How do you know that your logic in this isn't lagging behind your feelings. Your conscious behind your subconscious?