... but this seems to me to be some kind of assertion that humankind is not of the physical world - that we are somehow different and less ontologically privileged ...

... if I choose a course of action because I have foreseen an undesirable choice that I do not want to make, and I successfully avoid having to make that choice, haven't I exerted by ability not to choose? ...

my point was that you are not free to make no choice, for even if you do not react to a preceived object or circumstance that too is a reaction to your environment/context.

The other day, when I walked into the ice-cream shop, they did not have my favorite flavor, strawberry ripple. So I made no choice of ice-cream. I may have made other choices (or not) of course. But not of ice-cream.

You made a choice to not get ice-cream based on circumstance (them not having your favorite flavor). You reacted to the unfortunate (for you!) situation.

But I made no choice of ice-cream. As I said, I may have made other choices (or not).
And, then again, I may just, as it is said, "entertain" which flavor to choose and make no choice at all. I am not forced to choose any particular flavor, nor am I forced to choose at all, unless I want to.

I've already addressed this:

The fact that there are choices out there you haven't encountered, or have chosen not to encounter, doesn't mean you can defy making choice. All it means is that we have some influence over which choices we have to make. In other words, we still are reactionary creatures even though we're able to shape which choices we must react to.

In your situation, you could very well just entertain flavors, and then not make an ice-cream selection. This is still making a choice, a choice not to buy ice-cream. What about this don't you understand?

paulhanke,

Well, you could consider yourself one with the world, even a whole has its parts, you could be said to be part of this complex condition, part to part, part to the whole and the whole to each of it parts, so there is quite a complex condition here, but, as with the body, if a part ceases to function properly it causes disfunction throughout the organism. The influence of the indivdual parts considered by themselves do not have the influence of the whole upon the parts, thus the sense of being lead by the whole.

As to your sense of freewill, yes it is dependent upon the choices that you are able to make, my point was that you are not free to make no choice ...

There is the exception of what we have today, the impact man has been able to effect upon the whole has been disastrous, he has in effective made the whole the second bannana so to speak, and it will not work. We are reactionary animals after all, and our reaction to sudden drastic change will be to perish.

I always thought that doing something of one's own free will is doing something which you are not forced to do. When I had to eat oatmeal when I was a child because my mother made me do it, I was not eating oatmeal of my own free will. But now, when I eat oatmeal because I know it is good for me, and I want to eat oatmeal, then I am eating oatmeal of my own free will. Isn't that how you, yourself, talk when you are not thinking about philosophy?

... there is no escaping the reality that we are reactionary creatures ...

... personally, I would say that we're "interactionary creatures" ... I think this phrasing better illuminates the fact that we are in a dance of "mutual reaction" ... that it is not the case that the rest of the physical world acts and we react (nor vice versa) - that at the physical level we are on a level playing field ... but on this playing field, it is the creatures with free will that come out ahead

paulhanke,

I can see I have failed to convince you, I shall think on it some more. Does not the fact that our biology is rather fluid in the presence of the physcial world give the edge to the physcial enviroment? You as an individual are utterly dependent upon your environment, your environment is not dependent upon your existence. I shall think over the points you raised and perhaps get back to you. You really need to work on your social skills paulhanke, it is not nice to disagree with me---lol!! Just a thought, intereactionary does not mean you are not a reactionary creature, but you are inferring that the world and its contents are reactionary to you--right? In degree I do concur, but the environment still leads, its called evolutionary biology.

Does not the fact that our biology is rather fluid in the presence of the physcial world give the edge to the physcial enviroment?

... it is not nice to disagree with me---lol!!

paulhanke,

I can see I have failed to convince you, I shall think on it some more. Does not the fact that our biology is rather fluid in the presence of the physcial world give the edge to the physcial enviroment? You as an individual are utterly dependent upon your environment, your environment is not dependent upon your existence. I shall think over the points you raised and perhaps get back to you. You really need to work on your social skills paulhanke, it is not nice to disagree with me---lol!! Just a thought, intereactionary does not mean you are not a reactionary creature, but you are inferring that the world and its contents are reactionary to you--right? In degree I do concur, but the environment still leads, its called evolutionary biology.

... I suppose it would be wise to try and merge the two pieces.

Nothing I don't understand. What I do understand is that, you are so using terms that it is impossible (by definition) not to make a choice. It is very like the maneuver in the selfishness thread made by Boagie and others. Normally, the way we use those terms, it is a question of fact whether or not people are making choices. But you are making it a matter of definition whether or not people make choices. And you think that because people have to make choices on your definition of "making choices" that in the way that the notion of making choices is ordinarily used, people also are forced to make choices. But that is fallacious. You have not discovered anything new about making choices (that we used to think we did not have to make them, and now we found out that we do). Rather what you have done is invented a different way of talking about making choices by which we must make choices. I have no objection, as long as you don't confuse the two.

... or maybe it's wise to understand that one single perspective may not be able to tell the whole story ... when I pick up a hammer and saw and build a house, I lead the dance (the "more" part of the phrase "interact with on a more or less individual basis") ... on the other hand, when the earth convulses in a seismic fit, or Gaia defends herself against the human species in a battle of titans, I can easily be swept asunder (the "less" part of the phrase "interact with on a more or less individual basis") ... but in terms of the larger scheme of things, it's interesting to contemplate how many (living?) systems I am or am a part of - I am I; I am part of the human species; I am part of the biosphere; I am part of Gaia ... does my free will in any way contribute to the collective "free will" (whatever that may mean) of these larger systems? ...

... but just the fact that the physcial world is there as object, its content our consciousness, leads me to believe that it demands response, and that response is reaction, consciousness itself is reaction to object. Your taking hammer and saw to build a house can be seen as reaction, both for your need of shelter and the presence of the means.