"Further response would be fruitless."

and: again, no attempt to refute me


"nameless out"

as you like...


-----

for the rest of you:

what is 'choice/choosing'?

'picking from multiple options' works as definition

'pick out, or select, from a number of alternatives' also works

no matter the specific definition used for 'choice/choosing', the act, the event, the process, of choice has absolutely nothing to do with, as nameless put it, 'fully defin(ing) something/someone', or. 'alter(ing) the entire Universe to accord with one's 'desires' '

choice is, again, simply picking one among many

the criteria for choice is based on, again, ' individual preference and understanding of the circumstance'


so: who does the 'choosing'?

if you tease out nameless's view from post #16, then there is no 'chooser', no 'I'...after all, the whole of reality is just that: whole and seamless...and if you perceive your 'self' as discrete, autonomous, an individual, then, you, my friend are wrong, wrong, wrong!

at least: that's what nameless would have you believe

he would absolve you of responsibility for your 'self' because, after all, whatever it is you do and think and say, well, you have no 'choice' in the matter

fundamentally: nameless -- in some kind pseudo-zen assessment -- declares us each 'robot'

however: there's nothing in the 'science' nameless invokes in post #18 to support such a view


the greedy reductionist, for reasons i can't fathom, would just LOVE to reduce the human individual to piece and part and make him 'nothing'

the sad truth (for the greedy reductionist): science has to explain how 'I'ness arises out of the pieces, parts, and process of human flesh

even a casual review of the 'cutting research' in cognitive and AI investigation reveals the luminaries of these fields can't even agree on a working definition of 'consciousness', much less 'self-consciousness'

certainly these luminaries offer no verifiable theory as to why i am 'I', and why you, gentle reader, are 'you'


what my experience tells me: 'I' as a discrete, autonomous, phenomenon calling itself 'henry quirk', am real...i exist autonomously 'in', but not independent 'of' the world (reality/the universe)...while part of a causal chain or chains, i also -- as agent -- initiate causal chains...i choose, deliberate, determine, as an individual existing in a deterministic (but not determined, or determining) world


nameless offers nothing to dispute this, refute this, diminish this

what he does offer is an unfortunate thumbnail ("'Choice' is an illusion of vanity": meaningless!) possibly derived from the drug-addled ranting of a timothy leary or some other 'psychonaut'


and this passes for philosophizing?

*shrug*


'Here!Now!', i remain, henry -- the very real, very choosing -- quirk

So, when you asked for clarification, you were being disingenuous. You thought that your 'beliefs' might be threatened, and you wanted to be sure so you could defend (however ineptly) them rather than simply understand what I wrote. Disingenuous and dishonest.

Your naive and superficial assertions are unworthy of 'refutation', and you do not have the cognitive wherewithall to maintain or understand the train of thought at the level that I offer (you choke on the offered 'food for thought').
Your 'logic' is naive and your ability at 'critical thought' on the subject seems negligible.
So, you have the last words (and straw-men and ad-homs, and naively poor 'logic' and your vain and prideful egoic 'beliefs' to defend), 'for whatever they might be worth'...
now,
nameless out

jabbering away is not a refutation, only a dismissal

if you want to dismiss me: that's fine

but, please: don't assume you've scored any points...