David Prince wrote:
> David,
> Much of your argument seems a tautology to me. It seems like you are
telling
> me that you have choice over the things you have choice over.
David Lind responds: Good point. Maybe what I'm actually trying to
say is that I've always believed that we have choice. BUT only over
those things we have any control over (i.e. I can't choose to have
the
Earth switch its rotation so that the sun appears to rise in the west
- it's beyond my physical control)
Your post has me reconsider this because another belief of mine is
that people only do that which benefits them the most. The 'choice'
(if you'll pardon the expression) that has the greatest benefit/cost
ratio. I don't see a situation where this isn't true. Taking your
example of running at a time that a loved one was being rushed to the
hospital (provided, of course that they were here and not 1000 miles
away, etc) - if the cost of running (not being there for them, the
guilt associated with such a "choice", etc.) outweighed the benefit
(health, mood, etc...) then I would not 'choose' to run - but did I
really have a choice? Interesting. Can we 'choose' to engage in
behavior that (ultimately) costs us more than we gain? I've never
thought so (even though I believe that we have choice - an intersting
conundruum to mull over tonight).
David Prince wrote: You say that
> you can't fly(flap your arms and fly, of course), but you can go
running
> tomorrow. But could you go running if at running time a loved one
was rushed
> to the hospital, and you were called to be there? It would
physically
> possible for you to run, but it would be actually impossible for you
to do
> so. You may say that *you* could go running if you wanted to, but I
will say
> that I could not. If my mom were in the hospital, and I received a
call just
> as I was about to go jogging, I could not make any other choice than
be by
> her side.
David Lind writes: Good point. Now what if you were about to run a
race? A very important race? (We up the cost of not running) And
what if mom has lots of people to be there with her? Or is being
rushed to a hospital far away? By juggling the variables, the
decision to run or not may change (if indeed it is a decision).
David Prince writes:
>My environment would have made the choice for me.
David Lind writes: Hmmmm...will have to ponder this. I've always
believed an environment can create situations that create 'choices' -
but not that it actually makes the choice for me. Now what about
people altering their interpretations to facilitate the 'choice' they
want? I agree if my mom was being rushed to the hospital, I'd want
to
be there. But what if I (wanting to run) rationalize it by saying
"There's nothing I can do to help her right now...and she's always
supported me running (or similar justification)?" Can altering our
views/interpretations create choices?
> David Prince writes: If you have an IQ of 75, you can not choose to
be a Theoretical
> Physicist.
David Lind writes: But can I choose to be something else?
> David Prince writes: It is of higher Quality from time to time to
> tell my wife that she looks a little thinner.
David Lind writes: That would depend on the situation, I guess. If
you're saying it because it's true - I agree. If you're saying it
and
it's not true because the short term effect (she feels better about
herself) is positive, then I'd say "but what about the long term
effects of not being honest with her?"
Shalom
David Li
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
