Grice's Choice

--- Or Sophie's choice rather.

Suppose that Sophie goes to a brothel (a male brothel). She has to choose the person (male) she finds most attractive, sexually, to have sex with. This is in some exotic country. Sophie is however a bit of a puritan. So for some reason, while she finds A the most sexually attractive, she picks B.

---- I would say that in such a scenario it is difficult to test. I would think that she possibly DOES find B more sexually attractive than A. The very fact that she chose him is all a 'functionalist' cares.

-- There may be less contrived examples.

But in any case, there is a sort of self-defeatist, unverificationist, nature about 'choosing'.

I tend to think that whatever I do, I choose to do. As J notes, "not robbing a bank" is important. A lot of the things we do (or fail to do) is things we choose NOT to do. And we should get a lot of credit for that. They are called omissions. We omit to rob, etc. --

I would like to analyse what actions are "within choice", as it were. A transexual may choose to be a lady (a born male) and succeed, within limits. Or vice versa. So, that's something he (or she) chose.

Liking Mozart is more of a trick. I don't (or rather my mother doesn't) like Mozart. I ask her that she should CHOOSE to like Mozart. She finds the request otiose.

----

Possibly all choices are alternatives. It's always between "A" and "~A". Rather than between A and B and C.

True, in a disjunction, we do get p v q v r ...

But the strict form of a disjunction is

"p v q" -- an alternative.

It may be said that

p v q v r

really stands for

(p v q) v r

----

Grice considers or-thinking at length in Method in philosophical psychology. An eagle lurking as he chooses to kill a rabbit or a mouse is or-thinking. He is about to choose.

----

It is true that the Griceian creature-construction routine SOUNDS behaviouristic, and it may not convince J (who dislikes B. Skinner). But it need not.

---

"decide" and "choose" J prefers to refer to by 'volition'. But I'm not sure.

I would think that the basic block is

--- accepts that ---.

Accepts to have a strong tea, rather than weak tea.

"Weak or strong?"

----

She wills that her tea be strong.
versus she wills that her tea NOT be strong (but weak).

At one point something triggers the 'decision' on her:

"Weak or strong?"

-----

In a way that's a stupid question. "Weak tea" does not really count as 'tea' (but more like a wishy-washy hot liquid) and strong tea can be horrible.

Consider

"Trick or treat?"

Since this is clever, we will simplify that as:

"Trick or not trick?"

----

With that trigger, the agent shows that she wills 'trick'.

Her system created a circumstance such that, one path was 'chosen'. Perhaps she JUST 'said' "trick" without thinking much. A lot of decisions are made on the fact that the formulation is 'tricky' ("Trick or treat?"). A more normal way to ask this, if one thinks of the answers it gets, is "Treat or Trick?".

-----

In fact, it is a conditional:

"If no treat --> trick"

But not that the contraposition does not hold:

"no trick --> no treat"

---

---




Another example of 'choosing' is the marrying ceremony:

"Do you accept this as your man?"
"Yes/No."

----

By uttering Yes, she chooses to become "Mrs. Smith". True, this is loaded in that statistically, "No" answers are not really 'expected'.

----

It's not like she is going to CHOOSE to become Mrs. Smith at THAT time.

----


They say December is the time for choices and resolutions. Usually they should be 10. Ten New Year resolutions for the Grice Club will be issued by Dec. 31.


---- They will be properly formalised in PCI (predicate calculus with identity).

Cheers!

JL