The how(in what manner or way) means, the process used in choosing, the CDF [ thecdf.net ] shows this process.
The “with what” means, what is it that is used to make a choice. In this case, the mind(thinking) and emotions(feelings).
I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. Maybe it’s april first, I’ll have to check my calender again.
Okay, I guess you have attempted to make the case that your CDF is the definitive description of how choices are made. You would have been clearer to explicitly state this assumption, even if you have not here argued for it. It is not clear to me how “mind”, which I take to be the seat of human rationality, and emotions interact. The “how” is then mehod, and the “with what” is the tools we use applicant to that methodology. Exactly how do our emotions react with that method? I took the CDF to be a sort of calculus.
edit - conversly, if our emotional response to this calculus is what counts, how is rationality operative?
Do not assume. I was only trying to see if a simple quote, to me anyways, is true or false.
There is a new book out that I am hopeful will help explain my position. I only heard a short dialogue from him on tv and liked what he had to say, for the most part. cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux/the_emotional_brain/
I believe that thinking stimulates action, but can not cause action on its own, this is why we have emotions, they create action, that they are stimulated by our thoughts.
The CDF is only a calculus in showing the process as we don’t actually rate our emotional responses using a scale of 1-10 in our minds. The weight of the emotion is only felt.
What do you mean “do not assume”?
You have just told me this.
So, I need an emotion to choose my next move in a game of chess. How is this so? Is it the desire to win? Is it desire? Will any emotion do, or are there some that we should preclude? What I mean is, are all emotions equally appropriate in impelling us into action? Do different emotions interact differently on “positive” and “negative” list? Is there an order of precendence or preference in the weight we give different emotions? How are simultaneous but conflicting emotions handled?
I have many more questions. The fact is that logic does not have these issues as a method. But determining which statements are meaningful, and therefore allowable in a deductive process, is prelogical. What is the difference between “stimulate” and “create” in your usage? I read you as saying that feelings are stimulated by thought. Do you mean that emotions never create thoughts? That this is a nontransitive process?
there are motives(or aspirations) which influence descision making; example; I know that i need food to live, i know when i am hungary from the feeling in my stomach, when i attempt to remove this feeling of hunger, I have to aquire food. In modern times, food is easy access(its in the cupboard or the fridge) and i have many choices as to what i will eat, how much i will eat, how often i will eat, but if i don’t eat i will die.
Its a necessity that i eat to survive(something i know from prior experiance/other people dying of starvation in developing worlds) but the specifics of what i eat and how i aquire what i eat are matters of choice and means and skill. That being said going to sobeys doesn’t require any real skill , but if i was in the outback(not the steakhouse) and had no access to food i could buy, attaining food would be a required skill.
There are some choices that arise out of sheer utility and some out of sheer preferance. But its me that has to make all my choices.
If someone pulls a gun on me and tells me to give them my wallet, its not so much that i don’t have a choice as that i value my life more than my wallet, and would likely decide to poney up the money rather than act like a hero. That said, i can’t choose to fly away or erect a bullet proof shield arround me as my decisons are usually made with regard to my attained means.
So, can we make choices that have no regard to our limitations? Id say we could , but it wouldn’t be advisable.
Trevor - you are talking sense here. This is not a matter of paired opposites at all, but a continuum that stretches from no choice to much choice. Messy, but that’s life. “Determinism” is a meaningless word. The error arises from using the noun form for what can only be a verb. The verb requires a “determiner”. It’s either us or Him.
I would take the time to answer these questions if I can but feel it has nothing to do with the original post in this thread and should have a thread of its own.
Trevor it is now I who does not understand. Either I need to reread you your post several more times or I just don’t get it. I will reread and see.
I would say that the number of choices available in lifes individual experiances do vary greatly. Was that what you were getting at about free will & determinism not being paired opposites?
but could you clear up what you mean by "The error arises from using the noun form for what can only be a verb. The verb requires a “determiner”.
I never read a philosophy on strictly determinism(maybe one which flirted with it) but from what i see as the wiki explanation(though likely limited)
Determinism holds that each state of affairs is necessitated and thus determined by the states of affairs that preceded it.
I would say its compatible with free will. I would say that the will is free when there are multiple choices available(as is the choice of the particular food/drink consumed when in my kitchen or at a resturante) but there are some instances in which our prior attained knowledge neccesitates a single descision(our belief that food/drink/air are necessary for the bodys survival doesn’t allow for a choice to not eat/drink/breathe). But even so, our choices are limited by our means or whats immediately accesable to us(i can’t choose to eat something thats not on the menu).
So, id say some of our choices are free(a matter of personal preferance) and some choices are necessitated by our attained knowledge(food/air/water are needed for survival and survival is good). I have the potential to starve myself(by stoping eating), but, being that i don’t want to die, i do what is neccesary for my survival.
The question was posed as if it were the case that either on or the other obtains. Either there is free will of there is not - this can only be read in absolute terms, at least without some qualification that is not present in the question.
My question is, “necessitated by what”?
We have a range of choices - some are limited by our lack of knowledge, not necessitated by out attained knowledge.
So let’s say no one knows how to make the sentence correct.
=D>
Especially daybreak! 
We have a range of choices - some are limited by our lack of knowledge, not necessitated by out attained knowledge.
A lack of awareness(of potential actions) leads to a narrower range of possibile actions and thus, outcomes in a situation. Awareness of ones limitations can lead to a narrowing of ones aspirations and potential actions and outcomes in any situation, so the range of possible actions in any situation are limited by the organization(location) of external objects or phenomona and our means or ability to recognize and react to this environment and manipulate it the way we aspire to.
What provides us with the means and ability to recognize and react to the environment? the mind and body.
If I believe that food and air and water keep me alive and i also believe that i would prefer being alive to being dead(which i believe would be the effect that the absence of air/food/water would have on my body), I will choose to consume these , seeming necessities, in faith that i will extend my bodies life.
In other words, it goes both ways. Our will can be limited in both regards, By prior knowledge and lack of awareness.
Trevor this last post shows how close you are to being absolutely correct in your thinking of free will.
This from your previous post is what’s lacking insight.
“So, id say some of our choices are free”
that is free will! ! !
when i say we dont have free will i mean that everything in our future in inevitable or predestined.
Oni I am glad to see you know this:
Keep on going. 
Or especially CDF, depending on your point of view.