Hello and welcome to the forum!

This is a meaty first post, but I would like to start with a clarifying question. Just what do you mean by a choice being algorithmic? I would describe it as a decision process that consciously follows a rule-based procedure. This would be closely related, but perhaps not identical, to what we would call a rational decision. One difference between rational and algorithmic choice is that in general, a decision algorithm need not incorporate only reliable information and rely on sound epistemic practices. On the other hand, we often take heuristic shortcuts when making decisions, though if pressed for justification, we can rationalize them by reconstructing a plausible thought process, thus justifying their rationality in retrospect. In the first approximation though, we may identify "algorithmic" choice with rational decision-making. Would you agree, or were you thinking of something different?

that's right. by algorithmic choice I meant a decision made on the basis of cause-and-effect relationships.
modern AI in the absence of complete data make decisions based on confidence probabilities. But nevertheless, such an approach is verified objectively. that is, the path to the solution can be tracked from start to finish.

But my wife, for example, often tells me that she wants to do this and not another, simply because she "feels" so. This always amuses me, but nevertheless it works!

what if the basis of such human behavior, unlike computer behavior, lies in the unknown for a person of his own ultimate goal, and the desire to act (make a decision without a task) is based on a person's understanding of his own finitude?

this is the development of Heidegger's ideas to modern challenges (AI and machine decision making)

And what if we give to AI a mortal incarnation, and write down their goal so that they can never know it?

what if the basis of such human behavior, unlike computer behavior, lies in the unknown for a person of his own ultimate goal, and the desire to act (make a decision without a task) is based on a person's understanding of his own finitude? — Astorre

Hi Astorre, welcome to the Forum, very good questions. I don't know if 'awareness of one's own finitude' is an explicit consideration for many people, although knowing that there's a lot they don't know might be. In any case, I agree with your intuition that the basis of human actions and decisions, is quite different to how AI systems operate - in fact, I'm sure you would find that most of the current LLMs would agree! (never mind the irony of that)

There's an interesting OP in the current edition of Philosophy Now, Rescuing Mind from the Machines, which makes an argument similar to yours.

I don't know if 'awareness of one's own finitude' is an explicit consideration for many people, although knowing that there's a lot they don't know might be — Wayfarer

Hello, it's nice to be part of this community!

I reflected on that. Of course, each of us every minute, making a decision, for example, about what socks to wear does not think about the fact that his life is finite. But at the same time, making more serious decisions about what to do, for example, whether to go to study, marry, whether to have children, we involuntarily mean this. That is, over virtually every decision, every decision hangs the realization that you are not eternal.

I wonder: "isn't this exactly what creates colossal tension inside us and sets the very thirst to do something, and not to do it?"

We choose to do it. And here the question arises to do, but how exactly if the task is not defined? That is, at birth, some instruction does not come out for us where it is indicated how to do the right thing or why we are here in general.

This is where I assume that the very feature of the "existential choice" lies in its uncertainty.

In this regard, an example with AI is indicative. If there is no request, there is no task, then it does not act on its own, does not perform any calculation, unlike us: there seems to be no task, but we act.

That is, over virtually every decision, every decision hangs the realization that you are not eternal.

I wonder: "isn't this exactly what creates colossal tension inside us and sets the very thirst to do something, and not to do it?" — Astorre

But some are much more aware of that finitude than others, aren't they? There are a lot of people that barely take into account, I don't know, the fact that they might go to jail, when about to do something. Whereas there are others, like yourself presumably, who are very much aware of their finitude, or you might say, mortality. Very much as suggested by Tillich's 'ultimate concern' or Heidegger's 'being unto death'.

But overall, I agree with you. For your info, it is also what the current large langage models would say:

The idea that not knowing is what enables authentic choice aligns with existentialist thought (e.g., Kierkegaard, Heidegger). For humans, finitude and uncertainty are the conditions under which meaning arises. In that context, the claim that death and ignorance ground authenticity is philosophically resonant.

LLMs generate outputs based on training data and probabilistic models. Even when simulating uncertainty (e.g., with temperature settings), the range of outputs is still bounded by patterns in the data. There is no "I" that chooses; there is no inwardness. Thus, what you call existential choice—rooted in mortality, anxiety, ambiguity—has no analogue in AI. LLMs don’t care, and without concern or dread, there is no authentic commitment. For them, there's nothing at stake. — ChatGPT

That's from the horse's mouth ;-)

Thus, what you call existential choice—rooted in mortality, anxiety, ambiguity—has no analogue in AI — ChatGPT

It would be nice if AI developers did not come across these ideas on this forum, otherwise they will quickly screw the missing parts to their creations... I'm afraid it may end badly :lol:

There are a lot of people that barely take into account, I don't know, the fact that they might go to jail, when about to do something. Whereas there are others, like yourself presumably, who are very much aware of their finitude, or you might say, mortality. — Wayfarer

In this case, the actions of such people in society are usually called stupid. That is, it is generally customary to call stupid those actions that in the formula [estimated result of action ]/[ possible risks] give a result less than or equal to One. Others usually say - "you don't think about the future at all."

And yes, you are right in this case it can be argued that the root of their solution lies outside mortality. At the same time, from these guys who take unjustified risks - you can often hear the phrase "we live once." Which returns to the basis of my idea.

Interesting thoughts that seem in line with some anthropological views.

Prehistoric humans lived in a finite world bounded by the horizon. Any 'beyond' was likely considered unimportant. Today we see something like th eopposite in effect, with our knowledge of the cosmos appreciated as a definite object given through the physical sciences.

Therefore, it is perhaps more likley that this acquanitance with the infinite is what has led to an existential crisis rather than with the prehistoric finitude of existence, which held us in place. We were fated in ancient times by the gods and oracles of the times, yet now we deem to see beyond this veil it is likley this belief in 'seeing beyond' that is the problem of 'choice' over 'acceptance'.

Honestly, prayer to some fundamental and unobtainable 'entity' does seem practical in dealing with misfortune. Just because we call it 'luck' today it does not take away from the fact that some things are beyond us even though we envision our appreciate of the cosmos as more complete today in a phsyical sense.

Therefore, it is perhaps more likley that this acquanitance with the infinite is what has led to an existential crisis rather than with the prehistoric finitude of existence, which held us in place. — I like sushi

I didn’t expect my initial questions to lead into anthropological perspectives, but your point about contrasting the finitude of the premodern era with the infinity of modernity opens a fascinating angle.

What if we view the premodern era as a time of faith in oracles, in contrast to modernity’s faith in objectivity? The belief in objectivity has undoubtedly led to significant advancements in comfort and safety, but, as you rightly noted, it has failed to deliver personal happiness. On the contrary, the expansion of the horizon of choice in modernity—from selecting weapons to adopting worldviews (religion or atheism)—has made life less predetermined but not necessarily more fulfilling. A premodern person didn’t choose between a spear and a rifle because rifles didn’t exist, nor did they contemplate atheism in the absence of that concept. This limitation narrowed the scope of choice but may have also reduced existential tension.

Returning to the topic of existential versus algorithmic choice, I would argue that existential choices existed in the premodern era, albeit within a narrower framework: choosing a partner, deciding whether to engage in or avoid conflict. The weight of responsibility for these choices was no less significant, as a wrong decision could lead to death or exile. Belief in an oracle might have alleviated some doubts by prescribing a “righteous” path, but it did not negate the nature of choice itself.

I agree with you that modernity has broadened the range of options, but I disagree that the nature of existential choice has changed. It remains rooted in uncertainty and finitude, not in the number of available options. It is this uncertainty, rather than the illusion of control, that continues to fuel the authenticity of our decisions.

What if we view the premodern era as a time of faith in oracles, in contrast to modernity’s faith in objectivity? The belief in objectivity has undoubtedly led to significant advancements in comfort and safety, but, as you rightly noted, it has failed to deliver personal happiness. On the contrary, the expansion of the horizon of choice in modernity—from selecting weapons to adopting worldviews (religion or atheism)—has made life less predetermined but not necessarily more fulfilling. A premodern person didn’t choose between a spear and a rifle because rifles didn’t exist, nor did they contemplate atheism in the absence of that concept. This limitation narrowed the scope of choice but may have also reduced existential tension. — Astorre

I was thinking more along hte lines of Popper's Open and Closed societies in relation to your view on this too. As in the effects of rationality from prehistory into human civilization.

Returning to the topic of existential versus algorithmic choice, I would argue that existential choices existed in the premodern era, albeit within a narrower framework: choosing a partner, deciding whether to engage in or avoid conflict. — Astorre

Well, not necessarily. Just because we live as we do now it does not mean people used to consider their existence. We care more about simple survival first and foremost without any real consideration of anything beyond our immediate limits (speaking generally here for the development of the human race).

The weight of responsibility for these choices was no less significant, as a wrong decision could lead to death or exile. — Astorre

There was no choice. People knew their place and did not abscond from it. The 'choice' was in the hands of nature. The ruler of the tribe was sacred not democratically voted for. It is with the advent of civilization that Open society began to develop in sedentary life.

Belief in an oracle might have alleviated some doubts by prescribing a “righteous” path, but it did not negate the nature of choice itself. — Astorre

Most Roman's paid tribute to 'Fortune' when things went their way. 'Choice' was in their society often seen as something in fates hands rather than their own.

I agree with you that modernity has broadened the range of options, but I disagree that the nature of existential choice has changed. It remains rooted in uncertainty and finitude, not in the number of available options. It is this uncertainty, rather than the illusion of control, that continues to fuel the authenticity of our decisions. — Astorre

People do not want freedom. They want something that contradicts freedom - no responsibility. Closed Society gave them this. In Closed Society choice is avoided.

People do not want freedom. They want something that contradicts freedom - no responsibility. Closed Society gave them this. In Closed Society choice is avoided. — I like sushi

Thus, it turns out that a hypothetical resident of a totalitarian state is deprived of the opportunity to think about the loyalty of ideology? For example, a resident of North Korea in principle cannot doubt the righteousness of the idea of ​​Chuche?
But some 400 years ago, all of humanity lived in such conditions and nevertheless found another way. And since this way was found, someone doubted the correctness of these doctrines.

I agree with you in part that the phenomenon of existential choice today may have become a more widespread phenomenon. Today, authenticity is going beyond the boundaries of today, but in the past, although these boundaries were narrower, going beyond them was also something authentic. It is like challenging the established in favor of the unknown with the risk to oneself in the face of death.
To tie a stone tip to a stick, which makes the weapon heavier, could also seem stupid and illogical in the ancient era. But the spear, nevertheless, was created.

So I believe that existential choice is not a modern invention. I think the fate of Giordano Bruno, who was executed for the idea of heliocentricity, is a good confirmation.

Today, authenticity is going beyond the boundaries of today, but in the past, although these boundaries were narrower, going beyond them was also something authentic. — Astorre

My point is the exact opposite. Bruno lived in civilized society not the kind of Closed Society Popper was referring to, where the heirarchy is the foundation of existence not something 'enforced'. It is through humanities opposition to nature that led us into a world of 'choice' rather than left to the mercy of natures chaotic machinations.

I am taking this much further back to try and help you establish the human condition from a point where 'choice' was not even a concept. People just lived to survive without question of anything beyond their immediate physical bounds, because this was their Whole World (finite) not a modern world that has reasoned beyond the bounds of the mountain range, seas, oceans and stars.

Choice itself is the item that led to existential contemplation. Beyond the bounds of our primal natures we come to reflect on possibilities rather than immediate circumstances..

An existential choice is possible precisely because humans do not know the ultimate purpose of life or the consequences of their decisions, and the awareness of mortality (finitude) spurs them to act. — Astorre

I am onboard with this generally speaking. Our ignorance leaves us somewhat at sea. This again I see as a reflection of responsibility. We bias positive outcomes over negative ones in terms of self-authorship. If things end up taking a worse turn we are more likely to deny responsibility, and in contrast when they go well we claim authorship where little or none exist.

My point is the exact opposite. Bruno lived in civilized society not the kind of Closed Society Popper was referring to, where the heirarchy is the foundation of existence not something 'enforced'. — I like sushi

nevertheless, the closed society that Popper described, in my opinion, is unnatural to being itself, to becoming itself.

Take, for example, our current discussion: at first I had only some intuition, which in a meeting with the Other (with you and other forum participants) acquires some form, receives criticism, becomes more precise, acquires new layers. Dogmatism, however, deprives the possibility of becoming and it may be good as a temporary solution, but in the long term it is unviable. For a neighbor will come and become your master due to greater development, which ensures pluralism.

The embodiment of an open society is an inevitable return to natural nature.

Dogmatism, however, deprives the possibility of becoming and it may be good as a temporary solution, but in the long term it is unviable. For a neighbor will come and become your master due to greater development, which ensures pluralism. — Astorre

I do not understand what you mean by this within the context of the discussion?

I do not understand what you mean by this within the context of the discussion? — I like sushi

Sorry, I got distracted. :blush: Thanks for the comment and interesting perspective on the central topic.

what if the basis of such human behavior, unlike computer behavior, lies in the unknown for a person of his own ultimate goal, and the desire to act (make a decision without a task) is based on a person's understanding of his own finitude?

this is the development of Heidegger's ideas to modern challenges (AI and machine decision making. — Astorre

Heidegger’s concept of finitude isn’t simply a reference to the chronological fact that we dont live forever. It is more centrally about the moment to moment structure of temporality itself. Each experience of the ‘present’ is finite in that the meaning contained within it cannot be logically derived from the previous present, nor be used to deduce the following moment of time. We are radically future oriented in that we reach out and transcend ourselves into the future. This is what makes experience fundamentally uncanny. We can’t design machines to be this way precisely because it is we who are designing them. This having been created is what makes them machines, and no amount of fancy hardware or software tweaking will ever give machines more than the illusion of finitude.

Can uncertainty and finitude be considered the true primary causes of existential choice? — Astorre

To what extent does an an individual's recollection of an existential turning point in their lives support or negate this pronouncement?

I became what I consider an "existentialist" in the early 1960s after reading Sartre's book and realizing that an activity that I had found compelling but which held no attraction to those I socialized with could become an intricate part of my life and have "meaning" simply because I decided that it should. That revelation shaped my life, and still does at age 88.

"Finitude" played no role in my decision. Not once did it arise in my deliberations, although I suppose I might have been a little less compelled were I immortal. Heidegger's concept seems to me absurd. "Uncertainty", however, existed in my choice of a professional career - I was fortunate to have several options. To what extent would each of these interact with the activity to which I had given meaning? Which of these alternatives would be most "meaningful" itself? It turned out that choice went well in both regards.

I would like to read of others on this forum who went through similar experiences. To what extent does psychology intersect with philosophy here?

that's right. by algorithmic choice I meant a decision made on the basis of cause-and-effect relationships.
modern AI in the absence of complete data make decisions based on confidence probabilities. But nevertheless, such an approach is verified objectively. that is, the path to the solution can be tracked from start to finish. — Astorre

I wonder: "isn't this exactly what creates colossal tension inside us and sets the very thirst to do something, and not to do it?" — Astorre

I think you are jumping to answers too quickly. Let us slow down and try to understand the question first.

The mark of higher consciousness (as distinguished from basic what-it-is-likeness) is the ability to introspect your own thought process. And this awareness and control over the thought process is what distinguishes "algorithmic choice" or rational choice: we consciously and deliberately follow a line of reasoning. We are aware of our beliefs and assumptions, of the rules that we follow (or break!) We can revisit and critically examine the steps that we took, change assumptions, correct mistakes, learn lessons.

All this should be considered against the fact that much of our cognition is unconscious. Even much of our decision-making is performed unconsciously. What little of which we become aware comes late in the game - sometimes even after the decision was made and acted upon! And yet, I believe that this tiny tip of the cognitive iceberg is essential to what distinguishes human consciousness from much of the rest of the animal world - and from today's computer programs as well (I won't speculate about the future).

For this reason, I think that you are wrong when you liken our algorithmic/rational thinking to computer algorithms. Even the most advanced AIs of today lack self-awareness*. Yes, the process is algorithmic, but no part of the algorithm is aware of what it is doing - the machinery for such introspection simply isn't there.

Indeed, it is perhaps the unaware, intuitive, emotional, preference-driven decision-making that is more akin to what most computer programs are doing. We see the end result, but we don't know how we got there - because we weren't in on the decision-making process!

* The Chinese generative AI DeepSeek that made much noise recently appears to display some introspection: when asked a question, it shows what appears to be its thought process. However, we do not know whether any of that actually plays a part in generating the answer, as opposed to serving as a high-level "debug output".

That revelation shaped my life, and still does at age 88. — jgill

I was emotionally impressed by your response. The continuation of the formation and search for oneself by anyone at such a venerable age is a new experience for me. I will move somewhat away from the main idea of ​ ​ the topic, but I want to tell you the following.

The very formation of oneself - that is, giving oneself a certain form, rethinking one's own limits, boundaries in the act of establishing one's own self, unlike non-self, is a true act of being instead of a static existence, according to my dissertation, which I am currently working on.

I admire your continued self-determination, despite the age that many others would consider the basis for calming down and simply contemplating the world.

Now regarding your position on the limb. You write that she "played no role" in your decision, and you call Heidegger's concept "absurd." This is an important point, and I would suggest that it be considered not as a refutation, but as an opportunity for clarification. Perhaps the point is not that the limb should be a conscious, obvious motivator ("Now I will die, I must urgently choose!"). Rather, finiteness is the fundamental horizon against which any meaningful choice acquires its value and uniqueness.

If you were immortal, if you had an infinity of choices and attempts ahead of you, would your activity have the same existential stake? The same "tension" that stems from the understanding that this choice is part of your one-time, unique life?

Heidegger's "Being-to-Death" does not necessarily mean a permanent fixation on death, but the realization that it is the own, indescribable possibility of Nothingness that makes every moment of Being and every choice truly yours, and not just another step in infinity. Perhaps this awareness operates on a deeper, unconscious level, shaping the very value of time and self-determination.

How do psychology and philosophy intersect here? Fundamental, I think. Psychology can investigate the mechanisms of decision-making, the effect of fear of death or uncertainty on behavior. But philosophy poses a question about the nature of this choice itself - is it simply a complex algorithm, or is it an act that transcends determinism? Your experience, jgill, seems to lean toward the latter, and that inspires further reflection.

The mark of higher consciousness (as distinguished from basic what-it-is-likeness) is the ability to introspect your own thought process. — SophistiCat

I agree with your definition of higher consciousness as the ability to analyze your own thought process, to introspection, conscious control over logic and critical revision of beliefs.

However, I would like to clarify the terminology to avoid possible misunderstanding. When I talk about comparing a person with an "algorithm" in the context of "fully knowing the reason for your Being," I do not mean rational, conscious human thinking, which, as you correctly noted, is capable of self-reflection and criticism. I use "algorithm" in a broader, metaphorical sense, implying a complete determinacy of existence - a situation where Man would completely "read" his final goal, his fundamental "program" or ontological source.

My central idea is that if this "program" were absolutely knowable, then a genuine existential choice would become impossible. This is not a question of whether the algorithm is aware of its steps, but of whether it has the freedom to deviate from its predetermined "essence" or create it anew. If our life course, our "ultimate goal" or the source of our Being were absolutely known to us, then each of our actions would only be the fulfillment of predetermined instructions, even if these instructions were incredibly complex and multivariable. In this case, where would there be room for the very "tension" that stems from uncertainty and the threat of loss of oneself with a genuine, unpredictable choice?

You correctly notice the colossal role of the unconscious, intuitive, emotional in human decision-making. And perhaps it is this "ignorance" about our deep determinants, about the very "program" or "source of Being" that we cannot "count," that allows our Being to retain its authenticity. This is what makes our choice not just a rational calculation or execution of instructions, but an act of creation arising from an internal, to the end unknowable depth.

Each experience of the ‘present’ is finite in that the meaning contained within it cannot be logically derived from the previous present, nor be used to deduce the following moment of time. — Joshs

Thanks for this clarification. It is very nice to get it from a professional in the field of phenomenology. Starting the topic, I focused on a wider range of readers. The consequence was to simplify the description of Heidegger's ideas. Heidegger's lyrics are both attractive and frightening, as they are written in a style that makes you not only understand, but feel his ideas with your own skin. This always causes a certain difficulty of assimilation and, I confess, perhaps I do not fully understand all its meanings.

At the same time, the idea of ​ ​ temporality and being-to-death remains attractive for my research. In this idea, I see Heidegger's attempt to describe the very inner tension that makes a person act.
Decomposing temporality into a sense of possible one's own death and ignorance (the unknown of the purpose of existence and the consequences of any choice), I tried to express this "inner tension" in simple language.

This is non-algorithmics, in my opinion gives being a special status that distinguishes us from machines

@Astorre You might find this quote from Kierkegaard interesting:

Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so that anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith: for only in infinite resignation does my eternal validity become transparent to me, and only then can there be talk of grasping existence on the strength of faith.

- Fear and Trembling, p. 75, Penguin Classics

You correctly notice the colossal role of the unconscious, intuitive, emotional in human decision-making. And perhaps it is this "ignorance" about our deep determinants, about the very "program" or "source of Being" that we cannot "count," that allows our Being to retain its authenticity. This is what makes our choice not just a rational calculation or execution of instructions, but an act of creation arising from an internal, to the end unknowable depth. — Astorre

That’s a great insight :pray:

At the same time, the idea of ​ temporality and being-to-death remains attractive for my research. In this idea, I see Heidegger's attempt to describe the very inner tension that makes a person act. Decomposing temporality into a sense of possible one's own death and ignorance (the unknown of the purpose of existence and the consequences of any choice), I tried to express this "inner tension" in simple language — Astorre

Finally, at the age of 88, with some medical problems,I have begun to understand this conjecture. But, at a younger age, like many if not most of my peers, this line of thought would be beyond my horizon. I doubt it even roamed my subconscious.

Have others here experienced this sort of finitude?

Finally, at the age of 88, with some medical problems,I have begun to understand this conjecture — jgill

I want to share my experience. Speaking of purity, when I chose in favor of going to university or not, as well as in favor of marriage or not, I probably did not choose at all, but simply acted within the framework of the discourse that was laid down by society or my parents. I didn't think about why I was doing it at all, but somewhere in the depths of consciousness it was kind of spelled out.

Gaining greater subjectivity, gaining responsibility for their family or children, "existential" thoughts themselves began to appear more often. For example: I actively played hockey at that time, the style of my game was very aggressive, I liked to use power techniques, actively fight in the corners, but when my wife became pregnant, the style of my game began to change by itself: I became more careful and prudent, and instead of going ahead, I began to prefer to give passes.

After that, over time, perhaps it was by the age of 30, the changes became even greater: I wanted to do something promising, because it would not work to be active all my life. Thoughts began to appear about moving to a city with great opportunities and doing business, as well as investing, since employment is possible only if you are constantly active and healthy.

Of course, raising my children today, I do not tell them about these abstractions of the finiteness of being, but simply instill in them what I think is right, so that it becomes their own ideas.

From here I come to the fact that although in my youth I did not think about much, my parents may have thought about it, instilling discourses in me. I remember how my father kept repeating that youth was ending quickly (how I did not understand him then!)...

So, yes, maybe we don't have to be aware of our limb, but it may be embedded in society's discourse for such cases.

In my case, my father being a university professor of course presented a professional path that appealed, and when I took up climbing those free summers were a huge motivating factor. I was a USAF officer for a short while, and could have remained in the service, and could also have taken a civilian job based upon that education and experience, but I got married - and that, I admit, just seemed to happen - an almost wistful push from a societal breeze.

My point is a very shallow one: when young we seem unaware of the finiteness of life as well as the force exerted by our social surroundings. As we age unawareness smoothly slips into trepidation, especially if we have obligations.

Nice thread. Welcome to TPF.