I will start off with a couple pro's I see for less gun control. — Samlw

I’d like to revisit the question: “Do citizens need the right to own firearms?” and break down the common arguments for and against gun ownership.

Arguments in favor of gun ownership:

National Security. Some argue that an armed populace could deter foreign invasions. In reality, any aggressor would account for this and likely avoid ground invasions, especially in an era of advanced technology and nuclear threats. The idea that civilians would unite and effectively resist a professional army is more romantic than realistic. History, like Middle Eastern conflicts, shows that armed rebels often cause chaos among civilians rather than successfully oppose organized forces.

Self-Defense. Owning a gun for self-defense sounds reasonable, but its practical effectiveness is questionable. Using a firearm effectively requires training and composure under pressure—skills most civilians lack. For non-professionals (unlike police or security), the risks of losing the weapon, escalating conflicts, or failing to use it in time outweigh the benefits.

Personal Freedom. Claiming that guns ensure personal freedom often boils down to “don’t mess with me, I’m armed.” This isn’t freedom—it’s a threat that can provoke rather than protect. True freedom means living without fear, not brandishing a weapon.

Deterring Tyranny. The notion that armed citizens could resist a tyrannical government is appealing but unrealistic. State security forces are designed to uphold authority, and any resistance would likely be swiftly crushed. In a civil war scenario, widespread gun ownership would fuel chaos, not prevent it.

Arguments against gun ownership:

Weapons in the Wrong Hands. No licensing or mental health screening can fully eliminate human error. A lost, stolen, or misused gun can lead to tragedy—imagine a forgotten pistol ending up with someone unstable.
Increased Mortality. Firearms amplify the consequences of conflicts. An angry or unstable person with a gun can cause catastrophic harm. U.S. statistics (13.7 deaths per 100,000 people) show a clear correlation between gun availability and higher violence rates.
My stance: Ideally, firearms should be limited to those who need them for their profession (military, hunters, high-level security). For most citizens, guns pose more risks than benefits. With over 400 million firearms in the U.S., drastic measures won’t solve the issue overnight, but that’s no excuse for inaction. Gradual steps—stricter licensing, gun amnesties, biometric trigger locks, and harsher penalties for illegal possession—could reduce violence over time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

Why Religions Fail — Art48

I watched your video, where it repeats for 10 minutes:
1. No one knows what will happen after death, since:
2. Religions contradict each other
3. All religions are based on superhero stories
4. Science does not contradict itself

I propose another question: for what purpose did humanity ask the question "what will happen after death? . "Was the answer to this question important, or did the answer to this question justify ethics?

I think the man of that time did well, because he would be saved after death. In my opinion, the basis of the search for an answer to the question that after death is the justification of ethics. Of course, good and bad actions in different societies are different actions. Hence, in my opinion, such discrepancies. You say that religions are contradictory, but I think not really: do well and you will be saved, that's what they have in common. Another thing is that a different concept is good everywhere.

By the way, Zaroastrianism (the first monotheistic religion) argued 3 postulates: Good thought. Good word. Good deed. Little has changed in religions since then.

So I wonder if one of the big lies is the popular notion that 'politics doesn’t matter because they’re all corrupt.' It seems to me that this idea disempowers voters by lowering their expectations and participation and ends up empowering the baser opportunists to gain more control. — Tom Storm

From here we get:
Train. You can choose one of the cars, but this will not change the direction of the train. You can also choose not to board the train (denying the performance), but the easier it will be for the driver.

There is also the factor of ‘outrage fatigue’ - norms of truthfulness and decency are broken so often and with so little apparent consequence, that it becomes normalized. — Wayfarer

May I ask you to describe this concept in more detail?

What’s a current example of a big lie? — Tom Storm

Tom Storm, yes, the media has always been divided into reactionary and progressive, as in my example with Trump's tariffs. But the "big lie" today is the illusion of pluralism: Narratives seem diverse but distort facts, polarizing people.
People repeat the discourses of the media, almost no one has their own opinion. The dominance of one opinion over another is ensured by the number of invested resources.

All that worries us about politics is the result of reproducing what we are given. There is no real opinion, we just choose which train car to board, but we do not choose the direction of the train itself.

I’d still need to see this in action to understand your point properly. — Tom Storm

As long as you read more than the headline, the BBC, Sky News, and many established newspaper in my country have a largely objective coverage. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Good. I will try to give a practical example of my conclusions. For analysis, I will choose two major American news outlets Fox News and CNN. I'll analyze the news about Trump's tariffs in early 2025 to show how their filing shapes different emotions among readers. To do this, I use my proposed method of "clearing" news of emotions, followed by comparing narratives
Bare facts:
1.Trump announced tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada and China.
2.Tariffs on Mexico and Canada covered by USMCA agreement delayed
3.Tariffs have caused volatility in the stock market, and some experts have expressed concern about a possible recession.

Fox News Feed: Positive Tone: Tariffs are described as part of a "Make America Wealthy Again" strategy to bring jobs back to the U.S. Mentioned is "Liberation Day," an emotionally charged title that evokes a sense of patriotism and liberation. Trump support: Trump's quote that the United States will become "so rich that it will not know where to spend money" underscores optimism and confidence. Risk minimization: Although market volatility is mentioned, the emphasis is on Trump's long-term strategy, compared to China's "100-year perspective," which creates the image of a visionary leader.

Emotional effect: Pride in US economic independence, confidence in the success of Trump's policies, minimizing anxiety about economic risks. Readers are likely to feel supported by Trump's actions and optimistic about the future.

CNN feed Negative tone: Tariffs link to consumer and business "angst," as well as "stock market decline." It is mentioned that the cost of tariffs is "passed on to consumers," emphasizing the negative consequences. Skepticism: It is mentioned that Trump "did not rule out a recession," and his statements about US wealth ("let's become so rich") are presented with irony, without emphasis on success. Criticism: It points to "uncertainty" in trade policy and its potential harm, which increases the feeling of instability.

Emotional effect: Anxiety, uncertainty about the future, doubts about Trump's competence. Readers may feel uneasy about the economic impact and distrust of the administration's policies.

Comparison
Fox News is using a patriotic and optimistic narrative to give readers pride and confidence in Trump as a leader who acts in America's best interests. CNN focuses on risks and uncertainty, causing alarm and skepticism. The facts are the same, but the emotional "superstructure" is radically different: Fox News creates the image of a strong leader, CNN - a potential culprit of economic problems.


Perhaps in the first message I vaguely formulated my position. I will try to clarify the points:
1. The news flow today is overwhelming
2. The reader does not have time to compare each news in different sources
3. The media take advantage of this, adding an emotional color to naked facts
4. The reader simply trusts the preferred source, hoping that they should not lie there
5. The media constantly maintains an emotional background when presenting each news
6. Bare facts from the news gradually erode from memory, but the emotional background is remembered
7. When it comes to a citizen's decision (such as who to vote for), they choose feelings over facts.

In conclusion, I would like to mention the "Big Lie" in a report compiled during the war by the US Office of Strategic Services when describing Hitler's psychological portrait:
"His basic rules were: never let society" cool down "; never admit mistakes; never allow thoughts of the presence of positive sides in the enemy; never leave room for an alternative; never admit guilt; each time concentrate on any one enemy and blame him for all troubles; people would rather believe a big lie than a small one; and if you repeat it often enough, sooner or later people will believe in it "

It's well known that different people and outlets cover things differently, even journalists from the same publication might take different angles. Audiences tend to select the outlets that match their values. Which is why old, scared people tend to watch Murdoch's stuff. — Tom Storm

I agree that different publications and people cover events in different ways, and the audience often chooses sources that correspond to their values. This confirms my thought: perception is formed not so much by facts as by the emotional context that these facts accompany. You mentioned "a network of intertwined nonsense and propaganda" - this is a good way to describe how the modern information environment works. But I would argue that the "big lie" doesn't have to be one grand fiction. It can be a sustained narrative that is formed through the repetition of emotionally charged interpretations of facts, gradually creating a belief in people that they accept without deep analysis.

You asked if this is a new problem or just a continuation of the old yellow press methods. I believe social media adds a new dimension, as you said, not because it's fundamentally different, but because of its speed and scale. The emotions caused by the news spread faster and more widely, intensifying the effect. Unlike the traditional yellow press, where influence was limited to circulation or audience, social networks create echo chambers where emotional narratives circulate endlessly, forming perceptions without the need for one "big" lie - many small, emotionally charged distortions are enough.

It is difficult to resist, but possible if you deliberately slow down and separate emotions from facts, as I suggested in a thought experiment. This does not solve the problem completely, but it helps to realize how our opinion is formed not so much by information as by the feelings that it evokes.

To explain the idea on a neutral topic, consider the urban legend about how the father of Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, allegedly saved the young Winston Churchill from drowning, and in gratitude, Churchill's father paid for Fleming's education. This story, full of drama and incredible coincidences, lives on emotions - a sense of gratitude, fatefulness and admiration. People believe in it and retell it, despite its absurdity and lack of evidence, because the emotional charge overpowers common sense. It's a wilfully neutral example, out of political context, to show how emotional narratives take root and spread. You can read more about this legend on Wikipedia.

Do you think it's more likely that social media is the bigger issue? — Tom Storm

We should find time to research the things that are important to us. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The transition from traditional media to social media is not a way out of a vicious circle, but simply a change of players.

The essence of the problem is that we find ourselves between two evils:
On the one hand, there are large media that create and support metanarratives, often driven by financial or political interests.
On the other hand, bloggers who do not create these narratives, but only relay them, selecting facts to confirm their sincere beliefs.

None of these sources are neutral. We simply change who we trust, but do not solve the problem of engagement.

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media.

You will see that the fact itself will be the same, but its emotional superstructure - context, intonation, accents - will be radically different. It is this superstructure that shapes our attitude and consolidates opinion. This will confirm or refute the idea that emotions from news are more important than the facts themselves.


P.S. With your permission, I will not refer to specific facts in specific sources, because I can very easily hurt someone's feelings. I propose a focus on the idea itself, leaving the experienced approach to its own discretion

I think the conservatives pander to the working man with the short term gains like diesel price capping, and from what I have been told, greater subsidies for farmers, and things like that but long term I would say not. — unimportant

My intuition is this:
Farming, like heavy production, is such a fundamental process. They are not created in one day or one year and are calculated for a long time. It's painstaking, slow work that doesn't like swings and change. For this category, a dynamically changing world is a challenge.

I will share my experience. Once, I was in a state in which everything can change in one day. I had the opportunity to organize the cultivation of hops. But I gave up on the idea because the horizon was opening up for a decade to come. The lack of solid soil under my feet due to my uncertainty about politics - became the reason that I did not make a choice in favor of farming

Why fan the flames of political ignorance? — I like sushi

I propose the following turn in the discussion:

Will the elections of sixteen-year-old voters, subordinated to school, algorithms, and the whispers of the media, diverge so radically from the opinions of older voters, entangled in the same web?

maybe the point is that young minds require less effort to influence, more easily succumbing to the discourses of power, or are capable of increasing turnout?

And what if this discussion itself, this entire dispute imitating a "civil society" (an open society according to Popper) is only part of the performance, where democracy verifies itself through our own questions?

Aren't we, by arguing, weaving that very web, mistaking its next knot for a riot?

We all know we are all stupid — I like sushi

Since we understand this, maybe it's better to give the right to vote to those who consider themselves smart at the age of 16? :lol:

What do you think is the best age to allow for voting. — I like sushi

I will share my experience. At the age of 15-16, I was very indignant at the fact that my vote was not taken into account in the elections, because as it seemed to me then, I understood the world better than these "idiots" around me, who are 40 or more years old. After graduation, I was more than sure that until the age of 21 people should not be given any right to vote, since they simply do not understand anything about life. Today I am 37 and I sincerely believe that until the age of 30-35, people generally understand little, but I have to agree that their immaturity affects my life. I wonder what I'll say at 45?

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.

I am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner

I just wanted to tell you that even if consciousness is fundamental to all bodies, then the statement and recognition of this fact has no practical benefit. Since it does not matter what the object "thinks" that cannot affect anything (neither his own body nor other bodies)

If, for example, to know what a stone thinks about and then somehow influence its thought in the interests of a person, then this would absolutely not change anything, since the stone is not capable of an independent act.

If you manage to somehow control a fly or other organisms, then this will primarily be used in the struggle for power of some over others. And even if we assume this hypothetical scenario is real, it will not bring to good.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have carefully read your reflections, and I am very impressed with how deep and passionate you are discussing the nature of consciousness. Especially inspiring is the clarity with which Patterner articulates the idea of ​ ​ the fundamentality of consciousness, and the variety of perspectives that you all bring. I want to offer another look at this topic and ask: what if consciousness is not a substance or a property, but a process? Let me clarify, based on your ideas, and see where this can lead us.

Patterner, you remarkably described consciousness as a universal "sensory experience" inherent in everything from stones to people. Your analogy with vision, where consciousness remains unchanged, and only what is realized changes, is very bright. But what if consciousness is not something static, like a property or essence, but a dynamic process that manifests itself only in systems that can actively interact with the world? For example, in organisms with neural networks or behavioral responses, where consciousness is associated with information processing, adaptation or reflection.

You mentioned that a stone "survives itself" like a stone, but does not have mental activity, perception or movement. But what if it is the lack of active interaction that makes the idea of ​ ​ stone consciousness functionally redundant? If consciousness is a process associated with dynamics (for example, perception, feedback or choice), then a stone whose existence is static and determined by external physical laws may not need consciousness. Even if we assume that he has some kind of "experience," it does not affect his being - unlike, say, a person or animal, where consciousness is associated with adaptive processes.

Which brings me to another thought covered in the discussion, like plants. Tree growth is a process, but it is genetically programmed and does not involve active choice or reflection. But what if consciousness arises only where there is an opportunity to manipulate the environment or react to it at your own "discretion"? Then plants whose dynamics are deterministic may not require consciousness, even if we admit that they have some basic experience.

My idea is that consciousness as a process is associated with the dynamics of interaction and adaptation. This eliminates the need to ascribe consciousness to static or strictly deterministic systems such as rocks or plants, and focuses us on what makes consciousness meaningful - its role in active being. But what if this approach helps us avoid a substantialist framework in which consciousness is seen as "something" - be it a universal property or an emergent quality?

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?