Options vs Choices.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Eyes clamped shut ...

Several people here that engage your OP have come to the same conclusion that you are confusing yourself.
Why assume it is us who have our "eyes clamped shut"?


Take my restaurant example... No pork chops on the menu.
Are pork chops an option for the customer? No, because they have no knowledge of it because the restaurant isn't communicating it.
The customer has no reason to think pork chops are an option.

The fact remains true that pork chops are a possibility. But not an option because it's not given as an option.
Someone who knows would have to tell the customers that pork chops are an option for it to be an option.
You can only choose between available options that you actually have knowledge of.

The lobster is a false option. The customer thinks he can choose it, but when he does, he'll be told "we're out of lobster".

 

[PureX]

Several people here that engage your OP have come to the same conclusion that you are confusing yourself.
Why assume it is us who have our "eyes clamped shut"?

Mostly because none of these people can explain how I'm confused. Thinking they're clever doesn't make them clever. Believing they're right doesn't make them right. Nor does presuming I'm wrong make me wrong.

Take my restaurant example... No pork chops on the menu.

See, here is a problem, already. You couldn't explain why the example I gave you was wrong, so you had to invent another one that made you look right. But the one you invented has nothing to do with the one I gave you. It's why I restated the problem without any examples.

Are pork chops an option for the customer? No, because they have no knowledge of it because the restaurant isn't communicating it.
The customer has no reason to think pork chops are an option.

The fact remains true that pork chops are a possibility. But not an option because it's not given as an option.
Someone who knows would have to tell the customers that pork chops are an option for it to be an option.
You can only choose between available options that you actually have knowledge of.

The lobster is a false option. The customer thinks he can choose it, but when he does, he'll be told "we're out of lobster".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mostly because none of these people can explain how I'm confused.

Every single one of them explained it. Is the problem that you didn't understand or that you didn't read it?

Thinking they're clever doesn't make them clever. Believing they're right doesn't make them right. Nor does presuming I'm wrong make me wrong.

I see explanation in every post. Didn't you read them?

See, here is a problem, already. You couldn't explain why the example I gave you was wrong,

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was poor, because there are no mere 2 "options" to drive from point A to point B. There's an inumerable amount of them. Furthermore, when trying to map out a route from A to B, one would take a map and plot a route. So the very idea of "secret route C" is simply ridiculous and unnecessarily unrealistic. It was just a bad example to make the point you were trying to make.

I just figured an example like a restaurant menu which doesn't list everything the kitchen could make would make for a better example for the point you were trying to make. So in fact, I was actually helping you so that you could make your point better.

Sorry, I won't do it again.

so you had to invent another one that made you look right.

???

The main crux of your example was that there was a "secret" option. My menu example has a "secret" option of pork chops.
How is that designed to "make me look right"?

Sounds like you are bickering just for the sake of bickering.
What's the problem? Are you butthurt that my example did a better job at making YOUR point then your own example?

But the one you invented has nothing to do with the one I gave you.

Why not? Again, the crux of your example was that the subject thought he had only 2 options while there were really 3.
Just like my menu example. Only the menu example is more to the point because in reality, there are ALWAYS innumerable ways to drive from A to B.

It's why I restated the problem without any examples.

What's he problem with my example?
Don't just state it's bad without explaining why.

 

[PureX]

Every single one of them explained it. Is the problem that you didn't understand or that you didn't read it?

Their explanations explain nothing.

The option exists, but is not an option when we don't know it exists. Thus, it is or is not an option depending on cognition. It is therefor an example of how cognition usurps physical reality. And this is why you refuse to acknowledge it. As it negates your materialist philosophy.

I see explanation in every post. Didn't you read them?



I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was poor, because there are no mere 2 "options" to drive from point A to point B. There's an inumerable amount of them. Furthermore, when trying to map out a route from A to B, one would take a map and plot a route. So the very idea of "secret route C" is simply ridiculous and unnecessarily unrealistic. It was just a bad example to make the point you were trying to make.

I just figured an example like a restaurant menu which doesn't list everything the kitchen could make would make for a better example for the point you were trying to make. So in fact, I was actually helping you so that you could make your point better.

Sorry, I won't do it again.



???

The main crux of your example was that there was a "secret" option. My menu example has a "secret" option of pork chops.
How is that designed to "make me look right"?

Sounds like you are bickering just for the sake of bickering.
What's the problem? Are you butthurt that my example did a better job at making YOUR point then your own example?




Why not? Again, the crux of your example was that the subject thought he had only 2 options while there were really 3.
Just like my menu example. Only the menu example is more to the point because in reality, there are ALWAYS innumerable ways to drive from A to B.



What's he problem with my example?
Don't just state it's bad without explaining why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Their explanations explain nothing.

The explanations seem clear to me though.

The option exists, but is not an option when we don't know it exists. Thus, it is or is not an option depending on cognition.

The word "option" only makes sense from the perspective of knowledge.
When the restaurant manager forgets to put "pork chops" on the menu, then pork chops are not an option for customers to buy. The result will be that the restaurant won't be selling any of them.

It only becomes an option for the customer once they know about it.
As long as that doesn't happen, pork chops aren't an option.

If the restaurant manager mistakenly puts "lobster" on the menu instead of the pork chops, then the customer have the option of choosing lobster. But if they choose that option, they'll be informed it was a mistake and there is no lobster. At that point, lobster will be scrapped as an option.

Why are you making this so difficult?

It is therefor an example of how cognition usurps physical reality.

No, it doesn't change physical reality.
The pork chops factually exist in the refrigirator of the kitchen. The chef factually can prepare them.
Wheter the customer is given the option to order them or not.

The physical reality of what is available in the kitchen by no means depends on the options given to the customers.

And this is why you refuse to acknowledge it.

There is nothing to acknowledge. I disagree with you.

As it negates your materialist philosophy.

I don't see how.

You seem to be pretending that physical reality is determined by beliefs about it.
It isn't. If anything that's what your example demonstrates.

The pork chops are available in the kitchen for the chef to prepare, regardless of them being presented as an option for order to customers or not.

 

[ratiocinator]

The option exists, but is not an option when we don't know it exists. Thus, it is or is not an option depending on cognition. It is therefor an example of how cognition usurps physical reality.

It's a classic deepity. You're just playing with the ambiguity of natural language (the meaning of 'option') and trying to turn it into something profound.

 

[PureX]

It's a classic deepity. You're just playing with the ambiguity of natural language (the meaning of 'option') and trying to turn it into something profound.

It is profound. It shows us that how we perceive reality can, in fact, effect what reality is.

 

[ratiocinator]

It shows us that how we perceive reality can, in fact, effect what reality is.

No, it doesn't. You're just playing with word meanings. It's trivial.