**Links to**: [[Choice sequences]], [[Choice]], [[Line]], [[Linearity]], [[Non-linearity]], [[Cut]], [[Clinamen]], [[Mathematics]], [[Communication]], [[Xpectator]], [[Agency]]. We do not adhere to the colloquial concepts of _choice_ or _decision_, which by and large appear to frame [[Xpectator]]s as voluntarist agents, but we define them as: ### [[000 Postulate]]: A ‘decision’^[The etymology of which bottoms out at _cut._] is a word we tend to use to designate _a specific (but fuzzy) segment of time_ during which momentum towards change is attentionally concentrated, and results in the making of a ‘choice.’ A ‘choice’^[The etymology of which bottoms out at _taste,_ see also: [[Aesthetic interest]] and [[Taste]].] is a word we tend to use to either reduce possibility spaces (“either a or b”) or designate the result of a decision (“a choice was made”). Either way, decisions/choices are simply the attentional moment something changes (swerve, difference, cut, veering, etc.), and are by no means voluntary as they ensue from countless necessarily inaccessible (pre)conditions (when understanding time as linear). **See also**: [[A distinction is a decision]], as [[Xpectator]]s navigate experience in accordance to their generative model. _A side note_: even though this project does not subscribe to the concept of “decision” which would imply consciously wilfull, agential, libertarian voluntarism, one should remain vigilant of any and all claims to “better” decision-making by the hand of something other than collective deliberation. This is because this project imagines that considering^[I.e., _desiring_.] attentional affairs together is better than relegating said affairs to mechanisms we do not understand, **unless** we are in the game of collectively considering that we want to extract contingency from the environment (divination practices; chance encounters). As an example of the things one should be wary of, _clearerthinking.org_ offers offloading your decision-making (or free-energy minimization) onto a sort of oracle that has claims to ‘rationality.’ This is very dangerous, it hijacks the possibility to collectively consider (unless we find that certain oracles we construct together, such as calculators, are collectively useful). ### Footnotes