Exclavius wrote:
Not quite getting at what you're saying... or where you'd coming at it from there, Sand.
I'm saying what we perceive as the random nature of quantum events is NOT random, but controlled by something else, as yet unobserved. Thus it only APPEARS random.
As for doing what we don't want to do, that is what a portion cognitive dissonance is all about.
If we "want" two opposing and conflicting things.... no matter which we choose, we act contrary to our wants. We can, via tricks, convince ourselves that we wanted what we chose, but it doesn't mean that we did want it.
I don't know about others, but I can, and I do act contrary to my deepest desires. If I didn't, I would always do what I want, and not what was best. Perhaps you cannot separate those two concepts? Perhaps another way to look at it, is we can convince ourselves we want something, so as to be able to do it, despite not wanting to do it. Intentional Cognitive Dissonance. It's a common technique used by authors, inventors, artists, and the creative type to inspire "originality"
When I think about it, even if you have the most razors edge scrupals decisioon, or something that's simply that small and ambivalent that you could have gone either way, it seems like what you were going to do ultimately was still rooted either in your nature or, if you felt like your nature hadn't been serving you as much as you'd like lately, your contrariness to it is also just as measured and just as fixed.
One of the things you brought up, ie. subatomic behavior, that does sort of push the boundaries a little - as in I honestly can't say for sure that I'm right on that, to say that what did happen is what would have happened no matter what may well be taking my thesis farther than I really should. We may one day figure out dark energy and how it works, that could be a few minutes down the road though.
19 Jul 2010, 5:06 pm
