For "I did A but could have done otherwise" I see two coherent meanings:
1) My mind produced A from the local conditions, but a conceivable different mind with otherwise identical local conditions would've produced not A. My mind is therefore a crucial causal factor in the reality of A.
OR
2) From my limited knowledge, I cannot trace the causal steps to A that precede my decision well enough to determine, from those steps alone, the decision I make which leads to A.
...actually, probably both.
So, the causal steps to A include my decision (and A is inconsistent with certain decisions that differ from my real one), but I cannot trace the causal steps of my decision precisely enough to have precluded those differing decision (without already knowing the reality of my decision.)
Alternatively: if we work from full knowledge of the causal path to A, except that we treat my cognition as a black box whose outcome we don't know, we could not conclude A even with unlimited processing power.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
The ability to endure cognitive dissonance long enough to find the resolution to the dissonance, rather than just short-circuiting to something that makes no sense but offers relief from the strain, is a necessary precondition for rational thought.
I don't think it can be cultivated, and I don't think there's a substitute. Either you pass through the gauntlet, or you don't.
Couldn't you start with easier cognitive dissonances, and work your way up?