The place of rage and hate

[Surgenator]

Is this real randomness, or is it just unfathomable complexity? If true randomness, then how would it be generated, and by what mechanism or process would a person making a decision access that true randomness?

I don't think you can tell the difference between true randomness and unfathomable complexity. The way we can tell if a process is random or not is if we can predict its result given some inputs. By definition, you cannot predict the what the outcome would be from either of those cases. So trying to the distinguish between the two is a pointless endeavour.

I don't know how a randomness would be generated. It might be inherent in the neurons themselves or the environment the neurons are in. I don't know enough about the brain to provide a satisfactory answer.

Also, with regards to being out-of-character: if you are faced with a dilemma so perfectly balanced that only the injection of a random element can tip the balance, then I'd say there are two possibilities: 1) that both choices are highly resolved in the person's unconscious, but are in conflict (love of sex vs. a sense of honor, for example); 2) that neither choice has a "program" to deal with it-- for example, if I had to choice between two floral-patterned wallpapers for my wife's study.


I'd say that BOTH elements of the first dilemma are in-character, and BOTH elements of the latter are out-of-character in a sense. However, I'd argue a kind of meta-character, in which the careful consideration of some kinds of dilemma, and the lack of consideration for other kinds of dilemma, are still under that umbrella of will.

In other words, I'd say nothing is truly random, and no decision can ever be out-of-character. Rather, they are out-of-expectation, i.e. they are surprising albeit inevitable.

I think you're stawmaning my out-of-character decision by appling it on two equally likely choices you would make. The out-of-character decision requires a choice picked that is much less likelihood of being choosen compared to another choice. A better comparison would be having sex with your wife or taking out the garbage. If you picked taking out the garbage, that would be out of character decision.

---

You can say the same thing for God. In principle you can look everywhere for God. In practice you can't.

As a matter of definitions I'd say the concept of causal determinism is on much firmer ground than "God." What would we be looking for exactly?

Something that can be falsifiable. The deterministic view Schopenhauer proposes outright rejects random events. He provides no justification for this other than claiming there is a hidden variable that we're missing.