> Even when people make decisions, they're generally a weighted combination of a bunch of "feelings". We attempt to explain a kind of simple, logical rationalization afterwards, but psychologists have shown that this is often a bunch of post-hoc fiction.
Does it matter? If a brain counstructs post-hoc argument for given decision and the argument is defensible against other arguments, then the argument itself is good enough substantiation of the decision, even if it is different from the actual decision process.
Does it matter? If a brain counstructs post-hoc argument for given decision and the argument is defensible against other arguments, then the argument itself is good enough substantiation of the decision, even if it is different from the actual decision process.