The part that struck me: "We experience ourselves as choosing, even though much of the process leading to that choice has already unfolded beneath awareness."
Yogacara Buddhism noticed something similar. It described the mind as a kind of processing chain, with the "store consciousness" (alaya-vijnana) running continuously beneath deliberate thought. What we call the self only shows up near the end of that chain, reviewing a decision that's largely already been made.
Which raises an interesting question for decisiveness. If the "I" is arriving late, does clearing contradictory beliefs make the whole chain more coherent, or does it free up a process that didn't need a self to begin with?
Not trying to dissolve the self before lunch. But I'm curious whether you think the "I" in decisiveness is the driver, or more like the last checkpoint.
I don't know.. It seems a difficult thing to ascertain. Your question is about free will.
I cannot think of a scenario when the choosing is not because of a belief. There is always a bias. Whether that be a bias to seek truth, or use the scientific method. Hence the choosing is only an illusion. The free will is limited, conditioned. I is not the driver, more like the last stage. I is a conditioned entity, hence it is impermanent. All thoughts and its beliefs arise because of causes.
It is possible to have an entirely consistent but incorrect system of beliefs. One may feel decisive then, but it may not always be a preferable thing. There will be no dissonance from the system itself, but since fundamentally it is at odds, there will be reversals and errors when it comes in contact with reality.
It is thus also important to align with reality as much as possible.
There are two kinds of contradictions. One within the belief system. The other is with the external world. Both manifest as emotions.
Removing contradictions allows us to have internal consistency and external alignment with reality.
The part that struck me: "We experience ourselves as choosing, even though much of the process leading to that choice has already unfolded beneath awareness."
Yogacara Buddhism noticed something similar. It described the mind as a kind of processing chain, with the "store consciousness" (alaya-vijnana) running continuously beneath deliberate thought. What we call the self only shows up near the end of that chain, reviewing a decision that's largely already been made.
Which raises an interesting question for decisiveness. If the "I" is arriving late, does clearing contradictory beliefs make the whole chain more coherent, or does it free up a process that didn't need a self to begin with?
Not trying to dissolve the self before lunch. But I'm curious whether you think the "I" in decisiveness is the driver, or more like the last checkpoint.
I don't know.. It seems a difficult thing to ascertain. Your question is about free will.
I cannot think of a scenario when the choosing is not because of a belief. There is always a bias. Whether that be a bias to seek truth, or use the scientific method. Hence the choosing is only an illusion. The free will is limited, conditioned. I is not the driver, more like the last stage. I is a conditioned entity, hence it is impermanent. All thoughts and its beliefs arise because of causes.
It is possible to have an entirely consistent but incorrect system of beliefs. One may feel decisive then, but it may not always be a preferable thing. There will be no dissonance from the system itself, but since fundamentally it is at odds, there will be reversals and errors when it comes in contact with reality.
It is thus also important to align with reality as much as possible.
There are two kinds of contradictions. One within the belief system. The other is with the external world. Both manifest as emotions.
Removing contradictions allows us to have internal consistency and external alignment with reality.
.
wheres this pic
Hi there. This picture is a generated one. Good day/night to you!