I read a Discover article called could an inner zombie controlling the brain?
The topic is interesting, and the article also reminded me about a few things.
First, journalists don’t always trust that stories are interesting enough on their own, so they give them a helping hand. In this case, by pretending that something we all know from daily life is a new discovery, and by using metaphors more for attracting attention than accuracy. (Nothing wrong in that. It does attract readers, at least for a while, until they catch on and some chose to go to publications that treat their readers in a more fair way as more intelligent. But good to notice.)
The gist of the story is that we sometimes go on autopilot. When a task is familiar to us, and simple enough to go on autopilot, it often does, and that frees our attention to go elsewhere. At times, it may go into daydreaming or spacing off, but other times, it may go to something quite practical and functional.
We all know that from daily life, so that part is not new. But the research mentioned is interesting and sheds more light on it.
Then, a couple of other things. For instance, the word consciousness is used to mean content of experience, and in particular some of the workings of the psyche. This seems a little odd to me. It is unnecessary, for one, since we have perfectly good words for those dynamics. And also, it uses up the word for content of experience so it is not available for that which content of experience happens within and as.
And then another assumption: Autopilot means no free will (fair enough), and bringing attention to something means free will (hm…).
There is no denying that bringing attention to certain dynamics and workings of our mind can (apparently) lead to real life changes in how we chose and act. It has a very practical value.
I may notice I go to the fridge when I am stressed, and by noticing this, I can (apparently) chose another strategy to deal with that stress. I may go for a walk instead. Talk with a friend. Deal with a situation I have put off dealing with. Find a belief and inquire into it.
So there may be a sense of free will here. Attention is brought to a particular dynamic. There appears to be a choice between going on autopilot again, acting in familiar ways, or acting differently. Then choosing and acting on that choice. Or not.
But is there really a free will there?
When I look for myself, I find infinite (plausible) causes for any actions and choices, whether on autopilot or not, so no free will is needed. (This assumes causality, of course.)
Also, I find that it is all happening on its own, so again no free will. There seems to be no “one” needed with a free will.
And that the sense of a doer, which may seem so real and substantial, is a gestalt, a combination of sensations and images. That any connection between a choice or action and this doer is yet another image and story. And that any idea of causality is just that, an idea. I can find correlations, but no causality anywhere.
As so often, all of this can easily co-exist with a conventional view. We bring attention to dynamics of the psyche, and it may well lead to different choices and actions in our daily life. It makes sense to take responsibility for all of this, in a conventional way.
And at the same time, I can inquire into that sense of a doer making a choice and then acting on it, or not. What is that doer? Can I find anything else than sensations and images? And what is causality? Can I find anything else than correlations and then assumptions of causality? Can I find causality outside of my stories? Can I see causality directly?
……………
Initial outline…
- sci am article
- consciousness = content of experience
- autopilot as support, yes
- aware of = free will?
- still infinite causes
- but bringing into awareness does shift something, does allow a wisdom to come in, shift how relate to… (but still no “free will” needed)