I spend a lot of time thinking about this issue for obvious reasons. Firstly, I believe there is objective truth, and I except, although I am not thrilled by the possibility that we are merely self-aware clockwork with the feeling we control ourselves, while this feeling is in fact a dilusion.
However, I do not find it productive to embrace this possibility for now, when science weighs in more, as it will, I might change my mind.
Secondly, and contradicting your argument, I also have no problem embracing the ego, the feeling of I. If we have the ability to choos, I believe we have the ability to choose to commit to a sense of self and conversely the ability to try to abandon the ego, as eastern spiritualists do, but nothing I've read or lived has convinced me that one choice is more valid than the other. I choose the former ecause I find being me an enjoyable experience.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What do you think about that experiment though? It shows that in some cases the feeling of free will is an illusion. It opens up the possibility that it is always an illusion. And that is what people like Adyashanti run with, they go further and say, if you look closely, you can see it directly - that the feeling of free will is always an interpretation. It seems, either it is objectively true or it isn't.
I agree that the question of free will has an objective answer. Either we are conscious creatures with some agency, free will, or we are conscious creatures with the illusion of agency, no free will. I want to believe what is objectively true, not what is comforting. The part of your argument I find least convincing is that the ego is an illusion. To put it simply I'm stuck as myself, my lived experience involves an "I."