[c3RlcGhlbnI_]

This makes a lot of sense when you consider more just how small a role your "conscious" mind plays in your cognition. It is really more of a control center, and has direct access to a very limited amount of your computing power. You can't consciously monitor all of your sensory neurons, or make use of the math processing your mind can do to throw a ball, or manually coordinate your muscles.

You can see the effect of this very clearly while talking. You don't plan out each word ahead of time, you go to say something and the words come out. You can choose to take a step back and plan things in more detail, but this isn't your default mode of operation. Also even then in your head the words tend to seem to just come from somewhere in a stream, like a little stimulation of what you were doing talking out loud.

It is not generally helpful to think of this as a different person, it is you and you stand to gain a lot from learning to trust it. Like how you trust it to be able to recall minute details of API documentation despite not being able to reproduce them in full. You can't recall every code problem you have ever solved, but in a way your subconscious has, and it has been refining them into a process to produce those incredible insights.

[dmfdmf]

I agree. Also, some people groping with this idea will use the word "unconscious" when referring to the subconscious but the distinction is important. The subconscious is always doing something, processing info, etc., even when we sleep, i.e. it is an active process. We aren't necessarily conscious of it hence the prefix "sub" or below consciousness. Unconscious implies inactivity, inertness like a boxer knocked out in the ring.

>It is not generally helpful to think of this as a different person,

I think this is down right harmful and one of the psychological manifestations of the mind/body dichotomy. Disowning your subconscious is a path to neurotic behavior and unhappiness. It is "you" just automatized from your past and one of the most important tasks of the conscious mind is to monitor and correct automatized past errors through introspection.

[Reedx]

You also don't know what your next thought is going to be. Furthermore there are strong arguments that free will is an illusion. See "Free Will" by Sam Harris.

[grzm]

The illusion of free will isn't, though :) Still trying to figure out what that means.

[dmfdmf]

The concept "argument" presupposes you have freewill so its circle, self-contradictory non-sense to "argue" that it is an illusion.

Edit: for clarity

[thomyorkie]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[dmfdmf]

Say that you believe X and I believe Y. If I present an argument for Y that amounts to presenting evidence for your consideration that Y is true and X is false. The implicit assumption behind arguing with anyone (even your self!) is that your mind is free to choose to believe X or Y, THAT is freewill.

If freewill is an "illusion" then "argument" is a hollow concept as well. If we don't have a choice in what to believe then what is the point of arguing?

[thomyorkie]

I think argument still has a place in a world where freewill is illusory. Surely, one's opinions can change when presented with new evidence, regardless of whether that change originated from a free agent's conscious choice or a more deterministic background process of which one's consciousness is only partially aware. Furthermore, that change in opinion can have a meaningful effect either positively or negatively for both the conscious entity and the world at large.

[dmfdmf]

Again, for the benefit of those who want to understand, you are smuggling in freewill via the concept "argument". You have no right to use that concept given your denial of freewill and it doesn't matter how many exceptions, qualifications or obfuscations you put on the concept "freewill", it is either a real capacity of our minds or it is not.

The essence of your position is that you are trying to convince me to change my mind and agree with you that I do not have the capacity to change my mind. It is a self-contradiction, as all forms of determinism are, and if you were consistent with your belief you wouldn't be arguing at all, yet here you are. I think (beyond a certain point) denying freewill is an inherently dishonest position but unfortunately you have plenty of company.