| There is an important issue with reducing this problem to linguistic conventions of how we use words. 'This block of ice is actually made up of lot of atoms and will melt away soon, but meanwhile it is a useful abstraction to treat it as a single block' Compatibilists tackle the free-will issue in a similar way, Dennet says something like 'This chess program is perfectly deterministic, but it has free will - Even its programmer has to guess, as to what is its next move.' The above usage of terms is OK at some level, but there is something independent of definitions - How we actually see the self, and the cause of actions. When somebody insults me, does it feel like the insult is describing I/me or does it feel like describing a bundle of thoughts/habits? Was the bad thing done by 'me' or was it done by desire and anger? Even if these are processes, we can't help but reify them into unitary agents and actions. A major claim made by Hindu/Buddhist teachings is that once there is a shift in *internal perception* of how actions are happening, towards a more analytical view which breaks up the ego(ahamkara), this causes a major shift leading to liberation from cycles of suffering. In Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, there is an analysis of thoughts and feelings behind actions, with a goal of liberation from chronic problems. This is very similar to a stage of manana(intellectual contemplation of certain statements in Vedanta). |