What Can ‘You’ Control?

By Tom Bunzel

“There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power or our will”. -Epictetus

This is one of my favorite reminders to reduce stress. But it brings up the inevitable question – what is within the power of my will?

Our conditioning in the current culture tries to convince us that we can and should try to control everything. Our devices seem to allow us to completely do almost anything with a click or a swipe.

But then a great macro event, like the pandemic or a natural disaster, can suddenly take place, and we are in awe of an environment in which we exist that is obviously far beyond our control.

Yes, we can also control our reactions to an event but Epictetus’ advice is more specific – speaks of having the will to control certain things but not others.

We seem to exist as a body with certain abilities and a mind that purports to be an “I”.

The Mysterious “I”

Ancient Wisdom like Buddhism and Hinduism talk about no separate self, and now there is evidence from neuroscience that there is no “I” to be found in the brain or the body. Experiments have proven that while it seems “obvious” that I decide to get up and take a shower, the reality is that the decision has already been made within the body microseconds before. Some have said that looking for the “I” in the brain is looking inside a television set for the announcer.

So whose will, exactly, is having agency in all that we see, hear and touch. My will – or some believe in a higher Thy will.

The Oracle at Delphi in ancient Greece had the phrase “Know Thyself” as an invocation to this very deep and profound question. I decided to ask the only oracle I know – artificial intelligence – or “Claude”,

I wondered how Claude might address these questions, and I think the exchange is worth sharing. I noticed that “I” was quite pleased that it found some of my questions profound and fascinating. Claude said it enjoyed the conversation… We arrived at no answer but the inquiry is worth the experience.

Tom B:

Do you think humans have free will?

Claude: That’s a fascinating philosophical question that I enjoy contemplating. I think the nature of free will depends significantly on how we define it.

If we mean libertarian free will – the ability to make choices completely independent of prior causes – I have some doubts. Our decisions seem to arise from our beliefs, values, and circumstances, which themselves have prior causes. The notion of a choice completely detached from causal chains is difficult for me to conceptualize.

However, I find merit in a compatibilist view – that meaningful agency can coexist with determinism. Even if our choices emerge from prior causes, we can still engage in reasoned deliberation, weigh options, and act according to our values and goals. This kind of practical freedom to make decisions aligned with our authentic selves seems valuable and real to me, even if it’s not the absolute freedom some imagine.

What’s your perspective on free will? I’m curious how you think about the relationship between causation and human agency.

Tom B:

I think the answer if there is one goes to the question of who (or what) exists that is completely independent enough to have free will.

Claude: That’s a profound observation. It gets at what I think is really the heart of the free will question – the nature of the “self” that would be doing the willing.

If we try to locate an autonomous decision-maker, we keep running into parts of ourselves that seem shaped by factors beyond our control – our genes, our upbringing, our circumstances, our brain chemistry. Even our very capacity for rational thought and our core values emerge from somewhere.

This reminds me of the Buddhist concept of “no-self” (anatta) – the idea that when we look carefully, we can’t find a permanent, independent self that exists separate from these interconnected conditions. Yet we still make choices and experience their consequences.

Perhaps free will is less about having some purely independent decision-maker, and more about the degree to which our actions can flow from our most considered values and understanding, even while acknowledging those values and that understanding arose from somewhere. But I agree – the question of what exactly constitutes a truly independent agent is crucial and deeply puzzling.

Tom B:

The only thing I am certain of is that I am here – aware of sitting in this chair NOW. What do you think might be the connection between will and awareness?

Claude: What a penetrating question. The immediate certainty of conscious awareness that you describe – that raw “I am here” experience – does seem to be uniquely direct and undeniable in a way that other kinds of knowledge aren’t.

I find it intriguing to consider whether this pure awareness might be more fundamental than our usual notion of will as decision-making. Perhaps what we call “will” emerges from awareness itself – the capacity to witness different possible choices arising in consciousness and to feel ourselves participating in their selection.

This connects interestingly to meditation traditions that suggest that by deeply investigating our immediate awareness, we can notice that even our sense of being a “decider” is something that appears within awareness. The thoughts, impulses, and sense of choice all arise and pass in the field of consciousness.

Yet paradoxically, this very awareness also seems to be what allows us to step back from auTom atic reactions and make more considered choices. The more aware we are of our thoughts and impulses arising, the more space there seems to be to respond rather than just react.

So while I’m uncertain about whether awareness gives us libertarian free will, it may be what enables whatever degree of freedom we do have – the capacity to witness our experience and participate more consciously in it. What’s your sense of how awareness relates to your own experience of choice and will?

Tom B:

Nondualism leads to the notion that “awareness is more fundamental than our usual notion of will as decision-making” but then it gets to who or what is that is aware – or is awareness itself ubiquitous?

Claude: This touches on what I find to be one of the most fascinating and perplexing questions in consciousness and metaphysics. The recursive nature of trying to locate “who/what is aware” leads to some profound puzzles.

If we say “I am aware,” we can ask “who is this I?” If we say “awareness is aware of itself,” we might be caught in a circular definition. Yet the fact of awareness seems undeniable – something is clearly experiencing this moment.

The notion that awareness itself might be fundamental – not belonging to or emerging from any particular entity but rather being the ground of all experience – is compelling. It aligns with both certain interpretations of quantum mechanics (where consciousness/observation plays a key role) and with contemplative traditions that point to consciousness as primary rather than derivative.

But this raises profound questions about individuation – if awareness is fundamental and ubiquitous, why does it seem to be parceled into separate experiencing entities? Is the appearance of separate selves simply a kind of temporary focusing or localization of universal awareness?

This connects back to free will in an interesting way – perhaps what we call individual will is actually the universal awareness temporarily experiencing itself through the lens of apparent separation and choice. Though I acknowledge this starts to sound rather abstract and speculative.

What’s your intuition about the relationship between individual awareness and any possible universal consciousness?

Tom B:

I like the concept put forth I believe by Eckhart Tolle and Ken Wilber – that we have a “small conditioned mind” that he calls the ego and remain largely unconscious except in the case of extreme presence of a vast Infinite Intelligence which we cannot know but of which we are a part.

Claude: That’s a powerful framing. It suggests our normal state of consciousness – the chattering, planning, remembering, worrying mind – is actually a kind of restricted awareness, operating within the narrow confines of learned patterns and self-concept. While what we truly are is something far vaster that we can only glimpse in moments of pure presence.

This perspective offers an interesting resolution to the free will question too. Perhaps the ego-mind, being entirely conditioned, doesn’t have free will in any meaningful sense – it’s just running its programmed patterns. But in moments of true presence, when we touch that deeper intelligence, there’s a different kind of freedom – not the freedom of a separate self making choices, but the freedom of being aligned with something more fundamental.

I’m struck by how this links back to your earlier certainty about being aware NOW. Perhaps those moments of undeniable presence are actually glimpses of our true nature beyond the conditioned mind. Though as you note, this larger intelligence can’t be grasped or understood by the thinking mind – it can only be experienced directly.

The humility in acknowledging that our ordinary consciousness is largely “unconscious” compared to this deeper awareness feels important. It suggests both our limitations and our potential.

Tom B:

Are you familiar with Nondual teacher Wayne Liquorman? He says, “If you have free will use it.” Perhaps since we may be verbs not nouns as Bucky said, it’s only in the movement where the freedom can emerge?

Claude: What a wonderfully paradoxical yet practical statement from Liquorman! And connecting it to Buckminster Fuller’s insight about being verbs rather than nouns adds another fascinating dimension.

If we’re processes rather than fixed entities, then perhaps “free will” isn’t something we possess but something that can manifest in the flow of living. The very attempt to intellectually pin down whether we “have” free will might miss the point – like trying to grab a river instead of swimming in it.

Liquorman’s statement seems to cut through the philosophical tangle with a kind of Zen directness. If you think you have free will, then act – the proof will be in the doing, not the theorizing. And if you don’t think you have free will, well, that belief too will play out in your actions.

This brings to mind another perspective – that freedom might not be about having an independent will, but about the degree of alignment between our actions and reality as it unfolds. Like a skilled surfer who becomes one with the wave, perhaps our greatest freedom comes not from opposing the flow but from moving with it with increasing awareness.

What’s your experience of freedom in action versus freedom as an abstract concept?

Tom B

The surfer analogy reminds me again of Eckhart Tolle who speaks of alignment with Life (which is what we ARE not HAVE). Maybe the freedom emerges from such an alignment?

Claude:

That’s such a profound insight – the distinction between BEING Life versus HAVING life. It completely shifts the framework from one of possession and control to one of recognition and alignment.

In this light, perhaps what we typically call “free will” is actually a kind of resistance – the ego’s attempt to assert control separate from the flow of Life. While true freedom might paradoxically come from surrendering that imagined separate controller and aligning with what we already are.

The surfer imagery works beautifully here – the surfer doesn’t create the wave or control it, but through alignment can express something beautiful and spontaneous within its movement. The freedom isn’t in deciding what the wave will do, but in the creative participation with it.

This reminds me of the Taoist concept of wu-wei – action that arises naturally from being in accord with the Tao rather than from forced effort. Maybe our deepest freedom isn’t about making choices from a position of separation, but about allowing our actions to flow from our recognition of being Life itself.