You seem to have failed to notice the key point. Here's a slight rephrasing of it: "explanations for actions will fail to reflect the actual causes of those actions to the extent that those actions are the results of nonconscious processes."
You ask, does Gazzaniga's explanation apply to explanations made in advance of the actions? The key point I've highlighted answers that question. In particular, your explanation of the actions you plan to take are (well, seem to me to be) the result of conscious processes. You consciously apprehended that you need groceries and consciously formulated a plan to fulfill that need.
It seems to me that in common usage, when a person says "I thought there was a snake" they mean something closer to, "I thought I consciously apprehended the presence of a snake," than, "some low-level perceptual processing pattern-matched 'snake' and sent motor signals for retreating before I had a chance to consider the matter consciously."
"explanations for actions will fail to reflect the actual causes of those actions to the extent that those actions are the results of nonconscious processes."
Yes, he says that. And then he says:
listening to people’s explanations of their actions is interesting—and in the case of politicians, entertaining—but often a waste of time.
thus extending the anecdote of snakes in the grass to a parable that includes politicans' speeches.
...It seems to me that in common usage, when a person says "I thought there was a snake" they mean someth
Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules: