Tom Ryle: Robert, thank you for your books and videos. I have read both books and viewed many of your chats and Zoom meetings. What you say rings true, but I am left with one question. You often discourage the idea of the witness or witness consciousness. You say that creating an observer of oneself is a kind of false move that you call splitting, but then you speak about yourself in the third person as if “I” and Robert were two different people. Why isn’t that splitting? In your BATGAP interview, you said, “Robert has opinions,” as if you are somehow not Robert, but outside of him observing him having opinions. Could you comment on that, please?
"what “I” am is best understood to be a human primate animal body/mind, including the perceptions, feelings, and thoughts that such body/minds—gifted with human primate nervous system"
This is the bit that most puzzles me about your position. It doesn't seem to emerge from the same sceptical attitude towards scientistic consensus reality that you cast upon 'spiritual' worldviews. I take your point about the latter. It's clear much 'inner' or 'spiritual' investigation, done with the ghosts of Nisargadatta and Maharshi (et al) hovering, seem to be a form of self-indoctrination.
But consciousness really is a mystery, and the notion that it magically arises from 'nervous systems' is nothing more than a shibboleth of contemporary culture. We have no idea how or why such a thing might happen. At the moment all we have is desperate promissory notes and hand waving. Even "best understood" is a substantial overstatement. There isn't even a viable sketch of what a physicalistic theory of consciousness might look like yet.
Why not be equally sceptical here? You don't seem in general to be averse to a plain "I don't know" (I'm writing as someone firmly planted on the "I don't know shit" bank of the creek). It's possible to accept mystery without going all mysterian.
I am skeptical of all supposed facts, Crispin. To be called factual, an idea or a perception requires evidence, the more robust, the better. My first question is always, "And you know that how exactly?" But skepticism does not mean disregarding evidence and arguing that facts and beliefs are equally valid “stories.”
When I awake needing to pee, I am faced with compelling proof of my animal nature, which is confirmed later when I observe my donkey peeing in very much the same fashion. Organs and tubes.
The lack of a “physicalist theory” of consciousness deters me not one iota from “identifying” as an animal, specifically a primate human mammal. Experience does not require explanations. It would be a hard lift to convince me that I am not a living being with all that entails.
Yes, alternate views can be suggested, but they all depend on at least one bald assumption—one hypothesis that must be taken as a given—so, with some guidance from Occam’s Razor, I prefer the hypothesis at the heart of naturalism: Everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are unnecessary. Could that be short-sighted? What if spirit and matter are two entirely different ontological categories, or what if it’s all spirit, and we are non-material entities just dreaming a natural world?
Since we do not have complete information, anything is possible, and even far-fetched ideas cannot be ruled out entirely. However, as I see it, the evidence for naturalism is not just all around us but includes us—we who eat, sleep, etcetera, just like other naturally occurring living entities. For example, when various brain areas are damaged, predictable changes in consciousness—including, at times, its total absence—occur.
That is strong evidence, in my view, that brains and consciousness are somehow correlated, entangled, implicated, enmeshed, perhaps affiliated not causally but in ways we humans cannot even imagine.I would not chalk those neurological observations up to “scientism,” as I imagine you must. To me, biology and physics are the best way to investigate “reality.” Apparently, not for you. I never chose to prefer “physicalism,” as you call it. That preference is part of who I am, just as your resistance to “physicalism” is part of what you are
I have not said that consciousness magically arises from nervous systems. No one knows whence consciousness comes. But to doubt that one is a human primate animal requires ignoring millions of everyday observations in favor of a more idealistic view. I see no justification for it.
Yes, obviously we do not know where consciousness comes from, it is a mystery not solved by scientists. But that does not mean that we can ASSURE that it is eternal and prior to existence. To assure it is a belief of an “I” that does not want to die as it seems the evidence of all living beings on Earth.
Beliefs are deeply rooted in homo sapiens, but it seems to me more honest to live according to experienced evidence while remaining open to mystery. And this seems to me to be what Robert expresses
Love it. Huge fan of Borges.
Big, big Borges.
Beautiful. I have loved Borges since my teens... 💙
Beautiful! Both prose and photo🙏
"what “I” am is best understood to be a human primate animal body/mind, including the perceptions, feelings, and thoughts that such body/minds—gifted with human primate nervous system"
This is the bit that most puzzles me about your position. It doesn't seem to emerge from the same sceptical attitude towards scientistic consensus reality that you cast upon 'spiritual' worldviews. I take your point about the latter. It's clear much 'inner' or 'spiritual' investigation, done with the ghosts of Nisargadatta and Maharshi (et al) hovering, seem to be a form of self-indoctrination.
But consciousness really is a mystery, and the notion that it magically arises from 'nervous systems' is nothing more than a shibboleth of contemporary culture. We have no idea how or why such a thing might happen. At the moment all we have is desperate promissory notes and hand waving. Even "best understood" is a substantial overstatement. There isn't even a viable sketch of what a physicalistic theory of consciousness might look like yet.
Why not be equally sceptical here? You don't seem in general to be averse to a plain "I don't know" (I'm writing as someone firmly planted on the "I don't know shit" bank of the creek). It's possible to accept mystery without going all mysterian.
I am skeptical of all supposed facts, Crispin. To be called factual, an idea or a perception requires evidence, the more robust, the better. My first question is always, "And you know that how exactly?" But skepticism does not mean disregarding evidence and arguing that facts and beliefs are equally valid “stories.”
When I awake needing to pee, I am faced with compelling proof of my animal nature, which is confirmed later when I observe my donkey peeing in very much the same fashion. Organs and tubes.
The lack of a “physicalist theory” of consciousness deters me not one iota from “identifying” as an animal, specifically a primate human mammal. Experience does not require explanations. It would be a hard lift to convince me that I am not a living being with all that entails.
Yes, alternate views can be suggested, but they all depend on at least one bald assumption—one hypothesis that must be taken as a given—so, with some guidance from Occam’s Razor, I prefer the hypothesis at the heart of naturalism: Everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are unnecessary. Could that be short-sighted? What if spirit and matter are two entirely different ontological categories, or what if it’s all spirit, and we are non-material entities just dreaming a natural world?
Since we do not have complete information, anything is possible, and even far-fetched ideas cannot be ruled out entirely. However, as I see it, the evidence for naturalism is not just all around us but includes us—we who eat, sleep, etcetera, just like other naturally occurring living entities. For example, when various brain areas are damaged, predictable changes in consciousness—including, at times, its total absence—occur.
That is strong evidence, in my view, that brains and consciousness are somehow correlated, entangled, implicated, enmeshed, perhaps affiliated not causally but in ways we humans cannot even imagine.I would not chalk those neurological observations up to “scientism,” as I imagine you must. To me, biology and physics are the best way to investigate “reality.” Apparently, not for you. I never chose to prefer “physicalism,” as you call it. That preference is part of who I am, just as your resistance to “physicalism” is part of what you are
I have not said that consciousness magically arises from nervous systems. No one knows whence consciousness comes. But to doubt that one is a human primate animal requires ignoring millions of everyday observations in favor of a more idealistic view. I see no justification for it.
Yes, obviously we do not know where consciousness comes from, it is a mystery not solved by scientists. But that does not mean that we can ASSURE that it is eternal and prior to existence. To assure it is a belief of an “I” that does not want to die as it seems the evidence of all living beings on Earth.
Beliefs are deeply rooted in homo sapiens, but it seems to me more honest to live according to experienced evidence while remaining open to mystery. And this seems to me to be what Robert expresses
Emporer: Who is it that stands before me?
Bodhidharma: Don't know.
They say, "Don't always believe what you think."
If you don't maintain a watcher, off to the side, then whatever you think is absorbing you 100%. I.e., you are believing it.
It's been a useful tool for me to watch myself at times. Especially when I've been in socially uncomfortable situations.
Well, yes. Even the most fortunate of us cannot always be in the zone.