Certainty—The Death of Intelligence
In the high desert of the American Southwest, before a ceremony begins, salt is scattered or sage is burned. Not to summon anything, but to clear. To mark the ground. To make space.
That’s what I’m doing here.
I’m not offering doctrine. I’m not insisting on a worldview. I’m burning sage. Scattering salt. What follows is not an argument to be believed, but a gesture toward clarity—by absence, not affirmation.
Certainty is not insight. It is the ossification of insight. Rigidity mistaken for clarity. Certainty stops inquiry by declaring it complete. When certainty arrives, intelligence—true intelligence: flexible, probing, unsure, open-ended—departs.
This is manifest in the discourse around consciousness. Here, the boundaries between philosophy, spirituality, and pseudoscience are thin, and certainty thrives in the blur.
Take Rupert Spira. He insists that consciousness precedes matter, and grounds this not in empirical demonstration but in what he calls higher reasoning. The phrase itself signals the problem. It elevates a particular line of thought to untouchable status. His certainty is not epistemic but rhetorical: a demand for assent disguised as argument. One must accept the primacy of consciousness because—well—he knows.
Donald Hoffman is more nuanced. I find some of his ideas genuinely interesting. Unlike Spira, he concedes that his models may be wrong. That’s rare and admirable. But even Hoffman sometimes slips from conjecture into confidence, speaking of perceptual interfaces and evolutionary pressures as though his theories had already passed through fire.
Then there is Bernardo Kastrup. Of the three, he is the most philosophically literate. His arguments are often well-formed. But again, the problem is not logic—it’s the fantasy that logic can close the case. Kastrup’s arguments remind me of medieval proofs for the existence of God—clever, airtight, and entirely unconvincing. The flaw is not in the steps, but in the ambition. He seeks inevitability where only possibility exists.
This is not a dismissal of their views. They may be right. Perhaps consciousness doesn’t arise from matter. Perhaps the physical world is a projection, not a foundation. Perhaps there is something akin to a universal mind. I don’t say those views are false. I just don’t know. And it seems to me that no one else does either—or can.
What I object to is the illusion of knowing—especially when wrapped in logic. When logic becomes a tool of confirmation rather than exploration, it is no longer logic but ornament. It serves belief, not inquiry. And that is the heart of magical thinking: belief first, rationale second.
I think the brain likely is the source of awareness—but I don’t know. The claim that the brain generates experience may also be mistaken.I merely observe that perceptions, thoughts, and feelings change, or even disappear, with brain states. That doesn’t prove anything metaphysical. It simply observes that consciousness seems dependent on functioning brains, and to suggest otherwise is a claim that requires evidence, not just logic and assertion.
In philosophy, and particularly in metaphysics, certainty is a kind of death. It kills the question by embalming the answer. Not because the answer is false, but because it can no longer be touched.
The open mind does not cling to one story of consciousness. It does not convert a hypothesis into a creed. It does not confuse explanatory utility with ontological finality.
It remains open—not weakly, not passively—but rigorously. It doubts with precision. It resists seduction by coherence. It asks again.
I am not certain. That is my clarity.
A must-read for every seeker of truth in this confusing age. Dr. Robert Saltzman’s The 21st Century Self is not just a book—it is a mirror held up to the illusions we live by. With razor-sharp insight and rare humility, he tears through the modern myths of identity, ego, and spiritual posturing. No jargon, no preaching—only deep seeing. This work touched my heart and shook my assumptions. Highly recommended.
— Anirudh Sharma, Pune
Books By Robert:
The Ten Thousand Things
Depending On No-Thing
Understanding Claude
The 21st Century Self
Bravo!!! 👍 This is brilliantly stated, I totally love and resonate with it. And I totally agree with 99.999% of it.
My one relatively small but I think important "correction" would be that when you say that Rupert Spira "grounds this not in empirical demonstration but in what he calls higher reasoning," that is only partly true. Having been with Rupert and listened to many of his talks and meditations, read most all of his books, etc, it has been my experience that Rupert approaches this in large part experientially and contemplatively, by guiding people through examinations of their immediate direct experience. That's what I appreciate most about his work. But it IS true that he also resorts to what he calls "higher reasoning" to draw metaphysical conclusions that (imo) go way beyond what can be experienced, and he does assert these conclusions with absolute certainty. I've never had the sense that he's open to the possibility that these conclusions might, in fact, be wrong. And that's what I like least about his expression.
Like you, I'm an agnostic on the fundamental nature of the universe and the source of consciousness. I'm probably more open to the possibility that Rupert, Hoffman, Kastrup and others (including Zen teacher Steve Hagen) suggest, but I still have strong pulls in the direction you lean towards as well. Like you, I don't know.
Anyway, this is a great article, Robert. Definitely 5 stars. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ ❤️
Excellently expressed Robert...
and yes, views that one holds as likely, such as the equation between brain and consciousness, need to be always announced with a caveat; one really cannot be certain.
As you write, the problem is not in the logic but in the context the questions are asked.
A musician will hear Beethoven; a scientist will see vibration.
Science, or measurement itself, is incredibly useful but clearly a map and not a location.
How does one arrive at such lightly held probable views?
Cultural, social, religious, academic programming and individual experiences perhaps?
I too utterly ignorant
about ultimacy of anything as anything one tries to hold
onto passes...
and my experience shows me that, while the brain may or may not be the material source of this nameless awareness of being alive that we name “consciousness”, there are many, many different dimensions and capabilities of/in awareness that do not fit into a scientific-naturalist perspective that would see consciousness as somehow contained and limited by its physicality.
Since I was a child I have had far too many “telepathic” and “psychic” experiences to invest in a purely mechanical understanding concerning matter(neurological wiring-synapses etc) although said psychic experiences will no doubt have particular brain chemical signaling:
While some of these experiences have been through the use of psychedelics, others “satori” or peak experiences have occurred after long-time meditation practice and others with no apparent prior cause.
Recently, in a supermarket I turned my head in one direction and for a timeless instant it was obvious that there is only one “thing”, “one life here” that is all and everything but has no personal identity whatsoever. No separate beings. Oneness. A moment of complete empty freedom that is also utterly indescribable and delicious. Next minute I am buying cheese and the beautiful worker and I meet eyes and there is a sudden wordless acknowledgment of mutuality. More real than any ideas about.
Of course, “psychic”’ “mystical” “transpersonal”experiences are all (mercifully) temporary, yet they definitely inform the map held lightly here,
As, I wrote above; personal experience informs the map, the world-view, the image, the Maya (She who measures) that plays here.
We can only experience our own “reality tunnel” stickiness can occur when we try to impose our map onto others.
Tolerance.
Respect.
As lunatics like Nisagardatta remind us:
To know yourself, be yourself. To be yourself, stop imagining yourself to be this or that. Just be. Let your true nature emerge. Don’t disturb your mind with seeking.
Cheers.