ever get that feeling. Like what we call reality
is maybe a bit more bizarre than we usually think
about. Like there's this whole other level of
stuff going on right under our noses, right under
what we normally see in here. Like kind of mind
bending territory. That's exactly what we're
all about here on the deep dive. And today we're
going deep. really deep into some truly fascinating
stuff that you, our listeners, sent our way.
We're talking big, big questions about consciousness,
how we perceive the world around us or think
we perceive it, the whole slippery idea of free
will, and the ever -changing world of AI, artificial
intelligence. And all of this is coming from
a document with a title that pretty much sums
it up. Reality is stranger than you think. Consciousness,
perception, free will, ai .pdf. And to help us
navigate this seriously dense intellectual jungle,
we are so excited to welcome Anu K. Harris. Anu
Karak, you're the New York Times bestselling
author of Conscious, a brief guide to the fundamental
mystery of the mind. It's an amazing read, really
clear and concise, but it makes you think, really
think. And you're also the creator of the upcoming
podcast documentary series Lights On, which dives
into the bleeding edge of neuroscience, meditation,
and the philosophy of mind. Anik, it is such
a pleasure to have you with us for this deep
dive. It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for
having me. We are just so excited to pick your
brain about all these weird, strange, mind blowing
aspects of consciousness and what they could
mean for how we see ourselves and literally everything
around us. So Anik, to kick things off, how about
we start with a basic definition? When we talk
about consciousness here, what exactly are we
talking about? It's one of those words that can
mean so many different things to different people.
That is such a crucial first step. Right. So
often when people hear the word consciousness,
they automatically jump to complex thoughts,
self -awareness, things like that. You know,
things we typically associate with being human.
But the way I think about it, the real heart
of this whole mystery is something much more
fundamental. It's about felt experience, that
raw basic sense of what it's like to be to exist.
Felt experience. OK, I like that. Let's dig a
little deeper into what that actually means.
sure think about a bee right just a bee bumping
into a flower or picture a worm moving through
the soil they probably have some kind of very
basic level of consciousness even if it's just
a simple feeling of pressure When a simple organism
like that moves towards something that's going
to nourish it, there's probably some kind of
fundamental feeling of hunger that's motivating
that action. Even something as small as the impulse
to move away from danger that could be a super
rudimentary form of felt experience. Neuroscientists
are still trying to figure out just how far consciousness
extends in these simpler systems. But this basic
sense of what it's like to be that organism,
that's what I'm talking about when I say consciousness
at its core, it's the sheer fact of having an
experience, any kind of experience. It's the
difference between, say, processing light waves
bouncing off this microphone and actually seeing
it. Like, I'm not just processing those light
waves. I'm seeing its color, its shape. I'm having
this internal subjective experience of it. And
that feels completely different from how a computer
might analyze the same visual data. Gotcha. So
when we talk about sentience, Awareness. Are
we basically using those terms interchangeably
with this idea of felt experience for our conversation
here? Yeah, for our purposes today, think of
sentience, awareness, felt experience. They're
all getting at the same basic capacity, that
fundamental ability to have any kind of sensation,
that possibility of subjective experience. You
know, this makes me think of that famous thought
experiment. What is it like to be a bat? Oh,
absolutely. Yeah, it's from the philosopher Thomas
Nagel, and it really nails this idea of how personal,
how subjective, conscious experience truly is.
A bat experiences the world through sonar. It's
a sense that's so incredibly different from our
own vision -heavy experience. So we can try to
intellectually understand what it might feel
like to experience the world through echolocation,
through sound, but we can never truly know it
in the same way a bat does. And there's this
great German word umwelt, which captures this
idea of each organism's unique sensory world.
Our human welt is totally different from a bat's
welt, which is different from, say, a dog's welt,
where smell is so dominant. Each creature is
basically living in its own little subjective
sensory reality. OK, so we're talking about this
fundamental subjective felt experience. Now,
this naturally leads us to what's often called
the hard problem of consciousness. What makes
this so, well, so hard? Right. The philosopher
David Chalmers coined that term, the hard problem.
though people have been wrestling with this underlying
puzzle for centuries. Chalmers contrasts it with
what he calls the easy problems. Neuroscience
now, I'm not saying these easy problems are actually
easy. They're incredibly complex Yeah, but they're
all about figuring out which brain states consistently
happen when someone is having a particular conscious
experience what scientists call the neural correlates
of consciousness and we're making progress and
finding these connections between What's going
on in the brain and what people are experiencing?
But the hard problem it's completely different
beast It asks why is there any felt experience
at all associated with what's happening in the
brain? or with any kind of activity for that
matter. Why aren't we just incredibly complex
biological machines processing information without
any inner life, without any feeling, without
any experience whatsoever? Why is there this
movie playing in our heads? It really does cut
right to the chase, doesn't it? Why this inner
world? Why this feeling of experience? Exactly.
And for some people, that mystery is just immediately,
obviously, there. But for others, It takes a
little more effort to grasp what the puzzle even
is. But when you start comparing our human experience
to other systems, AI, plants, even insects, the
question really starts to take shape. Intuitively,
We suspect that these other systems, even though
they might have some really complex behaviors,
might not actually have this inner felt experience.
Like, a sophisticated AI might be able to understand
language, write stories, even compose music,
but do we really think it feels anything while
it's doing that? It seems natural to assume that
humans, and maybe other mammals, do have this
inner life. But figuring out the fundamental
difference that explains why some processing
is accompanied by experience and other processing
isn't, that's the essence of the hard problem.
The big takeaway here is that science can explain
how the brain works, how it processes information,
but not why we have this subjective experience
of it all. And it seems like science, in its
purest form, with its focus on external observation,
might just be inherently limited when it comes
to tackling this, right? You're right on the
money there. Science, and even just our everyday
way of making sense of the world, relies on studying
things from the outside in. We observe behavior.
We look at physical properties. Now luckily,
with other humans, we have this incredibly complex
system of communication. We can talk to each
other, share our experiences, and that gives
us a pretty good, though imperfect, sense of
each other's inner lives. Because we're similar
enough, we have a common ground for understanding
feelings. We have a shared language for it all.
But at the end of the day, I can never directly
experience your experience just like you can't
directly experience mine. And this problem gets
even harder when we think about organisms that
are very different from us. Imagine trying to
explain the feeling of seeing, of color, to someone
who's been blind from birth. Analogies and metaphors
can only take you so far. So this brings us to
one of the fundamental questions that you explore
in your book. Can we ever truly definitively
prove from the outside, just by looking at something,
that it has consciousness? Exactly, that's the
first big question I wanted to tackle in the
book and it's a question that really challenges
our deepest intuitions about consciousness Because
intuitively we feel like the answer is a big
fat. Yes Especially when it comes to other humans
and maybe other mammals But the reality is with
our current scientific understanding particularly
in neuroscience It's actually impossible to prove
for sure as we've been talking about all we really
have to go on is behavior things we can observe
and communication if that's possible. But behavior
alone is not a foolproof indicator. And you use
the example of locked -in syndrome in the book,
right? It's such a powerful example of how outward
appearance and inner experience can be so different.
Exactly. Locked -in syndrome, which is usually
caused by damage to specific parts of the brain,
it's this really strange condition where a person
is completely paralyzed, completely unable to
move, but their consciousness is completely intact.
Now from the outside, someone in a locked -in
state looks unconscious. They can't move, they
can't communicate, but we know now that many,
many of these individuals are having a full,
rich, conscious experience. They can see, hear,
think, feel everything happening around them,
but they just have no way to express it. This
just shows how big the gap can be between how
something looks on the outside and what's actually
going on inside. subjectively. And it really
emphasizes how hard it is to determine for sure
whether something is conscious just by looking
at it from the outside. That's a really heavy,
thought -provoking example for sure. So what's
the second key question you explore? The second
question, it's closely related to the first.
And it kind of looks at our intuitions from a
slightly different angle, it asks. Is consciousness
actually doing anything? Like is it really the
thing that's driving our behavior like we feel
so strongly that it is is this felt experience
this inner world is it the thing that's actually
causing us to act in the world and Again, our
first gut level reaction is probably a resounding.
Yes, you got it We feel so strongly that our
thoughts our feelings our intentions that all
comes from our conscious minds And that's what's
causing us to do what we do But just like with
the first question when we start to really dig
into the evidence The support for this intuition
isn't quite as rock -solid as we might think.
I was thinking about that earlier, like just
waking up and getting ready to have this conversation
with you. It felt so clearly like it was my conscious
intention to get ready that made me actually
do it. Exactly. It feels almost impossible to
imagine doing all those things without being
aware of them, without consciously choosing to
do them. But... There are areas of neuroscience
that are really starting to challenge that assumption,
that deep -seated intuition. Let's take fear,
for example. Fear, yeah, it's a pretty primal
emotion, one that seems to just take over and
dictate what we do, especially in those fight
-or -flight situations. Right, totally. If you
suddenly come across something dangerous, that
feeling of fear, it seems like that's the thing
that triggers that whole fight -or -flight response.
But when you look at what's going on in the brain
at a deeper level, the conscious experience of
fear is actually one of the last things to happen.
Our bodies are actually reacting to potential
threats way way faster. We're talking 300 to
500 milliseconds That's less than a half a second
Our nervous system is already detecting danger
and starting that whole physical response before
we even consciously register the feeling of fear
There's a neuroscientist, David Eagleman, who
talks about this idea that we're actually living
slightly in the past because of all the time
it takes for the brain to process sensory information
and weave it all together. He talks about these
things called binding processes. Binding processes,
what are those? So binding processes, they're
basically how the brain takes all this sensory
information, sight, sound, touch, all that, and
integrates it all into a single coherent experience.
But the thing is, different types of sensory
information, they travel at different speeds
and take different amounts of time to process.
So the brain has to do all this behind -the -scenes
work to bind everything together so we experience
that all is happening simultaneously. Eagleman
gives this great example of the starting blocks
at a race. Like, if you're standing at the starting
blocks and you hear the starting pistol, your
brain actually processes that sound faster than
it processes the light from the flash of the
gun. So even though they happen at the same time,
we actually hear it before we see it. Exactly.
And because sound gets processed faster, We actually
react faster to sounds than we do to visual cues.
This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective,
too. It's more important to react quickly to
a sudden rustle in the bushes, which could be
a predator, than it is to react quickly to seeing
something move. So all this is happening unconsciously,
milliseconds before we even have the conscious
experience of what's going on. Like, think about
playing tennis. You see the ball, you feel the
racket hit it, you hear the sound of the impact,
all seemingly at the same time. But in reality,
those different sensory inputs are all arriving
at your brain at slightly different times, and
your brain is binding them together to give you
this seamless experience of the present moment.
So what you're saying is that our bodies are
already reacting, making decisions even, before
our conscious mind even catches up. Pretty much,
yeah. It's kind of like our conscious experience
is always playing catch -up, always slightly
behind the curve of what's already happening
in our bodies. That's a pretty wild realization,
isn't it? How has that understanding, how has
knowing this, how has it changed how you operate?
It's kind of unsettling, you know, realizing
that your experience is the last to know, as
you put it earlier. It can definitely be destabilizing.
Like the first time you really grasp it, it can
make you feel a little uneasy for sure. I've
been there. But I think it's really important
to also recognize that this understanding can
have some really positive psychological effects
too. It can shift your perspective in some pretty
profound ways. In what ways? Like how has it
shifted your perspective? Well, for one thing,
it could really help you feel more connected
to everything. Less like you're this solid, isolated
self. This ties into the whole idea of the illusion
of a solid self, which you've talked about on
previous deep dives, right? When you start to
really understand how the brain works, how our
physiology works, it starts to reveal that this
feeling we have of being this fixed, unchanging
entity, moving through time all on our own, it's
more of a useful mental construct than a true
reflection of reality. And realizing that can
be kind of uncomfortable at first. Like, wait,
what do you mean there's no solid me? But in
the long run, I think it can lead to a greater
sense of oneness, a feeling of interconnectedness,
and even a sense of inner freedom. It can actually
reduce the amount of psychological suffering
we experience. That suffering that comes from
feeling fundamentally separate and alone. Because
you start to see how deeply intertwined we are
with everything else. That really resonates with
me. I remember you mentioning that you'd love
to have some kind of visual representation of
this interconnectedness. Like, if we could actually
see it, it would change everything. Oh, yeah,
absolutely. I often imagine how different our
experience would be. if we could actually see
the sound waves of our voices, like literally
interacting with the air between us. Or if we
could see the air we're breathing flowing in
and out of each other, this constant, subtle
exchange we're having with the environment all
the time. I think that would cultivate a much
stronger, more visceral sense that we're not
just separate beings in nature. We are nature.
Now, let's shift gears a little bit. A lot of
people have this really strong intuitive sense
that consciousness, or some form of it, exists
in other living things, particularly plants and
fungi. We hear about trees communicating with
each other, the huge complex networks of mycelium
underground. What are your thoughts on that?
You know, it's fascinating how powerful these
intuitions can be. Like you mentioned feeling
that trees have some form of consciousness. Interestingly,
my own initial intuition actually went the other
way. I never really felt strongly that plants
were conscious. But I've been reading a lot about
the latest research on plant behavior. And it's
really started to challenge those initial assumptions
I held. So you're saying we can't always trust
our gut feelings, our intuitions in these matters.
Exactly. And intuition, it's basically a feeling
that something is true. But that feeling, it
doesn't automatically equal accurate information
about the world. The astrophysicist Sarah Walker,
she recently said on social media that intuitions
are our best guide as scientists. And, you know,
my first reaction to that was, well, there's
some truth to that, but unfortunately, they can
also be our worst guide sometimes. I mean, think
about it. So much of scientific progress has
come from directly challenging our most cherished
intuitions, like accepting that the earth is
a sphere, not flat, or trying to wrap our heads
around the fact that there's this whole microscopic
world we can't even see with our naked eyes.
Our intuitions can, and often do, change quite
dramatically when we're presented with compelling
new evidence, new information that challenges
those old ways of thinking. And that kind of
intellectual understanding, it's not always necessary
to have that, to actually feel a sense of connection
with something, is it? No, not at all. You can
have this incredibly powerful, deeply felt experience
of interconnectedness, of oneness, without needing
to have a complete intellectual grasp of all
the science and philosophy behind it. There's
a quote by the Indian philosopher Srimasargadatta
Maharaj that I think speaks to this. He said,
the search for reality is the most dangerous
of all undertakings, for it destroys the world
in which you live. But I see that destruction
not as a bad thing, but as a necessary opening.
It allows us to see this much bigger, more expansive
horizon. So coming back to plants and fungi,
when we see these complex behaviors they exhibit,
how do you interpret them in terms of consciousness?
How are you thinking about it these days? Honestly,
my initial interest in plant behavior actually
came from this underlying sense that plants probably
weren't conscious, at least not the way we typically
think about it. I was really curious to see if
they exhibited any behaviors that seemed analogous
to things we often associate with consciousness
and animals, like, for example, parental care.
We might not use the word love to describe what
plants do, but the behaviors themselves, they
could be remarkably similar in some cases. Now
historically plant research, it's suffered from
a bit of pseudoscience, but there's been this
huge resurgence of really solid scientifically
rigorous research in recent years. I was reading
the work of plant biologist Daniel Chamovitz,
and I learned that we actually share a surprisingly
significant amount of DNA with plants. like even
genes related to light detection, which suggests
that we share some very fundamental biological
building blocks for certain types of behavior.
So yes, plants definitely show complex behaviors,
they respond to their environment in sophisticated
ways, but that doesn't automatically mean they
have the kind of rich, intersubjective experience
that we usually associate with consciousness.
So, given that it's basically impossible to get
definitive proof that something other than ourselves
is conscious just by looking at it from the outside,
What do you think is the best way to try to figure
out whether an intelligent life form might have
that inner experience? That's the million dollar
question, isn't it? And it really highlights
why the study of consciousness is so important,
so crucial. Neuroscience is still a relatively
young field, and we're really just starting to
understand the incredible complexity of the brain.
But as we've been discussing, there's this fundamental
obstacle to studying consciousness using the
traditional scientific method, which relies on
this third person objective observation. However,
I do think we're on the verge of a major shift
in the sciences, maybe even a paradigm shift
like we've seen throughout history, that will
allow us to develop better ways of understanding
consciousness in all its forms. What exactly
that shift will look like? It's hard to say,
but I'm optimistic that new, more effective approaches
will emerge. This whole deeper exploration of
consciousness, it raises some really big ethical
questions, too. Especially when we think about
things like animal agriculture and the potential
for suffering in beings whose inner lives we
might be totally underestimating. Yeah, absolutely.
If consciousness is more widespread in the natural
world than we currently think, then it becomes
even more important to try to understand suffering.
Like, what does it actually mean to suffer? And
where does it actually exist in nature? Unfortunately,
the way life on Earth works, it often involves
competition for resources, survival of the fittest,
and that inevitably leads to some degree of suffering,
at least at the animal level. There's this really
disturbing example in Zoe Schlanger's book, The
Light Eaters, about these cannibalistic caterpillars.
And their behavior, it's actually triggered by
this chemical. that a certain plant releases.
It's a stark reminder of how complex and sometimes
brutal the dynamics in nature can be. And it
really forces us to confront our own ethical
responsibility, our role in potentially reducing
suffering when we become aware of it. And this
line of thinking, it doesn't have to stop in
animals. We can even consider the potential experiences
of other forms of life, like parasites and viruses,
which adds even more layers of complexity to
the whole conversation. You've talked about how...
Your own meditation practice has made you more
sensitive to the presence of life around you.
It has, yeah. Through meditation, through just
trying to be more present when I'm walking in
nature, I've definitely felt a deepening of my
own sense of connection to everything around
me. And also a stronger sense of wanting to minimize
harm whenever possible. The yogic system, for
example, describes these different levels of
mind going beyond just the intellectual level.
It suggests that there are deeper levels of intelligence
that can tap into this direct intuitive knowing
of interconnectedness. And I think meditation
can play a role in shifting our intuitions about
consciousness, about our relationship to the
world. There's even this concept in Buddhism
called non -conceptual valid cognition. And that
refers to a kind of intuitive knowing that comes
through our body, through our felt experience,
not just our intellect. For me personally, just
being open to the possibility that consciousness
might be this fundamental aspect of reality,
it's already led to new questions, a whole different
way of seeing the world. This brings us to a
really interesting debate. Is consciousness ultimately
something that emerges from more basic unconscious
processes? Or is it actually a fundamental building
block of the universe itself? Can you unpack
those two contrasting views for us? Sure, so
the traditional view in science has been that
consciousness is what we call an emergent property.
It arises from a certain level of complexity
in the organization of matter, like all the intricate
activity happening in the human brain, even though
the underlying matter itself isn't conscious.
But there's another perspective that's been getting
more attention lately, and that's the idea that
consciousness might be fundamental, like it's
just built into the fabric of the universe, as
basic as space -time -gravity. You've mentioned
before that you're not a huge fan of the term
panpsychism. Can you tell us why? You know, panpsychism,
broadly speaking, it refers to this idea that
consciousness or mind -like qualities are fundamental.
that they exist to some degree in everything
in the universe. But personally, I'm not crazy
about the term. It has some baggage from older
philosophical debates, from a time when our understanding
of the universe was very different, and that
Kantikism at the end, it makes it sound like
a rigid belief system. Whereas I see this question,
is consciousness more fundamental than we currently
think, as a really open, active, incredibly important
scientific question that we need to be exploring.
Why do you think the traditional scientific view
has tended to favor this idea of consciousness
as an emergent property? What's the thinking
behind that? I think it's largely because the
most direct way we know about consciousness is
through first -hand reports, people telling us
what they're experiencing. And historically those
reports have mostly come from beings very similar
to us other humans. So it's understandable that
scientists have assumed that consciousness is
probably linked to really complex systems like
brains, but that's where we have the clearest
confirmation that it exists, because people can
talk about it. But, and this is important, even
when we're dealing with other humans, it can
be really hard to communicate about completely
new experiences. Like remember that study we
talked about earlier where people were given
the ability to sense magnetic north? Oh yeah,
that was fascinating. Right. They could develop
the sense of magnetic north, but they really
struggled to describe what it actually felt like.
And that was with other humans. This suggests
that there could be all sorts of conscious experiences
happening even within our own species that we
just don't have the capacity to recognize, understand,
or communicate about effectively with our current
methods. Just like we've come to realize that
we're not the center of the universe, that we're
not made of fundamentally different stuff than
everything else, it's a valid question to ask.
Could consciousness also be a more basic aspect
of reality? Like maybe it's more like gravity,
which seems to affect everything in the universe.
You mentioned that Magnetic North study, and
it made me think about how amazingly adaptable
the brain is, like what we see in the research
on sensory addition and substitution. Yeah, it's
mind -blowing, isn't it? David Eagleman and other
researchers have shown just how flexible the
brain really is, like how it can adapt to completely
new types of sensory input. For example, there's
this device called BrainPort, and it uses electro
-tactile signals on the tongue to create a kind
of vision for people who are blind. It's incredible.
The brain learns to make sense of this totally
foreign sensory information, and it does it in
a way that feels intuitive. It usually takes
about six weeks for the brain to adapt. And people
using BrainPort have even learned to do things
like shoot basketballs using this new form of
vision. It really opens up the possibility that
humans could develop all sorts of new senses,
new intuitions for information we don't currently
perceive at all. So, let's say consciousness
is fundamental, as fundamental as gravity. Why
would it be that some collections of atoms, like
a human brain, seem to have so much more self
-awareness than, say, a rock? That is the central
question, isn't it? The big mystery we're still
trying to figure out. I don't have a definitive
answer yet, but the main idea is that the specific
structure of those collections of atoms, or maybe
some deeper underlying structure that we don't
even understand yet, plays a huge role in creating
those more complex forms of conscious experience.
I've been developing a way of thinking about
the universe where consciousness is fundamental,
and it suggests that what we think of as physical
matter might actually be more like representations
or expressions of conscious experience at its
core. Kind of like how, when we look at another
person, we're taking in all this visual information,
their facial expressions, their movements, and
it all represents this incredibly rich inner
world of thoughts, feelings, sensations. Maybe
this same principle applies to all matter. Simpler
systems might have more basic rudimentary experiences,
while more complex systems have more complex
experiences. Memory also seems to be crucial
for our sense of self, that feeling of continuity
through time. If we didn't have at least a little
bit of memory, linking one moment to the next,
we probably wouldn't have this sense of a solid
me moving through time. So maybe the me we experience
is more like a thread of memory woven through
this huge sea of countless other conscious experiences
that are happening all the time within our own
bodies, but that we don't necessarily remember.
The really big question then becomes, if consciousness
is fundamental, why does it have the specific
structures and organization that we see in the
universe? math and physics, they've been incredibly
successful at describing these fundamental structures.
Maybe the future of science is about understanding
why consciousness takes these specific forms
with those structures described by math and physics
being the most basic elements. You brought up
the example of gravity before, how our understanding
of it evolved from Newton's view of it as a force
to Einstein's view of it as the warping of space
-time. Exactly. It's like our everyday experience
of gravity, that feeling of being pulled down,
it was pointing to a much deeper more fundamental
truth about the nature of reality, about space
-time itself, and maybe our experience of space
and time, it's pointing to something even more
fundamental. Maybe space itself isn't truly fundamental,
but rather it emerges from something else, something
we don't fully grasp yet. And if consciousness
is fundamental, then the idea that space is emergent,
that it's a kind of mapping our brains create,
it starts to make a bit more sense. It also connects
to the ideas of physicists like Maastegmark,
who argues that mathematical structures are actually
fundamental aspects of reality. Now, that's hard
to wrap our heads around with our current understanding
of physics. But what if those mathematical structures
are actually describing different types of fundamental
experiences in a universe where consciousness
is the basic building block? This could even
relate to the idea of multiple dimensions that
comes up in quantum mechanics, which are so hard
to reconcile with our everyday experience of
three -dimensional space. It's amazing how these
ideas from cutting -edge science They seem to
resonate with some of the ancient wisdom traditions.
Oh, yeah, absolutely. The idea of a fundamental
consciousness. It's a core concept in a lot of
Eastern philosophies. They talk about the illusory
nature of the self, the limitations of free will,
and they point to this more fundamental aspect
of being, often called the witness or pure awareness.
And they suggest that understanding this deeply
can lead to a profound sense of liberation and
freedom. freedom that's not dependent on the
ego, on the idea of a separate self. So Enoch,
if consciousness is as fundamental as you're
suggesting, what would you say is the most fundamental
aspect of your own nature? For me, it comes down
to those moments of deep stillness when the mind
is quiet. There's this sense of presence, of
awareness, that remains even when there are no
specific thoughts, no sensory input. It suggests
that this basic awareness, this pure, unconditioned
capacity for experience, might be the most fundamental
thing about me, about all of us. So, if this
is true, if consciousness is fundamental, wouldn't
that mean that directly exploring our own first
-person experience through things like meditation
could give us insights into the nature of reality
that we couldn't get through traditional science?
Exactly. Practices like meditation, they're specifically
designed to quiet the mind to explore the nature
of experience directly. They could offer a unique
and valuable path to understanding reality, a
path that complements and maybe even informs
traditional science. Let's talk more about this
idea of the illusion of self. What exactly is
the illusion here? What are we talking about
when we say the self is an illusion? It's really
important to make this clear. When we talk about
the illusion of self, it doesn't mean that we
don't exist as individuals, or the things we
experience in the world aren't real. Think of
it like waves in the ocean. Waves are real, they're
dynamic, they're constantly changing, but ultimately
they're just movements of the underlying water.
The illusion is in thinking that the wave is
a separate independent thing. So with the self,
the illusion is this feeling we have of being
a solid, unchanging, independent entity that
moves through time in a straight line. Now our
brains are constantly processing information,
creating this sense of continuity, making everything
feel coherent. But the self we experience, it's
more like that way of constantly changing fluid
than it is like a fixed object. Even the way
we talk, like saying my brain, my body, it reinforces
this idea that we're separate from our physical
being. And this feeling of a solid, independent
self is also tied to our sense of free will.
The feeling that our conscious self is making
decisions all on its own, independently of the
physical world, independently of cause and effect.
But what of consciousness is more like the canvas,
the background on which the events of reality
driven by our brain processes are playing out.
That analogy of the self being like a wave, it's
really helpful. And there's actually measurable
evidence of this, too. Studies have shown that
certain brain areas, particularly the default
mode network, become less active in deep meditation
and in psychedelic experiences. And this correlates
with the feeling of the self dissolving. That's
right. And the important thing is that This dissolving
of the self, it doesn't mean we're not conscious
anymore. We're still fully conscious. But it
often leads to really positive experiences. People
describe a sense of interconnectedness, of oneness,
a feeling of being part of something much bigger.
I actually had a really powerful experience of
this myself at a silent meditation retreat a
few years ago. Would you mind sharing that experience
with us? Sure. I was doing walking meditation
and suddenly it was like this light bulb went
off. Not just an intellectual understanding,
but a direct experience, that there was no me
doing the walking. There was just the experience
itself, the sensations in my feet, the movement
of my body all happening on their own. It was
like all these conscious experiences, the qualia,
the thoughts, the sensations, they were just
arising and passing away within the field of
consciousness itself. Like bubbles forming and
popping in a boiling pot of water, all happening
within the same water, without any central self
controlling it all. It brought this deep sense
of peace, of non -attachment, and a feeling of
just witnessing things arising and passing away.
It's what Buddhists call Anicca. And with that
came this incredible sense of freedom and a much
more direct, intimate connection with the world,
without all the usual filters and distortions
created by my desires and expectations. It was
like taking off a pair of glasses I didn't even
know I was wearing. And there was this really
strong feeling of oneness, like other beings
were just part of that same interconnected web
of experience. Not in a narcissistic way, but
more like how you might identify with the past
version of yourself. It even makes you think
about what we might call experiential science.
Like, what if in the future we could share memories
directly? Would that give us a clearer view?
of this underlying reality. We just strengthen
our understanding that others are fundamentally
similar to ourselves, just experiencing different
moments in time. It sounds like a truly life
-changing experience. It was. It changes how
you relate to the world, how you relate to yourself.