I did enjoy the discussion here in general. I hadnât heard of the âillusionistâ stance before and it does sound quite interesting yet I do find it quite confusing as well.
I generally find there to be a big confusion about the relation of the self to what âconsciousnessâ is. I was in this rabbit hole of thinking about it a lot and I realised I had to probe the edges of my âselfâ to figure out how it truly manifested. A 1000 hours into meditation some of the existing barriers have fallen down.
The complex attractor state can actually be experienced in meditation and it is what you would generally call a case of dependent origination or a self-sustaining loop (literally, lol). You can see through this by the practice of realising that the self-property of mind is co-created by your mind and that it is âemptyâ. This is a big part of the meditation project. (alongside loving-kindness practice, please donât skip the loving-kindness practice)
Experience itself isnât mediated by this âselfingâ property, it is rather an artificial boundary we have created about our actions in the world for simplification reasons. (See Boundaries as a general way of this occurring.)
So, the self cannot be the ground of consciousness; it is rather a computationally optimal structure for behaving in the world. Yet realizing this fully is easiest done through your own experience, or through n=1 science. Meaning that to fully collect the evidence you will have to discover it through your own phenomenological experience. (which makes it weird to take into western philosophical contexts)
So, the self cannot be the ground and partly as a consequence of this and partly since consciousness is a very conflated term, I like thinking more about different levels of sentience instead. At a certain threshold of sentience the âselfingâ loop is formed.
The claims and evidence heâs talking about may be true but I donât believe that justifies the conclusions that he draws from them.
I did enjoy the discussion here in general. I hadnât heard of the âillusionistâ stance before and it does sound quite interesting yet I do find it quite confusing as well.
I generally find there to be a big confusion about the relation of the self to what âconsciousnessâ is. I was in this rabbit hole of thinking about it a lot and I realised I had to probe the edges of my âselfâ to figure out how it truly manifested. A 1000 hours into meditation some of the existing barriers have fallen down.
The complex attractor state can actually be experienced in meditation and it is what you would generally call a case of dependent origination or a self-sustaining loop (literally, lol). You can see through this by the practice of realising that the self-property of mind is co-created by your mind and that it is âemptyâ. This is a big part of the meditation project. (alongside loving-kindness practice, please donât skip the loving-kindness practice)
Experience itself isnât mediated by this âselfingâ property, it is rather an artificial boundary we have created about our actions in the world for simplification reasons. (See Boundaries as a general way of this occurring.)
So, the self cannot be the ground of consciousness; it is rather a computationally optimal structure for behaving in the world. Yet realizing this fully is easiest done through your own experience, or through n=1 science. Meaning that to fully collect the evidence you will have to discover it through your own phenomenological experience. (which makes it weird to take into western philosophical contexts)
So, the self cannot be the ground and partly as a consequence of this and partly since consciousness is a very conflated term, I like thinking more about different levels of sentience instead. At a certain threshold of sentience the âselfingâ loop is formed.
The claims and evidence heâs talking about may be true but I donât believe that justifies the conclusions that he draws from them.