Category Archives: Psychology neuroscience and mind

Second thoughts

1 Reply

When we see a person walking down the street talking to himself, we generally assume that he is mentally ill (provided he is not wearing a headset of some kind). But we all talk to ourselves constantly—most of us merely have the good sense to keep our mouths shut. We rehearse past conversations—thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we should have said. We anticipate the future, producing a ceaseless string of words and images that fill us with hope or fear. We tell ourselves the story of the present, as though some blind person were inside our heads who required continuous narration to know what is happening: “Wow, nice desk. I wonder what kind of wood that is. Oh, but it has no drawers. They didn’t put drawers in this thing? How can you have a desk without at least one drawer?” Who are we talking to? No one else is there. And we seem to imagine that if we just keep this inner monologue to ourselves, it is perfectly compatible with mental health. Perhaps it isn’t.

Sam Harris, Waking Up, p.94

But, if we are really alert, we may detect – almost like a shadow, or a pre-echo on old-school reel-to-reel tape – a wordless thought milliseconds before the verbalised thought, with (as far as we can tell) the identical informational content; only we can’t then resist putting words to it and reciting it to, as Harris says, the invisible blind man in our head.

What is going on? The nearest thing to an explanation I can come up with – and I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of years now – is that continual contemplative practice somehow opens one’s attention, one’s witnessing attention, to the actual operation of something Dan Dennett described as “multiple drafts”: one draft, normally unconscious, is actually registering and even reacting to to perception; while another – the conscious, “front of house” storyteller – is constructing his usual narrative scenario dedicated to the maintenance of a stable, but illusory, sense of self.

I’m not sure that any particular consequence arises from this rather disorienting perception, except perhaps insofar as it further dislocates any remaining sense we may have of being a permanent, unchangeable self or “soul”. It is disconcerting, though – for the first few times even scary – so here again I probably should repeat my regular “health warning”! If any reader feels there is a risk of anything like a spiritual crisis being precipitated by this kind of practice, or merely wants to be prepared, there are hopefully useful links to the Spiritual Crisis Network and other resources on my own advice page on this site.

Threads

1 Reply

This question is proving interesting, and difficult. I resolve to pursue it night and day. I have a go – asking myself from time to time, in the midst of ordinary life, ‘What was I conscious of a moment ago?’

As I get used to the exercise, the response settles down to a pattern. I usually find several things; several candidates for things I might have been conscious of a moment ago. Sounds are the easiest bet. They hang on. They take time. When I light upon them, they always seem to have been going on for some time, and it feels as though I have been conscious of them. There is the sound of the cars outside in the distance. There’s the ticking of the clock. There’s the beating of my own heart. And then – oh goodness me – how could I have ignored that. There’s my breath. Surely I have been watching my breath, haven’t I?

Susan Blackmore, Zen and the Art of Consciousness

I’m sure that, in a sense, this is a familiar enough experience for most of us: to suddenly become aware, in the midst of practice, especially, of an ongoing sound – a clock chiming, a cat purring (both examples from Blackmore’s book) – coupled with the realisation that it has been going on for some time already. But when? When did we become aware? At the first stroke of the clock? Or when we noticed it, say at four strokes? If it was the former, why hadn’t it been the focus of the conscious mind? If the latter, what was going on before we noticed?

There is no answer, says [Daniel] Dennett. There is simply no way in which one could ever tell. Looking inside the brain won’t tell you, for the signals were being processed in the relevant bits of brain whichever way you describe it, and asking the person won’t tell you because she doesn’t know either. So it’s a difference that makes no difference. And what should we do with a difference that makes no difference? Forget it; accept that there is no answer to the question ‘What was I conscious of a moment ago?’ Can that really be right? …

[W]hen I look, I can find at least one, and often many, threads of things that I might have been conscious of a moment ago but which seem to have had no connection with each other. Who then was conscious of them? Surely someone was because they have that quality of having been listened to, having been stared at, having been felt or smelt or tasted – by someone. Was it me? Unless there were several mes at once, then no. Or is it that I am split up in reverse; that going backwards I can find lots of routes to the past? This is how it seems. Threads is the right word. From any point – from any now – I can look back and find these myriad threads. They feel perfectly real. They feel as though I was listening to that blackbird’s song, that drone of traffic, that distant hammering somewhere up the hill, the purring cat beside me. But each one has this peculiar quality…

I can go round and round, starting with the middle of the view out there, working in carefully towards myself in the centre, and there I find only the same old view, to start all over again. How did that happen? I was looking for the me that was looking and I found only the world. It’s a familiar enough trick, but easily forgotten. Look for the viewing self and find only the view. I am, it seems, the world I see.

Blackmore, ibid.

That, of course, is the crux of all this, the unimaginable but undeniable Istigkeit that we always try not to see: there is no self remembering, no inner seamstress patterning the threads. There is the living loveliness of just what is, nothing more. What is arises of itself, comes to be because that is what it is. Light strikes the water, sparkling instants. Mind perceives. Thoughts think themselves. Everything is as it is, acts according to itself. What else could it be? There is only what is, clear and pure as a raindrop on the window of – what? – mind? Only what is. That is all there is.

Altered states?

1 Reply

Whether the technique is narrative or not, the primary experience [what the senses, or the dreaming mind, actually perceive] has to be connected with and fitted into the rest of experience to be useful, probably even to be available, to the mind. This may hold even for mystical perception. All mystics say that what they have experienced in vision cannot be fitted into ordinary time and space, but they try – they have to try. The vision is ineffable, but the story begins, “In the middle of the road of our life . . .”

Dreams Must Explain Themselves: The Selected Non-Fiction of Ursula K. Le Guin

This is a problem – if that is the right word for it – that I have run into myself. Direct contemplative experience is, by definition, an altered state of consciousness: it is not in itself accessible even to the rational mind. Andreas Müller explains:

All there is is oneness. The unknown. No-thing appearing as it appears. It is already whole. It is already complete. That which seems to be missing – wholeness – is not lost…

What remains is indescribable. It is indescribable simply because there is no one left who can describe it. There is no one left who experiences oneness (which, by the way, would then not be oneness anymore) and could possibly know how that is. Yes, there is no one left who knows how it is. That is freedom.

As Le Guin points out, if we want to talk about our experience, even to think about it, it must be recast into something approaching narrative. This has an odd effect; what happens is that something which occurred, subjectively speaking, outside time (i.e. without duration) has to be described – thought of, even – as though it had a beginning, a middle and an end. Even in poetry this is true, though that is perhaps rather less obvious!

There is no way around this, I think. Primary experience has to be experienced; it can’t be explained, or taught. What can be explained, and taught, is the practice that makes a place for the possible. Nothing we can do can cause these experiences; all we can do is try our best to remove obstacles to their occurring. (This, of course, is the great temptation of psychedelics: swallow 250 microgrammes of LSD, and something will happen, whether you like it or not. And God help you if you don’t.)

From a time-bound perspective, one may spend a long while in regular practice without any alteration in one’s state of consciousness, except perhaps a certain gradual progressive loss of identity and increasing confusion, which can be distressing and even scary. Illumination per se is something that occurs, if it occurs, outside the practitioner’s life-time (I use the hyphen advisedly) altogether. It has no narrative. Nothing can compel this occurrence, and in any case – and this is important – it is not something one can, or should, regard as a goal. The practice is the goal, in itself; nothing more nor less than that. It is the practice that reveals the open ground, the Tao – and this entirely without drama, without altered states of anything. But – practice, effective contemplative practice, is not a narrative process itself. Though you can set a timer for 20 minutes or half an hour, time is not something that applies to the practitioner’s subjective experience. Just sitting, the way we do, is outside of story, outside of “and then, and then…” There is no Jones; and anyway, along where? Just sit still.

The treasures of the storehouse

1 Reply

In the past I have all too often found myself caught up frantically in the search for solutions, answers to dilemmas, where to go and what to do. When I was younger I so frequently struck out into uncharted and risky places, unhelpful relationships, odd career moves, simply in order to do something, get somewhere – anywhere – rather than live with uncertainty and indecision.

When I became involved with the Christian contemplative tradition, I encountered for the first time the concept of leaving such things “in God’s hands”; the idea being that in the fullness of time the Holy Spirit would convey the answer to the dilemma, directly or (more likely!) indirectly to the waiting mind. Now there is a very real benefit to be gained by such an approach, regardless of the prescribed methodology. The issue is left in abeyance for the time being, and out of the glare of anxious attention a solution may arise; or else the heart may become reconciled to the lack of one.

Of course there are alternative ways to explain this process to ourselves. “According to the left-brain, right-brain dominance theory, the left side of the brain is considered to be adept at tasks that are considered logical, rational, and calculating. By contrast, the right side of the brain is best at artistic, creative, and spontaneous tasks.” (Eagle Gamma, ‘Left Brain vs. Right Brain: Hemisphere Function’ in Simply Psychology, October 2023) So the problem the left brain has been desperately scratching at is left unsolved, until the patient, creative right brain has done its subtle work.

Needless to say, there is a Buddhist approach as well. Kaira Jewel Lingo, in an extract published in Tricycle Magazine:

These deeper life questions can’t be resolved at the level of the mind but must be entrusted to a different, deeper part of our consciousness. Thay suggests we consider this big question as a seed, plant it in the soil of our mind and let it rest there. Our mindfulness practice in our daily lives is the sunshine and water that the seed needs to sprout so that one day it will rise up on its own, in its own time. And then we’ll know the answer to our question without a doubt.

But we must leave the seed down in the soil of our mind and not keep digging it up to see if it is growing roots. It won’t grow that way! It is the same with a deep and troubling question. We ask our deeper consciousness to take care of it and then let go of our thinking and worrying about it. Then in our daily lives we practice calming, resting, and coming home to ourselves in the present moment, and that will help the seed of our question to ripen naturally and authentically. This process cannot be rushed or forced. It may take weeks, months, or years. But we can trust that the seed is “down there,” being tended to by our deeper consciousness, and one day it will sprout into a clear answer.

In Buddhist psychology this part of our mind is called store consciousness. This is because it has the function of storing our memories and all the various mind states we can experience in latent, sleeping form. For example, maybe you’ve experienced trying to solve a problem or find an answer to something that perplexes you. You think hard and circle round and round in your mind, but you feel you don’t get anywhere. Then you let the question go, and suddenly when you least expect it, inspiration or helpful ideas come to you in a time of rest, and you just know what to do. That is store consciousness operating. It is working on the problem for you while your day-to-day consciousness rests. Store consciousness works in a very natural and easeful way and is much more efficient than our thinking mind. When wisdom arises from store consciousness, it feels right in the body and we no longer have doubts.

But waiting for the answer to arise can be challenging at times, because we may really want to know the answer. We may find ourselves feeling deeply insecure and fearful if we don’t know what to do, which path to choose. We worry we will make the wrong choice, and we catastrophize about what will happen if we take this or that direction. It’s hard to find our way if we continue to feed this worry and fear. We can recognize that we are not helping the situation and stop. Returning to this moment, anchoring ourselves in our body, we will find the solidity of the home inside of us, which is capable of helping us find our way, if only we let it, and if we can let go of trying to figure out the future in our heads.

Whichever way we choose to understand it, the process – which can only take place in the heart’s stillness, whether through the explicit practice of mindfulness or by some analogous means – is profound and trustworthy. In fact, it seems often to be transformative, not only of our own lives but, in a deep and unexpected way, of the lives of those around us.

In an interview, also in Tricycle magazine, the Buddhist LGBT+ pioneer Larry Yang says,

As activists, we can be invested in the goal or specific change. Take your time. Experiment with the teachings yourself and see if they assist you to navigate the complexities and stresses of your own life. Explore for yourself how the impact of the mindfulness and heart practices can influence your work. Please feel invited to exploring freedom through the process, rather than the outcome. Freedom is distinct and different from justice. Working toward justice and equity are indispensable activities to level the disparities that create oppression. However, freedom is not dependent on external circumstances—not even justice. Can we do the difficult and hard work of social justice without our hearts becoming difficult and hard as well? Can we deeply engage with working toward justice from a place of inner freedom within our minds and hearts and use wisdom and compassion as forces to change the world? That is the invitation that I am passionate about exploring for myself…

Creating the stillness in the vortex of our lives helps us to create some sense of calm and tranquility in a world that seems to be crazy with violence and fragmented in its differences and conflicts. As we transform our own experience and relationship to our realities, we cannot help but affect those around us in radiating circles into the larger culture. These moments of freedom and transformation begin to change and elevate the consciousness and awareness of the world.

Interrupting the skeuomorphs

1 Reply

Anyone who was involved with personal computers around 25 years ago will be all too familiar with skeuomorphs, those little pictures of familiar material things that were so often used as interface elements – ring-binder pages for calendar applications, or the little gleaming jewel-like forward and back buttons in a web browser like Netscape Navigator 9 or Internet Explorer 7. They’re still in use today – the virtual keyboard of your smart phone is a skeuomorph – there isn’t a keyboard there at all: it just looks, and works, like one.

It seems to me that our day-to-day experiences are not unlike existential skeuomorphs – they allow us to remember, to interrogate and interact with events, but they are no more than pictures of what actually happened. Of course, we couldn’t operate, couldn’t even usefully perceive anything, without them. Part of the phenomenological action of psychedelics is surely just that: the disabling of this delicate interface through which we encounter the world. No wonder a person on a bad trip feels they are going mad; temporarily (we hope) they are. The world may be an inconceivable web of fields and probabilities, but we perceive real tables and chairs, cats and boxes; they may be illusions, but they are benign (Dennett) and necessary illusions, as real as we are ourselves.

Only in the stillness of meditation – or a sudden unbidden illumination – can we, if only for a moment, allow a fully open awareness to catch a glimpse of what actually is.

All there is is oneness. The unknown. No-thing appearing as it appears. It is already whole. It is already complete. That which seems to be missing – wholeness – is not lost…

What remains is indescribable. It is indescribable simply because there is no one left who can describe it. There is no one left who experiences oneness (which, by the way, would then not be oneness anymore) and could possibly know how that is. Yes, there is no one left who knows how it is. That is freedom.

Andreas Müller, No-thing – ungraspable freedom

(I wrote at greater – if more subjective – length about this last year. It seemed to me today, though, that it was worth mentioning again in the context of these perceptions. I am not a neuroscientist, nor even a philosopher of mind; I am only someone who has occasionally encountered something that seems almost as if it might be the tangible fruit of such disciplines in direct experience.)

Physicalism vs spirituality?

4 Replies

In the broadest terms, the philosophical theory of physicalism maintains that the explanation for how minds came about is no different from the explanation for how rivers, trees, mountains and meadows came about. Mind was not something extra, added at the beginning or somewhere along the way; rather, from the stock of basic physical ingredients that make up a human—mostly oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, calcium and phosphorus—all that was required was the cooking.

Barbara Gail Montero, Philosophy of Mind: A Very Short Introduction

It is sometimes feared that abandoning dualism – “which maintains that the immaterial mind, or soul, is an additional ingredient, brought into the world by God at the moment of conception” (Montero, ibid.) – will leave us bereft of the spiritual dimension of life, which for many of us is the sweet core of our own being. But as Sam Harris says, in a passage I seem to be unable to avoid quoting on a regular basis,

Spirituality begins with a reverence for the ordinary that can lead us to insights and experiences that are anything but ordinary. And the conventional opposition between humility and hubris has no place here. Yes, the cosmos is vast and appears indifferent to our mortal schemes, but every present moment of consciousness is profound. In subjective terms, each of us is identical to the very principle that brings value to the universe. Experiencing this directly—not merely thinking about it—is the true beginning of spiritual life.

An analogy that sometimes occurs to me is one drawn from technology. Of course this blog could not exist without the internet, without the web host’s data centres and the fibre optics that connect them, without this tablet I’m writing on, and its connection to the internet, without the hardware whose screen you are reading now. But however carefully you study any of that hardware, you will not come across these ideas. They are data; and the content management system that brings them to you is software. These are not, in the crude sense, material things; but they are entirely dependent on all that copper and silicon and glass, not to mention the rare metals, so intricately and painstakingly manufactured to contain and to convey them.

Minds are not the brain’s neurons and their blood supply, nor the neurotransmitters that ripple across their synapses; and while you could get a pretty good idea from the brain’s activity that there was something going on, you will never find a mind in there, in the sense of a physical structure, no matter how long you scan and probe and watch. Mind, and the mind’s subjectivity, is not, in the crude sense, a material thing; but it is entirely dependent on all those intricate and beautifully balanced cells and fluids and exchanging gases, not to mention the heart and lungs and blood and liver and all the rest of the kit that allows the physical brain to keep running.

None of this should give us cause to grieve. Just as understanding, however sketchily, the intricacies of the internet cannot take anything away from the ideas and dreams it conveys, nor can the work of the neuroscientist or the philosopher of mind detract from the beauty of contemplative spirituality, or the love between those who practice and teach it. The stillness is what it always has been; the open awareness that is grounded there is just as luminous. All we need is to be still enough to let it be.

Doors

1 Reply

There is something about doors. They are curiously inevitable. Largely unchanged long into history, they can let their users in or out, keep them safe or keep them prisoner; let them rest or let them run.

Our senses are only the doors of our perception; what we see or hear is as much story as data. Turn off the processing, the algorithms of interpretation that make us who we are, and the crazy lights of elsewhere will threaten to wipe all we ever knew like words written in the steam across a bathroom window. That’s the hope and the fear of psychedelics; but we cannot know what is real by simply breaking down the doors of what it is to be human.

All we are is the infinitely delicate pattern our minds trace on the fields and particles of our fleeting scrap of what is there. Beneath it all the ground holds, beyond beginning or end. The doors we are given are ways in to what is real, our own dear and transitory lives; they let us in, not shut us out. Stillness, patience, the gentle breath: these are the ways to the fields of wonder, the steadiness of being.

Wandering home

1 Reply

The mind wanders. Of course it does. As Louis Sokoloff discovered as long ago as the late 1950s, the brain never stops its processing, and if it is not actively engaged in some task or another it wanders. Where? Robert Wright explains:

As for where the mind wanders to: well, lots of places, obviously, but studies have shown that these places are usually in the past or the future; you may ponder recent events or distant, strong memories; you may dread upcoming events or eagerly anticipate them; you may strategize about how to head off some looming crisis or fantasize about romancing the attractive person in the cubicle next to yours. What you’re generally not doing when your mind is wandering is directly experiencing the present moment.

To recognise this fact, clearly and without judgement or any attempt at inward coercive control, is one of the first tasks of meditation, especially vipassana meditation. The wanderingness of the mind has a name, the default mode network (DMN); defined, in Wikipedia, as “a large-scale brain network… best known for being active when a person is not focused on the outside world and the brain is at wakeful rest, such as during daydreaming and mind-wandering.”

Wright continues (above):

In one sense it’s not hard to quiet your default mode network: just do something that requires concentration. Do a crossword puzzle or try to juggle three tennis balls. Until you get to a point where juggling is second nature, you probably won’t be fantasizing about the attractive person in the cubicle next to yours.

What’s hard is to abandon the default mode network when you’re not doing much of anything—like, say, when you’re sitting in a meditation hall with your eyes closed. That’s why you try to focus on the breath: the mind needs some object of focus to wean it from its habitual meandering.

I have found that it is foolishly easy to characterise the default mode network as somehow the enemy, not only during meditation itself but when one catches oneself, instead of mindfully shaving, or washing up, instead doing the task on autopilot, while the mind goes off on any of those fruitless missions Wright lists. It’s infuriating!

Needless to say, stamping one’s foot, or calling oneself names, does no good at all. It is tempting to use one of the well-worn tools like the Nembutsu or the Jesus Prayer, which are not only employed in formal contemplative practice, but can be useful as “arrow prayers”, to borrow an old Christian expression, in order to damp down the wandering mind. But – to replace the pointless ponderings and fantasies of the DMN with an all but unconsciously uttered phrase is possibly not all that much of an improvement, regardless of how one feels about the content of that phrase.

If the point in question is to pay attention – to do things carefully and consciously, with full awareness – then a quite different approach is needed. Sam Harris:

The quality of mind cultivated in vipassana is almost always referred to as “mindfulness,” and the literature on its psychological benefits is now substantial. There is nothing spooky about mindfulness. It is simply a state of clear, nonjudgmental, and undistracted attention to the contents of consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant…

Mindfulness is a translation of the Pali word sati. The term has several meanings in the Buddhist literature, but for our purposes the most important is “clear awareness.” …

There is nothing passive about mindfulness. One might even say that it expresses a specific kind of passion—a passion for discerning what is subjectively real in every moment. It is a mode of cognition that is, above all, undistracted, accepting, and (ultimately) nonconceptual. Being mindful is not a matter of thinking more clearly about experience; it is the act of experiencing more clearly, including the arising of thoughts themselves. Mindfulness is a vivid awareness of whatever is appearing in one’s mind or body—thoughts, sensations, moods—without grasping at the pleasant or recoiling from the unpleasant. One of the great strengths of this technique of meditation, from a secular point of view, is that it does not require us to adopt any cultural affectations or unjustified beliefs. It simply demands that we pay close attention to the flow of experience in each moment.

The cultivation of mindfulness as a doorway to choiceless awareness, more than merely as a  way to reduce anxiety or depression, or to improve task-oriented concentration, is a practice shared by many spiritual disciplines, but expressed (and developed) most clearly in vipassana and in shikantaza.

Viewed from this perspective the footling of the default mode network is perhaps no longer an embarrassing impediment, but an unexpected ally. Once we have become used to spotting its activities in formal meditation, it becomes easier and easier to recognise when it attempts to hijack our everyday activities. And once recognised, it can become, paradoxically, a welcome beacon back to clear attention, a seamark to the open ground of presence wherever we begin.

In the cloud?

4 Replies

Thomas Metzinger suggests that the global neural correlate of consciousness (the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for the occurrence of the mental states to which they are related (Wikipedia))

…is like an island emerging from the sea—as noted, it is a large set of neural properties underlying consciousness as a whole, underpinning your experiential model of the world in its totality at any given moment. The global NCC has many different levels of description: Dynamically, we can describe it as a coherent island, made of densely coupled relations of cause and effect, emerging from the waters of a much less coherent flow of neural activity. Or we could adopt a neurocomputational perspective and look at the global NCC as something that results from information-processing in the brain and hence functions as a carrier of information. At this point, it becomes something more abstract, which we might envision as an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate. The “border” of this information cloud is functional, not physical; the cloud is physically realized by widely distributed firing neurons in your head. Just like a real cloud, which is made of tiny water droplets suspended in the air, the neuronal activation pattern underlying the totality of your conscious experience is made of millions of tiny electrical discharges and chemical transitions at the synapses. In strict terms, it has no fixed location in the brain, though it is coherent.

Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

Now this is, as Metzinger would be the first to admit, highly abstract language to describe the warm, luminous immediacy that is the lived experience of phenomena. The scent of a lover’s hair, the golden light of sunset, damp air on the skin at dawn – an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate? And yet how else could one experience these things?

Oddly enough, for me at least, Metzinger’s technical language comes closer to expressing what might be thought of as one’s soul than any Cartesian plug-in ghost. The beautiful world that is our necessary home is as much the gift of who we are as it is a place “out there”; we are not, and never have been, visitors. Like everything else, we are just what causality does: “the self is but one of the countless manifestations of the Tao. It is an extension of the cosmos.” (David Y F Ho (PDF))

Atheism and consciousness

1 Reply

What is consciousness? This may sound like a simple question but it is not. Consciousness is at once the most obvious and the most difficult thing we can investigate. We seem either to have to use consciousness to investigate itself, which is a slightly weird idea, or to have to extricate ourselves from the very thing we want to study. No wonder philosophers have struggled for millennia with the concept; and for long periods scientists refused even to study it. The good news is that, in the 21st century, ‘consciousness studies’ is thriving. Psychology, biology, and neuroscience have reached the point where they are ready to confront some tricky questions: What does consciousness do? Could we have evolved without it? Is consciousness an illusion? What do we mean by consciousness, anyway?

This does not mean that the mystery has gone away. Indeed, it is as deep as ever. The difference now is that we know enough about the brain to confront the problem head on. How on earth can the electrical firing of millions of tiny brain cells produce this—my private, subjective, conscious experience?

(Susan Blackmore, Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction)

In the philosophy of mind, mind–body dualism denotes either the view that mental phenomena are non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, as well as between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem.

(Wikipedia)

Confronted with the luminous intricacies of being human, it is easy to see why dualism is so attractive to us. It not only allows us to ignore the issue of how brains might produce consciousness – in this view they don’t, not directly at least – but a separate, detachable, immaterial self can transcend a finite human life span, go off on out-of-body adventures, communicate mind-to-mind, and all manner of other handy things. But what could it be, this supernatural plug-in person? Of what could it be constituted, and by whom or what? How could the data connection function between it and the physical brain? These questions are at least as hard as trying to understand how that brain might give rise to subjective experience – much harder perhaps, it seems to me.

We know from tragic cases of brain injury, disease, and surgical intervention just how profoundly consciousness, and the sense of self, are affected by gross changes to the physical structure of the brain (Blackmore,  ibid., pp. 25ff.). It seems obvious to me then, as a layman, that my own subjectivity is, after all, a result – however subtle – of electrochemical processes within my own nervous system, and that when those processes cease, as they will when I die, so that subjectivity will cease also.

But this is not a crude oversimplification, nor a bad thing in itself. It is just how things are, to the best of our understanding. The human brain is a structure of mind-boggling intricacy (it is estimated that there are around 86 billion neurons in the average brain, each neuron of which connects to about 1,000 others). It seems to me entirely feasible that the human personality and consciousness could arise from such vast computing power. But how this comes about remains, still, the mystery.

I take it to be axiomatic, therefore, that our notions of meaning, morality, and value presuppose the actuality of consciousness (or its loss) somewhere. If anyone has a conception of meaning, morality, and value that has nothing to do with the experience of conscious beings, in this world or in a world to come, I have yet to hear of it. And it would seem that such a conception of value could hold no interest for anyone, by definition, because it would be guaranteed to be outside the experience of every conscious being, now and in the future.

The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand—that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character in this moment—is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in the first place. Although science may ultimately show us how to truly maximize human well-being, it may still fail to dispel the fundamental mystery of our being itself. That doesn’t leave much scope for conventional religious beliefs, but it does offer a deep foundation for a contemplative life. Many truths about ourselves will be discovered in consciousness directly or not discovered at all.

(Sam Harris, Waking Up: Searching for Spirituality Without Religion)

This is one of the things that contemplative practice so clearly demonstrates: all that we know, or feel, or perceive, takes place in consciousness. In choiceless awareness all things can be seen directly to arise in consciousness: the rising and falling of my chest, the warm cooing of the wood pigeons in the trees behind the garden, an idea for a blog post, the grumble of a bus leaving the stop outside the gate, the ache in my knee. All these and more appear in consciousness – where else could they appear? – and my only connection with them is in that appearing. Even the ones that affect me directly, like the breeze through the open window, that is beginning to cool as evening comes on, I only know about as their effects on me – my cooling skin – appear in my awareness.

To remain still, not seeking or holding, within the bright field of awareness, the isness of all that arises in my mind is not other than the isness of things in themselves: the open ground in which things arise, and pass.