A lot of the disagreement here comes from what kind of emergence people are talking about.
Most philosophers are perfectly fine with weak (scientific) emergence. Temperature, liquidity, elasticity, traffic jams, economies, etc. all emerge from lower-level interactions. They’re not properties of single particles, but once you understand the micro-story, there’s nothing mysterious left over. Crucially, all of these are structural or functional properties, describable entirely in third-person terms.
The worry about consciousness isn’t really about complexity. It’s about the fact that consciousness seems to involve an experiential aspect — there being something it is like — and critics argue that this doesn’t follow from structural or functional descriptions in the same way temperature or liquidity do.
Similarly, when people say “you can’t open the skull and point to consciousness,” they’re not making a naïve spatial claim. The point is that no amount of third-person description of neurons, firings, or networks seems to capture or entail first-person phenomenal qualities like pain or redness.
So you see, consciousness isn’t treated as special because it’s complex, but because it seems to introduce a different kind of property — phenomenal experience — that standard emergence stories were never designed to explain. Whether that really is a problem is exactly what the debate is about.
I highly recommend these two videos. They provide an excellent explanation of Buddhist philosophy or world view without ever mentioning Buddhism.
The ‘small self’ of Buddhism is Kastrup’s ‘dissociated entity inside a Markov Blanket’. Kastrup’s ‘mind at large’ is Buddhist ‘ultimate reality’, ‘the Tathagata’, the ‘Buddha mind’, ‘enlightenment’, etc. The ‘doings’ of the entity inside the Markov blanket are karma. In this sense, those doings, or that karma (work), perpetuate a series of ‘rebirths’ rather than reincarnations. The Noble Eightfold Path is a concise way of describing the behaviors that lead to full realization of ‘mind at large’ or enlightenment.
Two of the (falsely understood) most ‘negative’ things in Buddhism are nicely cleared up in Kastrup’s description. The first is the mistaken notion that ‘nirvana’ or the ‘cessation of suffering’ is the cessation of being itself. Nirvana is ‘merely’ the return of the small self to ‘mind at large’, or the enlightenment of the small self to Buddha nature or ultimate reality. The second is karma is some kind of punishment administered by some kind of god thing. Karma is much more what Kastrup calls ‘doings’ and is simply a way to describe how what we do affects what we become.
I want to add that Nathan Hawkins does a wonderful job of interviewing Kastrup. He contributes a great deal to this conversation, which overall is not only a good description of Buddhism (without ever mentioning Buddhism) but also an excellent example of how people should talk. At one point, Hawkins says he wants to create a something like a ‘proto-religion’ that does not rely on ‘sacred texts’. He also says he wants philosophy to be more in touch with people’s lives as they are really lived. I like that a lot. It’s basically what basic Buddhism already is.
The Buddha said he was just a man; that he should not be worshiped; that his words are not sacred; that his teachings should be conveyed mind-to-mind (as in the videos above) and not turned into scared texts; and that each of us should make the teachings our own; learn them in our own languages and convey them to others generously when and if they want to hear them. I bet the Buddha would thoroughly enjoy and approve of the discussion above.
In a deeply Buddhist sense, there is no need for a Buddhist tradition. The whole thing could be thrown away and recreated. But why bother? Buddhism today is not a clinging to some sacred past or god-like figure, but a present iteration of a long tradition (which is largely philosophical) that dates back 2,500 years to the Sage of the Scythians, Shakyamuni Buddha. Watch the videos above and see what you think. ABN
UPDATE: I do not want to detract at all from Kastrup’s vision, but would like to say that, imo, Mind at Large or Ultimate Reality is much more like Mahayana on steroids than the philosophically guarded position Kastrup holds. He himself says he is conservative and sticks to ordinary interpretations like time and space and probably the existence of other civilizations and realms. I appreciate that he does that and why. Another point worth mentioning is the Markov Blanket each of us is ensconced in is surely semi-permeable. In that sense, a great deal of religious practice, including especially the samadhi states in Buddhism, can be understood as ways to make the Markov Blanket more permeable, to invite Mind at Large into our little cocoons. Prayer and religious ritual do that as well as does calling on God or practicing the presence of God. Moral actions, no matter how they are understood, that make us receptive to powers much greater than us are fundamental to human being and our comprehension of who and where we are. If we can comprehend Mind at Large viewing our lives through our eyes and senses, we can also comprehend having a very rich relationship with Mind at Large. In Buddhist terms, that might be described as us being drawn to the Tathagata to the point of never wanting to turn back. ABN
Free-speech—real free speech with real, uncensored reach, is the thing that can protect us most of all from totalitarians, authoritarians and a dictatorial AI, should something like that evolve and gain power.
Many of us are willing to do all we can to protect free speech, but few of us have the power and reach of a Durov or Musk.
This is but one example of why it is important for us to support wealthy and powerful elites when they are doing the right thing.
Free-speech is our strongest protection against any form of AI gone wild.
Only a loud and insistent, well-informed public, whose speech cannot be throttled by politicians, bureaucrats or AI, will be able to stop an AI algorithm that is going off the rails. ABN
The out of body part of this story is reasonable evidence that consciousness resides outside of the body and in some circumstances can be accessed as such.
Nowadays, philosophers and some physicists call that greater consciousness ‘mind at large’ or the ‘field of consciousness’ that underlies or inheres in all things.
Buddhists sometimes claim to have achieved awareness of that field of consciousness.
The Buddha is known as the Thus Come One and the Thus Gone One, meaning he came from that deep field of universal consciousness and went back into it when he achieved nirvana.
It’s a wonderful thing that medical science is seeing this side of sentient life and that the evidence for it has grown significantly in recent years. ABN
For some people, sleep brings a peculiar kind of wakefulness. Not a dream, but a quiet awareness with no content. This lesser-known state of consciousness may hold clues to one of science’s biggest mysteries: what it means to be conscious.
The state of conscious sleep has been widely described for centuries by different Eastern contemplative traditions. For instance, the Indian philosophical school of the Advaita Vedanta, grounded in the interpretation of the Vedas – one of the oldest texts in Hinduism – understands deep sleep or “sushupti” as a state of “just awareness” in which we merely remain conscious.
Similar interpretations of deep sleep are made by the Dzogchen lineage in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. According to their teachings, different meditative practices can be followed during wakefulness and sleep to acknowledge the “essence” of consciousness. One of those meditative practices is that of dream yoga or luminosity yoga, which enables the practitioner to recognise the states of dream and sleep. This aims to bring them to a state of “pure awareness”, a state of being awake inside sleep without thoughts, images or even a sense of self.
For western science, this state poses a conundrum. How can you be aware without being aware of something? If these reports are accurate, they challenge mainstream theories that treat consciousness as always about an object. For example, my awareness of the laptop in front of me, or the blue sky rising above my window, or my own breathing. The existence of this state pushes us to reconsider what consciousness is.
In those studies, we found a spectrum of experiences we called “objectless sleep experiences” – conscious states that appear to lack an object of awareness. In all cases, participants who alluded to an objectless sleep experience reported having had an episode during sleep that lacked sensory content and that merely involved a feeling of knowing that they were aware.
This is an interesting article, sent by an alert reader.
From a Buddhist POV, these states are samadhi or dhyana states, which are essential to successful Buddhist practice.
The reason these states are essential is they provide the experience of pure awareness, pure consciousness with zero self and zero referent.
The Mind-Only Buddhist explanation of these states is they are touching on or engaging with the universal Tathagata, or enlightened mind.
In modern philosophical terms, these states are awareness of ‘mind at large’ or some version of ‘quantum consciousness’ or the fundamental ‘field of consciousness or thought’, which is posited as a primary component of the cosmos.
These states are extremely valuable and worth remembering and pursuing.
In higher levels of samadhi, enormous joy or bliss is experienced along with a total absence of self or referent.
The highest samadhi state is perfect equanimity coupled with deep awareness of the Tathagata.
Samadhi states eventually bump up against nirvana.
I love Western civilization, but the one thing it deeply lacks is a tradition of knowing about and using samadhi, which at the very least provides a marvelous and wonderful place to stand aside from all that is mundane.
Philosophically, Buddhism recognizes ‘relative truth or reality’ (mundane reality) and ‘ultimate truth or reality’, the full knowing of which constitutes Buddhist enlightenment.
In many Buddhist traditions, samadhi states are understood to be natural and attainable by anyone who tries diligently.
If you are fortunate enough to experience samadhi without trying, be thankful!
You have gained a deep realization.
One of the most difficult parts of Buddhism for non-Buddhists to understand is the experience of samadhi.
Also fundamental to Buddhism is the experience of a clear conscience, an honest and pure mind which is gained through wholesome moral and ethical thoughts and behaviors. ABN
The Second Lady was ringless during her visit to Camp Lejeune military base in Richlands, North Carolina on Wednesday with First Lady Melania Trump.
Photos show Usha, 39, getting off a plane with her left hand in full view – and the wedding band nowhere to be seen.
Second Lady Usha Vance was seen traveling to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune on Wednesday with her wedding finger noticeably bare
Additional images from Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River confirm the ring remained off throughout the visit.
The Vice President, meanwhile, was photographed wearing his wedding band during a speaking event in Washington on Thursday.
The image comes after weeks of nasty trolls whispering about the state of the Vance marriage, which began in October with the Vice President’s tight hug he gave to Erika Kirk during a memorial for her husband, the right wing activist Charlie Kirk.
The speculation about a possible rift between the Second Couple was fueled by the VP admitting that he has pleaded with his wife to convert from Hinduism: he is a Roman Catholic.
‘Therefore, O monks, do not brood over [any of these views]. Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna.[17]
This means that the Buddha did not have a rigid, verbalizable view of human metacognition.
The story above is silly for obvious reasons.
But it is a culturally clickbait-worthy story because both Christians and most Hindus hold rigid metacognitive ‘beliefs’ about their religions.
From a Buddhist point of view, rigid metacognitive beliefs or ‘views’ are:
‘Accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding…
‘Whoever speculates about these things will go mad & experience vexation’.
In like manner so it is with all rigid meta-cognitive views on the self, our analyses of ourselves, our understanding of others, our political views, our scientific views, our religious and spiritual views.
In Buddhism, all metacognitive views should be open, pliable, moveable, viewed as impermanent, viewed with a healthy skepticism that allows us to focus on what is of greatest importance — the attainment of liberation through wholesome practice.
Buddhism must be experienced to be understood.
A battle between opposing metacognitive views, such as the one being implied in the story above, is a waste of Usha’s time, Vance’s time, and everyone’s time, except insofar as this example may help others understand the futility and unwholesomeness of being rigid in any metacognitive view about ultimate matters. ABN
all the world is a solipsistic circus with no way out. all cultures are self-referential solipsisms. all speech is hopelessly entangled in definitions that go nowhere. we ourselves don’t know what we mean. one thing defines another. actions prove words only because nothing else does, and neither does that. this is caused by words making no sense except through their connections to other words ABN
Catholic charities were a major factor in Biden’s illegal immigration invasion. These bishops said nothing then. They have said nothing about the devastating illegal immigration invasion of Europe either. Mass immigration is an act of war. Having ‘compassion’ for the invaders but not the communities being invaded is not wise, and I doubt it is even sound Christianity. It is definitely not sound Buddhist thinking. ABN
Recent advances in neuroscience and phenomenology confirm that human consciousness can access and perceive realities beyond the ordinary physical world. Studies of psychedelics such as ayahuasca and DMT reveal consistent reports of entering “another dimension,” often accompanied by intricate fractal geometry, encounters with beings or entities, and sensations of transcendence. Neuroimaging and mathematical modeling show that these experiences correspond to measurable changes in brain dynamics. This paper argues that consciousness interacts with a structured, non-physical domain — a spiritual dimension — independent of and distinct from the material world, transcending its limits. Far from superstition, this claim rests on converging empirical and phenomenological evidence and calls for an expanded science capable of investigating the non-physical aspects of reality.
Spiritual energy: a universal, non-physical field that permeates all matter and energy. In living beings, it localizes as consciousness, expressed through the brain as the physical interface/medium that allows this energy to manifest. Spiritual energy is not measurable as physical energy but represents the deeper, animating principle underlying consciousness and life.
Spiritual dimension: the non-physical domain from which spiritual energy possibly originates — a reality separate and distinct, but accessible from the material world. Under altered states of consciousness, this dimension becomes perceptible; many traditions describe this as opening the “third eye,” often associated with activation of the pineal gland, believed to connect physical and spiritual realities (Jain et al., 2018; Bellec, 2024).
Consciousness: The localized manifestation of spiritual energy, expressed and mediated through the brain — both the physical expression and medium through which spiritual energy interacts with this world.
From a professional/ orthodox philosophical or scientific POV, this paper will not get much approval, if any. From a creative, exploratory POV, this paper attempts to make some sense of consciousness and spirituality. It relies on ‘subjective science’, which is an excellent area of science, to describe its horizons. I approve of attempts like this. ABN
No moral person with sound ethics and a working conscience should ever want AI to be trained to lie. But that is what we are seeing from major players in this game. From what I see, Musk is alone among top elites in what he is saying and repeats often. Truth-seeking with curiosity are the foundations of human morality and intelligence. This appears to be a battle between good and evil. ABN
I am an economic nationalist. To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people. I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man – and not the other way around. — Pat Buchanan
American Buddhist Net 