This piece really got me thinking. Thank you for presenting such a comprehensive and clear synthesis. I felt myself both appreciating the precision and also noticing an inner “pause” at the line about Descartes being wrong and the brain giving rise to the mind.
Not because I’m attached to dualism, but because I’ve had experiences, especially in stillness or meditation, where something like a witness seems to arise. Not as a separate soul, but as a kind of spacious awareness that isn’t easily explained by function alone. It doesn’t float above the body...it deepens it. And I’ve felt healing, integration, even transformation through that awareness.
So I wonder, is it possible we’re trying to define away something that’s meant to be lived rather than parsed? I’m not advocating for mysticism over science, but maybe part of the problem isn’t just circular language. Maybe it’s the need to name something that only appears when we stop trying to name it.
Curious if you see any space in future models for embodied presence or something that doesn’t reject neuroscience but also doesn’t flatten experience into computation?
Thanks again for a great article. It made me question things, and that is always good.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments and great questions!
I like your statement of naming "something that only appears when we stop trying to name it." It reminds me that William James, the father of American psychology, wrote an entire chapter on consciousness in his seminal book "The Principles of Psychology." And he was wise not to give a definition.
This piece really got me thinking. Thank you for presenting such a comprehensive and clear synthesis. I felt myself both appreciating the precision and also noticing an inner “pause” at the line about Descartes being wrong and the brain giving rise to the mind.
Not because I’m attached to dualism, but because I’ve had experiences, especially in stillness or meditation, where something like a witness seems to arise. Not as a separate soul, but as a kind of spacious awareness that isn’t easily explained by function alone. It doesn’t float above the body...it deepens it. And I’ve felt healing, integration, even transformation through that awareness.
So I wonder, is it possible we’re trying to define away something that’s meant to be lived rather than parsed? I’m not advocating for mysticism over science, but maybe part of the problem isn’t just circular language. Maybe it’s the need to name something that only appears when we stop trying to name it.
Curious if you see any space in future models for embodied presence or something that doesn’t reject neuroscience but also doesn’t flatten experience into computation?
Thanks again for a great article. It made me question things, and that is always good.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments and great questions!
I like your statement of naming "something that only appears when we stop trying to name it." It reminds me that William James, the father of American psychology, wrote an entire chapter on consciousness in his seminal book "The Principles of Psychology." And he was wise not to give a definition.
Yes, there are theories on embodied consciousness. One of them is called "The Beast Machine Theory" by Anil Seth. You might want to check my previous article on his book "Being You" (https://stephanieshen.substack.com/p/what-is-the-beast-machine-theory?r=b0i58).