Reply To: Daniel Dennet's claim that consciousness is an illusion

  • Rodney Marsh

    May 9, 2023 at 5:23 am

    Thanks for your reply sjahari but I must confess my ignorance of any section of brain science. I have entirely relied upon Iain and have no capacity to extend or comment on his conclusions. I have dipped my toes in the ocean of mysticism and have a passing acquaintance with philosophy, but going as far as commenting on things like ‘synchronicity as explored by Harald Atmanspacher’ I know nothing. I know Jung’s ego and archetypes have parallels in mystical thinking, but I do not know who has explored this in relation to the hemisphere hypothesis. So often in these areas (neurobiology, psychology, etc) I think we work via negativa (see the Ramana quote) using science and reason to eliminate various suggestions or finding an interest is sparked for further exploration.

    I too, like Zak would be interested in learning about Jung’s archetypes in relation to the hemispheric hypothesis. You say, “These archetypes that create synchronistic events.” and speak about these archetypes (angels or devils?) having purpose and agency, “They do it because they can do it. And I guess occasionally they do it for a purpose.” I am wary. It sounds like Aldous Huxley’s acceptance of ‘an intermediate world between matter and spirit – that fascinatingly odd and exciting psychic universe, out of which miracles and foreknowledge, ‘spirit communications’ and extra-sensory perceptions make their startling irruptions into ordinary life.” (in “The Perennial Philosophy” p437). Personally, I am sceptical. We have no tools to investigate an alternative universe. I do think however, even if these phenomena are investigateable and investigated it would be difficult to get ‘published’! Having LH methods and presuppositions (eg using segmented time) investigate alter the RH is impossible – but the reverse is life.