After I’ve read a lengthy complex book, struggling to understand the ideas expressed in it, fairly often I’ll reach a concluding chapter where the author summarizes their book in a concise readable fashion — causing me to feel, Geez, maybe I should have saved myself a lot of time and just read that conclusion.
I had a similar feeling when I came to the Afterword of The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience by Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson. Here’s how it starts out and ends, providing a good summary of the core notions in the preceding 249 pages. This is a one sentence definition of the Blind Spot: “The failure to see direct experience as the irreducible wellspring of knowledge is precisely the Blind Spot.”
We began this book by pointing to a paradox. Science tells us that we human beings are peripheral in the cosmic scheme of things, but also that we’re central to the reality we uncover. We’re a tiny contingent presence in a vast universe, yet our experience is ubiquitous in scientific knowledge. We’ve seen many examples in the previous pages.
Instead of trying to avoid this paradox, we can and should embrace it. We’re the authors of the scientific narrative, and we’re characters within it. As authors, we create science. As characters in the narrative, we’re a minuscule part of the immense cosmos. This is how we must portray ourselves based on what we’ve discovered in cosmology and biology.
Still, we must not forget that these tiny characters — we ourselves — are also the authors of the narrative. We’ve written it using the tools we created as a community of learners in the collective scientific workshop. Such is the strange loop of scientific knowledge.
We have argued that we must inscribe ourselves back into the scientific narrative as its creators. Science rests on how we experience the world. There is no way to take ourselves out of the story and tell it from a God’s eye perspective. Forgetting this fact means losing our way in both science and all the critical ways that science shapes society.
Our aim has been to call attention to the Blind Spot. We’ve done this by delineating its central ideas and charting their presence across the scientific fields that inform our worldview. We’ve described how the constellation of overlapping ideas we call the Blind Spot arose over the course of many centuries and increasingly shaped how the scientific endeavor was understood.
But as we have argued, the scientific project and the Blind Spot worldview are not the same thing, and the advance of scientific knowledge in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries demands that we leave the Blind Spot behind.
What, however, does leaving the Blind Spot behind look like? Although we’ve pointed to many scientific ideas that go beyond the Blind Spot, we have not tried to formulate a comprehensive scientific or philosophical perspective to replace it. This choice is deliberate. Science is a collective project. It is the entangled dance of collaborative theory building and experimentation that ultimately moves science forward, not critical reflection in one’s study.
Our hope is that by bringing the Blind Spot into our collective vision , we will be better able to find new paths beyond it, so that our scientific civilization can survive and flourish in this millennium.
…Indeed, the scientific triumphalism based on the Blind Spot is not a harmless exaggeration but a harmful overreach. It feeds the stereotype of the scientist as cold, emotionless, and “not like us” (as one recent poll expressed it). When Blind Spot ideas are presented to the public as facts that only the naive and uneducated would dispute, it is likely to exacerbate opposition to science in public policy debates (for example, about climate change mitigation or vaccination).
Furthermore, as we have argued, representing nature or the environment as essentially a resource is tied to the elevation of objective quantitative measures as more fundamental than the human experience that lies at their source. The long history of inaction on climate change can be traced in part to the inability to change this mindset in which the Earth becomes a set of “ecosystem services” that can be monetized as value provided to the technosphere.
Thus, best practices in the domain of science and society include becoming aware of how the story of science is sold to the public. Without doubt, that story is about the profound capacity of the human imagination and our ability to prevail over ignorance and bias. But if the story is told as one of transcending the human, then it becomes an essentially religious narrative about the search for a perfect knowledge beyond our finitude.
Instead of saying that science is a means of rising above the great, strange mystery of being human in the vast wide world, a better story is that science takes us deeper into the mystery, revealing new ways to experience it, delight in it, and most of all, value it. By leaving behind the Blind Spot, we can properly understand the crucial importance of objectivity as a means for public knowledge without transforming it into a dubious ontology.
Most important, we can appreciate just how remarkable the human activity of science is and how necessary is the fight for its integrity, without making it a proxy for centuries-old philosophical beliefs that are no longer relevant to where we are and where we need to go.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Deaf dumb and blind satsangi believes God is leading us where we need to go. It’s Science vs God until they go along to get along like the scum dog master then it’s Science+God equals pseudo intellectualism , in which case it’s better just to be deaf dumb and blind . I don’t need your approval and I don’t need your okay. My daddy beat up your daddy a long time ago. Tell the animal that reincarnated back down the wheel of 84 from a human that karma doesn’t exist. ” School’s out forever !!! School’s out for summer ! ” Alice Cooper
But can you believe what the narcissist Dhillon did appointing his successor two years ago and he still walking around very healthy. He just wanted to steal the glory of the new appointee that will never have the opportunity to prove himself now. The thrill is gone and once again the narcissist steals the spotlight. That will never happen to me and I actually felt sorry for Mr Gil because I knew what was in store for him. You’re a good kid now go away , you bother me. Charan Singh never read any rssb literature. His only idea of sant mat was me . I don’t know if anyone else walking around online or anywhere else claiming that he was Sawan Singh reincarnated. If so send them to me. I’ll send them to the backyard to pick up a whippin stick
The Blind Spot: “The failure to see direct experience as the irreducible wellspring of knowledge is precisely the Blind Spot. As the authors say: “Instead of saying that science is a means of rising above the great, strange mystery of being human in the vast wide world, a better story is that science takes us deeper into the mystery, revealing new ways to experience it, delight in it, and most of all, value it.”
Trouble is though, where the science contradicts the messages that political leaders and business magnates – and of course, including the huge interests that religious and spiritual authorities wield – then the direct experience of science (and our own perceptions) are up against the multitudes of people who for financial or psychological reasons, prefer (or rather have no choice), but to follow the voices who pander to their fears, hopes and desires.
It seems to me that while human minds are entrenched in ‘self’ aggrandisement and ‘self’ protection, there is little chance of dropping the mindset that desires to raise human beings above their evident naturalness and connection to the natural world.
Followers of people like Trump, with his habitually lying and attacks on those who question him, are of a similar vein to those who follow the numerous ‘spiritual’ teachers and practices, all feeling smug, safe and secure in their beliefs and assertions, while resting in the fortress of their unassailable mentally fabricated concepts.
Interesting topic. I took the authors’ (Frank et al) paragraph to Grok and hashed it out with that AI to get a better grasp of their argument.
My conclusion is that their overall argument, while technically sound philosophically, is nevertheless rather circular and nebulous.
For example, the authors suggest The Blind Spot merits attention in respect to how to better deal with climate change. According to them, raw data on the climate doesn’t comport with a proper understanding of the “lived experience” of a forest or a coastline. Grok summarizes this as : “The authors claim this mindset has made it harder, over decades, to generate the political and cultural will for large-scale change, even when the quantitative data are clear.”
The political and cultural will for *what* large-scale change, precisely? I’m told the authors won’t say. And what “quantitative data” measures the “lived experience” of said forest and coastline environments?
My digging has pretty much confirmed what I suspected at the outset: The authors of this book effectively define the “Blind Spot” per their own political and cultural opinions.
Ironic, isn’t it?
If I may, the true Blind Spot is the human tendency to create or subscribe to philosophies that align with our opinions. This has always been the real purpose of philosophy — not to uncover truth, but to find a “logical” system that validates our own parochial views.
There is the Unknown, the Believed, the Perceived, the Measured, the Confirmed, the Understood, and the Known.
These are all levels of knowledge. But these are not all levels of information.
Then there is Error, the eigth container, all the information outside the other seven containers, which is a very large container sitting completely within the ninth container of Opinion.
Error takes up most of Opinion.
The blind spot is nothing more or less than Opinion (and Error which takes the form of Opinion), distinct from the other seven buckets of knowledge.
This is a one-sentence definition of the Blind Spot: “The failure to see direct experience as the irreducible wellspring of knowledge is precisely the Blind Spot.”
The main thing I would say about ‘The Blind Spot’ is that direct experience is debatable. We do know that the data we receive from the world is “Just a barrage of light waves, chemicals, and changes in air pressure with no inherent significance …” (Fieldman Barrett). Predictive processing states that sense data is processed through conceptual filtering, via our past experiences, memories, etc.
While the physical world outside of us is real, the immediate conscious experience of it is a heavily filtered, delayed, and constructed version of that world. It is also theorised that the physical world exists whether a person is there to look at it or not. And also, we experience sensations or sounds directly as they are, without adding mental labels, thoughts, or interpretations about them.
Is perhaps awareness of the present moment as it arises the only reality we can ever know? That is, assuming that it is not immediately overlaid with the brain’s existing ‘store’ of past experiences and information.
Climate change is an example of the ability to assess directly where the evidence states that: “Global average surface temperatures have risen by roughly 1°C (1.8°F) since 1900, backed by physical proof from NASA Science and the Royal Society showing melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, and surging greenhouse gas concentrations.” (AI overview).
Personal experiences of climate change come from gardeners and farmers witnessing extreme heatwaves, floods and droughts; parts of the Maldives islands are going underwater due to sea level rises of 3-4 millimetres a year.
I can’t see that personal, direct experience of climate change is influenced by predictive processing. Denying it would be a good example of ‘The Blind Spot’. (In Trump’s case, more to do with backing oil and coal interests – but even then, such prejudice could be the blind spot). There could be, I guess, personal biases at work, but how does witnessing unprecedented forest fires, droughts, floods, etc., qualify as predictive processes?
For the time being, I’ll stick with the theory that we do experience the world as directly as the brain and senses can reveal, yet it all can be heavily influenced by cognitive biases – particularly where observation is overlaid with biases of subjective beliefs.
Spiritual world is full of blind spots
Things are not what they appear
Who will take that load of karma
If you want to venture into it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
**The text is a compact, cautionary reflection on the hazards of spiritual inquiry.** It treats the “spiritual world” not as pure light or guaranteed elevation, but as a domain of incomplete knowledge, deceptive surfaces, and unavoidable consequences.
### Line-by-line reading
– **“Spiritual world is full of blind spots”**
Asserts that the spiritual domain contains hidden zones—unknowns, unexamined assumptions, or areas the seeker cannot yet see. Blind spots here function both literally (what remains invisible) and figuratively (the limits of any teacher, tradition, or personal insight). The claim undercuts any romanticized view that spirituality automatically grants total clarity.
– **“Things are not what they appear”**
Echoes the classic theme of appearance versus reality (maya in Indic thought, the veil of perception in many mystical traditions). Surfaces—visions, feelings of bliss, charismatic teachers, or doctrinal claims—can mislead. The line insists that discernment is required because first impressions and conventional spiritual packaging are unreliable.
– **“Who will take that load of karma / If you want to venture into it.”**
Shifts from observation to responsibility. Entering deeper spiritual territory is framed as an act that generates or activates karmic weight. The rhetorical question implies that the burden does not vanish or get absorbed by some external force; someone—most likely the seeker—must carry it. It functions as both warning and demand for accountability: curiosity or aspiration alone does not exempt one from consequences.
### Overall themes and tone
The piece is deliberately unsentimental. It rejects the common marketing of spirituality as pure uplift or guaranteed safety. Instead it presents the path as risky terrain: incomplete visibility, misleading appearances, and personal karmic liability. The tone is cautionary and slightly interrogative rather than dogmatic; it does not forbid the venture but insists the cost be acknowledged.
Structurally it is free verse, almost aphoristic—short lines, no rhyme scheme, cumulative force rather than ornament. The final couplet turns the observation into a practical ethical question, giving the whole a slightly didactic edge without becoming a full sermon.
### Possible interpretive frames
– **Psychological / shadow work**: Blind spots and deceptive appearances map onto the unconscious or repressed material that spiritual practice can surface. The “load of karma” becomes the responsibility of integrating what is revealed.
– **Traditional karmic ethics**: Action (including the decision to pursue spiritual depth) carries consequences that cannot be outsourced. The text refuses any fantasy of effortless grace that bypasses personal reckoning.
– **Skeptical mysticism**: A reminder that spiritual claims and experiences require ongoing testing; the domain is not self-validating.
The text does not develop a systematic doctrine or offer solutions. Its power lies in the compression of a warning: if you choose to go further, do so with eyes open to what remains unseen, to the gap between appearance and reality, and to the fact that the resulting karmic weight lands somewhere—most often on the one who chooses to enter.