On the whole I agree with Amit Sood's view of things. He's an M.D. who has written a book about a more modern approach to mindfulness that I enjoyed reading. I decided to buy a recent book of his, It Takes You to Tango: Leverage the Science of Loneliness to Master the Art of Connection.
It's turned out to be sort of a disappointment. I'm liking the book, but so far it hasn't really done much to inform or interest me. And when I came to several chapters about what Sood calls the Esse, an essence in every person deeper than mind, I got even more disillusioned by the book.
One reason is that Sood appears to base his belief in Esse on what his English teacher, Mr. Kamesh, told him when Sood was a 15 year-old studying at a rural, state-funded school in North Central India. Here's how his story goes.
One morning, during a particularly rough week, he called me to his office to share an insight about water. I had no idea his thoughts would stay with me for the rest of my life, and in some ways, change my life's trajectory. Here is an approximate sequence of what I recall about my discussion that day.
Mr. Kamesh kept a glass half filled with water on the table.
"What do you see here?" he asked.
"A glass of water?" I was confused about where he was going.
"Yes, that's right. Dirty or clean?"
"Clean, I think," I said after peering through the glass.
Next, he took out a plastic bag full of dirt and emptied a few spoons in the water. After stirring gently, he asked, "What do you see now?"
"Dirty water," I said.
He nodded. "What might happen if we leave this water still for a few days?"
"The dust will settle at the bottom."
"Leaving the pure water at the top," his eyes brightened. "What do you learn from this?"
"If you leave the water still, it gets pure." I wasn't sure if I got the right answer or at least the one he wanted.
"Yes, that's good. But here is an even more important lesson. Behind every collection of dirty water is pure water that you can reclaim. Mud starts with pure water, and in the end, the same pure water will separate to leave the dirt. Mud has both dirt and water. While the dirt is more visible, the water keeps it together; otherwise the wind will blow it away."
The story goes on for a bit longer, then Sood says:
As I moved toward high school and then college, I was partially successful at holding on to Mr. Kamesh's teachings that the real me, my essence, my self, remains unblemished by anything that happens to my physical body or mind. This latter realization became a firm conviction as my brain's pre-frontal cortex matured.
Well, it's a pretty big jump to go from what happens when dirt is stirred into a glass of water to what the essence of a human being is. I have no doubt that Sood has benefitted from believing that a pure unchanging essence is part of his being, along with an impure changeable body and mind.
But beliefs aren't reality, no matter how they make us feel. Sood says:
For now, I feel comfortable considering our mind (Psyche) and our essence deeper than the mind (Esse) as the two elements constituting our experiencer (our self).
There's simply no evidence for such an essence. Julian Baggini speaks about this in his book, The Ego Trick: What Does It Mean To Be You?
It would be claiming too much to say that neuroscience has fully explained what selves are and how they can exist. Nevertheless, real progress has been made in recent decades and we are now in a position to at least sketch out how the self is constructed.
The most important finding, which seems to be universally accepted by all researchers into the self and the brain, is that brain research has given up on the search for the pearl of self. As the clinical neuropsychologist Paul Broks put it to me, 'We have this deep intuition that there is a core, an essence there, and it's hard to shake off, probably impossible to shake off, I suspect. But it's true that neuroscience shows that there is no centre in the brain where things do all come together.' The unity of the self is not to be explained in terms of a single, unified brain region, which acts as the master controller.
…Broks says that, despite his intellectual convictions, he lives as a 'soul theorist' or 'ego theorist' who persists with the belief in a fixed core of self. 'I think we probably all do, because that's the way we've evolved biologically and sociologically to think and behave. Neuroscience is chipping and will chip away at the cherished ideas that go with that, like the idea that we're autonomous agents with free will and moral choice. But it won't stop us living by them and it probably shouldn't.'
No matter how tenuous a notion the self seems to be under scientific scrutiny, we cannot abandon it because it is the thread on which we hang our lives.
Probably true in most cases. Though it's possible that some people (I'm thinking of Buddhism here) not only intellectually recognize that there is no essence or enduring self, but also experience life from this selfless perspective.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
https://www.amazon.com/Analytic-Idealism-Nutshell-Straightforward-Metaphysics/dp/B0DRDRQX89/ref=sr_1_1?crid=YJ2ZU6G3LTPA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.WQo2qVtKpFto5CAqsjR5rmpP93qmlUxZSaQnznd7IE42d6UfVe2ZJn_qiK0ZSjnHu_jZMt4cZZKjbHiYRvRHu7dDqS0ypmD7JTqsjbSO798ECV3MAK1zYu_ww6YJvuUbhzx173Tmy5C0G8-D-rPAjSU9bvhu3zW62HRQw6NW6_KvOuBOsuqpCpXNzY3TBdx_0uwxeNOMPiSDDYYENJYP3ovSdSLgCtzDCmDCbeHGcTm_ueotVul4-RbPwL3Cy64IyZYfmXSKA4NXjmNfOD9uzEM6zjiEyMUVBQqhV3hf86I.opneCwfxpKKZ_-CKhsE2QvksqfSeer8HAeI4dPk6U9I&dib_tag=se&keywords=bernardo+kastrup+books&qid=1750927148&sprefix=bernardo+kastr%2Caps%2C159&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Materialism-Baloney-Skeptics-Everything/dp/1782793623/ref=sr_1_2?crid=YJ2ZU6G3LTPA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.WQo2qVtKpFto5CAqsjR5rmpP93qmlUxZSaQnznd7IE42d6UfVe2ZJn_qiK0ZSjnHu_jZMt4cZZKjbHiYRvRHu7dDqS0ypmD7JTqsjbSO798ECV3MAK1zYu_ww6YJvuUbhzx173Tmy5C0G8-D-rPAjSU9bvhu3zW62HRQw6NW6_KvOuBOsuqpCpXNzY3TBdx_0uwxeNOMPiSDDYYENJYP3ovSdSLgCtzDCmDCbeHGcTm_ueotVul4-RbPwL3Cy64IyZYfmXSKA4NXjmNfOD9uzEM6zjiEyMUVBQqhV3hf86I.opneCwfxpKKZ_-CKhsE2QvksqfSeer8HAeI4dPk6U9I&dib_tag=se&keywords=bernardo+kastrup+books&qid=1750927255&sprefix=bernardo+kastr%2Caps%2C159&sr=8-2
Sood says: – “As I moved toward high school and then college, I was partially successful at holding on to Mr. Kamesh’s teachings that the real me, my essence, my self, remains unblemished by anything that happens to my physical body or mind. This latter realization became a firm conviction as my brain’s prefrontal cortex matured.”
A passage in ‘SELFLESS’ by Brian Lowery sums it up: – “Selves don’t emanate from some ineffable light within people. Instead, selves are created in relationships.” And: – “The concept of self is not static, but rather constantly evolving through social interactions and the ongoing construction of our identity.”
Sood’s last sentence here: – “This latter realization became a firm conviction as my brain’s prefrontal cortex matured.” And this is how ideas and beliefs become compounded. As the ‘frontal cortex matured’ as he puts it, is the brain filing away information to gradually become a fixed view that goes to further inform the illusion of a separate self.
The Chan/Zen concept of emptiness reflects the no-self position. In fact, the Buddha is said to have avoided stating either there is a self or there is no self as both statements are extreme (not the ‘middle way’). Instead, the admonition is to look for yourself to see if such a thing can be found. Hence some of the Buddhist practices of Koans and other meditative methods designed to rid the mind of such dualistic vexations.
It seems to me that cognitive concepts such as self and consciousness are not to be found by the sciences but by individuals honestly inquiring into such things ourselves.
Nam permeates everything and everywhere so of course it inflates the ego but I shan’t prove it like y’all keep doing.
“… it’s a pretty big jump to go from what happens when dirt is stirred into a glass of water to what the essence of a human being is…”
“… beliefs aren’t reality, no matter how they make us feel…”
———-
Indeed.
And, if I may add to that: Analogies make for terrible arguments.
Not that that particular analogy even holds, given that there’s all kinds of impurities in water, some of which settle fully with time, some partly, and some, like germs, not at all. …But more fundamentally, and like I said, arguing from analogy like this is …simply wrong.
There’s System A. And there’s System B. To show System A at work, and from that to directly assume that, therefore, System B works similarly as System A does, is lazy thinking, and completely entirely fallacious. To show that System B behaves in a certain manner, one needs to show that System B behaves in that manner. To show that for System A, and then, thereby, to directly imagine that one has demonstrated that System B does likewise, is no more than simply halfwittery.
In other words: what the analogy does is introduce a completely counterfeit sense of rigor.
What Sood’s teacher is essentially telling him is, in essence, just a flat-out, bare-faced ipsedixitism. He’s telling him, “There’s this essence in you that’s different that, and untouched by, the material exterior.” And that’s all he’s telling him. And asking him to believe that nonsense simply on his say-so.
The introduction of the analogy about water with dirt in it? Leaving aside the fact that that analogy does not even work on its own terms, given that the germs in the dirt would never ever settle down simply with gravity: I’m saying, even leaving that aside, the more fundamental issue is that this analogy adds nothing, absolutely nothing at all, to the argument he’s conveying to the young Sood. There’s zero connection, none at all, between the one and the other.
Either this teacher is an ideologue that’s trying to brainwash his young pupil by preying on his ignorance and his naivety. Or else the teacher is himself intellectually challenged, and could do well to do with a basic understanding of the basics of critical thinking before venturing to presume to “teach” others things like this. Or, probably, both.
The 2 links I posted do address all the issues that are here at stake and in a accademic level.
Both Kastrub and Faggin offer the mirror to look in … if one has the courage and the mental power to do so …hahaha
https://www.academia.edu/123391390/Irreducible_by_Federico_Faggin
I do not know if this is a safe site but if it is you can have a look
If you scroll just down that site you will find the whole tekst,
Nice use of AI sant64.
Just to address some of the points sant64 brought up.
Practically all the points sant64 made when referring to the structure of a self are attributes of the brain – “social contracts, personal accountability, emotional well-being, making decisions, forming bonds, or coping with loss. And, if there is no self to improve or hold accountable, why strive for ethical behavior, professional success, or emotional resilience?”
All the above points are not dependent on a separate self but on the information. processes and all-purpose, wiring of the brain. The brain learns from the society and culture it happens to inhabit how to best behave and navigate through the given rules and social norms. The brain learns from experience, changes and adapts to adjust to the above points.
The self is not an illusion to be dispelled but a phenomenon to be understood. And yes, “Neuroscience reveals that stable neural patterns underpin memory, personality, and self-perception, creating a functional continuity that persists even through significant life changes.” Indeed sant64, this is the work of the brain.
“… “while aspects of personality may shift, a core sense of identity often endures, suggesting a bio-logical basis for the self that Neo-Buddhism overlooks.” The biological basis of the self is well understood by Buddhist old and new. They realise that the self is a brain induced mental phenomenon.
“Most people experience their sense of self as an anchor for navigating the world, not a delusion to be overcome.” Again, the self is just assumed, it is the brain that navigates the world.
“One glaring issue is its tension with moral responsibility. If there is no self, who or what is accountable for actions?” Again, the brain is responsible for emotions, societies morals and appropriate behaviours.
“Neo-Buddhism denies essence in human beings but often upholds stable truths, such as the Four Noble Truths or the nature of Nirvana . . .” The Four Noble Truths are a practical guide to realising the cause of suffering; this realisation is Nirvana, nothing to do with essences. Essences, including a self are thought created inferences.
Basically, all the points sant64 raises are adequately addressed by the brains complex networking. The self, being the name given to address the numerous mental processes, as well as embodying our sense of identity with all its knowledge, beliefs, opinions etc. can also invariably be the source of conflicts, vexations, fears and anxieties. In other words, to use the Buddhists apt terminology, suffering.
Therefore, the self needs to be understood, and if in such an enquiry no self is found – apart from a myriad of mental processes – then a modicum of understanding (Nirvana) may be forthcoming.
Kastrub explains at length that the brain does NOT create experience
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/
One has to read or listen to him self in order to grasp his point
Nice use of AI sant64.
Posted by: Aidetector101 | June 26, 2025 at 01:57 PM
———-
Indeed.
We have a bunch of XMen running loose here, whose one superpower is a total absence of shame.
How that superpower of complete shamelessness manifests itself is different in each. In this individual’s case, it takes the form of plagiarism. From others’ books and essays, initially; and now from that anti-intellectual’s manna from heaven, AI.
———-
But kudos to Ron for addressing substantially the arguments put forward by Sant64’s AI. That was very well done, and I find myself agreeing fully.
Thanks, Ron.
I unpublished sant64’s comment after someone pointed out that it was AI generated. I’ve warned sant64 that he needs to reveal what AI model he used to generate a comment and to keep the comment brief. Since both rules were broken, the comment is gone. I was busy today so I didn’t recognize the AI’ness of the comment until now.