I think this book is a very good read, very well written, and in most part very helpful, but I think the phrase "controlled hallucination" is unfortunate. I fully understand and agree that all perceptions are indirect, via a model, but calling this a hallucination gives the wrong impression. We know that our brains build a model, and that our perception works by prediction, but the model is all we can be aware of, so it is not a hallucination at all, it is reality to us. Seth cites evidence supporting his claim with examples of how the model can be fooled by well-known illusions, but to me this is simply evidence of the nature of the model, and helps us understand how it is built and updated.
He then goes a lot further and says that the model the brain builds of the self is also a hallucination, and gives similar reasoning about how the model of the self can be fooled or disassembled. Again, I take this as good evidence that we perceive ourselves via a model that the brain builds of our self, and also gives some clues about how it is built and updated.
Seth refers to Thomas Metzinger’s book "Being No One", calling it a brilliant book and saying that it is "a powerful deconstruction of the singular self"”. He goes on to point out, as others have done, that Buddhists philosophy argues "that there is no such thing as a permanent self", and almost seems to be using this fact to support his conclusion. I find Metzinger’s arguments totally unconvincing, and therefore I also disagree with Seth on these points. I am my model of my self, and I am most definitely not a hallucination.
I have been developing a set of proposals over the last 8 years that I have documented on a new website hierarchicalbrain.com
I think this book is a very good read, very well written, and in most part very helpful, but I think the phrase "controlled hallucination" is unfortunate. I fully understand and agree that all perceptions are indirect, via a model, but calling this a hallucination gives the wrong impression. We know that our brains build a model, and that our perception works by prediction, but the model is all we can be aware of, so it is not a hallucination at all, it is reality to us. Seth cites evidence supporting his claim with examples of how the model can be fooled by well-known illusions, but to me this is simply evidence of the nature of the model, and helps us understand how it is built and updated.
He then goes a lot further and says that the model the brain builds of the self is also a hallucination, and gives similar reasoning about how the model of the self can be fooled or disassembled. Again, I take this as good evidence that we perceive ourselves via a model that the brain builds of our self, and also gives some clues about how it is built and updated.
Seth refers to Thomas Metzinger’s book "Being No One", calling it a brilliant book and saying that it is "a powerful deconstruction of the singular self"”. He goes on to point out, as others have done, that Buddhists philosophy argues "that there is no such thing as a permanent self", and almost seems to be using this fact to support his conclusion. I find Metzinger’s arguments totally unconvincing, and therefore I also disagree with Seth on these points. I am my model of my self, and I am most definitely not a hallucination.
I have been developing a set of proposals over the last 8 years that I have documented on a new website hierarchicalbrain.com
Yes, and that hyperarousal might prompt some extreme mobility away from that scorpion!
Haha. No I stayed pretty still and carried the scorpion on the pillow out of the room. If it escaped I would not have slept!
Smart move! 😊
Does this also mean that we would all be sharing the same hallucinations/experiences?
Similar I think but not the same. And I guess we will never know if your red looks like my red.
Fascinating. Looking forward to part 2.
And then how quickly did the hyperreal scorpoion-on-pillow event provoke a hypermobility response? ;-)
Hyperarousal not hyper mobility. :)