Andrew Holecek, Lucid Dreaming and Yoga |459|

Alex

Administrator
#1
Andrew Holecek, Lucid Dreaming and Yoga |459|
by Alex Tsakiris | Aug 5 | Consciousness Science, Spirituality
Share
Tweet
0SHARES

Andrew Holecek is a recognized expert on lucid dreaming and dream yoga, but is he playing it safe?

photo by: Skeptiko
[Clip 00:00:00 – 00:00:35]
Now I could try and explain how that clip from Step Brothers relates to this show, but that would just be throwing gas on the fire.
Here’s a clip from my interview with Andrew Holecek.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:46] Why this resistance to just calling out Sue Blackmore. You quoted her in the paper, did you know who she was?
Andrew Holecek: [00:00:52] I knew who she was, for sure. Yeah, she’s an interesting character. So again, even within that my friend, I’m just trying to be a little bit more clear about where you want me to go with this.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:02] Why did you quote Sue Blackmore as an example of that?
Andrew Holecek: [00:01:04] Because she has some interesting things to say.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:05] What does she have that’s interesting to say?
Andrew Holecek: [00:01:08] She has a very vast array of contributions.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:14] She doesn’t have anything interesting to say because she thinks consciousness is an illusion and an epiphenomenon of the brain. She got that question wrong on the test, so she wasn’t allowed to go to part B, C, D.
Well, you keep saying that, but you kind of won’t go there.

Andrew Holecek: [00:01:34] Where do you want me to go? I don’t know, what’s the question?
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:37] Oh man, come on.
Andrew Holecek: [00:01:38] No really.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:38] What do you think, you heard both of these guys, what do you think?
Andrew Holecek: [00:01:42] Well, again, I’m trying to just be a little bit articulate. What do I think about what? Because they both covered some amazing topics.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:49] What did you think was amazing?
Andrew Holecek: [00:01:51] Well, I mean, again, what I find provocative and I’m not here to judge either of them, that’s just not the way I roll. What I find compelling…
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:58] We’re always judging everyone. I hate when people say that. Of course, you’re either judging positively or judging negatively, but judge feel free. This is a judge-friendly zone.
Andrew Holecek: [00:02:08] What I find compelling about what Charlie says is that again, we live in a universe, in a world where there is plenty of room for other forms of reality.
 
#2
Alex commented: "And she does say it, and everyone in science, that is the mainstream science positions. So Neil deGrasse Tyson says it. He says, consciousness will come to understand that it’s nothing. And I think there’s a subtle difference here that maybe you want to talk about, maybe you don’t. When you say consciousness is illusionary people, like Sue Blackmore, turn that around and say, consciousness is an illusion, and they equate the two and they couldn’t be more different."

Quite right, Alex. If Albert Einstein said the Universe is an illusion then where exists reality other than in Consciousness? We are living an often nightmarish dream. All will be revealed to us, mission completed at corporeal death including the place we will then recognise is our true home.
 
#3
Alex commented: "And she does say it, and everyone in science, that is the mainstream science positions. So Neil deGrasse Tyson says it. He says, consciousness will come to understand that it’s nothing. And I think there’s a subtle difference here that maybe you want to talk about, maybe you don’t. When you say consciousness is illusionary people, like Sue Blackmore, turn that around and say, consciousness is an illusion, and they equate the two and they couldn’t be more different."

Quite right, Alex. If Albert Einstein said the Universe is an illusion then where exists reality other than in Consciousness? We are living an often nightmarish dream. All will be revealed to us, mission completed at corporeal death including the place we will then recognise is our true home.
I think the whole idea that consciousness is an illusion was a desperate ploy by materialists, to avoid explaining consciousness by pretending it doesn't exist! I mean, if it turned out that we were living in a simulation, even that would not make our consciousness an illusion - it would still exist and need explaining!

@Alex I don't think there is any point in trying to push a guest into condemning a figure like Susan Blackmore. If he doesn't want to go there, it is better to leave it at that. Andrew seemed to keep asking where you wanted to go in the podcast, and I too would have liked the discussion a bit more focussed.

David
 
L

lonevoice

#4
Well, Alex, I think you need to add a third box: a batgap-type escapism one. Buddhism--pure Buddha--is largely about right action , as against the themes your guest kept running back to. (Buddhist scholars observe that the Buddha was largely a spiritual physician, not a metaphysician.) Even worse, like some Christian fundys I know, Andrew comes across as assuming that the rest of the world needs to get inside that box with him. Who is his "we", "your audience" etc .-- words that he used that exposed tIMO hat he his still running from fear.

********************************************************************************************************************************************************

I had a Buddhist meditation teacher who could go into those exotic states but who stole money and goods and services from me via manipulating me skillfully b/c I did not know the score --as a sincere seeker. and a newbie to Buddhism. Will she get enlightened through dream yoga or through the addition of cleaning up her act ?

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************

GOOD point re the Vatican: when Cardinal Law high tailed it out of Boston to Rome after exposure of his role in a massive pedophilia scandal, the Vatican honored him with an elitist pastoral appointment. When Francis came on board he explicitly reviewed Law's crimes but decided to let him keep his honorific status and even let him form a committee of three to assess AND impose a penalty against American nuns' protests about discrimination. I will refrain from swearing here and let you visualize it . Take a look at the Netflix dramatization "Spotlight." I lived near and then in Boston through all of it and I was upset beyond words when Law and the old boy network prevailed.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************

Few can bear the reality of the evil of demonic ritual abuse--sexually assaulting, brutalizing, then chopping up wee ones and eating them and drinking their blood. I posted a mild video about this--not at all graphic-- and it was banned from a FB group on demonology b/c it offended one of the members. The group owner (an experienced exorcist assistant) said "oh I am sure .... will do an article for us on this for us and post it on another of my platforms." I called him out privately and he GOT it and reversed his position and apologized.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************

An extended afterlife realm specialist (a prolific OBEr) recently averred in his FB group that demons (true ones who are an ontological category of their own as against either the earthbound ones Gerod mainly helps with or the IMO absurd David Icke reptilian overlords) that demonic entities can incarnate as humans, giving Hitler as an example. I remembered a demon dog I once had--a huge mastiff who killed a family goat right in front of me and then eyed who would be next (he eyed one of my llamas and then my elderly retired pony). I tried to save the goat but the dog knocked me backwards, even threw flat on my back, over and over. When the vet put him down he said to me, "well I guess he knows who's alpha now." THE VET got it, and he never even studied Buddhism. The late Jungian analyst James Hillman wrote about "the bad seed" with respect to inexplicable evil, e.g., Hitler and children who are very young murderers, and I finally see his point.

Good job Alex. You nailed it hands down.

P.S. I have no religious or spiritual affiliation. My path is karma yoga, with lots of help from grace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L

lonevoice

#5
I think the whole idea that consciousness is an illusion was a desperate ploy by materialists, to avoid explaining consciousness by pretending it doesn't exist! I mean, if it turned out that we were living in a simulation, even that would not make our consciousness an illusion - it would still exist and need explaining!

@Alex I don't think there is any point in trying to push a guest into condemning a figure like Susan Blackmore. If he doesn't want to go there, it is better to leave it at that. Andrew seemed to keep asking where you wanted to go in the podcast, and I too would have liked the discussion a bit more focussed.

David
I disagree, David., about your second point. I think there was a subtle but steady trend that Alex followed brilliantly.

Also, on another matter, for Aldous Huxley CONSCIOUSNESS is the divine ground, the bedrock of the Perennial Philosophy,.
 
L

lonevoice

#6
Also, on another matter, for Aldous Huxley CONSCIOUSNESS is the divine ground, the bedrock of the Perennial Philosophy, (not a reply to anyone, just an observation about a comment by the guest).
 

Alex

Administrator
#7
Well, Alex, I think you need to add a third box: a batgap-type escapism one. Buddhism--pure Buddha--is largely about right action , as against the themes your guest kept running back to. (Buddhist scholars observe that the Buddha was largely a spiritual physician, not a metaphysician.) Even worse, like some Christian fundys I know, Andrew comes across as assuming that the rest of the world needs to get inside that box with him. Who is his "we", "your audience" etc .-- words that he used that exposed tIMO hat he his still running from fear.

********************************************************************************************************************************************************

I had a Buddhist meditation teacher who could go into those exotic states but who stole money and goods and services from me via manipulating me skillfully b/c I did not know the score --as a sincere seeker. and a newbie to Buddhism. Will she get enlightened through dream yoga or through the addition of cleaning up her act ?

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************

GOOD point re the Vatican: when Cardinal Law high tailed it out of Boston to Rome after exposure of his role in a massive pedophilia scandal, the Vatican honored him with an elitist pastoral appointment. When Francis came on board he explicitly reviewed Law's crimes but decided to let him keep his honorific status and even let him form a committee of three to assess AND impose a penalty against American nuns' protests about discrimination. I will refrain from swearing here and let you visualize it . Take a look at the Netflix dramatization "Spotlight." I lived near and then in Boston through all of it and I was upset beyond words when Law and the old boy network prevailed.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************

Few can bear the reality of the evil of demonic ritual abuse--sexually assaulting, brutalizing, then chopping up wee ones and eating them and drinking their blood. I posted a mild video about this--not at all graphic-- and it was banned from a FB group on demonology b/c it offended one of the members. The group owner (an experienced exorcist assistant) said "oh I am sure .... will do an article for us on this for us and post it on another of my platforms." I called him out privately and he GOT it and reversed his position and apologized.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************

An extended afterlife realm specialist (a prolific OBEr) recently averred in his FB group that demons (true ones who are an ontological category of their own as against either the earthbound ones Gerod mainly helps with or the IMO absurd David Icke reptilian overlords) that demonic entities can incarnate as humans, giving Hitler as an example. I remembered a demon dog I once had--a huge mastiff who killed a family goat right in front of me and then eyed who would be next (he eyed one of my llamas and then my elderly retired pony). I tried to save the goat but the dog knocked me backwards, even threw flat on my back, over and over. When the vet put him down he said to me, "well I guess he knows who's alpha now." THE VET got it, and he never even studied Buddhism. The late Jungian analyst James Hillman wrote about "the bad seed" with respect to inexplicable evil, e.g., Hitler and children who are very young murderers, and I finally see his point.

Good job Alex. You nailed it hands down.

P.S. I have no religious or spiritual affiliation. My path is karma yoga, with lots of help from grace.
good stuff. thx.
 

Alex

Administrator
#8
@Alex I don't think there is any point in trying to push a guest into condemning a figure like Susan Blackmore. If he doesn't want to go there, it is better to leave it at that. Andrew seemed to keep asking where you wanted to go in the podcast, and I too would have liked the discussion a bit more focussed.

David
I got to say I think you totally missed the point. andrew cited blackmore in his paper so he should be able to defend the position he took. he was uncomfortable because he was unaware a blackmore position on consciousness and had fallen for the phony buddhist front that she portrays. that's on him.
 
#9
I got to say I think you totally missed the point. andrew cited blackmore in his paper so he should be able to defend the position he took. he was uncomfortable because he was unaware a blackmore position on consciousness and had fallen for the phony buddhist front that she portrays. that's on him.
OK, but I don't think everyone is as confrontational as you are, and if they are not, they don't want to be pushed into saying things they don't want to say - even if it is the logical conclusion. Everything people say goes rattling round the world at a crazy pace, I can understand people exerting caution.

David
 
#10
Well, Alex, I think you need to add a third box: a batgap-type escapism one. Buddhism--pure Buddha--is largely about right action , as against the themes your guest kept running back to. (Buddhist scholars observe that the Buddha was largely a spiritual physician, not a metaphysician.) Even worse, like some Christian fundys I know, Andrew comes across as assuming that the rest of the world needs to get inside that box with him. Who is his "we", "your audience" etc .-- words that he used that exposed IMO that he his still running from fear.
This is quite a set of statements...

P.S. I have no religious or spiritual affiliation. My path is karma yoga, with lots of help from grace.
Karma yoga - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_yoga

I did not know that "it" was called this... Karma yoga - the following describes quite accurately what I have striven to follow for some time now (and sometimes failing still).

Karma yoga, also called Karma marga, is one of the three spiritual paths in Hinduism, one based on the "yoga of action".[1] To a karma yogi, right action is a form of prayer.[2] It is one of the paths in the spiritual practices of Hindus, others being Jnana yoga (path of knowledge) and Bhakti yoga (path of loving devotion to a personal god).
 
Last edited:
#11
Everything I have wanted to say to you, Alex, I have finally been able to put in a post... I hope you read it.

The following are statements of mine that eventually connect:

Alex, you have said that Skeptiko is essentially your own personal journey that includes a methodology that you have dubbed "skeptiko" - a sort of personalized form of critical inquiry... and that you share this journey with us.

You know, as I have stated many times, my deep appreciation for what you've done and do. Nothing of this nature has made a greater difference in my life.

I find when I react to something in a charged up way... an emotionally charged way, I have something within myself I can benefit from looking at.

Sometimes I draw the conclusion you have formed some rather anchored conclusions of your own yet you wish to hear those answers rather precisely reflected from some of your guests... not because you seek confirmation, but more like it seems you wish for your audience to hear it from a guest or two, as opposed to yourself (or, when you do become more transparent as you sometimes seem to do when you are interviewed, just yourself).

My observations: What I sometimes observe is that you pin a guest down and the guest provides an answer to one of your questions but that the answer has not landed within a.) your own conclusion zone or b.) any response you perceive as a response which appears cotextualized within a zone you have recognized. It seems both zones have achieved an understandable context for you (even if one or more of the contexts you feel are invalid).

What I observe is that in some cases when these moments arise where it appears minor (and sometimes not so minor) conflict arises, what seems to be underpinning these moments is that you seem to have never come across or considered a context from which the answer is given. In these cases, when I feel I have a grasp of the context (and sometimes I don't, but again, sometimes I do)... my experience is that the guests response nails what they are striving to communicate... I would come away understanding their response and I follow that with a sense their response, due to the context, held validity.

Then, what seems to happen is that... more because I am just a blob of jelly... I experience your frustration and feel this love for you and this desire to just stop you right there and show you what you are missing about the context (and thus, the answer).

Here's where my statements all connect: There is such a great example of this in your discussion with Andrew Holecek -

"I’m thrilled to talk about my understanding about consciousness and why it’s illusory and what’s more foundational than even consciousness, because the wisdom traditions as I’ve come to practice and understand them obviously speak a great deal about this, and consciousness has a very limited kind of bandwidth, in terms of the spectrum of mind. There’s something actually more foundational.

So if you want me to run with that, I’m happy to do it. So it’s just maybe a little bit of guidance from you in terms of the baton you’re handing on to me. "

Right here, Andrew is pointing towards the context that you seem to be missing and he is inviting you to invite him to unpack that context. In speaking for myself, I felt I knew the context Andrew was pointing to... that which I have come to prefer the term - The Absolute, ie. my favorite label for "it."

I began to grasp The Absolute (which I capitalize only to demonstrate my respect for "it") but I use quotes for the word "it" because, "it" is, paradoxically, an it, not an it and not even that... a favorite way to word "it" of Ken Wilber's.

So I believe Andrew was right there... at that very threshold and he offered to go into that and that's where you interrupted him and the opportunity was lost.

I know you have read thousands of books, Alex, but there's one which is only 118 pages and if you read it, you'll understand the context from which that which seems missing to you can become clear.

Consciousness and the Absolute - The final talks of Sri Nisargadata Maharaj.

I'm far from bright yet a direct apprehension of the Absolute I have achieved... so if I can do it, you can too.
 
#12
Hi Alex,
—Just want to thank you for following up on my suggestion to have Andrew Holecek as a Skeptiko guest. I really enjoyed the interview — so much so, that I needed to listen to it three times to truly get a take on it:

True to your inimitable Skeptiko style, you challenged Andrew on a number of key points, at times “holding his feet to the fire.” —To be fair to Andrew, unlike a well-seasoned Skeptiko guest, such as Miguel Conner, who knows the Skeptiko drill —“… If Alex doesn’t go off on me, then I have failed!” — this was Andrew’s first experience at the Skeptiko rite of Baptism by Fire.

So, I’m not quite so sure that your intro clip from Stepbrothers really fits…

I only know Andrew from reading his online bio, listening to his materials, and reading his online postings. He seems to me to be sincerely self-effacing — (“Yeah, they give you the title Lama when you come up, … there’s two types of Lama, there’s Lama, teacher and guru, and there’s the llama that just carries crap around. —I’m that kind of Lama.”) —a quality so rarely found in those in the (for lack of a better term) “human development” arena.

As to the Stepbrothers clip: After my first listen to the show, I wasn’t quite sure if Andrew was being cagey in seeming to take a safe approach to your line of questioning by feigning ignorance as to just where you would like him to go with his response to your statements. But after repeated listenings, I think Andrew was entirely sincere in his response(s). My Take? —Without knowing the Skeptiko drill, I think Andrew was just trying to carefully understand your points so that he could respond authentically to them.

And I don’t think for a minute that Andrew was at all offended by your holding him accountable to his line of reasoning… just one example:

Alex Tsakiris: [00:46:43] We’re always judging everyone. I hate when people say that. Of course, they’re either judging positively or judging negatively, but judge feel free. This is a judge-friendly zone.
But, in true Skeptiko style, there were many more. —a most memorable one:

Alex Tsakiris: [00:53:31] And then if we look at the other side, where we might go and mainstream perspective for an understanding of that deeper part, we’d look at religion. And then we’re leaning on another lie. They’re really just good guys over there, those Catholics, just a few bad apples, instead of what we really all know that it’s institutionalized sexual abuse, rape of kids and it comes out over and over again.
Andrew Holecek: [00:53:50] Some of them are that way, I wouldn’t just say they’re all that way.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:53:52] Institutionalized. I would say at this point, any thinking person would have to acknowledge that at the very least, the burden of proof is on the Catholic Church at the highest level to prove beyond any doubt that it is not an institutionally supported and understood practice that’s been enshrined for many years. That’s just the evidence, that’s where the evidence leads. We can’t keep saying it’s just a few bad apples.​

And Andrew took them all in good stride, and —given the relatively brief time of an hour-long interview— in time, I believe he responded with sincere authenticity to your line of questioning.

In that regard, i.e., the relatively brief amount of interview time, a guest such as Andrew leaves so much ground to cover. —Which brings me to my only reservation to this interview: There just wasn’t enough time to explore the depths of Andrew’s very thoughtful essay, “The Evolution of Abuse.” But there’s so much there to unpack, and a deep dive into those areas wouldn’t have left enough time for you to explore where you really wanted to take the conversation…

…perhaps, a good reason for Andrew’s eventual return as a Skeptiko guest? (“Would he ever consider returning?” I can almost hear you say … My guess is that if you and your audience would have it, I bet he would.)

Alex, thanks again for following up on my suggestion to have Andrew Holecek as your Skeptiko guest. And thanks again for all that you do!
 
Last edited:
#13
I'd also like to hear another interview of Andrew by Alex.
I didn't feel that Andrew Holecek was settled enough in the hour to give the insights which he might be capable of.
At first, I thought the two guys were just not intersecting enough to make a great podcast. But then I came here and read some of the really good takes that some of the rest of the audience have, and I think that a further interview would be great.
 
#14
Hi Alex,

At the end of this show you said its good to be precise. So in the interests of precision can I just pick you up on something that you frequently say, and which you repeat in this interview, namely that various people think "consciousness is an illusion and an epiphenomenon of the brain."

Epiphenomenalism is a technical position in the philosophy of mind, and not a particularly popular one. It is very different from saying 'consciousness is an illusion'. Most of the people you often quote as believing that 'consciousness is an illusion and an epiphenomenon of the brain' tend to support the view that consciousness is an illusion but absolutely do not endorse epiphenomenalism.

Epiphenomenalism is a form of property dualism about consciousness (so is panpsychism but in a very different way). It is the view that the physical mind generates a property of consciousness but that this property entirely supervenes and is dependent on the physical brain, and because of this consciousness is causally inert. Again, a Epiphenominalist would never say consciousness is an illusion. The whole point of this position is that it is a real and distinct non-physical property generated by physical brains. What is illusionary according to the epiphenominalist is the seeming causal effectiveness of our conscious states. So for example, when we have something like a desire for ice-cream then go to the fridge to get some ice-cream, they would say that the desire doesn't cause you to go get it - instead there are underlying physical processes in the brain that both cause a physical chain of events leading you to go and get ice-cream and simultaneously create the causally inert senses of desire, and satisfaction that go with it.

Most philosophers of mind/scientists who you could broadly believe 'consciousness is an illusion' do not ascribe to this model.

Yada yada yada you may say, but seeing as you mentioned the importance of precision I thought what the hell.
 
L

lonevoice

#15
This is quite a set of statements...



Karma yoga - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_yoga

I did not know that "it" was called this... Karma yoga - the following describes quite accurately what I have striven to follow for some time now (and sometimes failing still).

Karma yoga, also called Karma marga, is one of the three spiritual paths in Hinduism, one based on the "yoga of action".[1] To a karma yogi, right action is a form of prayer.[2] It is one of the paths in the spiritual practices of Hindus, others being Jnana yoga (path of knowledge) and Bhakti yoga (path of loving devotion to a personal god).
Hi Chester,

These four paths (the fourth is raja) have been widely recognized by seekers / are by no means limited to Hindus.

In addition to service, I also follow Bhakti yoga--devotion to my Beloved. That is where the instruction and downloads and grace and strength come from. I discerned that you were a karma yogi!
 

Alex

Administrator
#16
Everything I have wanted to say to you, Alex, I have finally been able to put in a post... I hope you read it.

The following are statements of mine that eventually connect:

Alex, you have said that Skeptiko is essentially your own personal journey that includes a methodology that you have dubbed "skeptiko" - a sort of personalized form of critical inquiry... and that you share this journey with us.

You know, as I have stated many times, my deep appreciation for what you've done and do. Nothing of this nature has made a greater difference in my life.

I find when I react to something in a charged up way... an emotionally charged way, I have something within myself I can benefit from looking at.

Sometimes I draw the conclusion you have formed some rather anchored conclusions of your own yet you wish to hear those answers rather precisely reflected from some of your guests... not because you seek confirmation, but more like it seems you wish for your audience to hear it from a guest or two, as opposed to yourself (or, when you do become more transparent as you sometimes seem to do when you are interviewed, just yourself).

My observations: What I sometimes observe is that you pin a guest down and the guest provides an answer to one of your questions but that the answer has not landed within a.) your own conclusion zone or b.) any response you perceive as a response which appears cotextualized within a zone you have recognized. It seems both zones have achieved an understandable context for you (even if one or more of the contexts you feel are invalid).

What I observe is that in some cases when these moments arise where it appears minor (and sometimes not so minor) conflict arises, what seems to be underpinning these moments is that you seem to have never come across or considered a context from which the answer is given. In these cases, when I feel I have a grasp of the context (and sometimes I don't, but again, sometimes I do)... my experience is that the guests response nails what they are striving to communicate... I would come away understanding their response and I follow that with a sense their response, due to the context, held validity.

Then, what seems to happen is that... more because I am just a blob of jelly... I experience your frustration and feel this love for you and this desire to just stop you right there and show you what you are missing about the context (and thus, the answer).

Here's where my statements all connect: There is such a great example of this in your discussion with Andrew Holecek -

"I’m thrilled to talk about my understanding about consciousness and why it’s illusory and what’s more foundational than even consciousness, because the wisdom traditions as I’ve come to practice and understand them obviously speak a great deal about this, and consciousness has a very limited kind of bandwidth, in terms of the spectrum of mind. There’s something actually more foundational.

So if you want me to run with that, I’m happy to do it. So it’s just maybe a little bit of guidance from you in terms of the baton you’re handing on to me. "

Right here, Andrew is pointing towards the context that you seem to be missing and he is inviting you to invite him to unpack that context. In speaking for myself, I felt I knew the context Andrew was pointing to... that which I have come to prefer the term - The Absolute, ie. my favorite label for "it."

I began to grasp The Absolute (which I capitalize only to demonstrate my respect for "it") but I use quotes for the word "it" because, "it" is, paradoxically, an it, not an it and not even that... a favorite way to word "it" of Ken Wilber's.

So I believe Andrew was right there... at that very threshold and he offered to go into that and that's where you interrupted him and the opportunity was lost.

I know you have read thousands of books, Alex, but there's one which is only 118 pages and if you read it, you'll understand the context from which that which seems missing to you can become clear.

Consciousness and the Absolute - The final talks of Sri Nisargadata Maharaj.

I'm far from bright yet a direct apprehension of the Absolute I have achieved... so if I can do it, you can too.
I guess I see it differently. Andrew ticked me off from the beginning when to copped an attitude about charlie morley... as if there's some phony-baloney hierarchy among lucid dream teachers that I have to honor. he then ticked me off again with this condescending wokeness vibe, "gee you're so stupid... if you could just articulate intelligent questions for me to answer." ok, so I asked him some real direct questions like why the hell he fell for the Susan Blackmore phony Buddhist bullshit:
Near-Death Experience Skeptic Dr. Susan Blackmore ...
Dr. Caroline Watt Defends, There is Nothing ... - Skeptiko

...and no, I didn't wait much for his answer because there isn't one... and I didn't want to go down that path and waste that time because anyone like him who isn't able to see through that nonsense and is stuck in wokeness mode where their highest value is to "not judge" which means we don't employ enough discernment to understand when people are intentionally deceiving us in order to promote their own misguided agenda needs to check themselves.

I didn't go gunning for Andrew... I didn't know this interview would turn out this way, but I stand behind it. I do wish I could have shown a smidgen more more compassion and kindness and at the same time have to honor the opportunity to expose a subtle truth-seeking opp.
 

Alex

Administrator
#17
Hi Alex,
—Just want to thank you for following up on my suggestion to have Andrew Holecek as a Skeptiko guest. I really enjoyed the interview —
thanks again for the suggestion and for making it happen. there always seems to be a different energy and interviews driven by Skeptiko listeners.

So, I’m not quite so sure that your intro clip from Stepbrothers really fits…
haha... agree... I not sure who was playing "Pan" :)


…perhaps, a good reason for Andrew’s eventual return as a Skeptiko guest? (“Would he ever consider returning?” I can almost hear you say … My guess is that if you and your audience would have it, I bet he would.)
I'd be happy to have him back, but I can't imagine he'd want to do it. I'd pick up right where I left off regarding phony buddhist atheism and the intentional weaponized deception of skeptics like susan blackmore.
 

Alex

Administrator
#18
I'd also like to hear another interview of Andrew by Alex.
I didn't feel that Andrew Holecek was settled enough in the hour to give the insights which he might be capable of.
At first, I thought the two guys were just not intersecting enough to make a great podcast. But then I came here and read some of the really good takes that some of the rest of the audience have, and I think that a further interview would be great.
sure... as noted above.
 

Alex

Administrator
#19
Hi Alex,

At the end of this show you said its good to be precise. So in the interests of precision can I just pick you up on something that you frequently say, and which you repeat in this interview, namely that various people think "consciousness is an illusion and an epiphenomenon of the brain."

Epiphenomenalism is a technical position in the philosophy of mind, and not a particularly popular one. It is very different from saying 'consciousness is an illusion'. Most of the people you often quote as believing that 'consciousness is an illusion and an epiphenomenon of the brain' tend to support the view that consciousness is an illusion but absolutely do not endorse epiphenomenalism.

Epiphenomenalism is a form of property dualism about consciousness (so is panpsychism but in a very different way). It is the view that the physical mind generates a property of consciousness but that this property entirely supervenes and is dependent on the physical brain, and because of this consciousness is causally inert. Again, a Epiphenominalist would never say consciousness is an illusion. The whole point of this position is that it is a real and distinct non-physical property generated by physical brains. What is illusionary according to the epiphenominalist is the seeming causal effectiveness of our conscious states. So for example, when we have something like a desire for ice-cream then go to the fridge to get some ice-cream, they would say that the desire doesn't cause you to go get it - instead there are underlying physical processes in the brain that both cause a physical chain of events leading you to go and get ice-cream and simultaneously create the causally inert senses of desire, and satisfaction that go with it.

Most philosophers of mind/scientists who you could broadly believe 'consciousness is an illusion' do not ascribe to this model.

Yada yada yada you may say, but seeing as you mentioned the importance of precision I thought what the hell.
thanks for this excellent post. I think there are times when philosophical and scientific "precision" has to be balanced with clarity and trying to reach people in a way that we can all understand. I maintain that one of the tools used by social engineers interested in promoting scientism has been the obfuscation of many of the terms surrounding our understanding of consciousness.

as you probably know I've played the bernardo kastrup deGrasse tyson clip a million times on Skeptiko because it succinctly sums up the absurd deception being promoted:

Alex Tsakiris: These people will be recognized by people in my community as skeptics or as materialists, but these people are just generally regarded as scientists, as mainstream scientists. We’re talking about Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Neil deGrasse Tyson, whether we like it or not, is the face of science for many, many, many Americans, so let’s see what mainstream science has to say about consciousness.

Here we go, I’m going to play this clip. You can see it there, I’m going to play it.

Richard Dawkins: But you can say something about the question which you really would wish to know the answer to, and for me it would be, what’s consciousness, because that’s totally baffling.

Neil de Grasse Tyson: Richard, you know what I think, not that you ask, but what I think on this is, consciousness has, kind of, baffled us for a while and evidence that we haven’t a clue about what consciousness is, is drawn from the fact of, how many books are published on the topic. We’re not really continuing to publish books, not really, on Newtonian physics, it’s done. So, the fact that people keep publishing books on consciousness is the evidence we don’t know anything about, because if we knew all about it, you wouldn’t have to keep publishing.

So, what I wonder, what I wonder Richard is, whether there really is no such thing as consciousness at all and that there’s some other understanding of the functioning of the human brain that renders that question obsolete.

Bill Nye: To that I’ve got to say like, oh wow!

Alex Tsakiris: I’m laughing, but what is so funny about that.

Bernardo Kastrup: The idea that maybe consciousness is not there is probably the weirdest, stupidest idea every conceived by human thought. I mean, where does thought take place? It takes place in consciousness. So, here we have consciousness, speculating about the possibility that consciousness does not exist and it may not be there. I mean, the very thought is an in your face contradiction and the fact that something like this is not only seriously entertained, but even verbalized with a public with the public exposure of the gentleman we just saw, is a worrying sign of cultural sickness, a very serious one.
 
#20
I guess I see it differently. Andrew ticked me off from the beginning when to copped an attitude about charlie morley... as if there's some phony-baloney hierarchy among lucid dream teachers that I have to honor. he then ticked me off again with this condescending wokeness vibe, "gee you're so stupid... if you could just articulate intelligent questions for me to answer." ok, so I asked him some real direct questions like why the hell he fell for the Susan Blackmore phony Buddhist bullshit:
Near-Death Experience Skeptic Dr. Susan Blackmore ...
Dr. Caroline Watt Defends, There is Nothing ... - Skeptiko

...and no, I didn't wait much for his answer because there isn't one... and I didn't want to go down that path and waste that time because anyone like him who isn't able to see through that nonsense and is stuck in wokeness mode where their highest value is to "not judge" which means we don't employ enough discernment to understand when people are intentionally deceiving us in order to promote their own misguided agenda needs to check themselves.

I didn't go gunning for Andrew... I didn't know this interview would turn out this way, but I stand behind it. I do wish I could have shown a smidgen more more compassion and kindness and at the same time have to honor the opportunity to expose a subtle truth-seeking opp.
Thanks, Alex, for the reply.

In your interview with Andrew, Andrew said there was something fundamental to consciousness but he didn't have the chance to elaborate. If you get him back, please, ask him to explain what that is.
 
Top