In the last article, I showed you that your “self” is a committee—a coalition of sub-minds competing for attention, with a narrative generator (the Default Mode Network) weaving stories to create the illusion of a unified experiencer.
Thank you for this article. I really appreciate the way you approach these ideas from a scientific perspective — through neuroscience, systems theory, and what feels very close to quantum thinking about reality.
At the same time, I’m currently reading a book that approaches very similar questions from a completely different angle. It was written based on channeling records of a Turkish medium in the last century. The language is different, but the parallels are striking.
In the book, reality is described as a multi-layered energetic system.
Consciousness does not belong only to the human brain. Instead, the human being is seen as a node inside larger energetic and informational fields. Individual awareness exists, but it is always embedded in something bigger — just as a cell exists inside an organ, and an organ inside a body.
What you describe as neurons forming a mind, and humans potentially forming something larger, is described in the book as levels of energy and being. Each level has its own rules, its own limits of perception, and its own illusion of separateness. From this perspective, it is natural that a part cannot fully perceive the whole it belongs to.
The idea that attention, interaction, and information flow shape what emerges is also central in the book. It suggests that unconscious participation strengthens mechanical processes, while conscious presence changes the quality of the entire field — even if the individual remains just one element within it.
Reading your article alongside this book made something very clear to me: different languages are being used, but they are pointing to the same structure of reality. Science speaks in terms of systems, networks, and integration. The book speaks in terms of energy, fields, and universal order. But both describe the same pattern — emergence through connection.
For me, this doesn’t diminish human choice or meaning. On the contrary, it deepens it. If we are part of something larger, then awareness matters even more. Not to escape the system, but to participate in it consciously.
Thank you for articulating this so clearly from the scientific side. It helped me bridge two worlds of understanding that, in essence, seem to be describing the same truth from different directions
Thank you for this. You articulated something I’ve felt for a long time but rarely see expressed so clearly.
I don’t experience science and mysticism as opposing domains. They feel like different lenses aimed at the same underlying structure. One speaks in neurons, networks, and emergence. The other speaks in fields, energy, and levels of being. The grammar changes. The topology doesn’t.
What you described about the human as a node embedded in larger informational systems is precisely what keeps pulling me forward. Not as metaphor, but as structure. A cell doesn’t need to understand the body to participate in it. Awareness still matters. Maybe it matters more.
Where science has been catching up is in admitting emergence, integration, and irreducibility. Where mysticism has often gone too far is in abandoning rigor. I suspect the next phase isn’t choosing one language over the other, but learning how to translate between them without collapsing either.
Conscious participation feels like the hinge. Not escaping the system. Not dissolving into it. Staying present inside it.
Your comment felt like that translation happening in real time. I’m glad you’re here in the conversation.
Thank you for this article. I really appreciate the way you approach these ideas from a scientific perspective — through neuroscience, systems theory, and what feels very close to quantum thinking about reality.
At the same time, I’m currently reading a book that approaches very similar questions from a completely different angle. It was written based on channeling records of a Turkish medium in the last century. The language is different, but the parallels are striking.
In the book, reality is described as a multi-layered energetic system.
Consciousness does not belong only to the human brain. Instead, the human being is seen as a node inside larger energetic and informational fields. Individual awareness exists, but it is always embedded in something bigger — just as a cell exists inside an organ, and an organ inside a body.
What you describe as neurons forming a mind, and humans potentially forming something larger, is described in the book as levels of energy and being. Each level has its own rules, its own limits of perception, and its own illusion of separateness. From this perspective, it is natural that a part cannot fully perceive the whole it belongs to.
The idea that attention, interaction, and information flow shape what emerges is also central in the book. It suggests that unconscious participation strengthens mechanical processes, while conscious presence changes the quality of the entire field — even if the individual remains just one element within it.
Reading your article alongside this book made something very clear to me: different languages are being used, but they are pointing to the same structure of reality. Science speaks in terms of systems, networks, and integration. The book speaks in terms of energy, fields, and universal order. But both describe the same pattern — emergence through connection.
For me, this doesn’t diminish human choice or meaning. On the contrary, it deepens it. If we are part of something larger, then awareness matters even more. Not to escape the system, but to participate in it consciously.
Thank you for articulating this so clearly from the scientific side. It helped me bridge two worlds of understanding that, in essence, seem to be describing the same truth from different directions
Thank you for this. You articulated something I’ve felt for a long time but rarely see expressed so clearly.
I don’t experience science and mysticism as opposing domains. They feel like different lenses aimed at the same underlying structure. One speaks in neurons, networks, and emergence. The other speaks in fields, energy, and levels of being. The grammar changes. The topology doesn’t.
What you described about the human as a node embedded in larger informational systems is precisely what keeps pulling me forward. Not as metaphor, but as structure. A cell doesn’t need to understand the body to participate in it. Awareness still matters. Maybe it matters more.
Where science has been catching up is in admitting emergence, integration, and irreducibility. Where mysticism has often gone too far is in abandoning rigor. I suspect the next phase isn’t choosing one language over the other, but learning how to translate between them without collapsing either.
Conscious participation feels like the hinge. Not escaping the system. Not dissolving into it. Staying present inside it.
Your comment felt like that translation happening in real time. I’m glad you’re here in the conversation.