Not having read the Eagleman book Curtis has been talking about recently, but relating it to the concept of the "I am not the doer" meme being discussed in other threads, I find myself wondering.
I'm wondering whether the subjective experience one can have ( and I know that this is true because I've had this experience myself...or lack of myself :-) of "I am not the doer" is nothing more than becoming *aware* of the disconnect between how our brains perceive the world vs. how they really perceive it. Most of the time our brains "fill in" and construct fan- tasies about how the world works, based on the data our brains perceive. But what if "witnessing" were nothing more than a brain fart that interferes with with construc- tion of those fantasies? What if it isn't a "higher" state of consciousness at all, merely a different mode of brain functioning, and no more related to reality than the ordinary modes of brain functioning? If, as Eagleman's research suggests, our subjective sense of "self" is an illusion constructed by the brain based on data it can't really handle, what makes anyone believe that the subjective sense of Self is any different? What makes them believe that this subjective experience of Self is any "higher" or "more real" than the experience of self? I suggest that the answer is found in belief, and in a lifetime's worth of indoctrination. Those who believe that a period of no-thought in meditation is "proof" of the existence of an Absolute or an experience of the Self HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS. The belief did *not* spring up automatically in them; they were told that it was true. Then, when they experienced the promised periods of no-thought, they interpreted them THE WAY THEY HAD BEEN TOLD TO. Same with "witnessing." Personally I see no reason to believe that ANY subjective state of awareness or mode of perception is the "highest" or "ultimate" state of consciousness. They're *all* brain farts in my opinion. It's just that some are less smelly than others. :-)
