My bad. I made a mistake in the simplified scheme about point of view being trapped in relativity, even more clearly in its summarized version.

Overall, it still makes sense to me and should be solid, but there’s an aspect that I probably got wrong. What’s still correct is that Science sees the world as a closed system, and so there cannot be any meddling of any external entity, as well intervention of metaphysics. Even in this last case metaphysics mean that something external seeps into the system to influence it.

Given this model, it’s still true that no amount of information, information coming from within the system, can produce any real change, or any real “freedom”. From that external point of view of god, we are still trapped in a deterministic system (so, predictable), acting in deterministic ways.

My mistake is here:

So Bakker believes that if we posit that “consciousness” is a perceptive fraud/illusion, then one could explain consciousness from the “outside”. Starting from the natural world. That way, in his intention, consciousness should be “explained away”. In the sense that he should be able to describe how consciousness comes to be, how it works, and why it is perceived in the way it is (and why this is only a sort of hallucination).

The problem is that, even more specifically when you deal with consciousness, we know exactly the “origin”. It’s the brain/mind. The postulate is that everything begins in the brain, and so every consequent observation and description need to start from the brain. The switch Bakker makes from an internal self-description, to a “scientific” description from the outside is a formal violation. It’s like in a book switching from first person into third.

My mistake is about assuming that the same as we believe the universe as a closed system, so could be considered the “brain”. Another closed system. The creation of the world only “really” happens IN the brain. Without a brain that perceives things, there’s no reality. So that’s our closed system that we can’t escape.

This is also why I reverted the model: the metaphysics of consciousness. The dualism through BBT becomes the illusion of consciousness. The way we live as if in a different dimension that is separated from Nature. This dimension of conscious thought. It’s the dualistic model upside down. All the metaphysics happen right here in consciousness. There’s the world of physical reality, with its scientific laws out there, and there’s the world of consciousness, with all its myths and legends, with its gods, spirits, and all the “magic”. If consciousness is the illusion, then we all live WITHIN magic, completely soaked in it. Magic is not “elsewhere”, it’s not exotic, but the world we inhabit. The dualism body/mind becomes reality/magic, physics/metaphysics.

The important point of BBT is that it erases this bi-dimensionality (that I refused to accept because even illusion is still one legitimate point of view). But a model where there’s no dualism is also the model, obviously, where my claim is wrong: the brain isn’t closed in any way. The system doesn’t need to be opened, because it’s already wide open.

And if the system is open, then BBT has the power to alter perception directly. This STILL doesn’t offer any real freedom, since it’s still a deterministic system, and opening one box doesn’t achieve anything, nor can in the future. But from the relative experience within the system this makes a great difference.

It also doesn’t change the validity of the relative freedom we have. The deterministic system only removes this freedom if seen from the external point of view. But we can only theorize this point of view, we can’t get there. And so the subjective experience remains authoritative and valid.


  1. Authoritive to whom?

    The advertising company who uses the scientifically validated knowledge that emotionally taxing TV shows leaves the viewer more vulnerable to suggestion?

    The viewer maybe states ‘I have free will’ and suddenly some kind of authoritiveness of their subjective experience stops them from being vulnerable to suggestion?

    Or maybe it ceases to become ‘vulnerable to suggestion’ – they are so authoritive that when they declare their free will, they are also saying ‘I so truely believe in this product I saw on TV and am about to buy now’. And it’s an expression of true belief? Rather than manipulation?

    • To itself. A point of view is authoritative to its closed perspective. That’s why The Matrix can play with a fake/subjective idea of reality.

      A point of view, obviously, doesn’t mean absolute power, or independence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *