Although I've thought about it and read on the topic quite a bit, I really don't know what "free will" is. If it's some kind of uncaused cause within me, then I don't believe I have it. If it is taken to mean that I am a causal agent, then I have it. I don't find it a very useful concept. Being a causal agent comes in degrees and in some ways we clearly are not fully free.
I do not know that I'm not living in a simulation. I do not buy the argument that I probably am. I don't any particular reason to believe it but neither can I disprove it. I agree with David Chalmers that it doesn't really make a difference. Even if this universe is a "simulation", it's real from our point of view. I recommend his book, Reality+.
I'm sure that current computers do not have consciousness but I see no reason to declare that they never will regardless of physical instantiation. It really seems odd that we are able to think using three pounds of meat.
I've read a lot of Chalmers, but not the "Reality Plus" book. I'm convinced that awareness = "I-ness" = selfhood is not a product of the brain. My reasoning is not "synthetic a priori" but very much experimental. It is the whole body of near death, out of body, and other states that Lisby Mayer called "Extraordinary Knowing" https://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable-ebook/dp/B000OI0G16/
I know that the mainstream of the psychology and philosophy communities and, to a lesser extent, the physics and biology communities don't take this literature seriously. I think they're wrong.
First of all, thank you! These convictions that I feel that I'm born with and that Kant wrote 800 pages about are not universal. Yours are different from mine and both of ours are different from Kant. Does that undermine the whole concept of synthetic a priori?
A conviction that seems to come from deep inside can feel very strong. If it is reinforced by a social agreement (everyone has the same experience) it becomes unshakable. But if I have a deep, innate conviction and everyone around me seems to have a contradictory conviction, that makes me doubt my own sanity. I think the social pressure is stronger than any synthetic a priori, and few people can stand alone in the world with something that they know (especially without evidence) to be true.
Anthropology starts to look like a deep source of truth. There are cultural values that we never think to question until we live in a culture that is so different from our native culture that we at last see our "absolute truths" as culture-bound values.
When Europeans settled the Americas with their "guns, germs, and steel", they wiped out cultures that had developed independently for 10,000 years. What a loss to humanity! And today, Western capitalist/materialism continues the homogenization of world cultures.
What do I say about this? Rather, allow me to say what Nietzsche says. Or more honestly, my interpretation of that.
First, a disclaimer: I have no formal training in philosophy. What I DO have, however, is extensive reading of one philosopher, Nietzsche. Even granted that, I don’t have final knowledge. But I do feel qualified to pass on some of his teachings.
He questioned everything, to include the commonly held beliefs that free will exists. He distrusted “immediate certainty” such as that one. Further, his criticism of philosophers extends far beyond Kant. He skewers diverse thinkers and their beliefs.
I share some of Nietzsche’s opinions, such as that A Priori Synthetic Knowledge should not be possible. Why did Kant propose this? I’m reading just a bit in here, but only some: Kant and the 18th century “romantic” German philosophers were aware that earlier dreams of philosophy – the claim that extant philosophy could PROVE the existence of God, of the Soul, and the "World Whole" [which is???] – were under attack by enlightenment science in general and in particular by newer philosophy (Pragmatism? Empricism?) of English thinkers such as Locke and Hume.
If you learn nothing else from Nietzsche, it should be this: Philosphers (and anyone else) are vulnerable to "prejudices" -- that is, preconceptions about what should be true. Instincts and subconscious forces are always operative and drive even apparent disciplined rational thought. As a result, Nietzsche argues that we should not ask (for example) whether A Priori Synthetic Knowledge is possible. We should ask why we (or Kant) believes it ought to exist. What unacknowledged or otherwise hidden physiological and/or psychological needs are trying to be answered? Yes boys and girls, it turns out that we humans like to make up our own fantasies and use any tool at hand to justify them.
One of many pithy quotes attributed to Einstein is (approximately): "Science is not finding the answer you want to be there. It's finding the answer that is there."
Kant’s contribution, argues Nietzsche, was that he essentially constructed an elaborate, apparently thorough, but ultimately fraudulent edifice that appeared to validate these earlier theological beliefs. Not only Kant, but much other human wisdom is built upon sand, so to speak. I don’t even claim to “understand” Kant’s arcane arguments; I only have a few secondhand summaries, no doubt biased ones. But I’ve grasped a few key concepts, and I reject them as nonsense. Now, it’s possible I misunderstand them, but here are my interpretations.
The existence of a priori synthetic knowledge. Basically if you analyze the meaning of the component terms, the claim is that it's possible to have access to knowledge that's only knowable by investigation, without having to do the investigation. Color me just a bit skeptical.
[Rather than quote, click on the link and search for “11.” This key passage trashes Kant quite handily. Kant not only is guilty of circular argument, he also “discovered” (or did he “invent” – quite a difference!) not one, but two “faculties” of the human intellect. Sure he did!
The Universal Imperative: I’m a bit fuzzy on this one; Kant seems to be arguing that there is a universal standard, that all human beings hold the same values. Now let me see if I get this: billions of autonomous human beings, each with unique experiences and minds, and yet they all hold some core values, shared by all? That is such a silly idea; I will leave it for others to dissect.
The Thing-in-Itself which I think is similar to Plato’s “Forms”. Do pure concepts exist? Sure they do, as abstractions in the mind. But we rapidly wade into troubles if we think these have independent existence on their own. Again, I’m foggy on these aspects and leave the arguments to the propeller heads.
For the interested, probably his best single book is Beyond Good and Evil, although you can find bits of it in his many other books. It’s not easy reading; some points I was only able to grasp with a commentary/study guide.
All that said, I realize that Kant is one of the major “modern” philosophers. But that by no means exempts him – or any other thinker – from self-delusion and promoting ideas that don’t’ hold up to scrutiny.
It's clear from reading Nietzsche that at least in part, his opinions are based upon Nature. His extensive criticism of religions, especially Christianity, include the observation that they seek to protect the weak against the strong. Now, don't get me wrong, I rather like much that civilization offers, yet like it or not, Nietzsche and others are right on many points. Not the least among those is that protecting the weak does help them in the short term; the problem is that doesn't come at zero cost. It reduces the herd's overall fitness. So yes, he no doubt does glorify violence, but couldn't this be viewed from the perspective that Nature acts this way, so how could Man possibly act otherwise?
You remind me that I want to write about eugenics, if I can figure out what to say. On the one hand, social cohesion will fall apart in a few generations if our scientists, artists, and intellectuals have better things to do than to raise children, while 15-year-olds bear children thoughtlessly and fundamentalists have jumbo families. On the other hand, the state determining who can reproduce is a nightmare of totalitarian power.
Thanks for your deep analysis and explication of Nietzsche. I am convinced that the whole idea of synthetic a priori is personal. I might have convictions that are unshakable for me, but there is nothing I can argue to convince you if you don't already have those convictions. The best I can hope to do is that -- in case you already have certain inborn beliefs -- I can tell you that you're not crazy, because I have the same inborn beliefs.
How do you think about near-death experiences or kundalini experiences from which some people emerge with unshakable convictions like "consciousness survives death" or "the nature of all reality is love"?
I keep an open mind about those. I don't deny that such experiences are "real" in the subjective sense, that is, that people experience them. What interpretation, what meaning we attach to them is another matter. For example, is a near-death experience really a glimpse of a reality denied mortals in normal times, is it some type of illusion/delusion, or perhaps something else?
You seem trapped in western philosophy. Infants are not born with an a priori sense of self. That comes with experience and is a conditioned response. If you think you have free will, meditate on any decision and try to find the source of the endless stream of factors leading to that decision point.
Your first statement: Infants are not born with a sense of self.
I wonder if we can really know this. By the time a child has the ability to answer our questions, the conditioning may have overridden whatever innate knowledge came into the world. Maybe the best way to study this question is to survey the sense of self in different cultures.
Your second statement: "try to find the source of the endless stream of factors leading to any decision point"
I feel that the capacity to intend is an integral part of what I call "me". This is what I intended when I said it was my synthetic a priori. I realize there are Buddhist meditation techniques that lead to the dissolution of the sense of self. Though I have meditated extensively, I haven't (yet) experienced that dissolution. I also accept the idea that the thoughts in my head come from neural connections in my brain and also, via telepathy, from the thoughts of other beings around me. So maybe my sense of free will is an illusion in that sense.
I would say that even if it is an illusion, it is so integral to the way I exist in the world that I cannot conceive of letting it go. I know this doesn't sound logical, even to me as I write it. Perhaps the relationship we feel to our own intention can only be described in paradoxical terms, as when I B Singer said: "We have to believe in free will. We have no choice."
1) I don't know it for a fact, but the behavior of newborn infants shows they have no idea what is going on or who they are, and can't differentiate between themselves and others at this early stage. To my knowledge, no one remembers being born, or becoming self-conscious in the womb just before birth, or anything like that. This doesn't mean infants are born a blank slate, but the best assumption is that this sense of self, of I, is derived from interaction with the physical environment. 2) I don't know about buddhist techniques. I was referring to the vedic techique of atma vichara, or self inquiry. It entails tracing the root of your thoughts back to the "I-thought." It's a simple technique (but it's very easy to lose focus). The difference between Hindu thought and Buddhist thought is that the Hindus assert that the self (what we all mean when we say "I" and "you" ) is a mental projection which hides the true "Self," which is similar to the term "soul." The buddhists maintain that there is no self or Self - it's all an illusion or mental projection. Practicing this technique even a little bit makes us aware of how fraudulent, derivative, and self-serving most of our thoughts and behaviors are, though we love to pretend our motives are pure. Note that yogic philosophy asserts that the attachment to life arises from the fear of death (of the I-thought). Someone else on another substack mentioned the Singer quote as if it settles the question. A deterministic statement about free will is actually pretty funny, don't you think? But it is true that in practical life it's very convenient to skirt the issues and just pretend we have some lofty free will action going on at the base of your soul.
This is deep, and an invitation to self-examination that I find attractive. Have you written more extensively about your own experience anywhere? I'm drawn of late to a dyad practice that is being taught by AwakenTheWorld...
Well, that’s mainly an ad for a retreat which I’m sure is rather expensive. Watching the video it’s unclear what they’re doing. Do they really sit there and perform tratak on each other for 12 hours a day? Do they eventually turn in ward? Are they just watching or is there interior inquiry going on?
Strictness of the routine will help develop discipline, and as a Buddhist inclined person it may be useful for you. Personally, don’t go in for retreats like this. You just have to get quiet and sit in padmasana, preferably, settle your mind, and begin tracing the source of any thought, or any action you’ve taken. You don’t have to go for the big Kahuna all the time.
I don't go in for organized retreats either, but I am planning to try the dyad technique with a friend. I'll let you know how it goes.
In the meantime, I have a good feeling about the Samadhi Center. I think what they charge for their retreats is not excessive, and they are liberal with concessions for people who can't afford their "suggested donation". But personally, I have only attended their (free) online events.
If you want to know more about the yogic approach to all this, pick up a copy of the Yoga Sutras (which was heavily influenced by buddhism.) Section 2 will briefly explain what the main misconceptions and attachments are and how to get rid of them, mostly based on contemplative self-inquiry. I recommend a thinner version in plainer English with practice advice, not the tome with all the commentary from Vyaasa and others.
Buddhism and the "Self": At first, I wanted to say you're wrong. But I think you have it mostly right but I'll make the case there is a nuance. A key teaching in Buddhism is anatta -- usually translated as "not-self." The lessons of the Skandhas ("aggregates") explicitly demonstrate (or claim to) the 5 things that the Self is NOT. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but this teaching does NOT deny the existence of a self; it only demonstrates that the Self cannot be our physical body, our sensory inputs, our interpretations of same, our choices or our consciousness. He basically sidesteps answering the question "What is the Self?" And that's ok, since Buddha explicitly said his mission was to teach a path out of "suffering."
In commenting on the use of "consciousness" in SN 22.3 [1], Bodhi (2000b), pp. 1046-7, n. 18, states: "The passage confirms the privileged status of consciousness among the five aggregates. While all the aggregates are conditioned phenomena marked by the three characteristics, consciousness serves as the connecting thread of personal continuity through the sequence of rebirths.... The other four aggregates serve as the 'stations for consciousness' (vinnanatthitiyo: see [SN] 22:53-54). Even consciousness, however, is not a self-identical entity but a sequence of dependently arisen occasions of cognizing; see MN I 256-60." [Taken from a Wikipedia footnote #8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha]
I’ll take your word for it. never cared for buddhism after meeting its representatives in my early 20’s who struck me as neurotics, and more importantly how useless it is on a practical level. The ones who left the fold and died as drunks had some interesting things to say. And yes, avoiding difficult questions and splitting hairs instead is a typical Buddhist behavior.
As you may know “Hinduism” accepts diametrically, opposed philosophical systems, including atheism. Personally, I find the teachings of Nisargadatta make the most sense. He does say that individual personalities die with the body, that’s at the end. But energy trapped by attachment
somehow sticks around and is responsible for new births.
Although I've thought about it and read on the topic quite a bit, I really don't know what "free will" is. If it's some kind of uncaused cause within me, then I don't believe I have it. If it is taken to mean that I am a causal agent, then I have it. I don't find it a very useful concept. Being a causal agent comes in degrees and in some ways we clearly are not fully free.
I do not know that I'm not living in a simulation. I do not buy the argument that I probably am. I don't any particular reason to believe it but neither can I disprove it. I agree with David Chalmers that it doesn't really make a difference. Even if this universe is a "simulation", it's real from our point of view. I recommend his book, Reality+.
https://www.amazon.com/Reality-Virtual-Worlds-Problems-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B098TY2C1C
I'm sure that current computers do not have consciousness but I see no reason to declare that they never will regardless of physical instantiation. It really seems odd that we are able to think using three pounds of meat.
https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html
I've read a lot of Chalmers, but not the "Reality Plus" book. I'm convinced that awareness = "I-ness" = selfhood is not a product of the brain. My reasoning is not "synthetic a priori" but very much experimental. It is the whole body of near death, out of body, and other states that Lisby Mayer called "Extraordinary Knowing" https://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable-ebook/dp/B000OI0G16/
I know that the mainstream of the psychology and philosophy communities and, to a lesser extent, the physics and biology communities don't take this literature seriously. I think they're wrong.
First of all, thank you! These convictions that I feel that I'm born with and that Kant wrote 800 pages about are not universal. Yours are different from mine and both of ours are different from Kant. Does that undermine the whole concept of synthetic a priori?
A conviction that seems to come from deep inside can feel very strong. If it is reinforced by a social agreement (everyone has the same experience) it becomes unshakable. But if I have a deep, innate conviction and everyone around me seems to have a contradictory conviction, that makes me doubt my own sanity. I think the social pressure is stronger than any synthetic a priori, and few people can stand alone in the world with something that they know (especially without evidence) to be true.
Anthropology starts to look like a deep source of truth. There are cultural values that we never think to question until we live in a culture that is so different from our native culture that we at last see our "absolute truths" as culture-bound values.
When Europeans settled the Americas with their "guns, germs, and steel", they wiped out cultures that had developed independently for 10,000 years. What a loss to humanity! And today, Western capitalist/materialism continues the homogenization of world cultures.
What do I say about this? Rather, allow me to say what Nietzsche says. Or more honestly, my interpretation of that.
First, a disclaimer: I have no formal training in philosophy. What I DO have, however, is extensive reading of one philosopher, Nietzsche. Even granted that, I don’t have final knowledge. But I do feel qualified to pass on some of his teachings.
He questioned everything, to include the commonly held beliefs that free will exists. He distrusted “immediate certainty” such as that one. Further, his criticism of philosophers extends far beyond Kant. He skewers diverse thinkers and their beliefs.
I share some of Nietzsche’s opinions, such as that A Priori Synthetic Knowledge should not be possible. Why did Kant propose this? I’m reading just a bit in here, but only some: Kant and the 18th century “romantic” German philosophers were aware that earlier dreams of philosophy – the claim that extant philosophy could PROVE the existence of God, of the Soul, and the "World Whole" [which is???] – were under attack by enlightenment science in general and in particular by newer philosophy (Pragmatism? Empricism?) of English thinkers such as Locke and Hume.
If you learn nothing else from Nietzsche, it should be this: Philosphers (and anyone else) are vulnerable to "prejudices" -- that is, preconceptions about what should be true. Instincts and subconscious forces are always operative and drive even apparent disciplined rational thought. As a result, Nietzsche argues that we should not ask (for example) whether A Priori Synthetic Knowledge is possible. We should ask why we (or Kant) believes it ought to exist. What unacknowledged or otherwise hidden physiological and/or psychological needs are trying to be answered? Yes boys and girls, it turns out that we humans like to make up our own fantasies and use any tool at hand to justify them.
One of many pithy quotes attributed to Einstein is (approximately): "Science is not finding the answer you want to be there. It's finding the answer that is there."
Kant’s contribution, argues Nietzsche, was that he essentially constructed an elaborate, apparently thorough, but ultimately fraudulent edifice that appeared to validate these earlier theological beliefs. Not only Kant, but much other human wisdom is built upon sand, so to speak. I don’t even claim to “understand” Kant’s arcane arguments; I only have a few secondhand summaries, no doubt biased ones. But I’ve grasped a few key concepts, and I reject them as nonsense. Now, it’s possible I misunderstand them, but here are my interpretations.
The existence of a priori synthetic knowledge. Basically if you analyze the meaning of the component terms, the claim is that it's possible to have access to knowledge that's only knowable by investigation, without having to do the investigation. Color me just a bit skeptical.
[Rather than quote, click on the link and search for “11.” This key passage trashes Kant quite handily. Kant not only is guilty of circular argument, he also “discovered” (or did he “invent” – quite a difference!) not one, but two “faculties” of the human intellect. Sure he did!
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4363/pg4363-images.html
]
The Universal Imperative: I’m a bit fuzzy on this one; Kant seems to be arguing that there is a universal standard, that all human beings hold the same values. Now let me see if I get this: billions of autonomous human beings, each with unique experiences and minds, and yet they all hold some core values, shared by all? That is such a silly idea; I will leave it for others to dissect.
The Thing-in-Itself which I think is similar to Plato’s “Forms”. Do pure concepts exist? Sure they do, as abstractions in the mind. But we rapidly wade into troubles if we think these have independent existence on their own. Again, I’m foggy on these aspects and leave the arguments to the propeller heads.
For the interested, probably his best single book is Beyond Good and Evil, although you can find bits of it in his many other books. It’s not easy reading; some points I was only able to grasp with a commentary/study guide.
All that said, I realize that Kant is one of the major “modern” philosophers. But that by no means exempts him – or any other thinker – from self-delusion and promoting ideas that don’t’ hold up to scrutiny.
I haven't gone deeply into Nietzsche. I am captivated by Zarathustra.
"Devise me, then, the justice that acquitteth everyone except the judge."
https://dailyinspirationblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/turn-the-other-cheekiness/
But I can't relate to his glorification of war and violence.
It's clear from reading Nietzsche that at least in part, his opinions are based upon Nature. His extensive criticism of religions, especially Christianity, include the observation that they seek to protect the weak against the strong. Now, don't get me wrong, I rather like much that civilization offers, yet like it or not, Nietzsche and others are right on many points. Not the least among those is that protecting the weak does help them in the short term; the problem is that doesn't come at zero cost. It reduces the herd's overall fitness. So yes, he no doubt does glorify violence, but couldn't this be viewed from the perspective that Nature acts this way, so how could Man possibly act otherwise?
You remind me that I want to write about eugenics, if I can figure out what to say. On the one hand, social cohesion will fall apart in a few generations if our scientists, artists, and intellectuals have better things to do than to raise children, while 15-year-olds bear children thoughtlessly and fundamentalists have jumbo families. On the other hand, the state determining who can reproduce is a nightmare of totalitarian power.
Thanks for your deep analysis and explication of Nietzsche. I am convinced that the whole idea of synthetic a priori is personal. I might have convictions that are unshakable for me, but there is nothing I can argue to convince you if you don't already have those convictions. The best I can hope to do is that -- in case you already have certain inborn beliefs -- I can tell you that you're not crazy, because I have the same inborn beliefs.
How do you think about near-death experiences or kundalini experiences from which some people emerge with unshakable convictions like "consciousness survives death" or "the nature of all reality is love"?
I keep an open mind about those. I don't deny that such experiences are "real" in the subjective sense, that is, that people experience them. What interpretation, what meaning we attach to them is another matter. For example, is a near-death experience really a glimpse of a reality denied mortals in normal times, is it some type of illusion/delusion, or perhaps something else?
You seem trapped in western philosophy. Infants are not born with an a priori sense of self. That comes with experience and is a conditioned response. If you think you have free will, meditate on any decision and try to find the source of the endless stream of factors leading to that decision point.
Your first statement: Infants are not born with a sense of self.
I wonder if we can really know this. By the time a child has the ability to answer our questions, the conditioning may have overridden whatever innate knowledge came into the world. Maybe the best way to study this question is to survey the sense of self in different cultures.
Your second statement: "try to find the source of the endless stream of factors leading to any decision point"
I feel that the capacity to intend is an integral part of what I call "me". This is what I intended when I said it was my synthetic a priori. I realize there are Buddhist meditation techniques that lead to the dissolution of the sense of self. Though I have meditated extensively, I haven't (yet) experienced that dissolution. I also accept the idea that the thoughts in my head come from neural connections in my brain and also, via telepathy, from the thoughts of other beings around me. So maybe my sense of free will is an illusion in that sense.
I would say that even if it is an illusion, it is so integral to the way I exist in the world that I cannot conceive of letting it go. I know this doesn't sound logical, even to me as I write it. Perhaps the relationship we feel to our own intention can only be described in paradoxical terms, as when I B Singer said: "We have to believe in free will. We have no choice."
1) I don't know it for a fact, but the behavior of newborn infants shows they have no idea what is going on or who they are, and can't differentiate between themselves and others at this early stage. To my knowledge, no one remembers being born, or becoming self-conscious in the womb just before birth, or anything like that. This doesn't mean infants are born a blank slate, but the best assumption is that this sense of self, of I, is derived from interaction with the physical environment. 2) I don't know about buddhist techniques. I was referring to the vedic techique of atma vichara, or self inquiry. It entails tracing the root of your thoughts back to the "I-thought." It's a simple technique (but it's very easy to lose focus). The difference between Hindu thought and Buddhist thought is that the Hindus assert that the self (what we all mean when we say "I" and "you" ) is a mental projection which hides the true "Self," which is similar to the term "soul." The buddhists maintain that there is no self or Self - it's all an illusion or mental projection. Practicing this technique even a little bit makes us aware of how fraudulent, derivative, and self-serving most of our thoughts and behaviors are, though we love to pretend our motives are pure. Note that yogic philosophy asserts that the attachment to life arises from the fear of death (of the I-thought). Someone else on another substack mentioned the Singer quote as if it settles the question. A deterministic statement about free will is actually pretty funny, don't you think? But it is true that in practical life it's very convenient to skirt the issues and just pretend we have some lofty free will action going on at the base of your soul.
This is deep, and an invitation to self-examination that I find attractive. Have you written more extensively about your own experience anywhere? I'm drawn of late to a dyad practice that is being taught by AwakenTheWorld...
https://awakentheworld.com/film/how-to-do-self-inquiry/
Well, that’s mainly an ad for a retreat which I’m sure is rather expensive. Watching the video it’s unclear what they’re doing. Do they really sit there and perform tratak on each other for 12 hours a day? Do they eventually turn in ward? Are they just watching or is there interior inquiry going on?
Strictness of the routine will help develop discipline, and as a Buddhist inclined person it may be useful for you. Personally, don’t go in for retreats like this. You just have to get quiet and sit in padmasana, preferably, settle your mind, and begin tracing the source of any thought, or any action you’ve taken. You don’t have to go for the big Kahuna all the time.
I don't go in for organized retreats either, but I am planning to try the dyad technique with a friend. I'll let you know how it goes.
In the meantime, I have a good feeling about the Samadhi Center. I think what they charge for their retreats is not excessive, and they are liberal with concessions for people who can't afford their "suggested donation". But personally, I have only attended their (free) online events.
If you want to know more about the yogic approach to all this, pick up a copy of the Yoga Sutras (which was heavily influenced by buddhism.) Section 2 will briefly explain what the main misconceptions and attachments are and how to get rid of them, mostly based on contemplative self-inquiry. I recommend a thinner version in plainer English with practice advice, not the tome with all the commentary from Vyaasa and others.
Buddhism and the "Self": At first, I wanted to say you're wrong. But I think you have it mostly right but I'll make the case there is a nuance. A key teaching in Buddhism is anatta -- usually translated as "not-self." The lessons of the Skandhas ("aggregates") explicitly demonstrate (or claim to) the 5 things that the Self is NOT. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but this teaching does NOT deny the existence of a self; it only demonstrates that the Self cannot be our physical body, our sensory inputs, our interpretations of same, our choices or our consciousness. He basically sidesteps answering the question "What is the Self?" And that's ok, since Buddha explicitly said his mission was to teach a path out of "suffering."
In commenting on the use of "consciousness" in SN 22.3 [1], Bodhi (2000b), pp. 1046-7, n. 18, states: "The passage confirms the privileged status of consciousness among the five aggregates. While all the aggregates are conditioned phenomena marked by the three characteristics, consciousness serves as the connecting thread of personal continuity through the sequence of rebirths.... The other four aggregates serve as the 'stations for consciousness' (vinnanatthitiyo: see [SN] 22:53-54). Even consciousness, however, is not a self-identical entity but a sequence of dependently arisen occasions of cognizing; see MN I 256-60." [Taken from a Wikipedia footnote #8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha]
I’m pretty sure that says exactly what nisargadatta has said. Everything we experience is conditioned and impermanent.
I’ll take your word for it. never cared for buddhism after meeting its representatives in my early 20’s who struck me as neurotics, and more importantly how useless it is on a practical level. The ones who left the fold and died as drunks had some interesting things to say. And yes, avoiding difficult questions and splitting hairs instead is a typical Buddhist behavior.
As you may know “Hinduism” accepts diametrically, opposed philosophical systems, including atheism. Personally, I find the teachings of Nisargadatta make the most sense. He does say that individual personalities die with the body, that’s at the end. But energy trapped by attachment
somehow sticks around and is responsible for new births.