Chapter 11

Neuroscience and the Fragmented Self

The Brain’s Modularity and Exclusive Moments

Mutual Exclusivity’s vision that reality consists of discrete, mutually exclusive, atemporal moments, devoid of a continuous substrate, finds a compelling echo in the discoveries of modern neuroscience, particularly in the domains of memory and perception. These scientific insights—demonstrating that memory operates as a reconstruction rather than a retrieval from storage, and that perception processes experience discretely rather than continuously—align seamlessly with the theory’s rejection of a unified, persistent self or a linear temporal framework. By linking Mutual Exclusivity to these findings, we anchor its phenomenological claims in the empirical workings of the brain, revealing how the fragmented nature of neural processes mirrors the exclusive “is-ness” of each moment, enhancing the theory’s credibility and offering a tangible bridge between philosophy and science.

Consider memory, often imagined as a vast archive where past experiences are stored like books on a shelf, waiting to be retrieved. Neuroscience challenges this intuition with evidence that memory is not a static repository but a dynamic act of reconstruction. Picture recalling a childhood picnic—the laughter, the taste of lemonade, the rustle of a picnic blanket in the breeze. Traditional views might cast this as a retrieval: a conscious self accessing a fixed record from years past. Yet studies, such as those on hippocampal function, reveal that each recall is a fresh reconstruction, pieced together anew from scattered neural patterns rather than pulled intact from a vault. The hippocampus and neocortex collaborate to re-assemble fragments—encoded sights, sounds, emotions, or the “code” necessary for the regeneration thereof—into a coherent scene, shaped by the present context: a warm day now might brighten the memory’s hues, a sour mood might tinge it with melancholy. This aligns precisely with Mutual Exclusivity: there is no stored past to retrieve, only the “is-ness” of the now, where energetic configurations within the attentive field form the picnic as this moment’s reality—not a relic of history, but a living creation born afresh.

Envision the brain not as a monolithic organ but as a constellation of modules—regions like the visual cortex, auditory cortex, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus, each handling specific facets of experience. Picture watching a sunset: the visual cortex processes the orange hues, the auditory cortex catches the distant hum of wind, the prefrontal cortex stirs a thought—“This is beautiful”—and the hippocampus weaves a memory of “past” evenings. Traditionally, we imagine a central “self” orchestrating this symphony, a continuous entity tying these inputs into a coherent, flowing scene. Neuroscience reveals otherwise: these modules operate independently, in parallel bursts, with no single hub unifying them into a persistent whole. The sunset’s glow is the moment, acknowledged as being processed by the visual cortex in an exclusive “is-ness”; the wind’s hum follows as a new moment, not a layered addition but a distinct configuration within the attentive field. The brain’s modularity mirrors this: no continuous self spans these moments, only discrete processes acknowledged to be succeeding one another.

This “memory” instantiation is vivid in daily life. Imagine sipping tea and recalling that childhood picnic again—the flavor triggers a memory, which neuroscience shows is not a file opened from a mental hard drive; it’s a neural symphony played anew, with details shifting each time. Mutual Exclusivity mirrors this: the picnic is the moment of remembering, an exclusive “is-ness” configured now, not a fragment of a continuous timeline. If a sound interrupts—the clink of a spoon—the memory fades, replaced by a new configuration, not coexisting but supplanting it. Neuroscience supports this with findings on memory’s plasticity: each recall rewrites the neural trace, blending past and present into a singular experience. There is no persistent storage spanning moments, only the brain’s capacity to instantiate (the acknowledgment of) familiar phenomena within the now—reinforcing the theory’s claim that time and continuity are illusions born of consciousness, not inherent realities.

Perception, too, reflects this fragmented, discrete processing, further linking Mutual Exclusivity to brain science. Envision watching a bird flit across the sky—its wings blur, its path arcs, a seamless motion to the eye. Yet neuroscience reveals this seamlessness as a construct: the brain processes perception in discrete bursts, not as a continuous stream. Studies on visual saccades—rapid eye movements—show that we perceive in snapshots, each lasting mere milliseconds, stitched together by neural mechanisms into an illusion of fluidity. Between saccades, the brain fills gaps with predictive models, not raw input, crafting a coherent scene from disjointed frames. Similarly, auditory perception parses sound in chunks—phonemes, beats—processed sequentially, not as an unbroken flow. This discreteness echoes Mutual Exclusivity: the bird’s flight is the moment of seeing, an exclusive “is-ness” configured by attention, not a slice of a continuous event. The next moment—its landing—stands alone, not linked by a temporal substrate but instantiated atemporally as a new reality.

This discrete instantiation dismantles the illusory notion of a unified self observing a flowing world. Picture tracking the bird: one moment, its wings; the next, its perch. Neuroscience shows these are separate neural events—visual cortex firing for motion, then shape—not a single, persistent “you” watching a movie-like reel. Mutual Exclusivity aligns here: there is no enduring observer spanning these moments, only the experience of each “is-ness”—wings now, perch then—each configured by energetic entities within the attentive field. Perception’s fragmentation mirrors memory’s instantiation: the brain does not appear to store or process a continuous reality but to instantiate discrete acknowledgeable phenomena, resonating with the theory’s insistence on discreteness over continuity. If a thought intrudes—“It’s swift”—neuroscience confirms a new neural pattern, not a layered awareness, matching the shift to a new “is-ness.”

These findings—memory as instantiation, perception as discrete—link Mutual Exclusivity to neuroscience’s fragmented self, where no unified entity persists to store or perceive a flowing timeline. When you recall a friend’s voice or see a sunset’s glow, these are not retrievals or slices of a broader scene but instantiations within the now, processed in bursts by a brain that mirrors exclusivity’s rhythm—despite such bursts being acknowledged as occurring in time due to the phenomenological nature of our human experience (q.v. Chapter 7). This paralleling with science bolsters the theory: the self is not a container of past or perceiver of flow, but a phenomenological aspect of discrete, ontologically absolute “is-nesses” perceived as unfolding sequentially. Indeed, each moment is configured anew, free of continuity’s illusion, as neuroscience’s own lens reveals the brain’s dance of discrete, exclusive instantiations.

The brain’s plasticity amplifies this mirror further: neural connections shift with each experience, no fixed “self” enduring unchanged. Picture learning a song: auditory modules process melody, motor areas guide humming—each moment rewires the brain, not a static entity adapting but a network reconfiguring. Mutual Exclusivity matches this: the song’s hearing is one “is-ness,” the humming another, each exclusive and configured anew, not a continuous self evolving. Neuroscience’s studies—for example, on stroke patients losing language yet retaining emotion—show modules operating solo, not a unified whole persisting. The self as a constant dissolves as the brain’s modularity reflects a reality of moments—laugh now, creak then—each a standalone “is-ness” configured by attention, not a flowing identity.

This argument challenges the continuous self with neuroscience’s fragmented truth. Traditional views—Cartesian souls, Kantian unities—presume a persistent “I” weaving experience. Yet the brain’s modules—visual here, auditory there—process in bursts, not streams, mirroring Mutual Exclusivity’s exclusive moments.

The Brain as Phenomenological Configuration

In articulating Mutual Exclusivity’s consonance with neuroscience, a precise delineation is imperative: references to the brain—its modular architecture, its neuronal firing sequences—denote phenomenological configurations, not ontological realities. The brain does not subsist as a fundamental entity orchestrating these moments; rather, its existence is an “is-ness” instantiated within the attentive field upon attentional focus—e.g., scrutinizing neural scans is the moment’s ontic state, configured by attention, not an autonomous physical organ generating the experience. Empirical neuroscience—evidencing memory as instantiation or perception as discrete bursts—furnishes a descriptive framework, rationally coherent and empirically substantiated within each “is-ness,” yet this framework itself constitutes part of the phenomenology it elucidates. This stance precludes the logical absurdity of a brain simultaneously constructing and inhabiting its own phenomenological scene: no continuous brain persists across moments in an ontological or absolute sense—each “is-ness” subsumes the brain’s conceptualization as a rational narrative within the attentive field, not as a foundational causal substrate. This perspective will be explored further in the next chapter.

Altered States of Consciousness and the Unity of Phenomenology

The debate over the nature of altered states of consciousness—such as those induced by substances like DMT—can be resolved through the lens of Mutual Exclusivity. Each “is-ness,” whether experienced in a waking state or during a DMT journey, constitutes its own exclusive reality. These realities are ontologically absolute; there is no need for an underlying substrate or causal link between them. Consequently, questions about which state is “real” versus “imagined” lose their meaning. Both states exist as complete, self-contained moments, affirming the principle that reality unfolds exclusively according to specific configurations of the attentive field.

Moreover, the strong correlation between altered brain chemistry and the corresponding shifts in subjective experience supports the theory’s claim that the physical, biological, and experiential dimensions of reality are analogous expressions of the same phenomenological fabric. For instance, when substances like DMT modify the brain’s chemistry, they induce unusual states of consciousness that reflect changes in both the neurological configuration and the attentive field. This alignment suggests that the subjective experience of the individual, their brain chemistry, and the configuration of the attentive field (or quantum field) are always in tune, representing different views, expressions, or interpretations of the same ultimate phenomenon.

It is important to clarify, however, that this unity does not imply ontological non-duality in the traditional sense. By “non-dual,” we do not mean that these layers—subjective, biological, quantum—are ontologically identical or fused into a single essence. Instead, we mean that they belong to the same phenomenological landscape, sharing self-similar patterns and analogous aspects, much like a fractal. Each layer or perspective reflects the others while maintaining its unique characteristics within the attentive field. The absolute nature of these phenomenological expressions, remains ineffable and unqualifiable—neither dual nor non-dual, neither fragmented nor unified. It transcends all categorizations and descriptions, existing beyond the reach of language or conceptual thought.

This perspective invites us to embrace all forms of experience as valid manifestations of the present moment, reinforcing the idea that every “is-ness” is a universe unto itself. It also underscores the non-dualistic nature of reality as a phenomenological construct, where distinctions between states of being dissolve into a singular, unified process of attentive engagement.