The corridors between: What ecology reveals about consciousness
Reading | Biology
Stephen Lester, MSc | 2026-04-10
Stephen Lester invites us to contemplate the relationship between the seemingly individual self and the world—including other seemingly individual selves—merely as different perspectives within a continuous ecosystem. Ecology has taught us to see the world as an interconnected whole. In much the same way, embodied awareness can teach us that we aren’t separate from the world, but instead that the objects we observe are merely other perspectives within the same consciousness we are.
I spent years studying ecosystems before I understood that I was one.
My training in biological data science centered on a deceptively simple insight: nothing in biology exists independently. You cannot understand a wolf without the deer, the grass, the soil, the watershed. You cannot preserve a species by protecting isolated parcels. You need corridors: continuous pathways that maintain gene flow, migration, and connection. The One Health framework emerged from this recognition that human health, animal health, and planetary health interpenetrate as aspects of a single system.
What I did not expect was that this same scrutiny would dissolve the boundaries I assumed were most fundamental: those separating my consciousness from the world.
The ecology of boundaries
Every biology student learns about cell membranes as structures separating organism from environment. But a functioning membrane is not a wall. It is an interface of constant exchange. The “individual” cell is better described as a temporary pattern of flow, a standing wave in a river.
Ecology teaches us to be suspicious of apparently fundamental boundaries. Where does a tree end and the environment begin? Its roots intertwine with fungal networks spanning acres. Its canopy houses dozens of species. Its fallen leaves enrich the soil that feeds its roots. The oxygen it produces becomes animal breath; the carbon dioxide animals exhale becomes its food. The boundary we draw around “the tree” is pragmatically useful but ontologically questionable.
Consider your gut microbiome: trillions of microbial cells without which you cannot digest food or maintain immunity. They respond to your stress hormones; you respond to their metabolites. The boundary between “human” and “microbe” dissolves into mutual interdependence.
In data science, we learn that the map is not the territory: our models are useful simplifications, not reality itself. Ecology reveals that individuality itself is such a model, useful shorthand for patterns of organization within a fundamentally interconnected system.
What happens when we apply this same lens to consciousness?
The phenomenology of separation
Right now, as you read this, you presumably experience being an individual self: an “I” located somewhere near your head, looking out at a fundamentally separate world.
But look more carefully. Where exactly is this “I”? When you turn your attention toward the sense of individual selfhood, what do you actually find?
You might find thoughts, sensations, emotions. But can you find the individual self that supposedly has these experiences? This is not rhetorical. The invitation is to look with the same precision you would bring to field observation.
What I found, after years of such observation, was that the sense of individual selfhood is not a thing but a process. Specifically, a narrative process. The ego is essentially a cognitive model constructing continuity, agency, and separation. This model is extraordinarily useful for planning and social coordination. But like any scientific model, it is a map, not the territory.
The crisis comes when we mistake the map for the territory.
Time and the dissolution of narrative
In ecological work, you understand systems by observing patterns of relationship, not by analyzing isolated components. You do not understand a watershed by studying individual molecules; you observe how water connects wetland to river to ocean in continuous flow.
Consciousness reveals similar structure when we shift from narrative to embodied awareness.
Narrative consciousness operates in time, constantly referencing the past or projecting into the future. It constructs an individual self that persists through time, accumulating experiences, pursuing goals. This temporal structure generates the sense of being a separate entity navigating an external world.
But when attention drops into direct sensation (the raw feeling of breathing, the pressure of feet against ground, the play of light and shadow) something remarkable happens. Time, as we ordinarily experience it, dissolves.
Sensation itself has no duration from the inside. The breath happening now is not “lasting” any time from the perspective of pure sensation. It simply is, then is not, then another breath is. Duration appears only when we step back from direct sensation into conceptual elaboration.
With the dissolution of experienced time comes dissolution of the narrative self. The “I” that persists through time requires time to exist. Without temporal scaffolding, what remains is awareness: present, unlocated, without subject-object structure.
Neuroscience provides some support. The brain’s Default Mode Network (DMN) shows decreased activity during present-moment awareness, correlating with reports of decreased sense of separate self. But we must be careful here. The temptation is to conclude that the brain generates consciousness. This is where ecological thinking becomes crucial.
What underlies experience
In ecology, we think in terms of systems rather than components. You cannot explain ecosystem behavior by reducing it to individual organisms, because emergent properties arise from relationships. The whole is not the sum of its parts.
The standard materialist story says matter is fundamental and consciousness emerges from complex brains. But this faces the hard problem: no information about neural firing explains subjective experience, the “what-it-is-like-ness” of seeing red or feeling pain.
Consider an alternative: consciousness itself is fundamental. What we call matter is the appearance of mental processes when viewed from a localized perspective. The brain is not the generator of consciousness, but instead what consciousness looks like when viewed through the constraints of embodied experience.
The materialist says: brains are made of matter, which we know through our experiences of matter, which are constructed by brains. The circularity is obvious once you see it.
Instead: consciousness itself is fundamental. What we call matter is the appearance of mental processes when viewed from a localized perspective. The brain is what consciousness looks like when viewed through the constraints of embodied experience.
The World Health Organization’s One Health framework taught me that you cannot separate human health from ecosystem health because they are aspects of a single system, not because they influence each other. The boundaries we draw are useful for analysis but do not reflect ontological separation.
The same holds for consciousness. The boundaries we experience between self and other, subject and object, are useful for navigation. They are not ontologically fundamental. They are artifacts of the process generating individual perspectives within a unified consciousness.
The missing corridors
Conservation biology has learned a painful lesson: protecting isolated habitat patches is not enough. Species need corridors, continuous pathways connecting populations, allowing gene flow and migration. Fragment a forest into isolated parcels and biodiversity collapses. Maintain corridors and the ecosystem thrives.
We have fragmented consciousness in precisely this way. We experience ourselves as isolated patches of awareness, separated by seemingly impermeable boundaries from other minds and from the world itself. This fragmentation generates real suffering, the existential poverty of believing ourselves fundamentally alone.
But the corridors were always there. The boundaries we experience are like lines we draw on maps demarcating national borders: pragmatically useful, but absent from the actual territory. Rivers flow across borders. Watersheds ignore political boundaries. Ecosystems are continuous.
So too with consciousness. The observer and the observed are not separated by any actual boundary, only by the conceptual divisions we habitually impose. When those divisions dissolve in direct experience, what remains is recognition. They were never truly separate.
Recognition rather than achievement
If individual minds are dissociated perspectives within a unified consciousness, then “awakening” is recognition, not achievement. It is not the creation of a new connection but the realization of a connection that was never absent.
When the narrative self dissolves through sustained embodied awareness, what remains is presence: vast, aware, prior to categories of self and other. This presence is not personal. It does not belong to “me” as opposed to “you.” It is the awareness within which both appear as temporary patterns, like waves in an ocean.
The ethical implications follow naturally, just as conservation ethics follow from ecological understanding. When you recognize watersheds as continuous, you maintain corridors rather than fragment them. When you recognize organisms as embedded in webs of interdependence, you protect ecosystems, not isolated species.
And when you recognize consciousness as fundamentally unified, boundaries between self and other revealed as transparent, you cannot act as if your wellbeing were separable from others’ wellbeing. The premise of separation has dissolved.
Jesus taught: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The Upanishads declare: “You are that.” Buddhism speaks of compassion flowing naturally from wisdom. These are phenomenological observations, not moral injunctions. When you see clearly, boundaries that seemed to separate self from other are revealed to be as transparent as national borders drawn on maps.
The practice
None of this means distinct perspectives cease to exist. We continue to appear as separate bodies with different experiences. The paradox is that both are true: we are distinct expressions and we are unified consciousness.
This is precisely what ecology teaches. The tree is distinct and the tree is inseparable from the forest. Both descriptions are true; they simply operate at different levels of analysis.
The practice is to recognize the nature of the separate self as pattern rather than substance, as perspective rather than entity. The narrative self continues to function but no longer occupies the throne. It becomes servant rather than master, narrator rather than director.
The method is simple: return attention, again and again, from conceptual elaboration to direct sensation. Feel the breath. Feel the body. Notice when you have drifted into narrative time and return to the timeless present. Do this thousands of times.
What emerges is recognition, not a new state. The corridors between self and other were always there. We were simply trained not to notice them, to focus on the parcels rather than the connections, to mistake boundaries for barriers.
Ecology taught me to see the world as a continuous, interconnected whole. Embodied awareness taught me that I was not separate from that world. Not metaphorically, but actually. The observer and the observed are perspectives within the same consciousness.
The invitation is simple: look for yourself. Not at these words, but at the awareness reading them. Where is the boundary between you and your experience? Where does the observer end and the observed begin?
You will not find it. And in not finding it, you’ve found everything.
Essentia Foundation communicates, in an accessible but rigorous manner, the latest results in science and philosophy that point to the mental nature of reality. We are committed to strict, academic-level curation of the material we publish.
Recently published
|
In 2018, Professor Etzel Cardeña, PhD, published a landmark review paper surveying thousands of psi studies in “American Psychologist,” one of psychology’s most respected journals. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Cardeña explains his main findings and why a dismissal of psi without looking at the data is “as unscientific as you can get.” Cardeña’s conclusion is that the cumulative evidence for psi phenomena is so strong that outright dismissal is no longer scientifically justified.
|
Harry Stolting argues that, while nature automatically excludes all that is unsustainable within its own natural dynamic, the human mind can create and maintain within itself maladaptive ideas that, if expressed in nature, would quickly be driven out. This leads to a mismatch between our inner concepts and the reality whereupon we believe we can apply those concepts. This schism between nature and our mental models, Stolting argues, is not only the origin of evil, but of many other ills.
From the archives
|
Moreira invites us into a long meditation on the meaning of digital spaces, and the possibility of finding another in the endless cacophony of simulacra. When you reach across the screen—he says—you do not know if the figure you address is real or fabricated, friend or phantom. The temptation is to strike first, to treat them as less than a person. But if there is even the chance of an Other on the far side, the only way to preserve meaning is to extend recognition before certainty. In the digital void, kindness is the only bridge that can survive simulation.
|
Dr. Nicolas Rouleau is a neuroscientist, bioengineer, and Assistant Professor of Health Sciences at Wilfrid Laurier University. He wrote the award-winning essay, ‘An Immortal Stream of Consciousness: The scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness after permanent bodily death,’ in which he argues that the transmissive theory of consciousness may actually be more consistent with emerging scientific insights than the dominant assumption that the brain generates consciousness. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Rouleau shares the main arguments from his essay, which touch upon his collaboration with Dr. Michael Persinger, the inventor of the ‘God Helmet,’ and his work with Michael Levin on ‘mind blindness’—the idea that science may be searching for mind in too restricted a place by focusing almost exclusively on neurons.
|
The search for authenticity fails because we conduct it in the wrong place: thought itself. The epistemic gap—the inability of concepts to capture experiential reality—produces the persistent sense that something fundamental about existence is amiss, a tension that underlies much existential questioning. When representations are mistaken for reality, three pervasive forms of suffering follow: fear of death, violence, and pride. Each dissolves when the error is recognized. But recognition alone fades; only sustained disengagement from conceptual identification makes the insight a lived experience, argues Steven Pashko.
Reading
Essays
|
Dr. Koch argues that, because AI computers have a feed-forward structure very reminiscent of the human cerebellum—which is empirically known not to be involved in human consciousness—we have no reason to expect AI computers to have a conscious inner life of their own. He further substantiates his argument with the clear, quantified prediction of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) that systems with low integrated information, such as silicon computers implementing Large Language Models, do not feel like anything from the inside.
|
Prof. Karl Friston is the most cited neuroscientist in the world, renowned for pioneering the framework of active inference and for developing the influential Free Energy Principle (FEP). In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Friston touches on the metaphysics of his FEP, which surprisingly points to non-dualism instead of materialism, as widely assumed. According to Friston, space and time, the self, and even the FEP itself are mere stories, useful fictions with real explanatory power, which do not give us direct access to the noumenal reality.
|
Moreira invites us into a long meditation on the meaning of digital spaces, and the possibility of finding another in the endless cacophony of simulacra. When you reach across the screen—he says—you do not know if the figure you address is real or fabricated, friend or phantom. The temptation is to strike first, to treat them as less than a person. But if there is even the chance of an Other on the far side, the only way to preserve meaning is to extend recognition before certainty. In the digital void, kindness is the only bridge that can survive simulation.
|
Dr. Nicolas Rouleau is a neuroscientist, bioengineer, and Assistant Professor of Health Sciences at Wilfrid Laurier University. He wrote the award-winning essay, ‘An Immortal Stream of Consciousness: The scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness after permanent bodily death,’ in which he argues that the transmissive theory of consciousness may actually be more consistent with emerging scientific insights than the dominant assumption that the brain generates consciousness. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Rouleau shares the main arguments from his essay, which touch upon his collaboration with Dr. Michael Persinger, the inventor of the ‘God Helmet,’ and his work with Michael Levin on ‘mind blindness’—the idea that science may be searching for mind in too restricted a place by focusing almost exclusively on neurons.
|
The search for authenticity fails because we conduct it in the wrong place: thought itself. The epistemic gap—the inability of concepts to capture experiential reality—produces the persistent sense that something fundamental about existence is amiss, a tension that underlies much existential questioning. When representations are mistaken for reality, three pervasive forms of suffering follow: fear of death, violence, and pride. Each dissolves when the error is recognized. But recognition alone fades; only sustained disengagement from conceptual identification makes the insight a lived experience, argues Steven Pashko.
Seeing
Videos
|
Anil Seth is a world-leading neuroscientist who has made important contributions to our understanding of reality as a controlled hallucination. According to the concept of active inference, our perception of reality is not a direct reflection of the world but, instead, the most accurate guess that our brain can muster, which it continually checks and updates with incoming sensory information. But strange things happen when neuroscientists play around with sensory input in unexpected ways. Anil Seth and his team at Sussex University created the Dream Machine, a stroboscopic device that syncs flickering light to music to induce vivid, often complex, hallucinatory visuals in the viewer. In group sessions, exactly the same white light and music gives rise to a tremendous diversity in perception.
|
Prof. Larry Nazareth recounts the fundamental difference in perspective that underlies the Cartesian and Bergsonian views of life and world. The former’s dictum states: ‘I compute, algorithmically, therefore I think, symbolically, therefore I am, experientially.’ The latter, however, reverses this dictum: ‘I am, experientially, therefore I think, symbolically, therefore I compute, algorithmically.’ Depending on which of these views we choose to base our understanding of nature and life, we may or may not have a future, Nazareth argues.
|
How is it possible that the cerebellum, which contains roughly 80% of all the neurons in the human brain, can be severely damaged, or even absent, without abolishing consciousness? In this conversation, Jeremiah Hendren, a member of the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) Lab and long-term collaborator of IIT founder Giulio Tononi, joins Hans Busstra to unpack Integrated Information Theory (IIT), a theory that answers this fascinating neuroscience mystery.
Let us build the future of our culture together
Essentia Foundation is a registered non-profit committed to making its content as accessible as possible. Therefore, we depend on non-financial contributions from people like you to continue to do our work.
