"The only problem is that a supposedly immaterial transcendent yet non-dual witnessing consciousness or 'Spirit' is supernatural by any other name."
"The Integral model rests on an assumption of panpsychism: consciousness is present in all matter, down to the level of electrons and quarks. It also goes one mystical step further, consciousness exists separate from and prior to the existence of the material universe."
"This idealist stance (in the philosophical sense) combines a pseudoscience sensibility with Vedantic metaphysics to create the appearance either that: a. Science somehow confirms panpsychism, or that b. the God of the Gaps argument made possible by the incompleteness of neuroscience does the same."
"A little inquiry reveals that these ideas about consciousness imply and indeed require mind/body dualism of the 17th century kind eschewed by the vast majority of modern scientists and philosophers. Specifically it is the assertion that mind/consciousness exists in a category distinct from matter/biology. Not even eccentric dualist philosopher David Chalmers believes this in the way that Wilber's model requires.
"There are many nuanced positions in philosophy of mind, and Wilber might argue that he is double aspect monist, but the flavor of transcendentalism, the supposed discovery in samadhi of your original face before the Big Bang, and the uber-consciousness of Spirit as an ultimate reality we are all evolving toward all but screams classical dualism to me."
"The core dualism then leads Wilber to adopt what I call an 'intelligent design in Vedantic drag' stance. It essentially amounts to a God of the Gaps/Argument from Ignorance position."
"Because there is this elaborate set of intellectual rationalizations that no longer seek to reconcile spirituality with science and psychology in reasonable ways, but instead weaves a protective patchwork cloak for mind/body dualism, panspsychism, and the religiosity of 'Spirit,' the discourse has devolved into a lot of very fancy incoherent footwork. A key example being the much-touted 'Two Truths' distinction between the supposed 'absolute truths' of an enlightened Vajrayana/Advaita perspective vs a decidedly postmodern attitude toward the 'relative truths' described by everything (including science) that is, well, not an enlightened Vajrayana/Advaita persepctive."