At the risk of making a middlebrow dismissal, it seems like the author is dancing around the Buddhist doctrine of anattā / anātman (oversimplified: "self" doesn

At the risk of making a middlebrow dismissal, it seems like the author is dancing around the Buddhist doctrine of anattā / anātman (oversimplified: "self" doesn't actually exist) [1] without actually confronting it. I guess that's fair inasmuch as concepts like the existence of a soul are nominally not part of the field of psychology (though a bunch of clinical psychology constructs don't really make sense without some kind of soul-like entity, so the issue is there implicitly). But without following through on the implications, I'm not sure what makes this a "revolution". His description of GOFAI also doesn't ring true to me, but maybe that's a matter of interpretation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta