Any Arguments by which to Conclude that Consciousness Is a Product of Brains?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

scientists still disagree on whether the mind is individual in each brain or if there is a universal mind outside the physical body.

You've said this twice now. I am unaware of anything such essential disagreement among "scientists." Could you give me a source or two so that I can check it out?

Or perhaps that's just something you've read from other posters on sites such as this, also with the usual lack of any reference?

But before I "hang up," let me just ask this: if there is "a universal mind," (which presumably means just one) how is it that it expresses so individually -- in such a way that it is often wildly in conflict with itself? I mean, if warring humans are all working under the aegis of a single "universal mind," what the heck is the stupid thing doing?

 

[Evie]

You've said this twice now. I am unaware of anything such essential disagreement among "scientists." Could you give me a source or two so that I can check it out?

Or perhaps that's just something you've read from other posters on sites such as this, also with the usual lack of any reference?

But before I "hang up," let me just ask this: if there is "a universal mind," (which presumably means just one) how is it that it expresses so individually -- in such a way that it is often wildly in conflict with itself? I mean, if warring humans are all working under the aegis of a single "universal mind," what the heck is the stupid thing doing?

You are probably right. After all it is just a theory, a belief. Like most things. No absolute unquestionable true answer.

 

[idav]

there is no proof either that a universal mind connecting all minds does not exist.there is disagreement among scientists and physicists about this.

I was unaware all minds were connected, something I should be aware of if it were true.

 

[Evie]

I was unaware all minds were connected, something I should be aware of if it were true.

It is a belief. A possibility. Neither proven or unproven no matter what science may claim.

I was unaware all minds were connected, something I should be aware of if it were true.

 

[idav]

It is a belief. A possibility. Neither proven or unproven no matter what science may claim.

The Egg

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I was unaware all minds were connected, something I should be aware of if it were true.

It is a belief. A possibility. Neither proven or unproven no matter what science may claim.

I hear this sort of "belief" or "possibility" all of the time. But for me -- because I am more "science-minded" -- I always assume that everything has consequences. So, if "all minds are connected," as many nowadays opine, there should be some consequence, something we would expect to be able to observe as a result.

This is the same as, a little earlier in the thread, the idea by @Nous that the brain could be a receiver (like a radio) receiving transmissions from a "universal mind." This, too, should have some observable, testable consequences. I can find none, and that was the argument that I was making.

 

[George-ananda]

But before I "hang up," let me just ask this: if there is "a universal mind," (which presumably means just one) how is it that it expresses so individually -- in such a way that it is often wildly in conflict with itself? I mean, if warring humans are all working under the aegis of a single "universal mind," what the heck is the stupid thing doing?

The universal mind is posited to be infinite. Each individual conscious entity in the universe has a ray of this consciousness animating a finite form giving the individualized consciousness finite capabilities and understanding. That is the understanding behind the belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The universal mind is posited to be infinite. Each individual conscious entity in the universe has a ray of this consciousness animating a finite form giving the individualized consciousness finite capabilities and understanding. That is the understanding behind the belief.

But can you give one reason -- just one -- why anybody might posit such a thing?

Look, I can find a reason for lots of things that I can't actually prove -- like "infity + 1 is still infinity," or "infinity times itself is still infinity, only bigger" or "infinity raised to the power of itself is still infinity, only immensely bigger." I can posit that the universe might actually extend beyond where we will ever be able to investigate, because, according to expansion theory (which we can demonstrate) beyond 46.5 billion light years away would be moving away from us so fast that light -- travelling at the speed of light -- could never get back to us.

But I can find absolute no reason, empirically or even logically, to suppose that my consciousness, which began at a moment in time (before I can remember) is actually just a miniscule sliver of projection of some other consciousness. I'd be fascinated to hear why anyone would imagine such a thing, in the absence of anything except imagination.

 

[George-ananda]

But can you give one reason -- just one -- why anybody might posit such a thing?

I'll give three reasons to start.

1) The standard model's inability to explain how atoms and electrons moving around can produce our singular subjective experience. It almost seems like some magic step has to occur. Hence other theories are considered.

2) Evidence from many claims of the paranormal can not be explained by the materialist model. (And I have heard some convincing ones just myself). Hence other theories are considered.

3) The testimony of many mystics/masters that have claimed experience of consciousness beyond the normal finite limitations.

This begins to answer your question as to why such an idea is posited.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'll give three reasons to start.

1) The standard model's inability to explain how atoms and electrons moving around can produce our singular subjective experience. It almost seems like some magic step has to occur. Hence other theories are considered.

And so the answer to that is to invoke another "magic step," only a more complex and involved one, since it requires some other completely unexplained consciousness doing something for which no reason can be discovered. I find that unconvincing, to the say the very least.

2) Evidence from many claims of the paranormal can not be explained by the materialist model. (And I have heard some convincing ones just myself). Hence other theories are considered.

First, I am unaware of any "evidence" for paranormal claims (just the claims themselves). If there's no evidence, there's no need for explanation. And in any case, the mystical explanation is not really a theory, is it, but rather more of a conjecture.

3) The testimony of many mystics/masters that have claimed experience of consciousness beyond the normal finite limitations.

This begins to answer your question as to why such an idea is posited.

It is possible (actually, in many cases quite easy) to replicate some of those "experiences of consciousness." And is a documented fact that actual changes in bloodflow to certain areas of the physical brain are associated with these sorts of "experiences." (See Why God Won't God Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief" by Andrew Newberg, MD and Eugene D'Aquili, MD, PhD, 2002)

 

[George-ananda]

And so the answer to that is to invoke another "magic step," only a more complex and involved one, since it requires some other completely unexplained consciousness doing something for which no reason can be discovered. I find that unconvincing, to the say the very least.

First, I am unaware of any "evidence" for paranormal claims (just the claims themselves). If there's no evidence, there's no need for explanation. And in any case, the mystical explanation is not really a theory, is it, but rather more of a conjecture.

It is possible (actually, in many cases quite easy) to replicate some of those "experiences of consciousness." And is a documented fact that actual changes in bloodflow to certain areas of the physical brain are associated with these sorts of "experiences." (See Why God Won't God Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief" by Andrew Newberg, MD and Eugene D'Aquili, MD, PhD, 2002)

Remember, I was just answering your question as to why someone would posit the belief. I was not trying the case itself before a materialist.

The evidence has convinced me that it is all an interconnected One.

 

[Evie]

I'll give three reasons to start.

1) The standard model's inability to explain how atoms and electrons moving around can produce our singular subjective experience. It almost seems like some magic step has to occur. Hence other theories are considered.

2) Evidence from many claims of the paranormal can not be explained by the materialist model. (And I have heard some convincing ones just myself). Hence other theories are considered.

3) The testimony of many mystics/masters that have claimed experience of consciousness beyond the normal finite limitations.

This begins to answer your question as to why such an idea is posited.

Claims and actualities ( religious and otherwise) , are two different things.

 

[George-ananda]

Claims and actualities ( religious and otherwise) , are two different things.

Well, that's not saying anything but the obvious.

 

[Evie]

Well, that's not saying anything but the obvious.

Are not obvious to those claiming things which are not based on anything but their particular 'belief'.

 

[Evie]

The b

Are not obvious to those claiming things which are not based on anything but their particular 'belief'.

The belief also exists that ALL is INFINITE MIND and this is neither proven or disproven by the greatest scientific minds on the planet. And great physicists etc. as well.

 

[Milton Platt]

Max Planck, a founding father of quantum theory postulated that consciousness is fundamental.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." -- Max Planck, As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

sometimes people are wrong......

 

[Evie]

sometimes people are wrong......

The human mind is severely limited. Cannot 'see' or comprehend what is not meant to be 'seen' or comprehended. When we know why, we will understand. Until then .......

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Remember, I was just answering your question as to why someone would posit the belief. I was not trying the case itself before a materialist.

The evidence has convinced me that it is all an interconnected One.

Okay, but in fairness, the paucity of evidence -- and the demonstrable fact that all of it is anecdotal rather than scientifically investigable, totally fails to convince me.

You call me a "materialist," but I don't think that's entirely accurate. I call myself a realist and a skeptic. I gravitate towards that which can be demonstrated (or at least plausibly thought to be) real, and I am skeptical about every claim which flies in the face of what appears to be true, but present no evidence for why I should accept them prima facie in spite of any lack of evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

Okay, but in fairness, the paucity of evidence --

That's where we disagree. I see a quality, quantity and consistency of evidence (not a paucity) towards the pantheistic oneness concept.

But that will be a never-ending debate as we have talked before, so we may best just not go there.

 

[SpiritQuest]

sometimes people are wrong......

Erwin Schrodinger, another founding father of quantum theory also hypothesized that consciousness is fundamental...

Erwin Schrödinger - Wikiquote

"Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

-- As quoted in The Observer (11 January 1931); also in Psychic Research (1931), Vol. 25, p. 91