Consciousness and the Brain

[icehorse]

We could, and many do, but it is fundamentally mistaken and misleading. After ~50 years of cognitive science going down wrong roads due to the computer-mind analogies, I think we have gotten all the mileage we can out of what similarities between brain and computer exist and should be focusing on the much more important thing: how completely different they are. For one, software runs on computers because computers' modular architecture and design allows for a variety of perfect, reliable memory storage independent of processing. In the brain, nothing is stored. Memories of all types are represented structurally in some cases at least in part, but these neural pathways are actually more functional than structural and most memory is represented completely functionally as well as actively. There is no separating hardware and software anymore than storage and processing. Recalling memories changes how they are represented in the brain. Learning is intricately tied to memory. Ingrained representations and hardware contribute to and are part of abstract reasoning processes we might compare to software at out peril.

It would be great to discuss cog sci with you at some point. I've been studying it and applying it for years now.

But I was playing fast and loose in my post, not trying to push the analogy too far.

 

[George-ananda]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery, and I'm not claiming that consciousness is simply brain chemistry. However, I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and that the brain somehow causes consciousness.

From my examination of the evidence Near Death Experiences and various other types of paranormal and psychic experiences seem to tell us consciousness is not dependent on the brain.

Here is the model I subscribe to from Vedic, Theosophical and many otrher occult sources. Consciousness is a fundamental mystery. It is eternal and infinite. To experience the play/drama of the universe Consciousness incarnates finite things in the universe. Humans have a reincarnating soul (Causal Body in some terminology). A soul is composed of matter of a higher plane of nature. The reincarnating soul then experiences the universe through interpenetrating progressively dense mental, astral, etheric and physical bodies. So in this model the physical brain's purpose is to allow the soul to have an experience with the joys and challenges of physical existence. If the brain is effected by material circumstances then the soul's ability to experience through the brain is correspondingly effected.

In rare cases of separation of the subtle bodies before physical death, such as in so-called out-of body experiences and Near Death Experiences, the soul can experience directly through the astral and mental bodies. This process happens naturally at normal physical death. The astral and mental planes are made of subtler matter allowing for even far richer experiences than can be had on the denser and coarser physical plane.

 

[Nakosis]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery, and I'm not claiming that consciousness is simply brain chemistry. However, I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and that the brain somehow causes consciousness. This is because if the brain gets damaged, consciousness gets damaged. This can be seen in head injuries in which a person loses consciousness, as well as the fact that consciousness can be permanently damaged as a result of brain damage caused by a stroke. We also know that chemicals ingested interact with the brain in such a way as to alter or impair consciousness (alcohol is an obvious example, but nearly everything we ingest has some impact on the brain, and thus on consciousness). So, how do you square belief in an afterlife with these facts? We know that altering the chemistry of the brain alters consciousness, and damaging the brain damages consciousness. Yet all religious people believe that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness. Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction. But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief.

The way I saw it before was the brain acts as a receiver. if the receiver gets damages, the communications between the "spirit" gets damaged. Memories/perceptions are via the brain/CNS. The spirit or soul would be the "observer" the sense of awareness of being aware.

Without our memories/perception of this reality, I'm not sure the idea of self would still apply though.

Self is what separates us from everyone else. The only reason you are not your buddy Ted is this sense of self. So as long as spirit/soul exists, the "observer" continues through all life. The self however, what makes you. you. dies/disappears with your physical existence.

Take away your memories, if you can imagine that, what is left?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

"One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain.": - statement without supportive documentation.

"Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery," - yet you claim to have solved it.

"I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain," - statement that isn't verifiable - at this point, you have offered viewpoints.

"So, how do you square belief in an afterlife with these facts?" Physical consciousness would have nothing to do with spiritual consciousness (assuming there is an afterlife) - thus your facts are irrelevant.


"Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction." - statement of personal biased beliefs without evidence

" But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief." - Irrational statement. We haven't scratched the understanding of consciousness, let alone how we got it in the first place, to make a statement as such as you have proposed.

Nice try, though. One would think that you are simply anti-faith.

Answer this: If consciousness is NOT dependent on the brain, why can consciousness be damaged by damaging the brain?

 

[Deeje]

I have never heard soul described that way before.
It begs various questions, like where does the soul reside and what do you mean by ‘breathing’ ?

Also, what is the source of your ideas about the soul ?

From the Bible’s perspective, it helps to know what was believed by the Israelites when God gave them their Scripture. There was never any belief in an afterlife of the kind that is common in most religions. This almost universal element in religious belief requires the “soul” to be separate from the body. The scriptures do not even suggest this....beginning with Adam’s creation where it is clearly stated that the man “became” a “soul” when God started him breathing. (Genesis 2:7) Also in God’s sentencing of Adam. There was no “heaven or hell” scenario, but simply life or death. Adam was told that he would die and return to the dust from which he was created. (Genesis 3:19)

Animals are also called “souls” because they breathe the same air, and die the same death as humans do. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

“The original-language terms (Heb., neʹphesh [נֶפֶשׁ]; Gr., psy·kheʹ [ψυχή]) as used in the Scriptures show “soul” to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.

The connotations that the English “soul” commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words as used by the inspired Bible writers.. . . .

The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.”

Soul — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is confirmed by the fact that our English words, “psychiatric” and “psychology” (derived from this Greek word psy·kheʹ) have nothing to do with common belief about the soul (as something intangible and separate from the body) but with the activity of the conscious brain.

The only way for humans to live again is by resurrection....that is a return to this life.

 

[Deeje]

This makes completely logics to me Maybe except for "the creature" which must be "the soul".

Animals are “creatures” and the Bible calls them “souls”. They breathe and have blood in their veins, just as we do but Solomon lamented that even though humans were created to have all creation in subjection to them, when death comes, man loses his superiority.....

“for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

 

[MJ Bailey]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery, and I'm not claiming that consciousness is simply brain chemistry. However, I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and that the brain somehow causes consciousness. This is because if the brain gets damaged, consciousness gets damaged. This can be seen in head injuries in which a person loses consciousness, as well as the fact that consciousness can be permanently damaged as a result of brain damage caused by a stroke. We also know that chemicals ingested interact with the brain in such a way as to alter or impair consciousness (alcohol is an obvious example, but nearly everything we ingest has some impact on the brain, and thus on consciousness). So, how do you square belief in an afterlife with these facts? We know that altering the chemistry of the brain alters consciousness, and damaging the brain damages consciousness. Yet all religious people believe that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness. Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction. But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief.

First off it would depend on the extent of the injury, where the injury occurred and how the injury was treated to establish a correct comprehensive assessment of brain activities or the subject in question. That been an absolute point, not every individual will react to the same bioreactions as other individuals.

 

[Kenny]

Answer this: If consciousness is NOT dependent on the brain, why can consciousness be damaged by damaging the brain?

The same was an unconscious man can still hear. The brain is simply the part that manifests our spirit and soul in this three-dimensional world. If that part is damaged, the vehicle the conscious uses can't be used anymore. Like a person whose nerves have been damaged... has the equipment called legs but the brain can't reach it to use it.

New study reveals healing power of voices

 

[Mock Turtle]

The same was an unconscious man can still hear. The brain is simply the part that manifests our spirit and soul in this three-dimensional world. If that part is damaged, the vehicle the conscious uses can't be used anymore. Like a person whose nerves have been damaged... has the equipment called legs but the brain can't reach it to use it.

New study reveals healing power of voices

Hardly substantial evidence for any spirit or soul - in that if one is able to hear and understand what is said by loved ones whilst in a coma, then the process of thinking (or even struggling to do so) might be just the thing to enable recovery - exercise often being the best medicine - and motivated by hearing those one loves.

“We believe hearing those stories in parents’ and siblings’ voices exercises the circuits in the brain responsible for long-term memories,” said lead author Theresa Pape. “That stimulation helped trigger the first glimmer of awareness.”

 

[Terry Sampson]

I have never heard soul described that way before.
It begs various questions, like where does the soul reside and what do you mean by ‘breathing’ ?

Also, what is the source of your ideas about the soul ?

Can't/won't speak to Deeje's ideas, but ... the Hebrew word translated as "creature(s)" in Genesis was: "nephesh", first applied to sea creatures, then creatures of the air (i.e. flying creatures), then land-based creatures, and finally to humans. E.g. Genesis 1:20.

 

[viole]

Has anyone defined soul ? It seems to be a very vague concept.

i heard it is somewhat related to Aretha Franklin, and such.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

A "soul" is a living, breathing creature..

so, it can have a bad breath, right?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

From my examination of the evidence Near Death Experiences and various other types of paranormal and psychic experiences seem to tell us consciousness is not dependent on the brain.

Here is the model I subscribe to from Vedic, Theosophical and many otrher occult sources. Consciousness is a fundamental mystery. It is eternal and infinite. To experience the play/drama of the universe Consciousness incarnates finite things in the universe. Humans have a reincarnating soul (Causal Body in some terminology). A soul is composed of matter of a higher plane of nature. The reincarnating soul then experiences the universe through interpenetrating progressively dense mental, astral, etheric and physical bodies. So in this model the physical brain's purpose is to allow the soul to have an experience with the joys and challenges of physical existence. If the brain is effected by material circumstances then the soul's ability to experience through the brain is correspondingly effected.

In rare cases of separation of the subtle bodies before physical death, such as in so-called out-of body experiences and Near Death Experiences, the soul can experience directly through the astral and mental bodies. This process happens naturally at normal physical death. The astral and mental planes are made of subtler matter allowing for even far richer experiences than can be had on the denser and coarser physical plane.

The sentence “near death” is equivalent to “barely alive”.

so, what is so magic in having barely alive experiences?

ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

The sentence “near death” is equivalent to “barely alive”.

so, what is so magic in having barely alive experiences?

ciao

- viole

The point for this subject is that people with the classic Near Death Experience find higher conscious experiences when the higher functioning regions of the brain are inactive and trauma often leading to permanent death is occurring. This suggests consciousness may not be created by the brain but as I believe limited by the brain to the physical realm.

The Near Death Experience suggests there are other realms of richer experiencing that we don't normally have access to when using our physical brain.

 

[viole]

The point for this subject is that people with the classic Near Death Experience find higher conscious experiences when the higher functioning regions of the brain are inactive and trauma often leading to permanent death is occurring. This suggests consciousness may not be created by the brain but as I believe limited by the brain to the physical realm.

The Near Death Experience suggests there are other realms of richer experiencing that we don't normally have access to when using our physical brain.

You think so? You have no idea what I can dream, while my brain is fully intact.
What makes you think that those experiences are more meaningful than what I dream when I sleep?

and don’t forget, we are still speaking of barely alive brains. So, who can say what they are able to experience when they start getting out of wack, so to speak.

ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. .....

Does light need a second light to be illuminated? Why do you think that you need something other than consciousness to know consciousness?

Spoiler: More

Now, consciousness works outwardly as mind and is reflected in the form of a discrete multiform world. But what happens if you introvert the attention to the indivisible source of "I" sense and are able to hold that attention? There is no other way to know the consciousness (that is none other than the self itself) other than this. But for most of us to introvert the attention to the source of "I" and holding it is well nigh impossible.But some have been successful.

...

 

[George-ananda]

You think so? You have no idea what I can dream, while my brain is fully intact.
What makes you think that those experiences are more meaningful than what I dream when I sleep?

But when you dream you have a healthy brain and activity can be seen. In Near Death Experiences the brain is essentially off to higher-level functioning. That is why Near Death Experiences are so suggestive of consciousness not requiring brain activity.

and don’t forget, we are still speaking of barely alive brains. So, who can say what they are able to experience when they start getting out of wack, so to speak.

In a materialist view we would expect less coherent processing followed by black-out as the higher brain areas stop functioning. We seem to see the reverse in the Near Death Experience where those with the more complete shut-down have the richest experiences like in the much talked about Eben Alexander case.

 

[viole]

But when you dream you have a healthy brain and activity can be seen. In Near Death Experiences the brain is essentially off to higher-level functioning. That is why Near Death Experiences are so suggestive of consciousness not requiring brain activity.
In a materialist view we would expect less coherent processing followed by black-out as the higher brain areas stop functioning. We seem to see the reverse in the Near Death Experience where those with the more complete shut-down have the richest experiences like in the much talked about Eben Alexander case.

but how do you know? Has the one reporting such experiences taken his watch, synchronized with the watch in the hospital, in the hereafter?

it could be that what they experienced was just an experience while the brain was not totally out of wack already. And the rest are just false memories. Or memories which happened at a different time as reported.

don’t you think it is much more plausible than postulating the existence of a spiritual realm in which disembodied minds float around?

ciao

- viole

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The same was an unconscious man can still hear. The brain is simply the part that manifests our spirit and soul in this three-dimensional world. If that part is damaged, the vehicle the conscious uses can't be used anymore. Like a person whose nerves have been damaged... has the equipment called legs but the brain can't reach it to use it.

New study reveals healing power of voices

I don't understand your point. Maybe some people in a coma can hear. So what. I've been under general anesthesia and I certainly didn't hear anything. Now, if consciousness were eternal and not dependent on the brain, why are we able to alter or stop consciousness by altering the brain? You admit that damaging the brain damages consciousness, but you think that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness. This makes no sense. Further, if the conscious, eternal "soul" is independent of the brain, why is it that we are not conscious before we have brains? Why does the beginning of consciousness just coincidentally happen to coincide with the beginning of the brain?

 

[George-ananda]

but how do you know? Has the one reporting such experiences taken his watch, synchronized with the watch in the hospital, in the hereafter?

it could be that what they experienced was just an experience while the brain was not totally out of wack already. And the rest are just false memories. Or memories which happened at a different time as reported.

Well there are also many reports of Veridical Near Death Experiences where people do gain actual real-world knowledge that they shouldn't have known from normal channels.

don’t you think it is much more plausible than postulating the existence of a spiritual realm in which disembodied minds float around?

From Near Death Experiences and a variety of many other types of so-called paranormal and psychic phenomena I now find most plausible the view that we are in a multi-dimensional reality in which consciousness experiences even more richly on the higher lighter/subtler planes/realms/dimensions.