Continuity of Consciousness

[Penumbra]

Perhaps from a New Age perspective, the simple answer to that would be the soul. If we’re actually souls visiting earth in an attempt for “soul evolution”, so to put it, then the soul connects all our stages of consciousness. From before we’re on earth, to while we’re on earth, to after we’re on earth…and then possibly back.

Welcome to the forum.

My response is that to answer the question by bringing up the concept of a soul, it doesn't tell me much. The soul is a nebulous concept. The soul could vary well be the answer, but for it to be a useful or practical answer, the soul needs to be explained.

 

[Penumbra]

It is the same Self, the individual soul/life-force.

Also correct.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.
The Self is an eternal individual (according to my particular beliefs). It is the soul/atma. It enters a body when that body is conceived and is released from the body when the body dies.

What do you mean by continuous?

What I mean is, the concept of a soul or Self is kind of a placeholder because I haven't really seen it precisely explained.

What makes my Self the same Self as it was yesterday? You may say it's an eternal individual, but consider ramifications of what you've said. You've also said that the Self transcends time and space.

So, for instance, if it doesn't exist in time or space, what makes my Self separate from your Self? (If I recall, you are not Advaita. Correct me if I am mistaken about that.) What makes my Self the same between now and yesterday, while it remains different/separate from your Self?

 

[Penumbra]

According to the Dalai Lama:

"In the Buddhist doctrine of selflessness, or "no soul" theory, the understanding is that there is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called "soul." That is what is being denied in Buddhism.

Buddhism does not deny the continuum of consciousness. Because of this, we find some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak", the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars.

We find diverse opinions, even among Buddhist scholars, as to what exactly the nature of self is, what exactly that thing or entity is that continues from one moment to the next moment, from one lifetime to the next lifetime. Some try to locate it within the aggregates, the composite of body and mind. Some explain it in terms of a designation based on the body and mind composite, and so on.... One of the divisions of [the "Mind-Only"] school maintains there is a special continuum of consciousness called alayavijnana which is the fundamental consciousness."

Mindstream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have indeed noticed that there are diverse opinions among Buddhists from talking to them. Some of them have said to me that they do accept the concept of a continuous self (although lacking in a specific identity, uniqueness, etc.), while others have denied even that.

One particularly well-spoken Buddhist explained that in his view, we each have a separate unit of consciousness, but that there is no uniqueness, no self, no difference, between these units of consciousness. They are all identical. So he was one of them that accept a continuous soul of some sort.

Thanks for the wikipedia article. I believe I've read that one before, or one just like it, because I've researched this topic before, but it's a nice refresher and something to discuss.

Suppose that, as put forth in the article, the unit of consciousness is not a container or static or passive thing, but is instead a stream of instants of consciousness. What makes me question that model is the question of how long each "instant" is. Consciousness seems, at least to me, to inherently involve time. It involves perceiving, realizing, being aware, etc. If each moment of consciousness is infinitesimally small, then each moment is basically unable to perceive anything. In order for a moment to be useful, it must have a finite time long enough to allow meaningful awareness. But if that's the case, then how long would it be? It would seem arbitrary if each moment had a certain amount of time associated with it.

 

[Madhuri]

What I mean is, the concept of a soul or Self is kind of a placeholder because I haven't really seen it precisely explained.

What makes my Self the same Self as it was yesterday? You may say it's an eternal individual, but consider ramifications of what you've said. You've also said that the Self transcends time and space.

So, for instance, if it doesn't exist in time or space, what makes my Self separate from your Self? (If I recall, you are not Advaita. Correct me if I am mistaken about that.) What makes my Self the same between now and yesterday, while it remains different/separate from your Self?

Ok, let me clarify- by saying that the soul transcends time and space, I do not mean that it does not exist here and now. But only that unlike things of Matter, it is eternal and its nature is of Knowledge (ie/Consciousness/Awareness) and Bliss (Love). Matter is considered to be derived from Spirit, but rather than the Material and Spiritual universes (or dimensions) existing separately, they are considered to be both 'here and now'. Overlapping perhaps. Or existing simultaneously.

There is so much complex information about the nature of Spirit that I do not understand. Unfortunately, I'm not educated enough about these concepts to be able to accurately conceptualise or explain them.

I really don't understand concepts of time and space enough on any level to be able to answer the question satisfactorily. It would be great if a more educated Hindu could come here and explain.

Honestly though, I cannot think how the Self (life-force and consciousness) could be different from one moment to the next.

 

[Madhuri]

I usually think of reincarnation as a "soul made flesh". But you are telling me that the body and soul are fairly independent from each other instead, correct?

Do you believe that a living body could hypothetically lack a soul and function to some degree as a normal human being? If so, how different would it be from a body with a soul? Could other people perceive the difference, and if so, how?

The body and soul are different. For the time and being, the soul replies on a physical body to experience and the body relies on the soul to function (or be alive- at least without some form of advanced technology).

I think that a human body could function is some way, like a computer/robot. It would not be the same as you, because it lacks sentience.

 

[Madhuri]

One thing to add, Penumbra, is that the soul 'attaches' itself to a body or place based on its own state of consciousness. I will elaborate. Please forgive my use of words at times too, I put them in ' ' because I am not sure of the most accurate word to use.

I am not certain if this explains any significant role in how a soul will remain the same within a particular body, but it could.

There are so many factors that influence where the soul goes. Every experience has an affect on the Consciousness/Self. That is how it develops/evolves. Every experience creates an impression on the Consciousness and shapes the Self in some way. So, if in my lifetime I spend a lot of time thinking of a particular place, or person, or animal I will likely reincarnate in a body and place that is linked to whatever made the biggest impression and influence on my Self.

What you can take from this is two things: that every individual soul is unique- it is at its own level of evolution, and will have evolved differently. Every soul, according to the philosophy I adhere to, is considered to be a unique aspect of the Whole. So...everything is connected, but everything is a unique part.

I just don't understand the science of it. I can't elaborate on that, unfortunately.

 

[Penumbra]

From baby to adult. The infant you once were has literally and completely died along ago. Are you conscious as that baby? Do you have any of its cells still living in you?

According to some articles I've read, like this one, we do keep some of our cerebral cortex cells for the duration of our lifetime.

Cells that last a lifetime - USATODAY.com

I'm not a neurobiologist so I don't know for sure, but from a few sources I've looked into, it seems to be the case. Even if it were the case that 100% of cells change eventually, as long as it happens a little bit at a time, I don't think how it would violate continuity but it does make the discussion worth having.

Think about the time your born and your own detailed and accurate memories as a baby in the first day and week. Definitely experienced all of it no doubt and cant deny of it it didn't occur but...try to recall...It works like that. Life and death tends to be the same. Consciousness is continuously linked moment to moment in pieces. Frame to frame akin as in a movie, we can only relate consciousness when fluid conditions permits of which triggers familiarity with the previous conditions.

Nope, I'm aware that I can only remember back to a time when I was a couple of years old rather than all the way back to infancy.

How long do you suggest that each moment/frame lasts? I asked this to another person in this thread and I'll repeat the question for you since you have the same model:

Suppose that, as put forth in the article, the unit of consciousness is not a container or static or passive thing, but is instead a stream of instants of consciousness. What makes me question that model is the question of how long each "instant" is. Consciousness seems, at least to me, to inherently involve time. It involves perceiving, realizing, being aware, etc. If each moment of consciousness is infinitesimally small, then each moment is basically unable to perceive anything. In order for a moment to be useful, it must have a finite time long enough to allow meaningful awareness. But if that's the case, then how long would it be? It would seem arbitrary if each moment had a certain amount of time associated with it.

If something happens such as trauma or illness affecting memories, once that chain of conscious breaks, a new chain of consciousness manifests of which can no longer relate to the old chain. Winston Cup driver Bobby Allison of Nascar fame is a prime example of this of which he has no conscious memories of the final win of his racing career even in face of overwhelming proof from his fans, family, trophies , and media. Bobby was never consciously there according to Bobby himself.

I do agree that a discontinuation of memories may affect the continuity of consciousness. This sort of example that you present here is what makes me think of questions like this thread.

So you feel that the Bobby before and after was not the same continuation of consciousness?

Do you agree that, if a person were to reincarnate through multiple lifetimes but not remember their past lifetimes, that they should not be considered the same being as those past lifetimes? That it might as well be considered a separate being?

A re-birth (instead of reincarnation) of which we clearly see new life manifesting around us all the time as much as we see death and dying around us all the time. You actually remain you in way of molecular/atomic composition, and separation in way of ego sense of self.

In essence, you will still be you, but "you" are separate from "you", keeping in mind this is the dualistic version, as this is a consistent, seamless, and fluid process eliminating the perceptive duality of life and death, you and not you.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Thought experiment 4: in some sci-fi programs like Star Trek, teleportation is depicted as scanning/destroying the original and producing an exact copy on the other end. That's always raised some consciousness continuity questions for me. I would never use such a device because I would suspect that "I" would be dead and "me prime" would be on the other side -- a duplicate of me, but not my consciousness.

Come on, now. When they recovered Scotty from the pattern buffers after 75 years, he was still Scotty.

Of course, I've read another sci-fi story that raised just this concern. That after centuries of teleportation, societies died out after their members were reformulated without a soul. But it is a question of numbers. Quantum tunneling is not currently possible on the macro scale due to the compounding probabilities involved. I also think consciousness is a product of those numbers. That three trillion dreaming cells each contribute an infinetesmal something to the wakeful collective that is ellen. Millions are lost every moment, but millions are born into the established framework.

But I didn't like cheese as a kid, and now I do. Ellen is not entirely ellen. Just ellen by the vast majority.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

I believe the exact same thing Madhuri does. Every soul was endowed by God its own individual and freedom to choose how they want to live and experience life. The actions of past and present lives decide exactly what body you incarnate into and where and when. There are no random unexplained things in God's eyes. Everything happens for a karmic reason and there are no accidents. Even though it may seem like it in our present moment. The whole goal of life is to allow himself (God) expression in many infinite ways and at the same time give his souls, who are eternal and eternally connected to him the ability to experience lives through many different incarnations. Through these incarnations it allows the soul to develop wisdom through experience until finally they realize that life itself is not going to give them the lasting happiness and joy each soul deep down really wants. Each soul has a deep down longing for bliss and it is seen in each and every being and the way we live. We must continually reincarnate until we once again realize the divine plan. That plan is to realize our oneness with God again. We are never separate, but our identity to our personal ego and life sees it as such. Once enlightenment, samadhi, freedom in God, or however you call it is achieved the karmic tie to reincarnation is dissolved in God and his eternal bliss and love. God's ultimate goal for every individual soul is to express God in his infinite vast nature until one incarnation we realize there is more to life then just living it and we finally realize our own Godly nature within.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Not exactly. Atma refers to the individual, Paramatma is God within in the Self. Even I find the concept of Paramatma a complex and difficult to explain one.

I did not know that you Gaudiya folks believes both the Atman and the Paramatma exist in all of us.

In Adviata Atman and Paramatma are the same. Atman is micro of the Paramatma macro.

 

[LuisDantas]

A question for Madhuri and others who may have similar beliefs. In practical terms, and assuming that a live biological body might exist without a soul (or more properly, an Atman), what detectable difference does the presence of that soul or Atman make?

Do you believe, perhaps, that things such as rational thought and artistic inspiration are possible only due to the soul or Atman?

 

[Madhuri]

I did not know that you Gaudiya folks believes both the Atman and the Paramatma exist in all of us.

In Adviata Atman and Paramatma are the same. Atman is micro of the Paramatma macro.

Yes. The Atma is the individual. Paramatma is God. But the Atma can still be considered as a microcosm of the Paramatma.

 

[Madhuri]

A question for Madhuri and others who may have similar beliefs. In practical terms, and assuming that a live biological body might exist without a soul (or more properly, an Atman), what detectable difference does the presence of that soul or Atman make?

Do you believe, perhaps, that things such as rational thought and artistic inspiration are possible only due to the soul or Atman?

What do you mean by 'live' biological body? If something is alive, it is considered to have a soul. Something cannot be alive without a life-force.

So tell me, how do we distinguish between a life form and a robot?

 

[PolyHedral]

This is a perfect example of how the individual, the 'I', is the Consciousness rather than the body and the memories.
People really seem to struggle with that concept. So this is a great example.

I took it as an example of how consciousness and individuality is based in matter. :sarcastic The two "yous" aren't distinguishable by anything other than location. Both of you would believe that they are the original.

For instance, what difference would there be if, after making the copy, the original was replaced by a copy of the copy?

What do you mean by 'live' biological body? If something is alive, it is considered to have a soul. Something cannot be alive without a life-force.

So tell me, how do we distinguish between a life form and a robot?

Complexity.

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you mean by 'live' biological body? If something is alive, it is considered to have a soul. Something cannot be alive without a life-force.

So tell me, how do we distinguish between a life form and a robot?

I misunderstood you previously then. There is a concept called a "phylosophical zombie" - a human being without a soul. It is useful to illustrate what one considers to be the role of the soul, for different people have different ideas of what a PZ would be like.

I happen to believe that if PZ do exist, they are truly indistinguishable from actual living beings, except perhaps by a lack of creative capability. It is not clear to me why living bodies would need souls. Does that apply to all life forms, even plants and microbes?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I am certain that when you die all your memories die along with you with the death of the brain concerned. I fact it would subjectively same as if you were never born in the first place. So after you die there would be nothing in nature to remind you or prompt you that you have already lived a physical life, so if some other brain boots your sense of self into existence again, you will still be just as mystified by what happens to the ego after death as you were with this one, all your memories would be confined to that brain. In a sense it would be other life totally detached from this one, so much so it would be indistinguishable from just another "you only live the once" experience, so reincarnation without memory would IMO not be reincarnation at all.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Some religions assert that there is an eternal self. Other religions assert that the self is temporary but that something lives on.

My question is, what is it, philosophically speaking, that links one moment of consciousness to another moment of consciousness that allows it to be considered the same being?



Thought Experiment One:
The movie, "The 6th Day", with Arnold Schwarzenegger (spoilers ahead, but it's a ten year old movie), is about cloning. In this future, technology exists to not only clone humans, but to accelerate their growth. In addition, memories can be captured and placed into a clone.

Arnold comes home one day to find that a clone of himself is inside with his wife and kids. He goes on an action-packed quest to get to the bottom of this. In the end, it turns out that he was the clone, not the other one that was in his house that night. He had the body and memories of the original, so he thought he was the original. He incorrectly assumed he had a continuous consciousness when in reality, he's a very young being that simply has memories of another implanted into him. (In the movie, clones are purposely given a mark so that they can be identified. That's how he finds out he's the clone.)

Suppose that while sleeping, you are killed and replaced with a clone with your memories. This clone would wake up and never knew anything happened. The original would be dead, but the second one would mistakenly assume that it has had a continuous consciousness when in fact it's a new being.

What makes our bodies continuous? I've read that most of our cells are replaced every few years. Some studies have said that there are areas in the brain where the cells last our entire life. If cells are replaced in small amounts over time, and eventually the entirety is replaced (even those brain cells), is consciousness continuous or no? How would we know?

Thought Experiment Two:
So far, science seems to have revealed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, either in total or in part. For instance, damage to the brain can drastically alter one's personality or render the person unable to be conscious anymore, either temporarily or permanently.

So suppose that you die. You wake up in an afterlife. Is this person that wakes up still you? Is it a copy, or is it a continuous consciousness of the original? How can it be determined? If it's merely a copy, then to the original person, they have no afterlife. The copy experiences the afterlife, but not the original.

Thought Experiment Three:
I've seen some proponents of reincarnation say that when one dies, they are reincarnated in a new form. The new form probably won't have your memories, might be another gender and born in a totally different culture, and may or may not have remnants of your personality (people I talk to have had different notions about this last part). What makes this reincarnated version still "you", rather than a wholly separate being?

it is not a matter of cloning actually there is stem cells in primitive streak which exisit in coccyx will grow again in resurrection.

the same person will grow and God will give him back his soul.

 

[Madhuri]

I misunderstood you previously then. There is a concept called a "phylosophical zombie" - a human being without a soul. It is useful to illustrate what one considers to be the role of the soul, for different people have different ideas of what a PZ would be like.

I happen to believe that if PZ do exist, they are truly indistinguishable from actual living beings, except perhaps by a lack of creative capability. It is not clear to me why living bodies would need souls. Does that apply to all life forms, even plants and microbes?

There is no concept that I am aware of in Hinduism that includes humans without souls- or any living thing without a soul. That would be contradictory- because nothing can be alive without a soul (the soul IS life). So yes, every animal, plant, bacteria etc. is considered to have a soul.

You said, interestingly, that you cannot see why living bodies would need a soul. So you can see from Vedic philosophy that a body is only living while it contains a soul.

You get a lot of people who will answer as PolyHedral did, that the only difference between a living entity and a computer is complexity. First of all, that isn't a very good answer- it needs a lot of elaboration to have meaning. But I truly believe that there is something more to it then that. There seems such a difference between a person alive and dead. So many people report that at the moment of death, there was such a change to the person. By looking into the eyes it became apparent that the person was 'gone'. Have you had that experience? Have you heard people talking about it?

I don't know what it is exactly; the life force, intelligence, awareness, understanding, etc.

So what would make this hypothetical PZ indistinguishable exactly? Is it self-aware? Is it sentient? Does it perceive? If it is all of the above then I would say it does have a soul. If not, if it is just a computer that looks and acts like a human due to programming, then it is not really alive and thus it cannot be said to have a soul.

 

[ellenjanuary]

There is no concept that I am aware of in Hinduism that includes humans without souls- or any living thing without a soul. That would be contradictory- because nothing can be alive without a soul (the soul IS life). So yes, every animal, plant, bacteria etc. is considered to have a soul.

You said, interestingly, that you cannot see why living bodies would need a soul. So you can see from Vedic philosophy that a body is only living while it contains a soul.

You get a lot of people who will answer as PolyHedral did, that the only difference between a living entity and a computer is complexity. First of all, that isn't a very good answer- it needs a lot of elaboration to have meaning. But I truly believe that there is something more to it then that. There seems such a difference between a person alive and dead. So many people report that at the moment of death, there was such a change to the person. By looking into the eyes it became apparent that the person was 'gone'. Have you had that experience? Have you heard people talking about it?

I don't know what it is exactly; the life force, intelligence, awareness, understanding, etc.

So what would make this hypothetical PZ indistinguishable exactly? Is it self-aware? Is it sentient? Does it perceive? If it is all of the above then I would say it does have a soul. If not, if it is just a computer that looks and acts like a human due to programming, then it is not really alive and thus it cannot be said to have a soul.

I was going to disagree with you about complexity; but then again, I have a science background and have read volumes on complexity... so.... never mind.

As a one-word answer, complexity doesn't cover it without a scientific understanding of complexity. For instance, it doesn't mean complicated.

As for a soul, my "decoherence model" hypothesizes that the difference between organic and inorganic is a function of pure number; that the arrangement of atoms (hardware) in certain configurations gives rise to the "spontaneous generation" of life as software.

Makes me think my MT ain't so far out there if it uses obscure mathematical concepts, modern theoretical physics, (and the absurd infatuation with a move star, of course); to arrive at a similiar conclusion - that all living things have a soul.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

So yes, every animal, plant, bacteria etc. is considered to have a soul.

So a bacterium has a soul? you must be joking.