Is Consciousness Independent of the Brain?

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

. no evidence is ever flawless. scientific research isn't absolute. it is repeatable though.

I never said the evidence should or could be "flawless" mate, but you have to question the validity of what he did, which was essentially collecting "anecdotal" evidence. From a scientific point of view the best he had was a number of cases that cannot be readily explained by recognised natural phenomena and processes. He instead inferred reincarnation, an argument from ignorance - "I don't have a better explanation, so it has to be that right?". Wrong, it could be another process at play that we don't know about, that has no need for deities, spirits or souls. There is nothing wrong with a "I cant explain this", it is just intellectual honesty.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

After studying multiple subfields of the paranormal (including childhood reincarnation memories) I think the Skepdic.com crowd is not honestly into fairness but are just no-holds-barred defenders of a materialist worldview. Some people do not like a universe they cannot get their heads around. Some do not like people knowing more than 'Science' knows.

We can only listen to all sides and judge fairly for ourselves. As for me, I have seen and heard way, way, too much to hold a materialist worldview and believe consciousness is not dependent on a physical brain.

I've already responded to Fool about this George, all I'd say about anecdotal evidence is that it is somewhat problematic. I have heard stories/testimony about miracles, UFOs, out of body experiences, reincarnation etc. that cannot be readily dismissed as the ravings of superstitious people or hoaxers, so what? Do I become a theist, who believes in heaven but also reincarnation, while wearing a tin foil hat to protect me from alien rays? Unexplained stories does equal data.

 

[Fool]

I never said the evidence should or could be "flawless" mate, but you have to question the validity of what he did, which was essentially collecting "anecdotal" evidence. From a scientific point of view the best he had was a number of cases that cannot be readily explained by recognised natural phenomena and processes. He instead inferred reincarnation, an argument from ignorance - "I don't have a better explanation, so it has to be that right?". Wrong, it could be another process at play that we don't know about, that has no need for deities, spirits or souls. There is nothing wrong with a "I cant explain this", it is just intellectual honesty.

again these individuals had access to information that they shouldn't have known. we're not talking about adults. all the subjects in the study were children of varying ages.

but again there are other universities who are pioneering the idea of non-local consciousness. and consciousness doesn't require a deity, or a brain. humans generally require a brain.

interesting that humans have to anthropomorphize most everything.

 

[joe1776]

And what is the utility of past life memories? What grand role do those untaught skills play? In other words - do these sorts of things even matter? And why don't more of us experience them? By what criteria does one receive these "gifts" versus any other person? What about "brand new" souls/consciousness? Where does the new come from in juxtaposition with the "recycled?"

When it finally comes to real scrutiny of the subject, you'll find no one is really any more versed on the "truth" of the matters surrounding this stuff than any skeptic or non-believer - or, even if there are people who believe themselves better versed in these subjects, they really have none of the important answers, and there is no prescribed route that leads to attaining them.

Among my few one-time paranormal experiences was one of precognition. At a thoroughbred racetrack, I got a vision of the finish of the upcoming race that, like a looped six second video, repeated itself about a dozen times. Then, 20 minutes later, I watched the real event happen.

Now, I know nothing about past life memories, but you could ask me questions similar to those you've asked here and I couldn't answer them. The only thing I know is that precognition is possible and I know that with certainty.

 

[George-ananda]

I've already responded to Fool about this George, all I'd say about anecdotal evidence is that it is somewhat problematic. I have heard stories/testimony about miracles, UFOs, out of body experiences, reincarnation etc. that cannot be readily dismissed as the ravings of superstitious people or hoaxers, so what? Do I become a theist, who believes in heaven but also reincarnation, while wearing a tin foil hat to protect me from alien rays? Unexplained stories does equal data.

You are trying to create kind of an 'all or nothing' way of looking at this. Believing in childhood reincarnation memories, out of body experiences, UFO's does not mean you have to become any kind of theist or wear a tinfoil hat. I just call each situation as I fairly see it to the best of my ability and will often admit that a full understanding of this universe is beyond me.

 

[idav]

Wouldn't the fact that we are not born conscious, but that consciousness emerges gradually over time as the brain develops be significant evidence that consciousness is dependent on the brain, rather than something independent of the brain? Why or why not?

Yes, I also think it's significant that an independent observer would see something very similar. A gradual improvement in navigating it's environment. The brain has to learn these things. Going from one single celled egg to a multicellular wonder makes a significant difference.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I think science has proved that everyone who is conscious has a brain. So consciousness must have something to do with the brain.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

again these individuals had access to information that they shouldn't have known. we're not talking about adults. all the subjects in the study were children of varying ages.

Sure, a bit of potential for mistaking rampant childish imagination as something real, or of course, the hoaxing hand of an adult shaping a very malleable young mind though? Ockham's razor and all that.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I just call each situation as I fairly see it to the best of my ability and will often admit that a full understanding of this universe is beyond me.

Glad to hear it dude! Show me a man who does have a full understanding of the universe! I'm not trying to create an "all or nothing" btw, I was just pointing out a general principle about anecdotal evidence. It can sound extremely compelling or supportive of religious/supernatural/extra terrestrial beliefs, however unless it can be investigated scientifically, to understand the processes at work, it will remain an unexplained story - and nothing more. To infer more is just speculative.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Considering there are many conditions that effect the brain which effects cognition, I don't see how consciousness can be independent of the brain.

Sure, a bit of potential for mistaking rampant childish imagination as something real, or of course, the hoaxing hand of an adult shaping a very malleable young mind though? Ockham's razor and all that.

Or they just get the details wrong and those too lazy to research the details take them for accurate.

 

[George-ananda]

Glad to hear it dude! Show me a man who does have a full understanding of the universe! I'm not trying to create an "all or nothing" btw, I was just pointing out a general principle about anecdotal evidence. It can sound extremely compelling or supportive of religious/supernatural/extra terrestrial beliefs, however unless it can be investigated scientifically, to understand the processes at work, it will remain an unexplained story - and nothing more. To infer more is just speculative.

Well, I believe in certain things beyond reasonable doubt based on an analysis of the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence. I believe science needs to remain agnostic on many of these things but I personally will use my best judgment based on all evidence and argumentation. That is how human reason works.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wouldn't the fact that we are not born conscious, but that consciousness emerges gradually over time as the brain develops be significant evidence that consciousness is dependent on the brain, rather than something independent of the brain? Why or why not?

Nothing that I know of, lacking a brain, has ever exhibited consciousness in any way. And nobody with a brain, that I know of, has ever shown evidence of consciousness without a brain.

Maybe there can be water without either hydrogen or oxygen, but so far, nobody has ever found such a thing. Water seems to depend for its existence on the existence of both 2 hydrogens and an oxygen -- even though neither of those things is anything at all like water. And consciousness seems, at least from where we sit, to depend on the existence of a brain, even though the brain doesn't look much like consciousness.

 

[Fool]

Sure, a bit of potential for mistaking rampant childish imagination as something real, or of course, the hoaxing hand of an adult shaping a very malleable young mind though? Ockham's razor and all that.

you read the research?

 

[osgart]

as someone who has brain damage I can tell you your awareness and memory, and my experience of reality dramatically changed for the worse. I've recovered much since the time I got it. still a long way to go though.

my mind is still there though.

I tend to think of the brain as motor and sensorial. like a tuner and a receiver. as well as a regulator of biological function.

my memory problems were a bit scarey, being very slow to recall things. I felt like a fish out of the pond. I didn't access things right away like I used to. it's like losing your home and becoming alien. hard to explain.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Having suffered a TBI too, i completely concur with your analysis

 

[Fool]

To answer this, we can appeal to the same process that underlies other forms of perception. The brain makes its ‘best guess’, based on its prior beliefs or expectations, and the available sensory data. In this case, the relevant sensory data include signals specific to the body, as well as the classic senses such as vision and touch. These bodily senses include proprioception, which signals the body’s configuration in space, and interoception, which involves a raft of inputs that convey information from inside the body, such as blood pressure, gastric tension, heartbeat and so on.

 

[viole]

Wouldn't the fact that we are not born conscious, but that consciousness emerges gradually over time as the brain develops be significant evidence that consciousness is dependent on the brain, rather than something independent of the brain? Why or why not?

Who can say?

The only thing I know is that I do not recollect to have been conscious without a brain.

However, many seem to be able to achieve that

Ciao

- viole

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

you read the research?

I got half way through the YouTube presentation and that was enough. Before you shoot me down as a hypocrite, who dismisses anything that remotely fails to fit in with materialism, let me explain. The guy has collected a lot of stories, there are no ready explanations for what he describes in a lot of his stories. The trouble is we have no means to investigate the mechanisms and processes at work, all that can be done is to make really sure that deception, or "false memories" based on previous life experience are not at play. So even if you eliminate all of that, is all we are left with reincarnation? No, there could be other reasons, the man admitted as much himself, so the honest answer is "I have no explanation". When someone comes up with a lot of stuff that cannot be explained, I say so what? Call me when we discover a way to investigate the phenomena or event, until then it is speculation, "god of the gaps" stuff.
Let me give you a specific example - I sat down to watch a documentary on UFOs a good few years ago, expecting to have a laugh at the tin foil hat brigade. Instead this British airline pilot was featured, who talked of two "mile wide" aircraft he witnessed while flying a Boeing 737 just outside the UK. He was not the only witness, there were others on his plane who saw it. Two huge items showed up on radar, the British government did not deny the radar detections, but said as it was outside British air space they were not going to investigate it. Multiple eye witness testimony from credible sources, radar evidence that the thing was real and not an optical illusion, should be enough to satisfy my sceptical mind that aliens and big space ships are real right? Wrong! It is just another "I have no explanation" situation, and until we find a way to investigate further I'm comfortable with that.

 

[Fool]

I got half way through the YouTube presentation and that was enough. Before you shoot me down as a hypocrite, who dismisses anything that remotely fails to fit in with materialism, let me explain. The guy has collected a lot of stories, there are no ready explanations for what he describes in a lot of his stories. The trouble is we have no means to investigate the mechanisms and processes at work, all that can be done is to make really sure that deception, or "false memories" based on previous life experience are not at play. So even if you eliminate all of that, is all we are left with reincarnation? No, there could be other reasons, the man admitted as much himself, so the honest answer is "I have no explanation". When someone comes up with a lot of stuff that cannot be explained, I say so what? Call me when we discover a way to investigate the phenomena or event, until then it is speculation, "god of the gaps" stuff.
Let me give you a specific example - I sat down to watch a documentary on UFOs a good few years ago, expecting to have a laugh at the tin foil hat brigade. Instead this British airline pilot was featured, who talked of two "mile wide" aircraft he witnessed while flying a Boeing 737 just outside the UK. He was not the only witness, there were others on his plane who saw it. Two huge items showed up on radar, the British government did not deny the radar detections, but said as it was outside British air space they were not going to investigate it. Multiple eye witness testimony from credible sources, radar evidence that the thing was real and not an optical illusion, should be enough to satisfy my sceptical mind that aliens and big space ships are real right? Wrong! It is just another "I have no explanation" situation, and until we find a way to investigate further I'm comfortable with that.

it isn't just a guy. the research is still ongoing.


Faculty and Staff

Academic Publications

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

it isn't just a guy. the research is still ongoing.


Faculty and Staff

Academic Publications

Yes, more stories that must conclude "I have no explanation for this", but while people can make a living out of this sort of thing, I guess it'll carry on. When researchers start saying "we have discovered the mechanism by which reincarnation works, here is the evidence", I'll definitely be interested. Until then, I'll file it under "unexplained stories".