Is Consciousness Independent of the Brain?

[Fool]

Center for Consciousness Studies . Tucson . Arizona


so you accept gravity? electricity? because science can't explain the cause for these things. and what if science never finds a cause for consciousness?

consciousness uses the fundamental force electricity. consciousness doesn't require a brain but it is dependent on electrical impulses in both humans, plants, and bacteria.


Bacteria within a biofilm (in background and close up in right hemisphere inset) have similar electrical signaling mechanisms as neurons in the human brain. Credit: Suel lab


How plants sense and react is still somewhat unknown. They don't have nerve cells like humans, but they do have a system for sending electrical signals and even produce neurotransmitters, like dopamine, serotonin and other chemicals the human brain uses to send signals.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Center for Consciousness Studies . Tucson . Arizona


so you accept gravity? electricity? because science can't explain the cause for these things. and what if science never finds a cause for consciousness?

Well of course science cannot explain the "cause", though it might one day. Once upon a time disease, particularly a plague, was seen by people as a sign the deity or deities were angry, I guess they could never imagine the weird and wonderful world of bacteria and viruses, not like something they would make a "lucky guess" at. So science may explain the "cause" for everything one day, and it might be something nobody has ever thought about or imagined, but even if it does not, that is not really what I'm getting at. We can experiment with gravity, we can make predictions, similarly with electricity, we can harness it as a reliable and very useful energy source. We understand it to be a flow of electrons, we can experiment with it forever and a day. However, we cannot do the same thing with anecdotal evidence, until we have a way of examining the processes at play with the proposed examples of reincarnation, it is all just glorious speculation.

consciousness uses the fundamental force electricity. consciousness doesn't require a brain but it is dependent on electrical impulses in both humans, plants, and bacteria.

Yeah, that is an assertion, and if by "consciousness" you mean "awareness" then I'd like to see the evidence that plants and bacteria are "aware" in any sense we would recognise as meaningful, not just chemistry and electrical impulses. I'll check out your links tomorrow Fool, but please stop firing so many links at me dude, I only have so much free time in the day!

[/QUOTE]

 

[Fool]

Well of course science cannot explain the "cause", though it might one day. Once upon a time disease, particularly a plague, was seen by people as a sign the deity or deities were angry, I guess they could never imagine the weird and wonderful world of bacteria and viruses, not like something they would make a "lucky guess" at. So science may explain the "cause" for everything one day, and it might be something nobody has ever thought about or imagined, but even if it does not, that is not really what I'm getting at. We can experiment with gravity, we can make predictions, similarly with electricity, we can harness it as a reliable and very useful energy source. We understand it to be a flow of electrons, we can experiment with it forever and a day. However, we cannot do the same thing with anecdotal evidence, until we have a way of examining the processes at play with the proposed examples of reincarnation, it is all just glorious speculation.



Yeah, that is an assertion, and if by "consciousness" you mean "awareness" then I'd like to see the evidence that plants and bacteria are "aware" in any sense we would recognise as meaningful, not just chemistry and electrical impulses. I'll check out your links tomorrow Fool, but please stop firing so many links at me dude, I only have so much free time in the day!

awareness of self doesn't necessarily mean awareness of something higher than self's own dimensional consciousness.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

awareness of self doesn't necessarily mean awareness of something higher than self's own dimensional consciousness.

Dude, what does that even mean???? Word salad for table twelve!

 

[Fool]

Dude, what does that even mean???? Word salad for table twelve!

it means that the third dimension doesn't make self-awareness a culmination, or evolutionary end point.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Surely, it is rational to believe an unexplained phenomena like childhood reincarnation memories exists, before fully understanding the mechanism. Human reason then creates possible theories, does analysis, considers kindred things and forms an opinion on the various theories.

For me. there is a wealth of eastern (Vedic/Hindu) and modern western sources discussing beyond the physical phenomena which collectively presents the most satisfying explanation I have heard.

It is fine for you apparently to stick to mainstream science only, but as for me I would like to know things while I'm still alive. I have personally been blown away by the depth and quality of the non-mainstream science information describing beyond the normal phenomena. I do feel certain beyond reasonable doubt about many things mainstream science must now remain agnostic on.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Surely, it is rational to believe an unexplained phenomena like childhood reincarnation memories exists, before fully understanding the mechanism. Human reason then creates possible theories, does analysis, considers kindred things and forms an opinion on the various theories.

That isn't how science works though George. You propose an "hypothesis", like reincarnation, which is NOT the same as believing it to be true beforehand. You test the hypothesis, to see if it comports with reality, if you find significant evidence that it does (and that does not include anecdotes) you then publish a paper for peer review. If your research withstands peer review, usually meaning the results are reproducible under controlled conditions, it becomes a theory, which means more than a "good guess" in the world of science. Science and religion just don't mix mate, they should never be confused. "Faith" is about believing without the hard evidence science demands, science is about following the evidence, and not making any conclusions until the evidence permits you to do so.

 

[George-ananda]

That isn't how science works though George. You propose an "hypothesis", like reincarnation, which is NOT the same as believing it to be true beforehand. You test the hypothesis, to see if it comports with reality, if you find significant evidence that it does (and that does not include anecdotes) you then publish a paper for peer review. If your research withstands peer review, usually meaning the results are reproducible under controlled conditions, it becomes a theory, which means more than a "good guess" in the world of science.

Actually, I agree with all that regarding mainstream science BUT I am personally interested in places where mainstream science just can not go at this time.

(I could have chose a different word than 'hypothesis' if you want to treat the word in the strictest scientific way)

Science and religion just don't mix mate, they should never be confused. "Faith" is about believing without the hard evidence science demands, science is about following the evidence, and not making any conclusions until the evidence permits you to do so.

Right, but I am not calling for my beliefs to be accepted by mainstream science at this time. My beliefs come also from a consideration (meaning neither blind acceptance nor blind dismissal) of those who experience and speak of things beyond mainstream science's reach.

 

[Bird123]

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?

Perhaps, what you have discovered is that our installation into that physical body occurs after birth when the brain has developed enough to handle the connection.

So now comes the Big Question. Go to a quiet place and Think back really hard. What is the very first thing you can remember in this lifetime? You have had the answer all along.

 

[DavidFirth]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg, er, the consciousness or the mind?

Interesting discussion.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Right, but I am not calling for my beliefs to be accepted by mainstream science at this time. My beliefs come also from a consideration (meaning neither blind acceptance nor blind dismissal) of those who experience and speak of things beyond mainstream science's reach.

No problem with any of that, as long as you don't then say what you believe is comparable or equal to a scientific theory that has been through peer review. It just is not, it is a question of faith, the two should not be conflated.

 

[George-ananda]

No problem with any of that, as long as you don't then say what you believe is comparable or equal to a scientific theory that has been through peer review. It just is not, it is a question of faith, the two should not be conflated.

We agree, but two points to add

The word 'theory' can be used in a more casual way also (per the dictionary).

Secondly, I feel the word 'belief' to be more appropriate than 'faith' in my case. I do not hold any sources to be inherently infallible. I just accept the positions I rationally believe to be the most correct after all evidence and arguments are objectively considered.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

We agree, but two points to add

The word 'theory' can be used in a more casual way also (per the dictionary).

Secondly, I feel the word 'belief' to be more appropriate than 'faith' in my case. I do not hold any sources to be inherently infallible. I just accept the positions I rationally believe to be the most correct after all evidence and arguments are objectively considered.

Yes, I'd completely agree with the more colloquial meaning of theory, it is a source of frustration when people confuse it with the scientific meaning - "Don't you know evolution is just a theory?".
As for the definition of faith, I've heard it defined in various ways, I like Matt Dillahunty's take on the word. "Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason to believe". Now of course, what qualifies as a "good reason" is open to debate, but I would say if something cannot be demonstrated to comport with reality then you don't have a good reason to believe it. You are making unwarranted inferences, filling in the gaps, the intellectually honest thing to say is "I have no explanation" or "I don't know". The trouble is people like to come up with answers even when they have no good evidence, we have an innate need to make sense of the reality we experience (or tales of what other people experience). That is how every religion in the world got started, our earliest attempts to explain the shared reality we experience. It was all we had at the time, in the absence of the accumulated shared knowledge we enjoy centuries later, science has replaced so much superstition and quackery with a truer picture. Science is king!

 

[George-ananda]

As for the definition of faith, I've heard it defined in various ways, I like Matt Dillahunty's take on the word. "Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason to believe". Now of course, what qualifies as a "good reason" is open to debate, but I would say if something cannot be demonstrated to comport with reality then you don't have a good reason to believe it. You are making unwarranted inferences, filling in the gaps, the intellectually honest thing to say is "I have no explanation" or "I don't know". The trouble is people like to come up with answers even when they have no good evidence, we have an innate need to make sense of the reality we experience (or tales of what other people experience). That is how every religion in the world got started, our earliest attempts to explain the shared reality we experience. It was all we had at the time, in the absence of the accumulated shared knowledge we enjoy centuries later, science has replaced so much superstition and quackery with a truer picture. Science is king!

I think you are subscribing here to a position that can be called (from Wikipedia):

Scientism
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

I personally do not subscribe to Scientism as it is based on the assumption that we can only learn about the universe through our five senses. My study of the paranormal has convinced me that knowledge about the universe can be obtained through senses not accepted by science at this time. And my further study has led me to believe that there are many masters of the eastern spiritual traditions that can describe these 'beyond' things in considerable detail and clarity. And these so-called 'paranormal' things science does not understand are just 'normal' and part and parcel of this expanded reality seen by many masters/seers/teachers of human wisdom traditions.

So basically, I fully support mainstream science, BUT I do not feel it is the only way we can learn about the universe.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I think you are subscribing here to a position that can be called (from Wikipedia):

Scientism
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

I personally do not subscribe to Scientism as it is based on the assumption that we can only learn about the universe through our five senses. My study of the paranormal has convinced me that knowledge about the universe can be obtained through senses not accepted by science at this time. And my further study has led me to believe that there are many masters of the eastern spiritual traditions that can describe these 'beyond' things in considerable detail and clarity. And these so-called 'paranormal' things science does not understand are just 'normal' and part and parcel of this expanded reality seen by many masters/seers/teachers of human wisdom traditions.

So basically, I fully support mainstream science, BUT I do not feel it is the only way we can learn about the universe.

I agree with you that science is not the only path to truth, philosophy has a major role as well, people thinking about existence, it is the cornerstone of this forum after all! I am not really qualified to talk about the Eastern religions, Buddhism is the only one I've looked at, and though I consider it to be more thoughtful, credible and intelligent than the Abrahamic religions, I don't see that it can offer humanity anything that cannot be appreciated and absorbed by a secular culture.
Having said that, science has released humanity from so much fear, so much pain, it is the premium method we have to investigate reality. As I write this I'm sure that scientific endeavour has prevented a mother from dying in child birth, a baby being still born, a man/woman/child dying from some accident/illness. Bring all the philosophers and religionists in the world together and see if they can achieve as much. I'm proud to be called someone who subscribes to scientism!

 

[George-ananda]

I agree with you that science is not the only path to truth, philosophy has a major role as well, people thinking about existence, it is the cornerstone of this forum after all! I am not really qualified to talk about the Eastern religions, Buddhism is the only one I've looked at, and though I consider it to be more thoughtful, credible and intelligent than the Abrahamic religions, I don't see that it can offer humanity anything that cannot be appreciated and absorbed by a secular culture.
Having said that, science has released humanity from so much fear, so much pain, it is the premium method we have to investigate reality. As I write this I'm sure that scientific endeavour has prevented a mother from dying in child birth, a baby being still born, a man/woman/child dying from some accident/illness. Bring all the philosophers and religionists in the world together and see if they can achieve as much. I'm proud to be called someone who subscribes to scientism!

You see science and religion more as a 'versus' situation where I see it more as an 'and' situation. Science's domain is the physical plane. Religion's domain are the spiritual planes. I'll gain from both wherever I can but religion is far more important to me as it teaches me the way to mental peace in this life and beyond.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

but religion is far more important to me as it teaches me the way to mental peace in this life and beyond.

Dammit George, you had me as a fan until you came out with that. All the best for the future anyway.

 

[George-ananda]

Dammit George, you had me as a fan until you came out with that. All the best for the future anyway.

No, I don't see you being a fan of a strong anti-Scientism chap like myself.