Is Consciousness Independent of the Brain?

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia

Bacterial Intelligence - Astrobiology Magazine

Macromolecular networks and intelligence in microorganisms

Yes, but from that first link:
It has been suggested that a bacterial colony loosely mimics a biological neural network. The bacteria can take inputs in form of chemical signals, process them and then produce output chemicals to signal other bacteria in the colony.

Does that represent "mind" in the sense the OP intended? Isn't the key word "mimics" in that quote above? I've just guided a moth out of my living room, to the freedom of the outdoors, it was smacking itself off my window. Does a "multi-cellular" life form like that have a "mind", does it have understanding of anything or is it driven by chemistry? Are we actually driven by chemistry? Philosophical overload!
I'd have been more impressed with a talking coffee table tbh!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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. Everything about consciousness and its connection to the physiology of the brain points to the fact that consciousness is an emergent process arising out of the complex interaction of 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion synaptic connections. Nothing points to the idea of consciousness existing apart from the brain, nor arising from anything other than a complex brain.

 

[Fool]

Yes, but from that first link:
It has been suggested that a bacterial colony loosely mimics a biological neural network. The bacteria can take inputs in form of chemical signals, process them and then produce output chemicals to signal other bacteria in the colony.

Does that represent "mind" in the sense the OP intended? Isn't the key word "mimics" in that quote above? I've just guided a moth out of my living room, to the freedom of the outdoors, it was smacking itself off my window. Does a "multi-cellular" life form like that have a "mind", does it have understanding of anything or is it driven by chemistry? Are we actually driven by chemistry? Philosophical overload!
I'd have been more impressed with a talking coffee table tbh!

all states of energy take a material form.

in a lot of the ancient text the spirit is seen as a moving thing with no exacting form, and it literally meant mind too.

allow me to explain in another way.


1 In the beginning Love created the heaven(mind) and the earth(matter).

2 And the body(earth) was without form, and empty(void); and confusion(darkness) was upon the face of the deep. And the mind(Spirit) of Love(God) moved upon the face of the fluidity(waters).

3 And Love(God) said, Let there be understanding(light): and there was insight(light).

 

[joe1776]

Yes. Everything about consciousness and its connection to the physiology of the brain points to the fact that consciousness is an emergent process arising out of the complex interaction of 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion synaptic connections. Nothing points to the idea of consciousness existing apart from the brain, nor arising from anything other than a complex brain.

I haven't seen research that would support your claim, but then I haven't stayed current on the topic. Do you know of any offhand?

 

[BSM1]

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?

Or that the brain, an organic entity, has to develop before it can be aware of consciousness in any form.

 

[joe1776]

Or that the brain, an organic entity, has to develop before it can be aware of consciousness in any form.

Hmm.. that's an interesting thought that hadn't occurred to me.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I haven't seen research that would support your claim, but then I haven't stayed current on the topic. Do you know of any offhand?

Sure - start here: Neuroscience of Consciousness | Oxford Academic

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

all states of energy take a material form.

in a lot of the ancient text the spirit is seen as a moving thing with no exacting form, and it literally meant mind too.

allow me to explain in another way.


1 In the beginning Love created the heaven(mind) and the earth(matter).

2 And the body(earth) was without form, and empty(void); and confusion(darkness) was upon the face of the deep. And the mind(Spirit) of Love(God) moved upon the face of the fluidity(waters).

3 And Love(God) said, Let there be understanding(light): and there was insight(light).

Yeah, putting it in "religious" terms doesn't really help to clarify Fool, I'm not even sure what you mean by "God", tbh love as a human emotion can mean many different things as well depending on the context. Having seen several of your posts now I'm not so sure you can break down what you mean into something more "basic", but thanks for trying dude!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Making Decisions: Evolved or Primitive Brain? | Psych Central

again a brain isn't necessary for intelligence to occur; especially if seeking/studying knowledge is the cause of knowledge. the knowledge already exists; otherwise there is no seeking.

now the problem that arises, is the knowledge self-aware, or aware of higher states of consciousness? or even aware of other states of consciousness like itself?


bacteria and plants do not have brains but they do have intelligence.

Regardless how wide and accomodating you make the term "intelligence" out to be, consciouness in human beings can't be unlinked from the presence of a brain. Remove the brain, invoke death. Beyond that, if any portion of the human "self" actually does exist after death, there is absolutely no way of knowing what form that "thing" takes or whether it is, in any way, representative of "you."

 

[George-ananda]

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?

I believe consciousness incarnates the physical and expresses itself through the physical to the extent the health and sophistication of the brain allows.

Why or why not?

The evidence from the paranormal of consciousness without a functioning physical brain and the teachings of all the spiritual masters I have come to respect.

we are not born conscious

I don't think that is true.

 

[Vaderecta]

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 but "dependent on the brain" should be clarified to a brain significantly evolved enough to experience consciousness. I have done a bit of research on this topic but am by no means an expert but from what I have read - I am inclined to believe consciousness is essentially an illusion. An illusion only possible with a brain capable of creating it. Does this mean deer and dogs are not conscious? I would bet they are but their conscious reality is probably not as detailed as yours but it would be just as real to them. (That detail may be a construct of language)

You probably can't get beyond your "self" in most cases but there have been some experiments into this realm. (Snipping the corpus callosum, accidents which severely damaged a large part of the brain or some of the work of Rick Strassman to name a few)

The nature of consciousness is still a mystery. I don't think anyone has really figured out it's exact nature or exactly why it exists. (I do really like the argument of Julian Jaynes but not sure how anyone would prove it)

One thing seems to be clear... to be conscious you need a brain of some type. That brain could likely take many forms and I don't think it needs to be in skull or even made of bio-matter. That said it seems to be the only place we have currently that exhibits consciousness and wants to talk about and try to explain it so it's probably a good place to start.

 

[Fool]

Regardless how wide and accomodating you make the term "intelligence" out to be, consciouness in human beings can't be unlinked from the presence of a brain. Remove the brain, invoke death. Beyond that, if any portion of the human "self" actually does exist after death, there is absolutely no way of knowing what form that "thing" takes or whether it is, in any way, representative of "you."

you must admit that western science doesn't like to deal directly with those things that they can't control in their research.


research by dr. ian stevens has shown children with corroborated past life memories and talents that they were never taught. the death knell has been rung.

Division of Perceptual Studies – University of Virginia School of Medicine

there is a two volume series of books that wer published based on actual cases he and his staff researched and recorded.

Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?

 

[JJ50]

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?

Consciousness doesn't exist without a functioning brain, when one is dead the consciousness dies too.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

you must admit that western science doesn't like to deal directly with those things that they can't control in their research.


research by dr. ian stevens has shown children with corroborated past life memories and talents that they were never taught. the death knell has been rung.

Division of Perceptual Studies – University of Virginia School of Medicine

there is a two volume series of books that wer published based on actual cases he and his staff researched and recorded.

Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?

There is a fair critique of this man's work here: Ian Stevenson - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
My view is that there are enough question marks about his methodology to question the conclusions he made. A life spent in glorious confirmation bias? Whatever, from the biography above:

He [Stevenson] believed that he had produced a body of evidence for reincarnation that must be taken seriously. But he admitted that "the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever."*

I'll keep my powder dry on the evidence for reincarnation thanks!

 

[Fool]

There is a fair critique of this man's work here: Ian Stevenson - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
My view is that there are enough question marks about his methodology to question the conclusions he made. A life spent in glorious confirmation bias? Whatever, from the biography above:

He [Stevenson] believed that he had produced a body of evidence for reincarnation that must be taken seriously. But he admitted that "the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever."*

I'll keep my powder dry on the evidence for reincarnation thanks!

interesting, the article says he gave up medicine; when in fact he worked in the medical department of western virginia university. no evidence is ever flawless. scientific research isn't absolute. it is repeatable though.

yes keep your powder dry and your unscientific skepdic.com references.

there are many other universities working on consciousness as nonlocal.

Panel: Exploring Non-local Consciousness | Science and Nonduality

 

[Fool]

Consciousness doesn't exist without a functioning brain, when one is dead the consciousness dies too.

there is no research showing that and western science can't make that claim

 

[George-ananda]

There is a fair critique of this man's work here: Ian Stevenson - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

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.

 

[Ponder This]

Wouldn't the fact that we are not born conscious

How do you know we aren't born conscious?
Babies Have Consciousness, Study Finds

consciousness is dependent on the brain, rather than something independent of the brain

The evidence that supports the statement doesn't relate to babies lacking consciousness. Rather the ability to remove or replace most other parts of the body as well as inability to replace the brain suggest consciousness depends on the brain. There are things like NDE that remain unexplained. So it cannot be ruled out that consciousness is independent of the brain.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

You're relying on physiological evidence of the developing brain. Since the conscious entity is not physical in dualism, you wouldn't really expect physiological evidence of consciousness.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

you must admit that western science doesn't like to deal directly with those things that they can't control in their research.


research by dr. ian stevens has shown children with corroborated past life memories and talents that they were never taught. the death knell has been rung.

Division of Perceptual Studies – University of Virginia School of Medicine

there is a two volume series of books that wer published based on actual cases he and his staff researched and recorded.

Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?

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.