What scientific evidence do we have for the existence of human consciousness?

[Gambit]

Question:

What scientific evidence do we have for the existence of human consciousness?

Answer:

No evidence. There isn't any objective and measurable evidence that human consciousness even exists.

Why is this relevant? Because atheists demand scientific evidence for the existence of a universal or divine consciousness (a.k.a. God).

We can't objectively measure consciousness. We can only infer it.

Question:

Is there any scientific evidence to infer the existence of a universal or divine consciousness?

Answer:

Yes, most definitely. Due to quantum indeterminism, entanglement, and the observer effect, we have every reason to infer a universal consciousness. In fact, many of the founders of quantum mechanics did exactly that .

[Eugene Wigner] became interested in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, particularly its ideas of the universe as an all pervading consciousness. In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." (source: Wikipedia: Eugene Wigner)

 

[metis]

e.e.g., but I don't think our universe was ever given one.

 

[George-ananda]

I hold it to be self-evident and don't bother questioning it. I would make a lousy philosopher.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You need to define it better. What do you specifically mean? The dictionary definition means being aware of your surroundings. Being awake. We obviously have tons of evidence of this.

 

[jeager106]

When I sit on a tack it hurts.
Therefore I am.

 

[Yerda]

Why is this relevant? Because atheists demand scientific evidence for the existence of a universal or divine consciousness (a.k.a. God).

I think most atheists would accept the same quality of evidence as can be had for human consciousness. Some even go so far as to accept a kind of universal consciousness.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You need to define it better. What do you specifically mean? The dictionary definition means being aware of your surroundings. Being awake. We obviously have tons of evidence of this.

Yep. We live it.

 

[Unification]

A photo of dark matter.

 

[Unification]

Yep. We live it.

Exactly. Consciousness just IS. Neither does it need any explanation, because that’s not the purpose. We give it purpose because by its very nature it is the framework for purpose to come into being. Experience.

 

[Gambit]

You need to define it better. What do you specifically mean? The dictionary definition means being aware of your surroundings. Being awake. We obviously have tons of evidence of this.

If the meaning of the term "consciousness" is not immediately self-evident to you, then I suggest you find another thread to amuse yourself with.

 

[Gambit]

I think most atheists would accept the same quality of evidence as can be had for human consciousness. Some even go so far as to accept a kind of universal consciousness.

An atheist who believes in the existence of universal consciousness has a God-belief.

 

[Bunyip]

An atheist who believes in the existence of universal consciousness has a God-belief.

Sure, but in that case it would not be a theistic God belief, and hence they would remain atheist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You need to define it better. What do you specifically mean? The dictionary definition means being aware of your surroundings. Being awake. We obviously have tons of evidence of this.

This is what I got:
Universal conscious - definition of Universal conscious by The Free Dictionary
I dont know if its the same definition as the OP. Everyone has their own concept of the language of the cosmos. Im assuming universal consciousness is the same as collective consciousness in the link.

 

[Gambit]

Sure, but in that case it would not be a theistic God belief, and hence they would remain atheist.

A true atheist does not have any kind of God-belief whatsoever.

 

[Bunyip]

A true atheist is does not have any kind of God-belief whatsoever.

What on earth is a 'true atheist'? An atheist is a person who isn't a theist. The universal consciousness concept is not theistic. Atheism relates to theistic God claims only.

Not sure where you got the definition of atheism as 'not having any kind of god belief' either. Julius Caesar was believed to be a God, I believe he existed - that does not make me a theist or relate to my atheism in any meaningful way.
Atheism relates only to the God in question - not to some absurdly broad general notion of all possible conceptions of God, and all things anybody could possibly attach the label 'God' to.

 

[Gambit]

What on earth is a 'true atheist'? An atheist is a person who isn't a theist. The universal consciousness concept is not theistic. Atheism relates to theistic God claims only.

If you believe in the existence of a universal consciousness, then you have a God-belief.

 

[Bunyip]

If you believe in the existence of a universal consciousness, then you have a God-belief.

Yes, we covered that. It is not a theistic belief though. It is irrelevant to atheism. Keep in mind also that atheism only relates to a specific claim, not to all possible conception known and unknown - but to the God being proposed.


It is, as you say - a God belief. Just not the God belief in question.
It is also a God belief that does not relate to my atheism because I do not subscribe to it anyway - it is a moot point in our exchange.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Hello.

Interesting question.

I did not read all the responses.

From a scientific point of view, we have no scientific evidence of "consciousness" as there has yet to emerge a scientific definition of consciousness.

Keep in mind that scientific definitions are very, very specific. For example, Webster's definition of "planet" is "a large, round object in space (such as the Earth) that travels around a star (such as the sun)." By this definition, Pluto is a planet; as would be any roundish asteroid or comet (provided it orbited a star). However, the scientific definition of planet; to meet this definition; a spaceborn object must 1 - Orbit a star; 2 - Have hydrostatic equilibrium (that is, be pulled into a spherical shape by force of its own gravitational pull); and 3 - have cleared its neighborhood. Because asteroids and comets lack the hydrostatic equilibrium (lacking sufficient gravitational force by its own mass to form the spherical shape), the do not fit the scientific definition of "planet". As Pluto's orbital path is shared by asteroids and other spaceborn objects, it has not "cleared its neighborhood" thus does not fit the scientific definition of "planet".

Scientists are currently struggling to define "consciousness"; and until that specific definition arises, there can be no scientific evidence of "consciousness".

ON a sidenote, this is why atheists often challenge theists to "define God". God can not be analyzed or even debated in scientific circles until one clearly defines "god" in terms where such can be objectively analyzed. But that is a discussion for another thread ....

To state that there is "scientific evidence of universal consciousness" is greatly in error as "consciousness" has yet to be defined in scientific terms. The OP is also greatly in error as if consciousness has yet to be specifically defined, one can not say that there is scientific evidence against consciousness of individuals; then in the same breath postulate that there is scientific evidence of "universal/divine consciousness".

 

[godnotgod]

Question:

What scientific evidence do we have for the existence of human consciousness?

Alpha brain wave activity.

Non-scientific evidence:

You see the hedge against the hills;
you see the hills against the sky;
you see the sky against consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

If you believe in the existence of a universal consciousness, then you have a God-belief.

Except that universal consciousness is not a belief; it is an experience. No 'God' required.

Universal Consciousness is manifesting this entire Universe as individual things and as localized conscious beings we call 'I', where 'I' is purely illusory. Because 'I' is focused on the foreground of life, it has lost touch with it's background, which is Universal Consciousness, sort of like a fish born into the sea. He doesn't KNOW he's in the sea, and his focus is on his immediate foreground, in his case, food and predators. You might say he takes the background of the sea for granted, like totally. But the background, though passive, is crucial to his existence, just as the background of Universal Consciousness is crucial to ours, though we give the importance to sculpted, individual ego consciousness. Once the human being undergoes a spiritual awakening, he begins to get back in touch with the background, which is, of course, that which sustains him inside and out, physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually.