Body precedes Soul

[Straw Dog]

Originally Posted by George-ananda

Greetings Straw Dog,

The point I have made on multiple threads is:

The atheist/materialist start with the assumption that the physical is primary so conciousness must be a by-product of the physical.

Eastern (Indian) thought starts with the assumption that conciousness is primary and the physical is conciousness expressing itself. (it's all a thought-form of God).

So my point was, given the different starting points, the two philosophies are not going to agree on some very basic things.

I see what you were getting at. Perhaps both sides are assuming too much haha. We can only speculate on metaphysics. How could we possibly go about demonstrating or proving one way or the other?

[The Sum of Awe]

Originally Posted by The Doors of Perception

I wish I could. I don't study the interaction in the brain and do not know specific things about this subject. Who we are is based on our brain, just like how we perceive things. For example, a person is depressed because of chemical reactions in the brain, lack of serotonin, things like that.

Ah, the "fluffy stuff" as I like to call it

But those can change easily, and they do. If we are the process of our neurons, the process is almost never a constant, thus "I" am not a constant, thus it cannot be me.

[Quintessence]

Originally Posted by Straw Dog

I see what you were getting at. Perhaps both sides are assuming too much haha. We can only speculate on metaphysics. How could we possibly go about demonstrating or proving one way or the other?

By establishing standards. That's what science does, though in doing so - as I mentioned earlier - it sets limitations on the kinds of conclusions it can draw. Within the limits of the scientific method, "everything" does indeed point to consciousness deriving from the brain. It can only source consciousness to something physical; that's a limit of science. It's materialist to the core (the softer, social sciences notwithstanding; they're a somewhat different beast). Where else can it say consciousness resides? Only some other part of human anatomy, not some metaphysical concept like the soul. And, if you adhere to scientism - that science is the be-all and end-all of truth - science showing consciousness resides in the brain is all the proof you need. It works for some people, apparently.

[Straw Dog]

Originally Posted by Quintessence

By establishing standards. That's what science does, though in doing so - as I mentioned earlier - it sets limitations on the kinds of conclusions it can draw. Within the limits of the scientific method, "everything" does indeed point to consciousness deriving from the brain. It can only source consciousness to something physical; that's a limit of science. It's materialist to the core (the softer, social sciences notwithstanding; they're a somewhat different beast). Where else can it say consciousness resides? Only some other part of human anatomy, not some metaphysical concept like the soul. And, if you adhere to scientism - that science is the be-all and end-all of truth - science showing consciousness resides in the brain is all the proof you need. It works for some people, apparently.

You're right that it's wise to recognize the limitations of any endeavor. I do consider the scientific method to be superior in terms of establishing tentative truths for reality beyond my experience, but it is in no way unquestionably absolute and is secondary to my direct experience. Approaching "truth" claims as tentative and pragmatic helps prevent scientism also.

There is something to say about the uniqueness of the scientific method compared to other human traditions, however. It seeks to get at the truth, whether or not that truth ends up being emotionally satisfying and uplifting for humanity or not. It challenges us to question our established pre-conceptions and learn to adapt to reality regardless of whether it conforms to our cultural symbolism. Other traditions don't challenge us in the same manner and some even teach to suspend reason entirely and practice willful ignorance whenever new evidence conflicts with established beliefs.

Science does seem to strongly indicate that consciousness arises through the biology of the brain. It doesn't matter whether or not I find this to be satisfactory because it's difficult to deny whenever I actually investigate studies and experiments demonstrating it with an open mind while suspending preconceptions. It is possible that there's something ethereal, such as soul, interacting in some manner to strongly give the impression of physicalism while actually being something otherworldly, but I don't know that and cannot just pretend that I know. I can choose to believe it I suppose, but I'm more interested in trying to live life with just what I can know, or think that I may know, without making any excessive leaps in logic or asserting unfounded assumptions. Perhaps I'm just a product of my education, but it is what I genuinely think to the best of my ability and have not yet encountered any conflicting evidence from my direct experience.