thats because humans generally need one for "their" form to exist
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Consciousness and Brains
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
thats because humans generally need one for "their" form to exist
consciousness, or information, is what the brain processes. it's like food. its either assimilated, or eliminated, for viability in this dimensional space/time. we call this earth and so the form takes an earthly form; which is not necessarily another planetary form across the universe.
it is informed; which is the root word for information
inform | Search Online Etymology Dictionary
information | Search Online Etymology Dictionary
it is what the sri yantra represents
the word inform comes from form
form | Origin and meaning of form by Online Etymology Dictionary
Last edited:
I think things exist that are not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. Don't scientists tell us like 95% of the matter in the universe is not directly detectable (so-called 'dark matter'). Science is limited in what it knows at this time.
In my school of thought (Advaita Vedanta) it is held that Consciousness/God/Brahman is fundamental and not physical at all. Science can not get behind the question of what consciousness 'is'. Science recognizes that question as another great mystery (like dark matter).
PureX
Veteran Member
That logic does not follow. Choice may require consciousness, but consciousness does not require choice. Thus, consciousness could exist without choice. As many determinists believe.
Yes, and that is an example of consciousness, as well. Instinctual and "sub-conscious" reactions are still consciousness at work.
And that presents a pretty big problem for anyone defining what is and is not 'consciousness'.
The extremes are always easior to recognize. That's why people become extremists.
Last edited:
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Care to provide an example of any form of consciousness existing without a physical brain?
the research is out there. google it.
bacterial intelligence, plant intelligence, even jellyfish.
enjoy!!!!
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
So distilled, consciousness is simply the ability to be aware of one's surroundings and receive and process input.
I see in one of your posts to another member you reference something you call "pure consciousness". What is that? I have no experience with anything being conscious minus a brain....all indications are that consciousness is simply a manifestation of a brain and ceases when the brain ceases to function.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Nobel prize winning physicists like Erwin Schrodinger and Max Planck have stated that they believe that matter is derivative of consciousness and not the other way around, which is the materialistic position.
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
~ Max Planck
Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else. ~ Erwin Schrodinger
It appears on the outside that consciousness arises from matter, but people also believed that the sun orbited around the earth (instead of the other way around) till Copernicus disproved it.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Not so much interested in their opinions, but what they have proven to be correct. Besides, the fact that Planck made a statement about what he believes in 1931 or 1932 (depending on the source) does not reflect what we know about the brain or consciousness some 87 years later.
To substantiate your assertions, you need to provide some sort of evidence.
The ability to perceive, analyse, and respond to one's environment is not indicative of consciousness. Lots of machines do exactly that. Even plants do it.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Yes, hence the inability to have a clear definition of consciousness everyone agrees on. What is known so far, is that when a living thing dies, it's consciousness seems to cease. If there is a continuance of that consciousness, or some larger conscious, there is no scientific data that confirms that so far.
This subject is interesting. Even if we want to say that consciousness is being aware of one's surroundings, we have to then acknowledge that machines can be in many ways "aware" of their surroundings. So now we have to define what "aware" means......
one could of course say that biological entities are simply incredibly complex machines. Lots of rabbit holes to go down, isn't there?
I think the better question is, is there evidence that consciousness resides in brains, rather than the entire nervous system?
Yes. Damage to any other part of the nervous system may cause loss of function, but it doesn't usually cause loss of consciousness.
Aha! But … would you know if you're suddenly no longer conscious of a thing?
I might not, but the medical staff, visitors and all my friends would.
--They're already suspicious...
ajay0
Well-Known Member
And what exactly do we know about the brain or consciousness that contradicts the above with evidence !
The works of western psychiatrists like Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr.Michael Newton, Dr. Ian Stevenson and others have now shown that there is tangible proof for reincarnation as well, which shows that consciousness of some sort survives the death of the physical body.
You can look for proofs in this thread..
Reincarnation/Past Lives
Actualised to whom? That “I” awareness that cognises objects is not materialised. That is the point of realisation of the method of subject-object discrimination.
Subject, the awareness, is not materialised. It’s objects reflect consciousness.
What we call matter and the ability to define “matter” is based on consciousness/awareness.
What do you mean by consciousness?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It may be the case that our present senses and instruments aren't capable of detecting certain things.
But then again, how could you identify those things, if there is no way for us to detect them?
To use an infamous saying: The undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike...
Keyword: directly
Lots of things aren't directly detectable. Like magnetic fields. We don't "see" magnetic fields. But we can sure as heck observe their effects.
Or black holes. We can't directly observe a black hole. That's in fact, what makes it "black". But we sure can measure its effect on its surroundings.
Dark matter is the exact same. We DO measure *something*, as the stuff we do directly observe isn't enough to account for all phenomena. So there must be something else that's cause the unexplained phenomena. Dark Matter is the current idea on the table which best accounts for those unexplained things.
Note also how physicists will typically be honest with you and tell you that it's a work in progress and that it is anything but "certain" that this model is correct.
I'ld rather say "at all times".
We will always be limited in what we know.
That's fine. The important thing is to be honest about it. There is no shame in "i don't know - let's get to work to try and find out". There is also no shame in failing to find out.
There is MUCH shame in pretending to know anyway.
That's nice. But it's just some religious belief off course.
Not yet, anyway.
Just like it hasn't gotten behind loads of other questions yet either.
Most all questions were in that stage at some point in the past.
Science not knowing about something, is not at all a valid reason to turn to religion for answers. If science doesn't know, there is no reason that religion does know.
Priests aren't better informed on reality then scientists.
If one day we find out what consciousness is, I'm pretty confident the answer will be provided by a scientist, not a religion.
As all questions once were.
So what?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I wouldn't say it presents a "big problem". I'ld rather say that that just makes it dificult.
But it also tells us something about the phenomena.
It means that there are "gradual" variations of "consciousness".
And it seems to me that the bigger brains get, the "more advanced consciousness" seems to manifest.
And those things that I would call "non conscious", seem to have no brains at all.
Seems like a pretty interesting correlation.
So when people want to find out what consciousness is... the brain seems like a very good place to start the search.