• 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!

How Could Consciousness Transcend the Brain?

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
That verse and saying from Peter’s epistle is often misused, misinterpreted, and misunderstood.

Using the word “like” is indication that it is simile, therefore it should be taken as literal. Treating as literal would be taking the verse out-of-context.

A simile is for example is a figure of speech, where you are comparing 2 different things with vague similarity in action, but are not literally the same, is often used in poetry or story.

When I say that Usain Bolt runs swift “like a cheetah” or swift “like the wind”, it doesn’t matter that Bolt is a “cheetah” or “wind”.

It shouldn’t be read as literal as if a thousand years is equaled to a day, because of the use of simile.
I think you underestimate the intelligence of students of scripture, first of all the passage is symbolic, and yes, the word "like" in this context means similar. Concerning the meaning of the symbolism, it is meant to convey to the student that human perception of the passage of time is relative and appropriate for their temporary existence, a human life span and/or human perception of seemingly long periods of time otoh are but a moment in the vastness of eternal existence.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The most important idea in pretty much every religion is that consciousness transcends the physical brain, and as a result, can somehow persist beyond the death of the physical body. But, neuroscience has now essentially eliminated this idea.

We don't yet know how the brain produces subjective, conscious experiences, but we can say with near certainty that subjective, conscious experiences are dependent upon the brain to occur. How could you say that consciousness transcends the brain when damaging certain parts of the brain (through traumatic injury or stroke, for example) damages and alters consciousness? Other examples: if one's brain is traumatically injured, it is possible to lose consciousness. If blood rushes away from the brain too quickly, a person's consciousness is either partially or completely eliminated until the blood returns to the brain (this is the cause of fainting). If a person is given a chemical anesthetic that interacts with the brain chemistry, consciousness can be temporarily eliminated. Or, if a person is given certain drugs, the state of consciousness can be reduced or altered (alcohol is an obvious example--think about how much conscious perceptions change when drunk).

All of this is OVERWHELMING evidence that having a working, living brain is necessary in order to be conscious, and, essentially, refutes the claims of all religions (although some creative objections based on unfounded magical concepts could probably still be made). The only attempted refutation of this that I have seen anyone give is that the brain is analogous to a radio that receives the radio waves of consciousness. But, my question would then be, even if that is true, how can one receive these signals WITHOUT a brain? Hypothesizing some non-physical consciousness receiver does not really solve the problem when there is no evidence that such a thing exists, particularly because it never comes into play when a person loses consciousness in the scenarios alluded to above.

So, the bottom line is, I don't see how consciousness could transcend the brain. I WISH it could and HOPE I am wrong. But I don't see how I could be.
Consciousness might not be centralized. I think its multifaceted.

Remember we are essentially a conglomerate of countless living cells and organisms that have an amazing way of communicating. I suspect our singular perception of consciousness is just the sum of a whole.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
So, the bottom line is, I don't see how consciousness could transcend the brain. I WISH it could and HOPE I am wrong. But I don't see how I could be.
and if you fail to stand from your dust.....after your last breath....
eternal darkness is your fate

no form of light follows anyone into the grave
no sunlight
no moonlight
no candle light
no philosophical light

really is dark down there
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
An MRI measures changes in water flow/volume in tissue. And fMRI measures changes in blood flow in tissue. Neither measures consciousness.

So there is no apparatus that measures consciousness in the brain. How can we know that there is any consciousness outside the brain?

iMotions

MRI (among others) can perfectly be used to measure brain activity.

Someone who technically still lives but has no brain activity is called "brain dead".

When's the last time you saw a braindead person being awake and talking?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Consciousness does transcend the brain. It is the entire body.

This seems to be a fantasy. If not, please provide evidence for this claim.

The mind can believe anything including the perception that it is out of the body.

Perception and reality are two different things.

Whether or not a "soul" exists is something you'll need to ask a dead person

There are no answers forthcoming. I guess this means no souls exist then.

but one thing for sure; you're not really dead until you are forgotten.

In the poetic abstract sense only.
Which is not the topic.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I find it hard to talk about consciousness as it seems to be a word without a definition but no matter how you define consciousness there is a definition on transcendence that says "independent of".
I.e. if we can transfer to or create consciousness (however you define it) in a computer, we have consciousness transcendent from a brain.

But not transcendent from material underpinnings.


I like to compare it with software. If we consider sci-fi for a moment and think about, for example, the Asgard in Stargate SG1. In case you're not familiar with it, these are very advanced aliens that at some point in history discovered the key to immortality of their "mind". They discovered how they could make a copy of the neural network in their brain and "transfer" it into another body. They also had cloning tech.

So, when they were fatally wounded, terminally ill or their body simply got to old, they created a new clone and transferred their "mind" into this new body. There's also one episode where one of the Asgardian's minds is transferred into the system core of a space ship. I'm using the word "transfer" here, but really, it's more like "making a copy".

In this sense, the neural network is like "software", like MS Word. Word exists "on its own". It's lines of code. But it can't be active / manifest, unless it has hardware to "run on".


So, while you can certainly (in theory) make a copy of the neural network of my brain (which would be my "mind" and "memories" and "likes and dislikes" and...), it will only exist as a data file unless it is copied to hardware that is capable of running that neural network as if it were software.

So the pattern of my mind might be able to exist without my brain.
But the "mind" that is created by this pattern can only exist when it is underpinned by hardware capable of "running that software".

There is no MS Word unless you have a computer that can run the software. The code can exist on a CD, but the program can only run on hardware.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The most important idea in pretty much every religion is that consciousness transcends the physical brain, and as a result, can somehow persist beyond the death of the physical body. But, neuroscience has now essentially eliminated this idea.

We don't yet know how the brain produces subjective, conscious experiences, but we can say with near certainty that subjective, conscious experiences are dependent upon the brain to occur. How could you say that consciousness transcends the brain when damaging certain parts of the brain (through traumatic injury or stroke, for example) damages and alters consciousness? Other examples: if one's brain is traumatically injured, it is possible to lose consciousness. If blood rushes away from the brain too quickly, a person's consciousness is either partially or completely eliminated until the blood returns to the brain (this is the cause of fainting). If a person is given a chemical anesthetic that interacts with the brain chemistry, consciousness can be temporarily eliminated. Or, if a person is given certain drugs, the state of consciousness can be reduced or altered (alcohol is an obvious example--think about how much conscious perceptions change when drunk).

All of this is OVERWHELMING evidence that having a working, living brain is necessary in order to be conscious, and, essentially, refutes the claims of all religions (although some creative objections based on unfounded magical concepts could probably still be made). The only attempted refutation of this that I have seen anyone give is that the brain is analogous to a radio that receives the radio waves of consciousness. But, my question would then be, even if that is true, how can one receive these signals WITHOUT a brain? Hypothesizing some non-physical consciousness receiver does not really solve the problem when there is no evidence that such a thing exists, particularly because it never comes into play when a person loses consciousness in the scenarios alluded to above.

So, the bottom line is, I don't see how consciousness could transcend the brain. I WISH it could and HOPE I am wrong. But I don't see how I could be.
One cannot think logically if the brain gets damaged. Does not mean that logic does not exist without brains ( or computers) performing logical operations. But I would agree that consciousness would need something to get causally instantiated in any physical realm.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
There is not a single scientist on the planet who could ever explain how physical matter could give rise to something completely unphysical like the conscious experience you are having while you read this.
Every scientist on the planet knows that "you reading this", comes down to material neurons firing in your material brain.

Consiousness is a material phenomenon. It's brain activity.
Not being able to explain how exactly it works is one thing. But that doesn't mean that we can't know that however it works, it works through material underpinnings.


You are a luminous ball of conscious energy, that is what you are

And your evidence for this claim is...?


Your physical body and especially your brain is a receiver of consciousness.

And your evidence for this claim is...?


Your consciousness can't be damaged

Go and explain that to people suffering from brain damage.


, but it is true that while you are inhabiting a vessel you are not accessing your full consciousness. Some are actually accessing far less than others.....

And your evidence for this claim is...?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well if a computer does become self aware, then one could say that consciousness has transcended the brain. Hope that this happens soon

Over here in software engineering land, we regularly refer to a computer's CPU and memory as "the brain".

The point is that consciousness has material underpinnings.
Whether it is in the form of a biological brain or in the form of silicon chips.

There are exactly 0 examples of consciousnesses that exist absent material underpinnings.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
But, neuroscience has now essentially eliminated this idea
No, it hasn't. We can't even really define consciousness, let alone study it using physical means. We also don't know how the brain really works. Honestly, the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain never made sense to me. The brain is just an organ. It would also mean we're just a bunch of meat robots and doesn't explain how we're aware of anything or where our sense of "I" separate from others comes from.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Typical.

This is a typical response from "believers" when cornered. The sudden need to half-redefine what "evidence" is, just to be able to say that there is "evidence" for their beliefs.

Typical. Condescending handwaving by a non-believer who thinks he's playing a game of worldview chess.

Subjective evidence is not opinion. It's merely experiential evidence that cannot be verified by others.

"Subjective evidence"? I call that "opinions".

Your opinion is noted.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
iMotions

MRI (among others) can perfectly be used to measure brain activity.

Your article says little more about the function of an MRI than what I said already.

And perfectly? With what objective measure are you measuring the level of perfection of MRI measurement of brain activity?

Someone who technically still lives but has no brain activity is called "brain dead".

When's the last time you saw a braindead person being awake and talking?

I haven't met any braindead people. I'll make sure you're the first to know if I do see one. :D
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Consciousness might not be centralized. I think its multifaceted.
yes, if it was at one place, then the whole machine could collapse with failure of one part. So it the motor part malfunctions, the thinking part is still active - Stephen Hawking, Helen Keller, etc. Evolution has given us a very nice machine. Normally, we do not take proper care of it.
.. after your last breath .. eternal darkness is your fate, no form of light follows anyone into the grave, .. etc. etc.
No. Even darkness is not there because you are not there to experience it. With your death, you disintegrate into what constituted you, atoms and molecules. It makes no difference if you are a theist or an atheist, a Christian or a Hindu.
And your evidence for this claim is...?
Don't ask for evidence so many times (in one post). You are being cruel, knowing very well what evidence they have.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
All of it? Every last bit? Are you sure?

Have you read anything by neuroscientist Dr. Andrew Newberg?

"His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes. "


The very link you posted, confirms what I said.
He tries to understand religious experiences by looking at what brains are doing during said experiences.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Your article says little more about the function of an MRI than what I said already.

And perfectly? With what objective measure are you measuring the level of perfection of MRI measurement of brain activity?



I haven't met any braindead people. I'll make sure you're the first to know if I do see one. :D

I can't take this seriously.

Neuroscience research is all about putting brains under such scanners and observing the brain activity during whatever it is they are studying. Like the link you yourself posted of the guy who does research in trying to understand how brains produce religious experiences.

Again, this is how we can tell if a person is braindead.

In fact, this very research is already so far along that the latest tech is already taking its first steps in building mind reading devices with pretty impressive results.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Evidence that can't be verified by others.... is not evidence.
The whole point of evidence is being able to share it.
Otherwise, it is indeed just an opinion.

I slept in my bed last night. No one saw me sleep there, so no one but me can verify that this happened, and I can only verify it to myself.

Is it my opinion that I slept in my bed last night?
 
Top