• 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?

Bird123

Well-Known 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.


How can you expect physical proof when everything you are dealing with is not physical?? Do you then make conclusions based only upon the physical evidence??

I have an old man as a friend. This old man had a stroke. He tells me he can say the words all day but they just will not come out of his mouth. His brain was injured by the stroke, however he is still in there.

We are Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. Our physical bodies are no more than our transportation in this world. If you are driving in your car at night and your headlights go out, that does not change the fact that you are still in there.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Please provide evidence it doesn't exist.

You do understand there are clusters of nerves called "ganglia" all over the body. People simply have a "one way valve" called the medulla that sends digital signals to the entire body but blocks or interprets those returning. While these signals are blocked they still affect the brain in various ways. Much of the function of these "remote brains" is to effect what we call "muscle memory". But the entire organism acts and reacts in tandem and there are probably a very large number of ways to experience this. There are none I'm willing to post for the nonce.



If you are mad. Otherwise reality exists and is exactly the same for everyone on the planet. We merely have different perspectives and different beliefs.



Really!?!



You call it poetry but humans are an aggregate of many things and we all have at least some personality and some poetry in us. If there is a soul I'd wager it sticks around until nobody remembers.

Your beliefs and my wagers are irrelevant. The simple fact is that we can no more address the issue of whether a soul is dependent on a brain without knowing the nature of consciousness than a rabbit can deduce the speed of light by gazing at the moon. Such questions are necessarily in the realm of speculation and belief. I try to tie my speculation to knowledge and logic. I simply don't know.
We live as an unseen body. Natural first. Origin first. Whole self of human spirit body first

We are whole a human.

We don't exist by scientific descriptions.

Science a destroyer liar gained medical science from dead bodies

Once a healer appraisal psychic body while self was reviewed. For medical conditions. Natural. Spiritual first.

Spiritual

That spiritual human also invented science.

The sacrificed human was disobeying natural laws held by God as defined by spiritual human father. Never change.

Why healthy lying evil minded male sciences exist today. Healthy not harmed and enabled doing evil claiming where is the karma?

So karma says it was instant by attack sacrifice for everyone.

Why our science brother was given the title satanist.

Being innocent is real. We the innocent never thought it. Never wanted it. Was attacked by it. Intel. Intelligence of destruction.

Science never created creation. The teaching. Science only knows change. Expressed its wisdom as changes.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Please provide evidence it doesn't exist.

That's a blatant shift of the burden of proof.
You're claiming that the mind is an entity independent of the material brain.
I don't accept your claim unless you can provide evidence for it.

You do understand there are clusters of nerves called "ganglia" all over the body. People simply have a "one way valve" called the medulla that sends digital signals to the entire body but blocks or interprets those returning. While these signals are blocked they still affect the brain in various ways. Much of the function of these "remote brains" is to effect what we call "muscle memory". But the entire organism acts and reacts in tandem and there are probably a very large number of ways to experience this. There are none I'm willing to post for the nonce.

So? How does this in any way support your claim that the mind is an entity independent of the brain / material underpinnings?

If you are mad. Otherwise reality exists and is exactly the same for everyone on the planet

Yes, reality is the same for everyone.
The perception thereof is not.

We merely have different perspectives and different beliefs.
Which is the perception. :rolleyes:


You call it poetry

Because it is. Someone who just stepped on a landmine and has his body torn to pieces, is clearly dead yet not yet forgotten. That person is really really dead. Only in the poetic sense does this person still "live on" in the memories of those that knew that person.

Julius Ceasar is well remembered. But clearly dead. In no real sense is he still alive.

If there is a soul I'd wager it sticks around until nobody remembers.

I'll take that bet.
How do you suggest we find out who wins? :)

Your beliefs and my wagers are irrelevant

Right on.


The simple fact is that we can no more address the issue of whether a soul is dependent on a brain without knowing the nature of consciousness than a rabbit can deduce the speed of light by gazing at the moon.

Only if you ignore literally all evidence from neuroscience.
All evidence is consistent with the mind being a product of material underpinnings.
No evidence suggests anything else.

The case you are trying to build could be made, word for word, for the claim of undetectable graviton pixies being in charge of regulating the force of gravity. It's totally useless and meaningless.

The only reason you "can" make this case, is because it concerns unverfiable and unfalsifiable claims. But such claims are, off course, infinite in number and thus useless.


Such questions are necessarily in the realm of speculation and belief.

They are necessarily indistinguishable from sheer fantasy also.

I try to tie my speculation to knowledge and logic. I simply don't know.

I try to avoid speculation and baseless beliefs and instead just go where the evidence leads me.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
That's a blatant shift of the burden of proof.
You're claiming that the mind is an entity independent of the material brain.
I don't accept your claim unless you can provide evidence for it.

You can't even define "mind" or "consciousness" and are claiming it can come only from the brain.

I never claimed it was "independent" of the brain.

As is so common you are not reading my posts carefully.

Yes, reality is the same for everyone.
The perception thereof is not.

It's nice we agree on something!!!

So? How does this in any way support your claim that the mind is an entity independent of the brain / material underpinnings?

You claim the brain is all of the basis for something you haven't defined and then claimed the "remote brains" have no role. This is highly illogical.

Only in the poetic sense does this person still "live on" in the memories of those that knew that person.

Reality and life have many aspects of poetry.

All evidence is consistent with the mind being a product of material underpinnings.

This is likely true but there is no evidence to support it.

The case you are trying to build could be made, word for word, for the claim of undetectable graviton pixies being in charge of regulating the force of gravity. It's totally useless and meaningless.

This is a false analogy. Not understanding gravity and not understanding consciousness are very very different. Mass "causes" gravity and brain "causes" consciousness but then you need to explain consciousness in species that have no "brain". We know that tiny masses may have no gravity at all but we certainly don't know that tiny brains create and less consciousness.

The only reason you "can" make this case, is because it concerns unverfiable and unfalsifiable claims. But such claims are, off course, infinite in number and thus useless.

Reductionism causes a very lopsided view of reality. It creates a tiny little perspective and is like looking through a kaleidoscope. All the important things in life and of life can't be reduced to equations so living your life in scientific precepts is limiting. Yes, everybody has to believe something so this problem may not be redressable.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Ah, the 7.854 billion egos! Each bigger than the other. But then, none bigger than those of prophets / sons / messengers / manifestation / mahdis of Abrahamic religions.
Yeah, like so many other species, extinction pending. Did dinosaurs ever lived?
If not earlier because of environment, then surely by expansion of the sun in a billion years.
Where is the mystery? That is what has always happened.
you left out....the Almighty

there is no mystery to life
you are here to earn all that you can.....before you die

that happens to be the reason....Man is favored
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
you left out....the Almighty
there is no mystery to life
you are here to earn all that you can.....before you die
Man is favored
Which 'Almighty' are you referring to - Almighty - Wikipedia
Who says that life a mystery? I don't. You are too involved in earning, there are things other than that too. All wealth and desires are there only till we live. After death, it is oblivion.
I do not see humans getting any special favor from nature. We also are born, struggle in life and then die.
A Hindi proverb says that if we earn that much that we can take care of the family and feed a guest, that should be enough.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You can't even define "mind" or "consciousness" and are claiming it can come only from the brain.

I'm saying that it coming from the brain, is the only thing the evidence supports.

You claim the brain is all of the basis for something you haven't defined and then claimed the "remote brains" have no role. This is highly illogical.

I claimed no such thing.
I said there is no basis for claiming that minds can exist independent of material brains / underpinnings.
All the evidence suggests that minds are the products of material brains.


This is likely true but there is no evidence to support it.

This makes no sense as a reply to a statement that says that all evidence supports minds being the product of material underpinnings.

It means that it is the ONLY thing that the evidence supports. :rolleyes:

This is a false analogy. Not understanding gravity and not understanding consciousness are very very different.

The analogy doesn't concern the understanding (or non-understanding) of a phenomenon. It rather concerns unfalsifiable claims concerning those phenomenon.


Mass "causes" gravity and brain "causes" consciousness but then you need to explain consciousness in species that have no "brain".

What species are you talking about?


We know that tiny masses may have no gravity at all

Everything with mass exerts gravity. But again, that's not the point of the analogy. The analogy concerns unfalsifiable claims.

Reductionism causes a very lopsided view of reality. It creates a tiny little perspective and is like looking through a kaleidoscope. All the important things in life and of life can't be reduced to equations so living your life in scientific precepts is limiting.

There is nothing wrong with addressing scientific questions from a scientific context.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
There is nothing wrong with addressing scientific questions from a scientific context.

Yes and no.

First and foremost it's impossible to clearly differentiate between "scientific questions" and more "practical matters". Obviously events and processes that can be well quantified AND we have equations to solve are scientific questions. But even in solving the amount of fuel necessary for a specific rocket launch is more complex than merely equations and numbers since without an overall and overreaching perspective there's no certainty the rocket should be launched at all. There's no certainty that the fuel should go into a different rocket or applied to something more important like trying to define "consciousness" or why we should nuke anyone.

Reductionism is fine and specialists are usually required to reduce reality to what can be studied in the lab and to invent new technology. But in our mad rush to understand everything we have forgotten most of the fundamental questions of existence and we never really understood that the most important questions might never be reducible. We never knew there existed or sought other kinds of science or even noticed that we engage in another science every night before we dream.

We've learned virtually nothing about ourselves that doesn't apply to every member of the species in all these centuries of reductionism and there's no indication this is going to change in the foreseeable future for anything other than the prescription of medication suitable for specific individuals. We have no definition for "consciousness" so anything we say about from a "scientific perspective" it is mere speculation and Look and See Science.

I believe that the questions can be answered not by reductionism but rather by studying reality in new terms by individuals trained in a new perspective. This is hardly to say we should abandon modern science but rather we should use another science working in tandem with it that they might check one another and even become wholly synchronous. One of the first things I believe we'll learn is that much of what we take as a given is false or is true from a very limited perspective. One of the first we'll need is a working definition for "consciousness".
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
What kind of evidence? Subjective or objective? If the latter, can you please tell me what apparatus has been created to measure consciousness?
It looks to me like you are essentially 'hiding' behind ambiguity. You are not arguing for your 'side', you are wanting the other 'side' to show that they cannot provide evidence against your mere beliefs.

Rather creationisty.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Researchers told say three patients in the hospital that the religious (four different religious practitioners-layman, priests, etc) will pray for them. The other three patients, they said they weren't being prayed for. As the religious prayed, the people who said they were prayed for symptom's improved while the other side they stayed the same. So, the prayer (connection and dialogue with one's higher consciousness, I guess) only worked when the people knew they were prayed for.
Sounds more like the placebo effect than some mystical experience.
Ted talks used to be pretty cool...
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Consciousness does transcend the brain. It is the entire body.
I would ask for evidence for this assertion, but experience shows that 1. You almost never provide external evidence. 2. You claim to have done so but can only reference your previous unsupported assertions. 3. On the rare occasions that you do, you invariably have misinterpreted or misrepresented the material or just saw the title and hoped it supported your position.
That is, experience shows that it is a waste of time.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Consciousness does transcend the brain. It is the entire body.

Although consciousness incorporates the rest of the body's input, the brain is still the center for consciousness. It is true however the rest of the body and brain are so integrated that they rest of the body plays a role in consciousness but still the brain is the central focus for it.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
I often have prescient dreams, events happen during the waking state that were dreamt about, particularly dreams I have upon wakening. Many people will attest to this experience, so my question is, does this imply our body minds are connected somehow to a larger collective consciousness? I don't expect people who have not experienced prescient dreams to believe it happens, so they are not in a position to explain how this happens, my question therefore is more appropriate for those who have.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
It looks to me like you are essentially 'hiding' behind ambiguity. You are not arguing for your 'side', you are wanting the other 'side' to show that they cannot provide evidence against your mere beliefs.

Rather creationisty.

Interesting perspective. Good to know I'm "creationisty."

Do you have anything productive to contribute to the discussion, or would you like to just follow me around the forum and critique my debating skills?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, there have been news that Elvis have been dead for decades, but I am sure I have seen him performed a couple of months ago...

Surely Elvis is alive...isn’t he? :confused:
He must be. How else is he singing at this very instant on the radio?

//sings along

...You ain't nothing but a hound dog,...
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I would ask for evidence for this assertion, but experience shows that 1. You almost never provide external evidence. 2. You claim to have done so but can only reference your previous unsupported assertions. 3. On the rare occasions that you do, you invariably have misinterpreted or misrepresented the material or just saw the title and hoped it supported your position.
That is, experience shows that it is a waste of time.

I stick to what I "know". Google is useless to gain real knowledge though is invaluable to research. So when I say the sky is blue you either need to refute it or take it as a possibility. You can go ahead and research it yourself.

You think science can take the high ground on something it has never studied or defined!!! You are mistaken.

Most of the best evidence that mind/ body is real is experiential. I don't mind citing all sorts of evidence and anecdotal evidence is one of my favorites but for the main part I avoid citing experiential evidence and that goes several times over in this specific instance. I don't remember much discussion about the evidence I did present. People have their own explanations for even the most complex events even where a bird displays huge intelligence because this is what our species does best; circular reasoning. It's like a savage that invents a fly swatter and wants to use it for everything. "No evidence" is not a tool or a refutation to logical arguments when you lack even basic definitions for terms. The argument stands or falls on its own because science doesn't even apply.
 
Top