• 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

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
can consciousness exist without a brain?
What do you mean, consciousness? What test will tell us if someone/something is conscious?

What do you mean, brain? What test will tell us whether something, say a computer, a Venus fly trap, a jacquard loom, is a brain or not?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Unknown.
What, exactly is consciousness, anyway? Is it an emergent feature of neural hardware, or is it a physical feature of the universe like spacetime or magnetism, channeled or focused through our brains?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
can consciousness exist without a brain?



Seems analogous to what happens with neurons, but many orders of magnitude less and by different processes - which I think is the point being made. Where, how, and why after all did neurons arise to form brains so much more complex and capable than any plant - and including consciousness in the final product. As for neurons, it is extremely unlikely that consciousness exists at this level. But, the whole process of communication in and between plants (which also seems to exist) does echo in some ways what happens within our brains, and is why we should be more attuned to nature. We (all life) have evolved in different ways with so many differences but with so many similarities.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Complex function can exist without awareness or consciousness, though. Some blind people can catch balls tossed to them or walk down halls littered with obstructions and avoid them. The sensory input functions, but does not rise to the level of conscious awareness.
Is a Venus' flytrap aware it's catching flies? Is a frog? a swallow?

We can study neurology and describe what's going on physiologically, but understanding conscious qualia is a whole different thing.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
That does not really answer the question. What is consciousness? If it is the ability to sense and react to one's surroundings, then the computer is conscious. (I am not really believing it is....just trying to get you to state exactly what you think consciousness is). Nobody, including those who are actually qualified in the study of it, can really peg it. It is ill defined.
It could be said that a computer does not mimic the process, it actually duplicates the process, at least on the input-output level. I mean, a computer can be more aware of it's surroundings than a plant, or a bacteria......so where does that leave us?

consciousness is the ability to be aware of self and/or otherness. the brain simply processes information, like a computer. input leads to output; until the consciousness becomes self-aware and ignores some information for better long-term outcomes.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
OK, I'm not sure why you say 'reality' is equated with matter. Like in 'real love' or other uses.
because pure consciousness is actualized. it isn't real unless it is materialized.

because reality to some is not real. the confusion arises from form = matter. matter is not a definite form. matter can be nonuniform. everything moves, everything vibrates, that is a movement, is a physical phenomena.

it is even given in the three forms of brahma, vishnu, shiva. to some vedantans pure consciousness is not physical. this is so far from the truth. either form of saguna brahman is accurate because to create you have to transform the old, or destroy it. to destroy something you are transforming it, or creating something anew. to transform something you are destroying something old to recreate something anew.


when one is taking place; so is the other


shiva destroying = vishnu transforming = brahma creating


like it or not, saguna and nirguna are not two separate things. they both exist as brahman
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Seems analogous to what happens with neurons, but many orders of magnitude less and by different processes - which I think is the point being made. Where, how, and why after all did neurons arise to form brains so much more complex and capable than any plant - and including consciousness in the final product. As for neurons, it is extremely unlikely that consciousness exists at this level. But, the whole process of communication in and between plants (which also seems to exist) does echo in some ways what happens within our brains, and is why we should be more attuned to nature. We (all life) have evolved in different ways with so many differences but with so many similarities.


the plant itself is a transceiver, just like the human is. it processes information simply in a different way. evidently humans do it on a larger scale; unless maybe you're a grove of aspens.


The World's Largest Organism, Pando, Is Dying
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
because pure consciousness is actualized. it isn't real unless it is materialized.
Right there is kind of the opposite of what Advaita Vedanta is saying. Consciousness/God/Brahman is something fundamental and is NOT material. Material things are in the realm of Maya (Illusion).

What Consciousness 'IS' is a mystery to our minds that think in terms of things and objects.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes. There are many life forms that do not have a brain, but that can perceive natural phenomena and react to it.

I think one should be carefull to not confuse what is generally meant by consciousness as opposed to mere, automatic, reactions to external stimuli.

Like you do in the next sentence:
Plants orient their leaves to face the sun as it crosses the sky, for example.

Yes, they do that. But they do that automatically.
It is not the result of a "consious decision" from said plants.


This is more like when people get goosebumbs when it's cold.
This is not something we "consiously" do. It is something that just happens automatically - they are automatic reactions to external stimuli.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Unknown.
What, exactly is consciousness, anyway? Is it an emergent feature of neural hardware, or is it a physical feature of the universe like spacetime or magnetism, channeled or focused through our brains?

All the evidence at our disposal suggests the first: an emergent feature of neural hardware.

No evidence suggests the latter.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I think one should be carefull to not confuse what is generally meant by consciousness as opposed to mere, automatic, reactions to external stimuli.

Like you do in the next sentence:


Yes, they do that. But they do that automatically.
It is not the result of a "consious decision" from said plants.


This is more like when people get goosebumbs when it's cold.
This is not something we "consiously" do. It is something that just happens automatically - they are automatic reactions to external stimuli.
So what you're really talking about, then, is not consciousness, but conscious choice. But that wasn't the original proposition, here. And there is nevertheless debate on the fact that we even have a choice. (I believe that we do.) Also, at what point do we determine that conscious choice is taking place? When my dog turns his nose up at something edible is that a choice? Or is he smelling something that is "automatic" brain is telling him is bad for him to eat? When a cat stops playing with a toy is that a "choice"? or is it some automatic subconscious mechanism?

I think the lines here are far more obscure than our definitions would imply.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So what you're really talking about, then, is not consciousness, but conscious choice.

You can't make conscious choices without consciousness.
Plants can't make conscious choices. Plants are not conscious.

But that wasn't the original proposition, here. And there is nevertheless debate on the fact that we even have a choice. (I believe that we do.) Also, at what point do we determine that conscious choice is taking place?

When it is preceeded by some kind of analysis of the situation to some extent or another, which involves several options on how to move forward being explored, and then chosing one of those options.

When a plant turns towards the sun, it is not first pondering the situation and reflecting on its options.

When my dog turns his nose up at something edible is that a choice? Or is he smelling something that is "automatic" brain is telling him is bad for him to eat? When a cat stops playing with a toy is that a "choice"? or is it some automatic subconscious mechanism?

It might be in some situations and it might not be in others.
We humans also have "automated" / instinctive responses. Like jumping up when hearing a loud unexpected noise.

I think the lines here are far more obscure than our definitions would imply.

I agree the line is obscure. But that is only a problem to really determine from which point on, organisms can no longer be called conscious. To identify that exact "border", if you will.

But I don't think it's hard to identify on the extreme ends.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
You can divide up the experience of consciousness such as the removal of the corpus callosum renders two different experiences in one human.

You can stop new long term memories from happening by removing the hippocampus.

But i sense the being itself is a constant, unitary presence. The experiencing itself is the brain and not the experiencer. I think the brain is a gateway, or transceiver to something more constant imo.

The being of consciousness could reside in some extra dimension of reality. I just do not see consciousness as an energy, or material that is detectable and distinguishable.

And if purpose is anything in the universe then reality is far more intriguing then appears.
 
Top