Consciousness and Brains

[PureX]

But wouldn't you expect exactly such a world, if it is the result of processes like gradual evolution?

What does evolution have to do with consciousness being exclusive to the brain?

This seems, after all, true of many body parts and traits and stuff.
Where does an arm end and a wing begin?
When you go back in human history generation by generation and see the faces of a lineage flash by... at wich point would you on longer call it a human?

You seem to be making my argument for me. These designations (arm, leg, head, nervous system, brain, ...) are the products of our perception, not of reality. In reality we are a whole unit. A whole conscious unit, and the degree of consciousness varies from unit to unit, and species to species. But it seems to me that just as matter and energy beget life, life begets consciousness. It's built into the whole existential system's design.

Sounds kind of the same to me. Defining clear boundaries for traits that are the result of some 3.8 billion years of gradual modification... At some point you're going to end up with arbitrary criteria, to make it easier.
And those arbitrary criteria might change depending on context.

I agree, and that was my point.

However..... literally all the evidence is compatible with the idea that consciousness is confined to a brain. The evidence is even consistent with the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain.

I'm not aware of any evidence supporting the opposite.

And on what do you base that thinking?

On the fact that plans are "conscious" of their environment even though they have no brain. All life forms are, to some extent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I can sum up our differences. You are a follower of what is called scientism.

If you say so.
I don't even know what that entails.

If it means only believing those things that can be sufficiently demonstrated and not pay much attention to unfalsifiable models, since such are infinite in number, then sure.

Otherwise, I don't even know what you mean, really.

Whereas I feel science is of course a great thing but has a limited domain at this time.

Sure.
Here's the thing though....

There are presently no methods other then science to explore such questions which yield trustworthy results.
This is what I am referring to when I say things like "if science can't tell us, what makes you think priests can?".

I believe there are many through so-called psychic sensing and experiencing that can tell us of things currently beyond the realm of science to either confirm or disprove.

So how do you go about "confirming" and "disproving" those ideas, without science?

And you say all such folks are charlatans or perhaps delusional.

No, I don't think I actually accused anyone of anything. I said that the core of the story of christianity, is consistent with how a con-man would go about it.

As for what I think of the believers and their reasons why they believe... There's no single thing that applies to all. Some are charlatans, some are delusional, some are just honestly mistaken, ... and I think most, if not the vast majority, is primarily a victim of indoctrination from a small age.

I have spent decades studying such folks and their teachings and am personally convinced beyond reasonable doubt that we are dealing with real phenomena beyond the current domain of science.

Sure, but all I'm hearing is "there's these folks that make such and such claim and I believe them"

You can come up with anecdote after anecdote, but all you'ld be doing is telling me what you believe.
What I need to hear is how I can objectively confirm that what you say is true. How can it be objectively tested.

And then we get into the whole "it plays out in some magical realm that is inaccessible to us".

Well great - but how then do you know about it?

And round and round the merry goes.

We each must think and investigate for ourselves.

Well, first of all, that's impossible.
Imagine if in college we wouldn't just learn E = mc² and have it explained to us, but we'ld have to "investigate for ourselves". Chapters that would normally take just a couple hours of teaching would suddenly explode to several years.
This is why a standardized method like science is helpfull.

Secondly, you'ld first have to give us something to investigate... But you've actually made that impossible, by claiming that "it all happens in a realm we can't access". If we can't access it, then how can we confirm it? And if we can't access it, how could you possibly know about it?

See?

So tell me... how am I supposed to "investigate this for myself"?

But watch for ingrained learned prejudices that might keep us in a rut that we become too comfortable in

You mean things like assuming a priori that the supernatural (realm) exists?

I think open-minded skepticism is the closest term to the right approach.

"Open minded" doesn't mean that you'll give sincere consideration to every undemonstrable, unfalsifiable wacky idea that comes along.

"Open minded" merely means that you're prepared to review your position of whatever in response to relevant evidence.

I'm very open-minded. But that doesn't mean I'll change my mind on the paranormal "just because". I'll change my mind, the second I'm shown evidence that requires me to change my mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What does evolution have to do with consciousness being exclusive to the brain?

Evolutionary processes are literally what "molds" traits in species, including the brain and processes emerging from the brain, which in this case would be consciousness.

You seem to be making my argument for me. These designations (arm, leg, head, nervous system, brain, ...) are the products of our perception, not of reality.

The labels / names are, the limbs etc are not. The labels, however accurate/usefull/all-encompassing or not, all refer to physically very real body parts.

In reality we are a whole unit, A whole conscious unit, and the degree of consciousness varies from unit to unit, and species to species..

We are a unit, made up of smaller units.
Even a single cell is basically a colony of micro organisms.

On the fact that plans are "conscious" of their environment even though they have no brain. All life forms are, to some extent.

I think the use of quotes say a lot here.
I suspect that here, you are using the word "conscious" in a very different way as opposed to how we use that word when discussion the kind of consciousness we see in a cat, a human or an oerang oetang.


Can you give an example of how plants are "conscious" of their environment.?

 

[Fool]

Evolutionary processes are literally what "molds" traits in species, including the brain and processes emerging from the brain, which in this case would be consciousness.



The labels / names are, the limbs etc are not. The labels, however accurate/usefull/all-encompassing or not, all refer to physically very real body parts.




We are a unit, made up of smaller units.
Even a single cell is basically a colony of micro organisms.



I think the use of quotes say a lot here.
I suspect that here, you are using the word "conscious" in a very different way as opposed to how we use that word when discussion the kind of consciousness we see in a cat, a human or an oerang oetang.


Can you give an example of how plants are "conscious" of their environment.?

you need to eat more green leafy vegetables.


Plants can see, hear and smell – and respond



New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants

 

[George-ananda]

If you say so.
I don't even know what that entails.

If it means only believing those things that can be sufficiently demonstrated and not pay much attention to unfalsifiable models, since such are infinite in number, then sure.

Otherwise, I don't even know what you mean, really.




Sure.
Here's the thing though....

There are presently no methods other then science to explore such questions which yield trustworthy results.
This is what I am referring to when I say things like "if science can't tell us, what makes you think priests can?".


So how do you go about "confirming" and "disproving" those ideas, without science?



No, I don't think I actually accused anyone of anything. I said that the core of the story of christianity, is consistent with how a con-man would go about it.

As for what I think of the believers and their reasons why they believe... There's no single thing that applies to all. Some are charlatans, some are delusional, some are just honestly mistaken, ... and I think most, if not the vast majority, is primarily a victim of indoctrination from a small age.




Sure, but all I'm hearing is "there's these folks that make such and such claim and I believe them"

You can come up with anecdote after anecdote, but all you'ld be doing is telling me what you believe.
What I need to hear is how I can objectively confirm that what you say is true. How can it be objectively tested.

And then we get into the whole "it plays out in some magical realm that is inaccessible to us".

Well great - but how then do you know about it?

And round and round the merry goes.



Well, first of all, that's impossible.
Imagine if in college we wouldn't just learn E = mc² and have it explained to us, but we'ld have to "investigate for ourselves". Chapters that would normally take just a couple hours of teaching would suddenly explode to several years.
This is why a standardized method like science is helpfull.

Secondly, you'ld first have to give us something to investigate... But you've actually made that impossible, by claiming that "it all happens in a realm we can't access". If we can't access it, then how can we confirm it? And if we can't access it, how could you possibly know about it?

See?

So tell me... how am I supposed to "investigate this for myself"?



You mean things like assuming a priori that the supernatural (realm) exists?




"Open minded" doesn't mean that you'll give sincere consideration to every undemonstrable, unfalsifiable wacky idea that comes along.

"Open minded" merely means that you're prepared to review your position of whatever in response to relevant evidence.

I'm very open-minded. But that doesn't mean I'll change my mind on the paranormal "just because". I'll change my mind, the second I'm shown evidence that requires me to change my mind.

Maybe we are stuck in a loop here because I am trying to keep it general and perhaps you are more in the traditional Christianity versus Atheism debate. I believe the believe the teachings of esoteric traditions of the east and west (Vedic=Hindu/Theosophy/New Age/etcetera) have genuine knowledge learned from the clairvoyant insights of those that can sense things not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments (but detectable by the psychic senses). Information learned through these means is not usable by mainstream science but is employed in the esoteric sciences.

These esoteric sciences present a model of the universe beyond the physical plane that is rather detailed and has explanatory power in regards to things colloquially called paranormal.

You might say that these things can not be demonstrated to you through your physical senses and that is true so you are free to dismiss what they say. I, on the other hand, have seen explanatory power and a worldview among so many psychic/clairvoyant adepts that dovetails nicely into a worldview that involves more than that available to mainstream science.

It seems your approach is to say demonstrate what is held to be beyond the physical senses to my physical senses. You can take that tack, but I believe you are impoverishing your knowledge.

How well have you explored serious paranormal investigation, Vedic and Theosophical claims and teachings?

 

[Muffled]

can consciousness exist without a brain?

I believe spiritual consciousness does.

 

[Muffled]

I am going with a hard 'Yes' based on my spiritual philosophy of Advaita that says that Consciousness is fundamental and eternal. Consciousness can incarnate a physical brain but the physical brain can not create consciousness.

Also. various types of paranormal phenomena supports consciousness and intelligence without a physical mechanism.

I believe my physical brain has a consciousness separate from my spiritual consciousness.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, that is consistent with what I was getting at. 'Unseen' just means it's not in the range of our physical eyes' receptivity.

Consciousness is neither physical nor measurable.

I believe Jesus likened it to the wind. You detect it by its affect.

 

[atanu]

yes, to be is a verb, an action.

Existence-consciousness is not a verb. You think that Word and Grammar precedes Brahman?

 

[Fool]

Existence-consciousness is not a verb. You think that Word and Grammar precedes Brahman?

i know that trying to describe it as exact is the issue. the fact remains that to be anything it has to be active in being. it isn't exact. in fact it is very indefinite. it takes all conditions and thus is unconditional


its called a dumb parrot puzzle


but the fact remains, it is creating, transforming, and destroying all in the same instance