Consciousness and the Brain

[Rational Agnostic]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery, and I'm not claiming that consciousness is simply brain chemistry. However, I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and that the brain somehow causes consciousness. This is because if the brain gets damaged, consciousness gets damaged. This can be seen in head injuries in which a person loses consciousness, as well as the fact that consciousness can be permanently damaged as a result of brain damage caused by a stroke. We also know that chemicals ingested interact with the brain in such a way as to alter or impair consciousness (alcohol is an obvious example, but nearly everything we ingest has some impact on the brain, and thus on consciousness). So, how do you square belief in an afterlife with these facts? We know that altering the chemistry of the brain alters consciousness, and damaging the brain damages consciousness. Yet all religious people believe that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness. Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction. But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief.

 

[cladking]

They generally believe the soul survives death, not "consciousness".

You need to define consciousness.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery, and I'm not claiming that consciousness is simply brain chemistry. However, I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and that the brain somehow causes consciousness. This is because if the brain gets damaged, consciousness gets damaged. This can be seen in head injuries in which a person loses consciousness, as well as the fact that consciousness can be permanently damaged as a result of brain damage caused by a stroke. We also know that chemicals ingested interact with the brain in such a way as to alter or impair consciousness (alcohol is an obvious example, but nearly everything we ingest has some impact on the brain, and thus on consciousness). So, how do you square belief in an afterlife with these facts? We know that altering the chemistry of the brain alters consciousness, and damaging the brain damages consciousness. Yet all religious people believe that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness. Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction. But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief.

It isn't. I compare it to having anesthesia. How does conscious experienced or survive after death but not when the brain is "put to sleep"?

What about the death of the body connect to the pronounced experience of consciousness?

Why do mystic experiences need to be "after one passes on" or so have you.

Isn't there value in the temporal consciousness, mind, and body.

I don't know

 

[Howard Is]

They generally believe the soul survives death, not "consciousness".

You need to define consciousness.

Has anyone defined soul ? It seems to be a very vague concept.

 

[icehorse]

It's an interesting question, and I mostly (99.9999%), don't believe there is consciousness after death.

But...

We could view the brain, that 3 pounds of meat, as the computer hardware on which consciousness, the software, runs. If that's the case, then conceivably, even though the brain can be damaged or destroyed, the consciousness could be maintained, intact in a separate place. I don't really think that's how it works, but even the outside chance is worth a little comfort.

 

[sun rise]

Why do mystic experiences need to be "after one passes on" or so have you.

They don't. There are innumerable reports of such experiences while the person is alive.

 

[Ayjaydee]

They generally believe the soul survives death, not "consciousness".

You need to define consciousness.

Many Buddhists dont believe in a soul but do believe in consciousness which links to the following sentient being

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We could view the brain, that 3 pounds of meat, as the computer hardware on which consciousness, the software, runs.

We could, and many do, but it is fundamentally mistaken and misleading. After ~50 years of cognitive science going down wrong roads due to the computer-mind analogies, I think we have gotten all the mileage we can out of what similarities between brain and computer exist and should be focusing on the much more important thing: how completely different they are. For one, software runs on computers because computers' modular architecture and design allows for a variety of perfect, reliable memory storage independent of processing. In the brain, nothing is stored. Memories of all types are represented structurally in some cases at least in part, but these neural pathways are actually more functional than structural and most memory is represented completely functionally as well as actively. There is no separating hardware and software anymore than storage and processing. Recalling memories changes how they are represented in the brain. Learning is intricately tied to memory. Ingrained representations and hardware contribute to and are part of abstract reasoning processes we might compare to software at out peril.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It isn't. I compare it to having anesthesia. How does conscious experienced or survive after death but not when the brain is "put to sleep"?

You might compare it to near-death experiences instead, for which we have more evidence when it comes to conscious experiences (after all, people who brain dead still have functioning brains, and people who are put under sometimes report conscious experiences). Here there is scant evidence as to the extent of brain functioning in those have been declared dead and it is not usually possible to adequately obtain information close to the time of an NDE in order to try to control for the possibility that recalled experiences were not mostly constructed after the NDE. However, a great many researchers who study NDEs do believe that we have enough evidence to compare these individuals with those who have lost brain functioning and yet also believe we can safely ascribe at least some of the memories of conscious experiences to actual conscious experiences during the time the individuals were declared or could be considered dead. One neuroscientist summed up a large amount of literature in a short bit worth quoting:
"The near-death experience is a glaring example of something that seems to be spiritual yet very real. The mind-body enigma reaches a zenith in the reports of outof- body experiences in people who have recovered from being clinically dead. Though electrical brain waves were not always recorded during near-death experiences, it is a good bet that when clinical signs indicate this transient death, the brain waves cease. Science has no way to explain how there can be brain function when there is no electrical activity in the brain. But there are just too many reports of such experiences for science to ignore. Books have been written about people who have been resuscitated from cardiac arrest and who report bizarre visions of tunnels or bright lights, or feel themselves hovering over their body, or feel sensations of overwhelming love. Sam Parnia, a physician at New York Presbyterian Medical Center claims that about 10% of patients who recover from cardiac arrest report some kind of cognitive process while they are clinically dead. That is just too many people to ignore.
Though science cannot dismiss such reports, it cannot do much about investigating them either. Science has no theory and no tools to examine such phenomena." (p. 8)
Klemm, W. R. (2011). Atoms of Mind. The 'Ghost in the Machine' Materializes. Springer.

 

[Deeje]

Yet all religious people believe that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness.

Not all. Jehovah's Witnesses have no belief in any conscious part of humans surviving death. Nowhere is that idea taught in scripture. It was adopted from Greek Platonism. The Jews believed in the resurrection, which is what Jesus taught. He demonstrated it as well with his friend Lazarus. When he was referring to Lazarus' death, he said he was "sleeping" and that he was going to awaken him. (John 11:11-14; John 5:28-29)
That is a resurrection...a returning of a 'soul' (person) to life. Lazarus had no recollection of where he had been because he hadn't gone anywhere.

A "soul" is a living, breathing creature...the original Hebrew word never mean a disembodied spirit.

Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction. But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief.

In life, consciousness is always dependent on the activity of the brain. A person in a coma has no awareness of the passing of time because they are not conscious. Someone under anesthetic has no consciousness of time, and even when we sleep, unless we look at the clock, we have no idea how long we have slept.

Death is like sleeping....there is nothing to fear.

If one is going to invent immortal souls then the same imagination has to invent places for them to go....
That can get very creative.

 

[Howard Is]

A "soul" is a living, breathing creature...

I have never heard soul described that way before.
It begs various questions, like where does the soul reside and what do you mean by ‘breathing’ ?

Also, what is the source of your ideas about the soul ?

 

[Native]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery, and I'm not claiming that consciousness is simply brain chemistry. However, I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and that the brain somehow causes consciousness. This is because if the brain gets damaged, consciousness gets damaged.

First: I think the "afterlife" concept should be conceptually reduced to mean "the spiritual dimension of life as such". "Afterlife" is just the other complementary side of the coin and the connection between physical and spiritual matters.

"Consciousness" is IMO generally the individual ability to percieve, understand and interact personally, socially and spiritually. Lots of "things" can of course make a person loose consciousness periodically or permanently.

All of our physical and spiritual senses works via bio-electric impulses which creates feelings and images in our brain and, as electromagnetic impulses have no boundaries and can be found all over in the Universe, "consciousness" really have no boundaries too, which is the explanation of "shamans" or other sensitive persons of gathering informations of cosmos.

When a person "looses consciousness", he/she really looses the physical/bio-electrical senses, but remain the electrical spiritual sense as it have been observed in near dead situations, for instants with accidents or operations. The same also happens in sleep where a dreamer is physically paralyzed but the consciousness still works.

Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction. But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief.

This is not absurd at all. A seemingly absurdity occurs only because someone, mostly "we western humans", only counts on the physical matters and "rational beliefs".

"Everything we know" doesn´t count for "everything we don´t know" because the western and materialistic education mostly have forgotten the spiritual dimension of the consciousness.

It´s also logical when a person leaves the somewhat restricted consciousness of the human body and enter the unlimited realms of cosmic consciousness outside their bodies, they experiences a huge and clear vividness of everything.

This have happend to lots of sensitive humans all over the world and throughout all human times. And this is really the cause and method for all humans to create their cultural Stories of Creation which basically is very similar indeed.

In these matter, we have lots of reasons to loose our materialistic and realistic paradigms and change to someone new.

 

[Ayjaydee]

First: I think the "afterlife" concept should be conceptually reduced to mean "the spiritual dimension of life as such". "Afterlife" is just the other complementary side of the coin and the connection between physical and spiritual matters.

"Consciousness" is IMO generally the individual ability to percieve, understand and interact personally, socially and spiritually. Lots of "things" can of course make a person loose consciousness periodically or permanently.

All of our physical and spiritual senses works via bio-electric impulses which creates feelings and images in our brain and, as electromagnetic impulses have no boundaries and can be found all over in the Universe, "consciousness" really have no boundaries too, which is the explanation of "shamans" or other sensitive persons of gathering informations of cosmos.

When a person "looses consciousness", he/she really looses the physical/bio-electrical senses, but remain the electrical spiritual sense as it have been observed in near dead situations, for instants with accidents or operations. The same also happens in sleep where a dreamer is physically paralyzed but the consciousness still works.

This is not absurd at all. A seemingly absurdity occurs only because someone, mostly "we western humans", only counts on the physical matters and "rational beliefs".

"Everything we know" doesn´t count for "everything we don´t know" because the western and materialistic education mostly have forgotten the spiritual dimension of the consciousness.

It´s also logical when a person leaves the somewhat restricted consciousness of the human body and enter the unlimited realms of cosmic consciousness outside their bodies, they experiences a huge and clear vividness of everything.

This have happend to lots of sensitive humans all over the world and throughout all human times. And this is really the cause and method for all humans to create their cultural Stories of Creation which basically is very similar indeed.

Most humans

 

[Native]

A "soul" is a living, breathing creature...the original Hebrew word never mean a disembodied spirit.

This makes completely logics to me Maybe except for "the creature" which must be "the soul".

 

[Fool]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery, and I'm not claiming that consciousness is simply brain chemistry. However, I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and that the brain somehow causes consciousness. This is because if the brain gets damaged, consciousness gets damaged. This can be seen in head injuries in which a person loses consciousness, as well as the fact that consciousness can be permanently damaged as a result of brain damage caused by a stroke. We also know that chemicals ingested interact with the brain in such a way as to alter or impair consciousness (alcohol is an obvious example, but nearly everything we ingest has some impact on the brain, and thus on consciousness). So, how do you square belief in an afterlife with these facts? We know that altering the chemistry of the brain alters consciousness, and damaging the brain damages consciousness. Yet all religious people believe that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness. Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction. But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief.

an antennae is only necessary to send/receive. the information is already there. eternally there. a signal is sent. it will continue to send, like light will continue to travel, that informed energy will be continually moving through space/time

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems with science defining consciousness, is the scientific method does not work properly, when it comes to consciousness. The scientific method is designed to look at phenomena, from the outside, in the third person.This POV allows others to compare your observations using their sensory systems in the third person. If we both see something, than it is verified. We cannot see consciousness this way, so no definition ever reaches a consensus beyond brain waves and brain activity.

Consciousness, is a unique phenomena in nature, in that it is best seen from the inside of the brain. We are aware we are conscious, based on self reflection; "I think therefore I am". Consciousness is a process that occurs inside the brain and not outside the brain. However, the introspection method is not considered a valid reference for science, since we cannot test our observations, outside ourselves, so others can see what we see. That limitation causes our observations to be called subjective, even though they are objective to the introspective observer. I can observe and analyze my dreams, but nobody else can verify this 100% even though it is objective to me and I am being honest and truthful

Spiritual exercises, from various religions, are often connected to forms of meditation and prayer, which are designed for an introspective approach to consciousness. The various procedures and dogma of the various religions, help to map out the psyche; platform for consciousness, so one can explore and gain first hand data. Once this is plotted out in your mind, then definitions become possible. However, these cannot be easily verified by science, in the third person, since they are unique data objective only to the individual.

 

[Kenny]

One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain. Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery, and I'm not claiming that consciousness is simply brain chemistry. However, I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and that the brain somehow causes consciousness. This is because if the brain gets damaged, consciousness gets damaged. This can be seen in head injuries in which a person loses consciousness, as well as the fact that consciousness can be permanently damaged as a result of brain damage caused by a stroke. We also know that chemicals ingested interact with the brain in such a way as to alter or impair consciousness (alcohol is an obvious example, but nearly everything we ingest has some impact on the brain, and thus on consciousness). So, how do you square belief in an afterlife with these facts? We know that altering the chemistry of the brain alters consciousness, and damaging the brain damages consciousness. Yet all religious people believe that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness. Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction. But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief.

"One of the biggest challenges to religious beliefs in an afterlife is the apparent dependence of consciousness on the brain.": - statement without supportive documentation.

"Consciousness is clearly an unsolved mystery," - yet you claim to have solved it.

"I do believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain," - statement that isn't verifiable - at this point, you have offered viewpoints.

"So, how do you square belief in an afterlife with these facts?" Physical consciousness would have nothing to do with spiritual consciousness (assuming there is an afterlife) - thus your facts are irrelevant.


"Even more absurdly, not only do they believe consciousness survives the death of the brain, but also that it becomes even more vivid after the brain's destruction." - statement of personal biased beliefs without evidence

" But, given everything we know about the dependence of consciousness on the brain, this does not seem to be a rational belief." - Irrational statement. We haven't scratched the understanding of consciousness, let alone how we got it in the first place, to make a statement as such as you have proposed.

Nice try, though. One would think that you are simply anti-faith.

 

[Native]

The scientific method is designed to look at phenomena, from the outside, in the third person.This POV allows others to compare your observations using their sensory systems in the third person. If we both see something, than it is verified. We cannot see consciousness this way, so no definition ever reaches a consensus beyond brain waves and brain activity.

STILL Einstein himself is quoted for:

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift".

Something - or lots of things - have apparently went totally up and down in the modern scientific understanding.

 

[cladking]

One of the problems with science defining consciousness, is the scientific method does not work properly, when it comes to consciousness. The scientific method is designed to look at phenomena, from the outside, in the third person.This POV allows others to compare your observations using their sensory systems in the third person. If we both see something, than it is verified. We cannot see consciousness this way, so no definition ever reaches a consensus beyond brain waves and brain activity.

Consciousness, is a unique phenomena in nature, in that it is best seen from the inside of the brain. We are aware we are conscious, based on self reflection; "I think therefore I am". Consciousness is a process that occurs inside the brain and not outside the brain. However, the introspection method is not considered a valid reference for science, since we cannot test our observations, outside ourselves, so others can see what we see. That limitation causes our observations to be called subjective, even though they are objective to the introspective observer. I can observe and analyze my dreams, but nobody else can verify this 100% even though it is objective to me and I am being honest and truthful

Spiritual exercises, from various religions, are often connected to forms of meditation and prayer, which are designed for an introspective approach to consciousness. The various procedures and dogma of the various religions, help to map out the psyche; platform for consciousness, so one can explore and gain first hand data. Once this is plotted out in your mind, then definitions become possible. However, these cannot be easily verified by science, in the third person, since they are unique data objective only to the individual.

Beautiful! Well said.

Science works by taking things apart and as soon as we start dismantling consciousness nothing is left.

But these are not a characteristics of consciousness but characteristics of our consciousness using a symbolic, analog, and abstract operating system we call language. Other animals are conscious but might not have such limitations imposed by our operating system. We could study that consciousness.

Perhaps many believe in a "soul" simply because it is obvious there is more to an individual than his beliefs and personality.

 

[tas8831]

A "soul" is a living, breathing creature...

No it isn't.

Then, you claimed bacteria have immune systems....