Consciousness and the Brain

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Possibly, but how could the "software" run without the "hardware" brain? It would be useless. Thus, consciousness without a brain is highly, highly unlikely.

However, I can think of an outside chance of life after death in a different, even more bizarre way that may be very comforting to some and very disturbing to others. Suppose everything needs a cause. Then either the history of the universe is an infinite regression of causes or a circular chain of causes. If the latter option is true, then the big bang has occurred an infinite number of times in the past and will occur an infinite number of times again in the future, and, likewise, we have all lived our exact same lives an infinite number of times, and will re-live them an infinite number of times again with no memory of them occurring before. The interesting thing about this hypothesis is that it is unprovable. It is a way in which life after death could exist, without any knowledge of its existence.

 

[icehorse]

Possibly, but how could the "software" run without the "hardware" brain? It would be useless. Thus, consciousness without a brain is highly, highly unlikely.

Well we know that immensely complicated systems can be captured in a single - stupidly long - integer. When you buy some complex piece of software, and it comes on a disk, you've just bought one - stupidly long - binary integer. Our DNA is also one, long, base-4 integer. When we wake up each morning, our consciousness does a sort of reboot. Our consciousness is somehow "stored" in our brain / body. So far so good?

 

[Glaurung]

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.

That incarnated, consciousness interfaces with the physical world though the brain does not prove that consciousness in a non incarnated state cannot exist.

I believe that being takes its source from God. It is not then a leap to accept that consciousness is enabled to continue to exist independent of the physical body.

 

[Glaurung]

What I'm trying to say (in simpler words) is this:

That consciousness is affected by the physical form it inhabits is obvious. But that alone does not prove that consciousness must inhabit a physical form to exist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What I'm trying to say (in simpler words) is this:

That consciousness is affected by the physical form it inhabits is obvious. But that alone does not prove that consciousness must inhabit a physical form to exist.

But it is the most sensible explanation.

 

[Glaurung]

But it is the most sensible explanation.

"Sensible" depends upon your axioms. In this case, materialism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Sensible" depends upon your axioms. In this case, materialism.

Rather than - the next best explanation?

 

[tas8831]

What I'm trying to say (in simpler words) is this:

That consciousness is affected by the physical form it inhabits is obvious. But that alone does not prove that consciousness must inhabit a physical form to exist.

Then what is the evidence to the contrary?

 

[Glaurung]

Rather than - the next best explanation?

The opposite. My view is that consciousness precedes matter. Perhaps consciousness is fundamental to reality.

Then what is the evidence to the contrary?

The burden of proof is not mine. The OP thinks it is "not rational" to be open to the possibility of conscious existence beyond death. But as I point out in my earlier post the argument he makes for this does not follow. All he has is assertion based on one interpretation of an observed phenomenon. That changes to the brain affects the consciousness of a living person does not compel to the conclusion he thinks it does.

 

[Kenny]

I don't understand your point. Maybe some people in a coma can hear. So what. I've been under general anesthesia and I certainly didn't hear anything. Now, if consciousness were eternal and not dependent on the brain, why are we able to alter or stop consciousness by altering the brain? You admit that damaging the brain damages consciousness, but you think that the destruction of the brain does not lead to the destruction of consciousness. This makes no sense. Further, if the conscious, eternal "soul" is independent of the brain, why is it that we are not conscious before we have brains? Why does the beginning of consciousness just coincidentally happen to coincide with the beginning of the brain?

No... that isn't what I said and I don't understand what you didn't understand

 

[tas8831]

Then what is the evidence to the contrary?

The burden of proof is not mine.

Intriguing how often the contrarians employ this dodge, apparently without understanding how it impacts their position.

The OP thinks it is "not rational" to be open to the possibility of conscious existence beyond death.

And if your goal is to show that it is, then yes, the burden of proof IS yours.

But as I point out in my earlier post the argument he makes for this does not follow. All he has is assertion based on one interpretation of an observed phenomenon. That changes to the brain affects the consciousness of a living person does not compel to the conclusion he thinks it does.

It does when you are are merely a contrarian attempting to prop up a mere belief for which there is ZERO evidence.