The implausibility of brainless minds

[Penumbra]

Let´s say you are in a room with many rays of light coming through windows. If you see one of the windows closed, thereis no more light going out of that window, would you say the source of that light is gone? Would you have any evidence to believe that the light is not being generated anymore? Would you claim to know it?

When I see a human body deceased, that is what I see, a closing window of something that always emitted light. Now, you have observed rooms gettin dark, but you have never observed outside of this room, so how can you say that that which generates the light is gone?

I agree with you, you described the way in which we suppose everyone around us is probably not a philosophical zombie, but as I described above, what we see happening to them is only what happens to that methaphorical room, so how could be know if there is no light beyond it? In this case counscience is naturaly, light.

THe closing of the window. The light was always in this other realm, but before this ralm was called "imagination", or even not realized at all because of it being subconcious.

The light final destination no longer is the inner walls of the room, so it´s view naturally changes.

This line of reasoning, which I have encountered numerous times, would be more effective if not for the fact that interactions between consciousness and the material world have a two-way causal relationship rather than a one-way relationship. It's not just a matter of letting the sun in or not; people inside the room can change aspects of the light, turn it off at will, and it affects what appears to be the source in that regard.

For instance, applying oxytocin has been scientifically shown to increase the level of trust in a person. Or stroke victims which have had part of their brain damaged, have had personality changes. Or older people who get Alzheimer's disease and lose their selves while still being alive. Consciousness, and the corresponding personality and memories, are able to be modified down to the level of experience by modifying the brain. If this were all stored somewhere else, and sent into the body via some supernatural signal, then modifying the brain shouldn't modify the core experience, only the ability of that information to come through or not. One could conceivably be able to dampen the experience by means of inhibiting the spiritual receivers or whatever they would be called, but to actually change what the person experiences- how can the information be elsewhere and uncorrupted?

Another way of saying it is, rather than observing light from inside the room in this scenario, you are the light. Therefore, if one experiences rather than simply observes in another that chemicals or physical trauma can shut off consciousness, or that changes to the brain can change the level of awareness or type of personality, then shouldn't one conclude that evidence shows that the source itself was being modified? Afterall, if you were light, and participants in a room could shut you off, not just in the room, but your whole existence, wouldn't you conclude that you were a lightbulb rather than the sun?

Basically, adding this whole extra step of information existing somewhere else, or in some other form, is extraneous and therefore unnecessary unless evidence for it can be supplied. A needlessly complex explanation for something that adds nothing to a simpler explanation holds the burden of proof compared to that simpler explanation, because steps are being added to the explanation without cause.

I am not saying this view is supported, I am merely saying that the cease of existence of conciosnesss is not supported, as I said in my previos argument.

How would eternal consiousness be meaningfull? If it were, we´ll have eternity to ponder about that, and I am more of a procastinator

Eternal consciousness doesn't appear meaningful to me either.

 

[Me Myself]

I see a few problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, all of our beliefs are contingent on our experiences. While solipsism is a logical possibility, your experiences suggest that things do exist independently of your imagination.

You mean my experiences could suggest I take?

Secondly, when you say that "you have no reason to doubt that your mind will ever die", that suggests that your experience of reality has no bearing on your reasoning, although it clearly does.

At contrair. I am saying there is no experience that could effectively say that the mind will die. We have evidence that bodies cease to move, and we can infer that what experienced their movements (conciousness) may no longer be there, but that it is not there or not controling the body doesn´t mean it no longer exists anywhere.

My experience is that I exist. I have hadno experience that would say this is going to end any time soon or late.

And we cannot alter reality merely by willing it to change. If we were somehow existing alone in our own little made-up universe, then we might expect to be able to make things happen merely by willing them to happen, as they sometimes do in our dreams.

Changing reality in the dreams is awesome. Are you allmighty in your dreams?

I have had lucid dreams and I have certainly changed my reality in them, but even in my lucid dreams I am limited by what I believe I will be able to change. I have willed to fly in my lucid dreams and dropped. I am not the only one who has no perfect control in his lucid dreams. Why I bring this up?

I have changed reality in my dreams and so have a lot of people. Their avbility to do so doesn´t tend to regenerate arms or make the blind see because that is very hard to imagine one can do even if one knows that one can. This is because we have subconcious barriers, but I am getting off track here anyways, this could very well be subject of an entire new thread.

Wrong. There is credible evidence that you are not the only mind in existence and that your mind will lose consciousness--revert to the state of nonexistence that it had before birth--when your brain dies. I think what you mean is that there is a small possibility that the evidence that we have is misleading.

I have not seen one yet. If you carefully analize my previous posts you might understand why.

If at contrair I have given a poor or clumsy explanation of my points, by all means tell me what should I express beter.

A little up some posts there is a methaphour I give about light in a room that might help clarify my standing.

 

[Me Myself]

This line of reasoning, which I have encountered numerous times, would be more effective if not for the fact that interactions between consciousness and the material world have a two-way causal relationship rather than a one-way relationship. It's not just a matter of letting the sun in or not; people inside the room can change aspects of the light, turn it off at will, and it affects what appears to be the source in that regard.

For instance, applying oxytocin has been scientifically shown to increase the level of trust in a person. Or stroke victims which have had part of their brain damaged, have had personality changes. Or older people who get Alzheimer's disease and lose their selves while still being alive. Consciousness, and the corresponding personality and memories, are able to be modified down to the level of experience by modifying the brain. If this were all stored somewhere else, and sent into the body via some supernatural signal, then modifying the brain shouldn't modify the core experience, only the ability of that information to come through or not. One could conceivably be able to dampen the experience by means of inhibiting the spiritual receivers or whatever they would be called, but to actually change what the person experiences- how can the information be elsewhere and uncorrupted?

Another way of saying it is, rather than observing light from inside the room in this scenario, you are the light. Therefore, if one experiences rather than simply observes in another that chemicals or physical trauma can shut off consciousness, or that changes to the brain can change the level of awareness or type of personality, then shouldn't one conclude that evidence shows that the source itself was being modified? Afterall, if you were light, and participants in a room could shut you off, not just in the room, but your whole existence, wouldn't you conclude that you were a lightbulb rather than the sun?

Basically, adding this whole extra step of information existing somewhere else, or in some other form, is extraneous and therefore unnecessary unless evidence for it can be supplied. A needlessly complex explanation for something that adds nothing to a simpler explanation holds the burden of proof compared to that simpler explanation, because steps are being added to the explanation without cause.

Eternal consciousness doesn't appear meaningful to me either.

To keep with the mathaphour, you could have mirrors inside the room and that would change the way the lights project themselves in the inside. Also if you have things that are trasparent but of some color that changes the light. Being this the case, the perception of the light does can be influenced in the room also. Remember that in this example awareness would be the totality of the light, so the point of the light thatis in the room, however affected, would afect the awareness.

I am not saying it MUST be this way, I am merely saying that for the question "where is the bruden of proof?" the answer is kind of subjective in this matter depending o what is more "Real" to you.

about consiousness, I was just playing, basicaly, it has the meaning we give them. If it ends, is not like it can be perceived as "bad" as it would not be perceived at all

 

[Penumbra]

To keep with the mathaphour, you could have mirrors inside the room and that would change the way the lights project themselves in the inside. Also if you have things that are trasparent but of some color that changes the light. Being this the case, the perception of the light does can be influenced in the room also. Remember that in this example awareness would be the totality of the light, so the point of the light thatis in the room, however affected, would afect the awareness.

I am not saying it MUST be this way, I am merely saying that for the question "where is the bruden of proof?" the answer is kind of subjective in this matter depending o what is more "Real" to you.

about consiousness, I was just playing, basicaly, it has the meaning we give them. If it ends, is not like it can be perceived as "bad" as it would not be perceived at all

If in the example, awareness is the totality of light, then shutting blinds to a room, or modifying just the light entering the room, shouldn't change the core experience of the light. The majority of it would exist outside of the house, and the tiny part that is being changed is only being changed locally.

That's why in the example, it's important to be the light rather than to observe the light to see why the source itself seems to be that which is modified. If you are conscious, and due to an action from the external environment, you discontinue being conscious, not just in the body, but your whole experience temporarily ceases, then where has it gone? If shutting the blinds to a house shuts off or modifies all of light's experience, not just its local experience inside the house, then it appears that the light is contained only within that house.

 

[Copernicus]

You mean my experiences could suggest I take?

I meant what I said.

At contrair. I am saying there is no experience that could effectively say that the mind will die. We have evidence that bodies cease to move, and we can infer that what experienced their movements (conciousness) may no longer be there, but that it is not there or not controling the body doesn´t mean it no longer exists anywhere.

We have been discussing evidence that strongly suggests the mind will die. We know that brain trauma can lead to unconsciousness. It is reasonable to project that the ultimate brain trauma--death--will lead to permanent loss of consciousness. That does not mean you will experience "darkness" as someone like Thief is fond of claiming. No experience means no experience, not experience of darkness or a feeling of boredom.

My experience is that I exist. I have hadno experience that would say this is going to end any time soon or late.

I doubt that you have been conscious and self-aware your entire life. The fact that we lose consciousness--we have experienced losing it and regaining it--gives us experiences to work with and think about.

I have changed reality in my dreams and so have a lot of people. Their avbility to do so doesn´t tend to regenerate arms or make the blind see because that is very hard to imagine one can do even if one knows that one can. This is because we have subconcious barriers, but I am getting off track here anyways, this could very well be subject of an entire new thread.

I'm not really interested in pursuing the topic of lucid dreams. I merely brought this up to point out a big difference between dreams, which we know to be unreal experiences, and conscious awareness.

A little up some posts there is a methaphour I give about light in a room that might help clarify my standing.

I saw it, but I think that Penumbra has been doing a splendid job of explaining the problem with your metaphor and in defending the OP thesis as well. She has devoted a lot of brain activity to this topic.

 

[Me Myself]

If in the example, awareness is the totality of light, then shutting blinds to a room, or modifying just the light entering the room, shouldn't change the core experience of the light. The majority of it would exist outside of the house, and the tiny part that is being changed is only being changed locally.

That's why in the example, it's important to be the light rather than to observe the light to see why the source itself seems to be that which is modified. If you are conscious, and due to an action from the external environment, you discontinue being conscious, not just in the body, but your whole experience temporarily ceases, then where has it gone? If shutting the blinds to a house shuts off or modifies all of light's experience, not just its local experience inside the house, then it appears that the light is contained only within that house.

Consiou mind is like the tiniest bit of psichic activity in us, yet is the part we are mor aware of (the subconcious does most of the big stuff). Also, if it is a ray of light and the rest is darkness outside, with a mirror one could reflect the light to come back through the window to another direction, making a completely different path for the light and thus giving a whole new spin to the experience.

It takes time to be conscious of your subconcious, generaly, time AND exercise. So again the not being concious in some moments, may very well be be only aware to the part of yourself you are least aware of (sort of speak)

edit: gotta go! interesting topic of discussion hopefully we´ll continue on another time!

 

[Tonymai]

If we could mechanically switch on and off what to believe within our brain, it would prove brain and mind were the same.

 

[atanu]

You haven't answered my questions yet. I've been answering yours.

Sure you have. I have not got a single answer, BTW.

Can you present a documented case of a mind existing without a brain? It not, that's how I know- there aren't documented experiences of it that are accessible.

I asked what verbal report you expect?

When you answer how an element computes how to keep up with its half life, or when you explain how two paired photons separated miles apart communicate instantly, or how instinct acts out -- then possibly i can also tell how computation happens in absence of a blob of tissues.

At the moment ------.

And observing a brain of a dreamer is not part of the consciousness of the dreamer. It is merely your waking state structure.

 

[atanu]

So you are proposing that the computations necessary for consciousness occur in the universe itself?

If this is the case, why does a personality change if physical or chemical means alter the brain? Why is it that a drug can put someone to sleep, and eliminate their consciousness for the duration?

Because there is only one universe, of course.

The brain exists while a person sleeps. A person's brain activity can be measured while they sleep. The brain is quite active during such times.

That is not dreamer's first party consciousness. It is your waking consciousness.

The drugs that change people's behavior merely change chemicals that are already in the brain. So basically the "tools" for such an experience must already be there. I have no doubt that people experience a variety of things without external chemicals.

So you think food does not interact with our mind? Essence of food makes up our mind.
(I repeat that mind as per Vedanta is matter like a mirror. It is awareness that is not matter but without a material mirror it is not reflected -- just as in deep sleep).

Can you prove that any of this occurs outside of the brain? Can you acquire knowledge about the environment that your body is currently not in a position to acquire?

Can you prove that any thing you observe gets observed without the given awareness. Can you prove that a brain exists apart from your mind?

Can you give me a third party objective proof of a brain existing? No third party independent proof is available independent of your own awareness, which you do not know.

My qualia. The brain's ability to perceive a subset of its own actions.
You haven't answered my questions yet. I've been answering yours.
"How are you defining the words illusion and real, in this question?
What, in your opinion, makes experiences or observations, real?"

What is the basis of that Qualia?

Can you present a documented case of a mind existing without a brain? It not, that's how I know- there aren't documented experiences of it that are accessible.

My dear friend. I am interested in now.

There are reports of people claiming to experience oneness-

There are reports?

You enter into oneness everynight in deep sleep. Devoid of mind's structures, the one substratum that is peace and without division is experienced by everyone.

It is unknowing to mind, since there is no contrast in it.

It is also known to yogis who enter this with full consciousness. But just as taste of honey cannot be proven to a third person, this state cannot be experienced as a third person. But if you ever come into contact with such a person you will know automatically as to what peace is. Alternatively, you may some day actually experience the state of singularity with full awareness intact and not in sleep.

I am not out to prove anything, since I cannot prove your own self to you. But this discussion may leave a mark in you or some other reader.

 

[atanu]

It is incredible that the observed objects are considered real, but the Qualia, that is said to be the source of the "I" that witnesses, is negated as having been created by those observed objects. That is: The "I" is baseless but the observations that WE "I"-s have made are real. Those who point out this anomaly, of course, are blind believers.

 

[Me Myself]

If we could mechanically switch on and off what to believe within our brain, it would prove brain and mind were the same.

You never played gameboy or some of those video games? let´s say playstation?

Memory card is not the same as the play station. You can do stuff to the memory card with the controler and the console, and the memory card changes at will, but if the playstation gets broken, you can justy get the memory card and put it in another playstation, where it will also be changeable at will.

If a memorycard can do it, who is to say on it can do it?

 

[Copernicus]

If we could mechanically switch on and off what to believe within our brain, it would prove brain and mind were the same.

Tony, I don't have a clear idea of what you are trying to say here, but I have not been claiming that the mind and the brain are the same. I just want to be clear about that. What I have been saying is that the mind is an effect of brain activity. A functioning brain is what brings a conscious mind into existence. And we can make people have predictable sensations by applying a stimulus to specific locations in the brain. I don't think anyone can mechanically cause a person to have a specific belief by a mechanical stimulus to the brain, but I think that such a thing is possible in principle. We do not yet know enough about how the brain works to be able to do something like that. We can certainly cause people to have certain beliefs through techniques like hypnosis.

 

[Madhuri]

First of all, the OP said: "Most religions depend on the belief that mental activity can occur independently of brains." I am only talking about that dependency, which may or may not be relevant to your religious beliefs.

Which specific religions claim that mental activity can occur independently of brains?

Secondly, you did not really answer my question. I'll ask it again: "Madhuri, how are you in a position to know about the "laws governing Spirit" any more than I am?" On what basis could you claim to know anything at all about those "laws"?

I did answer it by saying that I don't know. I am only stating that your argument is flawed because it misunderstands the claims made by particular religions. I make no personal claim to understanding the laws governing spirit.

But most religions are grounded in a mind-body dualism that assumes the mind can exist independently of a functioning brain.

I would suggest that people who think this are misinterpreting their own religious philosophy due to a lack of understanding of what mind is or a lack of explanation within their sacred texts.
I would also suggest that the misinterpretation belongs also to the people investigating the religions from a non-religious point of view. Of course, I am happy to be provided with scriptural quotes that state specifically that the mind can exist independently of any brain.

People can choose to pursue any path they want, even ones that have no basis in reality. Finding paths that are grounded in reality is the real challenge.

I agree.

The OP is very clear about what it is "attempting to defeat". Whether or not that applies to your specific beliefs depends on what they are. You admit that different religions--and I would say even people who practice the same religion--have different definitions of the spiritual "laws". Science is different in that it reaches consensus on material "laws". That is because we are in a position to discover physical laws. There is no reliable method for checking the validity of any spiritual laws. That is why neither you nor your religious sources are really in a position to say anything about them.

I agree that science is in no position to make claims regarding spiritual laws.
Whether religious sources are in a position to say anything about them depends on whether those religious sources actually are originated from a spiritual entity or not. Again, this comes down to personal belief. But reasons for personal belief or validity of religious sources are not the argument of the OP.

 

[Penumbra]

Sure you have. I have not got a single answer, BTW.

I asked what verbal report you expect?

And I discussed verbal reports and other means of identifying consciousness. Also, check the end of this post.

When you answer how an element computes how to keep up with its half life, or when you explain how two paired photons separated miles apart communicate instantly, or how instinct acts out -- then possibly i can also tell how computation happens in absence of a blob of tissues.

At the moment ------.

And observing a brain of a dreamer is not part of the consciousness of the dreamer. It is merely your waking state structure.

Mathematics is humanity's tool for understanding how things work. If a rock falls towards earth, we can describe it with an exponential question, but that doesn't mean there are literally calculations being performed. It's a matter of very fundamental forces, and very fundamental particles, which humanity is still investigating, interacting with one another.

Each individual reaction is simplistic- they follow basic rules. Our math describes those rules. But, for example, if you flip a quarter 100 times, although math says that you should get heads about 50 times, it doesn't mean the quarter is actually doing calculations- it's just behaving as the orchestra of a countless number of particles interacting, and our math describes the outcome.

Because there is only one universe, of course.

That is not dreamer's first party consciousness. It is your waking consciousness.

So you think food does not interact with our mind? Essence of food makes up our mind.
(I repeat that mind as per Vedanta is matter like a mirror. It is awareness that is not matter but without a material mirror it is not reflected -- just as in deep sleep).

Can you prove that any thing you observe gets observed without the given awareness. Can you prove that a brain exists apart from your mind?

Can you give me a third party objective proof of a brain existing? No third party independent proof is available independent of your own awareness, which you do not know.

Nope, people can't falsify the proposition that only they exist. Can't be proved or falsified.

The majority of people, however, act as though everyone they encounter is real. It's the far safer assumption to treat things that appear to be conscious, as though they are. People who do not, are typically labeled sociopaths by society.

What is the basis of that Qualia?

Qualia is currently not understood. I'm not in the habit of preaching of what I do not know and cannot prove. It doesn't mean we can't discern quite a bit based on what we do know, though.

My dear friend. I am interested in now.

There are reports?

You enter into oneness everynight in deep sleep. Devoid of mind's structures, the one substratum that is peace and without division is experienced by everyone.

It is unknowing to mind, since there is no contrast in it.

It is also known to yogis who enter this with full consciousness. But just as taste of honey cannot be proven to a third person, this state cannot be experienced as a third person. But if you ever come into contact with such a person you will know automatically as to what peace is. Alternatively, you may some day actually experience the state of singularity with full awareness intact and not in sleep.

I am not out to prove anything, since I cannot prove your own self to you. But this discussion may leave a mark in you or some other reader.

Here's an idea for a verbal report:

Have a person who claims to experience oneness, reveal information that they could not possibly have obtained within their own body, limited by their own senses and their own brain.

Afterall, if we're all one, your mind is my mind, and so if you propose that we are one, you should be able to know what I know. In fact, a being that experiences oneness, should be basically omniscient, since they should have access to what all senses have access to.

But that's the difference between true oneness and a feeling of oneness. A feeling of oneness is located within a brain- it's a matter of a person who merely feels that they are one with everything, feels that their mind is not a product of the brain, but who cannot describe any information that would not otherwise be available to their body. They're in the position of believing they are one with the universe, but still have access to only the information that their body and brain do, because it occurs in the brain.

In contrast, if a person could experience true oneness; that is, their consciousness really is larger than their body, there is no separation between seer and seen, then such a person should be able to provide evidence of this by revealing information reliably that would otherwise be impossible for them to know.

 

[Penumbra]

Which specific religions claim that mental activity can occur independently of brains?

Texts don't describe it in those words, but nearly every religion proposes the basic point that a human is more than their body, that something about them can potentially survive death. Without that point, the other structures of many religions unravel.

Some religions, for instance, propose that a person reincarnates. That's an example of some aspect of consciousness or the mind, continuing to exist as a brain rots away. If that were taken away, other aspects of the religion wouldn't make sense, such as the proposition that karma from past life dictates the current situation, that Moksha is a possible goal, and so forth.

Other religions propose rebirth. I'd consider Buddhism to be one of the most applicable religions from a secular viewpoint, and yet many schools of Buddhism do hinge on some sort of return. "Stream enterers" and "once returners" are terms that come to mind. It is proposed that craving is what leads to rebirth and suffering/dissatisfaction, and that eliminating craving can free oneself. The Buddha wanted to eliminate the things he saw- sickness, old age, death.

Then you have religions like Christianity and Islam. The character of Jesus isn't recorded as saying, "You all only get this life, but try to make it worthwhile and be good because it's the right thing to do." Instead, he proposes eternal life, and also proposes some sort of supernatural opposite- suffering and judgment. And with Islam, the Qur'an proposes paradise and hell. A place where unbelievers have their skin repeatedly burned off and regrown in various degrees of literalness depending on who you talk to, and where believers get rewards. These religions don't just preach that this life is it- they preach of a far more important one, in their view, that comes after this one.

So concepts of some mental constructs existing independently from the brain are rather common. Beliefs can range from a literal persona, being transported "as is" to a literal new body, to most of a persona being transported to some spiritual body, to awaking to an expanded mode of life, to being reincarnated as a person with similar qualities based on their current state of development, to dissolving into conscious oneness, and so forth.

 

[Madhuri]

Texts don't describe it in those words, but nearly every religion proposes the basic point that a human is more than their body, that something about them can potentially survive death. Without that point, the other structures of many religions unravel.

Other than religious branches that believe the human is the ultimate Self (like those who believe in the resurrection), I am not aware of any religion that conceptualises the human as being 'more that their body'. This is because the Self that survives death, according to many religious beliefs, is independent of the human body (which is a physical species only), existing prior to and/or at least post-death of the physical form.

It is a subtle difference of conceptualisation, but stating specifically that the soul/spirit is part of the human causes misunderstanding. In other words, the human is not more that its body. It is just a body. The Self, of life-force, or spirit/soul or whatever one calls it, is something that has no permanent relationship or dependency with the physical body.

Therefore, as far as I can see there are no studies regarding brain manipulation that cause the unraveling of religious structures that you mention and the studies specified in the OP miss the mark entirely.

Some religions, for instance, propose that a person reincarnates. That's an example of some aspect of consciousness or the mind, continuing to exist as a brain rots away. If that were taken away, other aspects of the religion wouldn't make sense, such as the proposition that karma from past life dictates the current situation, that Moksha is a possible goal, and so forth.

Based on my previous explanation, I will further emphasise that it is not the 'human' or 'person' that reincarnates. It is the soul that reincarnates. These belief systems see the body as a machine or vehicle only. The mind is considered to be a part of the psychical body. Only the consciousness is considered to be non-physical and it is differentiated from the mind.

As far as I know, there has yet to be any studies or confirmations that prove that the Vedic concepts of consciousness are a lie. In many ways, the studies concerning the brain confirm many of the Vedic teachings. As I said to Revoltingest in post #19:

"Many religious people believe that consciousness manifests where there is a vehicle capable of supporting it. When the vehicle disintegrates, the consciousness withdraws. The consciousness, once completely withdrawn from one vehicle, enters a new one. This can be a new physical body, ghostly, subtle or spiritual.

From the perspective of one who has this belief, the studies involving brain manipulation have little or no impact and certainly do not point to the consciousness being the result of physical processes. It only reinforces the concept of the illusory nature of self (as opposed to Self) that we so readily identify with and gives purpose to our strive to realise our most permanent Self."

Other religions propose rebirth. I'd consider Buddhism to be one of the most applicable religions from a secular viewpoint, and yet many schools of Buddhism do hinge on some sort of return. "Stream enterers" and "once returners" are terms that come to mind. It is proposed that craving is what leads to rebirth and suffering/dissatisfaction, and that eliminating craving can free oneself. The Buddha wanted to eliminate the things he saw- sickness, old age, death.

Like Hindus, Buddhists also believe that the thing which exists beyond the physical is consciousness. They also do not see a permanent relationship with body and consciousness. I think my argument so far is applicable to Buddhism.

Then you have religions like Christianity and Islam. The character of Jesus isn't recorded as saying, "You all only get this life, but try to make it worthwhile and be good because it's the right thing to do." Instead, he proposes eternal life, and also proposes some sort of supernatural opposite- suffering and judgment. And with Islam, the Qur'an proposes paradise and hell. A place where unbelievers have their skin repeatedly burned off and regrown in various degrees of literalness depending on who you talk to, and where believers get rewards. These religions don't just preach that this life is it- they preach of a far more important one, in their view, that comes after this one.

There seems to be a number of beliefs or interpretations within these umbrella religions. Some believe that the body dies and the spirit is that which travels to heaven or hell. This implies that the body and spirit are different.
It is those who believe that one will exist eternally within this physical body that are the exceptions and the OP still does not concern these beliefs because it is not addressing the idea that the bodies will magically come back to life with brain intact.

So concepts of some mental constructs existing independently from the brain are rather common. Beliefs can range from a literal persona, being transported "as is" to a literal new body, to most of a persona being transported to some spiritual body, to awaking to an expanded mode of life, to being reincarnated as a person with similar qualities based on their current state of development, to dissolving into conscious oneness, and so forth.

Do any of these belief systems suggest that the Self existing beyond the physical does not have a brain? If a spiritual body has eyes and legs and ears and hair, why would it not have a brain?
If I am to defend my own religious background, I must ask whether you are familiar with the concepts of subtle/astral and spiritual bodies. It is the astral and then the spiritual bodies that carry impressions and memory and development which transfer to the new physical body. If you understand this concept, you will see that the idea of reincarnation is not implausible based on this brain argument.

 

[crystalonyx]

Most religions depend on the belief that mental activity can occur independently of brains. What one thinks of as the "soul" or "spirit" is a thinking being that can operate independently of a body. Nevertheless, the evidence continues to mount that there is absolutely no mental activity that occurs independently of brain activity. It does not contradict the idea of dualism to say that minds are dependent on brains for their existence, but it does contradict the idea that a mind can survive brain-death.

In the last few decades, scientists have been able to explore the tight connection between thought and brain activity through the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. MRI merely shows where blood concentrates in the brain when mental activity is taking place, and scientists can actually take videos of dynamic activity in the brain during specifically targeted thinking patterns. Scientists have now, for the first time, correlated dreams with volitional behavior. While this kind of experimental evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that mental activity depends on brain activity, it does seem to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think one can assume that once you die you are dead, including your brain. No real. hard evidence has ever been presented to the contrary.

 

[Madhuri]

I think one can assume that once you die you are dead, including your brain. No real. hard evidence has ever been presented to the contrary.

What is your definition of 'you'?

 

[Me Myself]

I think one can assume that once you die you are dead, including your brain. No real. hard evidence has ever been presented to the contrary.

No evidence can support that awareness ends with dead. We only know the body stops moving.

 

[Copernicus]

Note to all: Atanu did not feel that his arguments were sufficiently addressed in this thread, so he started his own with almost the same title. I have replied in that thread to give him more attention than he felt he got here.

Which specific religions claim that mental activity can occur independently of brains?

I thought that Penumbra answered this question well. I do not propose to give an exhaustive list. I recognize that there is a lot of variation on religious beliefs even within the same religious denomination.

I did answer it by saying that I don't know. I am only stating that your argument is flawed because it misunderstands the claims made by particular religions. I make no personal claim to understanding the laws governing spirit.

Again I refer you to the OP, which does not say "all religions" but "most religions". I do not want to derail this topic in order to discuss a particular religion. If you feel that it does not address your religious belief, I am not going to contradict you unless you say things that appear (to me) to contradict your claim.

I would suggest that people who think this are misinterpreting their own religious philosophy due to a lack of understanding of what mind is or a lack of explanation within their sacred texts.

I would suggest that you are in no position to interpret the doctrines or religious texts of other religious philosophies. Christians generally do believe in the existence of immaterial souls, and their God is clearly an immaterial thinker (except possibly for the Mormon version of Christianity, which I am not going to try to make sense of).

I would also suggest that the misinterpretation belongs also to the people investigating the religions from a non-religious point of view. Of course, I am happy to be provided with scriptural quotes that state specifically that the mind can exist independently of any brain.

The reason I pay less attention to scripture than believers is that believers are remarkably flexible in the interpretations they impose on their scripture, and quite a few seem to pay little attention at all to what it says. Hence, I, as a religious skeptic, tend to avoid telling people what their scripture really says or how they ought to interpret it. I get in enough endless, unproductive discussions.

I agree that science is in no position to make claims regarding spiritual laws.

That is not what I said, however. What I said was that there is no reliable method for interpreting what you call "spiritual laws". The only inference we can draw from that is that it is pointless to argue over what those laws are or to make claims that are based on unreliable intuitions. Science is relevant to religious claims when those claims have relevance to the material world--e.g. the claim of many religious people (not just fundamentalist Christians, but also fundamentalist Hindus) that the science of biology is wrong about the evolution of species.

Whether religious sources are in a position to say anything about them depends on whether those religious sources actually are originated from a spiritual entity or not. Again, this comes down to personal belief. But reasons for personal belief or validity of religious sources are not the argument of the OP.

That depends on the person who holds those beliefs. If you really believe that the OP is irrelevant to your beliefs, then it should not trouble you in the slightest. In the end, it may depend on how critical you are of your own beliefs. The very fact that you monitor a forum on religious debates suggests to me that you are willing to subject them to the scrutiny of those who disagree with your beliefs.