PDA

View Full Version : Believing consciousness is inside the brain is like believing light is inside the eye



Adhvagat
30 March 2013, 06:23 PM
Believing consciousness is inside the brain is like believing light is inside the eye.

Does that line of thought hold its ground against a materialistic worldview and philosophical stance?

I'd like arguments from members who also entertain a materialistic worldview and take the materialistic argument seriously.

Thank you! :)

wundermonk
30 March 2013, 09:38 PM
Not a materialist myself.

The materialist needs to explain why consciousness is private, how matter reorganizes itself into a subject/object/act of knowledge, etc., etc.

Saying that consciousness is an "emergent property" of the physical body is just the materialist's equivalent of the theist's "We dont know therefore Goddidit" whether the materialist sees this or not.

Necromancer
30 March 2013, 11:54 PM
Namaste.

The analogy is apt, but not perfect.

The eye is required to see light and the brain is required to experience consciousness.

Our 'Soul' must reside somewhere (I see no delineation between 'Consciousness' and 'Soul'). Some believe the seat of Consciousness to be in the 'Spiritual Heart' like I do.

All this is, is just another fancy way of saying 'we are not our brains' and this is true.

From a materialistic viewpoint?

It's difficult to reconcile Brahman with Materialism unless one goes into Tantra fully....then, we must accept the fact that 'all this isn't real either'.

Trying to convert materialism into non-dualism is a very hard path to take (because we are apt to become attached and full of desire for those things).

Aum Namah Shivaya

realdemigod
31 March 2013, 01:25 AM
Does that line of thought hold its ground against a materialistic worldview and philosophical stance?

I'd like arguments from members who also entertain a materialistic worldview and take the materialistic argument seriously.

Thank you! :)

You need to define what do you mean by consciousness here first.

Adhvagat
31 March 2013, 01:26 AM
Namaste.

The analogy is apt, but not perfect.

The eye is required to see light and the brain is required to experience consciousness.

Our 'Soul' must reside somewhere (I see no delineation between 'Consciousness' and 'Soul'). Some believe the seat of Consciousness to be in the 'Spiritual Heart' like I do.

All this is, is just another fancy way of saying 'we are not our brains' and this is true.

From a materialistic viewpoint?

It's difficult to reconcile Brahman with Materialism unless one goes into Tantra fully....then, we must accept the fact that 'all this isn't real either'.

Trying to convert materialism into non-dualism is a very hard path to take (because we are apt to become attached and full of desire for those things).

Aum Namah Shivaya

Well, actually, if the brain is a consciousness receptacle, consciousness is everywhere, in the field.

Of course that leads us to a Brahman-like realization but we also can fall back easily into a dualistic question: So what experiences the field? And what exactly is the need for a sense of unity if the reality is more like diffuse potentiality?

Viewing world as lila is much simpler and insightful. Just enjoy the ride, because all of this was made for pleasure. So, let all beings be happy. :)



You need to define what do you mean by consciousness here first.

Yes, that's the first trap. Where does consciousness start? In being-ness or in awareness of being-ness?

But I'm not sure I think it's important to define it since the question is whether it is contained in a tiny vessel or it's basic constituent element of the field.

Necromancer
31 March 2013, 03:04 AM
Namaste.

It is similar to the question I have been struggling with - exactly what survives death?

If we experience pleasure/pain in the afterlife, then how? (considering these things are destroyed).

Apparently there are 'subtle bodies' and whatever one experiences during full conscious realisation is experienced through that as well.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Necromancer
31 March 2013, 04:29 AM
Viewing world as lila is much simpler and insightful. Just enjoy the ride, because all of this was made for pleasure. So, let all beings be happy. :)

Namaste.

Events of the past few weeks have forced this realisation upon me anyway.

Here was I getting all annoyed at somebody 'bossing me around' when they were far out of their jurisdiction to do so. It made me feel really grumpy and 'victimised' (for lack of a better word).

All of my nihilistic training wasn't helping and 'you are nothing, just an illusion' wasn't either...being a 'Jnana Yogi' just wasn't paying off.

I had to go from 'neti neti' to 'ekam sat' very quickly to avoid those feelings and to learn.

Aum Namah Shivaya

jignyAsu
03 April 2013, 12:11 PM
Does that line of thought hold its ground against a materialistic worldview and philosophical stance?

I'd like arguments from members who also entertain a materialistic worldview and take the materialistic argument seriously.

Thank you! :)

I would argue this way. If consciousness is external (like light) then is the perception of an object finally happening only by the reactions in the brain to this consciousness (as with the brain-eye to light)?

From a materialist POV, I would ask that after death of a person, since the consciouness still remains the same and available, can we do something to the brain to become aware of this again? Or can we create a computer to be make use of this consciousness. If not, how come a brain alone is special enough to make use of consciousness?

Philosophically I would ask, if consciousness is external then what happens at death that makes a person insentient? Because, all ingredients of life are still pretty much there.

realdemigod
03 April 2013, 01:04 PM
Yes, that's the first trap. Where does consciousness start? In being-ness or in awareness of being-ness?

But I'm not sure I think it's important to define it since the question is whether it is contained in a tiny vessel or it's basic constituent element of the field.

Hmm..ok

Sudarshan
09 April 2013, 09:00 AM
Does that line of thought hold its ground against a materialistic worldview and philosophical stance?

I'd like arguments from members who also entertain a materialistic worldview and take the materialistic argument seriously.

Thank you! :)

Here is one: - A person gets hit on the head, sustains an injury to the brain and looses consciousness entirely. What other entity apart from the brain itself is needed to explain this. What happened to the "other consciousness"? Was it also impaired due to the brain injury?

seekinganswers
10 April 2013, 10:46 AM
Here is one: - A person gets hit on the head, sustains an injury to the brain and looses consciousness entirely. What other entity apart from the brain itself is needed to explain this. What happened to the "other consciousness"? Was it also impaired due to the brain injury?



Metaphorically if a person is an individual cloud, the substance of the cloud being the body and brain, and thoughts, including "I", the true consciousness is the light ray from the sun that is illuminating the cloud.

If the cloud disperses, did consciousness actually cease? Or is it the thinker that ceases?

shiv.somashekhar
11 April 2013, 09:39 AM
Does that line of thought hold its ground against a materialistic worldview and philosophical stance?

I'd like arguments from members who also entertain a materialistic worldview and take the materialistic argument seriously.

Thank you! :)

The analogy is not a good one. It is easy to determine that the source of light is not within the eye ( a couple of simple experiments will do).

However, when it comes to consciousness, as of today, it is impossible to prove that it is not inextricably tied to the physical entity. In the absence of evidence, the most clear path to accept such a position (consciousness independent of brain) is by faith in religious sources.

Of course, there is a lot more going on here. Named the "mind-body problem", it has been a hot topic of discussion since the time of Plato to modern thinkers like Popper and Searle. A wide range of schools (property dualism, eleminativism, etc, etc.) explore this topic to this day and there is no sign of it ending anytime soon.

Adhvagat
11 April 2013, 06:33 PM
The analogy is not a good one. It is easy to determine that the source of light is not within the eye ( a couple of simple experiments will do).

How can we determine that the source of light is not within the eye without using an eye to judge it?