Are Gods physical?

[ytrewq]

In a previous thread I was astounded to hear the claim that Gods are not physical, presumably meaning they do not consist of physical matter. How any theist could actually claim to know that is a mystery, but never mind. The question being asked here is :-

Are Gods made from physical matter�, and if they are not, then what are they made from.

If they are able to think and do stuff, then presumably they must be made of something.

By “physical matter�, I mean the physical stuff within our Universe from which everything else is made from, which includes atoms, sub-atomic particles, and to be fair I suppose we must include dark matter as well.

But there are other classes of things that undeniably exist, that are not physical matter as such, that perhaps Gods could be made of. Here is a list of “stuff� that definitely exists, and thus Gods might potentially be made of :-

(a) Physical matter, including atoms, sub-atomic particles, and dark matter

(b) Electromagnetic radiation and other forms of radiation, energy and fields. For example, light and radio waves.

(c) Human (or animal) feelings, emotions, thoughts, love, hate jealousy, intelligence, stupidity, truth, dishonesty, spirituality and so on. All of these can be said to “exist�, but not in a physical form.

(d) Similar to (c), morals, legal or scientific laws, stories, information, principles, and so on. As with (c), all of these can be said to “exist�, but not in a physical form, although the media that encodes them may be physical, such as a book or CD.

OK. So what are Gods made from? Certainly not anything in the (c) or (d) category, which do not physically exist in their own right and are not capable of performing physical feats on their own. That is, it makes no sense to say that a God (or anything else) is made from love, or justice or logic or spirituality. These are attributes of something that physically exists.

I have heard it said that Gods are not physical, but spiritual. Spiritual is an adjective, an attribute of something that exists, so it makes no sense to say that a God is made of spirituality, any more than saying it is made of love. So sure, Gods probably are very spiritual things, but that says nothing of what they are made from, which is the topic of this thread.

So what is left? Within the realms of human knowledge, and I’m not interested in just making stuff up, then I must conclude that Gods (if they exist) are made of the same stuff that everything else in the Universe is made of, being categories (a) and (b).

Anyone agree or disagree with the above?

[William]

Interpreting the same evidence differently

Essentially there is no actual right or wrong way to interpret the same evidence. The 'rightness' or 'wrongness' is simply what the individual consciousness decides for itself, and appears to be dependent upon the human instrument it occupies.

This, because it is noted that some some atheists claim that they have tried all the things that theists recommend in relation to - shall we agree - "connecting with a higher consciousness" to no avail, and in that, conclude the evidence as being "There is no GOD" and as such, it might be a case for either that the actually is no GOD, or the instrument that the atheist occupies is not equipped with the necessary hardware to make that software run as it otherwise would.

As a theist, I simply include the idea of GOD=Consciousness.

As a theist I also acknowledge that brainless critters exhibit behavior which can be seen as something which only consciousness can exhibit.
Thus I can ascertain from that, that brains are not necessary in order for consciousness to exist.

This even takes into account the common dictionary 'meanings' for 'what is consciousness'.

All this means is that some people are simply not going to be able to interpret the data of experience with "GOD" in mind. It is not possibly for them to contemplate the idea of GOD to a point sufficient for any relationship to be triggered between that individual and the vaster Consciousness.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 206 by Mithrae]

Mithrae, just to clarify my last posting #208, I do not of course wish to imply that the "Mithrae's Model" is exactly what you had in mind. I was certainly not trying to build up a "straw man". Rather, I hope the model I presented encapsulates the key concepts that would be common to any model that claims that consciousness exists outside of our brain.

I didn't think you were making a strawman, and I respect that. There are a few important points of clarification needed though, one in particular being that [our] consciousness exists spatially exterior to our brains: I haven't suggested and see no reason to suppose that's the case, at least for day-to-day functioning of normal, healthy people. You've focused on that point a lot, perhaps reading a little too much into my one-line question earlier.

Rather, I suggested three broad plausible frameworks for consciousness which I'm aware of, yours and two others: "...there's currently no scientific way to distinguish between [1] the brain's activity being identical with consciousness, [2] the brain merely serving as a conduit or host for consciousness, and [3] the brain providing a formative stage or gestational period for human consciousness." None of those imply that human consciousness normally exists exterior to the brain, and all three are consistent with the "overwhelming, verifiable evidence" you presented in post #188. However a key difference is that the first is not compatible with (for example) Pam Reynolds reportedly having conscious experience during a complete absence of brain activity; which is not an indisputable fact, by any stretch of the imagination, but it means that people who share your views are required to reject all or some parts of Pam's reported experience, introducing speculative explanations without verifiable evidence in order to do so... whereas people who do not suppose strict identity between consciousness and brain activity are not compelled to make any assumption either way.

The second perspective broadly encompasses/overlaps with views like reincarnation, Truscott's pre-conception existence theology and so on, though there's obviously plenty of room for varying details. My biggest problems with those views are a) exactly when does consciousness or the 'soul' etc. become imparted to/paired with a developing zygote/embryo/foetus/baby and b) exactly what continuous feature has been imparted/paired at all given that intelligence, memories and so on are seemingly absent. Nevertheless it's a conceptual possibility which is not refuted or even really challenged by the specific arguments you have made, and presumably there are some not entirely unreasonable answers to my own critiques. Just thinking off the top of my head now, we might liken consciousness in that view to electricity from a battery (or software on a computer etc.), which is driving or powering the human machine and in virtually all respects is fundamentally a part of the machine itself, including being impaired or limited by degradation of the machine, but does have a potentially independent existence both before and after its association with that machine.

The third perspective is mostly indistinguishable from the first, except in the (unproven and unevidenced) assumption that death of the brain constitutes an end to consciousness. It might be likened to our own pregnancies, in that if they thought at all twins in the womb would consider it their whole reality and the younger, seeing the elder disappear from that reality altogether, would assume it to have ceased existence rather than entering another stage of being. Insects undergoing metamorphosis might provide an even better analogy. Again, your arguments do not refute or even challenge this perspective, while potential counter-examples such as that of Pam Reynolds pose a far greater challenge for the first view than for the third.


An interesting point to note is that most if not all of the reported counter-examples to the first perspective (eg. out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences and transcendent 'super-consciousness' experiences) seem to be associated with circumstances in which the subject's perception of identity with their body is lessened or removed. Meditation is perhaps the most obvious example of that, since that's the explicit intention (at least of some forms). Likewise with 'near-death' experiences, particularly those like Pam's which are actually near death, but such experiences have even been reported by folk who merely thought they were about to die even though their injuries were not life-threatening. Even drug-induced experiences (eg. The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley), though they are much more easily explained as and presumably mostly/always are brain-alteration rather than 'consciousness-raising' experiences, do often share that feature of inducing a real or perceived disjunction between the body and the mind or 'self.'

A few further brief comments regarding post #208...

There is no evidence that this mysterious, proposed "consciousness" stuff or thing that supposedly exists outside of the brain actually exists. That's a very bad start. I don't have to prove that is does not exist - the onus is squarely on you to show that it does, and you are unable to do that.

Firstly, I already showed - in three previous posts and so far without refutation - that there is prima facie reason for supposing that consciousness of some kind does exist without brains, even down to the level of single-celled organisms, and even that human consciousness can (under some circumstances) experience perception from a vantage outside the body and potentially even in the total absence of brain activity; so these constant claims of 'no evidence' seem to be premature at best, or potentially yet more efforts to poison the well.

But more importantly, your opinions do not enjoy some privileged 'default' status requiring no justification. You have precisely the same onus to support your view of human consciousness as I do of mine, and so far I don't think that anything you've presented provides grounds for differentiating between views 1, 2 and 3 above: In other words, you have not supported your opinion 1, while I have provided evidence against it and in favour of 2 or 3.

But even more broadly you claim...

Consciousness resides within the brain, and not outside of it. In this model, consciousness does not exist in it's own right, and is a process (or part of a process) running in the computer that we call a brain.

And this, despite saying in the preceding post that you are not a materialist, clearly seems to be a metaphysical opinion about the nature of the reality in which we find ourselves. Consciousness is not understood or explained by current science, particularly its most basic element of subjective experience which even bacteria might share (see the hard problem of consciousness); we can't even directly detect its presence or absence yet! So the assertion that it is merely a 'process' and does not exist outside of the brain is chock-full of assumptions or premises which - contrary to your claim that "This model fits perfectly well within all well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge" - go far beyond what can be scientifically verified.

This goes right back to my encouragement over three weeks ago for you to challenge such potentially unexamined presuppositions in the notorious post #36:

• Minds exist: We know that, it is the most certain thing we possibly can know; imbibo ergo sum. But what is this 'physical' stuff you're talking about? Can you coherently describe what it actually is without reference to perceptions in our minds or abstract mathematical models built on those perceptions? How do you even know it exists, if it is somehow different from the minds which we know most certainly and through which we perceive?
  
  The concept of 'physical' stuff is uncritically accepted by dualists, and uncritically retained by many folk who have rejected dualism. But it seems more reasonable (for several reasons, but I'll keep this short) that, having our minds as the most certain fact known to us and rejecting dualism as untenable, we should not introduce some non-mind concept and then attempt some kind of post hoc reductionism of mind into matter: Rather, unless and until that non-mind concept can be justified, it's better to think of the 'physical' world we see and feel as something along the lines of a shared convenient fiction (or at best rather poor representation of reality) with which our minds interact*... as physicists themselves have increasingly discovered!

You've repeatedly tried to suggest that the ball lies in any court besides your own, but the simple fact is that the most certain and basic thing we know and can extrapolate from is consciousness. Both extrapolating consciousness to the rest of reality and conceiving a non-conscious reality are (initially at least) wildly speculative imaginations but the onus, such as it is, lies mostly with you; the former has a 51:49 edge in reasonableness unless and until you can justify an alternative view.

When we also note other difficulties such as the problem of explaining how subjective experience could even arise in a fysical world of objective matter, or the apparent counter-examples such as Pam Reynolds' experience which have to be ad hoc speculated out of existence only by one view, it becomes increasingly obvious that - absent some more discriminating evidence - the view of consciousness existing only in brains is very dubious indeed.

[Swami]

(a) Conventional consciousness (or call it ytrewq's consciousness if you prefer)
Consciousness resides within the brain, and not outside of it. In this model, consciousness does not exist in it's own right, and is a process (or part of a process) running in the computer that we call a brain. Emotions such as love and hate, as well as thoughts, are all similar, in that they are all processes occurring within the physical brain. There is plenty of evidence to support this. When different parts of the brain are stimulated or damaged, this influences the various processes occurring within the brain, and can selectively effect our emotions, vision, awareness, memory, consciousness and so on. And similarly, it is possible with modern technology to actually see which parts of the brain are active when we engage in different types of mental activity. This model seems exceedingly logical to me, and matches experimental results such as described extremely well. This model also fits exactly with the observation that no "consciousness" (or anything at all) has ever been observed outside the brain, and it also matches the astute observation that I made, that our consciousness and all other thought processes are not influenced by anything that we do to the environment outside of our brain and body, except indirectly by way of our bodily receptors. This model fits well with evolution, as we would expect brains to evolve in such a way as to be as simple as possible, consistent with making the organism aware of it's surroundings, and being able to "think" so as to enhance survival. But there is more, and this is really important. This model fits perfectly well within all well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge.

There is a difference between showing how consciousness is affected by brain and showing that consciousness can exist only in the brain (in other words the brain is the only medium as opposed to one of many possible ones). All of your points support the former but says nothing about the latter. Now you could say that the latter lacks evidence (this is debatable, of course) but this is a separate point from all of the examples you brought up about brain damage and consciousness.

FYI: You've been given plenty of valid reasons and evidence for why consciousness is able to exist outside of the brain. Furthermore, you've been given a method to prove much of these things for yourself. You choose to ignore it and stick with a science that has failed not only in explaining consciousness but also in their approach to studying it.

[ytrewq]

(a) Conventional consciousness (or call it ytrewq's consciousness if you prefer)
Consciousness resides within the brain, and not outside of it. In this model, consciousness does not exist in it's own right, and is a process (or part of a process) running in the computer that we call a brain. Emotions such as love and hate, as well as thoughts, are all similar, in that they are all processes occurring within the physical brain. There is plenty of evidence to support this. When different parts of the brain are stimulated or damaged, this influences the various processes occurring within the brain, and can selectively effect our emotions, vision, awareness, memory, consciousness and so on. And similarly, it is possible with modern technology to actually see which parts of the brain are active when we engage in different types of mental activity. This model seems exceedingly logical to me, and matches experimental results such as described extremely well. This model also fits exactly with the observation that no "consciousness" (or anything at all) has ever been observed outside the brain, and it also matches the astute observation that I made, that our consciousness and all other thought processes are not influenced by anything that we do to the environment outside of our brain and body, except indirectly by way of our bodily receptors. This model fits well with evolution, as we would expect brains to evolve in such a way as to be as simple as possible, consistent with making the organism aware of it's surroundings, and being able to "think" so as to enhance survival. But there is more, and this is really important. This model fits perfectly well within all well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge.

FYI: You've been given plenty of valid reasons and evidence for why consciousness is able to exist outside of the brain.

Slow down my friend. Absolutely zero evidence has been given to show, in any sort of scientifically acceptable way, that consciousness exists outside the brain. It has never been detected outside the brain, ever. Please let us be clear about that. What we have had is reports of the type that people have "felt" that their consciousness exists outside their body, which count for nothing and are discarded. And despite what you appear to be claiming, no explanation has been given as to how consciousness could exist outside the brain, in fact just the contrary, I showed that it could only do so so by way of a supernatural explanation, that was contrary to all well known and very well accepted scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, you've been given a method to prove much of these things for yourself.

I must have missed it. Kindly show me the method that can prove that consciousness exists outside our bodies, and I'll share with you the one million dollars available for anyone that can do so. Or were you just referring to how I can meditate, and "feel" that my consciousness is outside my body, which sadly counts for nothing.

You choose to ignore it and stick with a science that has failed not only in explaining consciousness ...

I ignore nothing, though I do stoutly refute a lot of claims made without evidence. And BTW, consciousness fits perfectly within the "conventional" view of consciousness that I gave, and does so without requiring supernatural explanations. Exactly which part of consciousness, for which robust evidence is available, does not fit within my "conventional" model? I should be interested to know.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 212 by Mithrae]

[Replying to post 206 by Mithrae]

Mithrae, just to clarify my last posting #208, I do not of course wish to imply that the "Mithrae's Model" is exactly what you had in mind. I was certainly not trying to build up a "straw man". Rather, I hope the model I presented encapsulates the key concepts that would be common to any model that claims that consciousness exists outside of our brain.

I didn't think you were making a strawman, and I respect that. There are a few important points of clarification needed though, one in particular being that [our] consciousness exists spatially exterior to our brains: I haven't suggested and see no reason to suppose that's the case, at least for day-to-day functioning of normal, healthy people. You've focused on that point a lot, perhaps reading a little too much into my one-line question earlier.

Yes, there are so many people I'm responding to that sometimes it's difficult to keep track of what you for example have actually said, and what others have said.

I love agreement, and it would be wonderful if we agreed that "broadly speaking" there is not reason to believe that consciousness exists outside of our brain, and I provided some fairly good reasons why we should believe it does not.

The reason I have been concentrating on the question "Does consciousness exist outside of our brain" is because I specifically asked that question, and I did so for a very good reason.

Any explanation or model of consciousness that "happens" inside the physical brain will barely get me to blink an eyelid, because any such model or explanation probably does not need to be of the supernatural type, meaning there is no clash with science.

But claims of consciousness outside of the body are a very different kettle of fish indeed and, for all the reasons given, IMHO are most unlikely to be correct.

Therefore, I was very keen to clarify if consciousness exists outside of out brain, and presented a good case that is does not, and that the conventional "in-brain" models seem much more likely.

One of the problems in an open debate forum thread is that everyone has different opinions and is asking different questions. I'm sure that some people insist that consciousness exists outside of the brain, and I'm equally sure that they can't win that debate, because they simply don't have the evidence. Should I methodically and patiently debate every such person until the bitter end? Unfortunately I don't think that is practical, which is why I try to specifically debate with people sequentially when I can, and right now I want to debate/discuss with you because you deserve it and I promised I would and when we both try hard then some quite useful discussion results. So much raving, sorry.

OK. So what do we want from each other. As I said, I have a particular interest in whether consciousness exists outside of our brain. We both appear to agree that, broadly speaking, it very hard to make the case that it does. I'm happy to discuss that further, as I think it's a crucial point.

Or would you like to discuss in-brain models of consciousness, which probably I won't be critical of because probably such models don't clash with well accepted science.

Over to you. Cheers.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 212 by Mithrae]

.... Pam Reynolds reportedly having conscious experience during a complete absence of brain activity; which is not an indisputable fact, by any stretch of the imagination, but it means that people who share your views are required to reject all or some parts of Pam's reported experience, introducing speculative explanations without verifiable evidence in order to do so... whereas people who do not suppose strict identity between consciousness and brain activity are not compelled to make any assumption either way.

Agreed it is always hard to know if reports such as this are entirely accurate, and certain of the claims are so absurd that I have serious doubts about their reliability or the neutrality of those making them, but let's assume that the story is basically true.

But you are jumping to conclusions. Pam's brain was most certainly not dead, or even injured, or otherwise she would would be dead or mentally retarded after the operation. The term that was actually used was that she was "clinically dead", meaning no heartbeat or blood to the brain, but her brain was still well and truly alive, and cooled to 10 DegC to ensure that it did stay alive. Brain activity was monitored by way of an ECG on the main brain stem, which monitored whether audible clicks from speakers in her ears produced a corresponding ECG signal on the brain stem. But that's all the brain monitoring that was carried out. There was no way to know if certain parts of her brain were still functioning - to do that would require probes into every part of her brain, which is practically impossible and, in any event, the monitoring was in fact limited to a single ECG sensor in the brain stem.

So in my view, it's a "no brainer" as to what happened, assuming the description of events is correct. The obvious explanation is that some parts of her brain were still functioning.

So in my view, your conclusions are wrong. Pam's reported experience is well explained by some parts of her brain continuing to more-or less function, which I find not unreasonable given that her brain was not dead, and AFAIK, the limited monitoring could not preclude that certain parts of her brain were still active.

So now compare that to the alternative, supernatural explanation of her consciousness being physically outside her body. I have already explained all the massive objections to assuming that consciousness exists outside the body, and will not repeat here. One simply does not invoke supernatural explanations, when natural explanations are available. As I said, deciding which explanation is more likely, is an unusually clear "no brainer" in my view.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 212 by Mithrae]

There is no evidence that this mysterious, proposed "consciousness" stuff or thing that supposedly exists outside of the brain actually exists. That's a very bad start. I don't have to prove that is does not exist - the onus is squarely on you to show that it does, and you are unable to do that.

Firstly, I already showed - in three previous posts and so far without refutation - that there is prima facie reason for supposing that consciousness of some kind does exist without brains, even down to the level of single-celled organisms, and even that human consciousness can (under some circumstances) experience perception from a vantage outside the body and potentially even in the total absence of brain activity; so these constant claims of 'no evidence' seem to be premature at best, or potentially yet more efforts to poison the well.

As I said to Razorsedge, I must have missed this evidence, though perhaps what you call "prima facie" was what I called purely speculative without evidence and thus discarded. Anyway, I do apologise for not taking it up with you at the time. Can you remind me of what this evidence was?

When you say that consciousness can exist without brains, if it is not within the brain, then pray tell where it is then? Presumably by definition if not within the brain then it is outside of it, in which case I'm entitled to ask where, and I know perfectly well you cannot answer that question in an evidenced way that I would take any notice of.

There is not evidence of which I am aware (including Pam) that consciousness can exist without a brain without at least some activity in some part of the brain, and there is absolutely no evidence that it can exist without a brain at all.

As for single celled organisms, here you appear to make the very common mistake of asking the wrong question. It is nonsense to ask if any given organism possesses consciousness, as if there was a YES or NO answer, any more than it makes to ask exactly when a foetus becomes conscious. The question is pure garbage, because consciousness is not a yes/no thing, but (obviously IMO) exists on a continuous sliding scale, from zero up to (or so we assume) the highest level which is experienced by humans. Does an ant posses a consciousness? I should say yes, but a very little one! For the level of consciousness to be far enough off zero to have any meaningful significance, an organism would IMO need to have a nervous system and very basic sensory system, but the important point is that it's silly to try to draw a line and attempt definitions. As organisms become simpler and more primitive the level of consciousness becomes less, to the point that an amoeba is not conscious in any meaningful sense, and a rock is not conscious at all.

.. even that human consciousness can (under some circumstances) experience perception from a vantage outside the body

Really? I reject that absolutely, unless you mean by way of mirrors or something. No meditative experience has ever demonstrated a perception from a vantage outside the body. If anyone can demonstrate that, then I have one million dollars for you. My apologies if meditation was not what you had in mind, but you did not actually say so I guess that's what you were talking about.

While I'm here, I'll clear up what I actually meant when I said I was not an "ist" of any sort. What I actually meant, but expressed very poorly, is that I don't have an embedded position of being any type of "ist" Sure, I would claim to be atheist, for example, but would change to something else tomorrow if there was compelling evidence to do so.

[Mithrae]

Absolutely zero evidence has been given to show, in any sort of scientifically acceptable way, that consciousness exists outside the brain. It has never been detected outside the brain, ever. Please let us be clear about that. What we have had is reports of the type that people have "felt" that their consciousness exists outside their body, which count for nothing and are discarded.

Let's also remain clear that consciousness has never been detected inside the brain... ever. If you were an android, or if an android held the same (somewhat arbitrary) standards as you are advocating, they would say that "absolutely zero evidence has been given to show in any sort of scientifically acceptable way" that consciousness exists at all. All we have in both cases are reports; innumerable reports of normal conscious experience from the body and many other reports that under certain circumstances, conscious experience can occur from outside the body also.

But claims of consciousness outside of the body are a very different kettle of fish indeed and, for all the reasons given, IMHO are most unlikely to be correct.

As I already pointed out, those reasons don't show anything beyond the limitations of our investigative techniques: We already know of some things (eg. dark matter, neutrinos) which would remain unaffected by virtually any ordinary experimental methods, and we know that consciousness is even more unique than those in that we can't actually detect it at all. So while I'm not aware of any reason to suppose that human consciousness exists spatially exterior to our brains under normal circumstances, nor is there any compelling reason to suppose that it doesn't and, in particular, no general reason whatsoever to reject the numerous reports that it sometimes does.

###

The term that was actually used was that she was "clinically dead", meaning no heartbeat or blood to the brain, but her brain was still well and truly alive, and cooled to 10 DegC to ensure that it did stay alive. Brain activity was monitored by way of an ECG on the main brain stem, which monitored whether audible clicks from speakers in her ears produced a corresponding ECG signal on the brain stem. But that's all the brain monitoring that was carried out. There was no way to know if certain parts of her brain were still functioning - to do that would require probes into every part of her brain, which is practically impossible and, in any event, the monitoring was in fact limited to a single ECG sensor in the brain stem.

So in my view, it's a "no brainer" as to what happened, assuming the description of events is correct. The obvious explanation is that some parts of her brain were still functioning.

So in my view, your conclusions are wrong. Pam's reported experience is well explained by some parts of her brain continuing to more-or less function, which I find not unreasonable given that her brain was not dead, and AFAIK, the limited monitoring could not preclude that certain parts of her brain were still active.

EEG monitoring showed no activity in response to one of the most basic of all stimuli, yet you assert that it is "obvious" that 'some parts' of her brain were still active and functioning with no blood flow and cooled to 10 degrees.

This is simply a statement of faith, pure and simple. No blood flow means no oxygen or glucose, both of which are necessary for all cellular metabolism and activity. The brain consumes a disproportionate chunk of the body's energy and has little storage capacity - which is why it is most at risk from cessation of blood flow. What you are asserting to be "obvious" seems to be quite literally physically impossible. But as I said, you are compelled by your presuppositions to introduce speculative 'explanations' without a shred of verifiable evidence.

So now compare that to the alternative, supernatural explanation of her consciousness being physically outside her body. I have already explained all the massive objections to assuming that consciousness exists outside the body, and will not repeat here. One simply does not invoke supernatural explanations, when natural explanations are available. As I said, deciding which explanation is more likely, is an unusually clear "no brainer" in my view.

In your view, given your presupposition of philosophical naturalism, maybe... although quite logically dubious even then, since by that 'reasoning' one could reject literally any evidence against the naturalistic framework on the grounds that the 'supernatural' conclusion is always patently absurd compared to any ad hoc alternative, no matter how unsubstantiated or far-fetched, as long it fits the naturalist perspective.

'Supernatural' is a nonsense word unless you have first assumed some form of naturalism. You earlier said "If you don't like the word "supernatural", then equally I could say that one does not propose a solution that does not fit within within well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge, when an alternative solution that does fit within well-established, well-accepted scientific knowledge exists, and does the job just as well": But I have already shown from several angles that there is no well-established scientific consensus regarding consciousness one way or the other. Moreover it is certainly the case that given no oxygen/blood flow to the brain, a 10 degree temperature and no EEG response to active stimulation, claiming that 'some parts' of the brain are nevertheless active definitely goes against well-established scientific knowledge. Under those terms, the only 'supernatural' explanation being invoked here is your statement of faith above!

[William]

[Replying to post 218 by Mithrae]

Let's also remain clear that consciousness has never been detected inside the brain... ever.

I can accept that brain-scanning techniques which allow for humans to detect brain activity have detected the correlation of consciousness WITH the brain, which I am happy enough to accept as evidence of consciousness interacting with brain.

In that, it appears that consciousness - even being non-physical - is able to effect that which is physical. Also in that, through observation of the physical, (by the ability of consciousness itself) Consciousness expresses itself and uses its physical instrument as a means of expression, and is therefore detecting itself.

What you are asserting to be "obvious" seems to be quite literally physically impossible. But as I said, you are compelled by your presuppositions to introduce speculative 'explanations' without a shred of verifiable evidence.

Apparently science is perfectly acceptable as long as it does not interfere with one's preferred belief system - be these theist-based or non-theist-based.

In your view, given your presupposition of philosophical naturalism, maybe... although quite logically dubious even then, since by that 'reasoning' one could reject literally any evidence against the naturalistic framework on the grounds that the 'supernatural' conclusion is always patently absurd compared to any ad hoc alternative, no matter how unsubstantiated or far-fetched, as long it fits the naturalist perspective.

'Supernatural' is a nonsense word unless you have first assumed some form of naturalism.

Seems to me that one can be a theist and believe in the superstitious idea of 'supernatural' and attribute all sorts of demonology to perfectly natural things.

And

One can also be an atheist and believe that consciousness which is thought of as being an occupier of the human instrument has to be called 'supernatural' as a means of attempting to hand-wave such arguments away.

I myself see nothing 'supernatural' in anything.

It is all so perfectly natural.

But I have already shown from several angles that there is no well-established scientific consensus regarding consciousness one way or the other. Moreover it is certainly the case that given no oxygen/blood flow to the brain, a 10 degree temperature and no EEG response to active stimulation, claiming that 'some parts' of the brain are nevertheless active definitely goes against well-established scientific knowledge. Under those terms, the only 'supernatural' explanation being invoked here is your statement of faith above!

I don't know if it is a statement from faith or not, but evoking it as if it were a logical argument to be making in protecting the face of materialism etc, seems counter-productive, and perhaps nothing more or less than a defense mechanism?

[Swami]

FYI: You've been given plenty of valid reasons and evidence for why consciousness is able to exist outside of the brain.

Slow down my friend. Absolutely zero evidence has been given to show, in any sort of scientifically acceptable way, that consciousness exists outside the brain.

Evidence has been offered but I see the problem is your qualifier, "scientifically acceptable way". This goes right back to the Eastern view and Western view. To get the evidence you need would take consciousness being what it is not, objectively observable, physical, etc. Western (materialist) science will never discover the origins and nature of consciousness unless they're willing to deal with it as is which will take some adapting of methods, paradigm changes, etc.

It has never been detected outside the brain, ever. Please let us be clear about that. What we have had is reports of the type that people have "felt" that their consciousness exists outside their body, which count for nothing and are discarded.

I prefer the word "perception" instead of "felt" because my experiences have involved much more than just feelings. I'm not sure why you are willing to make claims about meditation while being unwilling to even experience it for yourself. This is highly unreasonable.

And despite what you appear to be claiming, no explanation has been given as to how consciousness could exist outside the brain, in fact just the contrary, I showed that it could only do so so by way of a supernatural explanation, that was contrary to all well known and very well accepted scientific knowledge.

Are you aware that panpsychism is becoming accepted among some of the philosophers and scientists who study consciousness? This is because nothing in physics, chemistry, and biology offers a hint of how or WHY these levels of organization/processes would give rise to subjective experience.

My view does not involve anything supernatural. Meditation is a tool that anyone can practice. I honestly don't even see a reason why my view of consciousness needs to be called supernatural. It's just the way the Universe happens to be.

I must have missed it. Kindly show me the method that can prove that consciousness exists outside our bodies, and I'll share with you the one million dollars available for anyone that can do so.

I've already offered the method. It's up to you to use it.

Exactly which part of consciousness, for which robust evidence is available, does not fit within my "conventional" model? I should be interested to know.

- Your evidence does not cover the pure awareness state, the state that shows consciousness existing without mind and body.
- Your evidence doesn't even address the hard problem of consciousness. You just cited a bunch of correlations, at best.