Hypothesis for consciousness apart from the physical body

[SeaPriestess]

Is there one?

Why not?

I would think some radical off the wall brainiac genius scientist of some sort would at least come up with something.

Anyone?

[AgnosticBoy]

Is there one?

Why not?

I would think some radical off the wall brainiac genius scientist of some sort would at least come up with something.

Anyone?

I'm not aware of any scientific hypothesis that satisfies what you're looking. The simple reason is that we would have no way of testing for a disembodied consciousness. Hek, it was not too long ago that many scientists used to not accept consciousness tied to a physical body because of it's subjective nature. So with that in mind I doubt they'd be willing accept anything that isn't tied to a physical system or body. To open up to that, we'd need science to change some of their methodology. I'll leave you with some relevant insight from my neural science textbook:

As yet we do not know even the simplest case how the firing of specific neurons leads to conscious perception. In fact, Searle argues that we lack even an adequate theoretical model of how an ontologically objective phenomenon-electrical signals in another person's brain-can cause an ontologically subjective experience such as pain. Because consciousness is irreducibly subjective, it lies beyond the reach of science as we currently practice it.

Similarly, Nagel argues that because current science is essentially a reductionist approach to understanding phenomena it cannot address consciousness without a significant change in method, one in which the elements of subjective experience are defined. These elements are likely to be basic components of brain function much as atoms and molecules are basic components of matter. According to Nagel, object-to-object reductions are not problematic because we understand, at least in principle, how the properties of a given type of matter arise from the molecules of which it is made. What we lack are rules for extrapolating subjective experience from the physiochemical properties of interconnected nerve cells.

Source: Principles of Neural Science, 5th edition (pg. 386)

Even the skeptical neuroscientist Steven Novella admits that consciousness has not been explained. Just read the 1st and very last paragraph here.

So there you have it. While there's currently no hypothesis that explains consciousness apart from body, but then there's also no theory that explains the origins and nature of consciousness WITHIN the body either.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by SeaPriestess]

I, for one, know about Lady Conway and Leibniz Monadology theory that concerns the nature of soul or consciousness both inside and outside the body.

The hypothesis can be formulated in several ways, given telepathy, soul-experiment or other.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

Note that theories and hypotheses can be spawned as you like, whether they are considered scientific or not. There is no real boundary for theories and hypotheses. "Make your own today!"

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Good point and interesting point. I will read up on those scientists you mentioned. Without understanding very much about science, when I read briefly about particles at a distance who can communicate with each other, it gave me this hope because communication is well, communication, right? WOW. And this sort of awareness so....to me, I guess I fit in assumptions that "could" work just as a thought, kinda like when Einstein had a thought. Yeah, I know I'm not Einstein. lol Thank you!

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 9 by William]

Thanks for posting that.

The mind functioning well, even better when the brain isn't functioning is an interesting concept. I wasn't able to watch the last part of the video. Does the neuro-scientific community conclude that there is definitely something to these NDEs that without a doubt cannot be explained? Do you have any references where they stand today on this specifically? Thanks


Oh and OOPS, I responded with this in that thread, sorry. We dont have to go there.

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 10 by AgnosticBoy]

Wow, holy cow, that's heavy. I didn't even click on your link yet either! Thank you. Ok, so at least now I know why the brainiacs haven't come up with something. You can only build upon that which you know!

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 7 by Neatras]

See Agnostics Boy's post on this. Is it sort of what you are saying?

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 11 by Aetixintro]

Good point. I was looking for more of a mathematical framework. Not like I would understand it myself or anything. But I thought some sort of mathematical framework would obviously either work or it wouldn't. I guess it only doesn't work if it can't be tested. But at least it's not what you would call "subjective", seeing that its math and all. Like you said, many can come up with theories and hypothesis's that are not based in empirical science. I imagine, without having any real grasp on how many hypothesis' there are out there that have not been tested because they can't but are based in math, some we can be almost certain about because there are other tested hypothesis' to support them?

[TSGracchus]

"A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review." -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

If it can't be tested, it is not really a hypothesis. It is just what we used to call in the army, a WAG, a wild a** guess. The existence of consciousness has never been demonstrated without a physical basis. There is no good reason to suppose such to be possible.

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by TSGracchus]

True that, although the gist of the OP seemed to be asking if anything was being done to determine things one way or the other and if there is no other word to be used except expressions like "WAG" this doesn't allow for any other types of study to be recognised as legitimate in their own right, and folk can just say 'that's a WAG' which isn't necessarily true at all.

Due to our immediate circumstances the existence of anything has never been demonstrated without a physical basis. Consciousness itself has not been shown to be a physical 'thing' - only to interact with physical things. There is good enough reason to suppose consciousness can exist independent of the physical structure, 'the brain'.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 18 by William]

William: "Consciousness itself has not been shown to be a physical 'thing' - only to interact with physical things. There is good enough reason to suppose consciousness can exist independent of the physical structure, 'the brain'."

There is no good reason to suppose the ripple can exist independent of the river. The brain reacts to the environment, including its own state. Consciousness is that reaction.
No demonstration has been made that any other factors are involved.