Thought experiment: Non-physical consciousness: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Thought experiment: Non-physical consciousness » Thought experiment: Non-physical consciousness

Thought experiment: Non-physical consciousness

Page: 1 2 3

Thought experiment: Non-physical consciousness

nagual
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 08/26/07 - 07:12 PM: Subject: Thought experiment: Non-physical consciousness	#1
Hey, this is my first post in in this subforum (and my second post on this forum) . Sorry for the lack of proper philosophical terminology, if any - I'm just getting back to philosophy after a hiatus. I have basically a functional/reductionistic view of consciousness, but I am also curious about so called paranormal phenomena, such as OOBE:s (out of body experiences, can also be known as near death experiences, or NDE:s). Now, hypothetically say that OOBE:s do exist, in the sense of not merely being a hallucination/waking dream of sorts; that your consciousness could actually physically exist independently of the brain. What would this mean for the question of consciousness? For instance, I see no problem with artificial intelligence, and that we will be able to "create" an artificial being with consciousness and feelings. Would that then mean that it would also acquire the ability for OOBE:s? And what kind of level of consciousness would you need to have OOBE:s, and why? Does a dog have the ability? An ant? I see a couple of possibilities: 1. Reductionistic view: At some point in the development of consciousness, some kind of quantum processes (or the like) start happening, which lead to the ability for non-localization of the consciousness. Have no concrete theory of the specifics though (which may have to do with my lacking knowledge in advanced theoretical physics). There are some theories for quantum consciousness, but would they explain OOBE:s? 2. Non-reductionistic view: Consciousness is the basis for reality, i.e. first consciousness (in some, perhaps for us inexplicable form) existed, then materia for some reason was created out of it. That would mean that what we call consciousness would be simply like a radio dialing into a frequency/station, facilitated by our brains. Both approaches have their own inherent issues, but they are just initial thoughts on the matter. So let's say that "non-physical consciousness" exists, what then is consciousness?

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 533

Posted 10/02/07 - 09:29 AM:	#2
Hi Nagual I doubt if it is rationally possible to believe in a pure functionalist account of consciousness and ‘non illusionary’ OOBEs, since the former defines what the brain can experience. It would be largely limited to internal processes in this situation, certainly not a 3rd persons perspective on their own body. Even a naturalistic dualist view would have difficulty explaining non illusionary OOBEs, since even in this view experience must be related to brain states. The only view that I can think of that would be consistent with OOBEs would be a form of Idealism where all that exists is mind stuff or consciousness. In this view our brain itself is only a perception or interpretation of reality generated for the sake of consistency. Perhaps this isn’t a bad analogy since OOBEs and NDEs are probably just that, dreams or illusions! This is what I choose to believe unless evidence to the contrary is provided, and there are many simple experiments one can do to refute OOBEs as perceived and interpreted by those who experience them. Edited by perseus on 10/02/07 - 09:33 AM
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

kwidgybo
Hoping to Evolve Soon

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Location: Clemson, SC
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 188

Posted 10/02/07 - 11:30 AM:	#3
My problem with this is I don't really understand what constitutes an OOBE. I'm not aware that anyone has ever had their brain completely stop functioning, and then restart again. Just because the heart and lungs stop, the brain is still active for a few minutes (unless I'm wrong) so how can one say their mind or consciousness has existed independent of the body or brain? It may be that they DO exist independent of the brain, but they've never come back to tell us about it - unless there are examples of a former mind occupying the body of different person (channeling? which although I know has been claimed, I have serious doubts as to the reality of it). If there is a part of the consciousness that exists independent of the brain, it does not include any of the components of the brain (obviously) such as the memory, intellect, senses, etc. Thus, if such a thing as channeling were to happen, I don't think we would know it - because the consciousness would not have benefit of the memories it left behind in the original body. Were it to do so would mean that memories would be both part of the brain (which we know) and part of this eternal consciousness, which seems unlikely. Maybe impressions are carried, and maybe these explain some of the phenomena that have been reported (past lives, etc.) If anything, I find things such as OOBEs and NDEs to be fantastic ideas that cloud the more important issue of the nature of the consciousness. - Kwi

the logos
you win

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 394

Posted 10/06/07 - 12:26 PM:	#4
NDEs and OOBEs are both mysteries due to scientist's poor understanding of the nature of consciousness. Many people who've had NDEs come back from it with more intelligence. Sleep is also a mystery, why do we die without sleep? It has no obvious biological benefits. Clearly there is some element of consciousness that can't stay in this dimension for very long before it has to go to some other dimension to "recharge". When seen from this perspective, it appears that consciousness may not be dependent on the brain. Edited by the logos on 10/06/07 - 12:32 PM
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". Bertrand Russell Man has forgotten how to die because he does not know how to live. (Rousseau)

Death Monkey
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2003
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 2437

Posted 10/09/07 - 06:07 AM:	#5
the logos, NDEs and OOBEs are both mysteries due to scientist's poor understanding of the nature of consciousness. Not really. There is no reliable evidence for any "out of body experiences" that cannot be attributed to hallucinations in a dying or extremely stressed brain. What there is, is a huge pile of anecdotes that people religiously believe are true, but which cannot be explained scientifically. Many people who've had NDEs come back from it with more intelligence. Can you name one case for which there is reliable scientific evidence of this? Sleep is also a mystery, why do we die without sleep? It has no obvious biological benefits. Nothing about how the brain works is obvious. It is no mystery that your brain is active during sleep, and active in different ways than when you are awake. So why should it be suprising that our health requires us to maintain the natural cycle of wakefullness/sleep that we have adapted to over hundreds of thousands of years? Why do we die if we don't eat certain types of foods? There are no obvious biological benefits of eating fruit either. But there are very clear non-obvious benefits. Clearly there is some element of consciousness that can't stay in this dimension for very long before it has to go to some other dimension to "recharge". How is that even remotely clear? Where is your evidence that such "dimensions" even exist, much less that your consciousness "goes there" when you sleep? This is nothing more than an ad-hoc explanation for something you do not understand. Not only is it not clear, it is not even grounded in reality. You may as well suggest that when we are sleeping, our alien overlords living on the moons of Jupiter are beaming mind-control signals into our brains, and that the reason we die without sleep is because they have genetically alterred us to do so, so that we will not be able to escape their mind control. When seen from this perspective, it appears that consciousness may not be dependent on the brain. Well, obviously, since "that perspective" starts out with the assumption that consciousness is not dependent on the brain, but instead is some independent "thing" that can magically travel between "dimensions". DM
Pseudoscience makes Baby Jesus cry.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7930

Posted 10/09/07 - 07:38 AM:	#6
nagual wrote: Now, hypothetically say that OOBE:s do exist, in the sense of not merely being a hallucination/waking dream of sorts; that your consciousness could actually physically exist independently of the brain. What would this mean for the question of consciousness? For instance, I see no problem with artificial intelligence, and that we will be able to "create" an artificial being with consciousness and feelings. Would that then mean that it would also acquire the ability for OOBE:s? If one's conscisousness could leave one's body during sleep or meditation (being physically seperate and distinct from the brain and sensory organs), then it would mean that there was no necessary relation between the brain and consiousness, and that all the evidence that there is such a relationship was a huge coincidence. It would also mean that a lobotomy wouldn't alter one's awareness. It would mean that loosing one's eyes wouldn't effect their sight. It would also mean that there was some invisible and currently undetectable organ that is able to detatch itself from the body without harming itself or the body that is responsible for many of the functions currently associated with the brain, the central nervous system and the sensory organs. And what kind of level of consciousness would you need to have OOBE:s, and why? Um... level 4? What is a level of consiousness? Does a dog have the ability? An ant? Since we are speculating on something that flies in the face of all of our current knowledge about the human body, then you might as well just pick an answer that appeals to you. Both approaches have their own inherent issues, but they are just initial thoughts on the matter. So let's say that "non-physical consciousness" exists, what then is consciousness? This seems like an entirely backward approach to me. Wouldn't you want to determine what consiousness is before you say that non-physical consciousness exists? Otherwise, we don't even know what we are asking... and that means the question is nonsense (literally words without sense).
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7930

Posted 10/09/07 - 07:42 AM:	#7
kwidgybo wrote: If anything, I find things such as OOBEs and NDEs to be fantastic ideas that cloud the more important issue of the nature of the consciousness. Well, the notion does act as a reductio ad absurdum for some mind/brain dualist theories.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

the logos
you win

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 394

Posted 10/09/07 - 10:05 AM:	#8
DM, I didn't know philosophy was science? If anything, surely philo. is more free to explore possiblities than science, more free to "play with ideas". Must it be limited by the rigid confines of science? Your mockery about aliens at Jupiter may be true. Why? You cannot disprove it. So, it isn't as crazy as you make it out to be. I for one an a bit exasperated at how obsessed people are with science anymore. Where are new ideas supposed to come from if all we do is stew around in facts??? More thought beyond science, less thought constricted by science! OBEs remind me of dreaming. So when we dream at night, does it mean that our brain is dying? NO. Even if dreams are due to random neuron firing, scientists fail to even understand how memories are stored and retrieved or how the brain simulates the future; the element of time and the mental processes are are poorly understood by science. Not to mention that the purpose of emotions is well beyond science. "Nothing about how the brain works is obvious."-DeathMonkey So you admit. "There are no obvious biological benefits of eating fruit either."-DM Huh? The benefits of eating fruit are clear (no mystery there). As for my speculating that consciousness goes somewhere else when in deep sleep: We can say that it ceases to exist though, right? Kinda like when death finds us. So, is it that far fetched to say that the reason for sleep and death may be related? I think that when we sleep, that perhaps our consciousness is used by something else in a parallel dimension(perhaps when it is awake as opposed to sleeping). And when it is sleeping, I am awake. And I know this idea is far too exciting for science, but I choose to believe it anyway. I don't even think it is far-fetched. Why can't reality be stranger than you can imagine, I suppose it is. Reality is more than what can be defined by science for me, and why shouldn't it be? What is it that directs the activity of the brain/mind, where is it? I bet you can't answer this with science. So, there is a lot of room for explorative thought. Edited by the logos on 10/09/07 - 06:17 PM
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". Bertrand Russell Man has forgotten how to die because he does not know how to live. (Rousseau)

Death Monkey
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2003
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 2437

Posted 10/10/07 - 04:58 AM:	#9
logos, I didn't know philosophy was science? It isn't. I don't understand why you have made this comment. If anything, surely philo. is more free to explore possiblities than science, more free to "play with ideas". Must it be limited by the rigid confines of science? Again, I do not see what you are talking about. Philosophy is certainly less rigid than science, simply because science is a subset of a particular branch of philosophy. But what does this have to do with anything I said? Your mockery about aliens at Jupiter may be true. Why? You cannot disprove it. So, it isn't as crazy as you make it out to be. And yet you correctly identify it as mockery. And still you expect your notion about some disembodied consciousness transporting to different dimensions when we sleep, which is no less speculative or far-fetched than my scenario, to be taken seriously. Why is that? I for one an a bit exasperated at how obsessed people are with science anymore. Where are new ideas supposed to come from if all we do is stew around in facts??? More thought beyond science, less thought constricted by science! Gee. Let's not let those pesky facts get in the way of our attempts to understand the world. Actually, that's fine with me. No need to bring facts into it at all. But we have a term for that sort of thing, and it isn't 'philosophy'. It is called 'fantasy'. My idea about aliens on Jupiter controlling our thoughts is fantasy, not philosophy. And so is your idea about disembodied consciousness travelling to other dimensions while we sleep. OBEs remind me of dreaming. So when we dream at night, does it mean that our brain is dying? NO. I don't see your point. Drug-induced hallucinations remind me of dreaming, but that does not mean that when you dream at night you are on drugs. So what? Even if dreams are due to random neuron firing, scientists fail to even understand how memories are stored and retrieved or how the brain simulates the future; the element of time and the mental processes are are poorly understood by science. Not to mention that the purpose of emotions is well beyond science. So what? There is a great deal we do not yet understand about how the brain works. No surprise, given that the brain is the most complex thing we have discovered in the world. What does that have to do with your dimension travelling fantasies? "Nothing about how the brain works is obvious."-DeathMonkey So you admit. Why wouldn't I? "There are no obvious biological benefits of eating fruit either."-DM Huh? The benefits of eating fruit are clear (no mystery there). Are they obvious? I think not. Before the discovery of vitimin C, and its role in the metabolism, scientists had no idea why fruit could help to prevent scurvy. As for my speculating that consciousness goes somewhere else when in deep sleep: We can say that it ceases to exist though, right? We can say it, but it isn't true. About the only time that happens is under deep anesthesia. Kinda like when death finds us. So, is it that far fetched to say that the reason for sleep and death may be related? Only if we bring those pesky "facts" into it again. Death is the ceasing of the metabilic functions of your body. Sleep is not. I think that when we sleep, that perhaps our consciousness is used by something else in a parallel dimension(perhaps when it is awake as opposed to sleeping). And when it is sleeping, I am awake. Again, this is neither science nor philosophy. It is speculative fantasy. And I know this idea is far too exciting for science, Not too exciting. Just completely devoid of any justification, and totally contrary to what we know about how the world works. but I choose to believe it anyway. Why not choose to believe my Jupiter fantasy instead? Just because you like it more than my fantasy? Do you really think there are any objective grounds on which you can assess your fantasy to be any more likely than mine, or any of a thousand other fantasies I could dream up if the urge took me? I don't even think it is far-fetched. Really? I have difficulty imaging what you would think is far-fetched, then. Why can't reality be stranger than you can imagine, I suppose it is. An odd question, given that the scenario you suggest is something you have imagined, and therefore is clearly not stranger than you can imagine. Reality is more than what can be defined by science for me, and why shouldn't it be? Any statement of the form "reality is ... for me" is nonsensical to begin with. Reality is what it is. Also, I don't think you meant "defined" there, but instead "described". Maybe there is more to reality than what can be described by science. But again, so what? What does that have to do with the validity of a fantasy you have dreamed up? What is it that directs the activity of the brain/mind, where is it? I bet you can't answer this with science. You would lose that bet. According to science, the activity of the brain is directed by the brain. It is a thinking machine. And what we think of as the "mind" is just collective high-level behavior of the brain. So, there is a lot of room for explorative thought. There is always room for fantasy. Dream away. Just do not expect anybody else to think of it as anything more than that. It becomes philosophy when you formulate it into an explanatory model which helps us to understand how things really are, and it becomes science when you can formulate it into a testable theory which makes falsifiable and potentially useful predictions. DM
Pseudoscience makes Baby Jesus cry.

the logos
you win

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 394

Posted 10/10/07 - 06:54 AM:	#10
DM, You are very much concerned with scientific evidence. This is why I make the comment: philosophy is not science. The thing about aliens on Jupiter is a mockery from your perspective, not mine. When I am in deep sleep, my consciousness goes bye-bye. And there is no one else to make this judgement but me. Do you never get proper nights sleep? Reality is something that exists independently of ideas concerning it (dictionary.com). So, reality may be quite different from the way philosophers and scientists take it to be. It may be quite different from the way anybody perceives it to be. Reality is something that everyone perceives differently; it is something that everyone has ideas about. You seem to think that we are all robots with the exact same reality, which is quite unfeasible to me. I don't deny that my belief about consciousness being shared by two entities may not be true, but if it is true to me, atleast it keeps my mind open and contemplating where it could just shut down, and shut out the idea. Closed-mindedness doesn't contribute to creative thougt. Creative thought is necessary for new ideas. Many great thinkers had crazy beliefs, and who knows, this may have had something to do with why they were great thinkers as explained above. Again: reality just may be stranger than you can imagine, so why would you want to act like you know what is real? The way I see it, a philosophers job is to analyze mysteries and formulate coherent ideas about them. In the future, as more and more of the veil is removed from "reality", people will learn that the old mode of reasoning was not adequate, that it was much too narrow and limited. In what sense is life not fantasy? Is it not fantasy simply because there exists common agreement on what is real? For me, the infinite nature of the universe meets fantasy. Are we supposed to pretend that the earth exists inside of a giant box, separated from the rest of the universe and close our minds in a similar fashion? The difference between "reality" and fantasy doesn't seem as clear-cut as you would like it to be. Edited by the logos on 10/10/07 - 08:44 AM
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". Bertrand Russell Man has forgotten how to die because he does not know how to live. (Rousseau)

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.