The Conservation of Consciousness

[gs21stc]

I recently have a thought on consciousness.

Could it just be as simple as the bio-chemical reactions in the brain?

Is consciousness created when you were born and destroyed when you die?
What if that is not true? Would consciousness be conserved then? Like Energy?

Then, it would not be rash to speculate that consciousness can be transferred from one body to another. I can see a strong case for reincarnation and possession. I can also see a simple explanation for stillbirths.

I have come to think that consciousness is a fundamental entity of the universe which is vital for life. Without consciousness, there is no life. I think the reason why we have not solve the mystery of the origin of life is that no one have thought seriously about the role of consciousness in the emergence of life on Earth.

What are your views about this?

 

[wollery]

Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

 

[Dragoonster]

I recently have a thought on consciousness.

Could it just be as simple as the bio-chemical reactions in the brain?

Could be, yeah.

Is consciousness created when you were born and destroyed when you die?
What if that is not true? Would consciousness be conserved then? Like Energy?

"born" doesn't seem a good divide. "recognizing self", or any definition of consciousness, seems to be much better. In this sense, it's an artifact of a certain level of brainstate, perhaps nothing more. Or perhaps a lot more, it remains a difficult subject. The observation might have to do with the ability to modify a normally determinative process, but I'm way over my head here.

Then, it would not be rash to speculate that consciousness can be transferred from one body to another. I can see a strong case for reincarnation and possession. I can also see a simple explanation for stillbirths.

I have come to think that consciousness is a fundamental entity of the universe which is vital for life. Without consciousness, there is no life. I think the reason why we have not solve the mystery of the origin of life is that no one have thought seriously about the role of consciousness in the emergence of life on Earth.

What are your views about this?

It doesn't seem vital for life, unless you're claiming flagelletes and clams have consciousness. This might be a problem with definition--I've always seen "self-awareness" as an integral part of any definition, and doubt that clams can distinguish between themselves (themselves being their brainstate) and the external.

It's a difficult subject. Even if we'd assume materialistic or deterministic science can explain consciousness, we could revert to basic philosophy of the self-nonself distinction, ontology, etc. Consciousness is the only way we can appreciate any of these things, and is (perhaps) limited by it's (possible) lack of omniscience.

If we're discussing this solely to form an argument for how consciousness can survive physical brain/body-death, then my hunch is it doesn't. The major stumbling block for accepting this is the admittal that consciousness can cease. Of course it ceases everytime you sleep, but then people who want it to survive can point to a body-mind connection, which paradoxically opens them to more criticism.

Summation--I ain't got no idea of what the hell's going on, either because I haven't studied enough or because the answer is currently elusive. Not sure which.

 

[Explorer]

"It doesn't seem vital for life, unless you're claiming flagelletes and clams have consciousness. This might be a problem with definition--I've always seen "self-awareness" as an integral part of any definition, and doubt that clams can distinguish between themselves (themselves being their brainstate) and the external."

Until we can define "consciousness" we cannot design any test to establish whether or not simple forms of life possess it.

I would suggest that self-awareness is not a good definition of consciousness.

There were some tests done with young children recently, where memory was used to established at what age does the sense of "self" develop. The results came to the conclusion that this property of the infant brain, developed between the ages of two and three. However, to assume that children below this age do not have consciousness is surely nonsense.

There must be some more basic level of the sense of being alive, that does not require memory to function. An fetus in the womb will react and behave to outside stimuli. Are we saying that this embryonic individual does not know that it is alive?

My hunch is that even single celled organisms have a basic life sense (which I shall call it from now on). The intensity of that sense would be enhanced by increasing brain complexity, but only through increasing the ability of the individual to rationalise its own existence, which then could lead to improved Darwinian survival strategies, the ultimate of course being the example of the complex human brain.

 

[Dancing David]

Um lacking a defintion of consciousness and any way that it could be preserved outside a body it is rather like asking what toppings angels prefer on thier pizzas.

 

[Robin]

I recently have a thought on consciousness.

Could it just be as simple as the bio-chemical reactions in the brain?

Is consciousness created when you were born and destroyed when you die?
What if that is not true? Would consciousness be conserved then? Like Energy?

Then, it would not be rash to speculate that consciousness can be transferred from one body to another. I can see a strong case for reincarnation and possession. I can also see a simple explanation for stillbirths.

I have come to think that consciousness is a fundamental entity of the universe which is vital for life. Without consciousness, there is no life. I think the reason why we have not solve the mystery of the origin of life is that no one have thought seriously about the role of consciousness in the emergence of life on Earth.

What are your views about this?

The reason that we have not solved the mystery of the origin of life is that it was a microscopic chemical event billions of years ago on a somewhat different environment and most of the evidence has long since vanished.

But think about a single conscious thought. It is not a simple thing, it is in fact very complex.

So how can a very complex thing like consciousness be a fundamental entity? Wouldn't a fundamental entity necessarily be simple? Surely a conscious thought must necessarily consist of even more fundamental entities.

 

[Complexity]

I recently have a thought on consciousness.

Could it just be as simple as the bio-chemical reactions in the brain?

Yes.

Although, to characterize those reactions as 'simple' is, well, simple.

 

[martu]

I have come to think that consciousness is a fundamental entity of the universe which is vital for life.

Do you have any evidence for this?

 

[KingMerv00]

My hunch is that even single celled organisms have a basic life sense (which I shall call it from now on). The intensity of that sense would be enhanced by increasing brain complexity, but only through increasing the ability of the individual to rationalise its own existence, which then could lead to improved Darwinian survival strategies, the ultimate of course being the example of the complex human brain.

Hunches aren't enough.

 

[godless dave]

I have come to think that consciousness is a fundamental entity of the universe which is vital for life. Without consciousness, there is no life.

Do you think bacteria are conscious? Fungi? Plants? Life on earth existed for a long time before consciousness.

 

[KingMerv00]

Do you think bacteria are conscious? Fungi? Plants? Life on earth existed for a long time before consciousness.

If you read above, he seems to believe that.

The problem is that, in terms of consciousness, plants and rocks are indistinguishable.

 

[martu]

There must be some more basic level of the sense of being alive, that does not require memory to function. An fetus in the womb will react and behave to outside stimuli. Are we saying that this embryonic individual does not know that it is alive?

Nope it's just chemistry.

 

[Wowbagger]

I have read enough books on the subject of conscious to know that there is no scientific basis for reincarnation, what-so-ever, and that, so far, materialistic explanations have been enough to model a Theory of Mind (or, more precisely "Theories", as there is more than one) that can make testable predictions in how people will think, in general.

Still no one knows everything about consciousness, so it would be arrogant to completely rule out any idea regarding it. You never know.

However, it is vitally important to make the distinction between scientific investigation of consciousness and philosophical ideas! Anyone can conjure up any philosophy they want, but unless it meets the rigor of the scientific method, please avoid claims that your ideas might actually be true, or even a "strong case".

But, as long as this is in the Philosophy forum, I guess it's okay to take a break from science, for a little bit.

The following is the only philosophical argument I seem to like regarding reincarnation:

Given the likelihood you would have ever become conscious, in the first place, is it really so far fetched to think that the likelihood of becoming conscious again, after this life is over, is really that much lower?
We can't predict what you will be "reincarnated" as, it could be a sentient form of rock on a far away planet, for all we know. And, I severely doubt any of your memories will be preserved, at all. But, at least you will be conscious in some manner, assuming the probability argument holds.

 

[Beerina]

Until we can define "consciousness" we cannot design any test to establish whether or not simple forms of life possess it.

A Nobel prize winner suggests the time to start attacking the problem is now.

I would suggest that self-awareness is not a good definition of consciousness.

In philosophical terms, the "pre-reflective cogito", the consciousness that is not aware of itself (yet), seems to have all the vital, important bits as far as the machinery goes. Self-awareness, like language, is a nice addition, but not truly a core feature.


Higher animals at least seem to have consciousness. They have behaviors like anger, fear, pain response, and so on, that, in humans, seem to be driven, in part at least, by a consciousness of experiences. So it is reasonable that this portion is present in animals that express these behaviors, too, at least in some limited sense.

If that were not the case, you'd have to presume animals could express those behaviors without it, which makes consciousness experiencing anger, etc. a pointless double-development.

Nah, evolution latched onto consciousness long, long before the brain got large enough to figure out not to get the long leash tangled around the lawn table.

 

[Explorer]

Hunches aren't enough.

Where did I say it was?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3627379&postcount=4

Seemes to be a hunch in here and a lot of speculation on that hunch;

The intensity of that sense would be enhanced by increasing brain complexity, but only through increasing the ability of the individual to rationalise its own existence, which then could lead to improved Darwinian survival strategies, the ultimate of course being the example of the complex human brain.

In that statement, since it is sort of vague, it is mostly speculative.



I don't see that rationalizing ones own existance will lead to greater reproduction, the only darwinian survival strategy that matters. More babies that live to reproduce.

 

[KingMerv00]

Where did I say it was?

My hunch is that even single celled organisms have a basic life sense (which I shall call it from now on). The intensity of that sense would be enhanced by increasing brain complexity, but only through increasing the ability of the individual to rationalise its own existence, which then could lead to improved Darwinian survival strategies, the ultimate of course being the example of the complex human brain.

Bolding mine.

If you are just hypothesizing, that's fine. If you want to seriously suggest your hunch is reality then we will need more.

 

[gs21stc]

Do you have any evidence for this?

No Evidence. This is, if you like, a hypothesis of mine. I think that consciousness is as fundamental as energy. It might possess the same property of energy, that it is conserved.

The well recognised phenomena like reincarnation, possession and stillbirths can be used as a framework to design an experiment to test this hypothesis.

 

[GreyICE]

Um lacking a defintion of consciousness and any way that it could be preserved outside a body it is rather like asking what toppings angels prefer on thier pizzas.

I don't know, but I'm sure it tastes heavenly!

 

[arthwollipot]

No Evidence. This is, if you like, a hypothesis of mine. I think that consciousness is as fundamental as energy. It might possess the same property of energy, that it is conserved.

The well recognised phenomena like reincarnation, possession and stillbirths can be used as a framework to design an experiment to test this hypothesis.

Reincarnation and possession are well-recognised phenomena now? When did that happen?