The Conservation of Consciousness

[gs21stc]

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

Maybe "well-recognised" is not the proper word. I mean to say that these phenomena are something that the public are familiar with, being elements of popular religions. There are also instances where people have reported cases of reincarnation and possession. Examples include the appointment of the Dalai Lama in Tibetan Buddhism and the exorcism of Anneliese Michel in Roman Catholicism.

 

[KingMerv00]

Maybe "well-recognised" is not the proper word. I mean to say that these phenomena are something that the public are familiar with, being elements of popular religions. There are also instances where people have reported cases of reincarnation and possession. Examples include the appointment of the Dalai Lama in Tibetan Buddhism and the exorcism of Anneliese Michel in Roman Catholicism.

It is fine and dandy to ponder "What if?"

Without evidence, we say "So what?"

 

[gs21stc]

It is fine and dandy to ponder "What if?"

Without evidence, we say "So what?"

Yes, that is why I post my ideas in a forum called "Religion and Philosophy"

 

[Kopji]

My idea is that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, like wetness emerges from water.

...the exorcism of Anneliese Michel in Roman Catholicism.

Both priests who performed the exorcism and Anneliese's parents were convicted of negligent homicide. The Catholic Church, which had authorized the exorcism, reversed its position and declared Anneliese Michel a case of mental illness. - Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel

I am not going to be easily convinced that someone who was mistakenly murdered in the name of God is evidence in support of your view. You are in fact, standing pretty much alone with the murderers, since even the Church has changed its collective mind.

 

[gs21stc]

My idea is that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, like wetness emerges from water.

...the exorcism of Anneliese Michel in Roman Catholicism.


I am not going to be easily convinced that someone who was mistakenly murdered in the name of God is evidence in support of your view. You are in fact, standing pretty much alone with the murderers, since even the Church has changed its collective mind.

I am not saying that it is evidence. I am just trying to say that the concepts of reincarnation and possession are very popular and known to the general public. The Anneliese Michel case is a famous example of people claiming to have witnessed or experienced the phenomena of possession.

 

[cyborg]

Yeah but in Medieval times races of Dogheaded people living "elsewhere" were very popular and well known to the public.

Popularity has never been a particularly good metric for assessing ideas for one simple reason: the only quality an idea needs to be popular is... to be popular! It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[gs21stc]

Yeah but in Medieval times races of Dogheaded people living "elsewhere" were very popular and well known to the public.

Popularity has never been a particularly good metric for assessing ideas for one simple reason: the only quality an idea needs to be popular is... to be popular! It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hmm... A very good statement for me to think about.

 

[Ladewig]

I am not saying that it is evidence. I am just trying to say that the concepts of reincarnation and possession are very popular and known to the general public.

I think the only valid conclusion to make from that observation is that humans have very active imaginations.

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

So, then how do you explain how life can continue when the brain is injured in such a way as to severely limit or even erase consciousness?

 

[gs21stc]

So, then how do you explain how life can continue when the brain is injured in such a way as to severely limit or even erase consciousness?

A very good question. If consciousness is vital to life, then life shouldn't continue when consciousness is not there in the brain. Like someone who is brain dead. That person could not think or interact with the surroundings, yet the body is still alive. Is the consciousness gone? If it is gone, the body shouldn't be alive according to the assumption that consciousness is vital for life.

I would think that when someone is brain dead, the consciousness would still be there. It is just very inactive at that stage. When the body dies, the inactive consciousness in the brain will leave the body.

 

[godless dave]

If consciousness is vital to life, are bacteria conscious?

 

[cyborg]

Also define what you mean by life.

 

[gs21stc]

If consciousness is vital to life, are bacteria conscious?

That would be yes because bacteria is considered to be a life form.

 

[gs21stc]

Also define what you mean by life.

That is also another very good comment. The definition of life might not be restricted to only the carbon-based life forms we are familiar with on Earth. There could be other forms of life, and if consciousness is vital for life, they will also have consciousness.

 

[Ladewig]

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

You have made a mistake in your reasoning. It would be rash to speculate that consciousness can be transferred intact from one body to another. When energy is transferred from one body to another, there is always a way to observe and measure this transfer. In most cases, can easily observe the method of transfer: whether it is through direct contact of two bodies (as is not the case for consciousness (no one believes that the dying person must touch the new born baby for reincarnation)) or through the transmission of EM waves (which again is not the case for reincarnation).

Furthermore, even the laws related to conservation of energy do not stop energy from dissipating into a form that is useless. Even if consciousness were to follow the first law of thermodynamics, that would not mean that an individual's consciousness would always be in a useful or productive form. Just as a dying person's body heat slowly transfers itself to the surrounding atmosphere after death, a dying person's consciousness could slowly dissipate into the surrounding ether and never again be in a recognizable or practical form.

No, you have leapt to conclusions not warranted by the evidence.

 

[gs21stc]

You have made a mistake in your reasoning. It would be rash to speculate that consciousness can be transferred intact from one body to another. When energy is transferred from one body to another, there is always a way to observe and measure this transfer. In most cases, can easily observe the method of transfer: whether it is through direct contact of two bodies (as is not the case for consciousness (no one believes that the dying person must touch the new born baby for reincarnation)) or through the transmission of EM waves (which again is not the case for reincarnation).

Furthermore, even the laws related to conservation of energy do not stop energy from dissipating into a form that is useless. Even if consciousness were to follow the first law of thermodynamics, that would not mean that an individual's consciousness would always be in a useful or productive form. Just as a dying person's body heat slowly transfers itself to the surrounding atmosphere after death, a dying person's consciousness could slowly dissipate into the surrounding ether and never again be in a recognizable or practical form.

No, you have leapt to conclusions not warranted by the evidence.

Good point. Maybe I was too rash in my reasoning.

 

[Tricky]

Seeing as how there has never been a single, verifiable incidence of a consciousness which survives the death of the organism to which it was associated, I'd have to say that no, there is no evidence at all for "conservation of consciousness".

Also consider that the number of living things has been increasing on Earth for many million (billions?) of years. That would indicate that consciousness must be created, would it not? That would invalidate any idea of conservation of consciousness.

There are a lot of topics on the boards here about the origin of and definition of consciousness. I'm not against repeating those discussions, but you can save yourself some time by doing a quick search.

 

[godless dave]

That would be yes because bacteria is considered to be a life form.

You really think bacteria are conscious?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

'Conservation of consciousness' is problematic because there might not be anything to conserve. It could be analogous to say: How does one 'conserve running'? By continuing to run of course! But that's not really true either, it's not like running disappears when we stop.

 

[Earthborn]

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

Plants are far more reactive to their environment than rocks are. So I don't think it is strange to call them more "conscious" of their surroundings.

 

[gs21stc]

Seeing as how there has never been a single, verifiable incidence of a consciousness which survives the death of the organism to which it was associated, I'd have to say that no, there is no evidence at all for "conservation of consciousness".

True, there isn't any evidence for it.

Also consider that the number of living things has been increasing on Earth for many million (billions?) of years. That would indicate that consciousness must be created, would it not? That would invalidate any idea of conservation of consciousness.

Could consciousness exist without a living body?

There are a lot of topics on the boards here about the origin of and definition of consciousness. I'm not against repeating those discussions, but you can save yourself some time by doing a quick search.

OK, Thanks.