There are paranormal events, which are best explained by coincidence, intuition, empathy, illusion, hallucination, or delusion. There remain a core number of paranormal events that can't be attributed to any of those, and which don't depend on substance dualism.Consul wrote: ↑October 9th, 2021, 1:52 pmI'm sure occultists love the comparison with dark matter or dark energy.
By the way, physics does deal with unobservable entities too; but the occult entities postulated by "paraphysics" or "cryptophysics" such as "spiritual bodies" are not amenable to serious treatment by natural science.
Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
"The Spiritual Body:
The consciousness of the fact of a present ethereal organism within the physical, and of its indestructible permanency as the real body by which we retain our organic individuality forever, the outward body being but a garment, as it were, for temporary service in gaining a brief, needful experience in the primary school of the senses, removes all fear of death, and gives such a sense of security and soul supremacy that life in the body becomes a delight, a glad opportunity, a field for sublime achievement and a triumphant success.
The great Apostolic seer affirms, “There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. …Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural and afterward that which is spiritual.” And this testimony of the Apostle is corroborated by that of many seers of different ages and people independent each of the others. There never was and never can be a physical organism without a corresponding inner organism which determines the outward form and gives it its functions. There cannot be a living physical body without a soul embodied in it as its constructive and controlling life. The very object of a physical organism is the individualization and embodiment of life in which some specific principle is enthroned as the determining power of the organism, and of the character of the life embodied in it; and this specialization constitutes a determining soul,whether self-conscious or not.
Life thus individualized in embodiment under a specialized adaptation of principle, as in a plant or animal, becomes organic, blended with a substantial organism in function, an organized entity, capable of reproducing itself indefinitely. But the living organic entity though connected with a material body, is itself blended with a finer substance than that which we recognize as physical, and which constitutes an inner and invisible structure between the pure life and controlling principle, and the grosser substance which constitutes the physical body, and is the medium through which the outward organism is controlled by the inward principle or soul of the organism. And when in nut or seed this inner organism, and its embodied principle we call the germ, is quickened and made to unfold its specific life in new expression, the very substance of the nut or grain becomes transmuted into the finer substance of the nobler body that shall be. The same law and principle holds good in all organism, and we here see typified that nobler physical life that will come to man with the opening and enthronement of the higher planes of consciousness.
Man stands at the head of the organic world, its highest product and final result, the ultimate of creation, and the culmination of all that preceded him in the chain of organic existences. The processes of life in organic embodiment having culminated and reached their perfection in man, are in him reproduced on a new and grander scale. The primary object of the temporary physical organism is the individualization and perfection of a permanent and indestructible soul organism of an ethereal substance not subject to decay. In this permanent organism the very nature of God and eternal life are organically blended or embodied, an individualized divinity, and started upon an unending career of unfolding life in the outworking of an individual destiny, “For which cause,” adds the Apostle, “we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. For we know that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens.”"
(Dewey, John Hamlin. The New Testament Occultism, or Miracle Working Power Interpreted as the Basis of an Occult and Mystic Science. New York: J. H. Dewey Publishing Co., 1895. pp. 150-2)
<QUOTE
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
In that interview he mentions Bahrain Elahi:Consul wrote: ↑October 9th, 2021, 1:12 pm I just listened to an interview with Sam Parnia: https://www.facebook.com/CloserToTruthT ... 932027531/
Parnia clearly endorses or favors substance dualism; but, surprisingly, he denies the immateriality of the soul (psyche). According to him, it is made of some matter, but it's a "subtle" kind of matter that is distinct from the kind of matter bodies and brains are made of. Behind this is the good old occultistic distinction between "thick", "coarse" matter (the one accessible to and observable by normal physical science) and "thin", "fine", "subtle", "ethereal" matter. The soul is regarded as a body, but it's an invisible "spiritual body" made of "thin" matter. This is an intramaterialistic substance dualism rather than a transmaterialistic one (such as Cartesian substance dualism), but it's nonetheless an unscientific sort of occultism. There isn't a shred of physical evidence for such paramaterial souls.
QUOTE>
"Professor Bahrain Elahi, a distinguished professor of surgery and anatomy with a strong interest in the question of consciousness or the soul and its nature, has expressed the view that although the psyche or soul and the brain are separate, the entity we are referring to as psyche or soul is not immaterial. Rather, it is composed of a very subtle type of matter that, although still undiscovered, is similar in concept to electromagnetic waves, which are capable of carrying sound and pictures and are governed by precise laws, axioms, and theorems. Therefore, in Professor Elahi's view, everything to do with this entity should be regarded as a separate, undiscovered scientific discipline and studied in the same objective manner as other scientific disciplines. He argues that as science is a systematic and experimental method of obtaining knowledge of a given domain of reality, then human "consciousness" or soul can and should also be studied with the same objectivity. Each scientific discipline such as chemistry, biology, and physics has its own laws, theorems, and axioms, and in the same manner that which pertains to “consciousness" or the "soul" should also be studied in the context of its own laws, theorems, and axioms. In his view, consciousness or soul is also a scientific entity and a type of matter, though it is a substance that is too subtle to be measured using the scientific tools available today. Therefore, in his view, the brain is an instrument that relays information to and from both the internal and external worlds. but "consciousliess" or the "soul" is a separate and subtle scientific entity[195]that interacts directly with it. Furthermore, as the human soul or consciousness is a separate yet entirely real entity that determines the true reality of the person, it continues to exist after death."
(Parnia, Sam, and Josh Young. The Lazarus Effect: The Science That Is Rewriting the Boundaries Between Life and Death. London: Rider, 2013. pp. 194-5)
<QUOTE
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
The soul is best thought of as a developmental process like acorns to oaks, or chrysalis to moth. Aristotle carefully observed marine life.There never was and never can be a physical organism without a corresponding inner organism which determines the outward form and gives it its functions. There cannot be a living physical body without a soul embodied in it as its constructive and controlling life. The very object of a physical organism is the individualization and embodiment of life in which some specific principle is enthroned as the determining power of the organism, and of the character of the life embodied in it; and this specialization constitutes a determining soul,whether self-conscious or not.
Life of a soul after death is not the same as Cartesian mind and matter as separate ontic substances, because a process is not a substance.For Aristotle, forms do not exist independently of things—every form is the form of some thing. A “substantial” form is a kind that is attributed to a thing, without which that thing would be of a different kind or would cease to exist altogether.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
According to Aristotle (and his psychological hylomorphism), the soul is the form of the living body (so his concept of a soul seems virtually identical to the concept of life); and qua substantial form (substantial universal, substantial kind) the Aristotelian soul is a "secondary substance"—as opposed to the Cartesian soul, which is a "primary substance" (particular, individual substance). Primary substances are instances of/instantiate secondary substances. (For example, all horses are instances of/instantiate the kind horsehood.)Belindi wrote: ↑October 9th, 2021, 3:03 pm Quote from Consul's post, above:
The soul is best thought of as a developmental process like acorns to oaks, or chrysalis to moth. Aristotle carefully observed marine life.There never was and never can be a physical organism without a corresponding inner organism which determines the outward form and gives it its functions. There cannot be a living physical body without a soul embodied in it as its constructive and controlling life. The very object of a physical organism is the individualization and embodiment of life in which some specific principle is enthroned as the determining power of the organism, and of the character of the life embodied in it; and this specialization constitutes a determining soul,whether self-conscious or not.
Life of a soul after death is not the same as Cartesian mind and matter as separate ontic substances, because a process is not a substance.For Aristotle, forms do not exist independently of things—every form is the form of some thing. A “substantial” form is a kind that is attributed to a thing, without which that thing would be of a different kind or would cease to exist altogether.
I interpret Dewey's "spiritual body" as being like the Cartesian soul—which is a primary substance, a thing—rather than like the Aristotelian soul—which is a secondary substance, a kind.
However, when Dewey says that "[t]here cannot be a living physical body without a soul embodied in it as its constructive and controlling life," then souls or spiritual bodies in his sense are unlike Cartesian souls insofar as these don't exist in(side) bodies, and don't even exist anywhere in space.
Note that neither the soul qua primary substance nor the soul qua secondary substance is a process!
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
I note that neither the soul qua primary substance nor the soul qua secondary substance is a process. I am unwilling to relinquish the notion of process as applied to Aristotle's idea of soul. I'd say therefore that the soul is that which causes changes during life to happen to living beings, and when they die they become as inert as things which never had any soul: not entirely unaffected by change but only those changes that are physical forces , not changes caused by metabolic events. It's accidental that living things are said to be "bodies" and also that dead things are said to be"bodies"; an example of homonymy. (I wonder if there is a language in which dead bodies and living bodies are named differently, like for instance the jargon of anatomists who properly call what they investigate "cadavers" .)Consul wrote: ↑October 9th, 2021, 5:35 pmAccording to Aristotle (and his psychological hylomorphism), the soul is the form of the living body (so his concept of a soul seems virtually identical to the concept of life); and qua substantial form (substantial universal, substantial kind) the Aristotelian soul is a "secondary substance"—as opposed to the Cartesian soul, which is a "primary substance" (particular, individual substance). Primary substances are instances of/instantiate secondary substances. (For example, all horses are instances of/instantiate the kind horsehood.)Belindi wrote: ↑October 9th, 2021, 3:03 pm Quote from Consul's post, above:
The soul is best thought of as a developmental process like acorns to oaks, or chrysalis to moth. Aristotle carefully observed marine life.There never was and never can be a physical organism without a corresponding inner organism which determines the outward form and gives it its functions. There cannot be a living physical body without a soul embodied in it as its constructive and controlling life. The very object of a physical organism is the individualization and embodiment of life in which some specific principle is enthroned as the determining power of the organism, and of the character of the life embodied in it; and this specialization constitutes a determining soul,whether self-conscious or not.
Life of a soul after death is not the same as Cartesian mind and matter as separate ontic substances, because a process is not a substance.For Aristotle, forms do not exist independently of things—every form is the form of some thing. A “substantial” form is a kind that is attributed to a thing, without which that thing would be of a different kind or would cease to exist altogether.
I interpret Dewey's "spiritual body" as being like the Cartesian soul—which is a primary substance, a thing—rather than like the Aristotelian soul—which is a secondary substance, a kind.
However, when Dewey says that "[t]here cannot be a living physical body without a soul embodied in it as its constructive and controlling life," then souls or spiritual bodies in his sense are unlike Cartesian souls insofar as these don't exist in(side) bodies, and don't even exist anywhere in space.
Note that neither the soul qua primary substance nor the soul qua secondary substance is a process!
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
[Oh dear, this is getting off-topic again…sorry!]Belindi wrote: ↑October 9th, 2021, 7:09 pmI note that neither the soul qua primary substance nor the soul qua secondary substance is a process. I am unwilling to relinquish the notion of process as applied to Aristotle's idea of soul. I'd say therefore that the soul is that which causes changes during life to happen to living beings, and when they die they become as inert as things which never had any soul: not entirely unaffected by change but only those changes that are physical forces , not changes caused by metabolic events. It's accidental that living things are said to be "bodies" and also that dead things are said to be"bodies"; an example of homonymy. (I wonder if there is a language in which dead bodies and living bodies are named differently, like for instance the jargon of anatomists who properly call what they investigate "cadavers" .)
I'm not an expert in Aristotle exegesis, but I know there's a general metaphysical debate as to whether substantial forms are (efficient) causes. Some say they are (efficient) causes of the accidents (attributes) of a substance. For example, Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) says that "the soul is the efficient cause of a living thing’s accidents."
The Aristotelian soul can be said to participate in the life (qua process) of a living body in the sense that it is that in virtue of which a body is alive rather than dead; so all vital (and all mental) processes depend on the soul.
If bodies are essentially ensouled according to Aristotle, then a desouled or soulless (and thus lifeless) body is not or no longer a body. However, the general metaphysical concept of a body makes no difference between living bodies and nonliving or dead ones. For example, Thomas Hobbes defines "body" as "that which fills, or occupies some certain room, or imagined place; and depends not on the imagination", as "whatever coincides or is coextensive with a part of space, and does not depend on our thought". So bodies are (material) 3D objects. Living organisms are bodies, and so are dead ones. (Even a cloud of gas is a body in the broad metaphysical sense of the term.)
Linguistic excursion:
In German there are two words for "body": "Körper" (derived from the Latin noun "corpus") and "Leib". The German noun "Leib" and the English noun "life" have the same etymological root, and the original meaning of "Leib" is in fact "Leben" = "life". But "Leib" and "Körper" have been used synonymously in German for a very long time, and "Leib" can be applied to dead organisms as well. The phrase "toter Leib" ("tot" = "dead") is not a contradiction in terms. However, it sounds pretty odd to me (as a native speaker of German) to use "Leib" to refer to inorganic things such as rocks and stones that have never been alive.
As for dead organic bodies (organisms), there is a German counterpart of the English "cadaver" = "Kadaver". And there are also the good old German nouns "Leiche" and "Leichnam". "Leiche" has always meant "toter Leib" = "dead body", whereas "Leichnam" originally meant "lebender Leib" = "living body", but then became synonymous with "Leiche".
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
That's a very strong statement, whose correctness seems to depend on a number of unjustifiable assumptions.Tegularius wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 12:53 am There is nothing which soul can explain or express that brain physiology cannot...
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
I'm willing to listen to any assumptions you find unjustifiable; but right now I'm going to bed since it's 3:45 a.m. where I am. The brain requires sleep!Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 6:33 amThat's a very strong statement, whose correctness seems to depend on a number of unjustifiable assumptions.Tegularius wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 12:53 am There is nothing which soul can explain or express that brain physiology cannot...
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
Discussion of change from life to death is on topic because when we understand what sort of 'experience' is appropriate to a cadaver the better we understand experience appropriate to a live man.Consul wrote: ↑October 9th, 2021, 10:50 pm[Oh dear, this is getting off-topic again…sorry!]Belindi wrote: ↑October 9th, 2021, 7:09 pmI note that neither the soul qua primary substance nor the soul qua secondary substance is a process. I am unwilling to relinquish the notion of process as applied to Aristotle's idea of soul. I'd say therefore that the soul is that which causes changes during life to happen to living beings, and when they die they become as inert as things which never had any soul: not entirely unaffected by change but only those changes that are physical forces , not changes caused by metabolic events. It's accidental that living things are said to be "bodies" and also that dead things are said to be"bodies"; an example of homonymy. (I wonder if there is a language in which dead bodies and living bodies are named differently, like for instance the jargon of anatomists who properly call what they investigate "cadavers" .)
I'm not an expert in Aristotle exegesis, but I know there's a general metaphysical debate as to whether substantial forms are (efficient) causes. Some say they are (efficient) causes of the accidents (attributes) of a substance. For example, Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) says that "the soul is the efficient cause of a living thing’s accidents."
The Aristotelian soul can be said to participate in the life (qua process) of a living body in the sense that it is that in virtue of which a body is alive rather than dead; so all vital (and all mental) processes depend on the soul.
If bodies are essentially ensouled according to Aristotle, then a desouled or soulless (and thus lifeless) body is not or no longer a body. However, the general metaphysical concept of a body makes no difference between living bodies and nonliving or dead ones. For example, Thomas Hobbes defines "body" as "that which fills, or occupies some certain room, or imagined place; and depends not on the imagination", as "whatever coincides or is coextensive with a part of space, and does not depend on our thought". So bodies are (material) 3D objects. Living organisms are bodies, and so are dead ones. (Even a cloud of gas is a body in the broad metaphysical sense of the term.)
Linguistic excursion:
In German there are two words for "body": "Körper" (derived from the Latin noun "corpus") and "Leib". The German noun "Leib" and the English noun "life" have the same etymological root, and the original meaning of "Leib" is in fact "Leben" = "life". But "Leib" and "Körper" have been used synonymously in German for a very long time, and "Leib" can be applied to dead organisms as well. The phrase "toter Leib" ("tot" = "dead") is not a contradiction in terms. However, it sounds pretty odd to me (as a native speaker of German) to use "Leib" to refer to inorganic things such as rocks and stones that have never been alive.
As for dead organic bodies (organisms), there is a German counterpart of the English "cadaver" = "Kadaver". And there are also the good old German nouns "Leiche" and "Leichnam". "Leiche" has always meant "toter Leib" = "dead body", whereas "Leichnam" originally meant "lebender Leib" = "living body", but then became synonymous with "Leiche".
John Keats exprssedessed that point in "Ode To A Nightingale".
A cadaver's ears are indeed "in vain", as are its brains and all else. except as the cadaver during the process of disintegration 'experiences' only gravity and friction. The cadaver may be hit by a sleety shower and does not experience the sleety shower as "cold" and "wet". Cadavers are troubling to look at as they appear like living beings but their Aristotelian soul is absent; and this is why we usually want to get them out of sight as soon as possible preferably by a professional undertaker . Even the Pharoahs were shut away out of sight.Darkling I listen; and, for many a time
I have been half in love with easeful Death,
Call'd him soft names in many a mused rhyme,
To take into the air my quiet breath;
Now more than ever seems it rich to die,
To cease upon the midnight with no pain,
While thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad
In such an ecstasy!
Still wouldst thou sing, and I have ears in vain—
To thy high requiem become a sod.
The Aristotelian soul i.e. what moderns call "life" has been a popular concept for centuries due to the christianising of Aristotelian philosophy. There is another concept of 'soul' as that which we experience as more secret and undefinable than our personas.
William Blake expressed this concept of soul :
The most obvious interpretation of what is aspired to is happy life after death. Blake is not obvious and people's "sunflowers" are better understood as that inbuilt capacity, that soul, of men to seek for what is better than the suffering intrinsic to human experience.Ah Sun-flower! weary of time,
Who countest the steps of the Sun:
Seeking after that sweet golden clime
Where the travellers journey is done.
Where the Youth pined away with desire,
And the pale Virgin shrouded in snow:
Arise from their graves and aspire,
Where my Sun-flower wishes to go.
So ,no, consciousness cannot exist without any brain at all, if you take consciousness to be what a medic such as an anaesthesiologist, considers to be consciousness.
If by "consciousness" you mean experiencing an environment, then there is nothing that lacks some sort of experience, including not only entities with Aristotelian soul but also cadavers and clods of mud.(I recommend panpsychism.)
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
Sleep well!Tegularius wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 6:45 amI'm willing to listen to any assumptions you find unjustifiable; but right now I'm going to bed since it's 3:45 a.m. where I am. The brain requires sleep!Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 6:33 amThat's a very strong statement, whose correctness seems to depend on a number of unjustifiable assumptions.Tegularius wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 12:53 am There is nothing which soul can explain or express that brain physiology cannot...
"Any" assumptions? Here are just a few:
- That the soul can be usefully and meaningfully defined.
- That souls exist.
- That humans have souls.
- That souls are created or sustained by the brain.
- That a brain is necessary for the continued existence of a soul.
- That a soul could (not) be sustained otherwise than by a brain.
And that last point brings us around to the topic here, or close to it: "Can souls exist without any brain at all?"
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
Don't quite know how to reply in spite of feeling wide awake! Are the "assumptions" listed those you believe I made? On the surface they appear to be your objections to the improbability of there being a soul....or maybe I'm just dense today.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 7:22 amSleep well!Tegularius wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 6:45 amI'm willing to listen to any assumptions you find unjustifiable; but right now I'm going to bed since it's 3:45 a.m. where I am. The brain requires sleep!Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 6:33 amThat's a very strong statement, whose correctness seems to depend on a number of unjustifiable assumptions.Tegularius wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 12:53 am There is nothing which soul can explain or express that brain physiology cannot...
"Any" assumptions? Here are just a few:
[I imagine there are many more such examples.]
- That the soul can be usefully and meaningfully defined.
- That souls exist.
- That humans have souls.
- That souls are created or sustained by the brain.
- That a brain is necessary for the continued existence of a soul.
- That a soul could (not) be sustained otherwise than by a brain.
And that last point brings us around to the topic here, or close to it: "Can souls exist without any brain at all?"
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?
It should be clear that in the context of this thread "experience" is used in the psychological sense only: mental, inner, subjective experience. In this sense dead bodies or cadavers experience nothing. They undergo decay, but there is nothing it is like for a dead body to decay.Belindi wrote: ↑October 10th, 2021, 7:03 amDiscussion of change from life to death is on topic because when we understand what sort of 'experience' is appropriate to a cadaver the better we understand experience appropriate to a live man.
John Keats exprssedessed that point in "Ode To A Nightingale".
…
A cadaver's ears are indeed "in vain", as are its brains and all else. except as the cadaver during the process of disintegration 'experiences' only gravity and friction. The cadaver may be hit by a sleety shower and does not experience the sleety shower as "cold" and "wet". Cadavers are troubling to look at as they appear like living beings but their Aristotelian soul is absent; and this is why we usually want to get them out of sight as soon as possible preferably by a professional undertaker . Even the Pharoahs were shut away out of sight.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023