Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?

[Atla]

Then stop being dishonest, which is insulting also.

You'd better change your tone, or I'll stop replying to your posts!

No scientific evidence exists for p-consciousness, neural or not. Where is your Nobel prize?

Scientific evidence is empirical evidence. Introspective evidence is empirical evidence. There is introspective evidence for P-consciousness!

QUOTE>
"If 'consciousness' means conscious experience in the concrete, the proposition 'Consciousness does not exist' shows itself 'absurd and impossible' by the fundamental canons of science, philosophy, and common sense. Either the proposition, therefore, is false, or it entails the most searching scientific revolution ever envisioned, not merely in psychology but in all human concept-systems and all logical and scientific methodology. Such revision, although not impossible, is greater than any attempted by a Plato, a Darwin, or an Einstein. Its positive nature I cannot conjecture, and the behaviorists themselves have shown small interest or aptitude for it. Finally, even if it were accomplished, it must be so complex that no conceivable psychological advantage would warrant its substitution for the current scheme. No living man, I think, ever seriously thought through so recondite a possibility."

(Williams, Donald Cary. "The Existence of Consciousness." In Principles of Empirical Realism: Philosophical Essays, 23-40. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1966. p. 30)
<QUOTE

There is no such thing as "introspective evidence" in the hard sciences.

[Pattern-chaser]

The Nobel Prize is waiting for those who develop a convincing evidence-based scientific theory of non-neural mechanisms of consciousness in non-animal organisms!

You are getting ahead of yourself.

• The first Nobel Prize awaits she who develops a convincing, evidence-based scientific theory of neural mechanisms of consciousness in human organisms!
• Then we need to do what we're doing here: explore new ideas in a flexible and considered manner.
• One day, after a lot of work, it may be that one of those ideas will form the basis of a convincing evidence-based scientific theory of non-neural mechanisms of consciousness in non-animal organisms.

But that's a long way into the future. Your impatience for a formal scientific theory is hampering our speculative search for ideas, for theories that we might develop into something more formal. Be patient.

[Pattern-chaser]

Then stop being dishonest, which is insulting also.

You'd better change your tone, or I'll stop replying to your posts!

No scientific evidence exists for p-consciousness, neural or not. Where is your Nobel prize?

Scientific evidence is empirical evidence. Introspective evidence is empirical evidence. There is introspective evidence for P-consciousness!

QUOTE>
"If 'consciousness' means conscious experience in the concrete, the proposition 'Consciousness does not exist' shows itself 'absurd and impossible' by the fundamental canons of science, philosophy, and common sense. Either the proposition, therefore, is false, or it entails the most searching scientific revolution ever envisioned, not merely in psychology but in all human concept-systems and all logical and scientific methodology. Such revision, although not impossible, is greater than any attempted by a Plato, a Darwin, or an Einstein. Its positive nature I cannot conjecture, and the behaviorists themselves have shown small interest or aptitude for it. Finally, even if it were accomplished, it must be so complex that no conceivable psychological advantage would warrant its substitution for the current scheme. No living man, I think, ever seriously thought through so recondite a possibility."

(Williams, Donald Cary. "The Existence of Consciousness." In Principles of Empirical Realism: Philosophical Essays, 23-40. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1966. p. 30)
<QUOTE

There is no such thing as "introspective evidence" in the hard sciences.

There is no such thing as "consciousness" in the hard sciences. It cannot be defined or measured, so it doesn't exist, as far as hard science is concerned.

[Atla]

Then stop being dishonest, which is insulting also.

You'd better change your tone, or I'll stop replying to your posts!

No scientific evidence exists for p-consciousness, neural or not. Where is your Nobel prize?

Scientific evidence is empirical evidence. Introspective evidence is empirical evidence. There is introspective evidence for P-consciousness!

QUOTE>
"If 'consciousness' means conscious experience in the concrete, the proposition 'Consciousness does not exist' shows itself 'absurd and impossible' by the fundamental canons of science, philosophy, and common sense. Either the proposition, therefore, is false, or it entails the most searching scientific revolution ever envisioned, not merely in psychology but in all human concept-systems and all logical and scientific methodology. Such revision, although not impossible, is greater than any attempted by a Plato, a Darwin, or an Einstein. Its positive nature I cannot conjecture, and the behaviorists themselves have shown small interest or aptitude for it. Finally, even if it were accomplished, it must be so complex that no conceivable psychological advantage would warrant its substitution for the current scheme. No living man, I think, ever seriously thought through so recondite a possibility."

(Williams, Donald Cary. "The Existence of Consciousness." In Principles of Empirical Realism: Philosophical Essays, 23-40. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1966. p. 30)
<QUOTE

There is no such thing as "introspective evidence" in the hard sciences.

There is no such thing as "consciousness" in the hard sciences. It cannot be defined or measured, so it doesn't exist, as far as hard science is concerned.

No, if you can't measure something, it
1. either means that it doesn't exist
2. or it means that it's everything and it's everywhere where you are looking for it, and what you are looking for it with.

[AmericanKestrel]

the human body/mind is perishable. consciousness is imperishable. human body and mind receive sentience when illuminated by consciousness. when the perishable perishes Consciousness remains.
wishful thinking is a strange way to describe a way of being - non-dual.

You described a form of duality (wishful thinking). In pure non-duality, the human body/mind is already one with consciousness, so it can't be outside of itself to illuminate itself or to recevive something from itself.

e Conciousness, it is not contained within the body and is limitless. Human body is perishable it is not the same. Nonduality is knowing the self is not the body, it is Consciousness.

Again: the body is also part of the limitless self/consciousness. It's one with it / continuous with it.

X can't be outside of X, X can't iluminate X, X can't receive something from X.

Consciousness is self illuminating and it illuminates sentiency into being.

[Atla]

You described a form of duality (wishful thinking). In pure non-duality, the human body/mind is already one with consciousness, so it can't be outside of itself to illuminate itself or to recevive something from itself.

e Conciousness, it is not contained within the body and is limitless. Human body is perishable it is not the same. Nonduality is knowing the self is not the body, it is Consciousness.

Again: the body is also part of the limitless self/consciousness. It's one with it / continuous with it.

X can't be outside of X, X can't iluminate X, X can't receive something from X.

Consciousness is self illuminating and it illuminates sentiency into being.

No it's not and no it doesn't, consciousness just is. Why are you making up stuff?

[Atla]

You described a form of duality (wishful thinking). In pure non-duality, the human body/mind is already one with consciousness, so it can't be outside of itself to illuminate itself or to recevive something from itself.

e Conciousness, it is not contained within the body and is limitless. Human body is perishable it is not the same. Nonduality is knowing the self is not the body, it is Consciousness.

Again: the body is also part of the limitless self/consciousness. It's one with it / continuous with it.

X can't be outside of X, X can't iluminate X, X can't receive something from X.

Can you demonstrate or substantuate any of this speculation?

What speculation? It's fact, unless you can demonstrate or substantiate your speculation that they are not the same thing (in other words that Western thinking is not fundamentally wrong).

[AmericanKestrel]

e Conciousness, it is not contained within the body and is limitless. Human body is perishable it is not the same. Nonduality is knowing the self is not the body, it is Consciousness.

Again: the body is also part of the limitless self/consciousness. It's one with it / continuous with it.

X can't be outside of X, X can't iluminate X, X can't receive something from X.

Consciousness is self illuminating and it illuminates sentiency into being.

No it's not and no it doesn't, consciousness just is. Why are you making up stuff?

For the last time body, anything that is born or made, dies, becomes earth. Consciousness has no origin, no birth, it IS knowledge, no death, and always is. If you dont get that you dont get nondualism, which is ONE, never two.

[Atla]

Again: the body is also part of the limitless self/consciousness. It's one with it / continuous with it.

X can't be outside of X, X can't iluminate X, X can't receive something from X.

Consciousness is self illuminating and it illuminates sentiency into being.

No it's not and no it doesn't, consciousness just is. Why are you making up stuff?

For the last time body, anything that is born or made, dies, becomes earth. Consciousness has no origin, no birth, it IS knowledge, no death, and always is. If you dont get that you dont get nondualism, which is ONE, never two.

Again: you are the one talking about two things, the mind/body and the eternal consciousness that illuminates it. In nondualism proper we understand that the temporal mind/body is also one with the eternal consciousness. It makes no sense to say that X illuminates X. X is X, it can't be outside of itself, and act upon itself, using itself.

Nondualism is NOT just feel-good escapist wishful thinking, it can be pretty brutal in its conclusions, but those coming from the Advaita angle often don't dare to go there.

[Sculptor1]

e Conciousness, it is not contained within the body and is limitless. Human body is perishable it is not the same. Nonduality is knowing the self is not the body, it is Consciousness.

Again: the body is also part of the limitless self/consciousness. It's one with it / continuous with it.

X can't be outside of X, X can't iluminate X, X can't receive something from X.

Can you demonstrate or substantuate any of this speculation?

What speculation? It's fact, unless you can demonstrate or substantiate your speculation that they are not the same thing (in other words that Western thinking is not fundamentally wrong).

Unless you can demonstrate or substantiate a statement it remains pure speculation.
I do not have any speculations on this topic. I have not mentioned "western thinking" whatever that is.
Unless you can demonstrate or substantiate your statement it remains a fantasy of your own making.

[AmericanKestrel]

Consciousness is self illuminating and it illuminates sentiency into being.

No it's not and no it doesn't, consciousness just is. Why are you making up stuff?

For the last time body, anything that is born or made, dies, becomes earth. Consciousness has no origin, no birth, it IS knowledge, no death, and always is. If you dont get that you dont get nondualism, which is ONE, never two.

Again: you are the one talking about two things, the mind/body and the eternal consciousness that illuminates it. In nondualism proper we understand that the temporal mind/body is also one with the eternal consciousness. It makes no sense to say that X illuminates X. X is X, it can't be outside of itself, and act upon itself, using itself.

Nondualism is NOT just feel-good escapist wishful thinking, it can be pretty brutal in its conclusions, but those coming from the Advaita angle often don't dare to go there.

No idea what non dualism proper is. It is based on Advaita, the original vedantic philosophy. And no it is not about any brutality, it is about one true thing, eternal, and peace. If it is brutal it is not nondualism, something else.

[Atla]

No it's not and no it doesn't, consciousness just is. Why are you making up stuff?

For the last time body, anything that is born or made, dies, becomes earth. Consciousness has no origin, no birth, it IS knowledge, no death, and always is. If you dont get that you dont get nondualism, which is ONE, never two.

Again: you are the one talking about two things, the mind/body and the eternal consciousness that illuminates it. In nondualism proper we understand that the temporal mind/body is also one with the eternal consciousness. It makes no sense to say that X illuminates X. X is X, it can't be outside of itself, and act upon itself, using itself.

Nondualism is NOT just feel-good escapist wishful thinking, it can be pretty brutal in its conclusions, but those coming from the Advaita angle often don't dare to go there.

No idea what non dualism proper is. It is based on Advaita, the original vedantic philosophy. And no it is not about any brutality, it is about one true thing, eternal, and peace. If it is brutal it is not nondualism, something else.

Nondualism in general has nothing to do with peace or blissfulness, that's just Advaitan dressing added to it. Although I do think that most people become a lot more peaceful and blissful after nondual awakening.

[AmericanKestrel]

For the last time body, anything that is born or made, dies, becomes earth. Consciousness has no origin, no birth, it IS knowledge, no death, and always is. If you dont get that you dont get nondualism, which is ONE, never two.

Again: you are the one talking about two things, the mind/body and the eternal consciousness that illuminates it. In nondualism proper we understand that the temporal mind/body is also one with the eternal consciousness. It makes no sense to say that X illuminates X. X is X, it can't be outside of itself, and act upon itself, using itself.

Nondualism is NOT just feel-good escapist wishful thinking, it can be pretty brutal in its conclusions, but those coming from the Advaita angle often don't dare to go there.

.
No idea what non dualism proper is. It is based on Advaita, the original vedantic philosophy. And no it is not about any brutality, it is about one true thing, eternal, and peace. If it is brutal it is not nondualism, something else.

Nondualism in general has nothing to do with peace or blissfulness, that's just Advaitan dressing added to it. Although I do think that most people become a lot more peaceful and blissful after nondual awakening.

I believe non dualism is western version of the non theistic version of Advaita, the original vedanta based on the 12 upanishads of the vedas.
If not what is the basis for what you call nondualism? Do you have any references or is this some thoughts of your own? What do you mean by dressing added to thevoriginal?

[Atla]

Again: you are the one talking about two things, the mind/body and the eternal consciousness that illuminates it. In nondualism proper we understand that the temporal mind/body is also one with the eternal consciousness. It makes no sense to say that X illuminates X. X is X, it can't be outside of itself, and act upon itself, using itself.

Nondualism is NOT just feel-good escapist wishful thinking, it can be pretty brutal in its conclusions, but those coming from the Advaita angle often don't dare to go there.

.
No idea what non dualism proper is. It is based on Advaita, the original vedantic philosophy. And no it is not about any brutality, it is about one true thing, eternal, and peace. If it is brutal it is not nondualism, something else.

Nondualism in general has nothing to do with peace or blissfulness, that's just Advaitan dressing added to it. Although I do think that most people become a lot more peaceful and blissful after nondual awakening.

I believe non dualism is western version of the non theistic version of Advaita, the original vedanta based on the 12 upanishads of the vedas.
If not what is the basis for what you call nondualism? Do you have any references or is this some thoughts of your own? What do you mean by dressing added to thevoriginal?

Nondualism is a lot more than Advaita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

I meant the general idea by it, one undivided without a second (but also not oneness in the positive sense). Nondual thinking as opposed to dualistic thinking. For example I think Zen buddhists have a more precise understanding of nondualism than Advaitans, even if they aren't explicit about it. It's also the only way of thinking that's compatible with modern science, and science informs us further what is and isn't superstition within the nondualist traditions.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is no such thing as "introspective evidence" in the hard sciences.

There is no such thing as "consciousness" in the hard sciences. It cannot be defined or measured, so it doesn't exist, as far as hard science is concerned.

No, if you can't measure something, it
1. either means that it doesn't exist
2. or it means that it's everything, and it's everywhere where you are looking for it, and what you are looking for it with.

You start off by saying "No", but you offer no refutation. My words are, as far as I know, factually correct. And the most important part of those words is the final qualification: "...as far as hard science is concerned". I have personal - and personally-verifiable - knowledge that consciousness exists, and I think you do too. But the hard sciences have no means available to them to detect, measure or test consciousness, so, to them, consciousness does not exist.

I offered the simple point I made because this topic is about consciousness, and the "hard sciences" have no appropriate tool/technique to investigate it. Your initial point (above) is correct, as far as I know; my comment offered an extension to your words, perhaps placing your comment into context within this discussion? That was my intention, anyway.