Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Seeker101
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:20 am

Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Seeker101 »

Hi, I am a student of metaphysics and I have been debating the issue of consciousness with friends and a lot of other people.

Esoteric view: Brain is only an organ for the subtle bodies where consciousness actually reside to experience the physical world
Materialist view: There is no observable proof of subtle matter/bodies, consciousness can be explained purely through braincells and their function

How do you objectively prove to someone that sentient beings are not "deterministic flesh-bots" (which is what materialists, or science in general nowadays, view people) and that their conciousness transcends the physical brain and that they do, in fact, have free-will?

Of all the esoteric traditions I know, Buddhism is one of the most comprehensive regarding metaphysics. I have read Shurangama Sutra in the past and I know that Gautama goes into detail regarding his deduction of the existence of conciousness that transcends and causes the physical. But his logic in that archaic text went completely over my head.

Can anyone here help explain what was that logic, or if there is any other existing method to prove the non-material nature of consciousness?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Seeker101 wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:58 am Esoteric view:
Brain is only an organ for the subtle bodies where consciousness actually reside to experience the physical world
Materialist view:
There is no observable proof of subtle matter/bodies, consciousness can be explained purely through braincells and their function

How do you objectively prove to someone that sentient beings are not "deterministic flesh-bots" (which is what materialists, or science in general nowadays, view people) and that their conciousness transcends the physical brain and that they do, in fact, have free-will?
The materialist view is easily refuted, and this is also one of my favorite activities.

But first, some correction is needed on your definition of the esoteric view (from the Buddhist perspective). The Buddha showed that consciousness cannot be shown to reside anywhere inside or outside of the physical body.

So, the materialist says that consciousness is ‘experienced’ by the cells. What does ‘experience’ actually mean?

The human brain is composed of:
Water 77 to 78 %
fats 10 to 12 %
Protein 8%
Carbohydrate 1%
Soluble organic substances 2%
Inorganic salts 1%

Do any of those compounds possess awareness?
Do the molecules from which they are composed possess awareness?
Do the atoms or the vast space between atoms possess awareness?
Both the materialist and non materialist will likely answer “no” to those questions.
Or perhaps, “I don’t know”.

If we say that water or rocks (salt) has consciousness, this is akin to saying there are nature spirits in rivers and stones, which of course is a view that materialists reject. So, for the same reason, they must reject the view that the physical body itself possesses awareness or consciousness.

The brain itself is not aware of anything. It is not even aware of itself. It doesn’t know that it is forever trapped inside a tiny, dark box.

However, our awareness is naturally limited to what is possible by the brain’s construction and composition. Awareness arises with nearly every known type of living being. But can humans naturally hear the way bats hear, or see the way a falcon can see, or smell things the way a dog can?

No. Not naturally. We have to use artificial methods. But we could, if our bodies had that kind of sensory apparatus, and we know this because with ‘artificial’ tools such as telescopes and microphones, we can expand our sensory awareness capabilities.

However, if consciousness was produced by the brain and sense organs, our ability to be aware of anything beyond them would be impeded, just as you cannot hear with your nose or taste flavors with your eyes.

It’s true that sensory stimulation and its processing can be mapped in the brain. Certain specific activities can be shown to occur in specific brain areas. But all of that is simply electrical activity. It doesn’t demonstrate what experiences that electrical activity.

Again, the term “experience” has to be defined. When we experience fear, we sweat, our hair rises, our heart beats faster. This is all due to molecules (adrenaline) being released by the endocrine system into the blood stream. Interestingly, the molecules released when we experience anger are almost identical to those released which create the physiological experience of fear.

But is that the experience? Or is it the body’s reaction to the experience? This is where I think the materialists are confused. The brain is like a computer. But a computer doesn’t spontaneously produce the computer user. The materialist is basically a user looking at the computer, and since all the user is aware of is the computer, makes the assumption that his own awareness is produced by the computer.

So, what causes awareness? This is the part everybody hates: awareness just is.
(I don’t think this is stated directly in any Buddhist teachings. But I think it is implied). Awareness isn’t caused. It’s the cause. Awareness is the one thing that cannot be refuted. Even if one suggests that everything you experience is merely a dream, there is still the awareness of that dream. Even if someone asserts there is no such thing as awareness, there is still awareness of that assertion.

As far as the whole “we are all just robots” thing, that’s also easily refuted, but this reply is too long already.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Archie2009
Posts: 1584
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Archie2009 »

Seeker101, you 'prove' to yourself the truth of Buddha Dharma by practicing on the cushion. The big thing is direct perception of emptiness, etc. Ultimately Buddhism is not an intellectual exercise and also not about winning intellectual arguments with non-Buddhists.
Seeker101
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:20 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Seeker101 »

@Archie2009 Pretty sure even Buddha and his students debated with materialist schools of his time, so I don't know if you can say Buddhism is above intellectual discussion. But I completely agree the practical application of Buddhism isn't about intellectual exercise.

@PadmaVonSamba
I should have been more clear. The core of the debate really boils down to "how to define awareness/conciousness" rather than "what causes awareness/conciousness".

Given all you said regarding material things do not possess consciousness and therefore brain cells cannot be the root of consciousness, the materialist reply to that would be, "quite right, therefore we do not technically have some mystical awareness and the feeling of awareness is an illusion". (Hence the analogy of a "deterministic flesh-bot")

The way materialists and science today define awareness/conciousness is by input/output. If something is able to receive the same range of environmental stimulus and output the same range of behaviour, they are considered by them to be concious and aware. So if an advanced AI is able to do this on the level of a human being, by materialist definition they are considered sentient.

And that is really the core of the debate. How do you define awareness? If you build an advanced AI whose behaviour is indistinguishable from average day human, how do you tell it's not actually aware like real sentient beings?
Last edited by Seeker101 on Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vasana
Posts: 2231
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Vasana »

Check out Alan Wallace's work in this feild.



There are shorter lectures and written summaries of the same name if you search.
'When thoughts arise, recognise them clearly as your teacher'— Gampopa
'When alone, examine your mind, when among others, examine your speech'.— Atisha
Seeker101
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:20 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Seeker101 »

Will do, appreciate it.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Astus »

Verification in Buddhism is a subjective process, not objective. Is the thought of a glass of water physical like a glass of water or not? It is fairly easy to see for oneself. As for the ontological idea of there being a completely distinct immaterial consciousness, that's a misconception and is refuted by the doctrine of dependent origination.

"Mendicant, if you have the view that the soul and the body are the same thing, there is no living of the spiritual life. If you have the view that the soul and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Rebirth is a condition for old age and death.’ ... ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.’"
(Avijjāpaccayasutta)

'The living of the holy life (brahmacariyavāsa) is the living of the noble path. One who holds the view “the soul and the body are the same” (taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīraṁ) holds that the soul and the body are annihilated together (at death). For one who holds this, the annihilationist view follows, for he holds that “a being is annihilated.” Now this noble path arises to stop and eradicate the round of existence. But on the annihilationist view the round ceases even without the development of the path, and thus the development of the path becomes purposeless. In the second case, one holding the view “the soul is one thing, the body another” (aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīraṁ) holds that the body alone is annihilated here, while the soul goes about freely like a bird released from a cage. This view is eternalism. But if there were even one formation that is permanent, stable, and eternal, the noble path would not be able to bring the round to an end; thus again the development of the path would be purposeless.'
(The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p 756, n 107)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
master of puppets
Posts: 1649
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:52 pm

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by master of puppets »

I will ask another question.

What makes come through of our desires and cravings?
Last edited by master of puppets on Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Matt J »

Many people do not understand what is referred to by consciousness-- even after lengthy conversations. This is pretty much the Dan Dennett view, in which one is so committed to materialism that one denies one own first person experience. There is no difference between consciousness and the appearance of consciousness--- the appearance or illusion of consciousness is in fact consciousness. It is akin to talking to some one you stating that you have no tongue.
Seeker101 wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:57 pm Given all you said regarding material things do not possess consciousness and therefore brain cells cannot be the root of consciousness, the materialist reply to that would be, "quite right, therefore we do not technically have some mystical awareness and the feeling of awareness is an illusion". (Hence the analogy of a "deterministic flesh-bot")
This is not true and reflects an outdated paradigm. Neuro-plasticity pretty much shattered the "consciousness as epiphenomenon" bit. Neuorology is coming more to terms with how hard the "hard problem" is, and some are looking for alternative explanations, such as panpsychism. Annaka Harris wrote all about this in her book "Conscious" after learning that many scientists were starting to catch on to what the "hard problem" actually entails. In a decade or so, the staunchest materialists will all be dead.

The problem is that people are committed to their views, and once committed are unlikely to change. There are vast reasons that materialism is incoherent, from a logical, epistemological, and even scientific point of view. In fact, materialism is based primarily on classical physics, as quantum physics tends to call into the question of intelligible matter altogether.

One can research all of this, which may loosen one's own materialist prejudices but is unlikely to convince the committed materialist who will merely dismiss evidence and repeat facile objections and simplistic reductionism to maintain their view (and what is materialism after all but dismissive, facile, and simplistic reductions). What meditation provides is an individual "gnostic" experience that only arises after some long time of committed practice. However, it is individualistic. For me, it was the other way around-- some period of meditation loosened up my prejudices and allowed me to look into the objections to materialism a bit more clearly.
Seeker101 wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:57 pm The way materialists and science today define awareness/conciousness is by input/output. If something is able to receive the same range of environmental stimulus and output the same range of behaviour, they are considered by them to be concious and aware. So if an advanced AI is able to do this on the level of a human being, by materialist definition they are considered sentient.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Tao
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Contact:

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Tao »

The point is:

Even if mind is somehow inside the brain, it cannot be matter, because it's obviously not matter as PadmaVon said.

So even if mind is somehow in neurons (or not), it must be "other thing", other kind of substance/not substance different from matter, so the point is not if it's inside or not, the basic point is that consciousness IS NOT matter and cannot come from matter (that's obvious), so hard materialism applyed to mind is nonsense. There must be some OTHER substance/not substance appart from matter.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Seeker101 wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:57 pm
Given all you said regarding material things do not possess consciousness and therefore brain cells cannot be the root of consciousness, the materialist reply to that would be, "quite right, therefore we do not technically have some mystical awareness and the feeling of awareness is an illusion". (Hence the analogy of a "deterministic flesh-bot")
The interesting part here is the “we” that does or doesn’t “have”, because the discussion is about what is ultimately going on, and at that point, where is the “we”?

But I don’t understand their reasoning. If you eliminate the possibility that awareness is produced by matter, then you have to theorize that it occurs regardless of matter. One cannot just state that awareness is an illusion. So what? Even if everything is an illusion there is still awareness of it. This argument treats awareness as an object, rather than as the subject.

It might be argued that as object, awareness is or is not this or that. We can say that as an object, what we can observe is that awareness interacts with its environment. But as subject, the thing that’s observing, I think that’s a different story.
The way materialists and science today define awareness/conciousness is by input/output. If something is able to receive the same range of environmental stimulus and output the same range of behaviour, they are considered by them to be concious and aware. So if an advanced AI is able to do this on the level of a human being, by materialist definition they are considered sentient.

And that is really the core of the debate. How do you define awareness? If you build an advanced AI whose behaviour is indistinguishable from average day human, how do you tell it's not actually aware like real sentient beings?
In a sense, their position is not as different from ‘no self’ or ‘anatman’
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Seeker101
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:20 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Seeker101 »

Matt J wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 3:21 pm Many people do not understand what is referred to by consciousness-- even after lengthy conversations. This is pretty much the Dan Dennett view, in which one is so committed to materialism that one denies one own first person experience. There is no difference between consciousness and the appearance of consciousness--- the appearance or illusion of consciousness is in fact consciousness. It is akin to talking to some one you stating that you have no tongue.
Then let me be perfectly clear what I mean by consciousness for this thread.

I am talking about an awareness independent of the material. An awareness that is the cause of material phenomenon rather than caused by them.

This concept of Primacy of Consciousness is pretty much held by all esoteric traditions across the planet in all ages and is the underlying framework in all their works (whether they be liberation or manifestation).
Matt J wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 3:21 pm
Seeker101 wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:57 pm Given all you said regarding material things do not possess consciousness and therefore brain cells cannot be the root of consciousness, the materialist reply to that would be, "quite right, therefore we do not technically have some mystical awareness and the feeling of awareness is an illusion". (Hence the analogy of a "deterministic flesh-bot")
This is not true and reflects an outdated paradigm. Neuro-plasticity pretty much shattered the "consciousness as epiphenomenon" bit. Neuorology is coming more to terms with how hard the "hard problem" is, and some are looking for alternative explanations, such as panpsychism. Annaka Harris wrote all about this in her book "Conscious" after learning that many scientists were starting to catch on to what the "hard problem" actually entails. In a decade or so, the staunchest materialists will all be dead.
Ha! Funny how the materialists say the same thing, that when things like Elon Musk's neuralink finally comes out the "hard problem" will be solved once and for all and all the esotericists will be resigned to the back page of history books again.

Now on a more serious note, that logic I posted might be dated but it is far from "debunked" as you are suggesting. And you are quite right, it is a paradigm; in fact I would say it's THE materialist paradigm. Because every single conversation I've had with materialists boils down to this point. Things like neuro-plasticity doesn't really affect it because while the brain might be malleable, what would cause changes to this malleable object? Unless a non-phyiscal source is identified and measured the materialist logic apparently stands.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:20 pm But I don’t understand their reasoning. If you eliminate the possibility that awareness is produced by matter, then you have to theorize that it occurs regardless of matter.
I get where you are coming from, and that is why I said I should have been more clear; it's less about what causes awareness and more about how you define awareness.

Take these three objects for example: a human, a plant, and a water wheel. All three objects takes in environmental input and output a certain range of behaviour. But obviously, the three items are distinctively different in their magnitude of awareness. So the question is, what is fundmentally different? Is it just their physical composition, or something more? And if it's something more, how do you define and measure that?
Last edited by Seeker101 on Sun Aug 14, 2022 10:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Seeker101
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:20 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Seeker101 »

Astus wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:35 pm Verification in Buddhism is a subjective process, not objective. Is the thought of a glass of water physical like a glass of water or not? It is fairly easy to see for oneself. As for the ontological idea of there being a completely distinct immaterial consciousness, that's a misconception and is refuted by the doctrine of dependent origination.
Is the thought of a glass of water physical like a glass of water or not?

If it ENTIRELY is, then the materialist worldview stands.
If it is physical but also involves yet unexplored immaterial aspects, then the esoteric views stands.

You can't have your cake and eat it too I'm afraid.

I don't claim to be an expert of every aspect of Buddhism, but I know enough of the fundementals. There is no way to establish concepts such as reincarnation and karma in a completely materalistic worldview. Not to mention all the metaphysical allegories spoken directly by Buddha. It's pretty clear cut.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Seeker101 wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:14 pm Take these three objects for example: a human, a plant, and a water wheel. All three objects takes in environmental input and output a certain range of behaviour. But obviously, the three items are distinctively different in their magnitude of awareness. So the question is, what is fundmentally different? Is it just their physical composition, or something more? And if it's something more, how do you define and measure that?
The difference is that living beings with awareness engage intentionally.
This also brings up another point. Brain function is not required. A sperm has no brain or sense organs but if it is in proximity to an ovum, it will “not-randomly” engage with that ovum. Likewise. White blood cells have no brains or sensory apparatus but they will attack an invasive entity.
There are many examples of basic, often microscopic, animal life that exhibits intentional behavior yet has no brain function.
Intentional means as opposed to random.

Random interaction can be seen in the example of a dandelion. The seeds from a dandelion are spread randomly by the wind and it is totally by chance that some will land on fertile ground while others will land in streams of on rocks or whatever. It’s not as though the seeds somehow all float in the direction of some vacant lot where the soil is good enough. But there are brainless animals which possess a kind of basic awareness (I call it ‘awarity’) by which they are attracted to water or food sources, etc.

So, here I am using a very loose and broad concept of “intentionally” only as a way to suggest an opposite to “randomly”. I’m not suggesting that some creature that lives on your eyelashes is intentionally thinking, “Hmmmm, some bacteria from dead skin would taste good right about now” in any complex way, but that, for example, it has some kind of awareness of a food source and will purposefully move in the direction of that food source.

Also look up the botanical term, “taxis” .
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Seeker101
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:20 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Seeker101 »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:53 am
Seeker101 wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:14 pm Take these three objects for example: a human, a plant, and a water wheel. All three objects takes in environmental input and output a certain range of behaviour. But obviously, the three items are distinctively different in their magnitude of awareness. So the question is, what is fundmentally different? Is it just their physical composition, or something more? And if it's something more, how do you define and measure that?
The difference is that living beings with awareness engage intentionally.
Right, and I agree, but here again is the problem; how do you define and measure the property "intentionally"?

How do know another person is acting intentionally?
How do you know a water wheel is not actually intentionally moving?
User avatar
Tao
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Contact:

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Tao »

Wave function collapse happens when measures are taken, and that's when two particles (that arent particles, maybe arent even strength fields) collide.

Before collapsing the particle that is not a particle has no characteristics, just potencialities.

After that it has characteristics that can be measured, that is, it can be perceived. Not before.

So most probably perception is an act of wave function collapse. Always.

So it maybe that consciousness of the perception arise with it, so consciousness is an unknown result of wave function collapse.

So awareness maybe arises from strength fields interacting and collapsing to a phenomenon.

Quatum mechanics is non-local, meaning that space-time doesnt apply to it, changes travel instantaneously despite Einsteins being against it (it's proved)

So awareneess maybe non-local meaning is not in space-time.

Just silly ideas here and there
Jeff H
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Jeff H »

Seeker101 wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:14 pm ...that logic I posted might be dated but it is far from "debunked" as you are suggesting. And you are quite right, it is a paradigm; in fact I would say it's THE materialist paradigm. Because every single conversation I've had with materialists boils down to this point.
I have to assume you haven’t listened to the Alan Wallace lecture Vasana posted above. I heard him give the same lecture in another context, and relistening now I still find it to be quite a rigorous refutation of precisely the materialist arguments you are presenting. Wallace is well qualified in both Buddhism and science. It is far too nuanced and expansive to be adequately restated in this forum (at least for me), but assuming your question is asked in good faith, I’m certain you will find it interesting.

He speaks at length about the lack of effort to even try to develop a measurement of consciousness and how that blind spot distorts the principle of the scientific method regarding the subjective. He also discusses why that is so and how it might change over time. In the meantime, he gives voluminous examples of people who boil the matter down to exactly “what every single conversation [you]'ve had with materialists” comes to. He gives valid reasons why "THE materialist paradigm" is overdue for a critical, scientific examination.
Where now is my mind engaged? - Shantideva
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Seeker101 wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:20 am
Here again is the problem; how do you define and measure the property "intentionally"?

How do know another person is acting intentionally?
How do you know a water wheel is not actually intentionally moving?
But that’s like asking how do you know a pretzel isn’t really a car. If the pretzel gave some indication that it might be a car, if it idled or gave off smoke or went ‘zoom’ then we might say, “there is something about that pretzel that makes me wonder if it isn’t actually a car!”
But there is nothing in a water wheel to prompt the assumption that it moves intentionally. Part of the reason for this is that if there is no water moving it, it won’t move.
So, why isn’t the same materialist asking about pretzels possibly being cars?
Is there anything about the composition of the brain that suggests any of it can spontaneously experience cognitive awareness?
Granted, it may be possible that some kind of awareness occupies water or salt or fat. If so, there is no indication of it that is within our range of perception.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Seeker101
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:20 am

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Seeker101 »

Jeff H wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:43 pm I have to assume you haven’t listened to the Alan Wallace lecture Vasana posted above. I heard him give the same lecture in another context, and relistening now I still find it to be quite a rigorous refutation of precisely the materialist arguments you are presenting. Wallace is well qualified in both Buddhism and science. It is far too nuanced and expansive to be adequately restated in this forum (at least for me), but assuming your question is asked in good faith, I’m certain you will find it interesting.
I have not finished watching it, but I just did.

It is a very good lecture. Incredibly good in fact in the sense that is lays out the history and premises of the subject in question.
But to say that it REFUTES any materialist arguments is a bit far fetching.
What it does is put all materialist arguement fairly into the area of "we don't know for sure yet", which I agree completely.
He also exposes the dogmatic Scientism that is plaguing science today, which is absolutely true.

Scientism - Anything that is not objectively measureable does not exist (is automatically false).
True Scientific Method - Anything that is not objectively measureable yet cannot be known for sure to be true or false, until measured.
Jeff H wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:43 pm He speaks at length about the lack of effort to even try to develop a measurement of consciousness and how that blind spot distorts the principle of the scientific method regarding the subjective. He also discusses why that is so and how it might change over time. In the meantime, he gives voluminous examples of people who boil the matter down to exactly “what every single conversation [you]'ve had with materialists” comes to. He gives valid reasons why "THE materialist paradigm" is overdue for a critical, scientific examination.
It goes far beyond a lack of effort. That is the question I've been asking in previous posts; how would you develop a measurement for consciousness?

And just to be perfectly clear, we are talking about the esoteric definition of consciousness here - an awareness priori to the material, the cause of physical phenomena rather than a product caused by them.

So how would you objectively measure such a thing? Because unless this question is answered, any critical scientific examination of the materialist paradigm necessarily resorts back to said paradigm.
Jeff H
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

Post by Jeff H »

I think part of the problem is that materialists insist that things can only be measured objectively. Consciousness is subjective by definition. It is personal, intimate, and internal.

Wallace points out that in India the issue of consciousness was given a high priority in ancient times, and they developed highly refined understanding and techniques for tapping the power. He advocates for a modern network of professional meditators worldwide, established in cooperation with western scientists from the outset to help evaluate subjectively reported results.

The hope would be to introduce a scientific paradigm that includes subjectivity, rather than pro-actively excluding it from scientific observation. Wallace mentions very good reasons why the paradigm is not open to change at this time (such as professional death by non-publishing) and outright stubbornness.
Where now is my mind engaged? - Shantideva
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”