Mind and Consciousness (Religion)

by dhw, Thursday, June 28, 2012, 13:14 (4529 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Michael Shermer on consciousness:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-to-consciousness-when-we-die-The heading actually reads: "What happens to consciousness when we die" ... no question mark, so it's a statement. The subheading is: "The death of the brain means subjective experiences are neurochemistry". That's settled, then! -We all know that drugs, diseases and accidents can affect the brain and thus cause distortions of perception and character. And if we're very lucky, the doctor can put things right. It seems fair enough to take this as possible evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness. On the other hand, we all know that when the TV set goes wrong, the picture and sound are distorted, and if we're very lucky, the TV doctor can put them right. But the TV set is not the source of the pictures and sound. So what is our conclusion? Not, in my opinion, the conclusion Shermer draws:-"No one denies that consciousness is a hard problem. But before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let's give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness. I am, therefore I think."-Of course he may be right, but a fact? Since when did we call an unproven hypothesis a fact? What does he mean by "measurable" consciousness? Could he possibly be referring to instruments that measure electrical activity in the brain? Surely not. That would simply mean that the brain is dead when the brain is dead. Hardly earth-shattering. But what else could it mean? I'll tell you something, though. If consciousness is independent of the brain, we would expect people who have been resuscitated after clinical death (with no activity in the brain) to report on conscious experiences after that death. We would expect countless tales of consciousness breaking the barriers of the physical senses and obtaining information otherwise unobtainable. And we would expect at least some of the information to be corroborated by third parties. And oh good heavens, that's just what we've got, but let's not bother to mention them.-On the other hand, if consciousness arises out of globules of matter, we would expect our brilliant scientists to find out how, and to explain how these bits of matter can come up with theories, inventions, novels, symphonies, emotions, imaginings, memories...Ah, says Michael Shermer, give us more time. At the moment we haven't a clue, but we "know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies." It's a fact IF we can ignore any evidence against our beliefs. Or it's a fact, and THEREFORE we can ignore any evidence against our beliefs. "The default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness." Why must there be a default hypothesis? If Shermer wants more time, let him have more time. What's the hurry? Meanwhile, why not simply keep an open mind (or brain)?