Consciousness - material or non material?

Tosh

I've been doing a little bit of reading about the scientific view of consciousness, and it appears to me that the even though consciousness cannot be fully explained, that from a mainstream science point of view that consciousness is the result of material form.

For example (not that I understand all of this):
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/presentations/whatisconsciousness.html

I understand the traditional Buddhist explanation from Dependant Arising (i.e. consciousness is non material so cannot be produced by matter, and the main cause of consciousness is a previous moment of consciousness, which goes onto explain rebirth), but I would like to hear your views on this, especially with regards the apparent conflict of Buddhist doctrine and science, just out of interest.

Thanks.

Mountains

Stuart Hameroff is a well known consciousness researcher. You may have seen him in the film "What the {bleep} Do We Know?". He is an anesthesiologist, so by definition he has a lot of interest in the nature of consciousness. He makes some interesting points in that piece, to be sure. But a big part of the problem is, medical science can't even tell you, nor can they agree among themselves, what the hard core definition of "alive" is. Until and unless we can do that, it seems to me that defining consciousness is a moot point. And I don't believe science will ever be fully able to state with factual certainty that consciousness disappears (or doesn't disappear) when the physical body dies.

I don't necessarily think Hameroff's work is at odds with Buddhism. I feel like it complements our understanding, but it doesn't explain it fully - not by a very long shot.

andyrobyn

A good friend of mine is a talented film maker and also has been university lecturer in film, as well as being a Buddhist practitioner who like me has had the same teacher who has a science background.
The film you mention, Mountains, was used by my friend as an example of how clever editing of some of the interviews with scientists who contributed to the film distorted their facts to coincide with the distorted idea of quantum physics presented by the film to support a mystical viewpoint, which was the overall aim of the film's makers.

Mountains

I don't think it was so much a distortion as simply acknowledging the fact that much of quantum physics simply can't be explained. One way to explain it is that it's mystical. I don't see any particular contradiction between the two. There are lots of possible explanations of why things are as they appear to be, but none is complete nor without holes.

DairyLama

I understand the traditional Buddhist explanation from Dependant Arising (i.e. consciousness is non material so cannot be produced by matter, and the main cause of consciousness is a previous moment of consciousness, which goes onto explain rebirth), but I would like to hear your views on this, especially with regards the apparent conflict of Buddhist doctrine and science, just out of interest.

Traditionally in Buddhism form and consciousness are said to be mutually dependent, whereas I think science would say that consciousness arises in dependence on form.

Tosh

I think science would say that consciousness arises in dependence on form.

Actually, I've read the link I provided closer and it says that one view is that consciousness depends on brain function and then it goes onto say that there's problems with this view and goes onto provide a list of the problems.

Subjectivity
Time flow
Free will
Other stuff

Have a look, it's right at the beginning of the link.

Jeffrey

I think you have to either say that thoughts are epiphenomena of neurotransmitters flowing around...

Or the universe itself is consciousness and is created by mind. In this model the physical world is form skhanda and is like a dream. I said like not is.

andyrobyn

I don't think it was so much a distortion as simply acknowledging the fact that much of quantum physics simply can't be explained. One way to explain it is that it's mystical. I don't see any particular contradiction between the two. There are lots of possible explanations of why things are as they appear to be, but none is complete nor without holes.

Next time I see him I will ask about the name of the scientist whose interview was edited ... I am sure I also have seen an article written about about it, if anyone is interested in it any further.

Sabre

Mainstream science may have a theory, but as it is yet not solidly proven, it is not worth a lot. Scientific theories are only valid if they agree with experiment, this is the basis of science. Until than, it is just a guess. And even if things agree with experiment, they can still be wrong because the researchers don't look good enough and neglect things. This has happened often, for example with Newtons laws disproven by Einstein.

However, in Buddhism we can use meditation to see what the mind is, and test for ourselves that it is not material.

person

If you haven't heard about David Chalmers, I recommend reading him or watching some of his You Tube video's. It doesn't seem to me that he has a comprehensive view of what consciousness is but he's very good at exposing the flaws in the materialistic assumptions about consciousness. Here's a short video of him talking about the current state of consciousness metaphysics.



Here's a good interview that lays out his views.

Tosh

Thanks, Person, I watched them both and it was interesting.

David

I'm not sure how it could be considered physical if it takes up no space.

I don't believe all energy is physical.

person

This seminar on Mind and Reality explores this question. Its really long but utterly comprehensive. Check out the link and see if you feel like jumping in. Click on each panel link in the yellow box on the right for different video lectures and responses.

http://www.mindandreality.org/seminar.html

driedleaf

I don't think they are in disagreement yet. One is saying that consciousness is the result of material form, while the other is just saying that it is not of material or physical form. Both are still correct.

Floating_Abu

I understand the traditional Buddhist explanation from Dependant Arising (i.e. consciousness is non material so cannot be produced by matter, and the main cause of consciousness is a previous moment of consciousness, which goes onto explain rebirth), but I would like to hear your views on this, especially with regards the apparent conflict of Buddhist doctrine and science, just out of interest.

Thanks.

Hey Tosh

I thought the cause of consciousness is outlined in DO:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html

When you say the main cause of consciousness is the previous moment, where does the Buddhist sutras state this? And as to whether it is non material, there is also intellect/mind consciousness no?

Just some thoughts.

Abu

DairyLama

I thought the cause of consciousness is outlined in DO:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html

Unfortunately the suttas are inconsistent on this point, some describe consciousness and name+form as mutually dependent.

Floating_Abu

porpoise

Is it not that consciousness IS eye (sense) meeting form (object) - hence eye consciousness arises.

This is consciousness according to Buddhism, ditto for ears, nose, body, mind etc.

Voila - welcome to this world of consciousness which you and I reside in, AS....

DairyLama

porpoise

Is it not that consciousness IS eye (sense) meeting form (object) - hence eye consciousness arises.
.

That's right, but this is a different approach from the one in DO.

Floating_Abu

I didn't think so. This is a definition of the Buddhist definition of consciousness.
DO talks about the chain, dependent origination.

Jeffrey

The form skhanda is empty and contains everything in the material world... The mental skhandas are empty..,

DairyLama

DO talks about the chain, dependent origination.

DO isn't straightforward where consciousness is involved - have a look at this sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html

DairyLama

The form skhanda is empty and contains everything in the material world... The mental skhandas are empty..,

Right. And?......

Floating_Abu

DO talks about the chain, dependent origination.

DO isn't straightforward where consciousness is involved - have a look at this sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html

Straightforward - another relay of dependent origination

_/\_