The Nature of Consciousness vs Religious Concepts

[JamesShrugged]

wedontneedgod.wordpress.com/2010 … -concepts/

I hope you find it thought provoking, and will be happy to field questions.

[Oughtist]

Welcome to ILP, JS!

If I might briefly counter-rand you, might there be a glaring obvious antithesis which asks: does
the brain exist without consciousness?

That said, though, you’ll likely appreciate the following:

The gods are simply mythical spirits, without any substratum of reality. The spirit that is not subordinate to the reality of a mortal body is a god, is purely divine (sacred). Insofar as he is himself a spirit, man is divine (sacred), but he is not supremely so, since he is real. (Georges Bataille, Theory of Religion)

[JamesShrugged]

@Oughtist

Welcome to ILP, JS!

If I might briefly counter-rand you, might there be a glaring obvious antithesis which asks: does
the brain exist without consciousness?

Brains quite frequently exist without consciousness: when an organism dies.

[anon]

@JamesShrugged

@Oughtist

Welcome to ILP, JS!

If I might briefly counter-rand you, might there be a glaring obvious antithesis which asks: does
the brain exist without consciousness?

Brains quite frequently exist without consciousness: when an organism dies.

I think it’s reasonable to assume he means a working, living brain.

Would brains exist in general without consciousness? It strikes me as pretty unreasonable to suggest that the class of phenomena called “brains” could have evolved absent consciousness.

I think language such as “derived from” (as found in your essay) is problematic for supposedly monistic philosophies. It creates the very dualism you are arguing against. What is consiousness after all? Does it not include the object of consciousness? If I am conscious of a tree, isn’t consciousness then “derived from” not only my brain, but also from the tree?