Can conciousness only exist within physical bodies?

well, not really because it hasn’t been discovered yet

Until we can build an A.I. capable of housing it/becoming sentient? I say yes, consciousness only exists in a physical body.

My take.

They can’t determine anything unless it is of the physical.

We’ve never seen any examples of consciousness outside physical bodies (1), so it seems unjustified to postulate that there is such a thing.
Of course that doesn’t suffice to exclude the possibility, but excluding possibilities is not a very feasible approach to finding out what exists and what does not.

(1) And “out of body experiences” don’t count, for a number of reasons.

@Fyrius Who is we?

@spresto: That would be the human species, or somewhat more specifically, the scientific community. And by extension all the members of the species who can be trusted not to fall for things that could be explained in more mundane ways.

Without physicality, there is no means by which a consciousness could communicate to anyone else. No way to detect or get information from such a hypothesized entity. If we magically heard sounds or our minds magically detected some kind of communication, it would appear as if this communication was coming from the air or mind, respectively. There would be no way to link it back to an incorporeal entity.

People could attribute it to something magical, but they would be unable to provide evidence of such a link, so the attribution would essentially be specious. We would try to find other, more provable hypotheses to explain these phenomena. Random wind currents or imagination, or something like that.

@daloon And we would be right to do so.

FYI, by physical body, I’m assuming the asker is speaking of a human body, bound by physical flesh. If not, and he is speaking of anything intangible, it voids my argument.

@daloon That’s how religions get started, ya know.

I interpret “physical” to mean any detectable matter or wave form. I can imagine consciousness housed in all kinds of forms—machine, plasma, flesh, light, etc, etc.

@Fyrius Suddenly, you sound like you are holding a prejudice. What do you mean by Mundane ways?

@daloon That is the interpretation I have of “physical” as well. Not just human body.

Not considering any religious aspects, I agree with @Grisaille.

@spresto
I intended that word in the sense of “not world-shaking”.
The discovery of consciousness outside a physical body would turn our understanding of the world upside down. A more mundane explanation would be one that does not require reconsideration of pretty much everything we think we know about the physical world. And as Ockham’s Razor teaches us, that sort of explanation would be preferable.

Perhaps I should have said “more natural” instead.

I’m not sure what sort of prejudice you perceived my post to convey. If it was a prejudice in favour of materialistic explanations, that would be correct, and I believe our present knowledge of the world offers good reasons for that sort of prejudice.

Edit: If you meant a prejudice against the reliability of explanations from gullible and superstitious people, who can instead be relied upon to tumble head-first into every intellectual pitfall imaginable, then that would be correct too. Again I believe that sort of prejudice to be justified, as the mind-set I am prejudiced against is notorious for being a direct cause of false beliefs.

Related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_being , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_(Stargate)#Ascension

@Master well, since energy and mass are essentialy two forms of the same thing, i think an energy being would also be a physical entity.

Consciousness is a result of physical bodies. Our consciousness comes from the cells in our brain. Until we find evidence to suggest that consciousness can be produced without such a mechanism, there is no reason to believe that it can exist outside of a physical body.

@Fyrius
i have a question
totally off topic
is it just me or is the dog(avatar) in a suit?

Quite so.

I regret that Fluther avatars have to be so small. I have a whole load of potentially great avatars that nobody would recognise at this scale.

@Fyrius
that’s funny

@Fyrius Yes, it’s hard to draw it so it comes out the same resized. Maybe a bigger one would steal too much focus though.
← (This current one is supposed to be a jellyfish)

Yes. If a brain injury changes consciousness, to the extent of changing behaviour, then I think it safe to assume that all consciousness is contained in the brain. Studies have shown that certain types of brain injury can increase a person’s altruistic tendencies. One of the residents at my work was, by all accounts, a terribly mean and grouchy person, until she had a stroke. Since then, she laughs almost constantly.

fMRI scanners can also tell which of a set of pictures a person is looking at with a simple brain scan. What reason is there to believe that consciousness has any other source, apart from ancient mythology?

I’m not entirely convinced consciousness even exists in physical bodies. Can we start by defining consciousness and proving that, and then we can try it without bodies?

I think consciousness can exist in many different things, even inanimate objects. I once had a meaningful discussion with my iPod regarding how it could serve me better. The battery now lasts longer. Who knew?

Even an energy being is made out of a physical material. Atoms need not be the only physical material that consciousness exist in. Energy is still a physical material and hence would follow the Laws of Physics.

Then again nikipedia has a good point. There is no real boundary between conscious and non-conscious material.

@Shuttle128 Well, if we could explain sentience we would know how to create them. Now we explain it by religion or spirituality. If we can create sentient AI’s the mystery is gone, and we will have proved that we are nothing but complex information. A true AI is then a being of energy.

Define “consciousness.”

Then define “physical.”

@Qingu i haven’t seen you around as much lately.. you just gave me a Bill Clinton flashback! (Interviewer: Did you have sexual relations with monica lewinsky?. BC: Define “have”).

(btw my dog is WAAAAAAAAAY cuter than your cat… just sayin’)

@oratio “Now we explain it by religion or spirituality.”
Not all of us do.

@oratio “Now we explain it by religion or spirituality.”
Yes,but we shouldn’t.
When religion and spirituality make claims about these matters, they make claims without anything to support them. They have nothing to support their claims, if they did, it would be science.

Or maybe philosophy.

@Fyrius Yes, I agree. But we have no other way of describing what sentience is, really. We can decide not to believe in that but it is yet to be explained by science.

@ragingloli Yes, I agree. We shouldn’t be content with explaining a mystery with “God did it!”.

I don’t think that’s true. Surely there must be secular ways to define sentience that do not involve a hypothetical mystic soul.

I really think this is a job for the philosophers.

@Fyrius Define, yes. Explain, no. But I would welcome to be proved wrong. I’m an atheist so I don’t subscribe to religious explanations either.

Do you think we will create artificial sentience?

I don’t think that’s true, either.
The current scientific explanation would be that it’s a product of the computational abilities of our brains. Granted, that’s a pretty vague explanation that needs work. But still, the permanently vague explanations of religion and spirituality aren’t the only options.

@Fyrius True. Vagueness is a religious trademark. But science explains with the answer to “How?”. Unless that is fulfilled, there is no explanation. Science is required to hold up to scrutiny, religion is not.

So, I agree. Both religion and science has just as little answers to explain sentience. But the religious answer doesn’t require proof. And it can’t be proved or disproved, so we’ll have turn our hope to science.

Do you think we will create artificial sentience?

I beg to differ.
Why is religion not required to hold up to scrutiny? Why doesn’t the religious answer require proof?
We habitually never apply such high standards to religion, but we really should. It’s the only way to avert the danger of being dead wrong without ever finding out.

As for whether people will ever manage to create artificial sentience, that depends on what criteria need to be met for something to be called sentient.

@Fyrius Ha ha, I am beginning to wonder what I can write that you will agree with. But I agree with you, and I think you agree that this is how it is even though maybe it shouldn’t be.

About your last part, that’s kind of what I mean by science not being able to explain sentience. Just define it.

Try remarking that apple pie is tasty. I’m sure I would agree with that.

And if you would have inserted “considered to be” into each of those sentences that I put “why” in front of, I would agree to that too. If this is what you actually meant, then yes, tragically this is so.
I don’t see how this is relevant to us here, though. Other people may be depressingly easily convinced by religious or spiritual answers, but you and I are not. Why then should we, here, in this thread, consider their unsupported explanation a worthwhile answer? Religious answers do not exactly have a reputation for turning out to be right when science finally sheds light on the mystery. If their answer is really the only one we have, then perhaps we are better off with no answer at all.

Your last comment confuses me. Isn’t this just a matter of definitions? We, speakers of the English language, are the ones who decide the criteria for sentience. This is not something one would expect to be an insurmountable hurdle to science.
Once we have defined sentience, we can then proceed to evaluate how it works.

Apple pie is tasty.

i prefer sugarcake (the kind with the thick sugar layer on top)

@ragingloli I think we have a definition of sentience right there.

@oratio I..I do not understand. Explain that to me, purisu.

@ragingloli If I’m as smart as a sugarcake I might get a job, as pastry.

scratches head I still don’t get it…

@ragingloli Bah. It’s only me making stupid jokes nobody gets.

I believe it can.

Consciousness is what our conscious minds make it out to be.

How do you convince an atheist that theres life after death?........Kill him!
I think this discussion is untimately pointless, if there is life after death we’ll all have eternity to laugh at the people who thought there wasn’t, and if there isn’t then this life is a complete waste of time (if there is such a thing!).

“I know more than you”,“No, I know more than you”,“shut up the pair of ya, anyway he’s nutts coz he believes in Zenu!”

Just get a grip an live your life with mutual respect an stop wastin time tryin to figure out wether or not you really exist!......POINTLESS….(as was my attempt to point it out)

@Pazza – Wow.

I see where you are coming from.
But, we could use that answer or attitude for most questions.
That’s no fun. :-)

(Haha, I didn’t think anyone was lookin) I guess that was my ultimate point. FUN. Life should be fun so if you get pleasure from discussion then I suppose I should shut-up. I just stumbled on this forum by accident an thought I’d throw my 2 pennies worth in. I may have been off balance, but I thought I detected some ego’s in the discussion an wanted to provoke a response. No offence intended people. Take care an I’ll see you all on the dark side. Oh I forgot, here’s my conclusion to life, I hope you like it:

As long as you love, and are loved, nothing else in life really matters, for in the blink of an eye, you’l be dead for eternity and live forever. So cherrish and validate those you love everyday as the connections made on this side of life will surely follow on to the next.

Peace out to all you sentient beings,

Regards

Paul from Liverpool.