[smart (OP)]

Origins of consciousness

"This Vedāntic explanation that unitary Supreme Cognizant Being is the source of everything is founded on 2 scientifically verifiable axiomatic facts: (1) Life comes from Life, and (2) Matter comes from Life. Consciousness arises from consciousness, or life comes from life. Where there is life there is consciousness. Consciousness does not originate from that which is unconscious or impersonal, and life is not a product of insentient matter.
 The conception that life comes from life (biogenesis) is the only scientific idea that has ever been verified by experiment and observation. The second axiomatic fact ‘Matter comes from Life’ is apparently observable in nature. Every species produces their own chemicals necessary within their bodies. ‘Life comes from Life’, and ‘Matter comes from Life’ are 2 scientifically observable deductions from Vedānta. On the other hand, materialism (life originates from matter) is an unverified ideological presupposition that has no scientific or observation-based evidence to support it."

The internal teleology of consciousness

"The scientific confirmation of the existence of consciousness in unicellular organisms and plants certainly establishes that the brain is not the source of consciousness. Several decades back, research in medical science has also proven that the brain is not the source of consciousness. In 1970, Robert White and his team successfully transferred the head of a rhesus monkey to the headless body of another monkey. The monkey survived for 8 days.68 Researchers are also attempting to perform the same scenario with human beings.69 It is reported that if a human head has been detached under controlled conditions, it must be reconnected to the circulatory flow of other person's body (which is conscious or living) within one hour.70 Therefore, brain-based analysis for understanding consciousness (neuronal analysis) does not have very bright prospects."

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

[RD]

In 1970, Robert White and his team successfully transferred the head of a rhesus monkey to the headless body of another monkey...

Why would a successful head/body transplant be evidence consciousness does not reside in the brain ?

Damage to parts of the brain causes loss of particular mental-faculties, evidence that is where the user-illusion of consciousness is created.

[smart (OP)]

Consciousness is not an illusion; it exists through all living entities including unicellular and multicellular organisms. If a head transplant provides evidences that all living organisms are conscious, then the brain/body is not the source of consciousness. Self-awareness is thus a fundamental aspect of living organisms which can't be based on neurological analysis to prove the internal teleology of consciousness.

 

[RD]

... If a head transplant provides evidences that all living organisms are conscious, then the brain/body is not the source of consciousness

That's two non-sequiturs in one sentence, quite an achievement.

Here's a (disturbing) YouTube video of severed-head of a dog, kept alive via artificial-circulation  ... https://youtu.be/pQOZTpEApfA?t=4m25s
The head responds to stimuli, demonstrating a body is not necessary for consciousness. So consciousness is in the head.
[ Brain-damage demonstrates consciousness is in the brain ].

Consciousness ... exists through all living entities including unicellular and multicellular organisms ...

You've not offered any evidence that, say, an individual bacterium , or a blade of grass is conscious/self-aware ?.  If it is not advantageous for a living-thing to develop sentience, then there is no reason evolution should confer that ability, as brains are expensive (i.e. resource hungry) things to create & run.  Evolution does not do incur cost without benefit.

You've mentioned you are keen on legalisation of marijuana.  Psychotropic drugs can create the "oneness" illusion : giving users sensation they are "one" with everything , even inanimate objects , causing the user to believe the objects have the qualities of the drug user, (like consciousness), which the those things do not actually have.  This may be the origin of your unsubstantiated assertions that consciousness exists in my lawn and in any dog-turds thereupon.

[smart (OP)]

You've mentioned you are keen on legalisation of marijuana.  Psychotropic drugs can create the "oneness" illusion : giving users the impression they are "one" with everything , even inanimate objects , causing the user to believe the objects have the qualities of the drug user, (like consciousness), which the things do not actually have.  This may be the origin of your unsubstantiated assertions that consciousness exists in my lawn and in any dog-turds thereupon.

I confess that I believe Marijuana can expand one consciousness. But the ubiquity of consciousness is a theory I believe in because it provides evidences that all living organisms (not dog turds) are conscious entities.

Bacterias also express a form of consciousness by using quorum sensing, and plants are intelligent beings by communicating with their external environment. Hence, this point of view offers at least a reason to not destroy life based on scientific demagogy.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3245704/

[RD]

... all living organisms (not dog turds) are conscious entities.

Animal excrement is approximately 25% bacteria, bacteria which you say are conscious of their predicament, ( fortunately for them , they're not ). 

... I believe Marijuana can expand one consciousness.

In reality psychotropics distort perception of reality, not "expand conciousness" : you're not obtaining an insight into the nature of reality, you're are corrupting your wetware. Psychotropics can also create the "oneness"  / " transcendent unity" hallucination , consistent with your "all living organisms are conscious" assertion.

If the living thing does not have a mechanism where which it can create a model of the world around it, (like a brain) , then it cannot have consciousness.

Simple chemical-reactions can respond to changing environmental conditions, but that's is not proof of conciousness, e.g. crystal-growth will depend on temperature & humidity, and crystal formation triggers more crystallization , (causing exponential-growth, like bacteria) ,  but crystals are not alive or conscious.

That some bacteria exhibit chemotaxis , and that some plants are heliotropic is not proof they are conscious. The mechanisms required to do those things do not require consciousness.

[chiralSPO]

I believe that psychedelics do offer much insight into the nature of consciousness.

However, the interesting information is not so much what believed by the person hallucinating. Rather, the profound effects psychedelics have on the mind are a strong indication of the material nature of our minds--psychedelics offer us a way to interrogate the mind in ways impossible by other means.

On the subject of other organisms being conscious, it appears to me that there are many levels of "consciousness," (spectrum defined by age groups of human, and the range of complex animals like apes, pigs, octopuses, vespids, etc.) but that most simpler organisms (unicellular, fungus, plants etc.) would not qualify. They certainly do respond to stimuli (but so do computers). It would be very difficult (if not impossible) to "prove" that any organism (including a human) is conscious, or that an organism (or machine) is not.

[smart (OP)]

If the living thing does not have a mechanism where which it can create a model of the world around it, (like a brain) , then it cannot have consciousness.

This is a very simplistic way of defining a external teleology. In contrast, a internal teleology don't need such mecanism to exist. []

Furthermore, the ubiquity of consciousness is not my creation; I have not hallucinated that all living entities are conscious. Learning is different from hallucinations.

[Bored chemist]

Consciousness is not an illusion; it exists through all living entities including unicellular and multicellular organisms.

What definition of "consciousness" are you using, because it can't be the conventional one?

[smart (OP)]

What definition of "consciousness" are you using, because it can't be the conventional one?

The Vedāntic view.

"On the other hand, the Vedāntic view states that the origin of everything material and nonmaterial is sentient and absolute (unconditioned). Thus, sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself – omne vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. This is the scientifically verified law of experience. Life is essentially cognitive and conscious."

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

[Bored chemist]

What definition of "consciousness" are you using, because it can't be the conventional one?

The Vedāntic view.

"On the other hand, the Vedāntic view states that the origin of everything material and nonmaterial is sentient and absolute (unconditioned). Thus, sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself – omne vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. This is the scientifically verified law of experience. Life is essentially cognitive and conscious."

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

So, it's theology, rather than science.
And it doesn't use a sensible meaning of the word.
Why are you raising it on a science site?

[smart (OP)]

So, it's theology, rather than science.

I believe you mean that the Vedāntic view is a philosophy of science, not a theology.

In any case, i think the Vedāntic view provide a unique perspective on the ubiquity of consciousness, or the study of the intrinsic purposes (internal teleology) of all living organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

[smart (OP)]

I believe that psychedelics do offer much insight into the nature of consciousness.

However, the interesting information is not so much what believed by the person hallucinating. Rather, the profound effects psychedelics have on the mind are a strong indication of the material nature of our minds--psychedelics offer us a way to interrogate the mind in ways impossible by other means.

Very interesting post. I think experimentally induced states of consciousness are generating perturbations to the brain internal bioelectromagnetic field. The subliminal visualization of dreams and hallucinations may be correlated by the processing of unconscious informations by the visual cortex. In a nutshell, the brain may consist of an organ dedicated to orchestrate the synchronicity of external conscious activity from the unconscious mind.