Dualism argues that consciousness is distinct from the physical brain, while materialism holds that consciousness arises entirely from brain processes. René Descartes, a proponent of substance dualism, believed that the mind and body are fundamentally different substances. We are more than just our brain. In contrast, materialists argue that when the brain ceases to function, consciousness ceases to exist.
Dualism Vs Materialism
A strong argument for materialism is that brain damage directly affects consciousness. Damage to specific areas, such as the prefrontal cortex, can alter personality, self-awareness, and decision-making. Neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s gradually erase memory and identity as neurons deteriorate. General anesthesia suppresses brain activity, leading to a complete loss of conscious experience. Similarly, coma patients often exhibit no awareness. If consciousness existed independently of the brain, shutting down its function should not eliminate it.
However, some argue that this only proves the brain is a medium, not the origin of consciousness. According to this perspective, the brain functions like a receiver, tuning into a consciousness that exists beyond physical matter. Just as a damaged radio distorts or loses a broadcast signal, brain damage might impair the brain’s ability to access consciousness without proving that consciousness itself is destroyed. So, are we more than just our brain?
This debate remains unresolved. While neuroscience provides strong evidence that consciousness is deeply tied to brain function, the possibility that the brain is merely an interface for a non-physical consciousness cannot be entirely ruled out.
The Split Brain
Roger Sperry conducted experiments on human volunteers who had undergone corpus callosotomy, a procedure that severs the corpus callosum, effectively disconnecting the two brain hemispheres. In his study, participants were shown different objects—one to their left eye only and another to their right eye only. When asked to draw what they saw, they accurately reproduced the image seen by their left eye but struggled to verbally describe it. Conversely, they could describe what they saw with their right eye but had difficulty drawing it.
Sperry’s findings demonstrated a key distinction in brain function: the left hemisphere is responsible for language and speech, while the right hemisphere specializes in spatial and visual processing. The right eye connects to the left hemisphere, allowing participants to articulate what they saw. Meanwhile, the left eye connects to the right hemisphere, enabling drawing ability but lacking verbal expression.
Fragmented Cognitive Processing
This phenomenon can be compared to a radio with two speakers connected in parallel. In such a system, severing the connection between speakers does not stop them from functioning, as long as each remains connected to the amplifier. However, a parallel connection enhances sound quality and volume. Similarly, in the brain, the two hemispheres operate in parallel, each contributing distinct functions. When disconnected, they still function but produce separate outputs, resulting in fragmented cognitive processing.
Unlike identical speakers that produce the same sound regardless of connectivity, the brain’s hemispheres perform specialized tasks. When both hemispheres work together, they create a unified and enhanced conscious experience. The integration of speech, spatial awareness, and perception leads to a seamless cognitive process. By contrast, a severed corpus callosum causes a split in awareness—each hemisphere processes information independently, creating a dual consciousness effect.
Brain as a Receiver of Consciousness
If the brain functions as a receiver of consciousness, then this split suggests that consciousness exists independently of the brain’s structure, with the hemispheres merely dividing the signal into specialized functions. For example MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machines send radio frequency (RF) pulses into the body. Different tissues (muscle, fat, bone) respond with unique signals. The machine decomposes these signals into frequency components to create a detailed image. T1-weighted signals (show fat and fluid differently). T2-weighted signals (highlight water content, useful for detecting swelling). Proton density signals (show the concentration of hydrogen atoms). The same thing probably happens in the brain. The unified experience of consciousness may arise from the collaboration between hemispheres, reinforcing the idea that integration enhances perception, awareness, and cognitive efficiency.
Neuromorphic Computing
Neuromorphic computing aims to replicate neural pathways, enabling machines to process information similarly to the human brain. Artificial intelligence mimics intelligence but lacks true subjective experience. While many aspects of consciousness may be artificially replicated, I believe true subjective awareness cannot emerge without a biological brain. If subjective experience remains impossible to generate artificially, it suggests that something external—beyond computation—plays a role in making us who we are. This would establish a fundamental distinction between humans and machines.
Consciousness as Non-computational
This idea aligns with David Chalmers’ “hard problem of consciousness,” which argues that no physical explanation can fully account for why we experience sensations and emotions. If consciousness cannot be reduced to computation, it might be a fundamental property of reality, like space and time. In this view, the brain acts as a receiver, tapping into a deeper field of consciousness—something AI cannot access.
Similarly, Roger Penrose suggests that consciousness is non-computational, meaning it cannot be simulated or replicated by artificial intelligence, no matter how advanced. If true, this implies that consciousness is not just information processing but something inherently different, reinforcing the idea that AI, despite its advancements, will never fully replicate human awareness.
Reincarnation
If reincarnation is real, consciousness must exist independently of the brain. This directly challenges the materialist view that the brain generates consciousness. Hinduism and Buddhism both describe reincarnation, and cases of children recalling past-life memories—like those studied by Dr. Ian Stevenson—suggest there may be more to consciousness than the physical brain. Some children report detailed past-life memories, often fading as they grow older. If these accounts are genuine, they raise profound questions about consciousness.
Ancient Hindu texts, such as the Vedas (1500 BCE or earlier), hint at rebirth, while the Upanishads (800–200 BCE) develop the idea of Atman (the self) being reborn due to karma. Hindu and Buddhist traditions emphasize deep meditation (dhyana) as a means to experience consciousness beyond the physical body. Advanced meditators—yogis and monks—report ego dissolution and visions of past lives.
Ego Dissolution
Ego dissolution is a real phenomenon where one loses their sense of self, often through meditation or psychedelics. If this state allows access to past-life memories, ancient sages who spent years meditating may have explored consciousness in ways modern people rarely do. Unlike today’s brief meditation practices, these sages devoted their entire lives to it. If deep meditation can dissolve the self, perhaps it can also access a deeper consciousness—one capable of remembering past lives.
Rather than merely creating these ideas, ancient sages may have directly experienced profound states of consciousness. Their descriptions of reincarnation, karma, and universal consciousness may stem from first-hand experience rather than speculation. Meditation, ego-death, and reincarnation could be interconnected aspects of ancient Hindu and Buddhist exploration. If reincarnation is real, it suggests consciousness extends beyond the brain, challenging modern scientific views.
Humans as Nothing More than Biological Machines?
The desire to assert that some aspect of human experience is fundamental may be an exercise in vanity, a means of soothing our anxiety around death—the hope that the universe deems us special or that some part of us will live on. Just as fire once seemed magical before the discovery of combustion, subjective experience might appear mysterious only because we currently lack the scientific tools to explain it. If consciousness ultimately proves to be fully explainable by physics, then humans may indeed be nothing more than highly advanced biological machines.
However, what if we can never replicate subjective experience? If, no matter how sophisticated our technology becomes, we fail to generate subjective awareness in artificial systems, then the notion that consciousness is purely computational begins to fall apart. This isn’t vanity—it’s simply following the evidence.
Even a Dog Has Subjective Experience
A dog’s subjective experience, or qualia, seems undeniable to anyone who has interacted with one. Despite possessing only 530 million neurons, dogs exhibit emotions like excitement, fear, love, and pain—not just as programmed responses but as lived experiences. In contrast, even with neuromorphic chips containing billions of artificial neurons, we have yet to create anything resembling subjective awareness in machines. The number of artificial neurons alone does not appear to be the key to consciousness. While neuromorphic computing mimics some structural and functional aspects of the brain, it lacks something fundamental: conscious awareness. While these systems excel at pattern recognition and learning, they do not bridge the gap to sentience.
Absence of Neurotransmitters in Neuromorphic Computing
One possible explanation for this gap is the absence of biochemical neurotransmitters in neuromorphic computing. Neurochemical processes involving dopamine, serotonin, and other messengers significantly influence human experiences. Current neuromorphic systems lack these biochemical interactions, which may be a crucial missing piece in replicating conscious experience. If we were to integrate chemical messengers into neuromorphic systems, could we achieve subjective experience? While this would represent a major step toward biological realism, it would not necessarily result in consciousness. Neurotransmitters regulate brain function, but they do not directly cause consciousness. Even if we perfectly simulated them in hardware, that alone would not create a first-person perspective or qualia—raising the profound “hard problem of consciousness.”
Subjective Experience Doesn’t Have any Evolutionary Purpose?
Furthermore, subjective experience does not have an obvious evolutionary purpose. While cognitive functions like memory, pattern recognition, and decision-making can be explained through natural selection, the reason why we “feel” things remains unclear. Evolutionary theory accounts for behavior but does not necessarily explain why organisms experience emotions and sensations subjectively.
Ultimately, these speculations attempt to unravel the nature of consciousness. They attempt to find whether we are more than just our brain. While current theories struggle to explain qualia, the reality of consciousness may eventually be understood through a materialistic framework. Whether subjective experience is an emergent property of computation or something beyond our physical models remains an open question.
Sources:
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/roger-sperrys-split-brain-experiments-1959-1968-0