<p>The hypotheses on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind" rel="nofollow noreferrer">quantum mind</a> merely alluded that consciousness (that arose in our brain) is beyond classical mechanics (i.e. the electrochemical processes in our neurons) and involved phenomena that are associated with quantum mechanics such as entanglement and superposition. None of these hypotheses explained consciousness as a result of evolution or even attempted a working explanation of consciousness. Therefore, I think the possibilities of consciousness being created or arising (even accidentally) in an AI model anytime soon is really very, very remote.</p>
<p>This does not mean that there are inherent conflicts between quantum mechanics and Buddhist view of reality. <strong>Note:</strong> from here on what is presented are highly speculative and unsubstantiated.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhism/karma/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Karma</a> is often described as a kind of natural law. What if at the core of karma is indeed a kind of <em>quantum entanglement</em>? An entanglement involving the giver of well-being/happiness or its opposite, of pain/suffering and the recipient(s) who experienced these effects. Once entangled, there is one or more resonance(s). A part of which resonate (as waves or particles or both) outwards across space and time. This resonance(s) contains the giver’s signature and is bound to be reflected back eventually homing in on the giver in a future place and time because the universe although immeasurable is not infinite. (An analogy is a wave originating from the middle of a pond that eventually hits an obstacle is reflected back). Once, the reflected resonance(s) (now with a mirrored signature) homed in on the giver it will cancel out while at the same time changing the outcomes that is experienced by the giver. This is via physical (e.g. at the molecular level) or mental (e.g. attracting or repulsing us to act in certain ways) influences or by affecting the internal (i.e. the body) or external environment.</p>
<p>The above mechanism doesn’t necessitate the giver to know who is the recipient(s) and vice-versa for entanglement to occur and karmic forces to be set in motion. What is required is just the intention (tainted with desire, aversion or delusion) and action of the giver and completed when one or more recipient(s) experiencing the fruits of happiness or suffering resulting from the action. Similarly, some resonances (due to their frequencies) would only resonate and appear in certain space (e.g. heavenly realms) while others grow stronger as time passes.</p>
<p>Similarly, the idea of superposition may be what happens to our consciousness at the point of death. A range of possible future rebirth destinations appeared in our consciousness at or near the point of death. Our consciousness is attracted to these options because these destinations have accumulated a large quantity of resonances resulting from the karmic actions performed in the current life. If mindfulness is not present then our consciousness would naturally gravitate to the rebirth destination with the strongest and/or most abundant aggregation of resonances.</p>
<p>The above is a naïve and clumsy attempt to reconcile scientific and Buddhist view on reality. The aim is to emphasize that Buddhism and science have more in common than differences. By working together with science, the benefits would also be greater for Buddhism.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-14T02:31:57.807Z
Great answer. Nicely put together. Thanks .
Pycm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-15T09:08:52.440Z
If karma is a law of nature then it opens up the possibilities of making hypotheses and predictions. This will go beyond studying and logic to proof its existence as well as its other implications such as rebirth and its inescapable effects. It also means that just like the law of gravity, it affects everyone regardless of their beliefs.
Desmon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-13T15:55:09.793Z
2024-09-13T15:55:09.793Z
Desmon
<p>The Buddha taught consciousness (vinnana) has mind-body (nama-rupa) as its cause (hetu). Rupa means physicality; refer to MN 62. The word 'hetu' (cause) is not synonymous with the word 'paccaya' (condition). For example, the absence of clouds may be a 'condition' (paccaya) for the presence of sunlight however the absence of clouds is not the 'cause' (hetu) of sunlight. The cause (hetu) of sunlight is the burning of the sun.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nāmarūpaṁ hetu, nāmarūpaṁ paccayo viññāṇakkhandhassa paññāpanāyā</p>
<p>Name-and-form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.82/en/bodhi?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.82</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Buddha taught without the other four aggregates, there can be no arising of consciousness. One of other aggregretes is rupa. Rupa means physicality.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>‘ahamaññatra rūpā aññatra vedanāya aññatra saññāya aññatra saṅkhārehi
viññāṇassa āgatiṁ vā gatiṁ vā cutiṁ vā upapattiṁ vā vuddhiṁ vā
virūḷhiṁ vā vepullaṁ vā paññāpessāmī’ti, netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati</p>
<p>Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.53</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Buddha's explanations for physically produced consciousness are not wrong. However, later ideas about mind-stream or <em>consciousness produced by consciousness</em> are wrong.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination (sambhavo) of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.</p>
<p>Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises (uppajjati). When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 38</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also, while Dependent Origination is not explicitly about the origination of consciousness, MN 9 explains consciousness arises from sankhara, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Saṅkhārasamudayā viññāṇasamudayo, saṅkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho</p>
<p>Consciousness grows from sankhara. Consciousness ceases when sankhara
cease.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn9/pli/ms?lang=en&amp;layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=none&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 9</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The meaning of the word 'sankhara' in the context above is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Tayome, āvuso, saṅkhārā—</p>
<p>There are these three kinds of (requisite) conditions.</p>
<p>kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro.</p>
<p>Body conditioner, verbal conditioner, mind conditioner.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn9/pli/ms?lang=en&amp;layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=none&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 9</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The body conditioner above is the in &amp; out breathing.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Assāsapassāsā kho, gahapati, kāyasaṅkhāro, vitakkavicārā
vacīsaṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.</p>
<p>“Breathing is the conditioner of the body. Initial &amp; sustained thought is the conditioner of speech. Perception and feeling is the conditioner of the mind.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn41.6/en/sujato?lang=en&amp;layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=none&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 41.6</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note: the word 'saṅkhārā' in Dependent Origination is plural, which indicates it is expected all three kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro &amp; cittasaṅkhāro, for the most part, arise together, simultaneously. In other words, in Dependent Origination, the in &amp; out breathing, which is physical, is a condition for the arising of consciousness.</p>
<p>Therefore, the Buddha's explanations for physically produced consciousness are not wrong. However, later ideas about mind-stream or <em>consciousness produced by consciousness</em> are wrong.</p>
<p>Note: in the suttas, the impression is Mara believed consciousness was reborn after death, which is why, in some suttas (such as <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bodhi?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.87</a>), Mara searches of the consciousness of a monk that has passed away.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Do you see, bhikkhus, that cloud of smoke, that swirl of darkness,
moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south,
upwards, downwards, and to the intermediate quarters?”</p>
<p>“That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness
of the clansman Vakkali&quot;</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bodhi?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.87</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-11T10:02:55.620Z
2024-09-11T11:06:26.630Z
2024-09-11T11:06:26.630Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Any kind of consciousness is not self because Consciousness ,whether Buddhas consciousness or quantum consciousness ,is impermanent. That which is impermanent is suffering. Therefore no consciousness can be considered self.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-11T02:47:17.023Z
I agree to your current answer. But my question is about origin of consciousness.
Pycm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-12T05:33:48.037Z
@Pycm Didn’t I say consciousness is impermanent?
SacrificialEquation
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-12T06:34:56.167Z
I agree that consciousness is impermanent. But I am asking, why ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong?
Pycm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-01T11:06:01.133Z
@Pycm Consciousness can exist in a formless realm where physical body is absent. Physical body is not necessary for consciousness to exist. But formless body (consciousness in this case) can attach to a body. Consciousness is fundamental (although it is also a Sankhara) but is not produced by any body. Consciousness is separate aggregate and body is separate aggregate.
SacrificialEquation
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-01T12:19:22.850Z
`Consciousness can exist in a formless realm where physical body is absent.` Yes. In the context of Buddhism yes I agree. But I wanted an outside opinion/description. [link](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/50638/25614)
Pycm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-10T18:28:56.060Z
2024-09-10T18:28:56.060Z
SacrificialEquation
<p>I may consider myself as a strong buddhist.</p>
<p>But when I read about concept of quantum consciousness , it seems very realistic. And add to that, considering capabilities of current simple(chat GPT, etc) AI models, and considering how powerful an AI model(in DNA) would be powered by evolution through millions of years, it seems possible to believe ability to produce consciousness like behavior with</p>
<ol>
<li>biological quantum consciousness and</li>
<li>AI model coded by DNA.</li>
</ol>
<p>So, my question is, what are the best <strong>Buddhist answers</strong> against this?</p>
<p>Why may be these ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong?</p>
<p>In other words, what information we can gather from buddhist philosophy and buddhist teachings regarding origin of the consciousness?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-11T01:26:09.373Z
What is "conciseness"? Do you mean "consciousness"? The question is unclear. Please clarify the details, then it can be reopened. Also, what's the connection to Buddhism?
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-11T02:48:44.053Z
I have corrected some spellings and added some explanations. Some may reopen the question.
Pycm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-11T07:11:39.027Z
A "theory on the origin of consciousness" is I'd guess "the twelve nidanas", isn't it?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-12T09:04:56.793Z
If the workings of consciousness is indeed a quantum phenomenon then it is indeed non-trivial. Even then there's nothing to suggest it would violate Buddhist understanding of consciousness either. Why do you think there's any violation?
Desmon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-12T10:29:39.493Z
According to Buddhist ideology, consciousness go to next life (nun material). But as my question ask, if consciousness is purely produced by physical world through evolution, how consciousness come to human body, then goes to next life body? That's what I am asking.
Pycm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-13T21:33:35.520Z
No. The Buddha did not appear to teach consciousness go to next life. Only later interpretations of Buddhism....
Dhamma Dhatu
<consciousness><science><faith>
Buddhist Consciousness vs Quantum consciousness + Data models(AI)
# Buddhist Consciousness vs Quantum consciousness + Data models(AI)

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-09-10)

I may consider myself as a strong buddhist.

But when I read about concept of quantum consciousness , it seems very realistic. And add to that, considering capabilities of current simple(chat GPT, etc) AI models, and considering how powerful an AI model(in DNA) would be powered by evolution through millions of years, it seems possible to believe ability to produce consciousness like behavior with

1. biological quantum consciousness and
2. AI model coded by DNA.

So, my question is, what are the best **Buddhist answers** against this?

Why may be these ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong?

In other words, what information we can gather from buddhist philosophy and buddhist teachings regarding origin of the consciousness?

**Tags:** consciousness, science, faith

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What is "conciseness"? Do you mean "consciousness"? The question is unclear. Please clarify the details, then it can be reopened. Also, what's the connection to Buddhism?  
> **username_0**: I have corrected some spellings and added some explanations. Some may reopen the question.  
> **username_2**: A "theory on the origin of consciousness" is I'd guess "the twelve nidanas", isn't it?  
> **username_3**: If the workings of consciousness is indeed a quantum phenomenon then it is indeed non-trivial. Even then there's nothing to suggest it would violate Buddhist understanding of consciousness either. Why do you think there's any violation?  
> **username_0**: According to Buddhist ideology, consciousness go to next life (nun material). But as my question ask, if consciousness is purely produced by physical world through evolution, how consciousness come to human body, then goes to next life body? That's what I am asking.  
> **username_4**: No. The Buddha did not appear to teach consciousness go to next life. Only later interpretations of Buddhism....  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-09-13. Score: 1

The hypotheses on [quantum mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind) merely alluded that consciousness (that arose in our brain) is beyond classical mechanics (i.e. the electrochemical processes in our neurons) and involved phenomena that are associated with quantum mechanics such as entanglement and superposition. None of these hypotheses explained consciousness as a result of evolution or even attempted a working explanation of consciousness. Therefore, I think the possibilities of consciousness being created or arising (even accidentally) in an AI model anytime soon is really very, very remote.

This does not mean that there are inherent conflicts between quantum mechanics and Buddhist view of reality. **Note:** from here on what is presented are highly speculative and unsubstantiated.

[Karma](https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhism/karma/) is often described as a kind of natural law. What if at the core of karma is indeed a kind of *quantum entanglement*? An entanglement involving the giver of well-being/happiness or its opposite, of pain/suffering and the recipient(s) who experienced these effects. Once entangled, there is one or more resonance(s). A part of which resonate (as waves or particles or both) outwards across space and time. This resonance(s) contains the giver’s signature and is bound to be reflected back eventually homing in on the giver in a future place and time because the universe although immeasurable is not infinite. (An analogy is a wave originating from the middle of a pond that eventually hits an obstacle is reflected back). Once, the reflected resonance(s) (now with a mirrored signature) homed in on the giver it will cancel out while at the same time changing the outcomes that is experienced by the giver. This is via physical (e.g. at the molecular level) or mental (e.g. attracting or repulsing us to act in certain ways) influences or by affecting the internal (i.e. the body) or external environment.

The above mechanism doesn’t necessitate the giver to know who is the recipient(s) and vice-versa for entanglement to occur and karmic forces to be set in motion. What is required is just the intention (tainted with desire, aversion or delusion) and action of the giver and completed when one or more recipient(s) experiencing the fruits of happiness or suffering resulting from the action. Similarly, some resonances (due to their frequencies) would only resonate and appear in certain space (e.g. heavenly realms) while others grow stronger as time passes.

Similarly, the idea of superposition may be what happens to our consciousness at the point of death. A range of possible future rebirth destinations appeared in our consciousness at or near the point of death. Our consciousness is attracted to these options because these destinations have accumulated a large quantity of resonances resulting from the karmic actions performed in the current life. If mindfulness is not present then our consciousness would naturally gravitate to the rebirth destination with the strongest and/or most abundant aggregation of resonances.

The above is a naïve and clumsy attempt to reconcile scientific and Buddhist view on reality. The aim is to emphasize that Buddhism and science have more in common than differences. By working together with science, the benefits would also be greater for Buddhism.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Great answer. Nicely put together. Thanks .  
> **username_3**: If karma is a law of nature then it opens up the possibilities of making hypotheses and predictions. This will go beyond studying and logic to proof its existence as well as its other implications such as rebirth and its inescapable effects. It also means that just like the law of gravity, it affects everyone regardless of their beliefs.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-09-11. Score: 1

The Buddha taught consciousness (vinnana) has mind-body (nama-rupa) as its cause (hetu). Rupa means physicality; refer to MN 62. The word 'hetu' (cause) is not synonymous with the word 'paccaya' (condition). For example, the absence of clouds may be a 'condition' (paccaya) for the presence of sunlight however the absence of clouds is not the 'cause' (hetu) of sunlight. The cause (hetu) of sunlight is the burning of the sun.

> Nāmarūpaṁ hetu, nāmarūpaṁ paccayo viññāṇakkhandhassa paññāpanāyā
>
> Name-and-form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.
>
> [SN 22.82](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.82/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)

The Buddha taught without the other four aggregates, there can be no arising of consciousness. One of other aggregretes is rupa. Rupa means physicality.

> ‘ahamaññatra rūpā aññatra vedanāya aññatra saññāya aññatra saṅkhārehi
> viññāṇassa āgatiṁ vā gatiṁ vā cutiṁ vā upapattiṁ vā vuddhiṁ vā
> virūḷhiṁ vā vepullaṁ vā paññāpessāmī’ti, netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati
>
> Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.
>
> [SN 22.53](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html)

The Buddha's explanations for physically produced consciousness are not wrong. However, later ideas about mind-stream or *consciousness produced by consciousness* are wrong.

> Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
> to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
> origination (sambhavo) of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
> misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
> up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
> long time.
>
> Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
> dependent upon which it arises (uppajjati). When consciousness arises dependent on
> the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
> consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
> as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
> and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
> arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
> tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
> and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
> consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
> reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
> particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
> dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
> dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
> dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
> dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
> burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
> burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
> consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
> which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
> forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
> dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
> mind-consciousness.
>
> [MN 38](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)

Also, while Dependent Origination is not explicitly about the origination of consciousness, MN 9 explains consciousness arises from sankhara, as follows:

> Saṅkhārasamudayā viññāṇasamudayo, saṅkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho
>
> Consciousness grows from sankhara. Consciousness ceases when sankhara
> cease.
>
> [MN 9](https://suttacentral.net/mn9/pli/ms?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin)

The meaning of the word 'sankhara' in the context above is:

> Tayome, āvuso, saṅkhārā—
>
> There are these three kinds of (requisite) conditions.
>
> kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro.
>
> Body conditioner, verbal conditioner, mind conditioner.
>
> [MN 9](https://suttacentral.net/mn9/pli/ms?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin)

The body conditioner above is the in & out breathing.

> “Assāsapassāsā kho, gahapati, kāyasaṅkhāro, vitakkavicārā
> vacīsaṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.
>
> “Breathing is the conditioner of the body. Initial & sustained thought is the conditioner of speech. Perception and feeling is the conditioner of the mind.
>
> [SN 41.6](https://suttacentral.net/sn41.6/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin)

Note: the word 'saṅkhārā' in Dependent Origination is plural, which indicates it is expected all three kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro & cittasaṅkhāro, for the most part, arise together, simultaneously. In other words, in Dependent Origination, the in & out breathing, which is physical, is a condition for the arising of consciousness.

Therefore, the Buddha's explanations for physically produced consciousness are not wrong. However, later ideas about mind-stream or *consciousness produced by consciousness* are wrong.

Note: in the suttas, the impression is Mara believed consciousness was reborn after death, which is why, in some suttas (such as [SN 22.87](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)), Mara searches of the consciousness of a monk that has passed away.

> “Do you see, bhikkhus, that cloud of smoke, that swirl of darkness,
> moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south,
> upwards, downwards, and to the intermediate quarters?”
>
> “That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness
> of the clansman Vakkali"
>
> [SN 22.87](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2024-09-10. Score: -1

Any kind of consciousness is not self because Consciousness ,whether Buddhas consciousness or quantum consciousness ,is impermanent. That which is impermanent is suffering. Therefore no consciousness can be considered self.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I agree to your current answer. But my question is about origin of consciousness.  
> **username_5**: @username_0 Didn’t I say consciousness is impermanent?  
> **username_0**: I agree that consciousness is impermanent. But I am asking, why ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong?  
> **username_5**: @username_0 Consciousness can exist in a formless realm where physical body is absent. Physical body is not necessary for consciousness to exist. But formless body (consciousness in this case) can attach to a body. Consciousness is fundamental (although it is also a Sankhara) but is not produced by any body. Consciousness is separate aggregate and body is separate aggregate.  
> **username_0**: `Consciousness can exist in a formless realm where physical body is absent.` Yes. In the context of Buddhism yes I agree. But I wanted an outside opinion/description. [link](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/50638/25614)  

---

