Science regards matter as the most fundamental entity and that life is also a product of matter. Life is represented by breath. There is a saying that till breath is there, there is life. Breath is one of the five Pranas (vital forces). Pranas are insentient. That life is a product of matter is accepted by Vedanta also. As regards consciousness, the prevalent scientific view is that it is an epiphenomenon, that is to say, consciousness arises in a complex organism. In other words, it is also a product of matter. This view is confronted by what is called the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Science says that consciousness and therefore firsthand experience are produced by the brain. David Chalmer differs and says that subjective experience is not an outcome of the firing of neurons in the brain. This is the hard problem of consciousness. Hard Problem of Consciousness – David Chalmers (organism.earth)

Vedantic view                                                                                                                Scientific interest in Consciousness is at the most a few decades old. Upanishads have discussed it a few thousand years back. In Kena Upanishad, the student asks about the divine principle under whose command eyes function as eyes, ears as ears, etc. The teacher describes the divine principle as Eye of the eye, Ear of the ear, and so on. He is referring to Consciousness as the divine principle. It also means that Consciousness is the most fundamental entity. A conscious entity only has ‘I’ thought. It means that consciousness is responsible for the subjective experience or firsthand experience of any phenomenon. In Vedanta, there is no hard problem because consciousness is considered different from matter. Brahma Sutra 3.5.53 gives the materialistic view which is refuted in 3.3.54.

3.3.53: Some deny the existence of the soul, its existence being dependent on the existence of the body.                                                                                                     Materialists admit that the soul (consciousness) is not seen in inert matters like stone, yet it may belong to matter transformed into bodies. The example of eating betelnut is cited. When one eats green betel leaves, white lime, and brown nut, they mix in the mouth to produce red colour. Red colour is not in the betel, or lime or the nut yet they combine to give rise to red colour.  A man is thus a body with sentiency arising from within. They adduce further reason. Existence of consciousness is dependent on the existence of the body which means consciousness is an attribute of the body. Even vital forces, memory, etc. are perceived to exist in the body only and not outside. As there is no entity other than the body which has consciousness, consciousness must be the attribute of the body. The materialist applies the logic of co-existence and co-presence to reason that consciousness does not exist separately from the body.

Sutra 3.3.54 counters the materialists’ view and asserts that consciousness must be different from the body because it is not perceived to exist when the body is there, e.g., a dead body is devoid of consciousness. The materialistic view that on death, the body does not exist is contrary to perception. If from the argument that consciousness exists when the body exists, it is inferred (by materialists) that consciousness is an attribute of the body, then it can be as well inferred that it is not an attribute of the body due to its non-existence in a dead body. Even vital forces, memory, etc. are not perceived in a dead body. The existence of these attributes is perceived when the body continues during a man’s life, but their non-existence cannot be validated from the non-existence of the body. Though perception of sight takes place when light is present and not when absent, it does not follow that perception is an attribute of the light. Likewise, it does not follow that consciousness is an attribute of the body just because it is in the body and absent outside it. When the body falls, consciousness may continue by transfer to some other body.  Even if it is considered a doubtful theory for the sake of argument, it challenges the opposite view.

The opposite view can be refuted from another angle. Their view is that matter constituting the body gives rise to consciousness in the body (resonances the scientific view that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain). The body is an object of perception. There can be no perception without consciousness. In such a situation, consciousness cannot be an attribute of the body. A thing cannot act on itself. Fire, though possessing heat, does not burn itself. Consciousness is by nature the very essence of perception itself, and hence it is distinct from the body.