sinequanon:


It doesn't supervene on anything.

i.e it is not a product of anything. It is the base.

Can there be consciousness without the brain?

Lolol.

Dapo777:


Can there be consciousness without the brain?

Absolutely!

This is what I was talking about earlier.

Even science is beginning to admit it.

NDEs are near-death-experiences and include cases where people in operation theatres, whose brains have flatlined, report being lucid during the flatlining and can identify events that took place in the period. This video also mentions cases of people with dementia who become lucid just before death, suddenly being able to identify family members and talk clearly.

Until recently, it was taboo for scientists and hospital staff to report any of this, unless they wanted to attract ridicule and harm their career prospects. Recently, and I think the influence is due to freer thinking in Asian cultures, the subject has been forced into the open. Scientists have suddenly pulled out of the hat the idea that consciousness can reside momentarily outside the brain, and there have been proposals that quantum entangling is involved that allows perception to take place from outside the body (desperate attempt to keep it within the status quo as much as possible). But non-scientists have been saying for a long time already that the brain is a filter of consciousness, not a source of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

sinequanon:


Absolutely!

This is what I was talking about earlier.

Even science is beginning to admit it.

NDEs are near-death-experiences and include cases where people in operation theatres, whose brains have flatlined, report being lucid during the flatlining and can identify events that took place in the period. This video also mentions cases of people with dementia who become lucid just before death, suddenly being able to identify family members and talk clearly.

Until recently, it was taboo for scientists and hospital staff to report any of this, unless they wanted to attract ridicule and harm their career prospects. Recently, and I think the influence is due to freer thinking in Asian cultures, the subject has been forced into the open. Scientists have suddenly pulled out of the hat the idea that consciousness can reside momentarily outside the brain, and there have been proposals that quantum entangling is involved that allows perception to take place from outside the body (desperate attempt to keep it within the status quo as much as possible). But non-scientists have been saying for a long time already that the brain is a filter of consciousness, not a source of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

Interesting. So scientists are trying to hide the truth of NDE?

Dapo777:


Interesting. So scientists are trying to hide the truth of NDE?

Yes. It is an observation that the guy makes in the video in my last post.

A cardiologist makes the same point within the first three minutes of the video below. It was a taboo to discuss ideas that may contradict the scientific dogma that consciousness is "emergent" as oppose to fundamental.

Next time anyone tells you that science is free and open and searching for truth, videos like the one below are a good example of the opposite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4

Dapo777:


Interesting. So scientists are trying to hide the truth of NDE?

They are. By suggesting that its simply the result of misfiring neurons when someone is in still alive but nearing death. IOW its all made up by the brain.

sinequanon:


Yes. It is an observation that the guy makes in the video in my last post.

A cardiologist makes the same point within the first three minutes of the video below. It was a taboo to discuss ideas that may contradict the scientific dogma that consciousness is "emergent" as oppose to fundamental.

Next time anyone tells you that science is free and open and searching for truth, videos like the one below are a good example of the opposite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4

Don't worry just give me some months to make my own research. I will tell you If I find something opposed to What you telling me now.

Dapo777:


Don't worry just give me some months to make my own research. I will tell you If I find something opposed to What you telling me now.

It's been good discussing.

sinequanon:


It's been good discussing.

Yes.

I have a question Fr you.

What If those people weren't actually dead in the brain?
What If the variable the machines used Fr measuring brain activities isn't efficient. What If there are some brain activities that are yet to be discovered.

Neuroscience is a fresh fertile field of science that keeps uncovering new things as the days pass by.

What If?

What If?
............

Dapo777:
What If those people weren't actually dead in the brain?
What If the variable the machines used Fr measuring brain activities isn't efficient. What If there are some brain activities that are yet to be discovered.

Neuroscience is a fresh fertile field of science that keeps uncovering new things as the days pass by.

What If?

What If?
............

There are many measures of brain activity, and reports from all over the world. Also the patients report ENHANCED consciousness, not impaired consciousness.

The evidence is totally unexpected from a current scientific perspective. The level of consciousness has gone in the opposite direction to what they expect.

Some patients report as if they are sitting near the head of the surgeon and watching the entire procedure. Others report about seeing objects outside the operating theatre. There is one famous case of a patient seeing and hearing the surgeon use a bone drill, while flatlined. The brain activity has shut down by every measure -- blood flow, EEG, breathing, reflex etc. BUT THEY CAN STILL SEE? AND IT IS ENHANCED?

This has been predicted by some non-scientists, and trashes the conventional view of how the senses -- eyes and ears -- operate, even if you think consciousness may be tucked away somewhere. It does not appear that their dilated eyes and their ears were even sending signals for their consciousness to "receive". I prefer the non-scientific explanation that predicted the outcome to the hastily scrambled major, major rethink involving quantum this and that.

I hope this isn't gonna suddenly scare you into believing in god, lol. This understanding was around before all these tales of judgement day etc.

sinequanon:


There are many measures of brain activity, and reports from all over the world. Also the patients report ENHANCED consciousness, not impaired consciousness.

The evidence is totally unexpected from a current scientific perspective. The level of consciousness has gone in the opposite direction to what they expect.

Some patients report as if they are sitting near the head of the surgeon and watching the entire procedure. Others report about seeing objects outside the operating theatre. There is one famous case of a patient seeing and hearing the surgeon use a bone drill, while flatlined. The brain activity has shut down by every measure -- blood flow, EEG, breathing, reflex etc. BUT THEY CAN STILL SEE? AND IT IS ENHANCED?

This has been predicted by some non-scientists, and trashes the conventional view of how the senses -- eyes and ears -- operate, even if you think consciousness may be tucked away somewhere. It does not appear that their dilated eyes and their ears were even sending signals for their consciousness to "receive". I prefer the non-scientific explanation that predicted the outcome to the hastily scrambled major, major rethink involving quantum this and that.

I hope this isn't gonna suddenly scare you into believing in god, lol. This understanding was around before all these tales of judgement day etc.

Okay ooo. Just give me some time to look into it closely.

Even If consciousness exist outside the brain. That is no proof that God exist.

Dapo777:


Okay ooo. Just give me some time to look into it closely.

Even If consciousness exist outside the brain. That is no proof that God exist.

As you may know, I don't follow any god. So it is not proof for me.

I do, however believe that the consciousness persists outside the body.

I have personally had OBE (out-of-body experience) by natural means, and SEEN (perceived) out-of-body spirit. So, my own belief is not merely vicarious.

Those who talk about being with god or meeting Jesus, or seeing hell during NDE were those who were religious or on the fence. These were only a few.

As I recall, people from Eastern cultures had no such reports of heaven or hell.

sinequanon:


As you may know, I don't follow any god. So it is not proof for me.

I do, however believe that the consciousness persists outside the body.

I have personally had OBE (out-of-body experience) by natural means, and SEEN (perceived) out-of-body spirit. So, my own belief is not merely vicarious.

Those who talk about being with god or meeting Jesus, or seeing hell during NDE were those who were religious or on the fence. These were only a few.

As I recall, people from Eastern cultures had no such reports of heaven or hell.

So you have seen spirit before?

Dapo777:


So you have seen spirit before?

Many, many times.

honourhim:


The info here is a biased one. The major problem here wasn't relIgion rather it was an empire who caged everyone into some sort of slavery under the guise of religion. Even the church and by extension, religion suffered under this same empire because some doctrines of the scripture were manipulated, twisted and strange doctrines smuggled into the body of Christ which led to a protest by those who couldn't stand the strange happenings.

Obviously it wasn't only science that suffered this cruelty, even religion also suffered, hence the birth of the "protestants". Biased people like you will always want to see religion as the problem rather than the empire even when you know that christianity suffered the same cruelty.

You really should not be on this thread if you do not understand how to debate. You seem to have forgotten the reason why I had to take the pains to dig this info up?

Let me remind you. I gave you this info because you felt that religion was what helped Europe's development.

Who cares the sort of doctrine that caused it? My point is 'Religion underdeveloped Europe until the Age of Enlightenment'

Your post above is thus irrelevant

sinequanon:


Many, many times.

Please how do they look like? Can you touch them,how do they feel like,do they have any odor,how about their voice,can you see Through them. Please describe them for me.

Dapo777:


Please how do they look like? Can you touch them,how do they feel like,do they have any odor,how about their voice,can you see Through them. Please describe them for me.

The questions you are asking are quite "scientific" -- it is quite difficult to escape that mindset.

I can go into how "spirit" may appear to me, but that doesn't mean that is how it would appear to everybody or that is "how it is" (that would be scientific logic).

For me, spirit does not appear in one form. And I feel that it clearly is not my corporeal senses at work. The best i can describe it is as a "vivid knowing or comprehension" communicating with an energy. However, in retrospect, as my physical memory later recalls it, there is imagery attached. It can range from a translucent form to an otherwise typical looking person. Some are not even people or creature in form. It is more the communication and the "energy" that I feel. Not easy for me to describe, because it is not physical. But it certainly isn't one thing in my experience.

There is one caveat when watching videos of people talking about near-death experiences.

There is a lot of interest in the topic, and some people have realized that they can make money by playing along and writing a book. So you have to be able to discern the motivation of the speaker and eliminate the fraudsters. There are also the romantics who play along just because they find the ideas appealing.

This is why I think that personal experience of transcendental things is important. It becomes quite easy to spot the disingenuous people.

sinequanon:


The questions you are asking are quite "scientific" -- it is quite difficult to escape that mindset.

I can go into how "spirit" may appear to me, but that doesn't mean that is how it would appear to everybody or that is "how it is" (that would be scientific logic).

For me, spirit does not appear in one form. And I feel that it clearly is not my corporeal senses at work. The best i can describe it is as a "vivid knowing or comprehension" communicating with an energy. However, in retrospect, as my physical memory later recalls it, there is imagery attached. It can range from a translucent form to an otherwise typical looking person. Some are not even people or creature in form. It is more the communication and the "energy" that I feel. Not easy for me to describe, because it is not physical. But it certainly isn't one thing in my experience.

So how are you able to see them?

Dapo777:


So how are you able to see them?

Well, again, I find the question comes from a scientific perspective, which believes in controlled "cause and effect" and emergent consciousness.

So I'd like to turn the question round and ask, why can't people "usually" NOT see "them".

My understanding is this.

Consciousness is not a product of the brain.

Consciousness begins outside the brain and can communicate through the brain, but the brain also acts as a filter to our consciousness.

Only a fraction of what our consciousness apprehends gets through the filter we call the brain.

As we get older, more fixed in our habits and more "educated", the filter becomes more and more powerful, shutting out more and more consciousness and replacing it with habit.

That is why children, women, and people from certain cultures tend to be more receptive "spiritually" , emotionally and intuitively. The type of education and life experience we receive can tend to shut down even the small percentage of the consciousness that filters through our brains.

Materialism, and the search for natural "laws" is a particular offender in this respect.

So, my answer is that people choose NOT to perceive, subconsciously or unwittingly, by believing that there is nothing to see or fearing what there may be to see. Letting go of assumptions and fear allows one to see more.

sinequanon:


Absolutely!

This is what I was talking about earlier.

Even science is beginning to admit it.

NDEs are near-death-experiences and include cases where people in operation theatres, whose brains have flatlined, report being lucid during the flatlining and can identify events that took place in the period. This video also mentions cases of people with dementia who become lucid just before death, suddenly being able to identify family members and talk clearly.

Until recently, it was taboo for scientists and hospital staff to report any of this, unless they wanted to attract ridicule and harm their career prospects. Recently, and I think the influence is due to freer thinking in Asian cultures, the subject has been forced into the open. Scientists have suddenly pulled out of the hat the idea that consciousness can reside momentarily outside the brain, and there have been proposals that quantum entangling is involved that allows perception to take place from outside the body (desperate attempt to keep it within the status quo as much as possible). But non-scientists have been saying for a long time already that the brain is a filter of consciousness, not a source of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

You and many religious/spiritual/hocus-spocus people didnt watch the video and understand what the speaker was saying. Clearly.

There is no solid reason to believe that there can be consciousness without a brain in humans.


Research upon research from the 80's to the 2000's have continuously shown that consciousness is dependent on the brain. Even recently, there has been a breakthrough in finding an "off switch" of consciousness in the brain- http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html#.VGdn8PnF9DA



The sceintist in your video keeps repeating that the evidence for consciousness without the brain is based on anecdotes and testimonial evidence.

I would take hard research over human testimony anyday

sinequanon:


Well, again, I find the question comes from a scientific perspective, which believes in controlled "cause and effect" and emergent consciousness.

So I'd like to turn the question round and ask, why can't people "usually" NOT see "them".

My understanding is this.

Consciousness is not a product of the brain.

Consciousness begins outside the brain and can communicate through the brain, but the brain also acts as a filter to our consciousness.

Only a fraction of what our consciousness apprehends gets through the filter we call the brain.

As we get older, more fixed in our habits and more "educated", the filter becomes more and more powerful, shutting out more and more consciousness and replacing it with habit.

That is why children, women, and people from certain cultures tend to be more receptive "spiritually" , emotionally and intuitively. The type of education and life experience we receive can tend to shut down even the small percentage of the consciousness that filters through our brains.

Materialism, and the search for natural "laws" is a particular offender in this respect.

So, my answer is that people choose NOT to perceive, subconsciously or unwittingly, by believing that there is nothing to see or fearing what there may be to see. Letting go of assumptions and fear allows one to see more.

Are you an eckanckar or Grail message member. Or What is your religion?

JackBizzle:




You and many religious/spiritual/hocus-spocus people didnt watch the video and understand what the speaker was saying. Clearly.

There is no solid reason to believe that there can be consciousness without a brain in humans.


Research upon research from the 80's to the 2000's have continuously shown that consciousness is dependent on the brain. Even recently, there has been a breakthrough in finding an "off switch" of consciousness in the brain- http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html#.VGdn8PnF9DA



The sceintist in your video keeps repeating that the evidence for consciousness without the brain is based on anecdotes and testimonial evidence.

I would take hard research over human testimony anyday

I haven't actually watched the video. Did those scientists actually said that the evidence of consciousness without the brain is based on anecdotes?

Dapo777:


I haven't actually watched the video. Did those scientists actually said that the evidence of consciousness without the brain is based on anecdotes?

Yes, anecdoctes

hifaif:


You really should not be on this thread if you do not understand how to debate. You seem to have forgotten the reason why I had to take the pains to dig this info up?

Let me remind you. I gave you this info because you felt that religion was what helped Europe's development.

Who cares the sort of doctrine that caused it? My point is 'Religion underdeveloped Europe until the Age of Enlightenment'

Your post above is thus irrelevant

It seems you have a poor understanding of my post. What I said is that religion did not stop America and Uk from developing since ages.. I never said that religion helped. Here was the post I made here-

honourhim:


Why didnt religion stop America and Britain from developing? They ve been religious since ages and they ve been developied since ages. If religion didnt stop them why do you think it is stopping us or must your atheism always blind your reasoning all the time?

You now tried to prove to me how religion tried to set development back in Europe and I responded by telling you that it wasn't religion that set development back rather it was the empire that unleashed their cruelty under the guise of religion. And that the same cruelty was unleashed on christianity, showing that it wasn't religion that was unleashing the cruelty rather the empire. If it was religion that was doing it then christianity wouldn't have suffered same problem like science did. Your failure to understand me shows how biased you are. Too bad.

Someone also asked here- If religion is an obstruction to development in Nigeria, how come the Arab countries that are also religious are developed? Religion is not the problem here. You people are just biased.

Dapo777:


I haven't actually watched the video. Did those scientists actually said that the evidence of consciousness without the brain is based on anecdotes?

No.

I posted two videos. The second is by an actual cardiologist who was monitoring NDEs.

sinequanon:


No.

I posted two videos. The second is by an actual cardiologist who was monitoring NDEs.

Testimonial evidence.


Sorry, but there is no consciousness outside the brain. Stop dragging something that science has already worked out

JackBizzle:
I would take hard research over human testimony anyday

You probably don't have a choice, because you have to rely on what other people tell you.

Unlike you, because I kept a free mind on the subject, I am capable of exploring consciousness myself, and don't have to defer to people whose dogmatic view is that humans are machines, and who deliberately made NDE evidence taboo because it didn't fit. Those are the people you trust.

JackBizzle:
Research upon research from the 80's to the 2000's have continuously shown that consciousness is dependent on the brain. Even recently, there has been a breakthrough in finding an "off switch" of consciousness in the brain- http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html#.VGdn8PnF9DA

You clearly don't understand what the videos and research are saying. And btw, dumbed down new scientist articles are hardly definitive.

Scientists have ARBITRARILY EQUATED BRAIN ACTIVITY with CONSCIOUSNESS.

So, if they can switch off the brain activity, they think they are switching off consciousness.

That ARBITRARY ASSUMPTION is what you are calling "hard science".

Go through the thread and videos again, and try to understand the issue.

In the same way as scientists thought you could switch off consciousness by flipping a toggle in the brain stem, so they thought that the brain switched off during cardiac arrest. THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT IDEA AND THE IDEA THAT CONSCIOUSNESS REQUIRES THE BRAIN HAS BEEN THROWN ENTIRELY INTO QUESTION BY EVIDENCE OF NDEers.

JackBizzle:
The sceintist in your video keeps repeating that the evidence for consciousness without the brain is based on anecdotes and testimonial evidence.

That is down to your misunderstanding of the video and the research.

The point being made is that YOU CAN'T MEASURE CONSCIOUSNESS BY MEASURING BRAIN ACTIVITY. They are not the same thing. It was just a bad assumption made by scientists. The article you have referenced, which is based on this assumption, proves that you don't understand the issue.

The evidence is not anecdotal, either. It is first hand. If a patient wakes up and describes to a cardiologist the bone drill he was using while the patient was flatlined, then that is not anecdotal.

JackBizzle:




Testimonial evidence.


Sorry, but there is no consciousness outside the brain. Stop dragging something that science has already worked out

Labels, connotations and emoticons don't further your argument.

If the testimonial evidence from the patient involves describing a bone drill used while they were flatlined, then it is worthy evidence.

You are fooling yourself that scientists have worked anything out. They have made a pure assumption that consciousness is a product of the brain. And you understand the issue so little that you have posted the assumption as evidence that the assumption is true.

And stop pretending that testimonial evidence is not evidence. It has been used in medicine since the beginning of research. In this case, there is no alternative, unless you prefer dogma.

Dapo777:


Are you an eckanckar or Grail message member. Or What is your religion?

No religion. And, for me, no god. (I accept that other people have god/gods).

I am just a person who hasn't painted himself into a corner.

.

sinequanon:


You probably don't have a choice, because you have to rely on what other people tell you.

Unlike you, because I kept a free mind on the subject, I am capable of exploring consciousness myself, and don't have to defer to people whose dogmatic view is that humans are machines, and who deliberately made NDE evidence taboo because it didn't fit. Those are the people you trust.




You clearly don't understand what the videos and research are saying. And btw, dumbed down new scientist articles are hardly definitive.

Scientists have ARBITRARILY EQUATED BRAIN ACTIVITY with CONSCIOUSNESS.

So, if they can switch off the brain activity, they think they are switching off consciousness.

That ARBITRARY ASSUMPTION is what you are calling "hard science".

Go through the thread and videos again, and try to understand the issue.

In the same way as scientists thought you could switch off consciousness by flipping a toggle in the brain stem, so they thought that the brain switched off during cardiac arrest. THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT IDEA AND THE IDEA THAT CONSCIOUSNESS REQUIRES THE BRAIN HAS BEEN THROWN ENTIRELY INTO QUESTION BY EVIDENCE OF NDEers.



That is down to your misunderstanding of the video and the research.

The point being made is that YOU CAN'T MEASURE CONSCIOUSNESS BY MEASURING BRAIN ACTIVITY. They are not the same thing. It was just a bad assumption made by scientists. The article you have referenced, which is based on this assumption, proves that you don't understand the issue.

The evidence is not anecdotal, either. It is first hand. If a patient wakes up and describes to a cardiologist the bone drill he was using while the patient was flatlined, then that is not anecdotal.

You are the one spouting nonsense here. Scientists have long concluded that consciousness is dependent on the brain. Why? Because everytime the brain dies, the consciousness goes with it. Furthermore, many aspects of conscious thought/activities are linked to various parts of the brain.

Your scientist in the video clearly mentions anecdotal and testimonial evidence. Please, stop the lies.

Over 30 years of research has shown that the brain and consciousness cant be separated. Again, I will take research over testimony.



======================================
I also had a surgery where I described the injection that the doctor gave me when I was asleep/unconscious. There was no out of body experience. It was only a hallucination based on my prior knowledge that my procedure required the injection. I was right about the injection because of a hallucination and prior knowledge of the procedure of the surgery. But superstitious people will overlook that to claim out of body experience.

Out of body experiences have and will always be rightly dismissed as nonsense.




If it is not testable, observable, measurable, repeatable....it is not science.
=========================================================