Is the brain the origin of our consciousness? OR is the brain merely a receiver?

[Beth]

Lance wrote: "Beth wrote: "Lance wrote: "Beth wrote: "LOL...Yup you're right Lance sometimes I can't resist a downfall of mine!!! Anyway now for me it is "finito" lol...watch this space!!!!"

I'm sure you'll be ..."

LOL... at least we're in good company Lance....

As a P.S. I've been likened to a dog with a bone (yuk!) when I get into something!!!!!!

[Lauren]

The unified theory gives a conclusive definition of consciousness that I am confident science will not be able to dispute.

The following is an excerpt from my book:
‘The Design Equation - The Unified Theory and the Mathematics of Hidden Dimensions’ by Lauren Dove, published in 2022.

“ Because it is not common knowledge that light is the only substance of the universe, questions about 'Mind' and 'thinking' still confound physicists. They have not been able to explain how they are universal concepts. Mainstream physics still does not have the correct theory of gravity or stillness and therefore does not know that all bodies are centered and controlled by Mind. Much confusion exists about what Mind is, what the brain is, and how to understand consciousness. This confusion led to Australian philosopher David Chalmers coining 'the hard question of consciousness' in 1995. Dr. Russell describes consciousness as follows:

“We assume that the brain thinks and knows because we believe ourselves to be thinking when we’re only sensing. In reality, Mind is static. It never moves. Consciousness is static. Sensation is dynamic. We commonly say that we are “unconscious” when our senses cease vibrating for any reason, such as when we sleep or have been anaesthetized. However, there is no such condition as unconsciousness. Our brain has ceased sensing because of being depolarised.” (Ref: “Home Study Course”) ”

Other topics discussed in this thread such as thinking, time, the birth of a planet, space, reincarnation, and light waves are also explained in ‘The Design Equation.’

[James, Group Founder]

Lauren wrote: "The unified theory gives a conclusive definition of consciousness that I am confident science will not be able to dispute.

The following is an excerpt from my book:
‘The Design Equation - The Unif..."

Thanks Lauren, I'll chew and all that and think! :)

[Tony]

Lauren wrote: "The unified theory gives a conclusive definition of consciousness that I am confident science will not be able to dispute.

The following is an excerpt from my book:
‘The Design Equation - The Unif..."

Hi Lauren,
Does your new book include any thoughts on a 'designer'?

[Lauren]

Hi Tony,
It doesn’t discuss the debate between 'evolution or an intelligent designer. ' Instead, it has explanations of the fundamentals of Creation and unintuitive explanations for the development of complexity, that mainstream science will not have heard before.
The breakthrough that I have discovered, goes even more to the heart of the matter. It solves mainstream cosmology’s most fundamental question of “what happens at the Big Bang” to use their language.

Regards,
Lauren

[Lauren]

Yes, sorry, James! It is much too complex a subject to explain in a comments section. I hope you are able to read my book.

Happy to answer questions, though.

[Tony]

Looks interesting and definitely worth a read, but I just checked on Amazon - bit too expensive for me Lauren. I hope you will release a kindle version.

[Lauren]

Hi Tony,
Please check out the price on Blurb Books. (Go to my website for the link - www.theunifiedtheory.com) Amazon have not reduced to the new price. With Blurb you will be able to get up to 35% off, also. If you wish to read it for free before buying it, then your local library should be able to order it in for you!
Lauren

[Tony]

Ok thanks Lauren, all the best for your new book.

[Saelia]

Hi, you can find a brand new theory on human motivation here, it also includes levels of consciousness!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CCF5DB9S/

Let me know what you think!

[Carmel]

“Consciousness beyond Life: The Science of Near-Death Experience” by Pim van Lommel is a very good book on consciousness, the mind, and the brain. For those who don’t have time to read the entire book, following is my review.

I couldn’t let go of the first portion of this book: its many near-death-experience (NDE) accounts are fascinating and impressive. Quite interesting is how the author parallels near-death-experience reports with the beliefs of the five main world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: tying them in with ancient Greek philosophy as well. He also gives a few ancient NDE reports: a fifth-century-BCE account, an eighth-century-CE account, and three nineteenth-century-CE accounts.
The author deals with the subject of consciousness holistically: that is, scientifically, subjectively, medically, and metaphysically. What I found very satisfying in this book is the fact that the author looks at both sides of the arguments for and against his views, even when his opponents are obnoxious toward him personally: most of the time, he gives satisfactory arguments. However, when the author tries to explain these subjective phenomena through ‘quantum mechanics,’ I found it hard work—somewhat boring and unconvincing—despite my bachelor’s degree in physics. Although the book is extremely well researched, the author graciously admits that “the questions continue to outnumber the answers.” (p. 259)
I also found the book’s glossary extremely helpful for revisiting (while reading) medical and technical terms that I wasn’t too familiar with.
Near Death Experiences:
Surprisingly, the author informs us, “Fairly recent studies in the United States [in 1982] and Germany [in 1999] suggest that approximately 4.2 percent of the population has reported an NDE.” (p. 9) That’s excluding under-reporting because of self-embarrassment; not to mention that frightful NDEs are more often than not (understandably) unreported. In fact, people who had a near-death experience stop telling it to others because the latter usually think they were hallucinating. In other words, NDEs are not that uncommon as one might think.
NDEs, the author explains, “are reported not just by people on the brink of death … they are most frequently reported after a period in which brain function is seriously impaired, such as in a cardiac arrest. Other comparable clinical circumstances include brain damage and coma after a serious traffic accident or brain hemorrhage, unconsciousness through shock (low blood pressure) caused by severe blood loss during or after a delivery, or following complications during surgery. Near-drowning is a well-known trigger in children. Other causes include asphyxiation and serious but not immediately life-threatening illness with high fever. These experiences are also reported during isolation, depression, or without any clear medical indication during walks in the countryside or during meditation.” (p. 8) The author then aptly argues, “The [most] frequently cited argument that an NDE is caused by oxygen deficiency in the brain obviously does not apply to people who experience one during depression or isolation.” (p. 9) Likewise, throughout the book, the author debunks most (if not all) of the scientists’ objections to NDEs—one by one.
The most common elements in an NDE account are : (1) indescribability, (2) peace, no pain, (3) death awareness, (4) out-of-body experience (local & remote), (5) dark space (often frightening), pinpoint of light, fast tunnel travel, (6) beautiful unearthly environment, (7) deceased relatives, speechless communication, (8) being of light, unconditional love, deep knowledge, (9) life review, no time or distance, (10) future preview, (11) limiting border, (12) return to body. (pp. 11–12) Only some of these are experienced in any NDE.
An ‘out-of-body experience’ (OBE) is basically a separation of mind and body. The author concludes, “The experience of a very lucid consciousness at a moment when all brain function has ceased raises important questions about the relationship between consciousness and the brain.” (p. 9)
Somewhat unconvincing, to me, is a few near-death-experiencers’ claim of an ability to foretell the future. According to the author, “People feel like they can see part of the life that is yet to come. … The reports of the verifiable future events inevitably raise questions about free will and the extent to which people can determine their own future.” (p. 38) However, in his book ‘The Universe in a Nutshell,’ (p. 107) theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking writes the following regarding Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’: “We cannot even suppose that [a] particle has a position and velocity that are known to God but are hidden to us. … Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know [both] the position and velocity [simultaneously]; He can only know the wave function [probability].” It is this uncertainty principle which is the basis of our free will: otherwise everything would be predetermined. God so constructed our world that we can exercise free will. So I contend that he does not really know the future, especially where we are concerned—let alone people knowing the future, then.
Moreover, personally, I find it hard to believe that following an NDE some possess healing powers and paranormal qualities. (pp. 60–61) I could be wrong, of course, but I think these portions of the book, unfortunately, undermine its credibility, somewhat.
Consciousness:
The author seems to think that our consciousness is located somewhere in ‘nonlocal space’ remote from us, somewhat like the airwaves from radio and television stations, to which every person possesses the ‘tuning frequency.’ In the book’s introduction, he writes, “Our brain may be compared both to a television set, receiving information from electromagnetic fields and decoding this into sound and vision, and to a television camera, converting or encoding sound and vision into electromagnetic waves. … The function of the brain can be compared to a transceiver [i.e., transmitter-receiver].” (p. xvii) I think this is the most revealing concept of the entire book.
The author never mentions God (who is possibly the ‘transmitting station’), of course, because the subtitle of his book is ‘The Science of Near-Death Experience.’ Most scientists bend over backwards to separate God from science; yet, according to self-declared atheist Richard Dawkins, whether God exists or not is a scientific question. In his book ‘The God Delusion’ (p. 82), Dawkins writes, “The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice—or not yet—a decided one.” And I happen to agree with Dawkins in this concept.
My take is that God has access to our consciousness, instantaneously, through the scientifically proven physical process of ‘entanglement’ (see p. 218). In this respect, I think the book is somewhat disappointing: the author should have been bolder rather than resort to ‘nonlocal space’ and its associated ‘quantum mechanics.’
The author also opines, “The origins of consciousness are and will probably remain a mystery forever.” (p. 290) I think this is somewhat of a defeatist attitude. There were scientists in the past who believed we could never learn anything about the stars because they are too far away from us; yet we learnt quite a bit about them in the last few decades.
Somewhat surprisingly, the author also writes, “Consciousness predates our birth and our body and will survive death independently of our body in a nonlocal space where time and distance play no role. There is no beginning, and there will never be an end to our consciousness.” (p. 307) I can relate to there being no end to our consciousness, but I simply cannot see why it would have no beginning: unless he wants to accommodate those religions that believe in reincarnation. I think it’s logical to assume that consciousness starts at the moment of conception, at best—not earlier. Moreover, apart from the ‘First Cause’ (i.e., God or matter), everything has a beginning, even the universe according to the ‘big bang’ theory.
Much More:
The book deals with many more observed and/or reported phenomena, which I don’t have space to discuss in this short review: “fear-death experiences, identical experiences triggered by despair, depression, isolation, meditation (religious and mystical experiences), and total relaxation (experiences of enlightenment or unity), as well as experiences prompted by regression therapy and the use of mind-expanding substances such as LSD or DMT, deathbed visions, perimortem and postmortem experiences, enhanced intuitive sensitivity or nonlocal information exchange, nonlocal perception, and the influence of mind on matter (nonlocal perturbation [and neuroplasticity]).” (p. 328) I’ll leave all that for the reader to discover and savor.
Medical Ethics:
The author finally raises a current ethical concern; he writes, “With the technical expertise to transplant organs … came the problem of obtaining suitable organs.” (p. 321) So, the medical profession felt it must relax the then-current definition of ‘death.’ The author continues, “Long term irreversible coma [was] called death [‘brain death’], thus creating the possibility to obtain transplant organs from [so called] ‘dead’ patients.” (p. 321) With the introduction of coronary care units and subsequent improvements in resuscitation techniques, the reporting of near-death experiences increasing exponentially became an eye-opener: “what to make of the many reports of consciousness during a period of coma with demonstrable loss of brain function?” (p. 321)
The author states, “Life and death can never overlap …. It is scientifically impossible to determine exactly when all life has left the body. The process of dying lasts between hours and days, takes a different course for everybody, and takes places at organ level down to cellular and subcellular level, with different processes and rates of disintegration for each system. Besides, when brain death is diagnosed, nearly 100 percent [96%, p. 322] of the body is still alive.” (p. 323) Under coma, some patients “can last for years in exceptional cases” (p. 321). The author aptly observes, “The fact that ‘dead’ patients can bear living children also calls for reflection.” (p. 324)
Indeed, Plato’s fifth-century-BCE account of the soldier Er in ‘The Republic’ states he was thought dead for twelve days before ‘returning’ to life. (p. 97)
Conclusion:
In his introduction to the book, the author rightly laments, “Most scientists are still trying to reconcile theory and facts within the routinely accepted (materialist) paradigm … essentially a collection of articles of faith shared by scientists. … Results that cannot be accounted for by the prevailing worldview are labelled ‘anomalies’ because they threaten the existing paradigm. … Such anomalies are initially overlooked, ignored, rejected as aberrations, or even ridiculed. Near-death experiences are such anomalies.” (p. xiv, emphasis mine) Notice especially the phrase “articles of faith.” “The history of science,” the author points out, “tells us a similar story.” (p. 312)
Despite what scientists might currently think, in my opinion, this book is a scientific ground-breaking book on our consciousness. In the epilogue, the author opines that it’s “no more than a springboard for further study.” (p. 327) Perhaps! But I compare it to Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ in its originality. The future will tell whether I’m right.

P.S.: If there are authors who would like a similar, honest review (no charge) of their work on Goodreads and Amazon, I’d be happy to accommodate. My interests are non-fiction: God, science, religion, Christianity, the Bible, the soul, and the afterlife. If you’re interested, you can contact me at attardcarmel@rogers.com.

Best regards,
Carmel.

[Peter]

James wrote: "Are most modern scientists correct when they assume consciousness originates in the brain? Or is the brain more of a receiver and consciousness is therefore "non-local"?

I've come across a lot of ..."

Modern consciousness studies is a complete scam. There would be no point in reading its literature. It does not study consciousness, it merely discusses theories of consciousness. The philosopher of mind David Chalmers (who first identified the 'hard' problem), has recently come to believe that consciousness is fundamental, and this is a clear proof that nobody has yet come close to proving otherwise.

The people who study consciousness scientifically, in the sense that they study the actual phenomenon first-hand, are called 'mystics'. They are entirely ignored by professional academic researchers, since if they were not ignored it would soon become obvious that modern consciousness studies is a waste of time.

I could rant at length on this issue and have just signed a publishing contact for a book about it. It is an academic scandal.

[Andres]

>>I could rant at length…

I gathered that much.

[Peter]

Andres wrote: ">>I could rant at length…

I gathered that much."

Well, perhaps my comment was a bit strong, but I can't grasp why everybody doesn't feel the same.