http://www.huffingtonpos...nd-brain_b_1379446.html

Thoughts?

If we are using the radio analogy, where does the music come from? Does it come from the composer? When the composers brain lights up in order to compose does the signal come from another source? What is the original source of the music? What sort of music is it? And why is it that particular style of music? Is it an obvious fallacy to say that the composer composed the music?

The presumption is that the brain / radio is the source. For which there has never been any definite proof produced by anyone.

The original source is consciousness, awareness, whatever word describes that which is you. There is nothing in a bunch of neurons that is the music. If memories are stored in the brain as a configuration of neurons, supposedly, then they should be accessible after death, as long as the brain is properly preserved, no? But that hasn't been accomplished, as far as I am aware.

Perhaps because neurons are only receivers of a signal, not producers. They somehow convert conscious decisions into electrical firings that eventually influence the body in some way.

I think that with our current knowledge of how the brain works it is very difficult to come to that concusion with any certainty. I am no scientist but perhaps there is a certain combination of neurons firing that could be translated as producing a reaction to make us play a B sharp and that that particular order of firing was brought about by the culmination and reaction to exterior information. In that respect the source did come up with the music, through cause and effect.

Although it does provide some interesting ideas of how to get round copyright and patent laws.
"I didn't steal that person's ideas or art because they had already appropriated it from the source...."

The source needs to lawyer up.

But you keep putting forth these things as if they're not mere opinions, but objective facts. Why not just say/admit that we don't have any clear answers?

That way it is easier to be open to the value of scientific views, wich undoubtedly is there, while leaving more than enough space for wonder, amazement and mystery.

Where does my DMT experience come from, that's what I want to know.

Hit your finger with a hammer and who feels the pain. The body without the proper neural connections will not be able to send the message to the brain so it would break down there.

Get very drunk on alcohol and you will not feel it as much too..

If all is wired well then the message would get to the area of the brain that would signal.. pain!

Some monks have set their bodies on fire and died.. out of protest, they did not flinch.. how did they do that?

Mind over (brain) matter?

A deep DMT experience is ramping up the brains chemistry no doubt and when the flood gates of eternal rapture open, what happened.

It's changing the brains chemistry for the witnessing mind no doubt. Taking out filters? Kinda like dying?

Some people have a very good pain threshold.

Some people handle deep DMT trips.. some don't.

I have always had this hunch that when my brain dies I will recognize the process.. yet to be seen

Whenever I see Deepak cited anywhere I always remember this glorious study:

As for this article, it seems filled with the same random assertions that a lot of other new-age takes on the mind/brain dichotomy fall into. No one says that we know for certain that consciousness is a property of the brain, just that *all the available evidence points to it.* Meanwhile this radio thing is totally out of left field. It's like he's just picked a random model out of thin air and said 'this *could* work, therefore, it's true!'

Finally: why is this 'Good News?' What makes consciousness being external to the brain somehow 'better' than it being part of the brain? Some desire to believe that we are 'special?'

Blessings
~ND

*Available* evidence? I guess it depends on who we're sourcing our evidence from. What sources do we trust over others? What subconscious / unconscious biases do we have, and how does that influence what sources we trust? For instance, you have a bias against Chopra, because you think he's a charlatan, perhaps?

I do not agree that all available evidence points to consciousness being a property of the brain. I rarely search for articles on it, except when sharing with other people, because my own experiences with a disembodied conscious entity that is persistant with its presence, have left me in no doubt whatsoever. Before, I used to do research on it, but I have no need to do that anymore. Nevermind my doubts getting the better of me, sometimes, especially when I'm burnt out, and the "connection" to said entities fade temporarily.



It's a model that sort of works. It's a crude one, though.


I don't know. I just posted the title of it. And why would we not being our brains somehow make us "special"? Why would it be "better"?

If we have non-physical consciousness, all living, biological things must also have non-phyiscal consciousness. That seems a natural conclusion.

I can't see any value in choosing to not to be informed and not questioning one's own beliefs.

Informed? For quite a while, I believed I was delusional... but, said disembodied entities were extremely patient with my constant doubts, waiting for me to come around in my own time, occasionally giving me helpful advice as they felt I needed it. And I first encountered them after many experiences with Ayahuasca, which taught me about why these particular entities with me.

An experience like that... that was all the proof I really needed regarding consciousness / awareness not being the same as the brain. With that in mind, I've been trying to understand how non-physical consciousness interacts with and operates the physical brain, and so, the body. The heart has neurons, curiously, so consciousness must also interact with the heart somehow.

That said, there are other beliefs I have that might need questioning, unrelated to consciousness and the brain... not that I've really figured out what those are just yet.

And also, that said, how I am supposed to even convince others of the validity of my experiences? I don't even fully understand it all myself, let alone why I can sense them. At least, I just know they exist.

I don't think that you need to convince anyone else of the validity of your experiences. Subjective quality and validity of experience doesn't need to be based on objective facts.

How can we know if something is objective?

I would argue that almost everything is subjective, except for the undeniable - our very own existence, which we can't deny, can we?

From my perspective, my existence is objective ~ not my body, not my thoughts, but just that fact that I know I exist ~ somehow. Absolutely everything else that I perceive must be subjective. Even physical reality is subjective, because it is bound to the delusion of the senses, and the illusions they present. We are deluded if we believe that our physical senses are telling us the truth.

I don't. I am not my senses, I am not my body... I am not even my mind. I... am, somehow. But, what I am, I know not.

Reality is far, far more subjective than most realize.