The brain vs. consciousness: the phony debate and the real debate
by Jon Rappoport
October 29, 2017
I continue to write about this subject, because the answers are shaping our present and future in huge ways.
Nearly all brain researchers insist that consciousness arises from the functions of the brain.
These researchers concede they don’t know HOW consciousness arises—but “they’re getting there.” They’re making progress. This is their story and they’re sticking to it.
If they have their way, the educated class will agree with them, evidence or no evidence.
Since “consciousness is the result of brain activity and nothing else,” since consciousness is ultimately a matter of physics, neuroscience will reign supreme—manipulating brain changes to achieve certain “values” and political goals.
We are talking about an engineered society at the level of the brain. Brave New World.
For these researchers, that is the final frontier.
But suppose all their fundamental assertions are completely wrong? Suppose they’re never going to prove consciousness arises from the brain? Suppose all their efforts in this direction are dependent on nothing more than circular reasoning—assuming what they’re trying to prove?
“Consciousness must be a function of brain activity, because what else could it be?”
Let’s begin with a very simple version of what consciousness means, and in the process shred several key ideas of the brain researchers:
ONE: Right now, at this very moment, you’re reading the words on this page. You know you’re reading the worlds. You’re aware you’re reading the words. You’re conscious of reading the words. You “have that consciousness.”
TWO: The brain is composed, according to conventional physics, of tiny particles. That’s all. The neurons and their tubes and the synapses and the neurotransmitters—all the elements of the brain, when you go deep enough, without exception, are composed of atomic and sub-atomic particles.
THREE: These are the exact same particles that flow in the earth and the water and the sky and the stars and the whole universe. The particles move and interact according to immutable laws.
FOUR: There is nothing in these particles or any combination of them that suggests KNOWING. There is no KNOWING.
FIVE: But somehow, in the brain, these particles give rise to YOU KNOWING YOU ARE READING THESE WORDS AT THIS VERY MOMENT.
SIX: That assertion would be the height of absurdity.
SEVEN: And yet you do know. You know you’re reading these words. You’re conscious of that.
EIGHT: Since you do know, that consciousness is coming from somewhere other than the brain, which contains no knowing.
This is stark and simple.
Because it’s so stark, it drives some brain researchers to their backup position, which introduces a second absurdity: you’re not conscious of the fact you’re reading these words on the page, you only THINK you are. There is no such thing as consciousness. Consciousness is a bizarre illusion created by the brain. Therefore, there is no need to explain consciousness. It doesn’t exist. It never has.
Here is a third absurdity that enters the scene: there is no you. YOU is another illusion. The individual does not exist. There is a brain-process which results in the illusion of an individual existing.
So you’re not there, and I’m not here.
Well, well. That’s a towering assemblage of bullshit.
And it’s built to sidetrack the stark facts that you do exist and so do I, and we’re both conscious at this very moment, and there is NOTHING in the most basic composition of the brain to account for consciousness.
Pundits and scientist can try to introduce all sorts of elegant non-sense and technical speak to refute what you and I both know, but it isn’t going to fly.
We are not biological machines. We are not some illusion projected by the brain.
We are not badly programmed machines researchers can feel guiltless about, as they try to tweak and re-cast our brains. We’re not cars in the shop.
I could take this line of thought much farther, and I have, in other articles, where I explore the point that consciousness is not composed of matter, but I’ll leave it here for now.
One piece of advice: don’t be taken in by scientists who claim “the situation is far more complex.”
Complexity is their strategy to escape the noose of their own making which hangs them in public view.
Why do I say “noose of their own making?” Because they own the theory that ALL matter and energy are composed of tiny particles which have no consciousness at all. Therefore, the brain is composed of the same particles. Therefore, there is NO reason to assume the brain can give rise to consciousness.
Consciousness, WHICH DOES EXIST, must be independent of matter and energy.
Researchers can hate this conclusion, but they have to deal with it. They refuse to deal with it in a straightforward manner.
Perhaps they have a special brand of brain that seeks specious, devious, wormy methods of wriggling out of disturbing inferences.