One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd

One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Consider this an open letter to philosophers, brain researchers, physicists, technocrats, Ray Kurzweil, and TED executives who censored lectures on consciousness by Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake.

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.

The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does.

End of story. End of proof.

You’re welcome.

Of course, a few scientists will argue (and many more will privately believe) that, since we humans ARE conscious, this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation?

Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove. Any first-semester logic student would mark that argument INVALID.

Some scientists, suddenly invoking a brand of mysticism they otherwise deplore, claim the unique complex configuration of particles called the brain somehow—in this one case—has a capacity to break every rule in the book and deliver consciousness.

But no proof, just faith. Supposition.

Finally, you have a sprinkling of renegade physicists who assert that everything in the universe—rocks, chairs, pencils, lamps, trees, stars, galaxies are conscious.

Fine. However, their argument trivializes the brain as the seat of consciousness, because the human arm and leg and thumb and belly button and butt are all conscious, too. In which case, so what?


Exit From the Matrix


Bottom line? All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.

It leads to non-material consciousness.

The failure of physicists to admit this is just pure stubbornness, avoidance, and rank denial.

Their only refuge is to deny consciousness exists. Instead, all life is merely mechanical. “Consciousness” is a fake delusion/concept contained in faulty programming, and installing better programming will make humans more “realistic.”

This is the fall-back position of the technocrats, and it enables them to try any and all transhuman experiments, since humans are just machines. Take out this wire, insert that wire.

This brand of technocrat isn’t just a wacko who thinks storing a computer clone of a human brain is storing a human being. No. He’s a rabid Dr. Frankenstein.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

About these ads

57 comments on “One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd

  1. joanie says:

    The key is “frequency”. Frequency is the universal language not math. It is said we all dream at the frequency of earth. Everything vibrates at a specific frequency though not all things have pineal glands.

    Humans have a pineal gland – a third eye. Unfortunately, a calcified gland is no good. And what calcifies the pineal gland, fluoride! ‘Tis no accident they force fluoride on the population. A calcified pineal gland might explain why most persons are unaware of “reality” or just plain dumb. LOL

  2. R. Fowler says:

    Reblogged this on If Crazy Fits Wear It.

  3. You are correct when you say that consciousness is ‘non-material’..

    Is flow “material?” – no, but flow exists. Is the essence of life “material” – no, but life exists. Do cats have consciousness, or are they always sleeping? Does a sunflower have consciousness when it raises it’s head and follows the sun, like the cat raises an eyelid to follow the track of a mouse? Consciousness is not an object. It is also not a single ‘process’. It is a result of layers of sophisticated processes, initially successful at simple reproduction – becoming diversified and more complex as they evolve.

    Or were you, and these scientists stuck on ‘self consciousness’? Consciousness (otherwise known as ‘spirit’) rises from the sunflower level of consciousness, to the beetle level – hiding from the sun, to the lizard level of consciousness – loving the sun, to the mammal – a cat loving the sun, to a human – worshiping the sun, to the salesman – selling sunscreen..

    Eventually, gradually, consciousness, the spirit, becomes aware of more than the sun, aware of the dark, aware of other animals, aware of similar animals (required for breeding and community) and gradually, it becomes aware of itself. Is a lizard self aware? A mouse? A dog? Is a monkey? An elephant? A dolphin? A whale? Are all humans self aware all of the time?

    Self consciousness is a natural progression of the development of more and more complexity; more and more layers of spirit. Self consciousness is not a product of the brain. It is a product of the spirits – which, as far as we have experienced, requires a brain. But the brain does not require self consciousness.

    Can self consciousness be present in a being that cannot communicate and philosophize with us humans? Or is it simply that we cannot communicate with them – our problem, not theirs.

    The physical sciences have difficulty explaining how the sunflower follows the sun, less ability to explain how the beetle runs from the sun, and less ability to explain as they layers become deeper. Science wants to ‘take things apart’ to understand them, forgetting that no matter how small you break the parts – you will always find there are smaller parts to be explained.

    If you want to understand the source of consciousness, maybe it is necessary to take a spiritual leap of faith. Because, after all, consciousness is a many spiritual leaps from the simple mechanical aspects of the nervous systems and the brain.
    Tracy Kolenchuk, Founder: healthicine.org

  4. Philosonator says:

    …as Mrs. Eddy so lucidly pointed out +120 years ago.

  5. Jeffrey Hardin says:

    Reblogged this on Jericho777's Blog.

  6. Brad Eckert says:

    There are other proofs:

    Some people have been born with no brain (just a nub at the end of the brain stem) and led relatively normal lives.

    Some people remember EVERYTHING. You can name a date and time and they’ll recall every detail like it happened today. No physical brain could store that much information.

    Look up Stuart Hameroff and the Center for Quantum Consciousness. They have an explanation of consciousness that’s at least plausible.

  7. Michael says:

    A radio is not the music and news stations that it receives…. if one tunes to a specific channel then said radio receives the information being broadcasted from that radio station. Likewise the brain is not consciousness. But in a sense or rather like a receiver that we as human are naturally tuned to at birth….the base frequency for this human brain is about 8Hz.
    Consciousness is really an Ocean of frequencies we are submerged in, we are naturally tuned to only a few within the Great bandwidth, practice though, and a decalcifying of ones pineal gland(to start with), other levels of consciousness can be achieved.
    At a minimum one would be awake, aware, more atuned to the real.
    Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, Remote viewing are some of the forms of consciousness available with expansion of ones world view, to say the least.
    Sleep enables us to tune to another consciousness we call dreaming.
    I believe intuition is really expanded consciousness, to incorporate a noosphere, a great source that we all have access to…. something we all upload or download too….it relates to a form of gnosis. Inner knowledge. An inner truth………
    Our laws of nature are particular to this local solar system, in this galaxy, and this particular consciousness…. to live in another solar system….say… with a hyper white giant star instead of this pale yellow white star we live under, would require a different tuning and possibly a different tuner, probably a different body and brain physics. And accessing faster and possibly more complex frequencies of consciousness.

    Anyway I am babbling…. brilliant work as usual Jon…..I enjoy immensely your JOURNALISM….am I allowed to call you that :)…….bastards defining journalism….next they will be defining seeing.
    Your are a light in this scribes darkness. I thank you my friend. Keep the faith…and I don’t mean religious.

    BTW Rupert Sheldrake has an interesting theory on Morphic resonance, he is an extremely interesting fellow.

    Michael Burns

    ~~~~

    http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

    Rupert Sheldrake – The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK

  8. Mark Urban says:

    Jon,

    I understand your argument regarding consciousness; however, the way it has been associated with the brain comes from the following:

    You can lose and arm or leg and still be a conscious person. You can be conscious while your heart or lungs or stomach are removed, but your body will die shortly thereafter and you will lose consciousness. You can have portions of your brain removed and then certain effects take place that impact the quality and condition of consciousness. There are plenty of testimonials from people who lose memories and capacities such as long term memory or the ability to smell or feel as a result of losing a part of the brain. There are many stories of people who suffer nominal aphasia from brain injuries and strokes. It is through this set of observations that science concludes that consciousness is centered in the brain.

    I am also of the opinion that consciousness precedes physicality; however, I have no proof of it.

    I do know that Ingo Swann spoke eloquently about science’s inability to explain consciousness, especially the effects related to ESP.

    I know your heart and mind are in the right place, but I do not think the argument you made will ever convince a traditional scientist.

    Mark Urban

  9. D.Wilson says:

    “One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd” – a quick test for that proposition. 1) Point a loaded handgun at the side of your head 2) explosively disassemble your brain through the opposite side of your head by pulling the trigger. As, according to your thesis, consciousness is not attributed to brain function,you should experience no change in conciousnessand will be able to write up an interesting account of the experiment.

  10. AdamXYZ says:

    Consciousness is a tough idea to deal with, first, because it can’t be defined very well. And second, if one is able to intuit what it is, one has no way of knowing whether one’s own consciousness is the only one there is. Things that are “other than I am” may appear to have it, and may exhibit all the external characteristics of something that should possess consciousness, as “I” do, but unless and until I can get outside myself and know “other than I am,” I have no way of being sure that I am not just imagining that consciousness exists outside myself. This may be the main reason that science, such as that of B.F. Skinner, rejects the notion of consciousness (except his/its own) and posits a strictly mechanistic reality. That anything that is “other than I am” possesses consciousness is purely an act of faith, and no scientist likes to be at the mercy of faith. I, the writer here, am certain that I possess consciousness, but I am sure there will never exist a way that I can attribute such a quantity to “other than I am” unless I am somehow able to get outside myself and feel and know some manner of consciousness other than my own for forging some kind of comparison ‘twixt the “two.”

    Exactly what is the taste of fried beans, for example? Only consciousness knows, and that would be my own. What, which is “other than I am,” may know such a thing in my behalf? God, maybe, and I am not so sure that God and I are not one and the same, thus, back to square one, that only I know?

  11. But Joanie Honey, Baby Doll, Snookums, Sweetheart, Darling!! From whence doth this eternal energy emanate and flow that we perceive and measure as a frequency of some sort?? Surely thou must concede that if the turns off thine favorite cooking appliance be it nuker, toaster oven, gas range, electric range or even a campfire located just outside of thy cave domicile, then no more frequencies thus come forth, correct?? So please enlighten us all with thine explanation of what generates this INFINITE amount of energy and frequencies of which thou speaks!!
    The electromagnetic spectrum is a beast of which we must know its kind, stripe and color firstly in order to better understand it, right?? If there is no life in a rock, then how can there be life anywhere, since the physical universe is made out of the same things as rocks are; atoms?? So the converse says that if life is everywhere, then it must be firstly a universe of life that created the universe which is not alive, and ne’er the twain shall meet!!

    Randimous Maximus

  12. Oopsie, I should have writ “Thee”, I missed one E there!

    Randimous Maximus

  13. jim says:

    First of all, the principle physical constituents of the Universe, electrons and protons are three dim(ensional) entities and not the 0-dim point particles of Quantum Physics. All Physics can be explained, without the endless contradictions of infinite self energy and no physical explanation of inherent properties, by treating the primary elements of our 3-dim Universe as 3-dim. By the way, this treatment comes up with the old philosophical conclusion that the Universe is composed of just Light (electromagnetic energy).

    What is consciousness, but Light itself? The void of Being is intruded upon by Light and then appears as consciousness or self awareness. All physical reality is consciousness, so to speak of dead matter is absurd.

    If anyone out there cares to see how Gravity is really a fourth order effect of electromagnetism, then read http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/origin_of_gravity_p1_rev1_v11n4.pdf
    If humans survive the next couple of years (doubtful), then space travel can only be done via anti Gravity. This is needed for propulsion, radiation shields, and maintaining Earth like conditions on board, and it can all be done through electronics.

  14. bob klinck says:

    Because it would render their actions meaningless, nobody can conceive of him/herself as being purely mechanical or acting purely as the result of conditioning. Yet many are prepared to rationalize thinking of others, for experimental and control purposes, in these terms. Powered by pride (the sense of their own uniqueness combined with a disregard for the uniqueness of others), they’ve been getting away with this obscene interference in people’s lives for far too long. Spiritual pride and love are absolutely incompatible. Once this is recognized as fact, the necessity to choose between them becomes a matter of urgency.

  15. Greek Tragedy says:

    Does not hold up. If you apply local anesthetic to the finger you are still conscious, when you apply it to the brain YOU IS GONE. You can monitor level of consciousness with the change in EEG signal form the brain. There none such think=g as an ultimate particle of consciousness.

  16. Cassius says:

    Your brain is the ‘car you are driving'; it is not “you”.

    • Stepha Nein says:

      Alright damage a car. Will it stop you from getting from point A to point B? Of course not. You can repair the damages you made or choose another method for getting from point A to point B!
      Alright now damage your brain….
      I hope you saw where I was going there. Your analogy has some flaws and you should be deeply ashamed!

      • Hans says:

        If the brain is sufficiently damaged, one might then reincarnate. I see where you were going there. You drove yourself into a ditch!

  17. Bobby says:

    Jon, your proof is bizzarely simple, yet very convincing. How can it be argued otherwise?

  18. William Jeffreys says:

    If waves consisting of all possibilities are actualized into particles by observation, object permanence would require the object have an awareness of itself in order to maintain its identity across multiple observers.

  19. Afshin Nejat says:

    The problem is that to speak of a “brain” you are referring to something “outside of” a mind, and not a “mental entity”. This is what is correlated with the mind, and is not treated as identical to the mind. Yet the issue is really more fundamental: “How can a “mind” which is NOT a thing, entertain the sheer idea of a thing at all, to say nothing of a thing which is by its NATURE NOT IN any mind, since it is the material precursor to a mind”. Therefore it is not the same “thing” in fact, but an IDEA OF a thing, and can only ever be this.

    This forces, right at the beginning, a pure idealism that states that reality is minds and mental events. As to objectivity of some features, there can be explanations of phenomena called “physical” by simply expressing them as persistent ideas in minds. In some cases, there are ideas which persistently affect a mind, or seem to, by the dictates of a seemingly supramental force, as in how the brain’s conditions seem to affect the mind. This can be explained simply by stating that the apparent organization of “brains” is simply the standard state of the way a more encompassing mind regulates an encompassed mind, and this state of regulation takes the “form” of ideas which, if seen as being objective, are “brains”. What makes them seem objective is that there is a “Demiurgos” or “public craftsman”, who makes public spaces of interaction for other minds, and summarizes his dictates in the form of a program called “brain”, which is really a form of mind in itself, and when it is “seen” by another mind, can only look like a brain looks.

    Its behavior can only be understood objectively by others. The subjective elements are delimited, in that particular context, by the over-encompassing subjective dictates of the Demiurgos. It says that in his worlds, your mind will act in such a way, and so you are “embodied” there and take the appropriate mental framework, superficially appearing as a “brain”. In fact, the MIND ITSELF is not merely this brain, because whatever brain it “really is” is not merely THIS brain. In other words, the issue isn’t this “Can a mind be “reduced” to a brain”, because it is impossible to reduce a subjectivity to another’s outer perception of that subjectivity, especially only in one context in which it is hosted (or imprisoned). The real issue is how did a mind which is clearly greater than this brain represents it, in other words greater than the Evil Mind which has entrapped it into a limitation to be, how did it get entrapped in this form? Where is the “rest” of it?

  20. JG says:

    I haven’t watched the clip, but believe that the brain is more like a wifi card than the seat of consciousness itself.

    I do not accept the mechanical universe theory, where everything is mechanical, while humans are not. It seems more likely that everything is conscious, while human beings are only aware of their own particular kind of consciousness.

    Then again, because I am not a “professor” or “expert”, my opinion, though clearly more logical than that of the main stream scientist, does not count.

    Academia, man. It’s like a club full of people who all liked the smell of paint as children.

  21. Brad Eckert says:

    To put your simple “proof” in scientific terms, life is a flagrant apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Machines die. Life lives. Life “finds a way”.

    The situation begs the question, where does the energy of life come from? It must exist because the laws of thermodynamics mandate it. Some form of energy currently unknown to (and vehemently denied by) science is being put into the system, or we would all be dead. That’s a big deal.

    Materialists (basically all of science) have gone way out on a limb to defend the material belief system. The whole house of cards depends on a technology not being discovered that will indisputably measure the unknown energy. When that technology is discovered and accepted as real, it will rock the world.

  22. kimchi says:

    Some consciousness explorers have come to the conclusion that all matter has consciousness. I believe that. Does the matter originate in the materials that everything is made of? I doubt it. I think our consciousness animates the material forms as well as more etheric realms. I think Rappaport’s mistake is in denying the consciousness of rocks, plants and inanimate objects. Hasn’t he seen Cleve Backster’s work? Is he that out of touch with rocks and trees? He’s not very sensitive to subtle energies!

  23. Ghana says:

    There was nothing and nothing happened to nothing. Then nothing magically without conscious thought exploded for no reason, creating everything. Everything over time became coded to align rhythmically into self replicating particles which then crash landed here and unconscious evolution gave me consciousness. My Father laughs at your lack of faith.

  24. Private Citizen says:

    Jon, enjoy your blog.

    Consider the fallacy of reductionism: no atom looks or drives like a car, therefore it impossible that a car is derived from atoms. No letter of the alphabet is a language, therefore collections of letters can’t be language. No musical note is a chord, therefore….

    Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

    That said, it is hard to shake the intuition that mind is something wholly distinct from the material.

  25. Sovereignty says:

    Jon, you have indeed proven in a single page a great insight into consciousness. To appreciate just how important this consciousness clarification conversation is, we now have 7 1/2 billion units of consciousness on this planet (consciousness is said to distinguish us from the beasts) and yet we have not one single school of consciousness. This unfortunate and important fact will be humanity’s demise. What we need to learn next to survive as a species is super consciousness.

    We have these two golden atrophied glands and most physicians are idiots and would even recommend removing them in surgical procedures. These atrophied glands can be re-invigorated and brought back to secretion functionality with a simple teachable technique. We’ve got all this wonderful hardware capable of running at super states of consciousness and somebody forgot to leave us the owner’s manual. Go to http://fukushima50.blogspot.ca/ to learn how to secrete these golden glands.

    We know people will take this new information and run with it in their mind as though it’s an impossible or difficult technique to learn when it is in fact a very normal process in the body and how we are designed to operate. We take to it like a duck takes to water.

    Sovereignty

  26. Sam_DiCamillo says:

    Each and every one of us creates our entire separate universe, complete with sun, moon, stars, everything known and unknown. There are as many universes as there are individuals inhabiting this planet.And indeed everything is “Conciousness” as everything is an extension of oneself.
    Meaning not only do you create your entire personal universe : You “Are” your own personal iniverse.

  27. Luke says:

    I am glad you mentioned faith.

    Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    Science cannot explain many things and in their arrogance they enshrine many explanations for many different things as dogma. We are aware and have consciousness simply because God made us that way. Oh, excuse me, I forgot that Nietzsche and Hegel said God is dead. So my premise must be invalid. In my first year course of logic, taken in College many years ago, we studied the logic of God as a first cause. That premise dissolves a lot of pesky questions concerning man, how he is the way he is, and the nature of and beginning of the Universe.

  28. abinico warez says:

    Cats are consciously sleeping – most of the time.

  29. […] * For a quick refutation of the arguments made by technocrats, please see Jon Rappoport’s article: One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd […]

  30. […] One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd […]

  31. […] One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd […]

  32. Defiant says:

    “Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

    “According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

    “Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.”

    […] Carrots and potatoes and chicken are made of the same material as automobiles, ultimately, yet I wouldn’t roast and eat a Cadillac! However, a chicken sounds (and tastes) pretty good!

  33. […] * For a quick refutation of the arguments made by technocrats, please see Jon Rappoport’s article: One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd […]

  34. […] view of the response I received to my article, “Proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd,” I’m adding a few […]

  35. […] view of the response I received to my article, “Proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd,” I’m adding a few […]

  36. […] moderni. Articolo in lingua inglese, pubblicato sul blog di Jon Rappoport Link diretto: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/one-page-proof-that-attributing-consciousness-to-the-br… Traduzione a cura di […]

  37. hp says:

    Srila Prabhupada explained that consciousness is a symptom of the presence of an individual soul.

    • brits says:

      Recent thrust on non-material origins of consciousness is basically good news for non-theism supporting and philosophy based religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, and even if existence of ‘God’ is scientifically proved in future, it will most likely be Hindu concept of Brahman than Abrahamic God.
      @ hp: He was a hardcore theist (Gaudiya Vaishnavism) with a literal belief in his God, just like Abrahamic religions. It’s the Advaita and Sankhya philosophies in Hinduism which are really into this topic of consciousness and related stuff. Sankhya additionally denies existence of Ishwar or God.

  38. Consciousness, Creativity, and the Brain http://youtu.be/y9bVd3BspIQ

    you Jon for many insightful sharings!

  39. Stepha Nein says:

    Oh Anti-Science community that tries to take words from science to make their anti-science sound like science, I have some questions for you! If consciousness exist outside the brain then what is the point of a brain? What is our purpose oh great ones?! If the brain along with other biological/chemical is not the controller of our consciousness, how come our very consciousness is affected by the damage we receive to our brains or the alteration of the chemicals in our bodies? It sounds so good when you’re talking about fluoride clogging up pineal glands (or as you call THE THIRD EYE, WOoooOoOoOooo!), but you just neglect the fact that you contradict your whole Mind controls the brain and body.

  40. jona100Jona says:

    “Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies. According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious. The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does. End of story. End of proof”

    – […] This […] statement is practically a dictionary definition of the ‘fallacy of division’ (when one reasons that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts). […] it’s on the level of creationists who state ‘how could we have come from monkeys? Or “how could the whole universe come from Hydrogen?”

    “Of course, a few scientists will argue (and many more will privately believe) that, since we humans ARE conscious, this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation?”

    – Yes where else? I notice you didn’t even answer the question you posed yourself, If you’re going to presume an alternative origin, please do not try and do it by making straw man argument, and then follow this up by not actually offering any proof of your own claim.

    “Some scientists, suddenly invoking a brand of mysticism they otherwise deplore, claim the unique complex configuration of particles called the brain somehow in this one cas has a capacity to break every rule in the book and deliver consciousness. But no proof, just faith. Supposition”

    – [The] irony of someone complaining about (erroneously by the way) of scientists not offer proof of their claims, then do the exact same thing by claiming consciousness exists outside of the brain but not offer one iota of evidence to back it up […]

    “All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.”

    – No its not absurd, due to the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever (and by evidence I mean real evidence not subjective claims of near death experience …) it’s the only viable conclusion. We base our conclusions on the evidence, not as you have done which is started with a conclusion and dismissed all the evidence that contradicts it!

  41. […]   Articolo in lingua inglese, pubblicato sul blog di Jon Rappoport  Link diretto: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/one-page-proof-that-attributing-consciousness-to-the-br… Traduzione a cura di Anticorpi.info […]

  42. […] such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  43. […] such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  44. […] consciousness can also then be physically built – or torn down.Others such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  45. […] such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  46. […] such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  47. […] such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  48. […] such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  49. […] such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  50. […] such as researcher Jon Rappoport see a logical fallacy built into conventional scientific thinking because they already assume what […]

  51. Here why you are wrong. A box is made up of six sides. No one side can possibly contain anything, therefore a box can’t contain anything!

    The flaw with this logic is that each side of a box prevents movement in one direction, so when assembled into a box, movement is restricted in all directions.

    That’s how the brain could produce consciousness, without individual brain cells being “conscious” themselves. derp!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s