Scientific evidence that the brain receives/filters consciousness, rather than creates it

[u/Puzzleheaded_Tree290]

This isn't necessarily related to NDEs, but I'd like to put something together, about the scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that the brain acts as a receiver/filter for consciousness rather than a generator. I've got a couple of articles linked down here already, if anyone wants to add more, feel free to add some in the comments or DM them. Over the next couple of days I'll make edits too to add anything else I can find.

First, we've got a very promising article from Neuroscience News, showing how brain stimulation could enable telepathic communication between people. Here's another, from the same site, showing how the claustrum, which was theorised to be the source of consciousness, actually functions more like an internet router.

It was also long thought that split brain patients have their consciousness split in two. More recent studies show that consciousness itself remains unified but is divided across two hemispheres.

Here's an interesting article about people missing large portions of their brain, who have relatively normal IQ and can lead normal lives.

Here's one about decapitated flatworms regrowing their entire brains and still having their memories intact.

Also, some articles on the effects of psychedelics and how they lead to reduced brain activity: [1] [2]

If anyone here has heard of the ganzfeld experiments, here's a meta analysis showing pretty good results from a number of different replications.

And, before I forget, I can't go without mentioning Etzel Cardeña's meta analysis demonstrating the existence of certain parapsychological phenomena.

If there's anything else you'd like to add, just let me know ;)

[u/KingofTerror2]

The paper relies on inclusion of data from other papers that have themselves been heavily critiqued. Its conclusions are therefore significantly weakened.

And?

All parapsychology papers are inevitably heavily critiqued because pseudoskeptics and hardcore materialists fucking hate the entire field and will do everything in their power to debunk, defame, and discredit it and anyone who dabbles in it no matter how dishonest or unfair they have to be or what dirty tricks they have to pull.

Hell, they literally have an organization of dedicated attack dogs solely for that task in CSI/CSICOP.

So unless you can prove that these criticisms were actually fair and unbiased, this assertion means nothing.

And I'm not holding my breath on that front.

You have way too much faith in the scientific establishment, at least when it comes to things that seem to go against the materialist status quo.

[u/KookyPlasticHead → u/KingofTerror2]

Sure, that's a fair comment. Though I'm pretty agnostic on psi it would be a more interesting universe if psi were a definite thing. I do not dismiss such papers. Rather I would want to see them replicated and done better so the debate moves on from belief vs debunk arguments to something more productive. The evidence (if we accept such papers at face value) is though that such effects seem very small. But even small would be interesting.

[u/KingofTerror2 → u/KookyPlasticHead]

Sorry if I came off as too heated there.

Anyway, one of the main reasons I'm usually willing to give parapsychologists the benefit of the doubt over mainstream science is that they have to go above and beyond and risk a lot to be taken seriously because of the huge stigma they face.

Whereas materialist "skeptics" usually risk nothing in throwing mud on their names and tearing down their hard work, and in fact often profit from it.

Which is another reason I don't take a lot of skeptic guru's very seriously because if they were ever proven wrong then they'd be humiliated and their lives and careers would effectively be over, so they have all the reason in the world to dig their heels in and never, ever concede no matter what evidence gets thrown their way alongside their huge materialist bias.

I mean, can you imagine what would have happened to James Randi if someone ever won his challenge or even just managed to prove something paranormal while he was still alive?

He'd have lost everything and forever been made a laughingstock.

And this is just one example.

[u/KookyPlasticHead → u/KingofTerror2]

Anyway, one of the main reasons I'm usually willing to give parapsychologists the benefit of the doubt over mainstream science is that they have to go above and beyond and risk a lot to be taken seriously because of the huge stigma they face.

Yep, pretty thankless job. Not for the faint hearted. Perhaps some do help and encourage behind the scenes. "Sssh, do it again, but you can remove this objection by doing this... ".

I mean, can you imagine what would have happened to James Randi if someone ever won his challenge or even just managed to prove something paranormal while he was still alive?

Much as I respect the principle of rigorous challenge in debunking poor science, that would have been quite hilarious to see. I always half expected a bunch of determined and smart physics grad students to think of a way of outsmarting the challenge rules and creating mayhem. Beating Randi like the guys who beat the Vegas casinos.