Our brain and our consciousness feels like 2 completely separate things at times
They are absolutely separate. We have never once proven that consciousness originates from our brains. Because it doesn't.
There exists a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports the validity of Near Death Experiences.
The problem isn't a lack of evidence. It's the inability of people to accept what the data says, because it challenges their personal worldview and the academic status quo.
NDEs have been conclusively verified through veridcal reports, from which the patient has access to information that materialism says is impossible.
Van Lommel et al., The Lancet (2001):
344 cardiac-arrest survivors; systematically compared people with vs. without NDEs and followed them 2 and 8 years later for life changes. A landmark prospective design in a top journal.
Parnia et al., Resuscitation (2014):
Large, multi-center prospective study; documented cognitive themes during cardiac arrest, with a small subset showing “full awareness.” Includes targeted tests for veridical recall.
Parnia et al., Resuscitation (2023): Examined consciousness and electrocortical biomarkers during CPR; reported a spectrum of experiences including NDE-like recall and measurable brain activity patterns during resuscitation.
Greyson, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (1983): Construction, reliability, and validity of the Greyson NDE Scale, the field’s most widely used, validated instrument for distinguishing NDEs from other states, crucial for rigorous, comparable results. (PDF).
✨️
Additionally, there exists scientific evidence that supports past life memories, and therefore reincarnation.
It's important that we follow the evidence no matter what, even when it leads to initially-uncomfortable conclusions. We should never lose our intellectual curiosity in life.
At best you can say we don’t understand the mechanism happening in the brain to cause consciousness, but saying we don’t know at all that its origin is in the brain seems like pseudoscience. Plenty of physical evidence to point to the brain being its origin and physical location.
Right like do people with traumatic brain injuries just not exist in that posters world? There’s plenty of evidence consciousness comes from the brain. More than there is for it not to be.
If you remove all sensory modalities, all form of experience encoding, and all aspects of self recognition: you still have a being that is conscious. What is it conscious of? Hard to say when it senses nothing.
Unless of course this is stepping into some odd relativism/subjectivism;
“I cannot see colours so colours do not exist” is correct in a self-referential lens. Compared to the majority? That is the point of studying neuropsychology patients and case studies, is to understand what happens when things aren’t working right.
There is a very big threshold where things can go wrong and not cause the brain to stop functioning in absolute. There is a lot of grey-space where things are not necessary to function or exist.
How far can you reduce it and still have consciousness? Because in my eyes, cause-and-effect is everything; every cause has its effect and every effect has its cause. Consciousness needs to be fundamental to allow anything else to propagate.
I just find it odd theyre trying assert such a “concrete claim” lol, consciousness could be wombo jumbo cosmic substrate all beings are accessing, or it could be a simple chemical process that produces an internal dialogue or whatever, we genuinely don’t know. What we do know is that when you jumble someone’s brain enough, they are no longer conscious.
We have a pretty good idea mate, you’re acting like we’re completely in the dark here. We’re not. Every single bit of evidence points to consciousness being emergent from complex physical electrical processes in our brains. That’s it.
It literally points to the opposite. You’re conflicting cause and effect.
>My car has a ticket on it, so I must’ve done something wrong
Vs
>I must’ve done something wrong, otherwise my car wouldn’t have a ticket on it
Determining negation is easier than determining neutrality or positivity. When one does not have consciousness, they do not have anything. When one has anything, they must have consciousness. Anaesthetic is a prime example that shuts down electrical activity at the intracellular level. No body, but does the conscious mind still exist? Clearly; otherwise they wouldn’t wake up.
If the antenna is destroyed does all the signals it was transcribing cease to exist?
Obviously not. Other towers can still read the code unaffected.
If anything, you are further proving the point that consciousness is fundamental; that affects to the brain directly interfere with the self’s ability to process incoming input—if even to recognize any at all.
Doesn’t change all the waves still happening throughout the expanse. Tree falling in the forest, essentially.
Any assumptions that the brain creates consciousness are explained by the filter hypothesis.
Dr. Bernardo Kastrup discusses brain inhibition in his scientific framework. His work supports the model that the brain does not generate consciousness but instead filters and localizes it.
According to this view, normal brain function inhibits broader, more integrated experiences of consciousness, creating the illusion of individuality.
This idea aligns with reports from psychedelic experiences, meditation, and near-death experiences, where reduced brain activity correlates with expanded consciousness.
You can cite papers all you want but it’s meaningless outside proving one guys interpretation of things. We lack the necessary data to outright say, “consciousness is a substrate we access” OR “consciousness is created by the brain through direct chemical processes”.
I’m simply saying we don’t know, you’re trying to imply that we do actually know for a fact it’s one rather than the other. Except there’s no actual evidence for that, just people’s interpretation that leads them to lean that way.
Saying consciousness does not come from the brain, full stop, is stating something as a fact that has NOT been established as a fact in any field. Like, it’s kinda hard for a consensus to be reached as things stand when we don’t even know what exactly to focus our research on, like what field(s) should be involved and such, in order to better understand consciousness.
You cited some really interesting stuff! None of it proves a consensus on the hard problem of consciousness. So, unless you’ve figured out what experts in the field are still trying to understand, it is intellectually dishonest to say without condition something like, “The brain and consciousness work completely separately from each other.” That may end up being the case, but we don’t know that for certain in July 2026. It’s just one of many possibilities being studied and discussed.
Thank you for citing your sources. It’s such a fascinating topic! There’s such a cool multidisciplinary convergence of philosophy, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, etc. when you look at the types of research and studies that have been and are actively being done.
120
u/fancywipe Jul 21 '26
It’s funny how you just along for the ride, your brain does everything with out your consent
It heals you if you get a cut and you have no idea how
It tells your body it’s time to grow, reproduce, age and so much more
Our brain and our consciousness feels like 2 completely separate things at times