Or, the brain can be like a radio.  If you showed a radio to a caveman, they would assume perhaps that tiny people lived inside the radio and talked or made music.  What other explanation could there be? 

With the brain, we assume it is the center of consciousness.  But what if it is just the receiver of consciousness like a radio is a receiver of radio waves?  If the brain interfaces with our consciousness in a different plane of existence, then it is the organ that allows our spirit to interact with physical matter.  Ah, but you might say, "why do people who have strokes lose the ability to move an arm, a leg, or speak if the brain does not create consciousness?"  Good question.  What if we take the radio as an example?  If I damage a speaker, or break a component, the sound might become distorted.  If I damage the antenna, only certain signals might be received, etc.  So the fact that certain brain injuries result in deficits still does not tell us that the brain is the originator of thought. 

I am biased here, in thinking, like Kathy, that thought originates in a mental plane, and simply interpenetrates the brain.  An interesting experiment was carried out by a neuroscientist named Lashley.  In it, he gruesomely burned out various parts of the brains of mice, in order to find out the one part which carried the information on how to run through a maze to get food (after they were trained to run the maze).  He became frustrated because he could not localize that memory and thought to one area.  Indeed, some mice had over half their brains burned out and still recalled how to run the maze after being taught.   

These findings then led to quantum theories about the brain.  That there may be a kind of holographic memory, or that memory may be present in more than one location at a time.  But to me, these awful experiments were just one more piece of evidence that the brain may be a receiver of consciousness, but not the creator of thought. 

Matthew

Exactly, your thoughts do influence your physical brain structure. Many things influence it. And, the pursuit of that illusive "I" which does the observing creates a noticeably different view of reality.

What happens to someone who has an out of body experience and experiences 360 degree vision? How do you describe that? It is first hand experience.

heisenberg69, I think you are right in assuming that the opposition against scientists who even think about going against the mainstream materialist view is lessening somewhat. However, it is still very strong, so strong that even nobel prize winners are sometimes ridiculed for "such ideas". I personally agree to the original Heisenberg and all his successors that, in the end, all science ultimately ends in questions or, as the belief may be, with God, and therefore, the so-called "paranormal" observations should be approached with an unbiased mind.

After all, "paranormal" is just what has not been explained YET. And a consciousness that is not limited to the confines of the material world as we see it as of 2016 is a possible explanation of some observations.

Wikipedia is, in my opinion, not a valid source for any scientific discussion. If I want to research something, I`ll go to the studies directly. And read them, of course. And scientists sometimes contribute in magazines like the scientific american or similar, which is admittedly also not really a scientific source, but understandable.

A French Christian's dogmatic view on NDE's. I did not expect otherwise.   https://reflexionsjesus.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/the-near-death-experiences-nde/

Hi Bruce,

would you not also agree that a world where science takes the possibility of an afterlife seriously would help people (particularly logical,rational types) to accept their own experiences more easily in a kind of 'rising tide raises all ships' kind of way? I know you have looked at the possibility of some kind of engineered communication device- have you made any progress on this?

Okay, I'm back, what can I say? Some misunderstandings took place.

Whatever the case, I feel very grateful that I've had a number of experiences that let me know that the after life exists. It is possible to have spiritual experiences that provide a level of certainty that is beyond what typical human intellectual activity can provide. Having such knowledge provides a perspective that helps you deal with the challenges of life. It also enables you to have a perspective with which you can view all of the troubles that exist in this world. I figure that compared to all of the love, light and joy that exists within the totality of God's being, the troubles of this world are like a small temporary itch on one small part of your body.

When it comes to my spiritual growth, I do not believe it would've been possible for me to grow to the extent I have, if I didn't have access to the spirit levels of my being.

Regarding what is the most compelling evidence, I've had experiences where I was able to verify information I received through spiritual means at a later time, and experiences where I was at a level of being where I was connected to universal knowledge and the certainty of such knowledge was quite clear. Both types of verifications have validity, but if I could have only one, I would pick the type where I am connected to universal knowledge. Such knowledge involves the heart level of being.

Albert

I'd like to add then when I read about some NDE accounts I understand why some experiencers feel so certain of what they experienced, because I've experienced such levels of being, and when you do so, you are certain of the reality of what you experience. You understand that that level of being is what your existence is truly about, not this body-based existence in the world. To the extent that is practical,  I prioritize my life.

Hi Albert-

I'm glad you returned.  I had deleted my account but this board is so important to me that, as I told Bruce, I was going to re-up! 😊  I respect your experiences and realize completely what you're saying. I too had experiences that are unexplainable and point to an afterlife, but all I'm saying is that I doubt science will ever be able to provide conclusive evidence.

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.

R