DocM
|
It has been assumed by modern science that the brain, through neurochemical and electrochemical interactions creates thought. Even so, the actual process is more than elusive, and the location of consciousness in the brain has not been localized.
As I've posted on here before, I see the brain as more of a radio receiver for consciousness, rather than the source of consciousnness. Imagine you took someone from a few thousand years ago and showed them your cable television. They might assume that the television contained tiny people inside it. Or that it created the pictures on the screen itself. Why not?...... to them it would appear quite reasonable. If you damage your TV or cable box, the picture would be damaged. Your ancient noble savage might then point to that as proof that the TV or cable box actually created the images de novo.
The same arguments now apply to consciousess and the brain. If consciousness always exists on the spiritual/mental plane, and interpenetrates as it connects to the physical body, then the brain is then the receiver of consciousness. Damage the neurons, and yes, people can't move an arm or leg, or talk. Does this mean that the neurons created the thought to move the arm or leg? Hardly. Just like my TV analogy, it makes perfect sense that if the brain acts to receive and translate conscious thought, that if you damage it with trauma or a stroke, you then have a poorly functioning person.
So it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find no brainwave activity but have a person report conscious thought during that time. Afterall, isn't that what the afterlife is all about?
Matthew
|