Descriptions:
Pure science as we know it right now, conceives human consciousness as a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain. An assumption which is, usually talking, hardly questioned. But, plentiful phenomena point out that in actuality human consciousness is feasible with out the body, without the need of the brain.
Aspect 2 of a documentary on the issue of “consciousness” – to be seen exclusively on Thanatos Tv set from April 1, 2022!
Credits:
Digital camera: Heike Sucky, Werner Huemer
Translation: Alexandra Grasmik, Peter Cox
Narrator: Peter Cox
A movie documentary by Werner Huemer
℗ Mediaservice Werner Huemer
© 2022 Thanatos Tv EN
You should Assistance OUR Work WITH YOUR DONATION:
https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=CNDY6LJZFU3GN
Tags
Leave your comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
ienzfeog
vur.life
It’s difficult to understand how science still clings to this outdated belief.
So excited about part two!
If consciousness only resides in the brain as some suggest, then how do you explain psychic mediums abilities like that of Matt Frazier? Or Theresa Caputo? How can they do what they do if they're not really getting information from a spirit? They sure are accurate as hell that's for SURE!! If they truly are talking to a spirit that means that consciousness has left the body!!
I love John Cleese. Such a good person. Was pleasantly surprised to see him here.
Where can I see it fully and also part 2??
it really is amusing that some people think consciousness is just the combination formula applied to neurons. As if multiplying something by a billion changes it's essence.
Amazing
Consciousness is the Hard Problem. That human consciousness as a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain is the leading hypothesis, but science is very open with that we don't currently know how consciousness arise.
I thought that the "Physical Brain" was one thing–then the "Mind/Consciousness/Soul" were all inter-changeable???
What am I missing, please???
Can't wait for the full episode!
I actually saw that whole interview with John Cleese somewhere. Brilliant interview. Also watched an interview with a physicist who has proven scientifically that consciousness still exists after the body is dead by studying mediums and the information they were able to provide. Fascinating stuff. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed……..the body also loses a very small (3gr or so I believe) amount of weight at the moment of death. This would suggest something tangible leaves the body. I love this channel, thank you Thanatos TV!!
Full video please. Thank you, Thanatos TV EN.
I like these interviews but I really miss the NDE experiences from others.
Science, unfortunately, is a controlled institution with big money (see George Carlin). Inquiry is paid for.
It's really silly that the only thing you can truly identify with as far as your awareness goes is your own I Am-ness. And to say consciousness is a by product all the while your entire existence is experienced through it, well is laughable and easily disproved personallyonce you become conscious enough to see/know that.
I am a physicist and I will provide sound arguments that prove that consciousness is not generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is not physical (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). This implies the existence in us of an unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it can be proved that this hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledge and implies logical contradictions. There are in fact 2 arguments that prove such hypothesis contains a logical fallacy.
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual physical processes. An approximate description is only an abstraction, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself; an approximate description is an idea that exists only in a conscious mind. This means that emergent properties are concepts that refer to something that has an inherent conceptual nature (abstract ideas).
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstraction which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set. Therefore, any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently arbitrary because it depends on the arbitrary choice used to define the set. Arbitrariness is a precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
If a concept refers to “something” whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, such “something” cannot exist independently of a conscious mind and can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example consider the property of "beauty": beauty is intrisically subjective, abstract and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties are of the same nature as beauty; they are intrinsically subjective and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else; however, there is no objective criterion that allows us to identify what separates brain and non-brain. Obviously, consciousness cannot be a property of an abstraction, because an abstraction cannot conceive of itself. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction because it implies the arbitrary choice of including some elements in the set and excluding others. Physically the brain is not a single entity and therefore every alleged property of the brain is an arbitrary concept, a subjective abstraction. This is sufficient to prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is a property of the brain is nonsensical because it contains an intrinsic logical contradiction; consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of arbitrariness, and therefore the existence of consciousness cannot be a consequence of all that implies arbitrariness.
An example of a concept that does not refer to something that is inherently subjective and presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, is the concept of “indivisible entity”.
Consciousness can exist only as the property of an indivisible entity, because only an indivisible entity does not imply any kind of arbitrariness; furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity cannot be physical, since there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. Marco Biagini