The brain vs. consciousness: the real debate and the phony debate « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Image: http://www.the-ivory-tower.com

…Pundits and scientists can try to introduce all sorts of elegant non-sense and technical speak to refute what you and I both know, but it isn’t going to fly.

We are not biological machines. We are not some illusion projected by the brain.

We are not badly programmed machines researchers can feel guiltless about, as they try to tweak and re-cast our brains. We’re not cars in the shop…

Materialistic Scientific Man: the corporate owned and operated mouse that roared:

The brain vs. consciousness: the real debate and the phony debate

by Jon Rappoport

October 29, 2017

I continue to write about this subject, because the answers are shaping our present and future in huge ways.

Nearly all brain researchers insist that consciousness arises from the functions of the brain.

These researchers concede they don’t know HOW consciousness arises—but “they’re getting there.” They’re making progress. This is their story and they’re sticking to it.

If they have their way, the educated class will agree with them, evidence or no evidence.

Since “consciousness is the result of brain activity and nothing else,” since consciousness is ultimately a matter of physics, neuroscience will reign supreme—manipulating brain changes to achieve certain “values” and political goals.

We are talking about an engineered society at the level of the brain. Brave New World.

For these researchers, that is the final frontier.

But suppose all their fundamental assertions are completely wrong? Suppose they’re never going to prove consciousness arises from the brain? Suppose all their efforts in this direction are dependent on nothing more than circular reasoning—assuming what they’re trying to prove?

“Consciousness must be a function of brain activity, because what else could it be?”

Let’s begin with a very simple version of what consciousness means, and in the process shred several key ideas of the brain researchers:

ONE: Right now, at this very moment, you’re reading the words on this page. You know you’re reading the worlds. You’re aware you’re reading the words. You’re conscious of reading the words. You “have that consciousness.”

TWO: The brain is composed, according to conventional physics, of tiny particles. That’s all. The neurons and their tubes and the synapses and the neurotransmitters—all the elements of the brain, when you go deep enough, without exception, are composed of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

THREE: These are the exact same particles that flow in the earth and the water and the sky and the stars and the whole universe. The particles move and interact according to immutable laws.

FOUR: There is nothing in these particles or any combination of them that suggests KNOWING. There is no KNOWING.

FIVE: But somehow, in the brain, these particles give rise to YOU KNOWING YOU ARE READING THESE WORDS AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

SIX: That assertion would be the height of absurdity.

SEVEN: And yet you do know. You know you’re reading these words. You’re conscious of that.

EIGHT: Since you do know, that consciousness is coming from somewhere other than the brain, which contains no knowing.

This is stark and simple.

Because it’s so stark, it drives some brain researchers to their backup position, which introduces a second absurdity: you’re not conscious of the fact you’re reading these words on the page, you only THINK you are. There is no such thing as consciousness. Consciousness is a bizarre illusion created by the brain. Therefore, there is no need to explain consciousness. It doesn’t exist. It never has.

Here is a third absurdity that enters the scene: there is no you. YOU is another illusion. The individual does not exist. There is a brain-process which results in the illusion of an individual existing.

So you’re not there, and I’m not here.

Well, well. That’s a towering assemblage of bullshit.

And it’s built to sidetrack the stark facts that you do exist and so do I, and we’re both conscious at this very moment, and there is NOTHING in the most basic composition of the brain to account for consciousness.

Pundits and scientist can try to introduce all sorts of elegant non-sense and technical speak to refute what you and I both know, but it isn’t going to fly.

We are not biological machines. We are not some illusion projected by the brain.

We are not badly programmed machines researchers can feel guiltless about, as they try to tweak and re-cast our brains. We’re not cars in the shop.

I could take this line of thought much farther, and I have, in other articles, where I explore the point that consciousness is not composed of matter, but I’ll leave it here for now.

One piece of advice: don’t be taken in by scientists who claim “the situation is far more complex.”

It isn’t.

Complexity is their strategy to escape the noose of their own making which hangs them in public view.

Why do I say “noose of their own making?” Because they own the theory that ALL matter and energy are composed of tiny particles which have no consciousness at all. Therefore, the brain is composed of the same particles. Therefore, there is NO reason to assume the brain can give rise to consciousness.

Consciousness, WHICH DOES EXIST, must be independent of matter and energy.

Researchers can hate this conclusion, but they have to deal with it. They refuse to deal with it in a straightforward manner.

Perhaps they have a special brand of brain that seeks specious, devious, wormy methods of wriggling out of disturbing inferences.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

Source: The brain vs. consciousness: the real debate and the phony debate « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The brain vs. consciousness: the real debate and the phony debate « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

  1. I did not understand which conculusion the author is trying to reach with the items he have numbered from one to the eight, my Earthling friend. In this context results and inferences seem weird to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. 1 through 8 are describing the asinine narrative of materialistic scientists, when it comes to the human brain and mind. It isn’t Rappoport’s eight points, it’s science that looks at the human brain and mind in this way. They have everything figured out, when they have NOTHING figured out.

    This is the sad effect of corporate capitalism and Zionism on science. Many legit scientists believe these faux scientists are destroying science itself.

    I read a lot of his posts, so I guess I’m used to how he writes. Going back, I can see where this might be confusing to you, my friend, and others.

    I personally tend to believe the mind functions separately from the brain. But I don’t know this for certain. This is why I posted it. Plus, this article went well with the other articles I posted yesterday.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. That is to say, Rappoport, with through these eight items shortened the determinations and reached out by brain researchers, the result that he added in the towards the end of the article, that these researchers have fallen into contradiction with these eight articles of themselves.

    “Consciousness, which does exist, must be independent of matter and energy.”

    So, brain researchers contradict with themselves; am I right?

    Rappoport is approaching philosophically while he doing this, as much as I understood. In here, what I found lack is that he didn’t add what material theories he is against, by going out of the frame of a philosophical approach (and I do not know whether these material theories are exist or not in his other articles due to I have not read his other relevant articles). Of course I do not know if he were sampling about Neurobiology researches and their physical tests, and I also do not know if he has a level of scientific significance that he can assess these samples scientifically, either. Of course there are things I do not know about him and his writings. Maybe he’s a top level researcher who’s going to investigate and disprove the thesis. I do not know. For me, to look at the subject as philosophically left the subject as half in the air. I am not good at at understand the philosophical approaches; for I can see exactly what he is trying to tell in here, only if this article becomes an article that I can understand with supported by the samplings like “those neurobiology researches were done in the following way, the results are like the followings, and the thesis opposed here is that…”

    In this context, for example, when I read Rappoport’s sentence, “We are not biological machines.” And when I read the following one “We are not some illusion projected by the brain,”, I ask the following question: “Rappoport, with which the scientific basis, drawn this conclusion?” And if he completes the first sentence with this second sentence, I would evaluate like that:
    “This is not the only final conclusion that can come out at first sentence, it has many implications. Why is Rappoport based on the first sentence to achieve this result, which is like the second and final decision sentence?”
    On the other hand, especially as if it is the result that he wanted to express and wanted to direction and draw this conclusion.

    You have said my Earthling friend, “This is the sad effect of corporate capitalism and Zionism on science.”

    I am agree with you! However the way of Rappoport which to show effect of corporate capitalism and Zionism on science into this article, for a now, for me is unsatisfying. The desire to solve scientific theories or samples with philosophical approaches is satisfactory to some extent, and beyond that, if these theses are not refuted, they enter a vicious cycle. I’ve read a similar article of him earlier, and it seemed to me irrational; which I told you about, do you remember? I do not make a sharp conclusion about him. I am aware that he has a well intentioned approach. I will try to read his other articles about this subject.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I think that would be a good idea, my friend.

    As for me, I place no stock in the science that is pandered by this world order. Nuclear weapons/WMDs and poisoned air, water, food and medicine are the only products corporate science can produce.. Other than this, they always appear to me to be asinine nerds making it up as they go!

    Of course, I know I am among the minority on this, since most of humanity worships at the alter of materialistic/physical science, and I do not, nor at any other alter, as well.

    This is what Tesla had to say about ‘modern’ scientists:

    “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”

    ― Nikola Tesla

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I want to add this, as well. Rappoport is responding in a philosophical way, because these ‘scientists’ are attempting to turn philosophical issues into test tube experiments, in order to further their Darwinian narrative/agenda.

    “Evolution is the answer to everything!” is their mantra! And Rappoport, like me , is saying that these little boys and girls have much to learn. And most of what they need to learn cannot be found in a lab or test tube.

    Science, my friend, has become a dehumanizing crime against humanity: nuclear weapons, wmds, poisoned air, water, food and medicine, Fukushima, etc etc etc.

    It is time to sideline science, until the legitimate scientists can regain control from the state.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The mind/body problem is really a false controversy. So called materialists who argue for the primacy of matter over mind don’t actually know what ‘matter’ is; likewise, those who argue for the separate nature of mind and matter also don’t know what ‘matter’ is, though they take the concept or linguistic marker to designate the ‘same’ substance ‘thing’ that so-called materialists designate by the term, and furthermore, they do one better than the materialists by making of the mind or consciousness not only a separate entity, but a separate “substance” or “thing.”

    But objects, ALL objects, are constructs, that is to say, representations of “boundaries” and “nexuses of boundaries” concocted from a lifetime of dialectical interactions with ‘reality,’ and only ASPECTS of ‘reality,’ at that.

    But although human cognition operates in terms of dualities and binaries, none of this provides us with the least presumption that REALITY is comprised of dualities and binaries, so that although we represent to ourselves the inner experience of being (consciousness) as being other than its outer manifestations (physical reality), there probably is in fact no such separation.

    There is no denying that reality can impinge on our “outer being” in such a way as to determine in a very determinate and direct manner the “content” of experience. If I take your hand and immerse it into boiling grease, trust me, you will not be “free” to separate your “experience,” the state of your consciousness, from the excruciating pain that will result UNLESS you are neurologically damaged and can’t feel pain. Your body and your mind are indubitably ONE. The coincidence of a living person’s hand immersed into boiling grease and the excruciating pain that that person will experience proves it.

    Likewise, the mind can determine the disposition of its “outer-self,” that is to say, of the body that IT IS, and this to some degree, admitedly only within very narrow limits, independently of the environmental constraints (i.e., determinations that are “not-self”) in which it finds itself.

    So without being able to say what MATTER is, I can indeed say that the brain and the mind are one and the same thing.

    If I drive a nail into my head, especially into the areas of the cerebral cortex, trust me, my consciousness, what I am in my experience of myself, will be irrevocably altered and not in ways of my choosing.

    The mind is of and very much rooted in this world, and it has a VISIBLE manifestation, that thing we call our “body” along with all of its specialized organs and integuments.

    People who are or have been put to the rack know very well that there minds are trapped inside their bodies, that the body and the mind ARE ONE.

    My two cents for free. Don’t spend it all in one place. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I do not say that it should not be taken in philosophical terms, my earthling friend. As I have said, “…The desire to solve scientific theories or samples with philosophical approaches is satisfactory to some extent…” So, it is only half the way to deal with scientific theories with this approach. I say that both the theory should be refuted scientifically and the also it should be taken as philosophical case.

    There are the scientist as you mentioned; “…because these ‘scientists’ are attempting to turn philosophical issues into test tube experiments, in order to further their Darwinian narrative/agenda…”

    But on the other hand, except “these scientist”, there are “those scientist” and they have the different approaches. For example, the other scientist, so “those scientist”, don’t say “Evolution is the answer to everything!”, they say that “Evolution explains some major principles, not everything.”

    Because, the theory of evolution does not explain how each species is formed separately; but it does formulate the general principles of the development of living organisms in the world. Some things in the formation of species in the world have not yet been explained or fully explained by science, but this provides justification for thinking that the theory of evolution is wrong. As same as, if we think that these principles were not developed and have remained almost unchanged from Darwin’s era, although the biological science itself, especially the theory of evolution has been very advanced in that era and finded explanations for many.

    If we put all the scientists in the same plate, then we can not get out of it. There is a distinction between “these scientists” and “those scientists” and the people who write about this issue like Rappoport should make this distinction first. If “those scientists” are put in amongst others by these authors, then it will not come out of confusion. If the “those scientists” theories, oppositions, and tests they are doing, so whatever they were doing, would be in the writings of Rappoport, this would strengthen his hand and, for me, the writing would be satisfying. Of course I also do know that “nobody has to write an satisfactory article for an extraterrestrial.” 🙂

    How can we make this distinction if we want to do it? You added a quote from Tesla in here. First of all I would like to say that I always thought about this quote as he praised madness and to satirised madness in the same time. And for me it shows how intelligence Tesla is, due to he made both in the same sentence. You looked at it from a different angle, which has been a nice difference for me.

    Now, for example, is Tesla in “those scientists” I mentioned? “Yes he is,” we can say. To support this, we can base on his feature, “because he was pursuing projects that would make the lives of ordinary people in the world in general easier and cheaper.” He is an extremist example in fact, and the planet earth is not like at his time; although some minds are still the same. And also, as I always said ( I think you saw the followings in my writings or in my comments), “on this planet under the name of scientific education, the training has been giving for a long time, to train intermediate staff for the capitalist companies. Scientific trainings given at universities are benefit for capitalism, not much to the benefit of humanity.”

    Here, personality mostly steps in it. For example, does a scientist work like a Cuban medical researcher, who wants to serve humanity, or is he working for a big pharma and signing things that will make humanity worse?

    Those who will divide these two categories apart must be the scientists themselves at first, after should be the people like Rappoport, who writes scientific philosophical articles, addressing widespread masses.

    In the meantime, who can answer exactly these questions about Tesla and the subject?

    One of Tesla’s projects was “thought camera”. With his theoretical invention, thought camera, he tried to create reflections of brain’s thoughts onto a wall. This is not too much different more than what brain researchers work on by catching the brain signals and want to do.

    (here the questions): If Tesla lived today, if he would continue to do brain research with his brilliant mind, what would come out on brain researches? Or would he burn the lab where all his works were done?

    We will never know the answer.

    If the essence of the work is human factor, how accurate is it to dedicate the results to that science, (so the science branch that the human being reveals and puts its name); also to generalise?

    Besides, I would like you to read this article on Darwinism and Marxism in your free time, my Earthling friend.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I sent you an email. Please read, my friend!

    Darwinism is a Zionist concoction. I chased after Darwin many years ago, when I was your age, Since that time, I have grown up.

    I dumped Darwinism for the same reasons I dumped Christianity. Absolute unsubstantiated bullshit!

    I will leave it at that,.

    Please read my email.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. It’s okay, Norm. I think you and Migo can carry on this discussion without me. I’m not as certain about things, in general, the older I get.

    I just posted this because I have read material on this subject, many years ago, and I believe that the mind is separate from the body/brain.

    This is a belief, so I’m not suggesting this is fact. It is what I have come to believe for certain reasons, which I will not share here.

    I posted this, in reality, because sources have been sparse recently. And so, in one sense, it was a filler.

    I hope Migo reads this, as well!

    I’m not upset or angry with you or Migo, Norm, I just didn’t know this article was going to create this kind of conversation. So it’s ,my bad. And I don’t have the energy, nor inclination, to go deep into this subject.

    I wish the important issues I post about would get this kind of attention, as I know you and Migo can relate to, as well.

    I will say this, there is much more that “the mouse that roared” (MAN) does not know than what HE thinks/believes he knows. And the proof of this sits all around me, you and Migo. The mouse that roared can’t even solve his own fucking problems, but somehow HE knows all else there is to know in the universe.

    And I believe it is this asinine, unfounded arrogance that will eventually do in this little, insignificant mouse that roared.

    Thanks, Norm and Migo, for taking the time to comment on this article. If you figure it out, and have undeniable evidence either way, then please get back to me. I’m open to learning.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. My point, Sojourner, is very much your own: we don’t know what the substances or essences of reality are at bottom. We know the phenomenon of “intention” without understanding how “that” works. We know the phenomenon of coming up against “things” that are not “ourselves” and that either facilitate or frustrate “intention.” We know that body and mind are a nexus, that they tie into one another to form a unity, and we know that what impinges on our “bodies” also impinges on our minds. That’s what we know. The rest is speculation and therefore “unknown.” Why would you get mad at me for making such assertions? They are true as far as they go and no further. Personally, I can’t get too worked up over mystery except to be awed by it — I mean that in a kind of mystical sense. Life is weird. To any living, conscious being, it has ever and will ever be so. Even to God, if He or She or It exists, it must be so. As Heidegger once put it, “why is there anything at all rather than nothing?” Here, have another toke and muse on that a while, while you can.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Without sounding too much like a whiner, Norm, I am struggling with my health right now, and to the extent that most days, I feel completely overwhelmed, physically, mentally and emotionally. And so I wasn’t mad at you, as you point out, why would I be, I was apologizing for not having the energy to go deep into this subject and respond to your comment. And I felt bad, because I posted this article, and therefore, I should be able to discuss it with you and Migo. But right now, it’s hard enough just to write these last two comments to you.

    I am also frustrated that a filler like this gets so much attention, when so many of the articles that I post on what I consider to be the important issues, which burn in my mind and heart, never warrant a response. I’m getting back to where I just want to get the fuck away from all of this for a while. But that doesn’t help either. So I guess I am trapped right now. And I know you know what I mean here!

    “Here, have another toke and muse on that a while, while you can.”

    If only I could smoke dope (asthma), or I had the money for a well stocked bar, I could spend these last few years stoned and/or drunk and completely oblivious! Ain’t life a fucking bitch!

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I hear you, as you know too well. And the toking that I’m suggesting is metaphorical: I’m merely emphasizing that to be alive without a sense of wonder is not really to be alive, and yes, that also requires energy, which diminishes with age.

    BTW: If you don’t always get a response from me on articles to which you would hope to get a response, it’s because I agree with them. Usually, disagreement, whether mild or hard, is what tends to elicit comments from me.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. And by the way, I don’t consider this kind of article to be a filler. Apparently, I’m not the only one. Pondering the mysteries of life seems to be a serious concern for most.

    “What am I? What is all of ‘this’ about? And what’s that bit about, that I must die? How do I make sense of it all?”

    We need meaning in our lives. It is not a given. Thus we must struggle for it and we do, and articles like this fall into the work of that struggle.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Yes, you are right, Norm! I just sent you an email, a response to an email from Migo. I’m not doing too well today, as you probably realize by now, so please forgive my confused state at the moment!

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I knew you weren’t speaking literally, Norm. Although, I would love a stocked bar right now! And also know that I wasn’t thinking of you or Migo when I spoke of other articles not getting comments.

    Remember Nicholson’s, the Joker’s, “This town needs an enema”? Well, this Dave needs a lobotomy!;-)

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Also, I appreciate you and Migo more than you know, Norm. In many ways, I am closer with the two of you than I am with some of my oldest friends. And I know times are tough for you right now, Norm! And so I appreciate your patience with me. It seems that everything is catching up with me all at once, and I am not handling it very well.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. The topic is interesting to me, because I know some extraterrestrial species, their only think is to study the brain functions of the all living species. For example, there is a planet only fulls of brains of different species, haha!

    And sorry, I jumped into the subject like runner; in fact I should have written these comments to the post origin page(Jon Rappoport blog page), but your friendship gave me ease to express my opinions. I couldn’t think these made you tired in these days when your health is not so good; that was my fault, sorry dear earthling.:)

    And yes, you are right about the life on earth!

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.