- Education and Science
Which Came First, the Consciousness or the Brain?
Nothing or Something
Death is a fundamental part of being alive, just as birth is. Everyone dies; so what happens after that? This question will be answered from the perspective and belief of whoever is answering the question, and it's a big question. Do we go on after death, or does everything just stop when we die? Some people believe there is "nothing" beyond death; others believe that we go on eternally, but the truth is -- no one knows. Scientists, like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, think they know what happens after death; they say "nothing" is what happens, and everything just ends. How do they know this though? Have they died? Do they have some experience that justifies this conclusion? What exactly is the belief that there is "nothing" after death based on? Anything? Or, is it just a baseless assumption based on "nothing"? There's the "nothing" -- found it; "nothing" is the foundation of the belief that "nothing" is what happens after we die -- got it, moving on.
Science has no Evidence
Has Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson ever conducted any scientific studies on the matter? No? Well, aren't "scientist" supposed to do some kind of experiments, and have some evidence before coming to conclusions? It seems, that for a so-called "scientist" to have concrete opinions about things they have never studied, and that they literally know nothing about, is absurd and hypocritical. Scientists are not supposed to believe things, until they have some evidence by which to prove those beliefs -- and they certainly should not be presenting it to the public as if what they believe has somehow been factually proven; that is manipulation. Did Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson die, experience "nothing", and then come back to report on it? No, of course not; that's absurd. They don't know any more about what happens after we die than anyone else does. In fact, people of this mindset probably know less than a whole lot of other people. How do you go about knowing, anything at all, about something you have decided "does not exist"? No matter how cunning, no matter how clever, and no matter how convincing their arguments may seem to be; "scientists" (like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson) don't know any more about life after death than any of the rest of us do -- they only have beliefs, just like everybody else does.
Religion has no Evidence
Religious people, in their multitude of varieties, are also convinced that what they believe is absolute undeniable "truth". What makes them think they know? Most religious people have no idea in the world about the factual foundations of their religions, or the true origins of their beliefs. People who do a tremendous amount of research on their own religion tend to leave their religion; because when people find out the truth (the real truth) of their religion, they tend to disavow it -- they do the same with all religions. Most people don't ever go that far with research, but those who do nearly always realize the same thing: these religions are not what they appear to be, and they are not what you think they are either. Usually, upon doing enough research, people tend to realize the same thing is literally true of the whole world. Someone like Jordan Maxwell, who has dedicated his entire life to the study of such things, often says, "Nothing in this world works the way you think it does." -- and he is absolutely correct in saying so. Religious people should really dedicate themselves to finding out where their religious beliefs actually came from -- especially if they are going to base their whole life and eternal soul on it. If you are going to base your whole existence on something, you should understand everything there is to know about it. As Jordan Maxwell would say, "You need to do your homework." Religious people must be confronted with the same question as materialists; have they died, and come back to "tell the tale"? No, they have not -- they just read it in a book (just like the scientists did, by the way, only in a different book); therefore, they don't know any more than any of the rest of us do, either -- they only think they do. In this way, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between science and religion, now is there? They both present themselves as if they have all the answers to everything, including the possibility of an afterlife. They also both tend to push their beliefs onto others, and treat those who have different beliefs very poorly -- maybe "science" and "religion" are not so different after all. They might very well have different beliefs, but how they act, about those beliefs is identical; they should both be very ashamed of what they have allowed themselves to become -- what a disgrace and betrayal to the whole human race.
Questions and Beliefs
What this is really all about is consciousness, and what happens to it when the physical body ceases to function. Is consciousness only present inside the physical body, or can it exist independently of the body? When we die, does our consciousness "fade to black", leaving us in an eternal non-conscious unaware "nothingness"? Or, does something else happen? Does something remain of "us" after we die? This question just keeps going around and around: some people believe we go on forever, eternally experiencing "something"; others believe that after death is "nothing", but the problem is, that no one knows the answer. This is probably the biggest question of all time, and there is no evidence by which to provide the answer -- all we have is questions ... and beliefs.
We are not Just Brains
What is the definition of "death"? How are we going to define this, and who gets to decide? There are possibly many different definitions of "death" that could be considered, but more and more, "death" seems to be defined simply as "brain death". This works fine, except that we are not "just brains" anymore than we are "just hearts", lungs, livers, stomachs, or any of the other parts of the body -- we are not "just" brains. Conscious awareness -- consciousness -- is what we are; "brains" are certainly involved in consciousness, but that is obviously not all we are. Oh you think so do you? Take your brain out of your body and see what happens to it -- "just your brain" are you?
Everything is Energy
Believers in materialistic mainstream reductionist science claim that "all phenomenon can be reduced to nothing more than matter", but then they don't really have a correct understanding of the true nature of reality then, now do they? Everything is energy, not matter; but "scientists" insist that consciousness can be reduced and localized to "brain function alone" -- this means that the brain "makes" consciousness, and since everything is energy, this would mean the brain also makes (creates) energy. How exactly, does the brain do this? The thermodynamic Law of Conservation of Energy states: energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transformed. So, according to physics -- the brain cannot create energy; therefore, the brain cannot create consciousness.
The Chicken or The Egg
When thinking about this, we might want to consider the following question: is consciousness a byproduct of brain development, or, is brain development a byproduct of consciousness? This might be a bit like the "chicken and the egg"; which came first? It seems we may have been misled about this, and so much more, by what all too often passes for "science". Charles Darwin, the guy who supposedly came up with the "scientific" theory (because that is all it is -- a theory) of evolution, said the "brain was a byproduct of consciousness". If that is true, then the "brain" is a result of "consciousness"; so, how then, can "brain" create "consciousness"? It cannot; that is just what we have been conditioned to believe, when there is not even the tiniest fragment of evidence to support that belief.
Believers in materialism (physical is all there is) cannot even begin to contemplate something like life after death; how could they? How can you seriously consider and contemplate something that you are convinced does not exist? They simply cannot conceive of anything of the sort; they believe that even suggesting there is something more than "physicality" is absurd and delusional. What actually seems absurd and delusional (in any sense of rational thinking) is that the same scientists, who freely admit they can only detect a very tiny sliver of reality, will ridicule anyone who believes in an afterlife -- or anything else that does not fit into their tiny little five-sense-only version of things. The arrogance of that is profound, and should be considered unacceptable to any thinking person. Materialistic scientists freely admit that they cannot see, hear, detect, account for, or explain more than 90% (and that is being very generous) of all that exists; yet, they have the audacity to belittle people who even dare to question their obviously superior beliefs. This would be like a visually impaired person insisting that they see everything, the whole time knowing they are basically blind -- it's just ridiculous -- and it should be more than blatantly obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than a second or two.
Materialistic scientific Hawking/Tyson type beliefs, as well as religious beliefs, can sometimes become so strong that those who are imprisoned within these rigid locked mindsets and systems of belief might not even be able to see certain things -- even things right in front of their faces. There is a mental condition that is characterized by someone who believes something so strongly, that they will defend that belief (sometimes with hate-filled violence and rage) no matter what evidence is presented to them. Any information or demonstration that merely suggests something to be true, other than what they believe, will be totally and completely rejected -- often, at any cost. This mental condition is not always expressed through violence and rage; more often it expresses itself in the form of dismissal, belittlement, and ridicule. A person who experiences this stressful mental imbalance will do nearly anything to avoid confronting the truth. They will also completely avoid any thought or consideration whatsoever that they had made a mistake; admitting to being wrong is very difficult for many people, but confronting our own mistakes is how we learn and improve ourselves. The only way to stop repeating a mistake is by confronting it, accepting it, admitting it, learning from it, and then moving forward more wisely -- this is a good thing. Sometimes, if a belief is seriously threatened, the believer will even try to physically, socially, or emotionally harm another person. Laughing, making fun, attempting to humiliate someone, or even physically harming them does not make you right; it makes you wrong -- it is wrong to treat others poorly because of their beliefs -- no matter how right you think you are. It makes no difference who turns out to be correct or incorrect in their belief, if you treat others poorly because of their beliefs -- you are who is wrong -- period. This mental condition is called cognitive dissonance, and it is very good at keeping those who suffer from it in limitation, mental slavery, and ignorance.
Brains are Receivers and Transmitters of Information
Might the brain, and indeed the whole body, be more like a receiver of consciousness, rather than a creator of consciousness? Is it possible that our brains are like televisions, receiving a broadcasted signal? The brain receives the signal (consciousness), then transmits that signal (information) into our awareness (reality) that we then experience -- and call "life". In the same way, the TV receives the signal, then transmits that signal onto the screen, so that we may then experience the information contained within the signal -- it's the same thing. A computer connected through WiFi to the internet might well be an even better example, but the principal is exactly the same. "Brains" receive the signal (consciousness), then transmit that signal (information), into awareness -- so that we may experience it -- in what we call "reality" and "life". Could this be a more correct understanding of how things actually work? Absolutely it could be -- there is nothing in neuroscience that even suggests this is not possible.
Brains do not Create Consciousness
Materialists ignorantly and incorrectly insist that if damage occurs to parts of the brain, then consciousness no longer functions properly; and that somehow proves the brain is what "creates" consciousness. This is ridiculous -- and proves nothing; does breaking a TV screen prove that TVs "create" the television signal? Does damaging the WiFi antenna on a computer prove that the computer is what "creates" the internet? Obviously not -- it's absurd -- but that is exactly the kind of garbage we are expected to accept as "scientific" proof that there is only "nothing" after what we call "death". That is not "science"; it is belief -- religious belief. Standing opposed to this so-called "scientific" approach, is all the spiritual (not religious) traditions that have existed for thousands of years; they say this "materialistic" system of belief (it's a religion really) is "nonsense", and that the TV analogy is by far "closer to the truth", and to reality.
At the very bottom of this is a big huge gigantic question mark -- a big fat "maybe". Do we go on, or don't we? Maybe we do, maybe we don't. We don't know, and that's the bottom line -- could go either way. But what about ghosts, spirits, poltergeists, possessions, and all the other "paranormal" phenomena that people have experienced all through history? What about Dr. Ian Stevenson, who spent 50 years trying to disprove the idea of "reincarnation" at the University of Virginia School of Medicine? His original intent was to prove that reincarnation was not real, but instead was scientifically forced to conclude it was real -- if the brain is the "creator" of consciousness, how can reincarnation be real? It cannot -- the brain does not create consciousness -- it receives and transmits consciousness. Psychic abilities are also impossible to explain using the mainstream version of "science" that we have all been indoctrinated into; out-of-body and near-death experiences are also out of the range of what "science" is capable of explaining. When taking all of this, and many other things into account, the big fat "maybe" seems to slide a bit in favor of "something", rather than "nothing", happening after death. The only thing we can be absolutely certain of concerning what happens after we die: eventually, everyone will ... know.