To dream the impossible dream. To fight the unbeatable foe. This is my quest! To follow that star! No matter how hopeless. No matter how far. The most inexplicable fact about the mainstream scientific community’s blind adherence to its “fundamental scientific dogma of materialism” is how utterly worthless that tattered old dogma actually is. Indeed, restricting scientists with any dogma whatsoever as they go about their work of attempting to better understand the reality that we inhabit can be of no value to those scientists and their work whatsoever. Wow, talk about tilting at windmills! No dogma can provide any useful information, or guardrails, or shortcuts, or even cautionary tales. Dogmas give scientists nothing that can be of value to their work, even on a minimal level. So why do modern research scientists seeking to understand consciousness still continue to allow themselves to be burdened by materialism, when it has been clear for more than a century to anyone with even a minimally open mind that whatever consciousness is, it has to be studied without any preconditions at all? And certainly, it makes no sense whatsoever to limit its study to just the human brain! So, why is that still happening? I have kind of an awful theory about that. But before I mention my theory, let’s first check in on the current state of the ongoing search for a source of consciousness inside the human brain. Back in 1998, premier neuroscientist Christof Koch had wagered prominent philosopher of mind David Chalmers a case of fine wine that within the next 25 years, a specific “signature of consciousness” would be found in the brain. Well, those twenty-five years were up this summer, and philosopher of mind David Chalmers handily won their bet. (When you click on the link, just scroll down and enjoy the video. And no, despite appearances, Dr. Chalmers has not of late become a homeless person.) And, gentleman of his word that he is, Dr. Koch has conceded that he has lost their 25-year-old bet, and in front of a packed theater he recently delivered to Dr. Chalmers six bottles of fine wine. He then doubled down on his failure and reactivated their bet, insisting that by twenty-five years from now, in the summer of 2048, when Dr. Koch will be a sprightly 92 years old, some scientist somewhere will indeed have figured out how the human brain generates consciousness. And Dr. Koch will then gladly claim that future, younger scientist’s victory as his own! But why is figuring out and better understanding consciousness so very hard for scientists, anyway? Well, for one thing, when they seek to define consciousness, they seem always to do it with reference to the human brain. And they continue to do this, even as we approach the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. Raymond Moody’s groundbreaking book, Life After Life, where Dr. Moody defined the term near-death experience. Since 1976, when that book first came out, there have been so many books and videos produced about near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, remote viewing, and verifiable afterlife communications, all various proofs of the simple fact that human consciousness easily exists apart from the human brain. So at this point, to read about the feeble and primitive state of scientists’ understanding of consciousness can make you feel like tearing your hair out. Mainstream Western culture is full of all kinds of evidence of the simple fact that consciousness is a lot more complicated than just something that seems to arise and exist only inside our material heads. So for credentialed scientists to be still as willfully ignorant as so many of them insist on remaining, they have to be covering their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears, dancing from foot to foot, and singing “La La La La!” continuously and loudly, all day and night! Believe it or not, the following amazing piece of retrograde nonsense was copied from a recent article in a reputable popular science magazine: “The orthodox scientific view today is that consciousness is a property of physical matter, an idea we might call physicalism or materialism. But this is by no means a universally held view, and even within physicalism there is little agreement about how consciousness emerges from, or otherwise relates to, physical stuff.” Wow. If you haven’t believed me when I have been telling you that the gatekeepers’ “fundamental scientific dogma of materialism” is still being enforced, perhaps you will believe me now! In fact, the scientific gatekeepers’ bent toward materialism is still being so rigorously enforced that there is as yet no universal scientific consensus about what consciousness even is. Wikipedia tells us that “Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence.” And “today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling, or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness, either continuously changing or not. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.” That last sentence, not italicized in the original, seems to me to be the most crucial point! It seems obvious by now that in fact scientists are not asking the right questions, and moreover they are making what amount to nonsensical assumptions when they discuss and attempt to investigate consciousness. The first and foremost question to be asked and answered as soon as possible is whether the human brain produces consciousness, or whether the brain instead receives consciousness, much as a radio receives a transmitted signal. Given all the very good evidence produced in the past fifty years that an individual human being’s consciousness can function apart from its associated brain, this is an absolutely key question that must be asked by the scientific community, and investigated insofar as that is possible, before very much more research money is spent! And yet, insofar as I can tell, nowhere in the mainstream scientific community has this question ever been asked by anyone. The fact that mainstream science is putting its time, money, energy, and effort into doing research that is all based on the assumption that the human brain produces consciousness is a triumph of hopeless hope in a failed dogma over basic common sense. Let’s look at just four randomly-chosen current articles in popular science magazines about research projects in the area of consciousness: *· The Mind-Body Connection. Here, in an article dated in May of this year, some scientist argues that the reason why we haven’t found the source of our conscious experiences in our brains alone is that our hearts and guts must also play a role. He is insisting now that generating who we are must be a whole-body project. Yes! That’s the ticket! *· Consciousness Must be an Emergent Phenomenon. Just as in physics, for example, some materials exhibit superconductivity in volume, where large numbers of electrons together can move without resistance in ways that one electron or a few cannot, and yet it isn’t always clear why; so some neuroscientists now believe that consciousness seems to emerge from some collective behavior of many neurons working together. More nonsense. ·* Consciousness is Either More or Less Than Sentience. In a confusing article published in November of 2022, a psychologist argues that the phenomenon of children born with hydranencephaly, which is a condition where the brain’s cerebral hemispheres are mostly absent and replaced by sacs filled with cerebrospinal fluid while these children can nevertheless still function, may imply that consciousness is lodged in the brain stem. Or maybe not. * Wakefulness Can be Traced to Specific Clusters of Nerve Cells in the Brain. In what is a relatively modest article published in August of 2023, researchers at Harvard Medical School have mapped how 18 clusters of neurons that were previously found to underlie wakefulness in the brains of mice, rats, and cats also connect to each other in deep regions of the human brain. I chose these articles at random. They were just the four that were recommended below one of the articles that I was copying about Dr. Koch’s and Dr. Chalmers’s 25-year-old bet, and I copied them as well, with the thought that they might be useful later. The fact that they seem so pathetic when we set them out and look at them together was not my deliberate plan! But the fact is that consciousness research at this point is just this modest and just this aimless. Scientists being funded to do consciousness research have got to assume that consciousness arises in the brain somehow, and that it is a product of matter, although they have no idea how that might happen. They do, however, have families to feed, and their only safe option in doing consciousness research at this point is to limit themselves to studying the matter of the brain. As I quoted above from a recent popular science magazine article, “The orthodox scientific view today is that consciousness is a property of physical matter, an idea we might call physicalism or materialism.” So if you are a working research scientist doing consciousness research, you have no option under current rules but to come up with some probably pointless and dead-end idea like one of the four cited above. Your job in fact is just to find some materialist way to run out your entire career-clock. And my suspicion is that it is mainly for the sake of four generations of research scientists since the early twentieth century whose careers have been sacrificed on the altar of materialism that the scientific gatekeepers are so reluctant to make any changes now. And I get that. It is hard to admit that they and their predecessors were wrong for so long, and they guided so many scientists so far astray! But how can they possibly justify their continuing to hold fast to materialism, when it has been proven at this point to be such an obvious dead-end? How many more scientific careers are they going to pointlessly waste? Christof Koch might as well buy his next case of fine wine now and expect to turn it over in 2048, because he is again going to lose his bet. We afterlife researchers will wait for mainstream scientists to open-mindedly do the research before we proclaim this definitively, but we think now that the evidence is pretty strong that Max Planck was right. Consciousness is primary, and it pre-exists matter. Consciousness is both the sculptor and the clay, and in fact we are confident now that nothing else but consciousness exists. And for so long as the scientific gatekeepers continue to treat science, which should be an open-minded search for the truth, as nothing more than an insiders’ battle that they have long been waging with religionist insiders, then all of humankind will continue to be the ultimate losers here. But once the scientific gatekeepers free research scientists to think, and to question, and to learn, and to grow, then at last our future as an intelligent and fully productive species can begin! |
And I know if I’ll only be true to this glorious quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm when I’m laid to my rest.
And the world will be better for this: that one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove with his last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable stars!
– Mitch Leigh (1928-2014) & Joe Darion (1917-2001), from “Man of La Mancha” (1965)