DWQA QuestionsCategory: Non-Local ConsciousnessIncluded in a skeptical article in the collection, The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life after Death, was this VERY interesting reference, “Another recent study compared Theravada Buddhist Monks with lay novices … The authors found far more (brain) activity in the practiced monks than the novices during meditation, noting that the monks were able to dramatically self-regulate the activity of their frontoparietal and left insular areas.” This one statement dramatically undercuts the assertion that the brain controls ALL mental activity and not the other way around. Yet, it was nonchalantly included in an article whose agenda was to (quote) “Argue that the mind is located in the brain in such a way that there is no mental life after brain death … Our conclusion is overwhelmingly supported by neuroscientific evidence.” Yet they inexplicably include a neuroscientific case study that dramatically undercuts that conclusion. What can Creator tell us?
Nicola Staff asked 2 months ago

Unfortunately, your thesis here is not a robust explanation that counters their hypothesis of the brain being the origin of all that happens, and its workings being the origin of the phenomena measured scientifically, whether sensory changes, motor function, or electrical activity in one part of the brain, or changes in blood flow suggesting activation of a part of the brain doing its work while other parts of the brain are quiescent. In this instance, there is a possibility of origination of brain activity elsewhere that could impinge on the area of focus, but still arising from within the brain itself, so this is not a conclusive disproof of their assertion, as you have assumed here, so it is not the best evidence countering their hypothesis of the brain being the “seat of consciousness” and the sole way of experiencing its effects.