Dhw: If we accept the authenticity of experiences in which people receive information that would be inaccessible to them under normal circumstances, we can only infer either 1) that the brain has unknown physical means of transmitting and receiving electrical impulses beyond its own confines, or 2) that consciousness does NOT depend on the physical brain. Clearly this has a huge bearing on the concepts of "soul" and "afterlife", and is not exactly irrelevant to the concept of "God" (a universal consciousness). 
> 
> TONY: One could also ask why you seem to imply that 1 & 2 are mutually exclusive? To me it seems that there are some fundamental assumptions being made about the nature of the 'soul', 'afterlife', and consciousness.
> 
> Forgive me, but I think you may be suffering from a brand new syndrome which I shall call "assumptive paranoia". I have no idea whether there are such things as soul, afterlife and God, and if there are, I have no idea what they consist of. But I would love to know. In what I'm fully aware is a vain quest to find out, I join together the various dots of information I have, and try to form a pattern with them. This is how we all endeavour to make sense of things. In quoting me, you omitted the introductory "if clause", which makes it clear that I am building on a hypothesis. That, I'm afraid, is all I can do in my speculations.
> -No, not paranoia, just calling it like I see it. The two items you listed are not fundamentally linked, so not mutually exclusive. IF the EM theory is true, yes, the brain could have unknown properties that allow our consciousness to connect with our bodies allowing us to experience a physical existence, and no, the conscious is NOT necessarily dependent on the brain for existence, but possibly only for sensory translation and as an interface with a physical body. -Just a thought. One that also does not imply an impersonal universe.-> 
> TONY: I would posit the following:
> The brain DOES have an unknown, or perhaps known but not understood, method of transmitting and receiving external information, and that consciousness, in the terms of a conscious awareness of the material world as we know it, does in fact rely on the brain to interpret data into the reality that we experience. However, material experience and consciousness as we understand it do not exclusively hold the sole keys of existence, but rather only on the range and form of sensory perception unique to 'living' organisms.
> 
> This whole debate, in which consciousness is one of the key focal points, revolves around whether or not there are forms of being/existence/consciousness beyond those of the material world as we know it. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot for the life of me find a convincing answer either way. By contrast, your last sentence (presumably you omitted the word "rely") is phrased as a definite answer. One might even call it an assumption.-
I am not making an assumption here, but simply positing a possible scenario. My apologies. I should have been more clear.

Sorry if I was unclear there. The idea is that there is no interaction with external EM fields because of the shielding of the cranium and skin. Therefore, the brains internal EM field, which is a supposedly weak field, can not go outside the skull, and weak external fields can not come in. At least that seems to be the professional consensus.-Fair enough, but the EM levels under electric transmission wires can be quite high and I would gather can have an effect.

The general consensus is that it would not shed any light on OBE/NDE's because the skin and cranium act as a fairly good insulator against EM. However, I do recall reading a article on Ancient Egypt in which they would remove a section of a person's skull, or attempt to keep the skull from closing during childhood, in order to maintain or heighten their spiritual senses.-But the brain has its own self-created EM fields, within the skin and skull.


> http://machineslikeus.com/news/brains-em-field-source-human-consciousness
&... http://machineslikeus.com/news/rewrite-textbooks
> http://machineslikeus.com/news/ephaptic-consciousness
> http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13401
> If consciousness resides within a person's electromagnetic field, will this shed any light on such phenomena as OBEs, NDEs, and other apparently extrasensory phenomena? I would be most grateful for a plain explanation of the significance of this new approach.-I don't think you can extrapolate from these early findings to an understanding of consciousness or the near to death phenomena. All electric wires or axons will generate an em field. Logically in evolution the neurons and axons have been affected by the fields and learned to use them. Another proof of life's prodigious complexity.

DAVID: Here is another article that seems to show chimp awareness, but true self-awareness, in an intellectual way, no way!:
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-chimps-self-aware.html-
> We know that animals very different from ourselves reason, communicate, and are sentient. The question is therefore not whether but to what degree they are self-aware, and to what degree they can communicate, reason, feel. You can just as easily ask that question about children: to what degree is a baby, a toddler, an infant, a child "truly" self-aware etc.? -I think the differentiation is a simple one: animals can self-identify. If I call Jack, my poodle, he responds to me. He is aware of himself in the mirror. But he doesn't think more deeply and study the fact that he is aware. He is not aware that he is aware, which is a much deeper level. Chimps are not philosolphical is another way of putting it.
> 
> Underlying David's scepticism (please correct me if I'm wrong) is the belief that the human mind is different in kind from that of other animals, and this in turn ties in with his belief that the history of life from the beginning was geared to God's intention to produce humans.-Simply, yes. 
> I'm sure David does have just such respect. These are general comments which are in no way to be taken personally!-I am very aware of our animalistic evolutionary background. I've been on safari in Africa twice, to shoot animals, by camera. I do not kill animals for pleasure. But yes, if a ferel hog is tearing up my ranch, and then he goes to the BBQ pit. I respect all animals who respect me. For our pleasure and to help them we have bird feeders, ten bluebird houses, a butterfly garden, and feed plots for the deer.

my dog is very bright as a dog, he is conscoius and aware of things he wants to do and things he must do, but he is not aware that he is aware.
> > > 
> > > Is it a leap to say, because I am aware that I am aware, there must be a dual aspect to human consciousness that, as far as we know, isn't found in other beings? 
> 
> The following is a book review of, "The Moral Lives of Animals", in the WSJ. Still 'red in tooth and claw': Real consciousness, no way.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580004576180823900101578.html?KEYWORDS... is another article that seems to show chimp awareness, but true self-awareness, in an intellectual way, no way!:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-chimps-self-aware.html

my dog is very bright as a dog, he is conscoius and aware of things he wants to do and things he must do, but he is not aware that he is aware.
> > 
> > Is it a leap to say, because I am aware that I am aware, there must be a dual aspect to human consciousness that, as far as we know, isn't found in other beings? 
> 
> 
> bBella: Above I am using what I think is the best brief example of consciousness. My dog can never have this disccusion with me (I know he doesn't talk.) My favorite example for animals: the chimps are all sitting on a bench in their habitat at the zoo. The sun is setting and there are glorious shades of red on extraordinary cloud formations. We would comment to each other how marvelous the sunset was. The chimps would say, time for supper.-The following is a book review of, "The Moral Lives of Animals", in the WSJ. Still 'red in tooth and claw': Real consciousness, no way.-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580004576180823900101578.html?KEYWORDS=Stephen+Budiansky


> I think I have a good sense of what you and Matt are suggesting from the free will thread a way back. But my queston is: are any of our conscious thoughts not a result of an incredibly complex cascade of 'reflex' chemical reactions, difusion of ions, discharges of electrons etc?
> 
> >>So are you suggesting that for consciousness there is a critical complexity below which consciousness cannot exist. 
> 
> You did not answer my question David.-Sorry. Yes the brain does exactly that, but how that brain cascade translates into conscious thinking as some type of emergent event, which is really a bunch of words saying nothing, really means we don't know. And it does seem to require a critical level of complexity to make consciousness, and just not being conscious.-It is because of that jump, that we are different in kind, not degree from other primates.

That is very interesting research, but from my medical perspective, they will not learn a whole lot about the human brain and its problems. They will need to get to much bigger brains, where more than just some neurons are used as memristors. As for feedback loops, of course the human brain has them. -I tend to agree, but I suspect they will learn 'stuff' that will turn out to be unexpected. Learning about the brain is no doubt just for benefit of the grant applications.-> Matt and I were suggesting that what you are describing in your laptop are reflex reactions based on very simple circuitry. -I think I have a good sense of what you and Matt are suggesting from the free will thread a way back. But my queston is: are any of our conscious thoughts not a result of an incredibly complex cascade of 'reflex' chemical reactions, difusion of ions, discharges of electrons etc?->>So are you suggesting that for consciousness there is a critical complexity below which consciousness cannot exist. -You did not answer my question David.