Is Brain a medium or the cause of consciousness?

[Swami]

Western materialism is full of assumptions when it comes to consciousness. The mainstream view is that the brain causes consciousness. This view also says that consciousness is limited to brain in that you can't have one without the other.

In contrast, another view is the brain is a medium for consciousness. This view is compatible with everything in the mainstream except that consciousness is not isolated to the brain. It can exist in other mediums just like software can exist or be transferred to other hardware, even simple hardware.

Why accept the speculative mainstream view over the alternative view?

[Swami]

You've offered nothing. You are the 'Swami' of nothing.

I have mastered different types of experiences that reveal the nature of consciousness. Many, including scientists, want to know about the nature of consciousness and reality. Why do all of my discussions have many views if no one was interested in what I had to say? Since I have what many want, then I am naturally put in the place of a teacher when I have to explain it and get them to experience.

I see that you refuse to show your data and your 'theory' is a mere assertion, not an explanation. Perhaps you still do not understand the plain meaning of my words. So i'll explain.
You write "matter does not exist independent of consciousness." This is not a theory, it is a bare sketch of an assertion. A theory is a set of accepted beliefs or organized principles that explain and guide analysis. Example, the theory of evolution says that organisms develop and change over time by minute genetic changes, with the organisms that survive having changed in ways that best suit their environment; the fit survive, the unfit die out. Your 'theory' is the equivalent of simply stating "I believe in evolution. You've offered no unifying theory, no explanation at all.

Here is my theory: Everything possesses consciousness ranging from simple awareness to higher and complex levels. The arrangement of matter determines the level and types of expressions of consciousness.

There are two reasons why many scientists find this view difficult to accept:
1. Scientists have not discovered the most basic unit or level of consciousness. When discovered, this would show how no complex brain (or a brain at all) is needed for this level and function of consciousness to exist. All that's needed for consciousness is "existence". The most basic state and function of consciousness is to experience or go through existence. We can find the evidence for this by examining our own states of awareness. We can have states of awareness without any mental and bodily input. If people are still in doubt about the bodily input, then imagine what someone in a total locked-in syndrome would experience if they engaged in meditation. And then they were able to recover from their locked-in syndrome to tell us that they were aware all along but couldn't respond in any way. This is no different than a rock that has no mental input nor bodily input and no way of responding to us.

2. Scientists view of consciousness is too humancentric. This problem arises when you associate the mind with consciousness and use that as a sign for consciousness in everything else. For instance, plants are conscious but they have no mind. I don't expect them to express their consciousness in all the same ways as a human. Consider this article that talks about a plants way of "crying":

According to researchers at the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn in Germany, plants release gases that are the equivalent of crying out in pain. Using a laser-powered microphone, researchers have picked up sound waves produced by plants releasing gases when cut or injured. Although not audible to the human ear, the secret voices of plants have revealed that cucumbers scream when they are sick, and flowers whine when their leaves are cut.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ ... l-pain.htm

In my view, Western scientists need to talk about consciousness in more physical terms just like the article above. They need to go beyond the associations with human life if we are to fully understand the "impersonal" aspects of consciousness - these aspects present in all matter.

All you have to do is explain how it is that consciousness is necessary to explain the existence of the hydrogen atom, or a rock or anything. How does that work?

You have to discover that consciousness does not need a brain nor even "life". All of these things are just one of many "mediums" and I have presented the scientific basis for my view.

[Danmark]

You've offered nothing. You are the 'Swami' of nothing.

I have mastered different types of experiences that reveal the nature of consciousness. Many, including scientists, want to know about the nature of consciousness and reality. Why do all of my discussions have many views if no one was interested in what I had to say? Since I have what many want, then I am naturally put in the place of a teacher when I have to explain it and get them to experience.

Yet you have never explained how your claim that rocks (and virtually all objects) have consciousness. You don't even have a theory. You have claims.
People are interested in Mickey Mouse, astrology, and slime molds. People stop and watch carnage on the roadway. Two headed dwarves catch the public's interest. Does the public's interest in spectacle and oddballs mean there is great meaning or validity in either?
If you are the 'master' you claim to be, you should be able to explain your claim that rocks have consciousness. You've been challenged 3 times to demonstrate this. You have failed to do so.

[Swami]

Yet you have never explained how your claim that rocks (and virtually all objects) have consciousness. You don't even have a theory. You have claims.
People are interested in Mickey Mouse, astrology, and slime molds. People stop and watch carnage on the roadway. Two headed dwarves catch the public's interest. Does the public's interest in spectacle and oddballs mean there is great meaning or validity in either?
If you are the 'master' you claim to be, you should be able to explain your claim that rocks have consciousness. You've been challenged 3 times to demonstrate this. You have failed to do so.

I am not asking for everyone to address me as teacher but I would like to be respected as such. If you can not offer this respect then the conversation can not continue.

You came here with questions and yet you seem to also want to play the role of the person who answers. When Western scientists consult Eastern thinkers they don't do so to answer their own questions. They do so because they lack answers when it comes to consciousness. Even someone as brilliant as Einstein was humble enough to consult an Indian mystic on the nature of consciousness and reality. Perhaps you can learn from this dialogue - Albert Einstein and Rabindranath Tagore.

*For the record, I have provided many scientific points to support my view of consciousness.

[Danmark]

Yet you have never explained how your claim that rocks (and virtually all objects) have consciousness. You don't even have a theory. You have claims.
People are interested in Mickey Mouse, astrology, and slime molds. People stop and watch carnage on the roadway. Two headed dwarves catch the public's interest. Does the public's interest in spectacle and oddballs mean there is great meaning or validity in either?
If you are the 'master' you claim to be, you should be able to explain your claim that rocks have consciousness. You've been challenged 3 times to demonstrate this. You have failed to do so.

I am not asking for everyone to address me as teacher but I would like to be respected as such. If you can not offer this respect then the conversation can not continue.

You came here with questions and yet you seem to also want to play the role of the person who answers. When Western scientists consult Eastern thinkers they don't do so to answer their own questions. They do so because they lack answers when it comes to consciousness. Even someone as brilliant as Einstein was humble enough to consult an Indian mystic on the nature of consciousness and reality. Perhaps you can learn from this dialogue - Albert Einstein and Rabindranath Tagore.

*For the record, I have provided many scientific points to support my view of consciousness.

No, you have offered no support except your self serving self aggrandizing claims. You are incorrect in claiming I 'came here with questions.' I questioned your claims, that is a very different thing. And NO, I grant you no authority or respect that is not given to all.

I am not asking for everyone to address me as teacher but I would like to be respected as such.

This is laughably self congratulatory as well as contradictory. You claim you are not asking to be addressed as 'teacher;' then you turn around demand exactly that. This is the opposite of what I would expect from a true teacher, especially one who styles himself as a "swami."