I'm assuming he's talking about the idea of consciousness not just dissapearing because energy can't be created or destroyed

The brain is

And the brain is the source of consciousness

The brain isnt consciousness

A brain alone isnt conscious

No it does other things as well

But consciousness exists in the brain alone

Youre missing a whole aspect of essence that has been debated for centuries

Which is?

Not really actually, it exists in the perceptions of individual cells too

Not in the nucleus, but in the membrane

Essence is the topic thats debated on, whether it be in platos conception or sartes

Regardless the idea that consciousness only exists in the brain is not supported

I should say, I'm saying that I don't think his argument is valid because what I'm saying is just as possibly true

In regards to what I think the fact of the matter is I have no idea is my honest answer

The idea that consciousness dissolves into more fundamental particles like a brain dissolves into nutrients is a basic ommition of the fact that the brain doesnt just magically dissolve

The brain would only decay because of other life forms feeding on it

What life form feeds on conciousness?

Unless it is a permanent aspect of existence

<:smugpepe:619749634402942998>

You're assuming consciousness can't be a natural function of the brain

And has to be supernatural in some way

No, thats what YOURE assuming

You are assuming that it IS

Im saying its inconclusive

I think it's inconclusive as well, I think what your saying is valid but I also think my point is equally valid, which is why you can't say "my study of science proves to me life after death" because no one understands consciousness, really

Well, you said his argument is faulty while also identifying no fault

The dudes a nazi, first nasa director

But he had a grip on this one aspect

I said his argument is faulty by pointing out an obvious counterpoint

Your counterpoint is just as invalid

Also, science isnt built to understand mystical experiences or consciousness

Science wants to know WHY something works, mysticism wants to know HOW

They diverged from each other following the development of the scientific method

Well some would argue when they diverged

But anyway, the equivalent to a scientist studying consciousness is: monks, gurus, etc

You don't think science could understand consciousness?

I dont think its anywhere close right now, but maybe it could in the future

Same

They already created a procedure to test astral projection and remote viewing

Really?