Consciousness existing independent of the brain is a definite possibility
Absent of any evidence or investigation, arguably yes.
... and there is enough evidence in the form of recalled experiences of death.
As has been repeatedly explained, there is no 'recalled experience of death' - no-one who has died has come back to talk about it, because if they've come back they haven't died. There are people who have undergone significant biological trauma, in various ways, and there are patterns to their recounts of their experiences, yes: it's not clear, however, if these are indicative of some sort of clarity about notional non-corporeal elements to consciousness, or indicative of common patterns of neural activity in stressful conditions. The existence of accounts of similar experiences in different circumstances speaks against the 'proximity to non-corporeal consciousness' interpretation, but it's not absolutely definitive.
There are also other reasons to believe that besides RED's.
Here we go...
The brain did not create itself.
Why would that be a requirement? My body didn't create itself (well, actually, the body I have
now was self-created, but the body I was born with was created by someone else... sort of...), but it's definitely my body, and you don't seem to be suggesting that there's a 'ghost' part out there somewhere which is necessary for my body to exist.
The brain does not function independently of the total human anatomy and physiology.
And given the evidence available, neither does my consciousness - that's a point in favour of the corporeal source of consciousness argument, not against it. The crux of the failure of this argument, so far as I can see, is in this: "...there has to be an agency independent of the system that decides its role in the system."
Why? Why does my consciousness have to come from somewhere else? If I turn on a light-bulb, the light doesn't come from somewhere else and become manifested by the bulb, it originates in the bulb. It's caused by other phenomena (electricity, energy changes in electrons etc.), but the light comes from the bulb. It's a result of prior conditions, but it emerges from that entirely physical structure - why is the pattern of behaviour that we identify as 'consciousness' different from that?
Our emotions are not generated by the brain.
As you already pointed out, our brains don't exist in isolation; that they are influence by our bodies is already accepted - that in no way undermines the notion of consciousness, it informs it. If consciousness were independent of the brain, or partially independent of the brain, we'd expect that emotional impact to be lessened, presumably.
We are not born with a complete and fully developed brain.
In the absence of any evident feedback mechanism, if our consciousness is informed from outside of the body, how would experience change it? Our consciousness would simply be? You're presumably considering that the 'soul' is, and the changes in our brain structure as a result of experience influence how that 'soul' is interpreted or manifested? That makes the soul less of an element of our consciousness and more some kind of power-source - an animating power, but not in any meaningful way a part of consciousnesss.
Even in day to day experience we can see that when we practice something our skills in those areas grow and develop... These instances show that the brain does not decide our abilities and skills, rather, our experiences and training decide how the brain should be internally connected and developed.
I can't lift 150 kg. I train, I build muscle, and now I can lift 150kg. Your theory is that this is because I have a ghost, and not because I've changed my physique? The brain is an organ, and as it is used it changes to accommodate that use; I learn things, and those things are now available to my consciousness because I learnt them. That displays EXACTLY that our brain decides our abilities - it also shows that if we want to change those abilities we have to change our brain, we have to train, we have to learn. Nothing in that precludes a corporeal source of consciousness - if there were non-corporeal source or influence on consciousness we'd expect to see instances of changes in consciousness without accompanying changes in brain activity. I'm curious to see if you have any evidence of that?
Usually, specific areas of the brain have specific fixed functions, such as language skills, abstract thinking, mathematics and so on. This remains largely true under normal circumstances.
However, in recent times there have been some notable exceptions. Some people who have been involved in major accidents or had severe brain infections or tumors, have had significant parts of their brain removed.
If you can show examples of people manifesting these traits WITHOUT clear evidence of parts of the brain adapting to host them, that will be evidence for your non-corporeal consciousness theory - if every example you cite is this brain works differently but it's still a brain, you're reinforcing the brain being the seat of consciousness, not undermining it.
The process through which our consciousness actually experiences things is still not understood by neuroscientists. The issue of qualia and consciousness is still unresolved among neuroscientists and psychologists
Current science doesn't have a full explanation, therefore magic. Not even wrong.
Genetic memory has been proved in many cases where trans generational memory transfers have been identified. Epigenetic mechanisms have been found through which memories of experiences can be passed on through genes from one generation to the next.
What's the next step down from not even wrong? Not even wronger? Notter even wrong? Firstly, and most importantly, that's a misuse of 'epigenetic' that borders on criminal. 'Genetic memory' has in no way been proven - it's been alleged in a few cases, and thoroughly debunked in the majority of those. People 'remembering' past lives is at best fringe science, most of the time not even that, and is so far away from proven it's likely to be Trump's next presidential immunity claim - I have presidential immunity from before I was president because I remember one of my ancestors being president.
While epigenetic effects are a demonstrable phenomenon, and whilst they are considered to include elements that affect brain function, and therefore character traits, there is absolutely no credible evidence that they pass on 'memories' - I think you've watched 'Assassin's Creed' and mistakenly thought it was a documentary.
It was earlier thought that people who go into coma and remain in a vegetative state for several months and years (even decades), are in a state of unconsciousness and oblivion, because most of their brain functions had ceased.
However, it has now been found with very sophisticated brain scan techniques that such people are actually conscious and are even able to communicate indirectly.
This just undermines your claim that 'near death' experiences have to be the result of some external 'soul' which is predicated on the idea that brain function ceases - turns out it can diminish...
In rare cases, people have been born with virtually no brain at all but have been known to live productively almost like normal people. In such cases, the fact that the person virtually had no brain, was not even known till a CT scan was taken for other reasons, many years later.
Whether you think the brain produces consciousness or the brain conducts consciousness from somewhere else, this (admitttedly spectacularly intriguing) fact doesn't speak for or against either theory - whether it's half a 'computer' or half an 'antenna' doesn't speak to one idea or the other.
Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) or Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) as it is now called, is a very common phenomenon in some countries. Normally called ‘split personality’….this disorder involves a person having two or more personalities in the same body with every personality being very different from the other.
A few minor points before we address the argument: firstly, DID is not 'very common' anywhere; secondly, not all the personalitie in DID are very distinct, there is often a high degree of commonality between them, and the truly divergent characters are either exceedingly rare, or exist as the end-points of a spectrum of intermediate personalities. ("The average number of different personalities noted in such patients is said to be 16." - I'd be very interested to see where you got this figure from. Wikipedia's article on DID, for instance, cites that over half of cases present with fewer than 10 personalities, with the majority having fewer than 100).
The majority of DID cases are identified in mid- to late-childhood, with identification of symptoms typically having started between the ages of 5 and 10, which suggests this is in some way developmental - which implies a physical source given the lack of any apparent feedback mechanism to a non-corporeal consciousness element.
For example, it was found in a boy that during the presence of one particular alter personality, he developed an allergy to orange juice which did not happen when the other personalities were present. In some cases, skin rashes would appear spontaneously whenever one particular alter personality was dominant but would disappear automatically when the other alter personalities were dominant.
You cited, earlier, that the brain and the body are intrinsically interconnected, and yet it seems a surprise to you that as much as 'bodily' activity can affect 'brain output' is obvious, 'brain activity' can affect 'body output' is a miraculous? That some parts of our autonomous systems are controlled and/or influence by brain activity shouldn't really be a stretch: when we get scared we suddenly produce large quantities of adrenaline, but it's not our kidneys that are feeling scared.
Further, though, what's the part of DID that you think promotes a non-corporeal explanation for consciousness? Are you suggesting some people have multiple souls attached to them? Why would that only start after birth, after personality has started to develop, what are these wandering souls doing for the rest of the time? If that's not the explanation, why do multiple non-corporeal personalities make more sense than multiple brain-resident personalities when we can see the brain activity changes? Why do the differences in bodily behaviour (like your allergy example) mean that a non-corporeal source is more likely, given that it still has to change the brain activity on the way through - at best it does nothing to add to your claim.
Researchers have found that psychosis (madness) can be shared by two or more people. This is called Folie a deux (French for ‘madness shared by two’). The psychosis can be shared by family members or even other people, called folie en famille and folie à plusieurs respectively.
Given that we've already established, above, that we can learn and change and that's in no way a validation of your claims, this is just a specific iteration of that failed general argument.
Which then brings us back to the NDE argument, which is fairly thoroughly countered in numerous different ways through this thread.
You have no definitive proof that consciousness is only brain generated.
True. However, we have strong evidence that conciousness and brain activity are at least heavily intertwined, and we have models of consciousness which work and don't require additional elements.
You have no strong evidence for any non-corporeal element of consciousness, no strong evidence for any brain activity which is not a result of other physical phenomena and a raft of misunderstanding, non-sequitur's, irrelevancies and pleas to tradition.
Science is rarely definitive, but I don't see mainstream science out looking for 'souls' that it can't find in the way that it was out looking for Higgs' Boson - it might, in the future, if we get surprised by current research finding something inexplicable, but that's not currently looking likely.
O.
