Unlimited Consciousness

"Ogan: Thank you so much for your reply, it is truly an honour to debate with you." Why thank you sir, it has been an interesting debate. Frustrating as well as the the subject matter is by definition so subjective and personal. My opponent states that, "Ogan: Surely you mean evidence of the correlation between lower mental activity and the brain can be observed? Even over a century ago and still true today, Martineau answers: "The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite thought and a molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously; we do not possess the intellectual organ nor apparently any rudiments of the organ, which would enable us to pass by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear together, but we do not know why. Were our minds and senses so expanded, strengthened and illuminated, as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the brain; were we capable of following all their motions, all their groupings, all their electric discharges, if such there be; (which science now knows them to be – my words) and were we intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the problem, 'How are these physical processes connected with the facts of consciousness?' The chasm between the two classes of phenomena would still remain intellectually impassable." I do actually agree with my opponent on this, the correlation between brain activity and some functions of consciousness is clear, the sticking point is this true or higher state of consciousness, what it is, how can it be detected, does it exist at all. It is these questions that my opponent has not fully adddressed. Until he does so I will argue that all evidence indicates that consciousness is a physical phenomana. We only have evidence that it is a function of brain activity, we have no evidence (that can be presented) that their exists any state outside or beyond that. "Ogan: True Consciousness is not a concept but is its own evidence to those who Awaken. Reality is only a realisation of the senses. True Consciousness is the awakening to Actuality." In which case my opponent may not successfully present it in a debate such as this. I am not 'awakened', no evidence has been shown that anyone has been 'awakened'. My opponent can not demonstrate by logic or publically observed evidence that there is such a thing as True Consciousness. "And therefore, the evidence received by many recipients cannot be communicated from one to another, but some of the more important evidence given to skilled Doctors regarding NDE may be of assistance… should one wish to research." Near death experiences are a fascinating phenomana, and could potentially offer evidence for True Consciousness. However many of the reports can be explained away. The visions of heaven or hell could just be halluncinations, the memory of conversations in the operating theatre can be explained away by the fact that the unconcious patient still heard them. Much in the way that a person's dreams may be influenced by the output of a TV they left on in the room. "Ogan: I repeat: only that individual who experiences such a thing KNOWS it as it is, and therefore gains direct evidence! And there are many such individuals!" If such direct evidence of the experience, or the 'credentials' of the individual can not be recreated and observed by myself and the voters than my opponent has failed to make a sufficient case. "Ogan: I agree that no proof can be communicated regarding that actual Conscious state to anyone, whether in a debate or not; but there is important evidence given by many NDE subjects. One I recommend is Dr. Kenneth Ring's NDE Research of the Blind "People Born Blind Can See During a NDE". Patients born blind who had this NDE are then able to understand all concepts of light, colour and perspective which others born blind could never do." This is an utterly fascinating point with respect I feel that my opponent should have offered this earlier, with the support of a link. The brain is naturally set up to understand and interpret light, perspective can be intelluctually understood. Therefore someone born blind could in theory experience both when halluncinating or experiencing a NDE. In addition such experiences are personal, to what extent are they experiencing visuality, are their recollections coloured by interview bias. With respect to Dr Ring, he is not merely a researcher into NDE's, but a believer that they are spiritual experiences. It is difficult for third parties to verify his research. "In summary: True Consciousness of our actual Individuality cannot be known by a process of reason, brain or senses, but can be fully experienced by those able or ready to receive it. That this Knowledge or Revelation cannot be communicated from one to another but must indeed be experienced. I would go further and state all units of true Consciousness form as a unity an unknown ASPECT of God's Mind. Therefore, the Kingdom of God is WITHIN You!" My opponent position is a difficult, or indeed impossible one to present in any argument. I am not convinced he has met the burden of proof. Therefore I urge a vote for CON, but look forward to future debates with my opponent. Thank you.