Curious to know

[Angrboda]

This is just a bare assertion.  In cerebral achromotopsia (color blindness), some patients lose the ability to experience color.  It's not that they simply can't perceive color.  They can no longer remember scenes with color, and they can't imagine a colored object.  This is a result of trauma to the brain which has affected a component of consciousness.  It would seem that a component of consciousness is physically accessible after all.

That we haven't succeeded in localizing consciousness in the brain is not evidence that it cannot be localized and henceforth measured and manipulated as any tangible object can.  All you have is negative evidence and that makes it an argument from ignorance.


More bare assertions.  This again is not evidence that consciousness is intangible.

. . . .
It is obvious that a trauma in or to the brain will affect the consciousness.
When you have a car accident the car get smashed and you also will get hurt.
That is normal as it is normal that a trauma in the brain will affect your consciousness.

More bare assertions.  It is normal that a brain trauma will affect consciousness if that consciousness is a product of the brain.  If consciousness is separate from the brain then you have an event that requires explanation for how it can occur.  Simply declaring that it's normal doesn't explain anything.  You're claiming that a change in the physical affects what you claim is non-physical.  How?  You've offered no mechanism, just the bare assertion that it does.  That's not demonstrating anything, it's just making things up.  I can make up bare assertions all day long, it's meaningless.

The consciousness is stuck inside a body and until this situation persist body-brain-consciousness
will have to experience each other in any situation.

More bare assertions.  Do you have any actual evidence that consciousness is not a product of the brain besides some questionable NDE accounts?

All what external eyes can see is how the brain is affected but the brain is not you.

Do you actually know how to make anything other than an unsupported argument?  I asked you earlier to back up your assertions with evidence and you declined.  It appears the reason you declined is because you can't back up your assertions with evidence.  Again, pointing out that we can't yet 'see' consciousness in the brain is an argument from ignorance.  It's conclusion is simply not reliable, so you've said nothing but a non sequitur.  Your conclusion doesn't follow from what you've provided.  That we can't currently pinpoint consciousness in the brain is not itself evidence that consciousness does not lie in the brain.  It's a false argument.  So once again you've got nothing to back up your claim that consciousness is intangible.