What is logic?

[Lucanus]

So what is this "Intuitional Science"? Because to me it only sounds like a bunch of made up assertions. But bear with me for a second.
If something you say is true, you should be able to make predictions based on it, right?
Then, by testing these predictions, you would be able to ascertain the validity of your statement.

Didn't I already explained this point with the iceberg example?
We see the part above the water but we can not see the part below.
Intuitional science is about bringing the part of our consciousness that is below our awareness above.
Above where?
Within our perception so the unconscious mind become conscious mind.
It involve a lot of hard work by practicing yoga.
How do you give validity that this it is true and it works?
Simple. By practicing you get results and these results are the evidence but you can also see the evidence by comparing someone health and spiritual strength.

Still too vague!

What does "the unconscious mind become conscious mind" mean?

How do you define the "unconscious mind"?

How do you determine that only through yoga - that is, through subjective experience - you can understand these deeper, but still objective truths of reality?

So, returning to your argument, if you say that the pineal gland is the seat of consciousness, what should happen - according to your "Intuitional Science" - if the pineal gland were to be removed or damaged?

This is a very interesting question but the answer is very very simple.
If the pineal gland is removed the person may or may not survive.
These days in most cases people survive thanks to clever surgeries.
Consciousness will be affected badly however but she will not go away.
Consciousness only go away or separate from the body when the person die physically speaking.
It will still stay in that part of the brain where the pineal gland was but because the support of the pineal gland is gone the consciousness will not be able to perform like before.

How exactly should consciousness be affected?
From what we see though, it just isn't. People whose pineal gland was removed keep on living a normal life, they just need to take melatonin to compensate the insomnia that derives from the removal of the pineal gland.

Also, how does consciousness interact with the brain if the pineal gland is removed?
It doesn't make a lot of sense - what is the function of the pineal gland if consciousness isn't really affected by its removal? You say that consciousness "stays where the pineal gland was". But if the biological structures that allowed for this supposed brain-consciousness interface aren't there anymore, how does it happen?

First of all, about 50% of the subjects who report NDEs are not clinically dead - in fact, they aren't even close to dying.

That is not true.
If you read the NDEs experiences you will find that people really die physically speaking.

And if you see the actual biological parameters of most of these people you'll see that about 50% of them are suffering only from a minor trauma or shock (such as hypoglycemia) and they are quite far from dying, as reported in the papers that I cited in my last post.

And this still doesn't take out the possibility of the NDE occurring while the patient recovers!

Second of all, it is not at all clear *when* an NDE actually happens! And you cannot rule out the (very mundane, and boring, I get it) possibility that it happens right before the "flat EEG" (if that even happens) or during the patient's recovery from it.

Wrong again Luc.
If you read the NDEs experiences you will see that most people die all of a sudden many times due to serious accidents.
In these cases the EEG get flat immediately and before that these people where fully conscious.

Again, you demonstrate a superficial view of the problem.

If someone has an NDE because of an accident, they clearly are not hooked up to an EEG machine when the injuries occur. So you just cannot know whether their EEG goes flat immediately.

There are no data to point in any direction. Be humble and say you don't know, because in this case, nobody can.

And again, as a side note, you still haven't taken into account the possibility of the NDE occurring during the recovery phase, when the brain "reboots".

Besides, many typical features of NDEs (such as seeing light, being at peace and feeling clear of mind) can actually be attributed to malfunctions in specific areas of the brain such as the locus coeruleus or more generally to hypoxia. And all of this is the results of validated observations and studies, not just guesswork and pats on the back (as this is how you seem to think the scientific community works.)

So... No. NDEs do not prove that consciousness exists independently from the brain. Try again.

Wrong again Luc.
When you have a malfunction in the brain you can not build up a clear, sharp and vivid experience.

This statement is demonstrably false. People who take hallucinogenic drugs (such as LSD or Ketamin) very often report clear sharp and vivid experiences... But those are the experiences of a malfunctioning brain!

And since you seem to imply that the NDEs do not occur in the brain (I assume your explanation is that "consciousness" is out of the body by that time), how does consciousness work without the biological scaffold of the brain?
How does it get "back in" when the patient recovers?
Why is a brain - heck why are living organisms even necessary when consciousness is so clear and self-aware on its own?

NOTA BENE: I'm not saying that it's impossible for consciousness to exist separately from the brain! All I'm saying is that the evidence you are bringing up is not valid and can be explained by a simpler (in the sense that it does not require to define a whole separate new section of reality) materialistic model! Again, if you don't understand something I've said here, PM me and I'll try to be clearer.

Bring it on Luc.
Bring on your evidence if you can.  

But I am not arguing for any specific position! I'm just telling you how your model of reality doesn't work and how there is no good evidence to corroborate it.

I personally am of the opinion that materialistic explanations of the phenomena we see in our daily lives are to be preferred - and should therefore be the default position to take in absence of any evidence for anything.

Why do I think this? Because when we get to a sufficient level of scientific insight on the subject matter, our models work and allow us to progress further in our understanding of reality AND in our quality of life.

And as you can see, it's not like neuroscientists are puzzled and stuck in a problem they can't solve - they are working all these issues out! There are problems, sure, but after all it can be said that they are really doing great considering the complexity of the issues at stake!

Good on them Luc.
Neuroscience is quite good but not good enough to understand how the consciousness works.  

And that is because neuroscientists, unlike gurus or priests or what have you, are not satisfied by superficial, "just-so" explanations to such a complicated phenomenon.

As you can see, your point of view on these things is full of holes and creates a lot more questions than it answers - but you seem to not even be aware of what these questions would be. You seem satisfied by the "just-so" story of consciousness being separated from the brain.

And I'll just say, I'm not sold so easily.