The brain

[Angrboda]

Now if only you had some evidence that this is the case, then you might have something.

That's what the articles in the OP were about. To show that the brain is indeed a transmitter and receiver, which lends it'self to the idea that "we" are not our bodies, but our bodies are avatars in a different world/realm.

You didn't post any 'articles' in the OP. You posted a google search and a YouTube video. Normally, I don't even respond to the posting of google searches as they are essentially a dishonest form of debate, basically the internet version of the Gish gallop in which a person presents a torrent of claims with the implication that if the other person doesn't answer them all, the first person has prevailed. Obviously that's just nonsense. In this case, however, I did take the time to go over the first page of links, and there was not one link that provided any evidence supporting your hypothesis. So you are multiply wrong on that score, and should be ashamed of appealing to such shoddy tactics. As for your YouTube video, that has already been responded to in-depth with much the same result. If you will actually present articles detailing evidence for the brain as receiver hypothesis, I'll be happy to consider them. However, posting a google search is just complete bullshit. Doubly so when the search you post doesn't even support your point.

If that were true then would it not change the way we looked at life and death?

Indeed it would. If there were good evidence of the brain as receiver hypothesis, it would be earth-shattering. Unfortunately, no such earth-shattering evidence has been presented.

No it doesn't.

yahuh.. Kinda already proved that point beyond contestation and moved on. (lest you change the definition of the word transmitter and receiver.)

Again the only question is how far distance wise, or even transdimensional will these signals go. (that is the only point you can argue here.) Because In any event the brain does indeed transmit and receives electrical signals according to the definitions of those words. if you want proof go back and look at some of the back and fourth "jorgie" and I had.

Yes, there was a back and forth, which lead to the following point, which you never answered. As long as that point stands, all your talk about the brain being a transmitter and receiver is irrelevant because the kinds of transmission and reception which you have documented does basically nothing to support your hypothesis.

Your original post framed the debate with the following contention:

In short the brain is not the host or contains consciousness. that the brain is a simple receiver of memory and consciousness. nothing is stored in the brain it is mearly a relay point breaking down our sensor experience and transmitting it to our consciousness and vise versa..

Now it is true that the brain receives and emits electrical or electromagnetic signals, but that is not what is at issue here. The issue is not does it transmit and receive signals, but does it transmit and receive signals in the specific way required by the brain as receiver hypothesis? Since the brain could well transmit and receive the signals you've demonstrated without that hypothesis being true, the truth of your latest claims does not do much to support your hypothesis about consciousness.