Mostly bizarre.

[Little Rik]

In the meantime can you please provide evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain.  

The bottom line is what is reasonable to believe.

In every example we have ever examined where we could detect consciousness there was a functioning brain with electrical and chemical activity going on.  The measurements of that activity correlates well with the perceived level of consciousness.  In every case where the brain activity ceases there is also a cessation of consciousness.  It is reasonable given all the available evidence to believe that consciousness requires a functioning brain.

The best way to show that that is not the most reasonable conclusion is a demonstrable example of a consciousness that it not associated with a functioning brain.  It might also be done if a plausible mechanism for supporting a consciousness without a brain can be shown to exist.  Neither has been done yet and that means it is unreasonable to believe that consciousness can survive the death of the physical brain.

The time to believe something is when there is evidence for it, not simply that it has not been disproven.

I have already gone several times through the fact that as far as the body is alive the consciousness is there with the body-brain.
That doesn't mean that once the body die also the consciousness goes to the dogs.
Would you die when your vehicle die?
Why should you?
The body is a vehicle not the real you.
Would you say that your car is you?
I understand that you are new here but please try to think twice before you come up with these defective beliefs.  

---

Suppose this material world is a giant mental projection of the creator.
In this case the natural is the creator mind not his creation.

In all case I would waste my time in explaining how the whole system works considering your ingrained  belief in the materialistic world.  

I have sufficient evidence to believe in the physical world.
I have vague, conflicting, and untestable claims for things "outside" the physical world.

Descriptions of any system must not only be sufficient but must also be necessary and that's where all religious claims fail miserably. 

I am open to believing anything for which good evidence can be provided.  Unverifiable speculations have no value.

Is a pity that religions put you on the wrong track.
God didn't start religions so please try not to think that all theists follow religious dogmas.

Evidence come only once you get knowledge.
And knowledge is not something that come easily.
First you got to be interested in something.
After that you got to learn and learn.
Atheism is not the best way to start something as important as the real knowledge.
That kind of knowledge that goes outside the borders of physicality.  

---

How do you like all the new emojis, Rik?

Occasionally people in here ask me why I post in this forum.

Emojis are one of the reason although not the best or more important reason.
This forum has got the best emojis I have ever seen around.
I love them.  

---

Rik, your problem is that you're not properly separating pseudo science from real science.

You read all this nonsense that makes sense to you because you personally want to believe in these magical notions of energy being sentient and vibes being energetically sentient and just a great deal of pseudo scientific poppycock.  

Guaranteed, there is not a single reputable scientist who agrees with these notions you post.

What you need Kit is some knowledge before you come down with these defective beliefs.
There are tons and tons of information on the net.
Go and get this knowledge so after we can talk about it.  

https://healingearth.info/consciousness-...ciousness/