The brain

[Angrboda]

First of all, his analogy is wrong.  No examination of the circuitry of a television leads us to conclude that the television is the source of the signal, so he's simply wrong in trying to draw a parallel there.  So, no, we don't need to draw upon additional evidence in the case of the brain because we haven't concluded that the television is the source of the signal.  His analogy is invalid, therefore his conclusions based on that analogy do not hold.  Beyond that, his entire spiel is basically one long argument from ignorance.  Science can't explain it, therefore God!  We have good evidence that consciousness and the brain are related.  Whether you find that evidence compelling or not is a matter of opinion.  

Really?  Gary Schwartz?  You have gone full troll on us, Drich.

I and a whole crap load of other scientist disagree including tesla edison and einstein.. I know those guys are all old but the proof is in the puddn' jerogie..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7bu26pp2Zs

Now from an engineering perspective no other 'proof is needed.' 

IF ifact this kid can control this car by wearing a head set designed to pick up externally transmitted brain activity the your argument is moot.

Do I really need to explain any further?

If the brain is self contained then why does it transmit electrical commands through the skull?

The fact that you are ware of your 5 senses/6 means the brain also receives electrical activity.

Again argument over from an engineering perspective. the concept is proofed by our tactile senses, and the neural transmission of electrical signals that control a car by no internal connection but the picking up of neural waved transmitted by the brain through the skull into the neural receiver simply worn by the kid controlling the car.

Is it possible that the brain is receiving signals remotely? Sure, it's possible. The question is not what is possible, but rather what is there evidence for? Your primary complaint here seems to be that atheists haven't examined the evidence and rejected it, but rather are operating from a kneejerk, faith-based opinion without examining the evidence. As pointed out above, your thread does not in any sense demonstrate that. Are there some scientists who believe that the brain may be a receiver of signals rather than a generator? Sure, but so what? First, they are a minority, and they do not in any sense represent the current consensus of science as a whole. Second, if you accept them as authorities independent of a critical examination of their evidence, then you are yourself engaging in the same kneejerk, faith-based type of opinion as the one which you think you are criticizing. Beyond that, I don't see the point of your latest post, nor of your video. No one here is disputing the existence of natural phenomena such as electrical signals, the electrical nature of the nervous system, or the fact that one can use electrical signals to remotely control things. That however is not the issue, but rather whether our brains are being remotely controlled by some sort of signal. Your last post didn't address that at all.