Is your brain really necessary?

According to this website, the following is an excerpt from an old issue of Science magazine:

Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had “virtually no brain”. A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy’s skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.

Follow the link for more examples of people with almost no brain who function normally. Unless the website has completely fabricated this story — and I’ve seen corroborating stories on other sites — then we have a huge body of evidence to suggest that consciousness is not simply created by the brain.

And more:

Cases such as these have been cropping up regularly to test the stability of modern medicine, yet are largely disregarded. They undermine established beliefs about the relationship between the human brain and the site of consciousness and so are largely ignored by mainstream medical science. When asked about the impact of his research into hydrocephalus sufferers, Professor Lorber said it had ‘suffered a fate like much of the literature of phenomenological science: it was ignored.’

Like I said, physicalists (those who believe that everything is physical, including consciousness) refuse to acknowledge evidence that doesn’t back up their religion.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Is your brain really necessary?”

  1. Timothy Says:

    Hi my name is Timothy Tang. This is an invitation to view my theory on consciousness at my web site http://www.freewebs.com/consciousnessdecoded

  2. Daniel Says:

    All I can say is that your writing on consciousness doesn’t make any sense at all.

  3. Dan Says:

    Interesting. I could have used this when I summarised Bruce Lipton’s book on epigenetics and how genes are incredibly overrated. Cells can survive without their nuclei, what is commonly perceived to be the brain of the cell.

    I think the problem is in the definition of a brain. It tends to assume something, and then people look for something to fulfill the role they created! It’s all backwards.

  4. Rhisiart Gwilym Says:

    Siwmae Dan,

    The story of the people with virtually no brains, who nevertheless lead normal lives and had often better than average IQs, first surfaced when I was living near Sheffield. I have no exact data now, but I seem to remember it was about forty years ago, and there was at least one TV documentary, and some comment in scientific and other journals. It’s genuine, I think. It surfaced in the early days of MRI scans, when things were being seen that hadn’t been possible before. As far as anything that I saw at the time goes, no-one made much of the obvious, glaring question: “Well, if these people have such small amounts of brain tissue, how do they have such complete mental lives, and where is the source of their consciousness, if not these limited brains?” Such questions were as taboo then to the materialist, reductive paradigm as the are now.

    Cofion gorau, Rhisiart

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: