The brain is TV. Soul - TV station

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

If you ask an atheist what the soul is, he will most likely answer that it is “the inner, mental world of a person, his consciousness” (SI Ozhegov “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language”). And now compare this definition with the opinion of a believer (we open for this the "Dictionary of the Russian language" by V. Dahl): "The soul is an immortal spiritual being, endowed with reason and will."

According to the first, the soul is consciousness, which, by default, is the product of the human brain. According to the second, the soul is not a derivative of the human brain, but in itself a "brain", it is itself a mind, and incomparably more powerful and, moreover, immortal. Which one is right?

To answer this question, let's use only facts and sound logic - what people of materialistic views believe.

Let's start by asking if the soul is a product of the brain. According to science, the brain is the central control point for a person: it perceives and processes information from the surrounding world, and it also decides how a person should act in a particular case. And everything else for the brain - arms, legs, eyes, ears, stomach, heart - is something like a spacesuit that provides the central nervous system. Disconnect a person's brain - and consider that there is no person. A creature with a disabled brain can be called a vegetable rather than a person. For the brain is consciousness (and all mental processes), and consciousness is a screen through which a person cognizes himself and the world around him. Turn off the screen - what will you see? Nothing but darkness. However, there are facts that refute this theory.

In 1940, the Bolivian neurosurgeon Augustin Iturrica, speaking at the Anthropological Society in Sucre (Bolivia), made a sensational statement: according to him, he witnessed that a person can retain all signs of consciousness and sound mind, being deprived of an organ, which for them directly and answers. Namely, the brain.

Iturrica, together with his colleague Dr. Ortiz, studied the medical history of a 14-year-old boy who complained of a headache for a long time. The doctors did not find any deviations either in the analyzes or in the patient's behavior, so the source of the headaches was never identified until the boy's death. After his death, the surgeons opened the deceased's skull and were numb from what they saw: the cerebral mass was completely separated from the inner cavity of the cranium! That is, the boy's brain was in no way connected with his nervous system and "lived" by itself. The question is, what then did the deceased think if his brain, figuratively speaking, “was on indefinite leave”?

Another famous scientist, German Professor Hoofland, talks about an unusual case from his practice. Once he performed a posthumous dissection of the cranium of a patient who suffered paralysis shortly before his death. Until the very last minute, this patient retained all mental and physical abilities. The autopsy result confused the professor, because instead of a brain in the deceased's skull … about 300 grams of water was found!

A similar story happened in 1976 in the Netherlands. Pathologists, having opened the skull of 55-year-old Dutchman Jan Gerling, found only a small amount of a whitish liquid instead of a brain. When the relatives of the deceased were informed about this, they were outraged and even went to court, considering the doctors' "joke" not only stupid, but also offensive, since Jan Gerling was one of the best watchmakers in the country! The doctors, in order to avoid a lawsuit, had to show their relatives "evidence" of their innocence, after which they calmed down. However, this story got into the press and became the main topic of discussion for almost a month.

Strange denture story

The hypothesis that consciousness can exist independently of the brain was confirmed by Dutch physiologists. In December 2001, Dr. Pim Van Lommel and two other colleagues conducted a large-scale study of near-death survivors. In the article "Near-fatal experiences of survivors of cardiac arrest" published in the British medical journal The Lancet, Wam Lommel talks about an "incredible" case that one of his colleagues recorded.

“The patient, who was in a coma, was taken to the intensive care unit of the clinic. The revitalization activities were unsuccessful. The brain died, the encephalogram was a straight line. We decided to use intubation (introduction of a tube into the larynx and trachea for artificial ventilation and restoration of airway patency. - A. K.). The victim had a denture in his mouth. The doctor took it out and put it on the table. An hour and a half later, the patient's heart began to beat and his blood pressure returned to normal. And a week later, when the same employee was delivering medicines to the sick, the man who returned from the other world told her: “You know where my prosthesis is! You took my teeth out and stuck them in a drawer of a table on wheels!"

During a thorough questioning, it turned out that the victim was watching himself from above, lying on the bed. He described in detail the ward and the actions of the doctors at the time of his death. The man was very afraid that the doctors would stop reviving, and with all his might he wanted to make it clear to them that he was alive …"

To avoid reproaches for the lack of purity of their research, scientists have carefully studied all the factors that can influence the stories of the victims. All cases of so-called false memories (situations when a person, having heard stories about posthumous visions from others, suddenly "recalls" what he himself had never experienced), religious fanaticism and other similar cases were taken out of the reporting framework. Summarizing the experience of 509 clinical deaths, the scientists came to the following conclusions:

1. All the subjects were mentally healthy. These were men and women from 26 to 92 years old, with different levels of education, believing and not believing in God. Some have heard of the "near-death experience" before, others have not.

2. All posthumous visions in humans occurred during the period of suspension of the brain.

3. Posthumous visions cannot be explained by oxygen deficiency in the cells of the central nervous system.

4. The depth of the "near-death experience" is greatly influenced by the sex and age of the person. Women tend to feel more intense than men.

5. The posthumous visions of the blind from birth do not differ from the impressions of the sighted.

In the final part of the article, the head of the study, Dr. Pim Van Lommel, makes completely sensational statements. He says that "consciousness exists even after the brain has ceased to function," and that "the brain is not thinking matter at all, but an organ, like any other, performing strictly defined functions." “It is very possible,” the scientist concludes his article, “thinking matter does not even exist in principle.”

Is the brain incapable of thinking?

British researchers Peter Fenwick from the London Institute of Psychiatry and Sam Parnia from Southampton Central Hospital came to similar conclusions. Scientists examined patients who came back to life after the so-called "clinical death".

As you know, after a cardiac arrest, due to the cessation of blood circulation and, accordingly, the supply of oxygen and nutrients, a person's brain is "turned off". And since the brain is turned off, then consciousness should also disappear with it. However, this does not happen. Why?

Perhaps some part of the brain continues to work, despite the fact that the sensitive equipment records the complete calm. But at the moment of clinical death, many people feel how they "fly out" of their body and hover over it. Hanging about half a meter above their bodies, they clearly see and hear what the doctors who are nearby are doing and saying. How can this be explained?

Suppose this can be explained by "inconsistency in the work of the nerve centers that control visual and tactile sensations, as well as a sense of balance." Or, to put it more clearly, - hallucinations of the brain, experiencing an acute oxygen deficiency and therefore "giving out" such tricks. But, here's the bad luck: as British scientists testify, some of those who experienced "clinical death", after regaining consciousness, exactly retell the content of the conversations that the medical staff had during the resuscitation process. Moreover, some of them gave a detailed and accurate description of the events that took place in this time period in the neighboring rooms, where the “fantasy” and hallucinations of the brain just cannot get there! Or, perhaps, these irresponsible "incoherent nerve centers responsible for visual and tactile sensations", temporarily left without central control, decided to stroll through the hospital corridors and wards?

Dr. Sam Parnia, explaining the reason why patients who have experienced clinical death could know, hear and see what is happening on the other side of the hospital, says: “The brain, like any other organ in the human body, is made of cells and is not able to think. However, it can function as a thought-detecting device. During clinical death, the consciousness acting independently of the brain uses it as a screen. Like a television receiver, which first receives the waves entering it, and then converts them into sound and image. " Peter Fenwick, his colleague, makes an even bolder conclusion: "Consciousness may well continue to exist after the physical death of the body."

Pay attention to two important conclusions - "the brain is not able to think" and "consciousness can live even after the death of the body." If any philosopher or poet said this, then, as they say, what can you take from him - a person is far from the world of exact sciences and formulations! But these words were spoken by two highly respected scientists in Europe. And their voices are not the only ones.

John Eccles, the leading modern neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate in medicine, also believes that the psyche is not a function of the brain. Together with fellow neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, who has performed over 10,000 brain surgeries, Eccles wrote The Mystery of Man. In it, the authors declare in plain text that they "have no doubt that a person is controlled by SOMETHING outside of his body." Professor Eccles writes: “I can experimentally confirm that the workings of consciousness cannot be explained by the functioning of the brain. Consciousness exists independently of it from the outside. " In his opinion, "consciousness cannot be the subject of scientific research … The emergence of consciousness, as well as the emergence of life, is the highest religious secret."

Another author of the book, Wilder Penfield, shares Eccles' opinion. And he adds to what has been said that as a result of many years of studying the activity of the brain, he came to the conviction that "the energy of the mind is different from the energy of the brain's neural impulses."

Two more Nobel Prize winners, neurophysiology laureates David Hubel and Thorsten Wiesel have repeatedly stated in their speeches and scientific works that “in order to be able to assert the connection between the brain and Consciousness, you need to understand that it reads and decodes information that comes from the senses”. However, as scientists emphasize, "it is impossible to do it."

“I have operated on the brain a lot and, opening the cranium, never saw the mind there. And conscience too …"

And what do our scientists say about this? Alexander Ivanovich Vvedensky, psychologist and philosopher, professor of St. Petersburg University, in his work "Psychology without any metaphysics" (1914) wrote that "the role of the psyche in the system of material processes of regulation of behavior is absolutely elusive and not there is no conceivable bridge between the activity of the brain and the field of psychic or mental phenomena, including Consciousness."

Nikolai Ivanovich Kobozev (1903-1974), a prominent Soviet chemist, professor at Moscow State University, in his monograph Vremya says things that are completely seditious for his militant atheistic time. For example, such: "neither cells, nor molecules, nor even atoms can be responsible for the processes of thinking and memory"; “The human mind cannot be the result of the evolutionary transformation of the functions of information into the function of thinking. This last ability must be given to us, and not acquired in the course of development”; “The act of death is the separation of a temporary“tangle”of personality from the flow of current time. This tangle is potentially immortal … ".

Another authoritative and respected name is Valentin Feliksovich Voino-Yasenetsky (1877-1961), an outstanding surgeon, doctor of medical sciences, spiritual writer and archbishop. In 1921, in Tashkent, where Voino-Yasenetsky worked as a surgeon, while being a clergyman, the local Cheka organized a "case of doctors." One of the surgeon's colleagues, Professor S. A. Masumov, recalls the following about the trial:

“Then at the head of the Tashkent Cheka was the Latvian J. H. Peters, who decided to make the trial indicative. The superbly conceived and orchestrated performance went down the drain when the presiding officer summoned Professor Voino-Yasenetsky as an expert:

- Tell me, priest and professor Yasenetsky-Voino, how do you pray at night and slaughter people during the day?

In fact, the holy Confessor-Patriarch Tikhon, having learned that Professor Voino-Yasenetsky had accepted the priesthood, blessed him to continue to engage in surgery. Father Valentine did not explain anything to Peters, but replied:

- I cut people to save them, but in the name of what are you cutting people, citizen public prosecutor?

The audience greeted a successful response with laughter and applause. All sympathy was now on the side of the priest-surgeon. Both workers and doctors applauded him. The next question, according to Peters's calculations, was supposed to change the mood of the working audience:

- How do you believe in God, priest and professor Yasenetsky-Voino? Have you seen him, your God?

- I really have not seen God, citizen public prosecutor. But I have operated on the brain a lot, and when I opened the cranium, I never saw the mind there either. And I didn't find any conscience there either.

The chairman's bell sank into the laughter of the whole hall that did not stop for a long time. "Doctors' case" failed miserably."

Valentin Feliksovich knew what he was talking about. Several tens of thousands of operations performed by him, including those on the brain, convinced him that the brain is not a receptacle for the mind and conscience of a person. For the first time such a thought came to him in his youth, when he … looked at ants.

It is known that ants do not have a brain, but no one will say that they are devoid of intelligence. Ants solve complex engineering and social problems - to build housing, build a multi-level social hierarchy, raise young ants, preserve food, protect their territory, and so on. "In the wars of ants that do not have a brain, intentionality is clearly revealed, and therefore rationality, which does not differ in any way from a human," notes Voino-Yasenetsky. Really, in order to be aware of yourself and behave rationally, the brain is not required at all?

Later, having already behind him many years of experience as a surgeon, Valentin Feliksovich repeatedly observed confirmation of his guesses. In one of the books he tells about one of such cases: “I opened a huge abscess (about 50 cm³ of pus) in a young wounded man, which undoubtedly destroyed the entire left frontal lobe, and I did not observe any mental defects after this operation. I can say the same about another patient who was operated on for a huge cyst of the meninges. With a wide opening of the skull, I was surprised to see that almost all of the right half of it was empty, and the entire left hemisphere of the brain was compressed, almost impossible to distinguish it.

In his last, autobiographical book “I fell in love with suffering …” (1957), which Valentin Feliksovich did not write, but dictated (in 1955 he became completely blind), it is no longer the assumptions of a young researcher, but the convictions of an experienced and wise scientist-practitioner sound: one."The brain is not an organ of thought and feeling"; and 2. "The spirit goes beyond the brain, determining its activity, and all of our being, when the brain works as a transmitter, receiving signals and transmitting them to the organs of the body."

"There is something in the body that can separate from it and even outlive the person himself."

And now let's turn to the opinion of a person directly involved in the study of the brain - a neurophysiologist, academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Russian Federation, director of the Scientific Research Institute of the Brain (RAMS of the Russian Federation), Natalya Petrovna Bekhtereva:

“The hypothesis that the human brain only perceives thoughts from somewhere outside, I first heard from the lips of the Nobel laureate, Professor John Eccles. Of course, then it seemed absurd to me. But then research carried out in our St. Petersburg Research Institute of the Brain confirmed that we cannot explain the mechanics of the creative process. The brain can generate only the simplest thoughts, such as how to turn the pages of a book you are reading or stir up sugar in a glass. And the creative process is a manifestation of a completely new quality. As a believer, I admit the participation of the Almighty in the management of the thought process."

When Natalya Petrovna was asked whether she, a recent communist and atheist, on the basis of many years of results of the work of the brain institute, can recognize the existence of the soul, she, as befits a real scientist, quite sincerely answered:

“I cannot help but believe what I have heard and seen myself. A scientist has no right to reject facts just because they do not fit into dogma, worldview … All my life I have studied the living human brain. And just like everyone else, including people of other specialties, I inevitably came across "strange phenomena" … Much can be explained already now. But not all … I do not want to pretend that this does not exist … The general conclusion of our materials: a certain percentage of people continue to exist in a different form, in the form of something separating from the body, which I would not want to give a different definition than “soul". Indeed, there is something in the body that can separate from it and even outlive the person himself."

And here is another authoritative opinion. Academician Pyotr Kuzmich Anokhin, the greatest physiologist of the 20th century, author of 6 monographs and 250 scientific articles, writes in one of his works: part of the brain. If, in principle, we cannot understand how the mental arises as a result of the activity of the brain, then is it not more logical to think that the psyche is not in its essence a function of the brain, but is a manifestation of some other - immaterial spiritual forces?"

So, more and more often and louder in the scientific community, words are heard that surprisingly coincide with the basic tenets of Christianity, Buddhism and other mass religions of the world. Science, albeit slowly and carefully, but constantly comes to the conclusion that the brain is not the source of thought and consciousness, but only serves as their relay. The true source of our “I”, our thoughts and consciousness can only be, - further we will quote the words of Bekhtereva, - “something that can separate from a person and even survive him”. “Something”, to put it bluntly and without circumlocution, is nothing more than the soul of a person.

In the early 80s of the last century, during an international scientific conference with the famous American psychiatrist Stanislav Grof, one day after Grof's next speech, a Soviet academician approached him. And he began to prove to him that all the wonders of the human psyche that Grof, as well as other American and Western researchers, “discover” are hidden in one or another part of the human brain. In a word, there is no need to come up with any supernatural reasons and explanations if all the reasons are in one place - under the skull. At the same time, the academician loudly and meaningfully tapped himself on the forehead with his finger. Professor Grof thought for a moment and then said:

- Tell me, colleague, do you have a TV at home? Imagine that you have it broken and you called a TV technician. The master came, climbed inside the TV, twisted various knobs there, tuned it. After that, will you really think that all these stations are sitting in this box?

Our academician could not answer anything to the professor. Their further conversation quickly ended there.