I would argue that all evidence points to consciousness as the creator, storage system, and processor of the brain. Also, all evidence points to consciousness as having responsibility for the phenomenon of the brain.
Everything we know about the brain comes to us via consciousness, after all.
And basically I would say that this is a philosophical, metaphysical argument. If your philosophy is materialism then there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can ever consider the afterlife hypothesis as correct, ever. NDE’s, OoBE’s, Dreams, drug experiences, ALL will fall outside of your definition of ‘real’ and therefore not be considered as any sort of ‘evidence’. You will call this “science” when all it really is is naturalism/materialism.
Double standard much? This is a close-minded and pompous view. The two are perfectly exchangable and must be for anyone to have a wide enough perspective. Adhering to one alone is narrow.
Who said it was unnecessary? This isn not rhetorical in any way, you need to head to www.dictionary.com to define that word I think. The Physical is necessary because it IS, and if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be here. That does not mean the Spirit isn’t just as essential. It all blends perfect. To ask why something exists is irrelevant…it exists and thus its entirely necessary.
Incorrect. It’s all perspective. I see no evidence supporting the Brain as the creator of Consciousness or the Storage of any Memory since a) we cannot locate the ‘observer’ section of the Brain or resolve how Random Neuronal Activty coherent creates the “self” perception and b) have not located the section of the brain that contains memory.
Does the Brain know the difference? hmmmm…
Yeah, it does. You also missed the point entirely. Experience is the highest and only form of ‘truth.’ If it’s experienced, it real.
OK - this debate is going nicely - very informative too 
…but alas I must work - but I digress…
A part of the brain that is believed to be used for creating new memories was located (although I must admit this isn’t where memories are ’ stored’ as you would no doubt point out,… i think it was the hippocampus?! Once its gone then you will not make new episodic memories. Punto!
There is alot more to reply to here (if I can come up with something to say ) and I will get around to it as soon as I can. 
Cheers
I personally don’t think this debate should turn into one about brain anatomy though, because that really is besides the point, in a way.
What I’m saying is even if you find a section of the brain that stores, processes memory etc, then it is still not that memory itself. And there is no way of theorising a way that that piece of brain creates a memory. What if you’ve got a memory about that piece of brain responsible for memory? It just doesnt work philosophically, the position is untenable.
I mean look:
Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correl… (repeats mantra through the night 
)
The information passes through the Hippocampus, yes. I’m not saying the Brain doesn’t have function. I’m saying the Brain is simply a ‘puppet’ of the mind. This can apply to all functions of the Brain. When you monitor any Brain activity, you are not seeing the Cause of Consciousness but rather the effect of it.
Lebowks1 - OK… I think I get what your saying… let me see if this is correct.
Just because we don’t remember it it, doesn’t neccessarily mean that it never happened. And by turning this debate into brain anatomy then we will divulge from that point.
If that is the case (although I may have understood you wrong!) then I would be in agreement. My point is that although we have these experiences (and I am not denying they exist - I believe 100% they are real in the eye of the beholder), HOW they are produced is still highly debateable, but I like to look at the how in terms of neuroscience (for lack of a better word - don’t like to use materialistic because that implies a whole lot of other nasty stuff… Lebowsk1 - maybe you should get psychoanalytical on me! I have issues - with WORDS!!)
You are saying that we can see the effect of Consciousness on the brain - yet if we manipulate the brain it will have an effect on consciousness (drugs etc.)
I believe that is the big issue in neuroscience - how can the brain conceive the idea of itself?
Read my above post (the long one). I already addressed this issue and it doesn’t contradict my theory at all, only supports it.
IMO it doesn’t. It’s not Smart in any way. It’s a lump of mass but in no way has any intelligence. That voice you hear in your head isn’t coming from your ‘head’ at all. 
That’s the half the battle and all I ask people to recognize.
Since we don’t know, we can’t say for sure and thus since it was experienced, it was real to the experiencer since all we truly know is FROM experience.
I have absolutely no idea why you asked that question. Under anaesthesia there is still electrical activity in the brain. You need to carefully reread my last few posts.
What does it prove, Ego?
I suppose those machine elves I saw after I drank some ayahuasca were real, too, eh? Why don’t you provide us with an operational definition of ‘real’.
Can you define Real?
It proves that nothing is provable outside of personal experience. Yes, those Elves were 1000% real…because you experienced it. The only experience that isn’t ‘real’ is the one you don’t have.
And the changing molecular structure wasn’t responsible for the ice becoming a liquid, the temperature increase was. But actually, the temperature increase wasn’t the cause, the rising sun was…
Did you mean “phenomena” of the brain or are you calling the brain a phenomenon?
My point was missed. Don’t worry about it.
I see you’ve made up your mind through the evidence of NDEs and OBEs that consciousness exists outside of our body. You’ve also neglected evidence that suggests the brain’s responsibility for consciousness. Here you go.
Yeah, that question was rhetorical. It was used for effect only, I did not want an answer. I knew you wouldn’t understand that, so I told you it was rhetorical. You still did not understand. Dictionary.com & Dreamfortehwinz 2, Dictionary.com & Ego Tripping 0.
Damn, begging the question?
Actually, I’m coming to believe this site was written specifically for you. Might as well just go to the table of contents.
I can define real, if you want. Straight from your favorite site, dictionary.com: True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
My point in asking you to define it was so we could have a common ground. Is my operational definition ok with you? That was not rhetorical.
What evidence? And why would I not believe this way if I’ve experienced something so profound that I could not deny it any longer? For me not to accept it would be the worst thing for myself. And for me to try and explain and convey my experience would be moot and thus you will never understand my position, all you can do is accept that everything I know has the potential to be completely correct and vice versa.
A person’s frustration from lack of arguments is directly proportional to their score keeping.
You used Rhetorical in the wrong context. Just because you don’t want an answer doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Dodging and weaving with links to the same site doesn’t reall further your point. It just shows me you have no independent thoughts and must use these re-directs as a cover. I understand how Logic works perfectly…and I also understand that this world is anything but logical. Think (this is the keyword) about it sometime.
Isn’t that what a LD is? Your brain is aware that it is no longer experiencing the waking world.
Deactivated or dead? Whats the difference?
So are my Dreams entirely real? They are not ‘imaginary’ because I experienced them. They are ‘real’ enough where my Brain is tricked into thinking they are. Yet, Dreams are considered ‘imagination’ as opposed to this ‘real life.’ So I ask again, what is REAL? This is the biggest mystery of Mankind, I highly doubt one website’s definition will have the answer. I pity you if that’s what you go by.
Nope, it’s not. We have common ground my friend, I already stated it: we are both completely right and completely wrong. We are both born and bred in Ingnorance. The only thing we know is we know nothing because so far, Science or Spirituality hasn’t produced one shred of evidence for an objective reality. Whether it’s Quantum Physics or Spirituality, either way you cut it, we live in a completely subjective existance. My ‘reality’ is completely different from yours. Thus, there is no proof except what you experience yourself. And it can only be proved to you and you alone.
Bingo, and most reports from LD’s (myself included) experiences that are described as ‘more real than real.’
Not sure if you’ve experienced this phenomenon, but could you explain it? How can something be MORE real than this? And if it can feel that way, if it can be EXPERIENCED (as it has been), is that not the most definitive proof one could ask for?
None, to me. The Brain’s existance is a limitation, a blockage. That’s why the most profound experiences, especially the hyper-reality ones, are experienced when the Brain is in a state where it is not receving external stimuli and/or not functioning at all. Following this “logic”, Occam’s Razor would support that the Brain does not control Consciousness, but is at the whim of Consciousness. It’s simpler because it can explain all these experiences with ease rather than struggling with trying to discover how the Brain does this (like producing lucid and clear images when in a reduced function) when we don’t even know how it works to begin with. Along these lines, Science indirectly supports this belief.