As part of John Petersen’s Arlington Institute’s Transition Series in Berkley Springs WV, Dossey gave a talk on consciousness and mind. I found it quit good: informational, inspiring, and uplifting. Some highlights for me are:
1. How little mainstream (materialistic) science can say about consciousness tied to the brain: little or no research findings, theory, etc.
2. Larry supports the concept that our brain is a receiver, implying that the mind exists elsewhere [probably in nonphysical dimensions]
3. According to Dossey another useful perspective on the brain (which I agree with) is to see it as a filter–one that is designed to limit the incoming information to that which supports physical survival.
4. Findings by British research pediatrician, John Lorber, in 1980 that a college student with hardly any cerebral cortex volume in his brain (because of hydrocephalus) could function better than “normal”. His cerebral cortex was measured as only 0.1 cm thick vs. the normal 5 cm, but he was an math honor student with an IQ of 126. This is an amazing discover that implicitly brings into questions most of the neuroscience concepts of what is required to be a functioning human.
In a quick internet search, I could not find any follow-up published studies on Lorber’s discoveries. There is some debunking of the results claiming than Lorber probably misread the CT scans because the CT scans in that era only had a resolution of 0.1 cm. (This does not seem significant because Lorber’s patient’s cerebral cortex was only 0.1 cm thick–way off the norm of 5 cm. A 0.2 or 0.3 cm thick cerebral cortex is still very out of the ordinary.) This reviewer and critic acknowledges that “No one can dispute that the brain is capable of amazing feats of repair and reorganization, which sometimes permit normal function in the face of profound pathology.” To me this is an acknowledgement that we don’t know much about the mind and brain from the materialistic scientific perspective because we see many “miraculous” demonstrations” [my emphasis] all the time. When a critic is acknowledging miraculous findings–from his/her scientific perspective–it is seemingly calling for a new model/perspective of reality.