The Law of One: A New Age Theory of the Universe

[The Fool]

A team of university students and staff attempted to contact extraterrestrial intelligence through group meditation. Purportedly, it ends with a hivemind-intelligence named Ra channeling through the voice of one of them. The countless recordings of the intelligence were bounded in a series of books called "The Law of One". Here's a synopsis from http://www.lawofone.info/. I want to hear what you guys think. It's basically another theory of everything but from a metaphysical standpoint. It makes no premise of good or bad in the natural order but simply phenomenon called "distortions".

Of course, there is no way to verify the source of this through our current science.

The Law of One

The One Infinite Creator

The Law of One states that there is only one, and that one is the Infinite Creator (4.20), which Ra also calls “Infinite Intelligence” and “Intelligent Infinity.” It is impossible to describe the “one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole,” but It can be activated or potentiated (28.1). Each portion of the creation contains, paradoxically, the whole (13.13).

Illusion

Since all is one, all manifestation, or appearance of many-ness, is an illusion (1.6, 106.23). According to Ra, it is an illusion carefully engineered in order to give the Creator the opportunity to know Itself (27.17).

Distortion

In Ra’s terms, “distortion” is anything that moves away from undistorted unity. This can be either what we would consider “good” (distortion toward love) or “bad” (distortion towards ill health). There are three fundamental distortions of Infinite Intelligence:

The First Distortion

The first distortion is free will, or finity, or the limit of the viewpoint (13.12, 15.21, 99.5). The created universe that we experience is the Creator’s exploration of Itself through the first distortion, which Ra also calls the Law of Confusion (27.10).

The Second Distortion

The second distortion is Love, or the Logos, or the Creative Principle (15.21). It is “the focus, the choice of attack, the type of energy of an extremely, shall we say, high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in just such and such a way.” (27.12) A Logos can create a single star system or it can create a galaxy with billions of star systems (28.7). Each galaxy has its own system of natural laws (13.13) and, I believe, its own “cosmic mind” (91.2). Ra says that some of its members have wandered to the creations of other Logoi, and that “[t]he experience has been one which staggers the intellectual and intuitive capacities.” (90.17) In the case of galactic systems, the first physical manifestation of a Logos is a cluster of central systems (82..

The Third Distortion

The third distortion is light (15.21). It is the first manifestation visible to the eye (78.9). Light is intelligent, full of energy, and the building block of what we call matter (13.9). Light’s characteristics include “the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line.” Ra says that “[t]his paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets, all revolving and tending towards the lenticular.” (13.9). Light energy has an upward spiraling characteristic which impels evolution. (13.17).

Sub-Logoi

Our galaxy was created by a single Logos (28.9) and our sun is a sub-Logos of that Logos (29.1) A sub-Logos individualizes or differentiates the natural laws set up by its Logos (13.13, 29.2). It also refines the cosmic mind into its specific archetypical mind, informed by the experience of earlier sub-Logoi (81.33, 91.3).

Sub-Sub-Logoi

Humans are an example of sub-sub-Logoi (29.7).

Densities

The creation has seven levels, or densities; the eighth density forming the first density of the next octave of experience, just as the eighth note of a musical scale begins a new octave (16.51, 28.15). Between seventh and eight densities the creation re-merges in a period of timeless, formless unity with the Creator (28.16). It is Ra’s understanding that “the ways of the octave are without time; that is, there are seven densities in each creation infinitely.” They point out, though, that the limits of their knowledge are narrow (78.15).

First density is the density of awareness, in which the planet moves out of the timeless state into physical manifestation. Its elements are earth, air, water, and fire (13.16). On earth, after matter had coalesced and space/time had begun to “unroll its scroll of livingness” (29.11), first density took about two billion years (76.13)

Second density is the density of growth, in which what we call biological life emerges and evolves into greater and greater complexity (9.13). Second density on earth took about 4.6 billion years (76.13).
Third density is the density of self-awareness and the first density of consciousness of the spirit (13.21). It is the “axis upon which the creation turns” because in it entities choose the way (either service to others or service to self) in which they will further their evolution toward the Creator (76.16). Third density is much shorter than the other densities, taking only 75,000 years (6.15).

Fourth density is the density of love or understanding. Those who have successfully chosen a path come together with others of like mind in what Ra calls a “social memory complex” in order to pursue that path, either loving self or loving others (20.36, 48.6). Fourth density lasts approximately 30 million years; fourth-density lifespans are approximately 90 thousand years (43.13, 43.11).

Fifth density is the density of light or wisdom (25.11). Lessons are often learned individually rather than as a social memory complex (43.14). Fifth-density entities are beautiful, by our standards, because they can consciously shape their physical forms (62.21, 90.5)

Sixth density is the density of unity, in which love and wisdom are blended together (33.20). The two paths reunite as those on the service-to-self path, realizing that they cannot successfully master the lessons of unity without opening their hearts to others, switch their polarity to positive (78.25). Ra is sixth-density; their sixth-density cycle is 75 million years (14.19, 14.21).

Seventh density is the gateway density, in which we once again become one with all (16.22). It is “a density of completion and the turning towards timelessness or foreverness.” (41.16)

Eighth density is also the beginning of the first density of the next Creation (28.15). It is “both omega and alpha, the spiritual mass of the infinite universes becoming one central sun or Creator once again. Then is born a new universe, a new infinity, a new Logos which incorporates all that the Creator has experienced of Itself.” (52.12)

[interlagos]

Great stuff!

I've seen references to Ra material many times, but until now haven't had enough time to really dive into it.
Thanks for the link.

It seems as channeling phenomenon is getting more widespread it would soon reach the point where it cannot be ignored by the mainstream science. It also goes well with the idea of primacy of consciousness, where body in general and the brain in particular are viewed as receivers of consciousness as opposed to a common belief of them being the generators of it.

In this regard channeling is the ability of a particular consciousness which has a receiver within a certain physical manifestation (body-brain complex) to provide this receiver for communication to another type of consciousness which doesn't have a physical receiver of their own.

On the topic itself...

I have always wandered whether this individualized consciousness that everyone perceives as "I" have always existed as such or was it created at some point from, shall we say, a bigger consciousness? Does it mean that "I" was a bigger consciousness at some point or was "I" simply contained within that bigger consciousness (along with other "I"s) that decided to split?

From what I've gathered we have always existed as individual "I"s and everyone of us has a potential to experience The One as "I" and yet still everyone of us has an individual and unique core frequency. It was really hard to grasp how can "I" be The One and still be my individual self at the same time until I found a video which provided a beautiful metaphor for it:

"Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds - Part 1 - Akasha" at 4:04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXuTt7c3Jkg#t=04m04s

"Imagine a spider web that extends into all dimensions. The web is made of dew drops and every drop contains the reflection of all the other water drops, and in each reflected dew drop you will find the reflections of all the other droplets. The entire web in that reflection, and so on to infinity. Indra's web could be described as a holographic universe, where even the smallest stream of light contains the complete pattern of the whole."

[mobodick]

It also goes well with the idea of primacy of consciousness, where body in general and the brain in particular are viewed as receivers of consciousness as opposed to a common belief of them being the generators of it.

Unfortunately for this idea we have understood for quite some time now (at least a century or so) that the brain IS the generator of consciousness and can be manipulated as such.
On the other hnd there is not a single shred of evidence that there is something like a consciousness outside of the brain.
None of the people claiming all these bullshit fantasies have the guts to accept what we actually know about our existance. Usually they are so far behind the train that you can use college-level information to disprove it.

Its a pitty to see people trying to rationalize their feelings by distorting their perception of reality, especially when so much actual knwoledge from people that actually tested reality is available. Its called science and it doesnt run on fantasy.

Remember kids, extraordinary claims require extraordinaryu evidence.
But sofar there has been no evidence at all for all these fantastic claims.
Go figure.

[The Fool]

It also goes well with the idea of primacy of consciousness, where body in general and the brain in particular are viewed as receivers of consciousness as opposed to a common belief of them being the generators of it.

Unfortunately for this idea we have understood for quite some time now (at least a century or so) that the brain IS the generator of consciousness and can be manipulated as such.

Citation needed. Do we know the exact processes that make conciousness? Also, string theory.

[mobodick]

It also goes well with the idea of primacy of consciousness, where body in general and the brain in particular are viewed as receivers of consciousness as opposed to a common belief of them being the generators of it.

Unfortunately for this idea we have understood for quite some time now (at least a century or so) that the brain IS the generator of consciousness and can be manipulated as such.

Citation needed. Do we know the exact processes that make conciousness? Also, string theory.

There is no 'single' process.
The brain has many processes.
It is a fantasy that there must be a single point where consciousness is created.
Consciousness is the result of the interactions of billions of neurons.

Any outside information passes through many (and often parallel) neural paths to form your experience.
You can disable parts of the brain and see that certain forms of processing information are disabled.
So, for instance, the interaction with memory can be blocked at several levels of operation.
But you can also selectively disable consciousness.

Anyway, i'm no biologist and i'm not up to date with the latest research.
But this is pretty old and well known info so you can check any study book on the topic for heaps of references.
For more easily to digest info you can just look at how the brain functions after it is damaged.
There is an ongoing research that started around 50 years ago that studies people that lost parts of their brain in accidents.
It is very interesting to see what happens when parts of the brain do not function correctly.
From these observations it becomes very clear that the brain really is generating everything you experience.
People with split brains sometimes behave as if the brain halves are separately concious, people with missing frontal lobes lose personality, etc,.
There is lots of this stuff and i'm sure that playing around with google will give you lots of info.
I've seen some interesting stuff on TED as well.

BTW, i'm pretty sure evolution uses stuff like quantum mechanics and string theory (insofar it exists) but you have to ask yourself if it is in any way needed to form consciousness.
For one, we have decoded the 'language' of the brain. We know how signals are encoded and transfered. And we can see information being absorbed, modulated and transfered. All these things are known.
The difficulty with examining brains is that they are pretty chaotic.
There is no single piece of the brain that does all the vision.
When light falls on your eyes it is already being processed by the receiving neurons.
This info is transfered to your brain, but underway is also processed (i think it was for stereoscopic view). Then once inside the brain the information is further processes, split off to compare with memory etc etc, adn then finaly presented to the part of the brain where all these things come together and give you the impression of conciousness.
But even your consciousness is a composite.
What you think is you is in fact a few pieces of the brain working together. (and some people have some of these systems break down, thats how we know)
There is a steering part, there is an observing part and there is a judging part. Also some other parts that are either not so strong or more subconcious.

Oh yea, MOST of the stuff in your brain happens unconsciously. You only get to experience the end result.
You don't see how the picture from your eyes is perspective corrected but it does happen. You don't 'hear' how your ears acquire information about a sounds position, but it happens.
What you experience as consciousness is but the theatre of your brain. It alows you to have a feedback loop with yourself. It links your senses with your memories in a way that allows recombination. You become self aware.
This allows you to think about yourself and project yourself in new situations. This is an incredible evolutionary boost.
No wonder we are top predator.

Anyway, the reality is that there is too much real non-fictive stuff to know about existing and you shouldnt waste your time with fantasy.

Sincerely,
Ra.

[The Fool]

There is no 'single' process.
The brain has many processes.
It is a fantasy that there must be a single point where consciousness is created.
Consciousness is the result of the interactions of billions of neurons.

True.

Any outside information passes through many (and often parallel) neural paths to form your experience.
You can disable parts of the brain and see that certain forms of processing information are disabled.
So, for instance, the interaction with memory can be blocked at several levels of operation.
But you can also selectively disable consciousness.

True.

Everything you say is absolutely true. However, these new agers argue that our consciousness is simply energy flowing into our brain which supposedly acts like a radio tuner. They argue that a damaged brain is simply a damaged receiver and that full transmission isn't coming through. However, again, no real evidence.  

[mobodick]

There is no 'single' process.
The brain has many processes.
It is a fantasy that there must be a single point where consciousness is created.
Consciousness is the result of the interactions of billions of neurons.

True.

Any outside information passes through many (and often parallel) neural paths to form your experience.
You can disable parts of the brain and see that certain forms of processing information are disabled.
So, for instance, the interaction with memory can be blocked at several levels of operation.
But you can also selectively disable consciousness.

True.

Everything you say is absolutely true. However, these new agers argue that our consciousness is simply energy flowing into our brain which supposedly acts like a radio tuner. They argue that a damaged brain is simply a damaged receiver and that full transmission isn't coming through. However, again, no real evidence.  

They base their findings on fantasy. No actual looking at what is actually going on has been done.
They can argue all they want they first will have to show that what they think is actually there.
That is why it is not science.
The thing about what i wrote above is that it has been verified. People actually looked at how these things work and you can go and look for yourself and you will find the same thing.
And if these new age nutters were bothered to actually read some of the science done over the years they would have known that the brain is no receiver because we can change the generation process.
That would require the brainfarters to come up with an elaborate system where if you damage the brain in a certain way the non-bodily consciousness would get updated with the same defect.
They require magical thinking to explain reality.

The irony is of course that these nutters post their looney fantasies on the internet. And the internet is firmly based on science.
So on the one hand they completely replace the science of the past 100 years by some incoherent nonsense but then go ahead and use the fruist of science (transistors, electricity, and lots and lots of people dedicating their lifes to mapping out our existance) to propagate their misguided ideas.

[Vandroiy]

A lot of religions fail at the point mobodick just described. In effect, they postulate a second, metaphysical brain, active simultaneously to the one we know. It's worse than boilerplate code in programming -- such a design by some higher being seems unlikely.

Properly defining consciousness gets many people on edge. It's really just the ability to imagine an adaptive model of yourself within your surroundings. It needs a fairly complex and flexible model, but it's not mystic voodoo.

A good measure of using a broken definition is not being able to name a specific skill that indicates consciousness. Something that can just be defined to be there or not without consequence is pretty useless as an object of discussion.

[The Fool]

It's worse than boilerplate code in programming -- such a design by some higher being seems unlikely.

Unless mortality is never intended.

[mobodick]

It's worse than boilerplate code in programming -- such a design by some higher being seems unlikely.

Unless mortality is never intended.

Why would you think there is intention in play?
I have seen not the slightest bit of intention comming from the universe.
Intention is a human notion.

[The Fool]

It's worse than boilerplate code in programming -- such a design by some higher being seems unlikely.

Unless mortality is never intended.

Why would you think there is intention in play?
I have seen not the slightest bit of intention comming from the universe.
Intention is a human notion.

Man is from the universe, is he not?

Anyways, I was just referring to the context of his quote. Not the actual possibility of anything here. My point: Assuming there was a creator, a metaphysical mind wouldn't be out of the question.

[interlagos]

It's worse than boilerplate code in programming -- such a design by some higher being seems unlikely.

Unless mortality is never intended.

Why would you think there is intention in play?
I have seen not the slightest bit of intention comming from the universe.
Intention is a human notion.

When thinking about consciousness, mobodick, you should first and foremost think about yourself, because that's the only evidence of consciousness that you have. There is no objective proof that other "beings" or "objects" or anything that you come across has consciousness. They might all be very good at pretending to be conscious, but you will never know for sure if they really are conscious.

So ask yourself, how did you come into this picture of completely unintentional, neutral and indifferent Universe?
Think of the point in time 10 years before your birth. Are "you" already in the plans of the Universe? Does it know that you are going to be born? Does it know what parents you are going to have? Does it care?

If yes, then who are "you" really?
If no, then how would the Universe know that "you" needed to be created in the first place?

This topic is much more philosophical than it is physical or biological.

[Monster Tent]

If hell is other people being forced back into a group consciousness after death would be akin to going to hell because you would no longer be a singular being

[interlagos]

If hell is other people being forced back into a group consciousness after death would be akin to going to hell because you would no longer be a singular being

I don't think hell is a singular place either. You can create hell on Earth or some other place if you wish, or you can create Heaven within yourself regardless of where you are physically. Everything is just an experience.

As I understand it you are always a singular consciousness, what can change though is your level of awareness about other consciousnesses when you loose your physical receiver which you are currently locked into. It doesn't mean you immediately become aware of everything in the Universe. Knowledge on all levels needs to be earned. As above, so below.

[mobodick]

When thinking about consciousness, mobodick, you should first and foremost think about yourself, because that's the only evidence of consciousness that you have. There is no objective proof that other "beings" or "objects" or anything that you come across has consciousness. They might all be very good at pretending to be conscious, but you will never know for sure if they really are conscious.

(assuming you are talkng about humans, not chatterbots or something )

Yes, but i apply occams razor here.
If i have to choose between a mathematically coherent universe with autonomous entities called humans and seing everything as an elaborate set-up then the coherent universe option wins without question.

The universe would just be very very silly if i was the only one with a conciousness and the rest pretended they did.
On a similar note, the chance that we ALL are a simulation of sorts is much much greater
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
This is the only path i'm willing to think along when it comes to considernig conciousness as not generated by our brain.

[mobodick]

So ask yourself, how did you come into this picture of completely unintentional, neutral and indifferent Universe?
Think of the point in time 10 years before your birth. Are "you" already in the plans of the Universe? Does it know that you are going to be born? Does it know what parents you are going to have? Does it care?

Why are you assigning human stuff to the concept of the universe?
Why would you assume the universe is capable of planning?
What do you mean by the universe 'knowing' i'm going to be born?
In what way have you ever seen the universe 'knowing' anything, more less what parents i'm going to have?

Let me ask you this.
Does a rock know it's shape?
Or is it simply the shape?

The universe as we know it is at least a four dimentional object, propably more.
What we normally see around us is called spacetime.
It means that all of time is already embedded in this spacetime object.
It doesn't know anything, it simply is.
It is us that are limited by thermodynamical laws and under influence of entropic pressure.
We cannot see spacetime as a whole, we have to travel along the time axis and let that dimention unfold.
We just travel from one side of the rock to the other at the speed of time.

[mobodick]

If hell is other people being forced back into a group consciousness after death would be akin to going to hell because you would no longer be a singular being

I don't think hell is a singular place either. You can create hell on Earth or some other place if you wish, or you can create Heaven within yourself regardless of where you are physically. Everything is just an experience.

As I understand it you are always a singular consciousness, what can change though is your level of awareness about other consciousnesses when you loose your physical receiver which you are currently locked into. It doesn't mean you immediately become aware of everything in the Universe. Knowledge on all levels needs to be earned. As above, so below.

I just wrote a pretty long explanation on how conciousness happens in humans (and mostly in mammals etc) but the forum burped on me and i lost it.
I don't feel like rewriting it now.

I can only say that what you propose is more like fantasy. There is no factual evidence for it.
There is, on the other hand lots and lots of factual evidence that conciousncess if funcionally created by the brain.
Parts of your conciousness can break down (illness, accidents) and it so happens that those broken parts seem to be doing exactly the function that has been broken.
Just look that stuff up yourself.

I mean, why would altzheimer have an effect on conciousness? It only breaks down the brain so according to you the conciousness should not be affected.
But with this dissease things like awareness and personality and memory break down. In fact, everything you could ever call a concious person slowly breaks down. So all these properties must be created by the brain.
There is no singular spiritual entity like a soul outside of the brain.

[bb113]

Chairs are conscious, to an extent.

[blablahblah]

It also goes well with the idea of primacy of consciousness, where body in general and the brain in particular are viewed as receivers of consciousness as opposed to a common belief of them being the generators of it.

Unfortunately for this idea we have understood for quite some time now (at least a century or so) that the brain IS the generator of consciousness and can be manipulated as such.
On the other hnd there is not a single shred of evidence that there is something like a consciousness outside of the brain.

Lol. Is there any evidence that consciousness exists inside the brain? Or at all? Can it be amputated or distilled or somehow weighed? What is it?

http://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg
 

None of the people claiming all these bullshit fantasies have the guts to accept what we actually know about our existance. Usually they are so far behind the train that you can use college-level information to disprove it.

Its a pitty to see people trying to rationalize their feelings by distorting their perception of reality, especially when so much actual knwoledge from people that actually tested reality is available. Its called science and it doesnt run on fantasy.

Remember kids, extraordinary claims require extraordinaryu evidence.
But sofar there has been no evidence at all for all these fantastic claims.
Go figure.

Yeah yeah... 'consciousness' is basically a special word that scientists often use when they're trying to say "in order to appease the Church, I'm going to reject the empirical evidence of my senses, I'm going to reject Solipsism (and the heresy of equating the mind with God), and I'm going to tirelessly search for consciousness inside the Holodeck/Matrix"

[interlagos]

When thinking about consciousness, mobodick, you should first and foremost think about yourself, because that's the only evidence of consciousness that you have. There is no objective proof that other "beings" or "objects" or anything that you come across has consciousness. They might all be very good at pretending to be conscious, but you will never know for sure if they really are conscious.

(assuming you are talkng about humans, not chatterbots or something )

Yes, but i apply occams razor here.
If i have to choose between a mathematically coherent universe with autonomous entities called humans and seing everything as an elaborate set-up then the coherent universe option wins without question.

The universe would just be very very silly if i was the only one with a conciousness and the rest pretended they did.
On a similar note, the chance that we ALL are a simulation of sorts is much much greater
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
This is the only path i'm willing to think along when it comes to considernig conciousness as not generated by our brain.

I mostly agree with what you said here, except a few things.

Firstly, mathematically coherent Universe and "an elaborate set-up" are not two different things, mathematics is a result of a conscious process and it is very elaborate.

Second thing that bothered me when I was thinking about mathematically coherent Universe with autonomous human beings is how I would end up there without me existing somewhere already in the first place. You see, I don't have a problem imagining such a Universe, but the chances of me emerging there would be around 0. It will simply be filled with other human beings (whether conscious or not, I wouldn't know) and there would be no reason, no recipe for that Universe to create me. Me showing up in such a Universe would be an improbable singularity happening against all odds and laws of physics.

So if I already exist (and I know I do) then that Universe would be a secondary construct in relation to me. That Universe would be contained inside me and not the other way around. That what the idea of primacy of consciousness is. You know about your own existence with higher certainty than you know about Universe's existence, wouldn't you agree? It simply can't be the other way around.

I think this video might be of interest to you:
"The Holographic Universe (Part One)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU

EDIT: edited some paragraphs above for clarity.

So ask yourself, how did you come into this picture of completely unintentional, neutral and indifferent Universe?
Think of the point in time 10 years before your birth. Are "you" already in the plans of the Universe? Does it know that you are going to be born? Does it know what parents you are going to have? Does it care?

Why are you assigning human stuff to the concept of the universe?
Why would you assume the universe is capable of planning?
What do you mean by the universe 'knowing' i'm going to be born?
In what way have you ever seen the universe 'knowing' anything, more less what parents i'm going to have?

Let me ask you this.
Does a rock know it's shape?
Or is it simply the shape?

The universe as we know it is at least a four dimentional object, propably more.
What we normally see around us is called spacetime.
It means that all of time is already embedded in this spacetime object.
It doesn't know anything, it simply is.
It is us that are limited by thermodynamical laws and under influence of entropic pressure.
We cannot see spacetime as a whole, we have to travel along the time axis and let that dimention unfold.
We just travel from one side of the rock to the other at the speed of time.

I like your train of thought here and, again, I mostly agree with it.

The geometric shape of the Universe as an elaborate space-time crystal (in lower four dimensions) doesn't necessarily know or able to plan anything because as you correctly mentioned, it is static and it simply is. What is changing though and what is, in a sense, "alive" is the consciousness studying this crystal by filling it with itself, looking at it from as many different perspectives as it can. And the tricky part is that this mathematical crystal and the consciousness studying it are not two different things, the former is the product of the latter. It would be very illogical to suggest the opposite, where the consciousness would arise from a static mathematical construct that simply is.

If hell is other people being forced back into a group consciousness after death would be akin to going to hell because you would no longer be a singular being

I don't think hell is a singular place either. You can create hell on Earth or some other place if you wish, or you can create Heaven within yourself regardless of where you are physically. Everything is just an experience.

As I understand it you are always a singular consciousness, what can change though is your level of awareness about other consciousnesses when you loose your physical receiver which you are currently locked into. It doesn't mean you immediately become aware of everything in the Universe. Knowledge on all levels needs to be earned. As above, so below.

I just wrote a pretty long explanation on how conciousness happens in humans (and mostly in mammals etc) but the forum burped on me and i lost it.
I don't feel like rewriting it now.

I can only say that what you propose is more like fantasy. There is no factual evidence for it.
There is, on the other hand lots and lots of factual evidence that conciousncess if funcionally created by the brain.
Parts of your conciousness can break down (illness, accidents) and it so happens that those broken parts seem to be doing exactly the function that has been broken.
Just look that stuff up yourself.

I mean, why would altzheimer have an effect on conciousness? It only breaks down the brain so according to you the conciousness should not be affected.
But with this dissease things like awareness and personality and memory break down. In fact, everything you could ever call a concious person slowly breaks down. So all these properties must be created by the brain.
There is no singular spiritual entity like a soul outside of the brain.

About manipulating the brain and observing the effects on consciousness, yes, it might look confusing at first and lead to erroneous conclusions about its origin, but there is a good analogy that would explain the situation. Imagine you're sitting locked in a dark room looking at the world around you through a glass window. If the glass is clean and transparent you can see very well, but if somebody puts some mud on your glass or even worse tries to break it so that it gets covered with tiny cracks all over the surface your vision of reality gets heavily distorted and you might even go crazy from that experience.

I cannot prove that to you, but from what I gathered being locked to the body for a life time is the latest iteration of the rules of the 3D game we are all playing. It hasn't always been like that though, but it was decided in that way, so that we can learn certain lessons that can only be learned from challenges associated with that experience. It was decided collectively and we are all here because we all agreed and wanted to play this game.

There is a lot of evidence of consciousness existing outside the body, but it is often ridiculed and not taken seriously.
There are examples of people born blind and able to see the Universe for the first time when they are in a state of coma due to some unrelated accident and then wake up from it an tell about their experiences. Or people who undergo surgical operations on the brain that require complete shutdown of the brain (no neuron activity whatsoever during the operation) and are able to tell afterwards that they saw their body laying on the table, saw the instruments that doctors used in the operation and even heard what they were talking about.
You can check out this site about NDE (near-death-experience) if you're interested in this topic:
http://www.near-death.com/