If I find a neurologist that says that consciousness exists independent of the brain, would you accept that as proof? If not, then I don't understand why you are concerned that I do not accept it as proof when someone presents to me a neurologist who has the opposing opinion.
Hellow again Casparov.
Firstly, there is a difference between proof and evidence; the discussion was about evidence. Secondly, the point I was making was that if you dismiss the conclusion of a neurologist on the basis that it is just an opinion, then, like I said, you're hardly in a position to provide counterpoints because they can likewise be simply dismissed as counter opinions and that leaves us nowhere.
In other words what you did there was nothing less than hand-waiving since you provided nothing to support your dismissal. A proper dismissal would be one that addresses the argument and shows that despite the fact that the author is an expert in his own field, his conclusion is not supported by any evidence and is therefore a scientifically unsound hypothesis.
As to your question if you find a neurologist that has proof (maybe you meant evidence) that consciousness exists independent of the brain, it doesn't matter to me who the neurologist and what they are saying. What matters to me is the evidence. Is it valid?
I do not wish to open a discussion here since that other thread exists, but as it stands all current scientific knowledge points to the fact that consciousness is an emergent property of our physical brain. I am sure that Sam Harris is waiting with baited breath for evidence to the contrary, that he can examine. In fact, he said so himself on numerous occasions. Most scientists do; most find that being wrong is as exhilarating as being right, since it opens the opportunity for discovery.
As to the definition of god, after having reviewed the other thread, I am inclined to agree with what has been said here, that I have yet to see a comprehensive, intelligible definition of what you mean when you say "god".
There are many outstanding, unresolved logical issues with proposed attributes to the concept that humans describe as a god. As a very simple example, consider the attribute of absoluteness. Absolutely just and absolutely merciful. One cannot be both, it is illogical.
The other issue is that of attributing traits to the concept of deities that are highly desirable or sought after by humans. And then you can clearly see, throughout the history of cultures, how these traits have changed along with the deities.