Harvard scientists think they might have pinpointed the source of human consciousness

The actual conclusions of the study are rather anticlimactic compared to the hype in the article given by the science writer. From the actual abstract of the paper: "Injury to a small region in the pontine tegmentum is significantly associated with coma. This brainstem site is functionally connected to 2 cortical regions, the AI and pACC, which become disconnected in disorders of consciousness. This network of brain regions may have a role in the maintenance of human consciousness."

Any explanation of consciousness must account for the findings of other studies like Aware, if it does not, then it is not a valid theory. The other (interactionist dualist) theory exists; Aware is a study and it has valid conclusions, clearly indicating that consciousness is occurring after the brain has shut down. The suggestion of the conclusion of the Harvard study that the brainstem site and the two cortical regions actually produces consciousness does not explain this at all. So, either something was not done right in the Aware study (no evidence of this), or consciousness is not produced by the areas discussed in this study. The results of the Harvard study must be due to correlation not causation. The radio transceiver or filter hypothesis is by far the more likely.

The actual conclusions of the study are rather anticlimactic compared to the hype in the article given by the science writer. From the actual abstract of the paper: "Injury to a small region in the pontine tegmentum is significantly associated with coma. This brainstem site is functionally connected to 2 cortical regions, the AI and pACC, which become disconnected in disorders of consciousness. This network of brain regions may have a role in the maintenance of human consciousness."

Any explanation of consciousness must account for the findings of other studies like Aware, if it does not, then it is not a valid theory. The other (interactionist dualist) theory exists; Aware is a study and it has valid conclusions, clearly indicating that consciousness is occurring after the brain has shut down. The suggestion of the conclusion of the Harvard study that the brainstem site and the two cortical regions actually produces consciousness does not explain this at all. So, either something was not done right in the Aware study (no evidence of this), or consciousness is not produced by the areas discussed in this study. The results of the Harvard study must be due to correlation not causation. The radio transceiver or filter hypothesis is by far the more likely.

I don't think this sort of comparison is even necessary really, because once you've read the study it's apparent that its results do not suggest at all that the regions of the brain that were observed and studied produce consciousness. It's as simple as that.

I don't think this sort of comparison is even necessary really, because once you've read the study it's apparent that its results do not suggest at all that the regions of the brain that were observed and studied produce consciousness. It's as simple as that.

There has to be a physiological, neurological process in the physical brain in order for it to do what it is designed to do.

Higher Mind - Conceives
Physical Brain - Receives
Physical Mind - Perceives

That is it, that's its job, to act like an antennae, tuning in to the right 'channels'.

The physical "mind" is, simply put, the physical translation of consciousness, which is projecting into the physical dimension,  there is no separation between “mind” and consciousness itself.  

The Western mind has made the fundamental assumption that 'self' and 'not-self' are two ontologically distinct things that exist, and thus the fundamental epistemological assumption that the experienced reality exists by itself, objectively, independently of the experiencer, rather that within the conscious entity that is experiencing "it".