I think you can’t prove that.Your consciousness is not separate from your brain.
What you can demonstrate is that an information process (and I assume that consciousness is an emergent result of complex information processing processes) is carrier-indifferent.
That is to say: just as you can read this phrase on a screen or typed on a paper or pronounced: it remains the same information, but on a different information medium.
In that respect, consciousness is ‘ loose ‘ from the brain.As content ‘ loose ‘ state of the form.
But content always needs a shape.
So you can show that basically a consciousness also on a silicone substrate (computers) could ‘ run ‘, at least basically.
But really ‘ loose ‘ is not.
You prove that consciousness is separate from the brain AS you can generate a situation in which consciousness can occur without physical process.Good luck.
That is not possible.Why not? Because consciousness is an intrinsic effect of stimuli and response.
Consciousness means no other than ‘ can react to ‘.In other words. A 1 single celled organism is aware of practically nothing. Only pressure change (something that we as a human being, because this property is also in our cells). A multi-celled organism has more changes in the environment that it perceives (depending on the type of cells). For example, pain receptors, or heat (which are practically the same). Complex-celled organisms almost all have a center that stratified the incoming signals on the outer cells. We call this in a generic word: the nervous system. In vertebrate animals, this system has been developed so that it is almost equal in which vertebrae you are looking at it (in insects and invertebrates it still differs). Each animal is aware of its surroundings, depending on its senses (signal receptors, but senses is shorter group name). These senses have been specialised throughout the generations to observe certain types of signals. Eyes are focused on the electromagnetic spectrum that we call light. Ears on the pressure wave-vibrational frequencies and change of position (equilibrium organ). Nose on pheromones and micro particles in the air (smell). Tongue and nose together for these particles (flavor). The skin and hair for the aforementioned pressures differ in the environment and heat, cold, other breaks of the skin cell structure. In a worm and insects, certain signals go to the respective nerve nodes. In vertebrate animals to the central knot we call the brain. It actually consists of two knots, the small brain and the big brain. The little brains are equal to those other animals also have. There is the autonomous nervous system, which gives signals to the heart and other organs, but also gets the signals from there (hunger, sight, hearing, smell, taste etc). The big brain is actually a tumor of a part of the small brain that, along with memories, teaches reflexes. The small brain reacts exclusively to instincts (inheritance), but the large brain (also those in other animals that have developed it) increases the ability to cross-link between what the organism perceives and what it has previously observed to Create. In humans, the prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes together are so far specialized that they provide a ‘ feedback loop ‘, which ensures not only the awareness of the environment, but also an identity ‘ outside ‘ the environment, namely the self. Outside the environment because an organism can only become aware of itself by interacting with the environment. It can only observe that things are happening in response to actions it has done, which did not come from other sources. This has evolved into self-consciousness in humans, but also in a number of other animal species. As a result, an organism that is self-conscious has the ability to make choices. Without self-awareness, it cannot be (after all, if an organism is not aware of itself, it is only part of the environment).
Now, for this reason, ‘ consciousness ‘ is not possible regardless of the brain/brain, because it is a resulting effect of the development of the brain and the senses.Without senses, it is not possible to participate in/be aware of the environment. This results in the simple logical (and indisputable) conclusion that consciousness can not only not without brain, but also not without senses (so no ‘ brain-in-a-jar ‘ option).
Scientists and psychologists are still uncertain about the origins of consciousness.There are therefore profound philosophical discussions about the origins. On the one hand, it is argued that consciousness is a side-effect in the brain. On the other hand, one claims the idea of panpsychism.
Panpsychism is a modern and so-called ‘ scientific ‘ interpretation on the boedism.The idea of this is that a metaphysical memory, woven into the structure of life, is the foundation for shaping matter. Rupert Sheldrake called this morphogentic fields.Think, for example, that fish DNA has adapted in environments with chemically toxic water. Then I wonder how it is possible that the DNA has adapted to this. Consciousness at the molecular level perhaps? It is also argued that this is the cause of other pattern formation such as our body and the form of plants.
Panpsychism is a rather metaphysical theorem.They have even more arguments, but that is a little too long to add. Contra is the Objectivic argument of Julian Jaynes. He claims that consciousness exists in the coherence of Wernicke’s area, the Aleph area and a muscle that connects the 2 lobes; the anterior commissure.During the evolution consciousness is going to promote in the development of these lobes and the language also promotes consciousness. Nouja, the author himself says that this theory is not yet thorough.
With this endless discussion, it seems that death is the only way to find out whether consciousness persists after physical death.And whether consciousness is separate from the brain.