Some people think that consciousness is like a non-local(is everywhere) radiation and the brain is like an antenna fascilitating the arising of perception locally.
The way to criticize this is asking just on what basis the non-local phenomena can be said to exist if they aren't perceived locally.
This is impossible to do.
The way Einstein explained it is that if observer A is moving in the direction of electromagnetic emission, he is moving towards the incoming radiation and will eventually upon contact perceive the visible which was emitted. He will perceive it before the Observer B who is stationary, not moving towards the emission source of the visible light and the contact for this person will occur later.
EG; When a stationary observer B perceives an occurence of contact, here perceiving two lightning strikes, one to the front and another to the rear of a fast moving train, sumultaneously striking front and rear; the observer A being inside the moving train, moving towards what is in front, away from the rear, will inevitably perceive the occurence of lightning strikes consequtively, first upon contact with the emission from the front and later the contact with the light from the rear, the occurence of perception of the two lightnings isn't simultaneous as is for observer A.
Observer A and observer B would not be able to agree on whether the lightnings struck simultaneously or consequently. Here are essentially two different worlds, one where the lightning struck simultaneously and another where time passed between the first and the second discharge.
Occurence is only a local perspective. Without an observer there is no occurence to speak of.
We can only talk of a world in as far as it is conceived and perceived.
Ie; the eye is of the world, the eye conceives and perceives the world. That which in the world which conceives and perceives the world is called the world, there is no world outside of that in the world which conceives and perceives the world.
Occurence of observation requires a world wherein the observer exists and wherein the observing occurs. The existence of the world requires the occurence of contact in the world which begets perception.
In other words the existence of a world depends on the occurence of it's observation and it's observation depends on the existence of the world.
In other words the existence of matter depends on consciousness whilst consciousness depends on the existence of matter.
Therefore speaking of a non local existence of anything which isn't locally conceived and perceived,is unwarranted.
Buddha says consciousness has formations as a requisite condition and formations have consciousness as a requisite condition. A supports B, B supports A, thus come about a structure; as if two reeds were placed supporting each other, a supports b and b supporting a, thus forming a structure and in the context of a structure the two reeds are spoken of as one another's respective requisites and elements fascilitating the occurence of 'a structure'.
If one takes away one reed, the structure collapses, ceases to exist. There is then no structure to speak of and no requisites for it's occurence to speak of. Similarly was one to remove a dependently arisen element the whole context of dependently arisen phenomena collapses with no elements to speak of.
Here the seen, the heard, the felt, the smelled, the tasted and the cognized is the structure complete with it's inferable supporting conditions and elements.
The whole world in it's entirety is conceived locally by this or that being but because all locations are conceived locally it is effectively non local. This is how there can be instanteneous transmission of information between two points in space (faster than the speed of causality [speed of "light"] would allow), that is because both points are conveived locally in as far as space element itself is a local conception of this or that being.
Is also why you can get seemingly magical superpowers by sufficiently integrating a proper understanding of phenomena, their occurence and interplay.
