No, star trek missed the point here. The term “non local consciousness” is often used, but it is too vague to support a coherent model if left on its own.
The brain does not produce consciousness. It functions as a filter. It limits bandwidth, reduces perception, and shapes experience. Consciousness exists independently, and the biological system constrains it. That part is clear.
However, saying consciousness is simply “non local” removes structure. If consciousness were completely diffuse and everywhere, it would be difficult to explain why a specific individual is consistently tied to one body. It would also be difficult to explain repeatable separation at death, systematic post death capture, and selective memory suppression. All of these suggest a stable interaction between the independent consciousness and the biological interface.
A more precise view is that there is a discrete core of awareness, a spark, that is attached to the body during life. This core is not produced by the brain. Instead, it is linked to the biological system, while the brain acts as a filter that restricts what the spark can access and express. The attachment creates individuality and continuity.
This also explains why separation at death is meaningful. The spark detaches from the biological interface, and at that point it can be influenced, guided, or routed. Without a discrete attached core, it would be unclear how such a transition could be consistent.
So the issue with “non local consciousness” is that it dissolves individuality into a diffuse field. A structured model requires an independent spark that is attached to the body and filtered by the brain. That preserves independence from the brain while still allowing containment, routing, and memory suppression to be discussed in a coherent way.