well, my theory is that we are like molecules that make up a whole. two apple molecules can exist in the same apple, and both molecules are not directly connected to each other, but they both make up the apple and they both have the same characteristics as each other, and the same characteristics as molecules of other apples, and similar but different characteristics of orange molecules. we can be related without being the same.

in that view there is no 'apple', only specific molecules that are interacting in a specific way. It takes an observer to see all the molecules linked up into the pattern called 'apple', and any properties ascribed to the apple are 'emergent' to the observer.

it is inconsistent to say that a property (consciousness) can both exist and not exist (or, as you say, have no local or global position). Quite simply, if consciousness is real then it must be 'somewhere' (this is basic logic). If that 'somewhere' is not a local region of the universe, then it must be the whole universe as there is no third option.

that was me

it's basic logic, Rick. I'm surprised that you are having such a hard time with it. Ranting about 'immaterial objects' sounds like a mystical doctrine rather than a logical argument.

Surely, consciousness does exist within the person who is experiencing it.

Whilst we may not know the location or distribution within the brain or body, we do at least accept that we 'have' individual consciousness, if not universal consciousness.

I am aware that your cigar never seems to get any shorter, even though it is alight!
By the same token my beard has not grown each time I vist the the site!

This is surely a weakness of our avatars!

Categorizing my reply as a rant is an ad hominem argument.

If it is accepted that all things are physical, then your purely physical logic applies. All physical objects must have locations. However, the evidence is that consciousness has no location. It does not follow that it must have all locations. What follows is that consciousness does not follow the laws of physical objects.

whatever you say, Rick

That's not a valid argument either. I am no authority.

consciousness does not have 'materiality' like charge does not have 'materiality', they are 'properties' of objects (material). What I am saying is that a 'property' of any object is a non-local phenomenon; it is intrinsic to the universe and is manifest in the 'material' body (the 'material' body being a subset of the universe). Same with consciousness

the property 'charge' does not occur in isolation, it is intrinsic to a material body (the fundamental 'charge' carrier). All we know is that material bodies sometimes behave in idiosyncratic ways relative to each other, so we say these bodies possess some common property such as 'charge' in order to explain this ordered behavior. The 'field' is simply an imagined construct that helps us make sense of these observations.

Similarly, we can attribute a specific property to material bodies that voted for or against Bush. All we really know is that some material bodies voted either for or against Bush, so we say that these bodies must possess some common property (let's call it 'intelligence') in order to explain the behavior. We might say that a 'positive intelligence' body always votes against Bush, and a 'negative intelligence' body always votes for Bush. Further, if a 'negative intelligence' body and a 'positive intelligence' body approach each other in isolation, they will accelerate toward each other while becoming increasingly agitated. We might then postulate that there exists a 'intelligence' field in which bodies charged with 'intelligence' exhibit specific predictable behaviors, allowing for simple formulaic descriptions of this behavior based on, among other parameters, location and time. (sorry about that, I was having a little fun with politics)

anyway, to recap
Consciousness happens because I am conscious, and material bodies are necessary because consciousness only happens when material is present. But consciousness is not localizable' in space, as evidenced by the unity of conscious experience and the separation of the material bodies that are observed to collectively participate in its occurance. How can a singular conscious experience be a product of material that is spatially separate? Only if the material responsible for the experience is 'backconnected' into a unified level of universal structure in which consciousness is located. If this level is the 'ground level' of reality, then consciousness is localizable only in the universal substrate; i.e., the entire 'universe' must be what is singularly conscious.

you may not be the entire universe but you help mold the collective perception of the universe.

Can't argue with that, but I was hoping to address the argument at hand.

The self in the brain and the brain in the cosmos. It's all just a slight variation in the makeup of atoms and matter and molecules.

It's a matter of matter, for that matter.

The molecular make-up of specific attoms form together in clumps of paticular matter that in turn give rise to certain levels of consciousness.

Traces of time's beginning can be found buried in the homunculus of every living soul that has at one time inhabited earth, or whois now inhabiting and experiencing human reality, and anyone who will at some future point inhabit this planetary existence.

With the universe exploding into existence some 13.5 billion years ago, remnants of the past and time's beginning linger with humans in the form of recycled atoms of existence and have coagulated into clumps of thinking matter, present in the form of the homunculus, the soul, or simply, human cosciousness.

Liberated photons, created when atoms initially formed out of the primordial elementary particles, carried fossil imprints of the early universe and today's conscious states.

The universe was suddenly transparent as opposed to its previous state of blackness, or was there blackness? what was the universe before transparency? How would one describe this state? Does darkness, thus blackness, pre-exist light?

Black - very dark in hue (though not absolutely incapable of reflecting light); destitute of light, or nearly so....

Yes, so what was the state of the universe?

For 380,000 years (after the Big Bang) how would one describe this stage in the evolution of the universe?

Could it have been so unimaginable to the human mind that perception becomes an invalid function of the brain?

From a neuroscientist perspective as opposed to a philosophical perspective:

How do the brain's physical systems work together to create the subjective experiences of the mind - the self-reflective, private thoughts that make us who our consciosness tells us we are?

For a large duration of time, the topic of consciousness was tackled by philosophy and its giants, but that has changed in recent years and neuroscientists have taken up the challenge.

Any thoughts/information out there?

Awareness arises:

How does consciousness emerge from the physical information processed and conducted by the mechanics of the brain?

Recently neuroscientists have focused on the neural correlates - the activities in the brain that are most closely associated with consciousness.

To date, no 'center' for the phenomenon has revealed itself, but advances in imaging have helped in the study of the brain areas that are involved during consciousness.

Two forms of consciousness:

Background - encompasses long-lasting sensory experiences, such as a sense of personal identity, awreness of one's physical body, control of that body and intellect, and one's location in space and time. Other elements include the level of reality of one's experiences and the difference between that reality and fantasy.

Background consciousness provides the foundation for the second type.

Actual - the concrete, rapidly alternating states of actual consciousness include awareness of processes in one's own body and the surrounding environment; intellectual activities, such as thinking, imagining and remembering; emotions, feelings and needs (such as hunger); and wishes, intentions and acts of will.

oooh, does free will arise freely?

and there are good arguments for how belief in (a) god can be advantageous for both individuals and societies

And there are arguments about how false beliefs can be bad. Should culture be based on fantasy?

What is better, truth or comfort?

TRUTH!

There you have it. Begone false comforts.

Relax Hey Hey,

Consciousness is within the body and goes with each body separate from each other animals consciousness.
Different conciousnessses may have similar knowledge and experience, but nonetheless it is different per individual (or animal) at least due to different receptors and formulative mechanisms.

'Mind' is within the brain and within the complete nervous system (at least).

Before birth and after death there is no consciousness because there is no viable brain.
It seems probable that our genes give us a head start with essential survival info. preloaded into the brain, but after that we are on a learning process!

My views alone, so feel free to differ.
I realise that if my thoughts are true, we are less of something useful than some would desire.

Truth is better than money.

Absolute TRUTH!

Not my truth, not Rick's truth, not Dan's truth, not Rhymer's truth, and no, not even Hey Hey's truth.

everybody believes in the virtue of absolute truth, but nobody can prove absolutely that they know it