I did a redraft, hope this is clearer:

Consciousness

What we perceive, feel, and think is experienced from a unique internal perspective. Descartes was the first to envisage consciousness as being the experiential mental phenomena separated from the physical realm. In doing so, he invited beliefs in a metaphysical self that has confounded philosophical thinking and given those predisposed to this sort of concept a basis for which to justify beliefs in all sorts of ethereal things. What is needed is a fundamental explanation of consciousness that can be easily understood to demystify this concept and provide a platform for rational, logically minded contemplation.


1. The ‘hard problem of consciousness’

As proposed by Chalmers, this includes the inner aspect of thought and perception. The way things feel when we experience visual sensations, music, happiness or the mediative quality of a moment lost in thought. That seemingly undiscernible thing within ourselves that coalesces into a unique individual.

This is opposed to the ‘easy problem of consciousness’ where objective mechanisms of the cognitive system are reducible to physical processes. These include discriminating sensory stimuli, reacting to stimuli, speech, intellectual thought and integrating information to control behaviour.

For me it seems intuitive that the ‘easy stuff’ would be harder to explain than the ‘hard stuff’ that we all have a direct and personal relationship. But that’s me.


2. Dual perspectivism

Consciousness combines two perspectives of ourselves; our inner view and external view. By combining these two perspectives we are able to identify our capabilities and competencies and the direction of how best to use these in order to meet the demands of our environment and gain a competitive advantage. This likely creates an evolutionary priority effect.

I think that it is likely that the concurrent experience of these two perspectives is actually what we experience as consciousness. Our internal quasi-perceptual awareness combined with what we are able to perceive directly.

As an example, you may feel an internal apprehension that someone has broken into your house on the basis of externally perceiving a broken window and an empty space where the TV used to be.


3. Internal and External Environments

If there is anything that is steadfast and unchanging, it is change itself. Change is inevitable, and organisms that don't accept change and make adjustments to their behaviour to keep up with changes are doomed to fail. There are events or situations that occur that affect an organism in a positive or negative way. These events or situations can have either a positive or a negative impact on an organism and are called environmental factors.

There are two types of environmental factors: internal environmental factors and external environmental factors. Internal environmental factors are events that occur within an organism. Generally speaking, internal environmental factors are easier to control than external environmental factors. Some examples of internal environmental factors are:

• Shift in priorities
• Morale
• Evolutionary priority effects
• Other issues

External environmental factors are events that take place outside of the organism and are harder to predict and control. External environmental factors can be more dangerous for an organism given the fact they are unpredictable, hard to prepare for, and often bewildering. Some examples of external environmental factors are:

• Changes to economy (quid pro quo)
• Threats from competition
• Social factors
• Accepted normalities
• The organism’s species itself

Consciousness allows a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis to take place that looks at internal and external factors that can affect an organism. Internal factors are your strengths and weaknesses. External factors are the threats and opportunities.

This is not a linear but a dynamic, experiential and qualitative process. This process is a balance between internal subjective priorities, perceived external factors and the mental attitudes we ascribe to both of these factors. This enables an individual to appraise their positive and negative attributes regarding a particular goal or situation, the impact of external factors on the goal or situation, and guide them to make rational choices based on this analysis.


4. Observations

An observation I will make is that newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as ‘basic consciousness’ but they still have to mature to reach the level of adult consciousness. This would seem to draw a correlation between physical growth and consciousness.

Mental illness is also worthy of note in that a person may experience drastically altered mental states or qualitative experiences of both external and internal environments. This can be transitional or more permanent and is known to be the product of treatable physical processes in the brain.

Having both a healthy internal and external appreciation of self and environment would then seem to be integral to consciousness. I contend that consciousness itself is just an abstract word for this process.


5. Conclusions

So, there would seem to be an evolutionary advantage in having both ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ consciousness and a correlation to physical development and disease. Associated mental attitudes we use to conduct a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis are merely a part of our consideration of internal and external environments.

Furthermore, it is conceivable that any organism that can construct a concurrent internal and external viewpoint is able to identify capabilities and the direction of how best to use these in order to meet the demands of their environment and gain a competitive advantage; be conscious.

Given the above, I do not believe that it is reasonable to assume that consciousness is a metaphysical entity separate to the physical body. I hope the above goes some way to providing a fundamental way of thinking about consciousness that somewhat demystifies consideration of this topic.


6. Comments

In response to the below questions regarding the contemplation of who we are and consciousness I provided the below answers:

"What actually are we? Where are we?"
We are lucky, our bodies occupy the only region of space in the universe where we exist.

“How do you know that your experience of consciousness is the same as other people's experience of consciousness?”
That’s a complex question because, more importantly, people have varying views on what consciousness is. You could be talking with someone who believes that they have a metaphysical presence separate from their body whilst you might think your consciousness is a function of brain activity inseparable from the body. A fundamental mutual understanding of what consciousness is is required before this question can be sensibly answered.

How can consciousness combine two perspectives if it's contained in one of them?

Consciousness is not one of the two perspectives. The two perspectives are fundamental to consciousness and the emergence of evolved sentience. Can you honestly not identify an internal and eternal view in yourself?

Environmental factors often impact organisms either in positive or negative ways.

Internal and External Environments

If there is anything that is steadfast and unchanging, it is change itself. Change is inevitable, and organisms that don't accept change and make adjustments to their behaviour to keep up with changes are doomed to fail. There are events or situations that occur that affect an organism in a positive or negative way. These events or situations can have either a positive or a negative impact on an organism and are called environmental factors.

There are two types of environmental factors: internal environmental factors and external environmental factors. Internal environmental factors are events that occur within an organism. Generally speaking, internal environmental factors are easier to control than external environmental factors. Some examples of internal environmental factors are:

• Shift in priorities
• Morale
• Evolutionary priority effects
• Other issues

External environmental factors are events that take place outside of the organism and are harder to predict and control. External environmental factors can be more dangerous for an organism given the fact they are unpredictable, hard to prepare for, and often bewildering. Some examples of external environmental factors are:

• Changes to economy (quid pro quo)
• Threats from competition
• Social factors
• Accepted normalities
• The organism’s species itself

Consciousness allows a strength, weakness, opportunity and threat analysis to take place that looks at internal and external factors that can affect an organism. Internal factors are your strengths and weaknesses. External factors are the threats and opportunities.

This is not a linear but a dynamic process.

According to my description of consciousness: "I believe that the concurrent experience of these two perspectives (inner/external) is what we experience as consciousness. Our internal quasi-perceptual awareness combined with what we are able to perceive directly" I guess that any thing that can do this is conscious.
— Brock Harding

That sounds very panpsychist.

Any organism that can construct a concurrent internal and external viewpoint is able to identify capabilities and the direction of how best to use these in order to meet the demands of their environment and gain a competitive advantage. This likely creates an evolutionary priority effect.

Having both an inner and outer appreciation of self and environment is essentially sentience.

According to my description of consciousness: "I believe that the concurrent experience of these two perspectives (inner/external) is what we experience as consciousness. Our internal quasi-perceptual awareness combined with what we are able to perceive directly" I guess that any thing that can do this is conscious.
— Brock Harding

That sounds very panpsychist.

Not really, what I am actually saying in my discussion post is that any organism that can construct a concurrent internal and external viewpoint is able to identify capabilities and the direction of how best to use these in order to meet the demands of their environment and gain a competitive advantage. I also say that this likely creates an evolutionary priority effect.

What things, besides us, are conscious?

According to my description of consciousness: "I believe that the concurrent experience of these two perspectives (inner/external) is what we experience as consciousness. Our internal quasi-perceptual awareness combined with what we are able to perceive directly" I guess that any thing that can do this is conscious.

can you give me an example of how any perception/feeling/thought could be reduced to a particular physical system?

In fact I think mental illness in general is a good example of how the quasi-perceptual cognitive process, including the hard problems of consciousness, can manifest itself. People suffering from these disorders can experience drastic changes in their subjective qualitative experience of themselves including the way they feel and experience visual and auditory sensations. These mental states can be transient or long lasting and are most definitely reducible to physical systems in the human body.

Anxiety disorder is a good example. Plenty of information available on its neurological causes.

Without a driver in it? Consciousness implies something like conscious. "Mindfulness": something like mindful. Or possession thereof. Greatness: being great. Consciousness: being conscious. Driverness: being driver?

According to dualism without a driver would mean that the car is controlled by the 'Subdriverness' and with a driver it is controlled by the 'Driverness' - the driver being the brain of the car.

Could we reword the claim "consciousness is an illusion" as "consciousness is created by neural activity in the brain"?

I guess we could but I think a deeper insight is needed. I think describing the brain as having a 'consciousness' is kind of like saying your car has 'driverness'. It is all about perspective.

Good! As you're claiming that science has now dispensed with the 'ancient thinking' that posits an 'uninformed dualism', then perhaps you might say how that same science tackles the explanatory gap or the 'hard problem of consciousness' that was the subject of David Chalmer's well-known paper.

I will see if I can put something coherent together on it. Would you like me to solve world peace whilst I am at it? :)

I should have probably been clearer in my post, but I also introduced time-variant systems mechanics to the mix of things that our brain does which, in my opinion, fills the 'qualia' gap between the physical and non-physical subjective insubstantial-seeming mental world.

I guess I was speaking to that term in the above quote.

Perhaps you could explain to our new friend the significance of the term 'explanatory gap', he says he doesn't know of it.

Thanks, I have looked into it and now understand the term.

Thinking is not an illusion, the concept that you need a non-physical entity to think is. Makes sense to me in the context of your prior reply - you said 'if conscious, thinking were an illusion then this conversation would be an illusion'.

No, haven't heard of it.

More or less. My citing of consciousness, mind etc is in the context of the dualistic view which I understand is why those terms were created. I guess the term consciousness etc is so ingrained into our modern vocabulary/concepts that it means different things to different people.

Thinking is not an illusion, the concept that you need a non-physical entity to think is.

I am in no way suggesting that physical processes are an illusion. I am proposing that our non-physical interpretation of them is. To cite your example about digestion, do we go around saying that there is a non-physical entity that consumes food and produces poop in our bodies?

I should have probably been clearer in my post, but I also introduced time-variant systems mechanics to the mix of things that our brain does which, in my opinion, fills the 'qualia' gap between the physical and non-physical subjective insubstantial-seeming mental world.

If you think of the 'Soul Ideology' as referring to the mind then I guess you have an early iteration of psychology.

I understand. I think the concepts of ethics and morality, in contemplation of the soul, are still valid but you are correct; I am postulating that seeing the soul as a distinct entity seperate to the body and mind should be discarded.

I am also conscious of not dismissing centuries of contemplation of the 'soul' which has undoubtedly yielded moral and ethical value to society.

Yep, same theme just wanted to redraft it. I believe that the mind is a physical function of the brain and incorporates both the conscience and sub-conscience. I am saying that the soul, as widely understood by contemporary theology, has no physical existence but it does exist as the mind as a whole. To understand this a realignment of perspective is required which is not always an easy thing to do given our own cultural and theological bias.

The idea of the body having a distinct soul is certainly a wide spread contemporary assumption. If you do some cursory google searches on Ancient Greek views of the soul and spirit you will quickly realise that early ideologies on the soul and spirit were merely an attempt to classify the mind which would have seemed an ethereal form in those days without informed science regarding brain function. It would seem that civilisation, only later in it's development, changed this conceptualisation into an immortal soul.

By going back to Ancient wisdom of the soul/spirit we can see what the intent of their true meaning was. I have no doubt of this. Trying to convince others is another matter. Hence I postulate my initial theory that the mind is the soul and to have a soul is to have a mind. This would certainly bring us closer to our true selves and opens the way to a fresh perspective on contemporary beliefs.

It certainly has, perhaps postulating otherwise is futile but I think it is worth considering other perspectives if only as an intellectual exercise.

Appreciate your comments but the original post was more about shifting perspective on how we view what our 'being' is more broadly comprised of. I find it odd that some people belive that they have a distinct soul and spirit seperate to the body.

'Getting beyond our constructs' reminds of that scene in the movie 'The Matrix' where Morpheus offers Neo the blue or red pill. It appears you want the blue pill.

Love the Peter Pan analogy. I guess one of the points I was trying to make is that the spirit and the soul do not exist and are merely artificial constructs or concepts. The mind, a result of complex brain function, and body is all we have to play with.

Thanks. I will work up the content over time to better express what I want to say.

I guess the point is that the mind forms how we perceive ourselves, others and reality. It determines our reactions and behaviour. It is our soul. By the way I'm still undecided what the title for this post should be. Any suggestions?

The idea is that readers come to their own realisations.

I do have more to say but I am conscious not to limit the perspectives of any readers. I prefer to let readers form their own minds.

Hey, it takes a little while to sink in but what I am saying is that the soul is the mind. I think these days we get so focussed on the details and mechanics of how things work that we lose sight of the bigger picture I.e. the 'observer effect'. Do we really need to know how the mind is created to know it works? Of course how it works is also interesting but doesn't precludes it's existence.

Plato's work is also interesting in the aspect that this is obviously a dilemma considered by earlier ages than ours.

Excuse my ignorance but what is the purpose behind peak experiences if not to rationalise sensory input? I think we sometimes get our heads buried in the granular details of things and that close observation distorts our perspective - the observer effect. Hence my reference to Plato's cave allegory which, to me, takes a step back or broader perspective of the situation in the contemplation of forms.

Talk of peak experiences brings to mind Plato's 'Allegory of the cave'. Check it out if you haven't already.

Not sure. Possibly the organised neural network reacting to input.

As with most things I believe humanity over thinks things. The closest thing we can get to physical reincarnation is someone being born with the same or similar neural network as someone who has lived before. The rest would seem to sophistry of the mind.

I feel your pain. Peak experiences, near or otherwise, can create turmoil and confusion. I believe that a true peak experience is inevitably so as it is the mind struggling to make sense of the complex and varied world we live in and the vast array of sensory input that we take in through writings, music, multi-media etc. The good news is that, based on my experience, you eventually come out the other side with a clearer grasp on reality and who you are. My prior posts on the 'perspective continuum' and how the brain physically works and makes constructs was intended to help clarify things for people in the turmoil of a peak experience, based on my revelations.

Be aware that a peak experience is not always an extreme experience. The fact that you are posting your perceptions and philosophising at the moment shows that you are self actualsing now.

Mental masterbation would certainly explain the widely reported sense of euphoria certain people feel with peak experiences.

I can see a problem with those that do push for peak experiences. I think it is important to be honest about what is conceptualised when someone seeks self actualisation. For instance is a person actually obtaining a heightened state of consciousness if they focus on things such as their spirituality or is this merely a form of mental masterbation. I propose that the later is the case as the body having a spirit is a construct of the mind with no physical manifestation. If anything it occupies the mind with a false actualisation. The key to true self actualisation is understanding what we are, how our mind works and then seeking how that relates to the broader world and others.