every moment of consciousness has its feeling. — Pop

Yes, we have direct access to it, which is better than any possible definition or theory. Would it be empirical verses a priori or some terms like that?

It's been a mystery how percepts are projected and combined at all within the brain when matter has thus far been regarded as trillions of separate, quantized atoms. — Enrique

This suggests a singular dynamic network since (Item A) can always interact with (Item B) and again it's useful to consider change of mental content as a change in the supporting biology. It appears supported mental content has input and output capabilities.
Consciousness itself may be partially understood as Brain(mental content) form as a component. But the entire biological organism and environment should also be studied.
Roger Penrose wrote "The Emperors New Mind" published Nov. 9, 1989. Some things on consciousness. It ended up in my 'bad books' shelf. I didn't throw it out just in case.

Of course it will turn out to be more complex than only that, but research in principle might be able to model percepts as if they are objects. — Enrique

Have you ever used a contour gauge? They are made of flat, parallel strips in a frame and when applied to a curved surface the shape of the curve is reproduced. Maybe something like that is happening when our brains/neurons encounter a physical object. And if a brain has this ability then modeling percepts works on the same principle.
I would identify this as the brains ability to instantiate mental content. For example:
BRAIN(mental content) as a universal form.
and specifically for physical objects,
BRAIN(a rock)
BRAIN(a tree)
BRAIN(a mountain)
and specifically for non-physical objects,
BRAIN(information)
BRAIN(thoughts)
BRAIN(beliefs)
BRAIN(percepts)
and some others
BRAIN(time perception)
BRAIN(language)
BRAIN(mathematics)
and so on.
So my point is the physical brain (either classical or quantum) has the ability to contain mental content. I think you are mistaking mental content for quantum states. As here:

The reason I think a quantum theory of consciousness could be a leap beyond current neuroscience in solving the hard problem is because, if we consider visualizing an image in our minds or feeling a sensation, the image or sensation is no longer merely produced by action potentials or neurotransmitters as some mysterious supervenient substance, it is the quantum superposition, precisely. The resonant color of the superposition is the subjective color of the mental image, and the quantum resonance of the sensation is the feeling. — Enrique

I'm just not seeing how quantum scale can effect consciousness. A human DNA strand is estimated at 204 billion atoms. A small part of this would encode the structure of the brains neurons. I'm only aware of genetic code being capable of producing functioning structures on a scale larger than itself so if quantum effects are involved is DNA even relevant?
Edit: And I forgot to ask if you are proposing non-DNA based consciousness.
Second edit: Forgot to address it to Enrique and other quantum theorists.

I'm wondering what physical scale and what mechanism is at work. A neuron has about 100 trillion atoms and has an active state when firing and an inactive (very stable) state when not firing. So I would identify this as a significant scale and mechanism (for consciousness).

You can't reduce a physically instantiated non-physical to a non-physical. It can't exist in that form. It's always a two part relation and irreducible.

So what is the basis for nothing being known? A philosophical position, sleep, incapacitation? It seems by observation that knowing things is necessary to function.

I see option 3 as all-encompassing since mental content covers the non-physical. I'm drawing a blank on what other categories there could be. If you are thinking the non-physical can exist in some extra-physical state you should explain how that works. Or if you are a physicalist you should explain how mental content can exist. If nothing else option 3 is pragmatic.

Ok, but in the context of this problem that is how I think of it. Do you disagree that the non-physical is physically non-existent? And can the physically non-existent exist in an unsupported form. It seems as the conclusion should be option 3.

Using knowledge is possessing knowledge. — Pantagruel

I agree and by observation we should conclude this state is not nothing.
You could also consider what knowledge is.
1. Is knowledge physical matter? no.
2. Is knowledge non-physical? no. Because non-physical is by definition non-existent.
3. Is knowledge brain contained mental content? yes. This seems to be the only viable option of how we can know things.
This state of brain contained mental content could be the root of dualism.

Do abstract objects exist? If abstract objects exist, are propositions abstract objects? If not, what are there dimensions? If abstract objects exist, can they be physically contained within space, or must we then concede to the existence of a non-spatial realm which is transcendent of space? — TheGreatArcanum

There is a basic form that can account for many specific cases in philosophy which is:
BRAIN( mental content ), such as,
BRAIN( information )
BRAIN( thought )
BRAIN( ideas )
BRAIN( mathematics )
BRAIN( language )
BRAIN( abstract objects )
BRAIN( propositions )
BRAIN( philosophy )
And on and on, it's a relation that is universal and irreducible so will always be in this two part form.
Could any of this mental content exist without a BRAIN? no.
Do abstract objects exist? yes, in this two part form.
Does mental content have mass or dimensions? no, but is inseparable from the BRAIN that contains it so it does have a physical location. So the non-spatial realm isn't proven or required.

Edit: And the question I missed is both abstract objects and propositions are mental content.

Ok, The 1990's movie "Wayne's World" has a scene where the media executive Benjamin is asking Garth how he would feel about a change and reminds him it's in his contract. Garth's reaction is "we fear change!" and starts smashing objects on his work bench with a hammer.

Here is my version of how psychiatry research is funded. The big pharma company donates to a reputable philanthropic organization but with earmarks and donor restrictions attached. The philanthropic organization then awards grants to approved research organizations. That way the recipient can claim funding from some great philanthropy without mentioning big pharma. Wink, wink. And if you or I would like to find out who really funded such and such study we would dead end in the philanthropies financial statement. It wouldn't be there and they wouldn't tell you if you asked. This is probably all wrong and just my version but if anyone knows please correct me. That just doesn't seem like real science.

deleted duplicate.

Ok, you are much closer to this issue than I am. It comes up in the news sometimes where someone is court ordered (approved???) to be treated by ECT and have to appeal against it. Cases where the person is judged incompetent to make the decision themselves.
From my perspective it's hard to find the line between science or professional advocacy of a procedure. There are definitely negative side effects.

I was thinking 1955 was about the peak of the lobotomy era.
Here is something current to consider: Advocates of Electroconvulsive Therapy claim memory loss is caused by depression, not ECT itself.

This is an interesting post for philosophy and it should be on all our radars.
Be glad you didn't have a bad day in 1955. It could have been step one on the way to a lobotomy. Not a great profession even today and the science is whatever sells drugs. "Peer review and evidence based" is the current lingo. Some how my brain translates this to "junk science". Wow, how does that happen? Anyway, there doesn't seem to be a lot of psychiatry fans around here.

Another line of thought would be that some philosophy itself could be a form of mental therapy. Just considering that our brains are limited in capacity and that psychosis might be on a spectrum (universal) could be a useful insight. We shouldn't be surprised that brains can fail under conditions of mental overload as any other physical system.

Are you saying Buddhism or religion are a treatment for mental conditions? I don't have a clue. Some people find their own solutions and others can't.

The paradox might have implications for Mind Body Dualism and its offshoots. I'm not all that certain. — TheMadFool

It certainly does! I doubt any type of dualism would get far in most psychiatry programs (academic) but psychosis cases always involve mental content. So, to do it right, both the physical brain should be considered and also the physically contained mental content. There is a problem with the psychiatric profession viewing dualism as the physical and the non-physical and discounting the non-physical. A better wording of the problem would be the physical brain and the physical brains mental content.
The profession has done a poor job on the fundamentals.
I hope that's on topic. I should add that some forms of dualism should not be considered such as stand alone non-physical models (because they are bad models).

Paradoxes are markers for failure. You definitely have an excellent point if you mean why drug a healthy brain. My opinion is, the best use of an fMRI machine in psychiatry research would be to document the damage done by psychiatric drugs to healthy brains.

This type of question would benefit from considering order of analysis.
Should you ask "theism, atheism or agnosticism?" first or something like "how does mental content exist in a physical universe?"?

Just came across this and I like the breakdown, but it seems like it should conclude in something singular. Or, given three beliefs, why can't two be eliminated?
Also, it might be a false menu to start with as beliefs can range through anything that is mental content.

My conclusion has nothing to do with "...thoughts are always inseparable..." — TheMadFool

I'm suggesting that stand alone non-physicals do not and can not exist but non-physicals contained by neurons do exist and that is a state that should be recognized.
A lot of frustration debating monism vs. dualism gets cleared up when this relation is acknowledged.

Conclusion: Thoughts are neither matter nor energy. — TheMadFool

Here is why I think you have reached a false conclusion. You did not consider that thoughts are always inseparable from the neurons/brain matter that contain them. By observation they always go together. Bipartite and irreducible. Neurons are matter so your argument is not complete in its analysis.

Phenomenology and Empiricism might also contribute as philosophies as well as embodied mind theories. — Paul Fishwick

In a narrow, defined sense the question of "what is mathematics?" is the same question as "what is information?". Neither is physical matter and neither is a stand alone non-physical (noun). Both are neuron contained non-physicals. Philosophy fails to identify this relation and the mathematics profession has failed to identify this relation.

It's hard to do better than a good math teacher and an interested student but probably good to have a mix.
The field trips or outings I remember were more social events and maybe some content was built on later. One ecology trip was to a low head dam. We found out much later they are also known as drowning machines
Hope that was what you were asking about. I'm not an academic so maybe that's a students memory perspective
I do remember back and forth conversations with math teachers and that's what worked for me. Like having explained there is a thing called calculus for the very first time.

either our faculties are wholly the product of blind evolutionary forces, or they are not. That's exhaustive. — Bartricks

The "or they are not" part to you is agency but logically it's not singular but in fact can be anything else that can be considered the source of our mental capacities.
And although identifying a source is an interesting exercise why wouldn't direct observation that we possess mental faculties in general be sufficient?

After many failed attempts I am back to try again. It's a character trait.
My analysis is that you have presented a false dichotomy.

State 1 -Our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces and
therefore do not provide us with any true awareness.
-Or-
State 2 -Our faculties of awareness involve agency and therefore do provide us with true awareness.

No other options are allowed and your reasoning hasn't been given, specifically on why true awareness must involve agency.

So you observe an inanimate object like a pie in an oven, that results in representative content. Why the extraneous insertion of agency? The pie has no agency.

Karl Popper's falsification principal would apply to your argument. For your argument to be valid it needs to be testable. For me a counter example proving it false would be representative content of inanimate objects. Since inanimate objects have no agency but are the source of some representative content, your argument is proven false.

I tried a post on another forum 'What is information?". It was a psychology forum. It didn't even come close to any consensus, just a wide range of opinions. Kind of like philosophy.

I did say 14 pounds before the edit. My mistake...Chaos.

I did edit from pound to stone. It's on topic enough to consider information conveyance as an encoding to physical matter, transmit as physical matter, then decode to information by the receiver.

No, the leaf is not telling you my weight. You must have a British background. I'm 14 stone. Had to convert, I did.

Ok, it's your post. I'll just read.

I think what information is, in your terms, is representative content. Something held by our neurons. That way physical signals as input are just physical matter, period. We interpret physical input and hold it as representative content.

Bartricks and Echarmion, could I ask what you think information is? I asked before and you thought I wasn't being serious. Now Echarmion is using the phrase "intentionally transmitted information". Without good definitions it gets into the information pixie area with information riding on light beams and sound waves. I can check the dictionary myself to find common use but would like your thoughts.

So your first premise is nested and unnecessarily convoluted.
Why not just state "unguided evolutionary forces cannot produce faculties of awareness"?
As you wrote it, first faculties of awareness are a product of unguided evolutionary forces, then you conclude they cannot be.

1. If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything — Bartricks

The if, then form of your first premise contains a conclusion within the premise without giving the reasons for the conclusion.