I'm not sure what to say. Is that a zen koan?

Because it is locked onto the body and is deprived of sensation. — EnPassant

If the soul were something different from the body, it would have no problem depriving itself of the senses. It would be freer. But the soul's dependence on the senses is such that by depriving itself of them it ceases to function and decomposes. And I say soul because the theory of the body as a prison of the soul is typical of Christian Platonism via St. Augustine.

Of course you can give that theory a religious mythical content and resort to poetic images (the idea of prison is), but you cannot support it with any kind of evidence. All evidence points to the fact that the mind, if you take away everything that comes from the body (starting with sensations), is a total vacuum. Try describing the mind without the data from the senses and you will see what you have left. Nothing. Consciousness is always consciousness of some external thing.

Consciousness is not a thing so much as a phenomena. A whole body , immaterial phenomena. However cellular microtubules sound promising as a possible location where the main action takes place – on an immaterial quantum level. — Pop

I think we have a problem. This thread is confusing consciousness with mind. Put it simply, consciousness is the mental state of realizing or to be aware of the position of the 'I' among things. Mind is the faculty of thought.

Second, there are no immaterial quanta. Quantum mechanics is physics and deals especially with the behavior of elementary particles, which are matter, that is, mass and energy. If you want to say that the mind is an elementary particle you are going to have problems. I don't see an electron being aware of anything. But your main problem is that mind would not be immaterial.

Please do not confuse consciousness with mind! They are two words with different meanings.

Consciousness is generally seen as something that arises within our physical being. But what if we turn that on its head, and say that our physical being arises within consciousness?

Consciousness is always primal and central. It's the portal through which everything must pass. Our sensory perceptions, emotions, thoughts, and memories are only made real to us by our consciousness of them.

So you can take it further and say that consciousness is all there is. I'm conscious of being a body/mind entity, but I have no absolute proof that my body or anything else exists as a physical reality.

I operate according to the default assumption - the things I perceive do actually exist, physically and independently of my consciousness of them. But I can't know that absolutely. All I can know is my consciousness of those things.

Thus I would argue that this mystery called "I" arises within consciousness, and not vice-versa. All I can say about myself with absolute certainty is that I am consciousness, and that all appearances of a physical universe arise within this consciousness.

Is it not the same for you? :)

I'm not sure what to say. Is that a zen koan? — Professor Death

Interesting notion. If it was a zen koan, I don't think that was an adequate response. Note the connection between the response and the responsibility. You needed to show your zen, and you didn't, because you didn't take responsibility for your response but tried to put it on me. A failure to be fully conscious.

But I am not a zen master, so I count your non-response more as a success that you are reduced to reifying a form of words rather than a single word is progress.

I'm not sure what to say. Is that a zen koan?

Is that a zen koan?

Please do not confuse consciousness with mind! They are two words with different meanings. — David Mo

Consciousness is an evolving concept. I may get a little ahead of myself but I find your views a little dated. I tend to agree with IIT theory and GW theoty. I particularly like Roger Penrose’s cellular microtubule proposition.. I personally believe qualia informs consciousness, rather then the traditional view. I believe the world is coming to the view that mind is a state of consciousness. Where, put very simply, consciousness is a state of unified and integrated information and mind is a prolonged state of this.
What is your understanding of how mind manifests itself?

Second, there are no immaterial quanta — David Mo

Superposition cannot be described as material.
Quantum fields cannot be described as material.
If this is so, then they are immaterial.

Superposition cannot be described as material.
Quantum fields cannot be described as material. — Pop

Why not?
What means "matter" for you?

Consciousness is an evolving concept. — Pop

I think it's good that the meanings of a word evolve, as long as it's not in a confusing way.
If we equate "consciousness" with "mind", I do not see how we can distinguish the whole of thought activities with the subset of self-awareness thoughts.

One can alter consciousness with drugs.
One can lose consciousness with injury or drugs.
One can be rendered unconscious with anesthesia.
Injury to certain anatomic regions of the brain can cause permanent and irreversible loss of consciousness.
So where does consciousness reside?
What is the link between the human brain and human consciousness?

ok, I'll stop reifying. I'll leave that to the scientists.

Somewhere between the midbrain and the cortex.
Start removing or damaging parts and see when consciousness disappears or alters?
(See traumatic brain injury reports)
Do you distinguish between awareness and content?

Superposition cannot be described as material.
Quantum fields cannot be described as material.
— Pop

Why not?
What means "matter" for you? — David Mo

When superposition is collapsed it becomes matter.

Consciousness is an evolving concept.
— Pop

I think it's good that the meanings of a word evolve, as long as it's not in a confusing way.
If we equate "consciousness" with "mind", I do not see how we can distinguish the whole of thought activities with the subset of self-awareness thoughts. — David Mo

You seem not to understand very much, yet you make bold statements.
This is an expression of your consciousness.

Do not feel too bad , we are all in this boat to some extent.

According to American philosopher John Searle: '' By "consciousness" I mean those states of sentience or awareness that typically begin when we wake up in the morning from a dreamless sleep and continue throughout the day until we fall asleep again. ''

Perhaps take up your inquiry there, I am otherwise busy.

Control of a small number of neurons the thalmus can induce wakefulness versus sleep, so where is consciousness held ?
The researchers headed by Prof. Dr. Antoine Adamantidis discovered that a small population of these thalamic neurons have a dual control over sleep and wakefulness, by generating sleep slow waves but also waking up from sleep, depending on their electrical activity. The research group used a technique called optogenetics, with which they used light pulses to precisely control the activity of thalamic neurons of mice. When they activated thalamic neurons with regular long-lasting stimuli the animals woke up, but if they activated them in a slow rhythmical manner, the mice had a deeper, more restful sleep.

This is the first time that an area of the brain has been found to have both sleep and wake promoting functions. "Interestingly, we were also able to show that suppression of thalamic neuronal activity impaired the recovery from sleep loss, suggesting that these neurons are essential for a restful sleep after extended period of being awake," says Dr. Thomas Gent, lead author of the study. This shows that the thalamus is a key player in both sleep and wake. The study has now been published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

I feel the brain is important, perhaps central. But there is enormous cellular complexity that has to be accounted for. What controls epigenetics? We can remove an organ and it continues to function, independant of brain input. It seems to have a type of consciousness related to its function.
Ie: Covid has been defeated millions of times by the body's immune system, yet humanity is still trying.
Which is the more conscious in relation to this narrow task?

I am a panpsychist but I have trouble with using "consciousness" that way, as the term usually means self aware self reflective in a way that liver cells probably are not. If you want to claim other cells have experience or temporal or spatial relations we might find common ground. Consciousness as the term is typically used requires a brain and is inseparable from it although I don't think neuroanatomy or neurochemistry alone can explain "experience" or conscious content.

My own understanding of consciousness is, of course, still evolving and highly speculative.
Have you considered creatures that do not have brains?

Perhaps take up your inquiry there, I am otherwise busy. — Pop

I was afraid of that. You don't know how to answer my questions and that makes you very "busy".

Although I consider mind and experience to be ubiquitous in nature. I consider consciousness (self aware, self reflective) to be relatively limited, a special form of mind or experience if you will. Definitions are a problem in this area.

I can respect that you do, and that is the general understanding. But generally we do not understand consciousness, so I question the understanding.
Good luck with it, and thanks for your input.

I vote "none of the above" because you are reifying an abstraction. Consciousness isn't a thing that is housed, nor is it an illusion. It's a process of moving from one intentional state to the next.

Its both a quality of energy and matter - fundamental to the universe. — Benj96

I picked the prevailing thought process there (45%). Consciousness can be thought of as "held" in both places; in the mind itself as a receiver as well as a transmitter to the universe, like the law of attraction( QM).

why would you believe objects are the only things that exist in specific locations (reside/are positioned)? Energy resides (as matter) yet also is an actionable force (that supposedly doesnt reside but influences). Anything that exists in the universe resides in the universe at the very least even if it is something that is part of the basic fabric. Perhaps my question could have been phrased better but as far as I'm concerned my question is not wrong... simply you disagree with the assumptions I used to make it. Others have happily answered it with their views without telling me my questioning is invalid.

why would you believe objects are the only things — Benj96

I don't. There are all sorts of things, including objects, that exist in specific locations. This is why I talk about things and not objects.

Others have happily answered it with their views without telling me my questioning is invalid. — Benj96

Yes, and it's rather unkind of them, because it leads to difficulties and confusion. Will you accept that there are nouns (X) of which one cannot sensibly ask "Where is X?" Where is time? Where is confidence? Where is abstraction? Now if I am right, then 'where is consciousness?' is similarly a wrong question. I don't pretend I can prove it, but I commend it to your serious consideration. What would it mean to you to have an answer to your question? What do you have to give up in order to say that there is no answer?