The Sequel - Statement on Consciousness
(Formally entitled: "New Consciousness Notes")
by David M. Petersen

(so Version 2)

Introduction
This paper is intended to be both an update of my previous paper on consciousness entitled "Statement on Consciousness" and additionally to express some more thoughts on the subject. I also want to give my opinion on some of the major theories that neuroscientists are using these days. To summarize my previous paper: consciousness is "physical" structure (constructed by opposing energies around nothing, like the atom) that doesn't reduce to the brain, which itself is physical biological structure, so in reality consciousness is actually 'physical conscious structure.' It is the next level complex system up from biology that is orders of magnitude more complex the biological systems underneath it (the body which includes the brain.) It includes and transcends these lower level systems exactly the way things do in our universe as described in general by complexity science. In this paper, I'm going to be embracing analytical thinking with a caveat; It has its place and is more than necessary, however it also has some serious limitations describing complex phenomena like consciousness. To be frank, some of the language being used by neuroscientists I find inappropriate and disturbing. Also I want to take this opportunity to confess that I get confused between all of the "isms" in philosophy and I may have used terms incorrectly in the past. It makes me want to avoid them and just talk straight, so I will.

Consciousness includes the body
My previous paper focused on consciousness centering in the brain, but it has become increasingly clear to me that consciousness fundamentally includes the body. In other words, consciousness seems to necessarily include your body's feedback, IE. your thoughts are about the size of your head and centered in your head but your emotions happen mostly in the body (that sinking feeling, the spring in your step, etc.) By the way, this could also shed light on the "phantom limb" phenomenon that people who lose their limbs experience (they feel that the limb is still there;) they feel this because the limb was/is a deep part of their consciousness. As stated in the previous paper, it is clear to me that our consciousness is some kind of new physical energy we can't measure yet, but if we could, I now believe we would see it intermingled with the entire system of the body, most especially around the brain and nervous system, including yet transcending them.

It is neither a hallucination nor an illusion
It seems like so many people want to dismiss the phenomenon of consciousness as a hallucination or an illusion. However, I believe that the "hallucination" that is built in your head, which Amil Seth refers to in his Youtube video "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality" is A REAL STRUCTURE, no matter how much it differs from external reality or how much it depends on biology underneath it. The use of the word hallucination is a poor use of language here and can be shown as inadequate with one question: If its a hallucination, Who's HAVING the hallucination (or illusion?) The reality is that your consciousness is a new emergent physical entity and it is super-complex! This emergent energy structure is your soul. People who say there is no self or soul or that consciousness is an illusion or hallucination are making a big mistake. By the way, even IF a qualia just boiled down to a bunch of neurons interacting and is not a transcendent phenomenon like I am proposing, would that really be an illusion? It would seem that it is more like a physical model or structure made out of neurons and the connections between them. Just because it isn't external reality relative to you doesn't mean it isn't a real thing. In any case the use of the words hallucination and illusion are poor when trying to discuss the phenomenon of consciousness. A strong indicator that these are new actual systems; IE. mind, thoughts, feelings, self etc., is that they can be named. They are emergent entities that need a new name. In other words the reason "brain" is separate from "mind" in our language is that people can just feel that they are two different things.
So, when I read the article in Scientific American that proclaims loudly "There Is no such thing as Conscious Thought," (Ayan) I thought (consciously :) ), but where in the article do you actually prove that consciousness is an illusion? Just because you can't access the processes from which it arises day to day; that's a logic fail right there. Why can't it also be a real entity? It could be and it is. Again, this seems true even if it isn't transcendent like I am proposing. Those processes referred to in the article that you can't directly access were built over years and years of you being you. For example, Abraham Lincoln hated slavery and abolished it, but I guess his thoughts and feelings and the experiences which formed them on the subject were just illusions! No they were not; they ARE energy structures that still exist. Honest Abe is still back there, a pillar of reality, hanging in eternity, along with his thoughts and feelings (the universe is four dimensional and eternal, and our consciousness is one of many balanced systems interwoven inside it.) Now every kid who reads Scientific American thinks consciousness is an illusion; I must confess that this bothers me deeply. There's a lot of good stuff in this article, though. You may think from my previous work that I don't like the analytical approach to philosophy at all, and that's true for philosophy in general, but the study of consciousness still strongly needs an analytical approach. Just keep it real please (pun intended.)

More thoughts on consciousness
A while back I wrote a paper called "Plato Was Right About The Forms" that I now realize has more useful work on consciousness, but the scientists aren't reading it because its more traditional philosophy. Here are some quotes from it: "First we have to get a picture of how consciousness itself exists. To sum up, consciousness is a new form of energy being generated into existence by the brain (and body), that has its own physical structure that is separate from the brain (but includes it.) Now, I believe (and it can be shown easily by the science of physics) that a very fundamental characteristic of our universe is that it is completely continuous. In other words, there is nothing discrete in our universe, only interconnected energy systems. So, (as) everything is continuous and interconnected in our universe, so are our minds. Consequently, This physical structure of the mind is completely interwoven into the continuous fabric of the universe; it is just so complex that we cannot measure it at this time.
When this is grasped, it is then possible to conceive of an idea or experience as an incredibly complex interwoven structure of energy that is inside this overall energy structure of the mind. Therefore, ideas and experiences are continuous structures that are integrated together just like every other structure in the universe. This I believe is the actual definition of a Quale." Also from this paper: "So what about the lesser properties (universals) then? I think that they are physical energy patterns that function as characteristics interwoven into an overall idea, which of course is also a physical entity, which of course is continuous in nature as stated above. So for example the property of green-ness plus the property of chair-ness are continuously interwoven into your mental image of a green chair. You can learn the color green from this chair, and when you see something else green you will remember, and the property of green-ness will be smoothly integrated into your mental picture of the other thing you are looking at that is green. Actually it is probably likely that your understanding of the new green chair is integrated with your first experience of green and your first experience of a chair, and this is of course an actual physical energy integration. Properties then are complex interwoven parts of ideas and experiences which themselves are integrated energy representations of external reality (that ACUALLY exist.")
So really it's not that everything is "physical," it's that everything is energy structure around nothing. Therefore, the complex energy system of consciousness IS soul, and it is the next level of complexity up from the brain and body (which includes and transcends the brain and body.) Qualia are therefore energy structures that balance each other (the ups and downs of daily life,) like the protons and electrons of atoms. Or in other words, if everything is "physical," consciousness is physical but not material like your body.

So Integrated Information Theory?
Now I want to opine on the theory put forth in the article "Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate," (Tononi, Boly, Massimini & Koch.) Respectfully, phenomenology (and I would really prefer the term consciousness here) does not equal mechanism, it includes and transcends it. In other words, if the brain and body (mechanism) are very complex, the mind is SUPER complex. The view that consciousness equals mechanism has adopted complexity but not complexity science; it is really just dressed up reductionism. As stated before, consciousness is not reducible to the brain.
I must also take issue with the idea that any "sufficiently" complex system will be conscious. This idea is irrelevant simply because no new system could ever come close to catching up to it, and also because consciousness evolved a certain way FOR a purpose. Consciousness only exists because of the entire physical chain underneath it that it includes and transcends; that's why nothing will ever be as complex enough to match (especially machines) because this complexity chain has taken billions of years to develop and must exist exactly the way it does.
Ideas like this make me realize that most people doing consciousness research have not read the premiere work on the subject! Please, drop everything and go read "The Phenomenon Of Man" by Pierre Tielhard De Chardin. It is a tough read, but worth it. This man's work on consciousness must not be lost. His work will give you the correct perspective in order to study the phenomenon of consciousness and its purpose and direction here on earth. Based on TDC's work, the whole process on our planet evolution-wise has been a "drive to encephalization" over billions of years to reach consciousness, so the idea of replicating that anywhere else (especially quickly) just fails.
In reality, as shown in my previous paper, there has been a phase transition to a new level of complexity, so there is not going to be a one-to-one comparison complexity-wise from the brain to the mind. In other words, what these scientists are saying is that Consciousness IS the system generating it, and this is incorrect. What they are doing is trying to stuff a next level emergent system into the level below it! These analytical folks want very badly for the solution to be just in the brain so they can figure it out in their lifetime, I suppose. Just because you won't get to the complexity of the MIND in your lifetime doesn't mean your work is not valid or important; it is!

Dynamic Core Theory plus Global workspace Theory - PLUS
These two theories combined yield a picture that is cool and basic. At www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00004/full (Edelman, Gally, Baars.) I found a good source to learn about both. I like these two theories together, you guys are very smart and making good progress. However, everything you are talking about is all there but TRANSCENDED. One question I would ask you in order to illustrate this would be; why do our experiences fluctuate between good and bad so regularly? The answer is that there is a whole next level reality to our conscious experience!
Try to picture the entire physical system of the functioning brain (the dynamic core) supported by the body and then picture right at the edge of every physical part of it a NEW energy structure that encompasses everything but transcends it and balances around nothing via experiences or qualia. The field would be heavier around the brain and lighter around the nervous system through the body. One could almost draw an image. Then look for the balancing effect of experiences across the entire system, not in the subsystems. We can only see this balancing effect (IE. your day to day and week to week ups and downs) from the inside right now. however I do think that the global workspace concept does start to describe very well the inside view and workings of this new energy structure.
Another question I would ask you guys is what about the well documented transcendental spiritual experience, also known as the mystical experience? If you are going to dismiss THIS phenomenon as just being made up by the brain then you've definitely never had one! Also in the case of platonic love between two people, what makes more sense? That its two conscious energy systems interacting 'wave-like' in 'consciousness space,' or two discreet biological systems That have no connection to each other, just corresponding brain states? In other words, if you feel like you're "connecting" with someone, what would that connection look like? A wave that's what! A field. Which scenario FEELS more correct?
In the above article written by Edelman, Gally, and Baars, the authors state that "In this paper we show the close relationship between the two hypotheses (Dynamic core theory and Global workspace theory.) This relationship allows for a strictly biological account of phenomenal experience and subjectivity that is consistent with mounting experimental evidence." "We believe that such a biological approach can address and even dispose of several concerns articulated by philosophers of mind and others." "We propose that a biological account of consciousness does not require metaphysical proposals, mathematical reduction, or “strange physics.” (Edelman, Gally, Baars.) Hmm, "strange physics"; I suppose that my work falls into this category. Well all I can say is that physics IS strange! I think that consciousness is to the brain as electromagnetic fields are to wires. I found out recently that the electrons in wires don't really move much, energy is conveyed by fields AROUND the wires. I think consciousness arises from the brain in much the same way; and as a field it could in theory be detected from the outside also. It is an emergent system that fits beautifully inside the ultimate emergent system; our universe
I would also ask this question; if the universe is going to go through another phase transition after biology, what would it look like? It would look like consciousness, that's what! As previously shown in the history of the universe it drops down in temperature and increases in complexity. Therefore, if you guys are going to ignore arguments based on physics, from my point of view you're just working in a vacuum.
The authors also write: "It has been proposed that no matter how adequately a biological account appears to explain perceptual categorization, memory, and various mechanistic aspects of how the brain works, we remain confounded by the so-called “hard problem”: an inability to explain in scientific terms the phenomenal “feel” of conscious experience" (Chalmers, 1996). "Indeed, many people consider this to be an essential and mysterious problem, one that cannot be solved. Unlike the subjects of other scientific accounts, phenomenal experience entails a first-person point of view, and the suggestion is that it cannot be explained by scientific means." "Qualia, the felt contents of consciousness, are therefore concluded to be possibly beyond scientific explanation (Chalmers, 1996). Here, we will attempt to refute this position." (Edelman, Gally, Baars.) Very sorry, but your attempt to refute this position has failed for all the above stated reasons. It is not that the hard problem is beyond scientific explanation, it isn't; its just beyond a purely biological explanation!
They continue: "We also maintain that previously argued categories such as selfhood and phenomenal experience can be explained biologically in terms of patterns of neural activity." and "The combination of such omnipresent sensorimotor signals to the core, and their distinctions that are contemporaneous with perceptual and memorial signals to the core, generates a sense of a self experiencing a surrogate world." (Edelman, Gally, Baars.) Everything they are talking about here is all there but transcended. In reality an ACTUAL self is generated experiencing an admittedly surrogate model (but still real in itself) of the world.

Conclusion
From a philosophical standpoint you guys are far too dismissive of SOUL; you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Our consciousness (and others) IS the point of the universe at this stage in its evolution. Consciousness creates meaning, and meaning is important and eternal. The ideas that consciousness is a hallucination or illusion is just dead wrong and dismissive of the phenomenon itself. From a philosophical standpoint, people just don't seem realize how much stuff they are "chucking away" when they say there is no self or soul! An explanation of our ups-and-downs of experience, the Transcendental Spiritual Experience, and the wave-like feeling of connecting with someone else are some good examples. By the way, my theory, Superconscious Unity Theory supports the view of how consciousness works laid out in this paper and vice versa.

Bibliography

Ayan, Steve, "There is no such thing as conscious thought," https://www.scientificamerican.com/
article/there-is-no-such-thing-as-conscious-thought/, Scientific American, December 20, 2018

Edelman, Gerald M., Gally, Joseph A., and Baars, Bernard J., "Biology of consciousness,"
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles
/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00004/full, The Neurosciences Institute, San Diego, CA, USA

Seth, Anil, "Models of consciousness," http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/
Models_of_consciousness,
(2007), Scholarpedia, 2(1):1328

Seth, Anil, "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality," https://youtu.be/lyu7v7nWzfo, Jul 18, 2017

Tielhard De Chardin, Pierre, "The Phenomenon of Man," Harper Torchbooks, The Cloister Library,
Harper & Row Publishers, Copyright 1961

Tononi, Giulio, Boly, Melanie, Massimini, Marcello & Koch, Christof, "Integrated information theory:
from consciousness to its physical substrate," https://www.nature.com/articles
/nrn.2016.44, Published: 26 May 2016, Nature Reviews Neuroscience volume 17, pages 450 to 461

My entire body of work is archived Here forever. (http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/
http://philosophy.dmpetersen.net)