Quantum consciousness...

[bennyboy]

From one crazy ass thing to another, eh?    We've been down the rabbit hole before, and..to paraphrase, there is no such thing as "truth in context" as you use the terms.  When a question has more than one answer..either something in the question is amiss, or there are two or more subtle questions hiding in what seems to be a singular query.  

Sure there's truth in context. Is it true that giving up your queen for a pawn is the best move? That depends first on the particular arrangements of pieces on the board, and ultimately on whether you're even playing chess.

Is it good to jump into a vat of acid? That depends on how you define "good." Your definition provides the context in/by which actions may be defined as good or bad. In the context of you trying to survive, it's clearly bad. In the context of you trying to minimize your impact on the world, it's good.

The context of the study of mind is not established in this way, from external observations.  It starts from what most would call a brute fact, and spreads out from there.  In other words, it is a case of projection rather than one of inference.

Do you take issue with that brute fact? That's how inferences are made - you begin with the known, so that you might explain the unknown.  Is a chimp conscious?  I don't know - does it act like a representative of the set we take to be "conscious entities"?  Does it possess a structure similar to the one which does so in known conscious entities, or capable of producing that effect by some other means?  Similarly, does a conscious entity have to act precisely as a human being acts?  I don't think that anyone proposes that.  Further, we're well aware of faulty projections of consciousness, for example, thunder gods.  Seems to me that theres a whole lot of observation based inference being made - regardless of whether or not we also project - or that sometimes we base our inferences on those faulty projections.

Nevertheless, mind holds a special place, because it's the only idea which is first projected, rather than inferred from observation. The reason for this is obvious-- all observations are made through the medium of mental agency.

-and attached to a specific organ in human beings, the brain, which we can observe in operation.  What sense does it make...even in your own view, to maintain that this is not an observation of consciousness?  We are observing those perfectly normal metal events...even though we may not be able to interpret them, insomuch as we can't ofc - they're not a total mystery.  We know enough about those events and that organ to ascribe regions to the brain, and that activity in region x is, reliably, a mental event concerning visual inputs - another, auditory input, another...movement.  We've learned this by observation and inference.

The idea is that consciousness is intrinsic to the Universe-- it's the default state, not a special-snowflake state. It is the context established by neural connections which get bundled together to give the impression of human agency.

In a familiar way, I'd say this is why we don't remember dreams well. When that context established by your name and other aspects of your world view come flooding back, those vaguer perceptions with less well-established contexts get eclipsed.