Consciousness; a radically new theory. ephemeral? (Introduction)

by romansh , Saturday, July 11, 2015, 18:01 (3422 days ago) @ David Turell

....So people suggest a transmitter-receiver metaphor. 
> Your approach seems to avoid the fact that the presence of a consciousness is dependent upon a functional brain, which brain, per force, has to stick with you as you travel. 
Reread the excerpt I explicitly assume a brain. -
> > Romansh: This then brings us to receiver. All our supposed receivers are built differently so we pick up different aspects of the transmissions. So we don't know if the transmissions vary but likely their reception does. So we start thinking about the construction of our receiver. Well it is continually be assembled in our toddlerhood, to the point it is considered fully conscious. Then after that the receiver is tinkered with by the experiences we have, the foods we eat and drinks we imbibe. Repeated experiences seems to strengthen certain aspects of receiver.
> 
> It is certainly true that the brain is plastic, self-modifying, but it appears to be in a helpful way improving our mental abilities. 
Not always!-> Consciousness is much more than mental abilities and your paragraph above is really a discussion of personality development, and each of us is very different in that development, and again this is just an aspect of our personal consciousness, but does not address the whole concept of how does consciousness arise from the brain.
But we both do agree it does, in the sense if we did not have them we would not be discussing this nonsense. I simply say the consciousness arises through the brain and leave it there, but you argue no, there is another layer beyond that. On top of that you argue this immaterial layer also in some way guides the construction of the receiver.-> > Romansh: Now, a slightly more scientific inquiry, is the transmission and consequent reception described by cause and effect and thermodynamics in general? Well I certainly don't know, but my reception of the transmission is not aware of evidence of this kind. 
> 
> To me the appearance of my consciousness to me is seamless. I would not expect to note its reception. It simply IS.-To me this answer has nothing to do with my question. -> > Romansh: I am sadly lacking any such evidence of this transmission. I will not use the word therefore, but for the moment I will move ahead on the assumption that this ephemeral consciousness is an unnecessary assumption.
> 
> And I think consciousness is totally immaterial, but somehow based on a functional material brain. The two are inseparable but somehow separate.-Then how does this totally immaterial interact with the material?