With regard to your article, I think you are overly simplifying 
consciousness to a more materialistic explanation. It is possible to be 
both conscious, for instance, and asleep. We might say that person is 
"not as aware" at that specific moment, but that they are still 
perceiving something is reflected in the potential for having dreams.

I would also say that the consciousness is not inherently chaotic, 
although there are certainly those who have a chaotic consciousness.

Both of these points relate to the idea of consciousness having a 
"level". A young child, for instance, we would not say is conscious in 
the same way as an adult. They are at a differing level. Likewise, we 
would not a blind or deaf person is not conscious. Indeed, sometimes 
they seem to develop some other way of dealing with the lack of the 
physical analogs we normally associate with perception.


Those are some of my rudimentary thoughts on your article.  At the very 
least, reading through it made me consider some matters I haven't 
articulated in awhile.

Hey thanks for reaching out and reading my article!

> With regard to your article, I think you are overly simplifying 
> consciousness to a more materialistic explanation.

This is very likely.  I haven't really read the literature on consciousness and only have a bachelor's in neuroscience that I have never really used in any practical sense.

> It is possible to be 
> both conscious, for instance, and asleep. We might say that person is 
> "not as aware" at that specific moment, but that they are still 
> perceiving something is reflected in the potential for having dreams.

Interesting point.  I think there's also a question I would need to answer about going under general anesthesia.  Are we conscious when we are under anesthesia?  How does that work into my explanation?

I don't have answers to these questions besides to say that in both cases our brain is still responding to the recursive loop, it just has fewer inputs that we are aware of at the moment.  In both cases we are essentially drugged which dampens our perception.  Attention/focus is less of a thing in both cases and we are not able to interact with the world at all.

> I would also say that the consciousness is not inherently chaotic, 
> although there are certainly those who have a chaotic consciousness.

That sounds right to me.  My point about chaos was that randomness and entropy give rise to creativity and "free will."  Essentially, it's impossible to pre-determine all the inputs that give rise to a decision we make because of the chaotic nature of our brains.  It's still deterministic, but it's not something we would ever be able to control in an laboratory environment to perfectly recreate a decision that we make.  Does that make sense?

> Both of these points relate to the idea of consciousness having a 
> "level". A young child, for instance, we would not say is conscious in 
> the same way as an adult. They are at a differing level. Likewise, we 
> would not a blind or deaf person is not conscious. Indeed, sometimes 
> they seem to develop some other way of dealing with the lack of the 
> physical analogs we normally associate with perception.

I haven't thought about having different levels of consciousness.  I think it probably makes sense but when zooming out I would say that consciousness is more binary.  I'm more interested in if the system has the capacity to be conscious instead of what level of consciousness are they at right now.

> Those are some of my rudimentary thoughts on your article.  At the very 
> least, reading through it made me consider some matters I haven't 
> articulated in awhile.

I love having these types of conversations with people so thanks!