What is "Mind?"

Logic is certainly a form of social order.

I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will go "down the drain" into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped.

For starters, "you and yours" include many leading neuroscientists, who as mentioned, admit that they cannot even imagine a model that would show how the quantity of anything, no matter HOW complex their arrangement, could create awareness.

I am hardly alone in believing that the two are closely related but not necessarily causally connected in the way you are thinking or believing.

Again, why would the quantity of anything suggest a causal link between biochemical complexity and awareness? When folks say they can't even imagine what that would involve, in physical terms, what do you think they mean?

At that point, once attention stays put, or "sits," per se, the game changes from observing outputs, to observing perception itself. The problem is, you can't. You can't get outside awareness to a 3rd person position to observe the observer. Describing the process that follows is a slippery slope to be sure, but eventually the duality between observer and content dissolves (relatively speaking) and what awareness is NOT slowly becomes obvious. It certainly is not WHAT we are aware of because awareness would vanish as one achieved some detachment from outputs.

The main point of the Lund paper was to show that "there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined."

Reality is ALWAYS a moving target, ergo it never assumes a "dead stop" position that we can quantify as "real."

Where the subjective adventures get exciting is when the apparent duality between the two dissolves, when there is no separation between you, an ungraspable awareness, and everything else, which is in constant flux.

The matrix, so to speak, is being stuck in a perspective in which one or the other side of the coin appears to be paramount. This is the trance.

Maybe reality isn't compelled to follow the rules of logic?

I am not a physicist, so please how can you explain quantum entanglement without some sort of shared consciousness outside the domain of material physics...instantaneous coupled response across a distance, proved many times in laboratories, including recently by the Chinese from earth to orbit.

Finally, a large number of types of hallucinations can be brought on or curtailed by chemical alteration of the brain, which suggests that brain function plays an important role in this behavior. I don't think it is a large inference to suggest that our perception of "consciousness, mind, etc..." originates in the same place.

Chemistry may be the cause, but the perception of the effect can't be the cause as well.

This is a key point but one I feel you have vastly misrepresented. I was not arguing that many in neuroscience and cognitive science BELIEVE there is a direct causal link between brain generated content and processes, and the indisputable fact that we are aware creatures. My reference is toward those who have tried to PROVE it, or supply some physical model per how objective processing CREATES awareness.

That camp (which is very small) breaks down into two camps: One camp says outright that they can't imagine what the mechanism would be - thy can't even construct a physical model of how it might happen. The second camp TRY and imagine what might be involved, and every one of these theories has one or more fatal flaws, or more likely, the jump from objective processing to awareness is so vaguely present as to be meaningless. This link provides a scholarly overview (from Scientific American) of most all of those who have sought some manner of mechanistic explanation for subjectivity.

The point is that while many feel they are onto something, when you look closely, it's simply not there. At all.

You didn't answer the question, but rather you answered another one. This kind of switch and bait is, as Chalmers pointed out, is common in these discussions.

What you've done above is to try and reckon awareness by virtue of a "response" (output) observable from a 3rd person perspective.

What's more, the unconscious does not organize any objective phenomenon into "sound." Until a subject is aware, "sound" is nothing more than biochemical activity. "Sound" is a conscious phenomenon requiring experience. The source is simply a pattern of disturbance caused by the movement of energy traveling through a medium (such as air, water, or any other liquid or solid matter) as it propagates away from the source,the source being some object that causes a vibration, such as a ringing telephone, or a person's vocal chords. We unconsciously register this movement of energy and our neurons are excited, but "sound" is not real till it hits awareness and the consciousness process. What's more, you cannot trace the evolution of awareness, thought you CAN trace the apparent evolution of consciousness. Even bugs show awareness, but they lack the conscious process to know what it is. Again, so long as you have awareness and consciousness conflated, you end up with a muddled look at this, IMO.

This is not strictly true. Find ONE example of a viable esoteric tradition that says awareness itself is a thing or function that has qualities that one can "interpret." You will never find one. The process is one of elimination, and what you are left with is no thing you can interpret because awareness HAS no qualities. Nothing. Any and all interpretations are based on what is NOT there. What IS there is totally ungraspable. From Tibetan to Tantric to the Upanishads to Zen to Vapassana to whatever you like, the saying is: Awareness is ungraspable. What's more, at depth, raw awareness is the exact opposite of a "state," which can be contrasted with another state with qualities one can grasp and define. Not so with awareness. Whatever you can say about awareness pertains to content.

Another common misconception: All meditators are doing so as compensation for unspoken wounds, and are seeking comfort and redress.

Active flow states have to do with a subject encountering external or internal content. Not what I'm talking about. You don't really have two different awarenesses in the split brain experiments, rather two different consciousness that are not mediated by a coherent or central "I" or self. Awareness will reflect back and reify whatever "shows on the screen," so to speak. But this is a tricky one to reckon for sure. In any event, below the level of conscious awareness we only have machine registration, not awareness as we consciously experience it. And it gets trickier from thre, IME.

I agree with this entirely, except that consciousness IS both simultaneously. One way of looking at it is that awareness and reality are sources and as sources they are continuous and analogue, so to speak. Consciousness is capable of digitizing the analogue into the discrete, lest we would never be able to deal with the "things" in our lives. The "trance" mentioned is our habitual enmeshment with the discrete, and our discursive rambling about it, however true or false. Worth noting is that for humans, though few realize it, the source is continuous, and as mentioned, consciousness can digitize the continuous into manageable parts or bits much as a video camera digitizes reality into 30 free frames a second. For a machine, the source is always digital bits, and machine "knowing" is digital as well, resulting in nothing but mechanical processing and a mechanical output. In a sense, to create a conscious machine you'd have to try and build it in the continuous aspect of the universe, which you can't because you cannot create the continuous out of spare (digital/discrete) parts.

The fact that I am aware is not a belief. Awareness is the one phenomenon for which we cannot possibly be mistaken.

Au contraire mon frere. Biological systems are often built on what are known as " feedback loops" or " biofeedback loops" resulting in the perception being a real time contributor to the cause of the given response.

Furthermore, if this perception is effectively stored in memory, said perception, once adequately reactivated, can produce the identical response as originally produced by the de novo stimulus.