Question: Consciousness, as defined in The Grand Delusion, is not the same as the everyday distinction we make between consciousness and unconsciousness.
Unless I'm misreading, consciousness (as you define and describe it) would include, for example, a dream that I might have while I'm asleep. I would be unconscious, but the dream would still involve consciousness, since there would be an experience of the dream. Similarly, an experience of being asleep without dreaming would also involve consciousness, as long as there is some awareness of being asleep. Presumably, a sunflower's experience of the sun and its urge to grow toward it would also be a manifestation of consciousness.
This seems quite different from consciousness as the opposite of unconsciousness, which are two states, like being drunk or sober.
Such "states of consciousness" do appear to be either mediated or shaped by the brain, just as tastes and sounds are. Most neuroscientists think that these states are created (rather than shaped or mediated) by the brain. But I don't see how they—or a lab experiment—would be able to tell the difference between mediation and creation.
Can you speak to this?
Response: Indeed, consciousness, as defined in The Grand Delusion, makes no distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness whatsoever since, as is implied throughout the book, we can make no sense of unconsciousness. Please reread the last couple of exchanges between ANYONE and me at the end of chapter 25, and then turn to endnote 61. Also, please reread chapter 22, and then reflect on the implications of Bell’s theorem. It seems you might be conflating the terms “awareness” and “consciousness.” To see how these terms are being used in this book, please consult the glossary. Finally, I also suggest that you reread Appendix B.