The problem with reductionist explanations of consciousness which invariably attempt to define consciousness as an emergent phenomena of the brain is that invariable it fails to explain the subjective experience.

     It is easy to say when this particular photo-receptor gets activated, it activates this nerve, and eventually this neuron in our brain and we perceive red.

     What isn’t easy to say is WHY red looks red to us and not green or some entirely different sensation.

     The man inside the man is not explained by reductionism, nor do I believe can it be.  Some of these attempts at explaining consciousness have lead me to wonder if some people lack the subjective experience because I can’t think of any other way that scientists could invent some of these theories unless they themselves lack this experience.

     I have had experiences that are non-local in terms of space and time and thus defy reductionist explanations.

     For example, when I was younger, I used to frequently have lucid dream experiences and occasional waking out of body experiences where I could go anywhere and anytime I wanted just by thinking about it.

     One time I wanted to find out if there were any reality to these or if these were just a willed dream of sorts.  So I devised a simple experiment.  I would go some place that I haven’t been to but yet was close enough that I could drive to it, and upon returning to my body immediately write down what I had seen there.  Then I’d drive there and see if it matched what I saw.  It did, exactly.

     I’ve also had a number of times I’ve got into the future and when that time came it played out just as I’ve seen it.  I haven’t had these for several decades but back at the time they drove the direction of my business in as much as I saw it in a dream and then created it in reality.