That's a good description of where I'm at, and I keep wondering if maybe the definition most people are using for "consciousness" just doesn't match mine. The longer I meditate, the less consciousness matters to me; it seems totally clear that I become aware of things after they've already been generated elsewhere in my brain, and that awareness is just a kind of self-reflection which maybe helps with higher-order planning or whatever. I'm still open to realizing I've missed the mark--especially because so many prominent meditators seem very focused on (or even enthralled by) mysteries of consciousness. Until then, I'm really struggling with why people would try to elevate this subjective experience to a fundamental aspect of physics.
> I keep wondering if maybe the definition most people are using for "consciousness" just doesn't match mine
I think this is true, when we talk about consciousness we talk about it as if consciousness has the ability to control the body and speak and that our thoughts are controlled by our consciousness. I think illusionist arguments are very strong here against that. We can change how someone thinks or acts based off of physical stuff (like lead poisoning someone) therefore those things must mostly be physical.
I have come to the conclusion that conciseness probably is only an experiential thing. It might not be able to control anything but there is something fundamental there experiencing something. We cant know that the world is real: we could a brain in a jar, or in the matrix, or on a massive DMT trip right now. But we can know "I think therefore I am", probably better written I experience therefore I am. It seems very strange to throw out the one thing we know to be true, that we are having a conscious experience, in favour of something we don't know to be true, that the world is real and causing that experience.
