It appears that many of the members here are still, in one way or another, stuck on a Cartesian Theater model of consciousness. They believe that there must be a "center" where conscious thoughts are "played out", be that "center" physical or metaphysical. However, this is not the case. Daniel C. Dennet's book, Consciousness Explained does away with this view, and replaces it with the "Multiple Drafts" model. Now, the book explains this much better than I could ever hope to, but here's what I remember: There are many problems with the "center of consciousness" view - one of which is the fact that it goes through an infinite regress, trying to find the actual "center" (as you'd still have a center of the center, and center of that center, and so on). However, the Multiple Drafts model is that we recieve information (through whichever of our senses), but this information must be processed through the physical processes of the brain, and is constantly revised. For example, if I had just spoken to a woman with short hair and glasses, and then I see some long-haired woman run past me (not wearing glasses), my brain could impose the image of the glasses onto the image of the second woman, and I would be conscious of a long-haired woman with glasses. Now, this may seem to mean that I just misjudged, because it "seemed" as though she had been wearing glasses, but (as the book shows) there is really no difference between how it "seemed" to me and how I "judged" it to be. Also note: no revision is the "original" or "more authentic" version, since the "though" was never a conscious thought until after many revisions of the observed phenomenon (these "revisions" taking place, of course, in the brain). Also, it should be noted that we - when studying consciousness and using the Multiple Drafts model - must take a heterophenomenological approach (no, I didn't just make that up ). Phenomenology is the study of things that occur in the mind (thoughts, perceptions, assumptions, etc), but heterophenomenology is the study of things that occur in the mind, from a third-person standpoint - wherein the one studying would take whatever happens in the subject's mind (as they relate it to you) to be as "true" as what happens to some fictional character in a novel: For example, you never question whether Sherlock Holmes really lives on baker street, because in his fictional world, he most certainly does. At the same time, however, you never wonder whether he has dandruff (for example), because the writer has never indicated anything like this, and all that is "true" in a fictional (or phenomenological) world is what the writer (or subject) tells you. I'd like to discuss this in some more depth, but I haven't the time. However, if anyone (perhaps - but not necessarily - someone who has read the book) would like to offer some criticism (good or bad), I welcome their comments.