Ok, fair enough.
No argument against that... I don't think anyone can seriously argue against a local consciousness.
In fact any proponent of the filter-model or valve-model will start by saying that we see consciousness as a local process of the brain... and then add that there's more to it, and then go into the details of why that is, the evidence etc...
On the other hand the current materialist / physicalist philosophy is very happy to stop at correlational evidence and pretty much sweep everything else under the rug because, naturally, it doesn't fit in the model.
Anyways... your almost constant mocking of any other proposal / idea doesn't seem to backup your apparently balanced reply. A case of split personality? :)
Or it's more of a pretend-to-be-open-minded kind of game?
But that is exactly what
I am not talking about. I provided well grounded evidence here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/the-sequel-to-irreducible-mind.1467/page-2#post-44816
Not philosophical arguments. I am talking about the evidence that goes against the predictions and current model of neurology/neuroscience.
Also, it's worth noticing that you seem to be making the same mistake Steve001 did.
Are you not talking from a very specific philosophical standpoint? :D
The "strong neural correlates for awareness and brain function" are
interpreted as evidence of mind=brain by a very specific
philosophical position. The fact that the materialist / physicalist view is so pervasive that it becomes like water to a fish, doesn't really make it ontologically superior.
So, if philosophy is interesting but ultimately worthless why should the neural correlates be a satisfactory explanation for the nature of consciousness?
In order to argue about that you will need your "worthless" philosophy, my friend :)
cheers