This is really a coninuation of the last post, Flame and Reason & so I probably should just merge them, which for now I'm sure result in some clumsiness & repitition, but it'll have to do for now. . .
Life is often falsely declared rational, or that it should be judged as conforming to what is reasonable, i.e. what can rightly be deduced by reason.
To treat consciousness as a physical emanation, a rational product of the body, is akin to treating a flame as a product of a match, or perhaps more useful again in analogic terms, as light being produced by a light bulb. The most that can be said of the physical triggers such as the match or bulb is that they are occasional with the appearance of the phenomenon of light, but there is no rational connection between the two, i.e. the physical object of the light bulb in no way rationally concludes with the phenomenon of, light is an light entirely different order of being or manifestation of energy.
Where reason comes in is merely as a result of observance of the appearance of flame or light, and then realising or stating that after such and such triggers, flame appears. This is not in itself though a conclusion based on naked thought, but primarily a time or historically on observance. Flame is an entirely other phenomenon or nature of being to its triggers, just as water is entirely other to hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen and water do not rationally conclude in water. One could not deduce water's appearance from a prior position of ignocrance of the phenomenon of water, and its appearance is beyond reasoning.
Contrarily we could say that a house is a rational conclusion to all the elements such as blocks and bricks that comprise this final structure; there is no rational discrepancy or leap into some other energy form, instead the blocks, tiles, etc. combined in the right manner logically lead to house. Reason from a position prior to its construction could rationally envisage its final state.So in a pure existential state of unknowing, whereas the construct of the house can be rationally divined, the appearance of flame or water is, to use the terminology available to us, miraculous. One can analyse the triggers that are occasional with the appearance of for instance flame or water, but this shouldn't be confused with imagining the process is reasonable, i.e. in accord with what reason could nakedly deduce.
All this does not suggest by the way that reason is flawed, but shows is life is not confined to conforming to logic or laws of reason but is instead miraculous or in accord with a higher flowing 'reasoning' rather than the step by step processes of the rational. It is inclusive of rationality but simultaneously is far beyond it. One could go from here to showing the clunky erroroneousness of arguing about things like Intelligent Design. Such thinking is trapped within a false notion of life as being leaden-footedly rational, where rather than mysterious and truly divine, a Creator is introduced or argued or argued against on the basis of the rational need for such a creator.
To treat consciousness as a physcial emanation, a rational product of the body, the body being the cause and consciousness the effect, is akin to treating light as though it is created by the light bulb. We know, obviously enough, that this is not the case, that light as a phenomenon exists independent of light bulbs, and that light is not the rational conclusion of the physical entity of the bulb - instead it is of entirely distinct form of energy, whose appearance coincides with the trigger mechanisms of the bulb, but which still and always remains not a rational development but a mysterious one. Contrarily kicking a ball and the ball then moving is a clear case of cause and effect. The appearance of light having pressed a light switch or striking a match to a dulled mind might seem to be of the same class of events, but when one truly considers what happens, this should be understood to be not a rational event. We may realise the scientific technicalities in terms of a combination of elements resulting in light or water, but it is key to see that this is still not a rational outcome. It is not a logical development and could not be possibly foreseen, and the 'entities' of water, light or/and flame that appear are entirely other.
So similarly consciousness is an entirely distinct form of energy to an animal body, and could not possibly be concluded from the physical structures. Its appearance is co-existent with the physical structure but cannot be said to be a conclusion of that structure. To look closer at the light-bulb analogy or interrelation. Consider the dimmer apparatus or system - the light appears when the switch is put on, the nature and strength of the light which appears is determined and modified by the wattage of the bulb, and can be altered by turning the dimmer knob. In an enormously more complex but similar manner, consciousness is attuned to the physical apparatus of the body.
But as shown, the light phenomenon is simply co-existent in its appearance with the physical triggers but not created by them, its appearance is not a cause and effect relationship no matter how deeply we analyse and manipulate the trigger mechanisms involved. So of course there is a wholly entwined relationship between body and consciousness, with for example pain, pleasure, hunger, etc altering the experience of consciousness as the dimmer alter the light, but still light light cannot be said to be created by the bulb but simply coincident with its appearance. And similarly physicality should not be considered to create consciousness but instead to be coincident with its appearance.