| Considering we don't have great definition of consciousness
Yes, you will not be able to "define" consciousness. However, you can point to it, so others can get it. It is on the basis of that discovery of consciousness that we can say it is independent. And yes, modern/western science has it backwards. Consciousness does not depend on the brain or body, these are events in consciousness.
A simple book that can help you get it is The Power of Now by Tolle. Science assumes that consciousness depends on the brain, we often take these assumptions to be facts.
You seem to be using obfuscatory wording to avoid the issue. We have evidence that physical brains are not just correlated with consciousness, they are the cause. Anesthetic is probably the best example; once you've administered anesthetic to a brain, consciousness is lost, while removing it restores consciousness. There is no continuity under anesthetic, the time is just 'skipped'.
A simple book that will help you get it, is "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker. Science assumes that consciousness depends on the brain, since that assumption explains the observations. What's more, we take assumptions for facts once we have enough consistent observations to overcome the biases of reasonable people.
I am not trying to obfuscate. And I am sorry if i sounded condescending when I mentioned "getting it".
When you dream at night, and see yourself in a "body", is the mind and consciousness of that body your real consciousness. Is that body's brain creating your real consciousness. If science points to that consciousness, then there is a strong possibility of it being the wrong consciousness. The consciousness of the sleeping person is the real one. The same applies here too.
Normally, since the conscious state is one of low awareness, one is not aware in deep sleep and swoon. However, when one practices being aware and raises the level of awareness, one is conscious in all states. All this becomes very apparent as one raises one's awareness and comes out of "mind consciousness" -- continuously living in thought.
As a person who is sympathetic to Buddhism, I appreciate what you're saying. But, what you are describing is still vulnerable to the "anesthetic defence": Can you (or someone) remain conscious after the administration of anesthetic, especially after training? If not, then consciousness appears to be a strictly physical phenomenon.
I haven't found any literature to suggest that consciousness thru anesthetic is the case. I don't deny that meditation may give you the impression that you have reached "deeper" levels of consciousness, but I don't think your conclusions are justified by the evidence.
Yes, you will not be able to "define" consciousness. However, you can point to it, so others can get it. It is on the basis of that discovery of consciousness that we can say it is independent. And yes, modern/western science has it backwards. Consciousness does not depend on the brain or body, these are events in consciousness.
A simple book that can help you get it is The Power of Now by Tolle. Science assumes that consciousness depends on the brain, we often take these assumptions to be facts.