My eyes took in the words of your post, the language was processed probably in the temporal association area where the patterned activation moved into my own preconceived abstractions (encoded in cortical association areas), which themeselves are econded by neurons with unique relative weights In how they would respond to intellectual stimulation. These weights were already prepared from the day before and the lifetime before that. So when my consciousness sat down to start thinking about the genesis of voluntary motor control, I experienced the stimulation of the pathway which wondered about your argument and that culminated in me moving my finger, testing it out.
My argument then is that consciousness does not generate spontaneous neural activation, but that consciousness produces motor control via a complex relay of neural activation, which you as a conscious being can modify. Your consciousness I argue is a meta process, a circuit of consistent activation which can be moved in to modify the properties of defined neural circuits. The above posters seemed ill at ease with this argument, but the alternative - spontaneous neural activation pulled from the ether - doesn’t offer a convincing take.
In support of my argument, if you look at consciousness develop in babies, it seems to be an emergent phenomenon. One is not born with a thread of consciousness from their conception to their end. It begins in a recognizable form around 5 and changes over a lifetime. Thus preloaded neural connections are necessary for concious experience. Furthermore consciousness can be lost while the brain still functions, evidence that neural activation is necessary but not sufficient for conscious experience. If it was sufficient then maybe your idea that it generates spontaneously would hold up.
