He compares our working minds to a flying kite, where the kite is the brain and the wind is consciousness as a fundamental part of reality. “The kite has to be built from the right materials in the right configuration with the right tether, but its flight depends entirely on the wind,” Reggente says.
A radio makes another good analogy, Reggente explains.
“[The radio] doesn’t produce the broadcast, it receives and transduces a signal that’s already present,” he says. “But unlike a radio, the brain isn’t merely reproducing that signal with high fidelity—it’s interacting with it. And that interaction is what gives rise to our particular subjective experience.”
Science has not delivered up to now a definition for CONSCIOUSNESS. And therefore ideas about ´consciousness´ are doubtful or of poor quality.
´Consciousness´ usually is only used as a general category-term — without a clear meaning: similar like ´fruit´.
We use ´fruit´ also as a general category-term for different fruits like apples, pears, cherries, plums, …
We humans can have a CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION — this does mean, that we can perceive, understand and describe our experiences.
´conscious perception´ and ´consciousness´ are very different ideas.
(A similar example is the term ´TIME´: ´time´ is also only a general category-term and therefore science/philosophy will never be able to understand what ´time´ is — when this problem will not be solved. e.g. Bishop Augustine split up and distinguished already 1600 years ago (in Confessiones, book 11. chapt. 13–29) already three different ideas: a) divine, b) physical, c) human time / time-perception
Therefore — when you are interested to understand what ´time´ is, then you should not use ´time´ as a cotegory-term; then you have to distinguish and to discuss each of the three ideas a,b,c of Bishop Augistine separately)