Can we think of consciousness as a force of nature?

Sorry, I've not a clue what you are on about with that .

Your no real scenario, bottom line, points into the absurd from which I just did confront you with...very straigh forward acttualy...I sometimes wonder what do you expect Reality to be instead...

Still not clear. "Reality" is socially negotiated. Missing limbs scenario's range from "phantom limbs" through "denial" or "acceptance" to "despair". All have elements of self-appraisal with respect to others and previous self-concepts.

Even if so...in what sense are they not true?They are valid functions aren' t they? That which is being negotiated as you put it, it is what it is...all this different points of view must be the result of real relational experiences between several "languages"...I would rather perceive it in the sense that you negotiate what happens to you...you react accordingly, transcribing in the relational what you trully functionally experience...no matter what you say you have no way around it...

of course

where else did consciousness come from but from Nature

North, I agree. Consciousnes is a natural phenomenon. And the Nature we experience is to the extent that it constitutes the content of our constructed/socially negotiated and meaningful world a product/expression of consciousness.

North, I agree. Consciousnes is a natural phenomenon. And the Nature we experience, is to the extent that it constitutes the content of our constructed/socially negotiated and meaningful world a product/expression of consciousness.

"Truth" is "what works". There is a team of British amputees currently trekking in the Arctic to "prove" an aspect of that to themselves and others.

The "reality" issues include consideration of "who they now are".....in what sense is "the person before "the loss" the same as the person afterwards.
Social context is paramount. We are into identity issues.

You rather should think about on why and how it works...

Relations are themselves shapes and forms...
...spin a square fast enough and it will become and behave like a wheel...
...nevertheless nor the wheel neither the square are false they just need proper justification...

The "how and why" is that dead end called "causality" ....i.e. that pseudo-scientificism which analytic philosophers hope will make them look "professional".Its what Wittgenstein decried as "looking for a theory", which begs the question of whether this is the only satisfactory modus operandi for philosophers.

But you sure can use the how and why when you think something is wrong Fresco...

Maybe !........but as Maturana said, recognition of the futility of causal reasoning in the description of the overall operation of living systems is visceral. You either see it or you don't....it's a gestalt.

That is a bit of a "trick talk"...if you are looking for the overall ensemble to an effect why should go down the ladder ? In there cause is entangled...not that hard to figure...

The problem of (what is) consciousness is truely "the hard problem" in philosophy. I naively equate it (perhaps I should say "conflate it") with full/empty AWARENESS, as opposed to the content of consciousness. The phenomenolgist's principle that consciousness is "of" something is only partially the case. When I intentionally focus my vision on particularly objects I am LOOKING. When I simply open my eyes I find myself passively SEEING (as opposed to looking at) whatever is primordially given. Both are forms of consciousness.

In that sense Consciousness is an echo ...a mirror...you see that you are seeing, therefore you look. Memory of dynamics !

I find this video interesting. Dr John Hagelin explains how he relates consciousness in vedic terms to reality as he has come to understand it through his work with unified field theory.
He is a scientist, but this is not science. Still the way he presents it makes for beautiful and interesting philosophy, and I am inclined to listen to the ideas of one who is amont the foremost contributors to science today. Einstein's philosophical views were always valued because of the gravity of his work.

The quality of the video is low, so the sound and image are a bit unclear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbrC3taCv-E

Good! Seeing (i.e., awareness) gives rise to objects for looking (i.e., consciousness). But I hesitate to call it an echo; there is change not just repetition.
But at first, at least, seeing is "prereflective awareness of the primordially given" (I love that phrase, an accurate description of meditation)

"Wholes" are not "looked for". They are spontaneously occurring structures. (Ref Prigogine and Chaos Theory).

You left me at drift there...who said anything against that ?
...but if I did n´t I can say something against it straight away....I dislike the term spontaneous ! A "chain of dynamics", as I like to call it, accounts for everything ! Non linear "poli operativeness" does not amount to magic emergence ! (Not that there is n´t emergence, is just not magic !)

No. There may be no "deterministic chain". This is one of the main points of departure of quantum physics from traditional physics. There are "spontaneous" aspects to it as in "spontaneous decay", or "asymetrical cosmological dynamics". You are replaying Einstein's "God doesn't play dice" game. The fact that you dislike the idea merely indicates that "traditional scientific bias" of seeking prediction and control.