Consciousness is always awareness-after-the-fact

Thanks for debating. This debate is turning out to be one of the more enjoyable ones I've had on the site. I intend to confine my discussion of the counter examples to conscious awareness of the rotation of the earth and to thought. I do this because I want to avoid losing sight of the forest for the trees in a protracted discussion over a multitude of examples as it is only necessary to demonstrate one counter example to justify my position. Intellectual awareness of the earth's rotation - Pro protests my example of being consciously aware of the rotation of the earth by drawing attention to the lack of absolute certainty. This does not disqualify the counter example. With Pro's own example of a clock striking, the person who heard the clock strike also had a lack of absolute certainty about what had actually occurred. The person could have been dreaming, hallucinating, or even in the matrix. Nonetheless, Pro considered the person to be consciously aware of the event, albeit after the fact. The example of the earth's rotation was chosen because the level of certainty associated with the phenomenon is very high. (Hence the idiom "as sure as the sunrise") This level of certainty is comparable to that of direct observation, and a lack of absolute certainty is not a reasonable basis to disregard this counter example. Pro brought up another point regarding the rotation of the earth. Pro stated that a lack of an instant connection between the knowledge and the person disqualifies the counter example. ("I have no way of being instantly connected to the knowledge of the Earth spinning in a way that I feel Con has already acknowledged.") I'm not sure exactly what Pro meant by this. Knowledge is stored in our brains and we are instantly connected to this database of facts through the mind's eye. (Knowledge generally being justified beliefs which are objectively true) I suspect that Pro may have been protesting the lack of sensory input but didn't articulate his objection clearly. If that is the case, then I must draw attention to the fact that sensory input isn't required to be consciously aware of something. All that is necessary for conscious awareness is for someone to be aware of some tidbit of knowledge, and for that awareness to form part of their conscious experience. A person simply thinking about a fact that they are aware of makes them consciously aware of that fact, for the mind's eye forms a substantial part of our conscious experiences. Pro also draws attention to the lack of control we exercise over our own thought processes, but I do not see how a lack of control over our thoughts would impact whether or not we are consciously aware of certain things. I see lots of questions in this portion of Pro's response, but not many assertions that appear relevant to determining whether or not the example of intellectual awareness of the rotation of the earth is a satisfactory counter example to Pro's claim. Restating my position on this example for clarity's sake - We are aware of the earth's rotation. When we think about it we are then conscious of it as well. If we're aware of it and we're thinking about it, we are then consciously aware of it as it occurs. Thought - Con disputes many implied factual assertions about the nature of consciousness I made in the prior round. My positions on the nature of consciousness, neurons, and "perceiving tissues" are reasonably subject to dispute, but whether or not these positions are correct isn't necessarily material to whether or not thought serves as a satisfactory counter example to Pro's claim. In an attempt to avoid debating immaterial facts, I will restate my argument with less implied factual assertions: Pro's Claim: Consciousness is always awareness after the fact. Argument: Thought is an exception to Pro's claim. When we think, neurons fire more frequently in our brains. We are able to directly detect whether or not we are thinking. Since we are able to directly detect whether or not we are thinking, we are able to directly detect whether or not the neurons in our brains are firing more frequently. This increased rate of fire is a physical phenomenon that occurs simultaneously with thought, as opposed to after the fact. Our consciousness isn't in the past - It's in the present. Suppose a man were to think about the increased rate of fire of the neurons in his brain that's resulting from his thoughts on the subject. He would certainly be aware that he was thinking. Since he would be thinking about it he would be conscious of the physical phenomenon. He would also be directly detecting that physical phenomenon empirically. He would be aware of it. He would be conscious of it. This would occur simultaneously with the physical phenomenon in question, not after the fact. I look forward to Pro's response.