I have responded on your essay page but I repeat the response below for any who may only be following my page:
You state: "Now, i treat brain as a processing and memory centre only while the rest of the body cells , billions in number, are all sensors as well as activators to send signals and receive signals from out side"
I agree that the brain is processing and memory. This is the meaning of defining
intelligence = consciousness plus logic.
Consciousness is awareness and volition, or free will, and has a field nature, while logic is structural, based on material. Material structures store info, combine info, and project info, thereby creating memories and ideas/thoughts of the future. The conscious field and the material structures interact as described in my essay.
Cells are alive and, to some degree conscious. Although I do understand the mechanics of the immune system, I also believe it likely that the consciousness field plays a role in distinguishing 'self' from 'non-self'. Consciousness at the molecular level was probably the added push that, over millions of years, provided the anti-entropic basis for the cell to 'live'.
At the cellular level, consciousness probably provides the glue that is the basis of the organism. Of course all of the molecular biology of the cell (described by Alberts et al) is necessary for the physical functioning of cells, but the evolution of such complexity, without a conscious force at work, has never been explained, and the more one understands the cell, the less likely its independent evolution appears.
Note that I am not ascribing 'ideas' at the cellular level, but the protein/DNA structure clearly implements 'logic' capable of 'deciding' whether protein A AND protein B are present or whether only protein A OR protein B is present, and 'acting' accordingly to generate protein C or not.
Just as our macroscopic ideas sometimes lead us astray in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the application of human-centric ideas to cells will be 'fraught with peril', but, nevertheless, the existence of the consciousness field is clearly of immense importance.
I would also like to point out that Darwinian evolution has nothing to say on this. That is, if an intelligent life-form exists today, Darwin is completely unable to say whether the consciousness evolved by random means or by the application of low level conscious forces. Just as Darwin predicts nothing (except retroactively) it also explains nothing about the source of life. Evolution of lifeforms in the jungle would be the same regardless of whether the source of consciousness is random action, a consciousness field, or God.
Your question about what consciousness survives death is of course very important, but I am not yet ready to venture into this realm, as there are so many physical implications of the C-field still to be worked out. As I note in my essay, the C-field is quite useful for understanding particle physics. The equations are compatible with Yang-Mills gauge theory and, at the level of particle physics, all "conscious aspects" of the C-field can be completely ignored; the theory is, for all purposes, strictly physical. This aspect is treated in "The Chromodynamics War".
At the cosmological level there appears to be some grounds for considering the aspect of consciousness, since the Pioneer orbits and the CMB "axis of evil" do seem somewhat earth-centric. The physical behaviors associated with "flat rotation curves" and "jets" are 100 percent compatible with the C-field, but the relative magnitudes do seem to vary with some dependence on relation to earth. These issues are treated in "Gene Man's World".
At the biological level, while I am sure that the C-field is significant, the complexity makes it difficult to analyze the system. All I have been able to do is calculate that the C-field energy at the molecular level is of the order of 20 nano-eV. In 1958 Stan Ulam conjectured that "a minimum series of energy expenditures would transfer a body in a multi-body potential from one point to another efficiently." This of course was the basis of NASA's "Grand Tour" and has been recently extended to the quantum realm. Such forces at the cellular level, operating over time, could certainly shape the process of evolution, regardless of any concept of 'goal'. For all we know the goal could have been as simple as "feels good", or of simply achieving a greater local density in the consciousness field that endured for a longer time.
I will read your 'Relevance of Consciousness in Sciences'. Thanks for the reference.
Edwin E Klingman