Ummmm... In the article that Pied Piper pointed at Amos (or pointed Amos at, depending on your perspective), am I the only one that noticed...
1. The individual signals passing from neurone to neurone are not bound together, whether as elements of information or physically. 2. Within a single cell, binding in terms of bringing together of information is potentially feasible. A physical substrate may also be available. 3. It is therefore proposed that a bound conscious experience is a property of an individual cell, not a group of cells. Since it is unlikely that one specific neurone is conscious, it is suggested that every neurone has a version of our consciousness, or at least some form of sentience. 5. However absurd this may seem it is consistent with the available evidence; arguably the only explanation that is. It probably does not alter the way we should expect to experience the world, but may help to explain the ways we seem to differ from digital computers and some of the paradoxes seen in mental illness. It predicts non-digital features of intracellular computation, for which there is already evidence, and which should be open to further experimental exploration.
"One, Two, Three, FIVE??!!
Interesting thread, guys, but... ummmm... the mathematicians reckon that all science (& presumably religion too) comes down to numbers, don't they? 0/10 for observation & I don't want to be anywhere near you lot if someone hands you the Holy Hand Grenade to chuck (never mind the fact that rabbit will have time to eat the lot of you before you finish arguing out who's entitled to chuck the bloody thing...)!