absolutely
Intellectually at the very least, this seems totally obvious. Considering biological evolution
Emotionally - the feeling of "I"ness, I am deeply persuaded is the exact same (exactly identical process) feeling in all I’s - just like electricity is the same in all lightbulbs
We may be using the word “basis” in a slightly different way from each other.
You seem to be using the word “basis” to mean the material ground of consciousness. That is to say, you are saying that the brain - each person’s separate brain 
- is the material ground for thoughts, feelings, sensations, experiences, etc, which all contribute to make up the contents of consciousness. Right?
But all these brains are separate in time and space. ‘Your’ brain is not ‘my’ brain. So while the contents of our consciousness (centred in each brain) may be very similar - just as the blood running through your veins is very similar to the blood in my veins - they are not actually the same, because their basis is in each separate material brain.
However, what I am referring to as the “basis” is consciousness itself - whatever that is. This consciousness is not limited to one particular brain , even though it manifests in a particular brain. It is a shared consciousness that is not separate in space or time. It is not ‘my’ consciousness. - Do you see the implications of this?
You added this after I had replied to you, so I did not respond to this yet.
Hey - yes please address the electricity thing - could you do that?
Actually you could easily use the same arguments as for your “basis” post.
To which my response is : locality is totally trivial - but apparently not in your mind/this debate.
Yes. If we consider this in relation to the view that the “basis” of consciousness lies in each separate brain - separate in space and time - then what are we saying?
Each brain is like a light bulb, while the contents of consciousness - the feeling of ‘me’, as well as fear, sorrow, desire, etc - are like the electrical current running through each bulb.
Is this what we are saying here?
I don’t get what you are saying here Douglas?
Are we using the word ‘consciousness’ as synonymous with ‘awareness’: I am conscious of the chair, I am aware of the chair?
From my understanding, what macdoug says is,
Though locality is not important, it appears to be in our conversations or in Mind. It’s not that easy to give a statement “this is it, the basis seems to be non-local, etc.” with a deep understanding/observation, when practically our contents or conversations don’t seem that way.
The way that Krishnamurti uses the word “consciousness” is a little ambiguous.
From one point of view it can be understood to stand in for the word ‘awareness’.
From another point of view it is entirely composed of contents of psychological thought and feeling that have their material basis in the physical brain and nervous system.
I recollect a poster called @Anonimity exploring this question at length on an older thread. He said that
according to K., consciousness is linked to the material process, thought, going on in the brain and depends on the brain’s content to exist. Without content, at a psychological level, there is not consciousness either, only awareness which is beyond thought/ intellect and the same as intelligence.
He also made a helpful analogy that may be useful:
ice is water but water is not ice because ice has a structure that water hasn’t, it is not limited by anything whereas ice is.
Consciousness is awareness caught in certain limits but awareness is not consciousness because it is not limited.
All matter has a degree of ‘consciousness’ but is limited in the degree that there can be ‘awareness’ of itself? If ‘mind’ is pure awareness the human brain when ‘empty’ has the potential to be mind? To be one with mind? To be awareness? The ‘contents of consciousness’ are the limiting factor?
Does the “basis” of electricity lie within each separate generator - separate in space and time?
This is where locality is confusing us - space and time seem fundamental to unity in our minds - for there to be one same thing called consciousness (maybe less so for electricity) it must form some “material” 4 dimensional identity - take up one specific homogenous locality (even if its the whole universe)
If the electricity is awareness, the wiring/bulb structure is consciousness? To the degree that the bulb is in working order it can manifest the electricity as light? But it ‘limits’ the electricity to the function it was designed for? If the bulb breaks, it does not affect electricity.
Surely the bulb is the brain?
Flippin’ 'eck! So there’s light, electricity and bulbs (and power generators?)
And on the other hand theres consciousness, the contents (fear, anger, chairs), brains, (mind?intelligence/information?)
Flippin’ 'eck!
There’s pure energy and there’s energy in the form of ‘matter’.
Just to sum up where we are so far.
The discussion began with the distinction previously made between
the obvious similarity of contents of consciousness between different people; and
the less obvious fact (according to Krishnamurti) that the consciousness of humanity is singular, one shared consciousness.
To help clarify what this might mean we brought up @rickScott’s distinction between
a felt-sense of shared content of consciousness, and shared basis of consciousness
Following from this it occurred to me that there may be two distinct bases for what we call consciousness.
The first basis, suggested by @macdougdoug is the material ground of consciousness, i.e. the brain:
If we use an analogy, suggested by Douglas, of a light-bulb being lit up by a current of electricity, then
The second basis, suggested by @danmcderm, is awareness (or attention):
In connection with this we suggested an analogy given some time ago by @Anonimity, who said that
ice is water but water is not ice because ice has a structure that water hasn’t, it is not limited by anything whereas ice is.
[In the same way] consciousness is awareness caught in certain limits but awareness is not consciousness because it is not limited .
To which Dan responded:
The contents of consciousness are clearly limiting factors in awareness, and make up what Krishnamurti calls consciousness.
So is awareness unlimited?
And is the shift we have been talking about between a felt-sense of similar and a (so-far not felt) sense of same the shift between
a basis for consciousness in the brain, and
a basis for consciousness in awareness (i.e. pure attention) itself?
A digression: ‘Man is made in the image of God’?
This brain is pondering why the ‘pure energy ‘ has formed itself into this ‘thing’ that is able to ponder and wonder ‘why’ and for what ‘reason’ has it done so!
PS Looked at in this way everything that ‘pure energy’(mind, awareness) forms into matter is ‘sacred’?
Are you really interested in inquiring that?
Because, it is no way related to the problem of the society, and we are responsible for the present condition of humanity.
Deviating from seeing seriously the society’s situation now, would mean that One is irresponsible for both humanity and society.
No I don’t but yes I do think that it is very pertinent.
Not sure what you mean by “quasi-necessary suffering”.
When consciousness is empty, we are not conscious of (obviously), consciousness is absent, it comes and goes with the content.
What is emptied is the psychological content - not the practical content - so consciousness remains, but only when needed.