The text (Consciousness: A Non-Spatial Physical Thing)
Consciousness is most certainly a real event or phenomenon. A real event or phenomenon cannot exist without the existence of some real, physical substance or thing. Consciousness, however, in logical or conceptual terms, is, self-evidently, absolutely distinct from any possible spatial structure or system; most undeniably, no knowledge of any possible spatial structure or system can give the knowledge of consciousness, the knowledge of what it is really like seeing the colour red for example. Furthermore, if A, in logical or conceptual terms, is absolutely distinct from B, A cannot be physically identical to B. Consciousness is, therefore, a non-spatial physical thing. In other words, consciousness is a thing which is physical and non-spatial.
The author says it is most certain that consciousness, the consciousness or feeling of seeing red colour for example, is a real event or phenomenon, and that no real event or phenomenon can exist without the existence of some real, physical substance or thing, for example the human brain. Further, he says that it is self-evident that consciousness is conceptually distinct from any possible spatial structure or system;[fn 1] the knowledge of any spatial structure or system, that can possibly exist, can never give the knowledge of what it is really like seeing the colour red for example, i.e. the consciousness of red colour.[fn 2] Then the author says that if A is conceptually totally distinct from B, then A cannot physically be the same as B. And then ultimately the author concludes that consciousness is a non-spatial physical thing; i.e. consciousness is physical and non-spatial.
The idea can perhaps be better understood in light of the following quote/text by the author.
|“||A blow on one’s head cannot possibly be the cause of one’s consciousness of pain; for there can be a world in which there is a blow, say a moderately strong blow, on one’s head – the head of a perfectly normal, living human being – but there is absolutely no consciousness of pain. A can be considered to be the cause of B if and only if A is (logically) necessarily followed by B; the way, for example, the exclusive act of removing one apple from a basket of two apples would necessarily result into the basket containing only one apple, in any possible world, with any possible logical or physical laws. It can be said in this case that the result of the basket of two apples now containing only one apple is caused by the (exclusive) act of removing one apple from the basket. In the case of consciousness, however, it is not (logically) necessary for B (i.e. consciousness) to follow A (i.e. any bodily, spatial process that is normally and wrongly considered the cause of B); for B is (logically) absolutely distinct from A. A can exist without B and B without A.||”|
—Kedar Joshi, 
Here the author concludes that consciousness can exist without any possible spatial structure or system. But since the author contends in the main text that consciousness, being a real event or phenomenon, cannot exist without the existence of some real, physical substance or thing, he effectively maintains that consciousness is a non-spatial physical thing.
- "It is self-evident to me that consciousness is non-spatial. It may not be self-evident to most of the people in this world. But then a proposition self-evident to most of the people may not be self-evident to mentally handicapped people and chimpanzees."—Kedar Joshi
- The knowledge argument, also known as "Mary's room", may be consulted for more information on this type of argument.
- Kedar Joshi. Consciousness: A Non-Spatial Physical Thing 2011
- Raam Gokhale. Are We Three?, Philosophy Pathways, Issue 169, 6 February 2012.
- Kedar Joshi. Quotes by Kedar Joshi (Quotations - Superultramodern Science and Philosophy) 2009
- Kedar Joshi. Consciousness, Causation and Coordination 2011