One of the difficulties with the discussion of consciousness is that it has an ambigious definition and means something different to everyone. This is why Jaynes went to such great lengths to clarify his definition of consciousness in the first two chapters of his book.
I'd like to clarify the discussion with what I see as two primary definitions:
C1. Jaynes's definition, as outlined in his book, consisting of our internal dialog, analog 'I', narratization and excerption, spatialized sense of time, etc. This is the definition he debates with the philosophers and psychologists who want to lump sensory perception and awareness into the mix.
C2. "New Age" (for lack of a better term) definition of consciousness. Relatively recently, those interested in life after death, ESP, reincarnation, and a range of other topics chose to label all of these areas "consciousness studies," as it has a more scientific ring to it, and the above mentioned terms now often elicit a knee-jerk negative reaction among mainstream scientists. What it boils down to is they are interested in studying things like "the soul," but now call it "survival of consciousness after death" instead.
It's unfortunate, as this has further muddied the waters of a term that is already vague in meaning and used too loosely.
I would submit that the origin of C1 (modern subjective awareness, to borrow Kretz's term) is the primary focus of Jaynes's book and lectures, and may in fact not have all that much to do with C2 (the ‘soul’ definition of consciousness).
[No doubt some will disagree, however I see no substantive evidence for any direct relation between C1 and C2. Surely if C2 exists it's been around far longer than 3000 years, which is when Jaynes postulates the origin of C1.]
What Jaynes seems most interested in is the neurological/psychological/cognitive aspects of consciousness — not
the parapsychological aspects. I would - that for Jaynes, C1 resides in the brain, and ceases at death. No where in his writing or lectures have I found anything that would contradict this statement. If you review the intro to one of his lectures on this website (see "Origin of Consciousness" page), he dismisses other definitions of consciousness as non-useful at best.
The point of all this is that:
1. To have a productive discussion of consciousness we must first explain our operational definition (C1, C2, or other), and not use the term interchangeably.
2. There is an abundance of discussion of C2 on the internet, and it would be preferable, at least for now, to keep the focus of this forum on further elucidating issues surrounding C1 (a topic which has not been widely discussed), leaving C2 out of it -- which perhaps should not be labeled consciousness at all, and instead be referred to by a variety of more precise terms (ie. remote viewing, OBE, reincarnation, etc. etc.).
Hope that makes sense!