What I tried to say in my response was that in my opinion you gave a rather interesting view of how the brain functions under certain circumstances. it indeed did not astray from a pure physical explanation, but unfortunately it also did not (in my opinion) really explain anything new about the "mind" or conciousness. and so this is the source of misunderstanding - I agree that the article only mentioned scientific theories, but I disagree that it touched the problem of the mind, which is indeed perhaps the most interesting question of all.
Saying (like in point 4) that "conciousness is a relation between two levels or areas of brain activity" is unfortunately quite meaningless. the relation can be a physical property (it can be measuresd), but the experience of the color red is a different thing. it is not a relation between two voltage levels in the brain, or if it is - I do not understand the meaning of the word "is" in regard to this equality. "A is B" is not always a meaningfull assertion. I think I gave this example before - you could tell to the ancient greeks that "matter is energy", but without knowing about the theory of relativity it is a meaningless fact. they don't know in what way it is the same. what is the side in these two concepts that is the "same"?