The only reason your awareness seems to be inside of your head is because your head and face is your primary interface with the world, where the core of your senses reside and is, therefore, your default state.

You can test this hypothesis by practicing a meditation technique called "body scanning" where you allow your awareness to focus into various parts of the body, leaving your head and indeed entering your hand for example.

As an aside, I wonder if Helen Keller's default location of awareness was in her hands because they were her interface with the world? It seems unlikely to me that it would be in her head/face but I really have no idea.

I doubt that meditation techniques would allow you to stay conscious after something destroys your brain.

Center of awareness isn't about where you have your CPU (that's always in the head) - it's about where your perceived "self" is. I remember reading from his biography that Feynman successfully learned to move it around, within and outside of his body, through those meditation techniques. This neatly accounts for OOBEs, making them nothing special too.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm arguing that the perceived location of your "self" is just that - a perceived location. An arbitrary frame of reference that defaults to one's head, but can be moved around. I.e. something worthless as evidence for panpsychism.

Just because we perceive something doesn't make it real. I think that's the issue here. By what mechanisms do we prove the perception is congruent with reality?

I believe this was all in response to the idea that “it _feels_ like consciousness is in the head/brain” being an argument against panpsychism.

That one can do things such that it _feels like_ one’s consciousness is elsewhere, seems to go against that point?

Though, a similar point of “if a person loses their head, their consciousness seems to go away. Their hands do not move independently.” And “ If, as panpsychism claims, their hands are also conscious, what must it be like for their movement to be directed by consciousness outside of itself?”

It feels like such only because the eyes, nose, and number of nerves in the head and face. If the sensors were centered elsewhere, it might feel like it were elsewhere...

> I believe this was all in response to the idea that “it _feels_ like consciousness is in the head/brain” being an argument against panpsychism.

I'm trying to argue against panpsychism by noting that the place where it "feels like" consciousness is is completely arbitrary and one can learn to move it around, so this feeling is useless as evidence for panpsychism.

As grim as it is, and depending on your degree of skepticism: craniotomy, psychoactive drugs, concussions, etc..

Reminds me of the scene in Ex Machina where he cuts himself to make sure he still bleeds - a physical realization of a turing test.

The physical awareness of the self used to be in the chest during the centuries where people thought the brain is just a blood-cooling organ.

Ask some small children where their self is, and some of those who haven't be told much about the brain will point to the chest or another location.