Consider the following:
S1: The assumption that “the chair has certain affordances (weathered, rickety, sturdy, available, etc.)” is a non-arbitrary subroutine in an operant or respondent activity (sitting, avoiding sitting, using as an improvised ladder/a shelf, hanging my coat, burning for heat, etc.) that couples an agent x to the (chair).
S2: The assumption that “the patient has advanced artery disease” is a non-arbitrary subroutine in an operant or respondent activity (the administration of statin, nitro-glycerine, ACE inhibitors, advice about radical dietary changes, etc.) that couples the surgeon x to the (patient’s heart/cardiovascular system).
S3: The assumption that “consciousness has the property P (physicality, non-physicality, non- localness, universally distributed, etc.)” is a non-arbitrary subroutine in an operant or respondent activity that couples an agent x to the (phenomena of consciousness).
There’s obviously nothing controversial about S1 and S2. But, the glaring issue about S3 is precisely what ‘activity’ or ‘operation’ are we talking about here? What is it that you couldn’t actually do (and not just talk about doing) if you weren’t working with the assumption that “consciousness has whatever property P”?