"... for consciousness to be localized in the brain it cannot exist outside or other than in it."

[citation needed] IOW, I don't agree with that assumption. There are various possibilities between the barnacle consciousness that is permanently affixed to the brain, and consciousness that can just flit about as it pleases. Claiming that the experiences reported by some folks is definitive proof of the latter state is not superable IMHO. That simply ignores that locality seems to be the common experience of conscious folks - not just me.

It also ignores that brain injuries alter consciousness. If I accept on face value the reports of folks claiming out of body experiences, which I would be gullible and foolish to do, of anyone claiming anything, that does not mean brains have naught to do with consciousness, just that brains may not be to consciousness like rocks are to barnacles.

"...The proposition is simple: the brain generated consciousness so consciousness is located in the brain. If that is false then obviously the experience you have is illusionary..."

As I pointed out above, that statement simply ignores that many other possibilities exist, and we just don't know enough about these matters to make such sweeping statements with confidence. At least, I don't.

"It doesn't matter."

I disagree. My experience is all I have. I don't experience what you do. I experience, and that is the basis for understanding I have, and that's all I have. I experience reading your comments. That is all I know about them. I don't know how you smell, what you ate, or innumerable other things you personally have experienced and therefore base your understanding on. Science is the process of disproving things that other folks can experience for themselves, and thus enable a shared understanding of a common truth.

The locality of our experience is a fundamental and necessary aspect of knowing facts.

"What you want to know is what experiences I've had that demonstrated such non-locality..."

No. What I said involved more than just reporting your experiences should you have out of body experiences. As I have stated, I cannot experience what you do. You cannot experience what I do. My telling you what I have experienced in this discussion has not convinced you I know definitively what consciousness is. In fact, you have argued that my experiences simply spawn insuperable assumptions.

Definitive understanding implies that your understanding of your experiences is able to be demonstrated to me so that I can understand the underlying reality you state is behind them. That is a far higher bar than just telling stories about your dreams. It involves reproducible experiments that I can do myself that prove to me your interpretation is factually correct.

If your experiences contradict my own, then one of us at least does not well understand what is really going on, and likely both of us. Because, it is not possible that our experiences contradict each the other, but that our intepretations and understanding of our experiences do. That's a matter of understanding and comprehension, not raw perception and experience.

There's a difference, and it's what matters.