Consul wrote:The unitary field of consciousness usually contains more than one experience (impression or image). For example, while writing this on my computer I have tactile, visual, and auditory sensations at the same time. I also have bodily sensations and feelings, e.g. muscular tension in my neck and I'm a bit tired. I also experience certain mental images by entertaining thoughts relating to our discussion.
The "unitary field of consciousness" is more like walking on a path in absolute pitch darkness with the beam of an old bulb-type flashlight as our only means of seeing (knowing). The center of the beam shines brightest, giving a clear knowable view. The outer bands of light progressively shine less giving a less clear/knowable view.
There are many bodily experiences (bodily reactions) occurring simultaneously right now, some of which we can see/know more clearly than others, and some which we cannot see/know at all. For example, as I am writing and concentrating which word to type next on this computer, I am slightly aware of the sensation of my finger tips sitting on top of the keys, not yet deciding which keys to push, And I am momentarily forgetful of my throbbing left foot, and the uncomfortable position I am sitting. All these, and many more, bodily experiences are still there
, are still happening
, it is just that my flashlight (my knowing) is not shining on them at this particular moment.
RJG wrote:Yes, there is 'X', the non-conscious bodily reaction, and then there is the 'Consciousness-of-X' which is the 'recognition' of said bodily reaction. For it is 'recognition' that converts the non-conscious to the conscious.
Tamminen wrote:Here you missed my point. The 'x' is a conscious experience, but not simultaneous with my reflecting on it. As the content of my reflecting experience it is only a reference, pointing to a conscious experience.
Firstly, a "conscious experience" is the consciousness-of-something
, it is NOT the something (the X) itself, nor is it the consciousness itself. The 'consciousness-of-X' is the "conscious experience". And the 'X' is the "experience" (bodily experience/reaction). Maybe refer back to the flashlight analogy above to help better understand this important point (i.e. shining a light upon an object/experience so as to then be able to see/know it).
Secondly, it is the "reflecting"-on-X that gives you your "conscious experience". Until you "reflect" (shine a light) upon your experience, you can't know (see) your experience.
Tamminen wrote:As I said, I do not think there can be non-conscious experiences.
The non-conscious experience is that experience (X) that you come to know (be conscious of). It is that object that you see with the flashlight beam. The object exists(!) but is not yet 'known
' until the flashlight shines upon it (i.e. until 'recognition' occurs). The flashlight beam is our means of 'recognition', it is our ONLY means to 'know' (to see) the object (the bodily experience). For it is this 'recognition' (light beam) that converts this non-conscious experience into a conscious experience. Without this recognition, (which is made possible by memory), we could not 'know' what we (our bodies) experience.
RJG wrote:We can only be conscious of our bodily reactions (aka experiences). That's it. And then hope that the source of our bodily reactions are from real things themselves.
Consul wrote:Mere bodily reactions aren't experiences. The reactive neural processes taking place after the stimulation of a sense organ and before the production of a sensation are all non-/pre-experiential ones and thus non-experiences.
Not so. These are not "non-/pre-experiential", but instead these are all "non-conscious
experiences". All these experiences are certainly still occurring/reacting/happening, it is just that we are not yet conscious/knowing of these, at this particular moment. Until our consciousness/knowing/flashlight shines upon these, we don't 'know' them.
And again, it does not matter the 'type' of experience that we experience (see/know). If we see/know one 'type' of object (experience) as opposed to another 'type', it does not affect our seeing/knowing of them.
Intellectual_Savnot wrote:Yeah my bad I was tired I totally understand that. I took it wrong I gotta be more careful later.
No worries, ...part of the game here.