Nonsense. There is not anything existing 'before' there is Conscious perception of it.
Perceiver and perceived are one. There is nothing unperceived that exists.
We do not 'have' Consciousness (poor and obsolete language), Consciousness 'has'/is us!

How to tell the difference between a conscious being and one that behaves exactly the same way, but its not? I do not think its possible.

Unconscious thought forms 95% of all thought.

In the 1970s a new body of empirical research began to introduce findings that questioned the traditional Anglo-American cognitive paradigm of AI (Artificial Intelligence), i.e. symbol manipulation.

This research indicates that the neurological structures associated with sensorimotor activity are mapped directly to the higher cortical brain structures to form the foundation for subjective conceptualization in the human brain. In other words, our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation. "It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought-and that may be a serious underestimate."

Categorization, the first level of abstraction from "Reality" is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. "Seeing typically involves categorization."



Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization



When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: 'in', 'on', 'about', 'across from' some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.

When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.

Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language.

The claim of cognitive science is "that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world."[/b]

Quotes from "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson

Yes, I've heard it before and I still say that it is hogwash.
Lets start with a 'random' definition that represents 'this' Perspective.

think [thingk]

verb, thought, think⋅ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used without object)

1. to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2. to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin.
3. to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts: I was thinking about you. We could think of nothing else.
4. to call something to one's conscious mind: I couldn't think of his phone number.

All seem to require Consciousness using words like 'rational' and 'evaluating' 'conscious mind', 'decisions', etc..
Thought is a Conscious operation.
Nothing can exist 'outside' Conscious awareness; there is no 'outside' Conscious awareness! No evidence, ever. Simple.


As I see it, the last sentence within the quotes is a complete non-sequitur from the rest of the paragraph.
So the beginning says that they've 'found where some concepts live in the brain', and the finale talks about 'unconscious thoughts' blah, blah...
It does not follow...
If someone draws the last sentence as a 'conclusion' of the preceeding, they are logically and scientifically incorrect, but, all 'incorrect' roads are cul-de-sacs, and eventually, are re-routed.
QM demonstrates clearly the impossibility of 'unconscious' anything.

Your 'friends' need to download the critical update from QM regarding Consciousness.
All other sciences will either accept the critical update or become obsolete.
It is no longer a 'mechanistic' universe.
It is a new world.


Problem. Science doesn't 'know', it 'hypothesizes, it theorizes, it examins, it tentatively accepts as the 'best' to date theory(ies), pending further data to evaluate and perhaps alter or dump said theory.
'Knowing' is a vain egoic belief that something that you think (with which we egoically identify) is somehow 'truth', a 'religious' word, not a scientific one.
And besides, the further we 'receed' into thoughts about 'direct experience', the less 'direct experience' we have (other than the direct experience of thoughts about our direct experience...)


Hardly!
'Seeing' is a 'direct perception' (sorta).
'Categorization' are thoughts about (personal interpretations of) the 'direct experience.
I 'see' quite a lot without having to 'think' about it.
But if you believe in such 'voo-doo' as 'unconscious thought' (or Jeezus or ghosts...) you'll just have to shake your head and figure that I'm simply deluded and/or ignorant.


There is no difference. The perceiver and the perceived are one. There is nothing that exists that is not synchronously perceived.


Well, that eases it back a bit from your "Seeing is a process that includes categorization,", with the qualifier of 'typically'.
I'd even be willing to hypothetically grant you this. That is one thing that thought does, and the human brain rather regularly (on the continuum from 'thoughtless' (though you have other 'beliefs') to 'constantly thinking') has 'thoughts' occuring.
It can even be well argued that 'thought' is a (-n often toxic) waste product from a functioning brain.


Our? We? Who exactly? 'I' might even find such 'once-removed' thoughts' less 'real' then that which is 'directly perceived'!
Points are not made in such hasty generalisations.

etc..
etc...
etc...


What an idiotic statement! For language to exist as a feature of the Universe, it must be Consciously perceived. QM has found that Consciousness collapses the 'probability wave'/quanton into the specific information waves that we 'perceive' as our (corner of the) Universe.
Your 'thoughts about categories' are perceived by you, Conscious Perspective, like everything else in the Universe.
There is no scientific or rational evidence to the contrary.

I understand that your 'belief' in subconscious thoughts will tendril into a 'belief' in language existing that is not consciously perceived. There are quite the support structures for 'beliefs'.
But it ain't science, it's, at best, religion.


'Materialism' is obsolete as a philosophy, long refuted.

So, I guess that I find the stuff that you posted riddled with cognitive errors (non-sequitur...) and 'beliefs'.
But, please, before getting defensive (I am not attacking or dismissing your beliefs, merely presenting another Perspective) or think that i am dismissing 'thoughts' (or theirs) on the matter, remember that;
"the complete Universe is defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd (9:02:10)

Peace

These are emotions, not thoughts.

Many non human creatures have emotions-"human emotions however have evolved to making connections to complex ideas, values, principles, and judgments"-thus human emotion is special-the impact of feelings on humans is the result of consciousness-a distinct difference between feeling and knowing a feeling-"neither the emotion or the feeling caused by the emotion is conscious"-these things happen in a biological state-there are three stages here; emotion, feeling, and consciousness of feeling-consciousness must be present if feelings have an influence beyond the here and the now-consciousness is tooted in the representation of the body.

We need not be conscious of the emotion or the inducer of the emotion-we are about as effective in stopping an emotion as in stopping a sneeze.



The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

"It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them."

Damasio proposes "that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable." This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Core consciousness-"occurs when the brain's representation devices generate an imaged, nonverbal account of how the organism's own state is affected by the organism's processing of an object, and when this process enhances the image of the causative object, thus placing it saliently in a spatial and temporal context"

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Quotes from "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio

I dont see the relevance of posting that again.

Poorly worded (nonsense) and poorly thought-out non-sequitur...
Where'd you dig up this crap?
(rhetorical)
It fails on so many levels!

I love this article. It touches on some of the subject

http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/meaning%20based.pdf