Equivocating on unconsciousness

Abstract

In the language used by those who take an empirical approach to the study of consciousness, the subliminal–supraliminal binary and the unconscious–conscious process binary are treated as one and the same, despite the unconscious–conscious process distinction having a historical association to a different meaning. The historical meaning of the unconscious–conscious process distinction may then become implicitly associated with the interpretations of related studies, resulting in a misinterpretation of evidence. This is to say, where the ability to differentially respond to subliminal and supraliminal stimuli may be indicative of a variety of “unconscious” and “conscious” processes, as these terms relate to a qualitative conception of consciousness, subliminal threshold testing does not tell us anything about consciousness and the associated binary of “unconscious” and “conscious” processes as these terms relate to their historical, metacognitive conceptions.