Hi Arnold

You say:" Non-conscious experiences and representations actually constitute the major part of our cognitive activities."

And Peter writes, to Jim I think: "Is it your view that experience is not necessary for consciousness? "

As I think I've mentioned in other posts, thinking in these terms seems quite pointless to me. All attempts to juggle terms like conscious, experience, cognitive, feelings, emotions, thoughts, representations etc, or to define any of them in terms of the others, will always beg the question because they all are - or seem to be - overlapping ideas. Claiming that one or more of them is somehow "consciousness free" is nothing more than that - a claim.  Or else it involves using these words in some idiosyncratic way that bears no relation to their normal meanings. (Does it even make sense, for example, to speak of "non-conscious experiences"? If so, what meaning exactly are we giving to the two words: conscious and experience?)

PS I am hoping someone might comment on my rejection of the Chalmers' "materialism is false" argument. If I've made a mistake (and I don't think I have), someone can perhaps tell me where. (Not that I want to claim that materialism is true, but I don't think this argument gets even remotely near where it claims to.)

DA