You only have as many qualia as you need to; sensory data is discarded as much as possible. (Look at meditation, how much one experiences but does not notice. Look at dreams—they seem vivid and real, until one tries to see specific detail like reading written material.) And what one perceives is strongly shaped by what one expects (eg. the ba-ga experiment or the entire prediction-is-intelligence line of thought—On Intelligence comes to mind). Look at how the mind shuts down when there is little to do, in things like highway hypnosis.
Upon reading the papers, it seems like were talking about different things.
I was talking about what I thought consciousness was (like, what I would label as conscious and unconscious), and I think you were talking about what it does/is for.
You only have as many qualia as you need to; sensory data is discarded as much as possible. (Look at meditation, how much one experiences but does not notice. Look at dreams—they seem vivid and real, until one tries to see specific detail like reading written material.) And what one perceives is strongly shaped by what one expects (eg. the ba-ga experiment or the entire prediction-is-intelligence line of thought—On Intelligence comes to mind). Look at how the mind shuts down when there is little to do, in things like highway hypnosis.
(Maybe you should read the PRISM papers.)
Upon reading the papers, it seems like were talking about different things.
I was talking about what I thought consciousness was (like, what I would label as conscious and unconscious), and I think you were talking about what it does/is for.
Is there a difference between what something is and what something does?