 As I was discussing about the structure of mental states or experience, I will continue today the discussion on the structure of consciousness. As you know, Sirle is talking about a dozen of properties of mental states and these properties are intensity, aspectuality, the finite modalities, unity, etc. We have discussed about aspectuality and in fact we had concluded our discussion with reference to aspectuality, subjectivity. Today we are going to talk about a few more properties of consciousness that composes our experience, that gives structure to our experience. One such property is called connectiveness. Sirle believes that there is a connection between the unconscious mental states and the conscious mental states. Sirle says only a being that could have conscious intensive states could have intentional state at all and every unintentional state is potentially conscious. Now look at the concluding statement of Sirle in this quotation. Concluding statement says that if there are unconscious mental states and the agent is not aware of those mental states because whenever we are aware, we are aware of a few mental states. So, whenever I am conscious of certain things, I am conscious of a few mental states. For example, the very fact that I am giving lecture now, I am conscious of my lecture. The very fact that this lecture is being recorded, I am conscious of this fact that it is getting recorded. So, all these activities that I am conscious of and I am also conscious of the content of the lecture. Now, when I am conscious of this, I am also not conscious of few more things. So, for example, I am not conscious of things that is happening in my residence or things like that or in the office room. So, when I am unconscious, certainly I am unconscious of things that are happening around me. But according to Sirle, there are mental states which are potentially, they are potentially intentional. They are potentially intentional. They have this directedness. They represent, they represent things. Now, when I say these mental states which are conscious, they certainly are treated as representational states. The unconscious mental states on the other hand are potentially intentional. They are potentially representational. But at this very moment, I am not making the representation of those mental states. So, what is denied is this that the representational feature of those mental states are potentially there. And when I am conscious or they come to my conscious experience, they are represented. So, when we say that they are represented, it is like, it is like the manifestation of consciousness. So, something which is potentially there and something that is getting manifested. So, potency and manifestation is a very important relation has been discussed in Badanta. The Badantic philosophers believe that the world which is a manifestation of the universal consciousness potentially existing prior to this manifestation, it is potentially existing within the conscious, the universal consciousness called Brahman. So, this debate between the potency and manifestation is also there in Indian philosophical theories. Example that the Brahman is contained within the Hiramaya Garbha and the world is manifested out of that. The world is created out of that. When we say that something is potentially there, different kinds of example. Say for example, the banyan tree is potentially there with the banyan seed. So, the potentiality talks about lot of power, the causal power which get manifested in the cause which eventually get manifested. And when they are manifested, they are manifested with different other features. So, Searle says that these mental states which are unconscious or the subject is not conscious of them at present are intentionally connected to the mind. They are intentionally connected in the sense that there is no causal binding connection between them. They are connected by intentionality. If I am intentionally reflecting say for example, on my past, then I am conscious of what some of the events with which I am associated in the past. So, the very fact that Searle is differing from other naturalist. Searle is careful about maintaining his position that human mind is necessarily an intentional mind. So, the intentional representation of the reality would tell us how the intentional mind can go back to the past, can also play the role of an imaginative mind, etc. So, in my imagination, I can construct various things and express them in language. So, all these are some kind of evidences where we talk about the unconscious and the conscious are intentionally connected. When we talk about Freud, the Freudian notion of unconscious. Freud says when somebody is experiencing things, he is receiving lot of stimulus and the subject is not conscious of all of them. Subject is only conscious of this very fact that he is interacting or she is interacting with someone or whatever is the object of experience. So, for example, in our conversation in the class, I am only concerned with the very fact that I am talking to you, I am concerned with this fact that I need to answer your questions and think about how to, you know, answer briefly or if needed, I need to elaborate the answers, things like that. But I am not concerned with the other stimulus which are received by me and they are received unconsciously. This process of receiving them and as if they are filtered again to a level what Freud called the level of the unconscious. Now, Searle is not talking about the Freudian notion of unconscious. Searle is, in fact, against the Freudian notion of unconscious because in Freud, you also have this notion that the unconscious can erupt and cause different kind of behaviors. Many of our sexual desires in the Freudian theory is found that it is replaced by the conscious mind and this kind of a conscious repression or putting them to the level of unconscious can cause such eruption possible and they are erupted with a very kind of a abnormal behavior. The eruption shows some kind of an abnormality and as you all aware of this fact that Freud was treating many patients who were suffering from history and things like that, what we call abnormal here is precisely the fact that we are unconsciously or consciously trying to replace some of the stimulus and the stimulus are stored in an unconscious level and the subject have no direct access to that level. So, this is very fact that I do not have a direct access to the unconscious and the unconscious can also play a major role in causing certain behaviors. It is something very important when we talk about the Freudian psychology but Searle is not subscribing to the Freudian thesis of unconscious. Searle only claims this much that all these mental states which constitute the network, they are all potentially intentional or they are potentially conscious. When I say that I am conscious of something, it also implies that I am not conscious of all of them that is there associated with the network or that which constitutes the mind as a whole. I am not conscious of them. Now, when we say that we make it very clear that all these mental states are potentially conscious or potentially intentional and they are expressible in language, they can be represented in language, this is what is. Another idea behind this having an access to the mind which is a direct access, which is a kind of a privileged access to the mind. Using this Cartesian terminology that I have this privileged access to know what I am or myself is something sounds very Cartesian. Searle will say now this privileged access to the mind is a kind of a privileged access to the mind. This privileged access to know what I am or myself is something sounds very Cartesian. Searle will say now this privileged access has nothing to do with this power of introspection that I introspect that I am conscious of myself. I can introspect on my thoughts such things, such things are not allowed within the Searlean biological naturalism or the Searlean theoretical framework does not give much importance to the notion of introspection, the notion of this privileged access that Descartes was talking about. In fact, Searle is only concerned with this idea that whenever I am conscious of something, I am conscious of that. So, there is no kind of a reflexivity of a second order kind of things. I am conscious of the fact that I am conscious of that is not very interesting kind of a thesis for Searle. The Searlean reflexivity on the other hand is confined to some kind of a intentional turning which is happening in the case of a direction of it that we talked about in the last class or even in the previous classes. So, we need to locate this connection as a kind of a conceptual relationship between the conscious and the unconscious or the intentional and the unintentional. The other feature that Searle talks about is a kind of a gestalt psychology. Gestalt psychology tells us that perceptual experiences come to us as figure. So, whenever I perceive certain things, I perceive them as a kind of a figure. So, whenever I talk about a rose or a flower, I look at this thought in a very figurative way. So, this idea of a figure is very important because that gives an impression of the kind of a structure which we are talking about. The structurality or the structure of experience is very figurative one and that has been discussed in gestalt psychology and all these figures are happening in the kind of a background. So, there is a background on which things are happening. If I am looking at you, I look at you on the background of this wall, the beautiful wall painted with different colors, etc. So, when I am writing something, I am conscious of the fact that the page is resting on the background of a hard table. So, these kind of experiences are happening at the background of certain things. When I am seeing a table, when I am seeing a tree, not the background, there is something. At the background, there is a kind of existence of some physical objects. So, that gives a kind of a complete structure, the Hussalian notion of horizon. See, when I am seeing, the subject is seeing things. Now, the seeing ends with the kind of a horizon. Now, in the horizon, you will find things are ending somewhere because I can only reach to that. My reaching out to a kind of a possible object of observation is, forms this structure, forms the kind of a complete structure. Obviously, if I was thinking of the existence of the object, suppose this object which is part of my experience is there, it ends with the other things because my consciousness is only reaching to a point. Beyond that, I can only conceive of this fact that there exists something. So, there is a kind of a background available to all our experiences. And whenever we try to perceive something, I perceive in a very figurative way. So, that is something very typical to Searle's notion of structure. The other feature which Searle talks about is this, that there is some kind of a familiarity associated with consciousness. Now, I am familiar with certain facts. The aspects of familiarity comes in varying degrees. It is a scholar phenomenon that at the top of the familiarity scale are the objects, scenes, people, and sides of my ordinary everyday life. Lower down are strange scenes in which objects and people are nonetheless easily recognizable and categorizable by me. So, it is the me who is a subject who is trying to locate the reality. And when I am experiencing the reality, I see them that they are not strange objects. Now, when I enter to the class, I have this idea in me that there will be chairs, there will be students coming to the class. The moment I enter to the class and if I find that there is no chair in the class, I would find this case a very strange one. So, how can I have a class without chairs? Because I am familiar with this condition that there will be chairs and the chairs are available for the number of students who have resisted in the course and things like that. So, I am familiar with certain conditions. Now, the familiarity condition is something very significant because that helps me identifying reality relating myself to those facts. And if I am not familiar of certain situations, if I always find the events very strange, then probably we will have difficulties in talking about consciousness. Because if consciousness all the time, think of a situation right from our birth to the death, we all the time find that there is no familiarity condition available. In fact, it is the conscious mind which tries to put them in different sections, in different order so that one relates to others. One finds that yes, this is what I am familiar with. This is what I am not familiar with. This is what is expected to me if I have been teaching this course for some years now. I am familiar with some questions. Yes, these are the expected questions. If some new questions come up, then I will find yes, this is something very important, very significant questions. It is strange that we are all putting this question to me. So, I will not find those questions very strange. The very fact that human beings are conscious beings and they when they interact with the world in their interaction, they try to make various sets, put this experiential contents in various sets, in various order. That is very important when we talk about the structure of consciousness and the familiarity conditions. The feeling of familiarity is also associated with this idea of recognition. I recognize X or the subject recognize that this is that flower as something, as something. I am recognized by the people that I am R K P is the fact that though I have physically changed, physical appearances are not identical with my past appearances, but still I am recognized because there are some kind of resemblance, some kind of similarities and people are familiar with those who are familiar with me. They know that yes, this is so and so. So, this idea of recognizing an object as that particular object is something very typical to the notion of consciousness, which Woodgenstein says that familiarity condition will talk about or identity or recognition of the identity. So, feeling of my body or the inner sense of bodily parts and feeling of myself is some kind of a familiarity conditions. When I say it is me, do not you recognize me? Now, what is that I am referring to? Am I not referring to my individual self? It is me, your father, if I say this to my children. Now, I address this with this notion of familiarity that I have in my mind that I am the same person and do not you recognize me. Now, this idea of familiarity also allows the self to recognize its own existence, recognize its own being and that is what is very important because I am associated with the sense of the physical body. So, this idea of familiarity also allows the self to recognize its own existence, recognize its own being and that is what is very important because I am associated with my activities, I associated with the interactions that I have and that I had with the others. So, this association builds up the condition of familiarity. So, that is how consciousness is a structure. The other condition, which I have associated with my activities, I have associated with the interactions that I have and that I had with the others. The other condition, which Sal talks about is the condition of overflow. Now, this when you talk about certain imaginary things, imaginary aspects of thoughts, thoughts are indefinitely connected with each other. Expression of content sometimes overflows and spill over certain other contents of thoughts. Now, Sal gives an example of two persons, a boy and a girl who love each other, say John and Bill. Now, John loves Bill and Bill also loves John. But if Bill finds John roaming with some other girl, then she would find it a kind of a strange phenomenon that how come it is possible that one can love two persons like this. So, there is a kind of a sudden overflow of emotions and that will spill to other contents. So, when Bill will encounter John, Bill will say, I understand. You are no more the same person. I understand. I realize this fact that you are no more the same John. So, this understanding is happening within a fraction of time, where the content of the contents of the contents of the contents of the contents are connected. 免 constitute 免ipples 免 When two theory phenomenon Now that is that what Searle explains That consciousness When it is associated with various imaginary destoyal n Baptistalon a between loudly connected wiwi speks of tauts dis thoughts definitely connected wath mon another likate the lonely Two tionship that is paid by jones Aberkost Looking at a . Many Dreams abou their future life Now All these are suddenly breaking down and showing that there is a kind of a spill over effect of emotions. I mean, all these spill over can form a judgment and the judgment goes against the content of all that was happening. That yes, no more this enough is enough. Now, all these expressions are expressions of this spill over effect. It is a kind of an overflow of emotion that Sal talks about. Let us go to talk about the context of the spill over effect of the other which Sal is interested in. The other feature is the centre and periphery relationship within the field of consciousness. We need to distinguish between those things which are at the centre of attention and those that are at this periphery. We are conscious of very large number of things that we are not attending to or not focusing our attention on. Now, as I said in the previous example, when I try to draw your attention to this spill over effect that there is a kind of a figurative structure getting developed when we talk about our experiences. Now, in the Sicilian kind of an intentional structure you have a subject and the subject's consciousness is written to the horizon, it is called the horizon of experience. Sal uses this word called the field of experiences. Now, in the field of experiences, my experience of a particular object is connected with various other things as well. So, when I am looking at the flower, I am just not looking at the flower. I also see the flower at the ground of the plant. I am also see that there is a house behind this tree, this flowery tree. I also see that people of that house are coming out and going in doing their works. Now, all these are happening when I am conscious of the effect that there is a flower, there is a flower at the ground like that. But what is the center of my attention? The center of the attention is the flower that is center of my attention, but what is there at the periphery? What is there at the periphery? Now, at the periphery you have the house, you have the people of the house who are doing their work and may be some other, what is there at the background of the tree immediately is the tree in which the flower is there or it is a flowery tree. When I say, oh, what a beautiful tree it is. So, I am not only conscious of this very fact that there are flowers. I am also associating directly the flowers with the tree, what a beautiful tree. So, the representation of this particular fact that there is a beautiful tree or it is a beautiful tree brings tree into the center of my attention, if I say. What a lovely surrounding. Now, then my attention includes that everything, not only the flower, but also the tree, but also the house and the people who are around the house, this is how the field of consciousness or the field of the structure of experience can expand may be at the background or at the periphery, I can go on including various things. If there is a river flowing, then I will say yes, there is a river, I am not conscious of the river. If somebody ask was there a river? No, I do not know because I was not really attending to the river. I was so amazed to see the tree, my attention was confined to a particular object. So, if somebody ask were there some people in the house? No, I do not know, was there a house at all? No, I do not know because what I saw is only a beautiful flowery tree, but if I go on expanding the field and see the house, that yes, there is a house, there are people, there is also river. So, the field of consciousness is expanded. So, I can connect each one of them, bring them to my field and that is how Sal talks about, there is always a kind of a center and very free relationship, that I am conscious of certain things with which I am directly associated, but there are certain many other things happening around. I may not be directly associated with them, but if I shift my attention, it is a kind of a Hosellian notion of shifting. If I shift my attention to some other object, then that is possible. The fact that I am trying to find out the people were there in the house, the people were working at the courtyard or the river which is flowing behind the house. Now, all this tells me about the shifting of consciousness. I shift from center to very ferries and they are no more very ferries. They are very well part of the center of my attention. So, that is how consciousness or the structure of consciousness is enlarged, expanded. When Sal talks to us about the center and very free distinction with reference to the field of consciousness. Now, let us go back to the other conditions that Sal is talking about, a kind of a boundary condition mainly refers to the location of the being. Now, where one is located, if I say this is where the subject is located, this is where the subject is looking at the object and this is the location, the physical location of the subject. This is the physical location of the subject. Now, when I talk about physical location, what I mean is that the space and time in which we are all interacting, I also talk about the social biological conditions. I in the sense, Sal also refers to the social biological conditions and the special temperate relations in which a being is located and being is having the experience of things, being is experiencing things in that particular object. So, my experience of the flowery tree as a philosopher and others experience suppose somebody else is a poet. Now, this why is a poet looking at the flowery tree may be in his poetic imagination, he would have a beautiful poetry, he would narrate it in a very significant way imagining certain things. Poetic imagination, the being is trying to look at the object from certain point of view. So, there are biological, sociological conditions in which the being is rooted and there is also a special time which are universally connecting. So, both of us, the poet and the philosophers are looking at the reality. So, both of us are watching the reality and if there is a scientist, he is also watching the reality. So, all three of us will have three different point of views. I talked about it with reference to a spectrality and subjectivity when I said that consciousness are prospectively, they represent a point of view. So, the representation of a particular point of view is very, very subjective. But at the same time, what is connecting all of us? The connecting factor is the time, specially we are not located in one place, we are certainly located in three different places. So, three different perspectives are developed and what is our sociobiological root? Biologically, of course, yes, but socially, if you look at, I am not a scientist, I am a philosopher, I am not a physicist, others would say he is not a physicist, he is a poet, things like that. So, there is all these are related and they contribute to the structure of consciousness. So, situatedness related to one state of consciousness, something talks about the location of the being, where is the being located and how he is interacting with the world. Now, the other significant property of the feature of consciousness that structures our experience is mood. Sul says, a mood by itself never constitutes the whole content of conscious state, whether the mood provides the tone or color that characterizes whole conscious state or sequence of conscious states. The psychological mood Sul is talking about, never constitutes the whole content of conscious state, whether it only provides the tone or color to it. So, there is certainly a kind of a structure which is built by the subject object relationship and this structure is built by according to Sul, built by intentionality. Now, where does mood figure, mood figure here as a kind of a giving a tone to it. So, for example, when I say that please open the door, when I make this request, I am already putting giving a tone to that. If I say that look it, would you please open the door. It is no more a kind of a command which I was talking about in the last statement, probability of a or a request which was talking about in the last statement, it will still of a different varieties. So, there are tones and tones does matter representing the mood of the speaker and what Sul calls the psychological mood, psychological mood in which a statement is expressed or representational state is expressed by the speaker. So, they do not really talk about the content, the content is already built in, the content is already part of the intentional state, I am experiencing this object. So, mood on the other hand just add to that content. The last feature that Sul talks about is this and there is a pleasure and unpleasure dimension to our consciousness. He writes I quote remember that we are considering the whole of consciousness, a slice of stream of consciousness beginning to have the unity and coherence. I am trying to describe for such a chunk, it seems to me there is always a dimension of pleasure and unpleasure. Now, this happiness or the condition of satisfaction that Sul talks about in the case of the representation of intentional states in speech act theory. Sul says this is one of the grammatical conditions. So, whenever the speaker is saying something, speaker also expects that it will be either fulfilled or it will be if rejected by the hearer then I will be dissatisfied. So, the principle of condition of satisfaction is one of the grammatical principle used in speech act theory. Similarly, when we talk about the stream of consciousness that all these conscious states are connected with each other and whenever they are expressed, they are expressed to the other or they are made public in our expression, then that generates that brings in showing this dimension that there is a pleasure dimension, there is a happiness dimension and there is an unhappiness dimension. So, the condition of satisfaction will result in two dimensions – the pleasure and unpleasure. They are associated with it. Either I am happy or I am unhappy. Whenever I interact with the world, whenever I am experiencing the world or whenever I am thinking about it or interacting physically with it, performing various voluntary actions, the consequence of all these results in showing some kind of happiness or unhappiness. So, let us conclude this topic saying that Searle's theorization of consciousness talks about the structure of experience or consciousness or you can also call it the structure of internal states with various properties and the dozen of consciousness which he talks about gives an impression that consciousness is real and it is irreducible to the other physical states of the brain processes because subjectivity is something which is irreducible. Intentionality is irreducible. Happiness and unhappiness is irreducible. Now, all these are distinct properties, properties which help us explaining what is consciousness. Therefore, Searle talks about the ontology of consciousness. Thank you.