So if this is true than aren't Peter Caruthers thoughts on this subject just an illusion?

from what i can tell, an awful lot of his theory rides on the idea that we don't perceive every single thing in the universe, and in fact not a whole hell of a lot of it. that's a weird conflation. in addition, i don't see why thought and sensation need to be separated so strictly in order to admit that we have conscious thought. it may be true that some of us have more than others; it may even be true that some have virtually none. he sure has a lot of thoughts for someone who says those thoughts are not conscious.

g

If you define "consciousness" and "thought" the way Peter Carruther does in the linked article, then there couldn't be conscious thought. He defines "thought" as only being nonsensory attitudes. He defines "consciousness" (at least in one place) as always bound to sensory modality. Another place in the article, however, "consciousness" is defined differently, but I'm not sure if that's his definition or if the interviewer added it.

I don't agree with his definition of either term, except in the sense that his definition of "thought" as being nonsense(ory). One can be conscious of their internal mental processing, which is not sensory. Just close your eyes and think (have a thought) to prove it.

I think the mind, in a sense, is an integrating machine. We have senses, but our mind integrates these senses into perceptions, we integrate our perceptions into concepts, we integrate perceptual concepts into abstract concepts, and we integrate abstract concepts into principles. That is, if we want to make the best use of our mind.

I have not read his published article, "The Illusion of Conscious Thought" in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, so maybe there is a better explanation there of what he means.

We've known this a long time