It is noteworthy that the defining aspect of human experience in your model is an "unnecessary artifact". The issue is not the precise boundary between unconsc

It is noteworthy that the defining aspect of human experience in your model is an "unnecessary artifact". The issue is not the precise boundary between unconscious and conscious mind, the point is that there is, in fact, such a boundary. You dream, do you not? What you fail to address is what 'function' would require this otherwise inexplicable asymmetric partion of mind. Why this asymmetry? Why this duality? Your principle error, imo, is that you simply assert that un- and sub-conscious psychological action is deterministic. You, nor anyone else for that matter, has any basis for making this determination. "We can't explain it so it doesn't exist". All we have observed in some experiments is that psychological signals that engender action occur before the conscious mind 'thinks' it has made a decision. To choose to label one's own mind's actions "deterministic" in that modality is merely an assumption. The simpler view is that one's 'self' has both unconcious and conscious aspects. This continuity does not require any assumptions; it seems self evident that 'it' is a unified 'thing'. It is entirely irrelevant what physics has to say, today, about consciousness. Physics is having rather significant problems addressing a coherent, unified, treatment of simple matter, nevermind self-conscious minds. I think it is both prudent and rational to have a bit of humility in terms of what we actually know and understand, as a species. [p.s. in context my OP, to be precise: I assert that it is "my unconscious self that has made a decision; my conscious mind becomes of aware of my decision, and a bit of continuity theater of the mind make my ego think it is the one that made my decision." It is an error to confuse 'ego' for the 'self'.]