demonstrating subjectivity is sorta like proving you are a human speaker. You will have demonstrated subjectivity if your model convinces others you were being subjective when you spoke.
As for the paper, why not.
The paper mentions the "high attention" group and the low "attention group". The high attention group were focused in on the products. The low attention group were distracted from the products, while the products existed as "irrelevant" objects in the background. The outcome shows, in his words, "choice-related processing does not necessarily depend on attentional all processing".
Since science does not accept conscious awareness, why do you think he distinguishes one group as a "high attention" group and the other as the "low attention" group?
Don't you think it is because the subjective experience is something that at least feels like a higher attention (even though it may not lead to more attention)?
Those being rhetorical questions, here is ine that isn't. Do you see how the subjective experience is something real and is something that we all have in addition to attention?
I believe I provided you a citation to the difference between attending and awareness. Here it is again:
Attention and Awareness Aren’t The Same https://www.psychologicalscience.or...nd-awareness-arent-the-same.html#.WO6qf4jyuUk
There are several ways one can be attending to things. One is something happens to draw your attention such as a twig snaps or there is a sudden movement off from your primary view. Is such cases you turn your head toward the the attention demanding source. If you are involved in a conversation, an interesting conversation with one you like or admire, you may not become aware that you have turned your head as you keep talking. But your sensory system is processing the information from the vicinity of the source.Here you are conscious of the one with whom you are conversing, probably not conscious of the fact you have just turned your head, but you may become aware there is a fly at which you unconsciously swat your hand.
So we have the full boat. You are conscious of your conversation, you are aware because your unconscious is aware of the fly, and you are attending, but unaware of the the fact that you turned your head while you are unconsciously aware of a fly which of which you are not conscious. Things may develop to the point where you include your awareness of the fly in your consciousness where you may include that awareness in your conversation as you move your head back to focus on your conversee.
You will recall the conversation, you may recall you swatted at a fly during that conversation, but, you may not be aware that you turned your head to point your sensors in the direction of the fly.
Now as to your assertions that science does or does not recognize conscious awareness. Science does recognize consciousness, awareness and the combination conscious awareness. Scientists disagree on the composition, purpose, and functions of these attributes.
None of this is relevant to whether one attends in some operationally defined high or low state. It is obvious by the differences in the operations of what is defined as high and low consciousness. Idle gaze on random a environmental object may or may not become relevant depending on what the state of consciousness relating to that gaze.
Abhorring a vacuum (not a scientific term, but useful here), one becomes aware of something, anything within one's gaze if there is nothing else one finds relevant. That is the gaze, perhaps the movement of an object upon which one is gazing will determine whether one becomes aware and conscious of the object, otherwise meaningless, in the observer's gaze field.
Please don't go to 'feeling' in this conversation. Humans are wired to make choices relevant to certain important circumstances. Surprising things can be life threatening. Consequently we are wire to process that kind of stuff almost as a reflex. Conversations with individuals can be life threaten so we generally remain conscious of such. In between sense systems, neural hormonal systems, body state systems, all have processes and connections to our arousal and attentional nervous system where interesting outcomes arise. like what I outlined above. I hope this helps
My suggestion to you is consider the human a set of systems and processes which all interact, sometimes confusingly, to provide the best surviving individual they can given our complex history. We are not one thing except by molecular arrangement. IOW we are of many minds, instincts, reflexes, more or less getting along in a single corpus.
