It seems off to me to suggest symbolic, associative, abstract thought "subconscious". Active thought comes in many forms, if I'm thinking hard about something there is certainly nothing at all like an inner monologue doing the actual work or reaching conclusions, nor is the process itself describable - though the result is, what with my brain not being severed in two. Vocalizing thoughts - whether silently or out loud - is mostly to make the more efficient means stay on track.
I wouldn't say that means most of my consciousness in such a state is subconscious, or that failing to reach a useful result means there wasn't "aware" computation.
An anology would be two co-processors, where one is responsible for IO. Your idea of two entities simply doesn't apply if the interconnect is intact. Unity isn't an illusion just because the entire inner process isn't fully shared across.
And isn't the part about the subconscious making decisions and the conscious merely catching on or rationalizing mostly about basic ones that _by definition_ don't require much thought?
I wouldn't say that means most of my consciousness in such a state is subconscious, or that failing to reach a useful result means there wasn't "aware" computation.
An anology would be two co-processors, where one is responsible for IO. Your idea of two entities simply doesn't apply if the interconnect is intact. Unity isn't an illusion just because the entire inner process isn't fully shared across.
And isn't the part about the subconscious making decisions and the conscious merely catching on or rationalizing mostly about basic ones that _by definition_ don't require much thought?