In preparing the series of chapters on the state of psychological research on consciousness, I was naturally led to reflect on my own experience.
We all receive information from our five senses. Some reach our consciousness, others do not. Baars' theory of the existence of a global workspace is interesting in this respect. Psychology and neuroscience researchers have worked extensively on this aspect and have a fairly clear (although not yet proven) idea of the process of accessing consciousness. The five senses receive information (perception) and send it to this workspace via the neural network. If the information is consistent, particularly with information already stored (memorized), it becomes conscious (or not, moreover, because it seems in this approach that there is a lack of trigger or the criteria that will make us become aware of something: emotion. There's nothing like a scream of terror or a slamming door to make us become aware of our surroundings again. Fear, sadness, suffering... These are all triggers of awareness, the problem appearing when emotion invades the entire field of consciousness.
I will leave aside the question of phenomenal consciousness as it is approached by these researchers, to focus on the sixth sense or intuition. The two subjects are close but as it is said in the chapters, psychology wants to be a science (let us not forget that it was born from philosophy and medicine; but the latter has prevailed, momentarily I hope, over the former especially in Europe); therefore does not study everything that is not observable and tries to reduce the psyche to a set of mechanisms, notably information processing.
But intuition is not based on any identified biological process, just like beliefs (see my articles on spiritual intelligence). And yet, intuition, for those who know how to listen, forces the doors of consciousness, and enters this shared workspace without passing through the filter of the 5 senses, and therefore of memory (apparently) and perception.
Consciousness, as we understand it, also imposes thoughts and therefore has a cognitive aspect. These are more or less limited. Let's take the example of a given situation. You decide to go on vacation and you find out about your destination, do your calculations, you know who you're going to give your cat to look after... In general, you are aware of your decision and the consequences for you. But what about the consequences in the broader sense: on your spouse, friends, but also the economy, poverty, politics, your ecosystem in the broadest sense. Could there be several levels of consciousness and a holistic consciousness, capable of "capturing" all aspects of a situation..., of going beyond reflection (and ego consciousness?
The question is interesting in terms of responsibility and "psychological science" is not interested in it (yet). And yet! Let's take the case of a divorce that goes badly; egos are hurt because they are exposed; and curiously, some, unable to become aware of themselves and their dark side, will seek revenge even if it means harming third parties or obtaining compensation (often in financial form) for suffering that is unjustified for them; others will see it as an opportunity to better know themselves and evolve. Why this difference in levels of consciousness? Everyone must have access to all forms of intelligence, especially spiritual. But does a specific personality predispose more easily to a certain type of intelligence? What about mental problems that prevent access to consciousness, listening to the soul, or distort the reality of the information received?
These are all areas of research that we will be interested in in future articles.
EN 
FR