There is no unconscious!

Many philosophers assume that because something is not in our awareness it should be considered unconscious. They, at the same time, argue that volition and intentionality are two of the main components of consciousness and that without these, consciousness is incapable of being causally related to our behaviours. Some take it so far as to consider consciousness an epiphenomenal construct; meaning that the brain causally creates consciousness, but consciousness cannot be the cause of any event within the brain. This is absurd, as an obvious expample of awareness, synonymously (in regular cognitive/philisophical discourse) consciousness, affecting what is typically considered an unconscious event occurs in yogi's whom are able to, on demand, change various aspects of their autonomic functioning: e.g. changing the temperature between the palm of their hand and the back of their hand by a few degrees celcius, or changing the rate of their heartbeat. If this is the case and I have read many documented cases in which this has occured in a controlled labortory setting, it flies in the face of epiphenomenalism. Now back to the issue of there being no unconscious. Yogi's have expanded their awareness (I will from here on in seperate awareness from the traditional conception of consciousness, as I want to reserve that term for the entire phenomenon that takes place within the brain) to the point they are able to alter what has traditionally been considered unconscious events. A slippery slope starts to take shape when a line in drawn as to what should be considered conscious. It seems that the only reasonable conclusion is that all information processing occuring within the brain should be considered concious (perhaps expanding it even further to all information processing period) and that awareness should be conceived of as a property of that phenomenon in which volition and intentionality are other qualities made possible by awareness and not defining elements of consciousness.