 To clarify the two, let us use the notation ‘\(E(o_1)\)’ for an experience that is the conscious experience of just the intentional object \(o_{1}\). A conscious experience of just \(o_{2}\) is \(E(o_{2})\). What is the nature of an experience that takes the bigger content in which \(o_{1}\) and \(o_{2}\) are presented together? On NEP, it has the structure of \(E(o_{1}, o_{2})\), where this introduces a single experience that has both contents as its object. To be conscious of \(o_{1}\) by means of this experience is to be conscious of it with \(o_{2}\). (See the concept of joint consciousness introduced in  Section 2.1.3.)  According to NEP, this is what the subject’s conscious unity at the time amounts to (if we oversimplify by supposing her to be conscious of nothing but \(o_{1}\) and \(o_{2}\)). No ‘smaller’ or simpler conscious states figure as parts. This experience might be realized in a brain state that has parts, but these parts are not further conscious states. By contrast, in EP \(E(o_{1})\) and \(E(o_{2})\) persist as parts of an encompassing experience by means of which one is conscious of \(o_{1}\) and \(o_{2}\) together and unified consciousness would have the structure \(E(E(o_{1}) E(o_{2}))\). 