Although I don't necessarily agree with all of your post, you do bring up a very good point.

Looking at an unconscious person, is there perception? Most definitely. Is there awareness? Most definitely not. So, looked at from that perspective I must recant my statement about perception being dependent upon awareness.

However, contrary to Creative’s proposal …
… in the case of the unconscious person, his awareness cannot be said to emerge from his perceptions because his perceptions continued, unabated, while he was unaware.

So it appears that awareness and perception are unrelated – at least to the extent that neither is dependent upon the other.

First of all I am talking about the situation in area 51. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT DENIES THAT PLACE EXISTS!

The reason? Who knows? BUT people who have worked there have died from the toxic pollution that is going on there and tried to sue the government but for years they could not sue anyone because THE PLACE DOES NOT EXIST which is RIDICULOUS. IT DOES EXIST AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT DOES.

Finally, a court allowed a law suit to happen but all information about how the people were dieing was CLASSIFIED!! The proof is the court case if you can still find it. That may have been squashed and classified too, but for a while it was public record.

The guy who finally got it to court DIED ANYWAY.

Our government should not have such a place that they can claim does not exist. For a long time the President did not even know about it. SOMEONE RUNS IT AND PEOPLE WORK THERE.

Are they aliens??? Probably not but they are above top secret operations so how would you know if they were run by aliens? There is no way to find out! Why would our own government be killing our own people and dumping toxic waste there? What are all of the UFO's seen in the sky there??? What is going on there and other top secret places?

If you can answer those questions or if you can get the government to tell you then we will see if there are no aliens involved. But there is so much you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SEE AND KNOW there is no way of knowing what the hell is going on in this world. People need to wake the f*** up.

Animals are not mindless creatures. I just saw on television that a dog can understand as many words as a two or three year old child and they are not even in the top ten of the smartest animals in the world.

Creative answered:



Creative,

It does too matter, because the one CONTROLLING THE CONTROLLER is the originator of the action. The controller does not initiate any action on its own. It is only part of the machinery.. part of the program designed to carry signals and information for a specific purpose.

It does not operate on its own. It only follows programs. It does not initiate them.

"Real thought" must originate from a conscious thinking center. The signals you are talking about are simply automatic programing.

Regarding an unconscious person, we can only logically conclude the following...

Perception can and does exist without awareness.

Many creatures exhibit clear signs of awareness, all of which also have sense perception. That alone warrants the belief of a connection.

Common sense tells us that if perception can exist without awareness, then it cannot depend on it for it's own existence. It also tells us that if every showable case of awareness contains perception, then it is logical to believe that awareness needs perception.

To be aware of *something*, there must first be *something* to be aware of. We are aware through our sense perceptions.

.. at least Antropologically, it really seems the other way around:
1st, a baby developes perception, and only later comes awareness...(which is based on thoughts)

---------------------------------------
I beg to differ.

Babies are aware in the womb... Ever seen one turn and LOOK at the ultra sound emitter?

Perception is at first quite weak... Eyes do not 'see' as far, ears do not defrentiate sounds well... and touch is not sensitive.

But awarness is present and it is through that awarness the baby learns to understand the input coming from its sensors.

The galaxy aliens routinely practice and accept slavery as part of their culture. That practice has been carried over into humanity and the religion they created for us, and slavery was and still is practiced in this world. Humans have worshiped the alien "gods" throughout our history and they have worshiped the reptilian beings also. There are still cults today that worship the "snake" and the "dragon." The dragon of china was more like a snake than a lizard.

Genocide is also routinely practiced by the inter dimensional beings who feel that they are 'Gods' and feel have a right to annihilate entire groups of genetically engineered human populations that they feel are inferior, because they were the ones who genetically engineered them. We are nothing more to them, than their live stalk to be used any way they choose.

Their attitudes and influence on humans have carried over the idea of a 'master race' and the act of genocide and that kind of thing is still happening today.

I agree

Exactly.

Even if we allow that there must exist something to percieve before we can become aware of it, it still doesn't follow that awareness emerges from sense perception.

That's is clearly faulty thinkning.

Awareness must be something entirely different from sensory perception. It clearly does not arise from sense perception.

Moreoever, it's crystal clear that computer programs can percieve things through their sensors. Therefore if awareness emerges from sense perception we would expect computers to become aware. They would certainly have the 'emergent' qualities.

Clearly this is then incorrect, because we see example of sense perception where there is no awareness. Awareness does not emerge from sense perception. That's an observed given.

Well, there are a few holes in that, but I'm not gonna bother poking at the little ones...

I am aware of my thoughts, opinions and decisions. Not only that, but I am aware of my own awareness. Where is the "sense perception" there?

That is preposterous. There are different kinds of 'awareness' as I have mentioned. They are conscious and subconscious. The observer must have some degree of awareness, either conscious or subconscious in order to perceive any sensory input.

I will go so far as to say that 'sensory input' (or something) cannot even be proven to exist without an aware observer to perceive it.





Why don't we just discuss which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Let's assume there is nothing to be aware of. You are a unit of potential awareness existing in a void. An eye of infinite nothingness. What would you be aware of?

Perhaps you are too attached to your body to imagine. So then imagine that all your memories were temporarily erased and you were placed in a sensory deprivation tank with no short term or long term memory working. You cannot sense your own body, you feel nothing, you remember nothing.

What are you aware of then?

Only one thing.

That you exist.





I don't think perception can exist without awareness.

(A computer does not 'perceive' a signal it receives or detects it via programming or programed response.)

Even the human body has programed responses to signals. These are the senses. (They do not create awareness, they only participate and present themselves to the aware observer for translation.

I believe that 'Real thoughts' originate from consciousness which lives outside of (or inside of) this universe.

<scraping off the muck from that slog through the semantic swamp >…

From my viewpoint, I consider that an unconscious person is not aware. That’s pretty simple. And it has been demonstrated that perceptions can be recovered (or “recalled” if you like that term better) from times of unconsciousness. That’s pretty simple too. And based on those two premises, it follows (again, very simply) that perception does not require awareness.

Once you start in with “different kinds of awareness” you have to differentiate so that others know what you’re talking about.

If you say something like “consciousness and unconsciousness have two different types of awareness”, then you’ve introduced an ambiguity that you have to clear up before I can even understand your meaning, much less agree with you – which I would like to be able to do.

Even a conscious person is not "aware" of everything. So I would have to ask, AWARE OF WHAT??

Question: 1.) How much do you have to be aware of in order to be considered aware?

Question: 2.) Of how much do you have to be aware in order to be considered conscious??

I did not use the term "unconscious" so I don't think I need to clear up the difference between conscious and unconscious.

I used the term "subconscious." which is (accessible to the conscious awareness via several methods.)

I would define an 'unconscious' person as one who is "not aware" but the question is --- NOT AWARE OF WHAT??

I was knocked unconscious once after falling off of a horse but I was still aware of some of what what going on around me. To everyone else I was unconscious. When I came to, I was not even aware of who I was but I was still apparently conscious, yet I had no memory. When I came out of that daze, I remembered who I was but I could not remember much of what else had happened that day.

The most unconscious I have ever been was one time when I had smoked some funny cigarette and one other time when I had taken too much night-time cold medication.


My Dad talks in his sleep and even walks in his sleep talking and he looks and acts very conscious, but he could be considered totally unconscious because he cannot logically relate to what is actually happening around him. He does respond and talk back to me, but he makes no sense at all. It is hard sometimes to tell when he is sleep walking and awake, but I am learning.

So does being conscious and aware have to do with our ability to relate and interact with others around us and with the world? If we are unaware of what is going on in the world, are we then to be considered unconscious?

Ok, so let me put it this way then – Is there some property or attribute that is common to all ‘types’ of awareness? Or is “what you are aware of” the determining factor for the ‘type’ of awareness. If so, then I am interested in the different categories of “things of which you can be aware” so we can pick one as our basis for discussing the relationship between awareness and sense perception. If not then we should use the “lowest common denominator” as our basis. Or do you have some other idea about how to discuss it?

Note: I’m only using ‘type of awareness’ because you did and I'm trying to resolve the ambiguity. If you want to differentiate it in some other manner please do.

I’m only looking for some common ground from which to start the discussion about Awareness vis-à-vis Sense Perception.

Well as I think further on it, I am thinking that sense perception is more of a 'knock at the door' of awareness.

Does the signal reach its intended target? Is it heard, received and understood? Is it responded to consciously or automatically, (which is considered more unconsciously.) Is the receiver aware?

Consciousness comes in degrees. Awareness comes in degrees. How aware are you of your surroundings? How aware are you of other people's feelings and intentions? How aware are you of what they are attempting to communicate?

Does sensory input bounce off or does it cause a response or reaction? What ever it does, what determines its impact on the receiver?

How much attention is it given, and who gives it that attention. Who or what directs the attention?

I think this is an interesting question. Attention could be the answer. Awareness directs its attention to sensory input... or not.

Hence the saying... ignore it and it will disappear. If you completely and totally ignore something, it does disappear in your awareness.

Well I won’t disagree with that.

It’s just a little too ambiguous for me to use comfortably in discussing the issue of Awareness vis-à-vis Sense Perception.

I prefer the simple – an unconscious person is unaware: a conscious person is aware. That still leaves room for a gradient scale of awareness: someone who is drunk is less aware than someone who is sober, but more aware than someone who is unconscious.

But regardless of degree of awareness, it is a demonstrable fact that sense perceptions are being recorded during all degrees of awareness. Thus, sense perception cannot be dependent upon awareness.

That does not make sense. A PERCEPTION is the act of perceiving...(by an observer) How can you perceive anything if you do not have any degree of awareness??

You and Creative both seem to be treating the phrase "sense perception" as one word denoting some sort of event or happening that is independent of the observer.

It is the observer who has the perception (perceives.) And it is the observer who uses the sense organs to receive signals. The sense organs receive a signal and by way of automatic programming send that signal to the brain to be processed automatically and then sent to the whatever it is that perceives and directs attention towards the input. That is THE WILL....Or call it the observer. It is the self that perceives via signals received through the sense organs.

"What is the self?" Is the next question.

My answer would be "It is the Conscious Will."

It is me.

I am that I am.

I am consciousness.

Again, then that would be totally relative, and the question, again, is

"AWARE OF WHAT?"

I read something somewhere about conscious and unconscious that I thought was very interesting.

The author escapes me, but he said that people up to a certain time in history were "unconscious."

He was talking about the people who lived during the Biblical times and his proof was the way in which scripture was written.

It was not reflective of their minds, but it only told stories about things that happened. It was just story telling. You could never see inside of the minds of the author. They did not write in a way that demonstrated inner self awareness or feeling.

Of course another explanation would be that Aliens wrote all the scripture. They have no human feelings either.