100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: What is "Real Thought?" | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I prefer the simple – an unconscious person is unaware: a conscious person is aware.
The more aware we become, the more conscious we become. I am more aware today than I was when I was a toddler or a teenager. I could even classify myself as unconscious back then. I call it "clueless." But I am more aware today than I was then, therefore I am more conscious. These things are in degrees. I am probably unconscious compared to some people who are much more aware of things than I am. Walk into a room and look around for ten seconds and then leave the room and see how much you can remember about what you saw. Go to the bank and cash a check and after you come home write down how many people you saw, who they were, what they were doing etc. How aware are you? Or did you just go to the bank and cash a check and leave, never noticing much of anything? Is being conscious related to how much you observe? How much you remember? How alert you are to all of your surroundings? If so, I may be called unconscious because sometimes I don't notice much of anything. Its all relative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mother is 84 years old and suffering sometimes with dementia. Twice we went to Lamar in two days and she asked me: We went to Lamar two days in a row didn't we? I said Yes. She asked what did we go there for the first day? (She simply did not remember.)
Is she sleep walking? Is she unconscious? Is dementia a form of unconsciousness? What about Alzheimer's? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mother is 84 years old and suffering sometimes with dementia. Twice we went to Lamar in two days and she asked me: We went to Lamar two days in a row didn't we? I said Yes. She asked what did we go there for the first day? (She simply did not remember.) Is she sleep walking? Is she unconscious? Is dementia a form of unconsciousness? What about Alzheimer's? If you could see through the veil... Would you pay much attention to this world... Or the other? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mother is 84 years old and suffering sometimes with dementia. Twice we went to Lamar in two days and she asked me: We went to Lamar two days in a row didn't we? I said Yes. She asked what did we go there for the first day? (She simply did not remember.) Is she sleep walking? Is she unconscious? Is dementia a form of unconsciousness? What about Alzheimer's? If you could see through the veil... Would you pay much attention to this world... Or the other? I would hope I would pay attention to where ever I was at the time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mother is 84 years old and suffering sometimes with dementia. Twice we went to Lamar in two days and she asked me: We went to Lamar two days in a row didn't we? I said Yes. She asked what did we go there for the first day? (She simply did not remember.) Is she sleep walking? Is she unconscious? Is dementia a form of unconsciousness? What about Alzheimer's? If you could see through the veil... Would you pay much attention to this world... Or the other? I would hope I would pay attention to where ever I was at the time.
and if you were in both worlds at the same time? (they do occupy the same quantum space) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mother is 84 years old and suffering sometimes with dementia. Twice we went to Lamar in two days and she asked me: We went to Lamar two days in a row didn't we? I said Yes. She asked what did we go there for the first day? (She simply did not remember.) Is she sleep walking? Is she unconscious? Is dementia a form of unconsciousness? What about Alzheimer's? If you could see through the veil... Would you pay much attention to this world... Or the other? I would hope I would pay attention to where ever I was at the time.
and if you were in both worlds at the same time? (they do occupy the same quantum space) I am in all worlds. I apparently pay attention to this one more than the others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sky wrote...
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?
What are you thinking about? Opinions on what? Decisions about what? What = product(s) born of and/or through sense perception. Metacognition needs *something* to think about. That *something* always comes through sense perception - in some way, shape, or form. If I think about whatever, that subject of thought depends upon prior sense perception. If I make a decision, it requires contemplation of some thing currently or previously perceived through our senses, or the inference thereof. None of those things could even exist without prior sense perception. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, then that would be totally relative, and the question, again, is
"AWARE OF WHAT?" The content of and/or inferred from sense perception. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 08/12/09 09:32 PM
|
|
Awareness needs sense perception. Sense perception does not need awareness.
That has been clearly demonstrated. In a coma, the subject often is responsive to outside direct physical stimulus. Responsive not in a physical measure, but regarding measurable activity level in the brain. The senses are working, but the subject is not awake... is not aware of his/her surroundings. We must conclude that perception can and does exist without awareness. Awareness comes in degrees of proportion. That proportion varies directly with the number of things that that creature can perceive and identify. Awareness is proportional to understanding, both of which emerge from sense perception and the ability to make conscious correlations between the individual elements of that sense perception. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. False. It has been shown as otherwise. At least back up the assertions with *something* which resembles logical thinking. Even if we are not the best, we are talking philosophy... Aren't we? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK THESE A ARE MY VIEWS>>>WHAT IS A THOUGHT>AS A PERSON GROWING>>> THE CYCLE OF THOUGHTS ARE BECOMING MORE EXPRESSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE BEING PUT ON THE THE SPOT LIGHT>>>>NOW ITS TIME TO GO DEEPER>I REMEMBER AS A CHILD GROWING UP I WAS CONSTANTLY IN MY OWN WORLD TRYING TO IN A WAY INTERACT BY THE SENSE OF MEANINGFUL FEELINGS THAT I ACQUIRED THROUGH MY SENSE OF EXPLORATION>>> WHAT IS THE ANSWER FOR WHY WE ARE ATTRACTED TO CERTAIN THINGS>>>WILL WE EVER KNOW>>>BUT I CAN SAY THIS>>> THAT WHAT WE ARE ATTRACTED TO PLAYS A PART IN WHO WE ARE>>>>NOW PEOPLE THINK ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS EXPLORE>>>>KEEP ON THINKING>>>>>CREATIVITY WILL LAY IN THE HANDS IN THE SOUL>>>>DEEP WITHIN FOR THOSE THAT SEARCH WITH AN OPENED MIND>>>>>LETS NOT STOP THINKING>>>>JH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK THESE A ARE MY VIEWS>>>WHAT IS A THOUGHT>AS A PERSON GROWING>>> THE CYCLE OF THOUGHTS ARE BECOMING MORE EXPRESSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE BEING PUT ON THE THE SPOT LIGHT>>>>NOW ITS TIME TO GO DEEPER>I REMEMBER AS A CHILD GROWING UP I WAS CONSTANTLY IN MY OWN WORLD TRYING TO IN A WAY INTERACT BY THE SENSE OF MEANINGFUL FEELINGS THAT I ACQUIRED THROUGH MY SENSE OF EXPLORATION>>> WHAT IS THE ANSWER FOR WHY WE ARE ATTRACTED TO CERTAIN THINGS>>>WILL WE EVER KNOW>>>BUT I CAN SAY THIS>>> THAT WHAT WE ARE ATTRACTED TO PLAYS A PART IN WHO WE ARE>>>>NOW PEOPLE THINK ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS EXPLORE>>>>KEEP ON THINKING>>>>>CREATIVITY WILL LAY IN THE HANDS IN THE SOUL>>>>DEEP WITHIN FOR THOSE THAT SEARCH WITH AN OPENED MIND>>>>>LETS NOT STOP THINKING>>>>JH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK THESE A ARE MY VIEWS>>>WHAT IS A THOUGHT>AS A PERSON GROWING>>> THE CYCLE OF THOUGHTS ARE BECOMING MORE EXPRESSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE BEING PUT ON THE THE SPOT LIGHT>>>>NOW ITS TIME TO GO DEEPER>I REMEMBER AS A CHILD GROWING UP I WAS CONSTANTLY IN MY OWN WORLD TRYING TO IN A WAY INTERACT BY THE SENSE OF MEANINGFUL FEELINGS THAT I ACQUIRED THROUGH MY SENSE OF EXPLORATION>>> WHAT IS THE ANSWER FOR WHY WE ARE ATTRACTED TO CERTAIN THINGS>>>WILL WE EVER KNOW>>>BUT I CAN SAY THIS>>> THAT WHAT WE ARE ATTRACTED TO PLAYS A PART IN WHO WE ARE>>>>NOW PEOPLE THINK ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS EXPLORE>>>>KEEP ON THINKING>>>>>CREATIVITY WILL LAY IN THE HANDS IN THE SOUL>>>>DEEP WITHIN FOR THOSE THAT SEARCH WITH AN OPENED MIND>>>>>LETS NOT STOP THINKING>>>>JH  THAT IS VERY PROFOUND>>>>WELL SAID
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pleeeeze unlock your caps! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness is proportional to understanding Michael, why do you always demand that I back up my assertions with logic when you're assertions are never logical. You state that Awareness is proportional to understanding. Clearly this is false. It is quite possible to be completely aware of your existence and and have absolutely no understanding of where you are, what is happening to you, or even what you are. You might very well be in such a state of disarray that you can't even think in terms of being human. All you know is that you exist in a completely state of disarray. Trust me, I've been there!
Awareness is not in any way dependent upon, or proportional to understanding. Awareness can simply be nothing more than an awareness that you exist. Just like Jeanniebean had mentioned earlier. You assertion that awareness is dependent upon or proportional to understanding simply doesn't make any sense. Obviously "Clarity of Understanding" is dependent upon understanding. But that's just a tautology there. But awareness has nothing to do with understanding. Unless you define it to be that way. Obviously if you define awareness to be a greater level of understanding, then by your very own definition you are demanding that to be the case. For me, awareness simply means to be aware. No understanding is required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 08/12/09 11:50 PM
|
|
Michael, why do you always demand that I back up my assertions with logic when you're assertions are never logical.
You state that Awareness is proportional to understanding. Clearly this is false. Before claiming it is false, you should ask how I arrived at it. I have been attempting to remind myself to show you the same respect. Let us delve a little closer and more intimately at your attempted refutation. It is quite possible to be completely aware of your existence and and have absolutely no understanding of where you are, what is happening to you, or even what you are. You might very well be in such a state of disarray that you can't even think in terms of being human. All you know is that you exist in a completely state of disarray.
Uh... no! How is one considered to be completely aware of their existence, if in such a state of disarray that they do not even know if they are human? 
This example clearly supports that notion that one's awareness is directly proportional to his/her understanding of sense perception, and gives no support to the contrary. Awareness is not in any way dependent upon, or proportional to understanding. Awareness can simply be nothing more than an awareness that you exist. Just like Jeanniebean had mentioned earlier.
What does that level of awareness necessitate? If one is only aware of the fact that they exist, then that is all they understand. The correlation of recognizing oneself and some other thing is all that is needed or understood. That completely supports my claim. But awareness has nothing to do with understanding.
Unless you define it to be that way. Obviously if you define awareness to be a greater level of understanding, then by your very own definition you are demanding that to be the case. I have shown why it must be the case. For me, awareness simply means to be aware. No understanding is required.
That is the epitome of a purely semantical argument, James. Describe awareness without using the term to identify itself. It seems that your understanding of what constitutes awareness is limited by the term itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sky wrote... 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?
What are you thinking about? Opinions on what? Decisions about what? What = product(s) born of and/or through sense perception. Metacognition needs *something* to think about. That *something* always comes through sense perception - in some way, shape, or form. If I think about whatever, that subject of thought depends upon prior sense perception. If I make a decision, it requires contemplation of some thing currently or previously perceived through our senses, or the inference thereof. None of those things could even exist without prior sense perception. OK. You have it your way and I’ll have it mine. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers to you brudda!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My claim...
Awareness comes in degrees of proportion. That proportion varies directly with the number of things that that creature can perceive and identify. Awareness is proportional to understanding, both of which emerge from sense perception and the ability to make conscious correlations between the individual elements of that sense perception.
James, If the above is not true, then you should be able to show an example which logically refutes it. I have given plenty which support it, as have you, yet there has been nothing to logically suggest otherwise. It seems to me to logically fit every conceivable real life example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 08/13/09 12:39 AM
|
|
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? 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. To me it is exceedingly simple and sensible. I wish it were to you. A PERCEPTION is the act of perceiving...(by an observer)
In this particular case, when I say ‘perceptions’ I am referring to what I would call “the visual, aural, tactile, etc. input from one’s surroundings that is recorded in the mind” as opposed to “the action of receiving them as input”. That is, I am using ‘perception’ as a noun, not a verb. How can you perceive anything if you do not have any degree of awareness??
I don’t pretend to know precisely how it works. I just know that it can be demonstrated that when a person is unconscious ('unaware'), the visual, aural, tactile, etc. input is still being recorded, but it is hidden (one is ‘unaware’ of it). But it can be recovered later (one can become ‘aware’ of them). 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.
Yes, I would agree with that in a sense. With the stipulation that ‘a perception’ is a thing, not an action. The mental recordings are separate from both the ‘I’ that records them and the media on which they are recorded. |
|
|
|
|
