.......................EXAMPLE ........................
.. Having awakened from the coma, she opens eyes, and close them immediately, because she is unable seeing anything either way. The mind is racing: "Why? Am I blind? Shall I call for help?" She opens the mouth, but no sound comes out of it! She tries moving the hands -- unable! Then strange thoughts began entering the mind: What's happened? Where am I? Who am I?... Maybe my brain seperated from the body, is floating in the liquid?
Finally, with all the might, she managed touching the right leg, then the left leg. and so on... And then a realization: Hey, I AM!!! In other words, through the process of self-exploration, I understood and became aware of WTF AM I!!!

This autobiographical example has actually happened to ME some 20 years ago -- after I got involved in a car accident...
The reason I brought it up is to signify the fact that the state of complete unawareness could be overcome with just the power of reason (i.e. thoughts)! -- I understood and became aware * * *

*** At the same time, I completely agree with James, who exactly described my condition at the time:

--- So insightful, James, seems like you can relate to my story!***
............................I posted this on page 3.........................

It is quite possible to be completely aware of your existence 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.

--------------------------------------------------

You are quite right... I was in that state or close to it for 3 months... Because I was having trouble reintgrating into this reality from the place I had been. (I was me there and complete in my awarness of me... and that awarness extended further from me than I had ever seen,smelled,touch, or heard).

I've already given a very logical explanation that logically denies your hypothesis.

A person can be in a state of total confusion and disarray yet be fully aware that they exist. Therefore awareness does not require any understanding at all.

What more logic do you need?

That's pretty straight-forward.

And what do you even mean by 'Awareness is proportional to understanding'. That's absurd.

You're either aware that you exist, or you not aware.

Once you are aware then you are aware. To say that you become more aware of things based on your understanding of them is ridiculous.

Do you think a Ph.D. Is more aware than someone who has dropped out of highschool to become a rock star?

Surely the Ph.D. has a far greater "understanding" of things than the dropout rock star.

As far as I can see understanding and awareness have nothing to do with each other. We're either aware of our existence or we're not. No understanding of anything beyond that is required.

Awareness can't be dependent upon understanding.

Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!






(don't mind me)

No wonder there is a misunderstanding.

In philosophy, psychology, and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information.

It is not the sensory information itself. Perception is directly connected to the observer.

From Wikipeida:

"Just as one object can give rise to multiple percepts, so an object may fail to give rise to any percept at all: if the percept has no grounding in a person's experience, the person may literally not perceive it."

Therefore, what i am saying is your terminology (and Creative's) is all wrong.

Sensual information is not "sense perception." Perception is directly related to the observer.

Awareness comes in degrees. So does consciousness.

If you are only aware that you exist but not aware of anything else you are very limited in your awareness but you still qualify as being "aware."

But the question of how aware is still in the air. How conscious are you? How much can you perceive and interpret? It is all in degrees.

Sky wants to make it simple. He says, "If you are aware, you are conscious. If you are not aware, you are unconscious."

It is just not that black and white in reality.

I assert that all things in existence have a degree of consciousness or conscious awareness. Conscious and unconscious is like large and small. It is relative.

All perception must point to the observer or the one who perceives. If there is no one or no thing that can perceive, even the automatic detection devices and sensory organs would not work, and probably not even manifest or exist.

Sense perception is not the same thing as sensory information.

Sensory information is a moot point without a conscious aware observer.

This conscious aware observer must be aware of more that its own existence and this is accomplished by the manifestation and evolution of sensory organs and detection programs that arise FROM CONSCIOUSNESS. They arise from awareness potential seeking sensory information.

Animals living in dark caves don't manifest or evolve "eyes" to see light because they don't need them. They manifest only the sensory organs and detection systems that they need to become MORE AWARE of their environment.

We begin with awareness of self as spiritual beings and we manifest and occupy bodies and sensory organs and detection systems via evolution... in order to increase our awareness.

Awareness and consciousness comes in degrees and is always expanding and moving occupying bodies (of information and sensory equipment.)

Well, it seems implied here with your "thinking center" that all traffic must go some central (center) place that then makes it conscious, that is not happening.

The neural net encompasses the whole brain, a signal need not travel from one part of the brain to another where a different signal is being produced for those two signals to both become an element of conscious awareness.

This is part of the tricky nature of the neural net which becomes confusing when we think in term of a Cartesian theater. We are used to the idea of bringing things together for understanding to be achieved, and we tend to think that the brain would need to send a message to a different part of the brain to have it "arrive" at consciousness.

However what is really happening is far more interesting. The brain appears to treat all such signal, data, thoughts in parallel without need to send them to a central anything.

That is not a logical explanation. That is an illogical one.

What does it mean to be in a state of disarray? First one must have been in an opposite one to begin with, or they would not be able to identify the disarray as such. That is understanding.

A person is aware of their own existence if and only iff they perceive themself in relation to some other thing, in this case - a sense of disorientation. That is understanding that one is confused and disorientied. If one does not understand at least that much they are unaware. Confusion cannot happen unless observation conflicts with prior understanding.

It is not a light switch James.

How does one 'heighten' awareness if not through identification and correlation?

The musician is more aware of the goings-on in the music industry, through his/her own understanding. I am more aware of things that I undetstand as well...

And you?

How do you heighten your awareness of anything if not through a greater understanding?

Your use of the term "understanding" implies that a person's interpretation of a thing is "true and accurate" rather than just their perspective or interpretation. One must evaluate what you mean by understanding. What all does one have to be aware of in order to 'understand' something?

You may THINK you understand something when you do not.

Each observer can have a different perspective and 'understanding' of the same thing.

You heighten your awareness by improving your perceptions. Perceptions are interpretations, they are not 'understanding."

Interpreting something requires some understanding, or perceived understanding dependent on the use of the word understanding as JB pointed out.

If you failed to understand any of the elements of what you are trying to interpret then did you really follow through with the act of interpretation? Or was it a failed attempt?

This again takes into account that ugly word reductionism which simple means how one level affects the next and shouldn't be an ugly word at all.

To interpret something entails assembling elements into a logical structure that then upon said mental construction makes sense . . . ie understanding.

To even begin the processes of assembling the logical structure requires basic knowledge of the elements which get assembled in the processes of interpretation. If these pieces then have smaller pieces then later you may find to really understand requires interpreting the next level down . . . and perhaps so on dependent on the knowledge that is sought after. Context.

_____Perceptions and interpretations ARE 'understanding."__(a comprehensible example, LOL)

When the Interpreter says, "I UNDERSTAND the SIGN LANGUAGE and FRENCH", S/HE implies the knowledge of the basic elements of the language (and awareness of the idioms that usually rely upon the implications). Thus, the Interpreter is capable of translating an idiomatic phrase as intended, rather than just translating a group of wourds:
Example: "WHEN IT RAINS, IT POURS" -- a totally logical observation. Yet, only in the CONTEXT of a troubled person -- who's lost the job, and got divorced, and filed for bancruptsy, and etc. -- can the true meaning of the phrase be really understood (i.e. perceived)!

"Perceptions and interpretations ARE 'understanding."


Maybe, maybe not. I can perceive a lot of things and still not understand them. I can interpret a lot of things and still not understand them.

Jb...

The confusion comes because you are attempting to equate accuracy with understanding.

It does not matter whether or not the understanding is accurate. Both accurate and inaccurate inference constitute one's understanding of sense perception.

No, it doesn't.



Sense perception and correlation/relationships between those object being perceived.

JS1:
JB:
Well, we're not talking about Absolute understanding -- one cannot perceive/interpret EVERYTHING with an absolute degree of accuracy.
In fact, THE DEPTH/DEGREE OF ONE'S ABILITY OF PERCEIVING/INTERPRETING THINGS IS WHAT ACTUALLY DISTINQUISHES ONE INDIVIDUAL FROM ANOTHER!!!: even looks might be identical -- like twins -- but not perception/interpretation of a highly philosophycal matter.

However, both, perception & interpretation, do constitute knowledge (at least in part, not taking into account such other factors as Memory, attention, etc.)
But What is Knowledge, if not an Understanding???
(you wouldn't claim knowledge of something unless you possess some degree of undestanding that something.. -- just as you wouldn't claim understanding something unless you possess some knowledge of that something.)

*** And if you can perceive / interpret a lot of things and still don't undestand them (you must be pulling my leg, lol), that only means you lack some Knowledge of those things! (perhaps, your perception and/or interpretation hasn't been complete to a required degree...)

AM I RIGHT, OR AM I RIGHT? ? ?

I have knowledge of how a automobile is put together...

I have no understanding of how to put it together.
am I pulling your leg...

That would be a relative random event with a range of Yes/No that depends upon your assesment of me...

Hey, what kind of a conspiracy is that???
First, JB was pulling my leg, and now AB is doing the same thing!!!?
(just be gentle, please!) And CHECK THE DEGREE OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE!!!

You're hilarious.

Example: I perceive my computer but I don't completely understand how it works.

Example: I interpret conversation but sometimes I am not sure I understand it or the person doing the talking.

Of course I lack knowledge... of many things. I still might perceive them or interpret them and try to guess what they are.