Of course it does. (At least that is what understanding means to me.) To understand something is to know the true nature of it.

Anything else is just a personal and individual interpretation or perspective.




Now you are talking about what is going in inside of an observer's head. (interpretation)

You are mistaking "sense perception" for "sensory information." Perception is directly related to the observer. Sensory information is a moot point if there is not an aware observer ultimately at the intended receiving end. It may still exist, but if it can't be received by an observer, it may as well not exist.

wikipedia:

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.

I humbly bow out at this time.

Enjoy!

There are rather interesting examples of conversation in other threads...

<--------------------- ------------------------>

If you bow out then you must realize that I am right. Sensory perception is directly related to an aware observer.

Think what you may...

I'm sorry for the delay with my reply, but I also have to switch to the email mode every now and then -- for responding to the messages...
Anyway, was Creative really objecting the fact of Sensory perception being directly related to an aware observer?
-- Strange, though I haven't read his comments, but it seems like a reasonable conjecture...

Anyways, regarding this:
QUOTE:
*** 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? ? ?
/quote]


So, I was right -- YOU WERE PULLING MY LEG!!!
In other wards, you simply confirm my statement of your lack of knowledge... LOL You might not actually perceive your computer as much as you think you do!
Good night, dear...

" And CHECK THE DEGREE OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE!!! "

My bad...

You are right of course.

I shall endeavour to keep my un degreed comments from dirtying the pristine nature of communications upon this subject.

thank you for reminding me...

It has been a pleasure.

That's not quite what I said.

What I said was "If you are unconscious, you are unaware. If you are conscious, you are aware"

Big difference.

How is that a big difference?

You refuse to give any thoughts of my conclusions or assertions, you won't refute them or agree with them, you won't explain why you believe the way you do. --That translates into throwing in the towel...and me winning the debate.

But winning a debate is not what I wanted.

I want you to explain to me why you think sensory perception is the same thing as sensory information, and whether you think sensory perception is directly connected to the ultimate aware observer or if it is not; then why not?

But instead, you bow out without making the connection or trying to understand the conversation, or even concluding that you are right and I am wrong and explaining why you think so.

Talking to you is an exercise in futility and very unsatisfying.

There is no closure. Only you sneaking out the back door. No understanding can take place with this kind of dialog. ... and I can learn NOTHING from it so there is no point. You make it all just a waste of time.

So don't let the door hit you in the butt as you leave.

Well I guess I should have said "Big difference to me." If there is no difference to you then that's ok. I'm just not up for slogging through that 'ol semantic swamp again.

I am just curious why its a big difference to you, I'm not concerned about any kind of debate or "slogging" through a semantic swamp. Besides, the words are the same, they are just reversed in order. Its a pretty general statement anyway so it does not seem too specific to me. It still asks the question "Aware of what?"

Can an apparently unconscious person be aware? In my experience... YES. (It is called consciousness level (Monroe) level 10 -- when your body is asleep and yet you are still aware of your surroundings. (Also called sleep paralysis)

Also, some people have experienced awareness while they were put under during an operation.

Can you be conscious and still unaware of what is really going on around you? Well, maybe...they call that Alzheimer's. Or sleep walking. Or just plain clueless or having a lac of observation skills. (Or "being in a fog or a daze.)

My point is that awareness and consciousness comes in many degrees. It is not either you are conscious and aware or unconscious and unaware even though that is the common meaning of those words.

Ok, I’ll give it a shot.

The difference is in “dependencies”.

My statement says “Awareness is dependent upon consciousness”.

Your misquote says “Consciousness is dependent upon awareness”.

If the same definitions (for ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’) are used in both statements, then the two statements cannot have identical meanings.

That’s my best shot.

Now the topic under discussion was Sense Perception vis-à-vis Awareness. I interpreted “Sense Perception” as being dependent upon the sensory organs of the physical body, and by extension, awareness as being also dependent upon the state of the physical body – as might be determined by, say, a medical doctor. If a doctor examined a person who was under anesthesia, he would say they are not aware of their physical environment. If he examined the anesthesiologist, he would say they are aware of their physical environment. That was the basis for my statement.

So in answer to your question of “Aware of what?” the answer is “physical environment” in this particular example.


I totally agree with your answer to this one. The problem is in the interpretation of “person”. You and I think of “person” as an entity that is distinctly different from the physical body, whereas the doctors and scientists deny (or at least ignore) the possibility that any such thing can or does exist. Hence the problem with discussing perception and awareness. The awareness and perception of that entity is something completely different from the awareness ande perception of the physical body as viewed by a doctor or scientist.

I agree. And thanks for your explanation. I am aware of two different levels of meaning when it comes to 'awareness' and self. One is apparently limited to the physical body and it organs and brain and that is as far as it goes.

The other points to consciousness and awareness that is independent of these physical things. They are the ones scientists have a hard time with and claim do not exist.

I cannot recall the name of the author, who's coined the phrase (Mc.. something), but it seems to be relevant to the discussion...

Anyways, for the purpose of an intelligent discussion, I suggest we leave the specialised knowledge (i.e. Medicine) alone and restrict ourselves to the common language -- for it wouldn't be fair discussing something from different perspectives... (in which case one could get away from the defeated argument as a winner!)
{{{ nice trick, Sky!!! }}}

However, if the Medium is to be treated as an individual, then the same piece of the "sensory information" may be perceived differently -- depending on the individual's state...

At the same time, JB, I would have to agree with Sky -- regarding what you thought he said (i.e."If you are aware, you are conscious. If you are not aware, you are unconscious.") and what he actually did say -- "If you are unconscious, you are unaware. If you are conscious, you are aware" -- because the awareness is meaningless without the consciousness (leaving aside the medical mirracles (i.e. exclusions from the general case)!

Sorry you feel that way, JB. I cannot know why you feel *anything*, however the above does imply that you sought to understand my point of view.

I see no evidence of that.

I get bored by my having to correct another's misrepresentation of my writing. You can call it(my choice of terminology) ambiguous if you choose, as you have done in the past, and then continue on to place blame on me for the misunderstanding... That would all be perfectly acceptable to me. I will defend your right to think and write as you choose, within the reasonable limits, because by doing that I also protect my own. Keeping that in mind, know that that term - ambiguous - would be unnecessary if you would just quote my words without changing them.

I cannot express that with any more clarity.

JS1:
I beg your pardon, AB, but my reference to the Degree of your knowledge was meant to be interpreted as the DEPTH of your knowlwdge -- rather than a scientific designation...

Hah!

Gotch!

This time I AM pulling your leg... (Post crazy... Never stop....)

O'K, but, please, BE GENTLE!!!

Real thoughts are the ones which you actually have as opposed to the the fake ones which are the ones that you haven't actually had yet - but you might someday!