As far as I’m aware — Xtrix

Would it mean the same thing to you if you replaced "aware" with "conscious"?

:lol:

Touché.

I suppose not in that context.

I said 'other' - different facets of a unified whole. I can imagine a paramedic saying that a patient is 'conscious and aware of his surroundings'. Or he might be 'conscious but in such a state of intoxication as to be not aware of his surroundings'. You can be conscious and unaware of something - a storm on the horizon, a fire that's started in the attic. You can be conscious of something but not be aware of what it means - 'from the corner of her eye, she saw a shape moving, unaware that it was a leopard.' (Note etymology of 'beware' i.e. 'be aware!')

I can't really imagine being aware but *not* being conscious, although I suppose awareness persists during sleep, in that a loud sound or a touch will wake you, even if you're not consciously aware when you're asleep. In that sense, 'awareness' is more like a state of the autonomic nervous system, whereas 'conscious' suggests the engagement of discriminative judgement.

I have a feeling that these terms are differentiated it cognitive science, although I would have to look it up to be sure.

Touché. — Xtrix

That was easy :smile:

I am not a native English speaker but I believe both words are used interchangeably in popular language.

However, I think their definitions are different. Awareness relates to knowledge, consciousness to a mental state, conscious/unconscious.

If you can't decide which word is best then you could use "woke". It's popular these days and there are only four letters.

In terms of technical jargon regarding the cognitive neurosciences there is a difference. In fact, what is coined as 'consciousness' and 'conscious' varies depending on the context too.

I said 'other' - different facets of a unified whole. I can imagine a paramedic saying that a patient is 'conscious and aware of his surroundings'. Or he might be 'conscious but in such a state of intoxication as to be not aware of his surroundings'. — Wayfarer

I think you're using "consciousness" in a physiological sense, similar to being "alive."

I see it more as someone can be generally awake, aware, conscious -- but yet unconscious of many things - l ke the fire in the attic that you mention, or the goings-on in some Chinese market, or the cellular processes in the pancreas.

I guess I still don't see where the differentiation comes from. What exactly is the difference between consciousness and awareness in the first place? I think it is a unified whole, but both words refers to the same whole rather than representing, say, different sides of a triangle or coin. That is, I see consciousness as being conscious of some particular being or group of beings, but also consciousness of being in general. Ditto for awareness. So to say "I am not aware of that," is the same as saying "I'm not conscious of that," even though the former is considered the appropriate word.

I think "raising consciousness" is important, for example -- for individuals and groups. At the same time, we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that this will solve all of our problems, and try to remember that the vast majority of our activity and our world is not only unconscious, but unknowable for us --in a practical sense. (Some might argue we can theoretically understand everything.)

In meditation, for example, you can use breathing as a technique to increase your awareness of your sensations, your body, your feelings, your thoughts, and your being. I consider this a good thing, especially as a counterbalance to our busy, overstimulated, overworked environment. Psychotherapy, too, can help one increase their awareness of themselves, their family, their world -- simply through talking. I think even philosophy can be healing or "therapeutic" in certain ways -- Brian McGee (I believe) referred to this as "Bibliotherapy."

All well and good. But it's not magic, not supernatural, not really even mystical. Raising awareness can be a learned skill, like anything else -- like speaking and reading and cooking and archery. It's an exercise worth practicing, nothing more. But no matter how much I believe in any of these helpful activities, life is largely absence, and we can only scratch the surface of it. We're human, finite beings at the end of the day.

In terms of technical jargon regarding the cognitive neurosciences there is a difference. In fact, what is coined as 'consciousness' and 'conscious' varies depending on the context too. — I like sushi

I didn't know/wasn't aware/wasn't conscious of that. How are they technically defined?

Roughly interchangeable, although it's not hard to imagine times when people want to make distinctions and to specify usage. Just have to pay attention to the context and hope people, when stipulating meaning, are clear about it.

A lot of it is context dependent. ‘Conscious’ can simply mean brain activity and when it comes to talking about conscious states there is a blurry line of vegetative states that are sometimes called ‘conscious’ and sometimes called ‘non-conscious’.

Often when someone says ‘conscious’ they are referring to states of conscious awareness, but if you are in a deep dream state you possess ‘consciousness’ still. And contradictorily being asleep/knocked-out is not often referred to as a ‘conscious state’.

This is not exactly very surprising as the neurosciences are hard sciences, and ‘consciousness’ is a phenomenon that is tricky to articulate in terms of brain function and human life. It is further confused by psychological terminology wedding up with hard sciences in this area.

I consider ‘awareness’ to be a more general term, with ‘consciousness’ referring to a more complex level of awareness. I make this terminological distinction mainly because my philosophical discussions occasionally enter into panpsychism territory.

I find there is a qualitative distinction between ‘unconscious’ (potential consciousness with temporally-reduced awareness) and ‘non-conscious’ (insufficient awareness complexity (potential) for consciousness).

Consciousness, while being a potential structure, is measured by its temporal manifestations, such as brain activity, responsiveness, etc. ‘Conscious state’ refers to these manifestations, temporarily defined.

I consider ‘awareness’ to be a more general term, with ‘consciousness’ referring to a more complex level of awareness. — Possibility

Me too. To be aware of the possibility of a thing, then to be aware of the thing, proves the thing. To be conscious of the possibility of a thing, then to be conscious of the thing, validates the possibility but does not necessarily prove the thing.

I reserve awareness in reference to sensibility, but consciousness in reference to understanding. To be aware is to sense; to be conscious is to think.

I reserve awareness in reference to sensibility, but consciousness in reference to understanding. To be aware is to sense; to be conscious is to think. — Mww

What purpose is being aware if not to think (to process the sensory information for some purpose)? It seems that both awareness and thinking are integral parts of consciousness.

It seems that both awareness and thinking are integral parts of consciousness. — Harry Hindu

As I said: an unabashed, unapologetic dualist’s personal preference regarding an organized cognitive system. I can think a thing without its being present, but I am immediately aware of a thing upon its being present. Being conscious of thoughts is not the same as being aware of objects, hence being aware of thoughts says nothing more than being conscious of them.

Besides....if it doesn’t really make any sense to say I am aware of my consciousness, or conscious of my awareness, then there is sufficient reason to distinguish the roots and derivatives of one from the roots and derivatives of the other.

Being conscious of thoughts is not the same as being aware of objects, hence being aware of thoughts says nothing more than being conscious of them. — Mww

You seem to be confusing imagining with thinking. Imagining is a type of thinking. Interpreting sensory data is also a type of thinking which is the type I was referring to when making my point.

I is strange that you talk of thoughts and awareness as if they are objects (nouns). Are you aware that you are aware of objects? You must be aware of the thing you are talking about (awareness or objects) or else what would you be talking about?

If you know that objects are made of atoms but you never observe atoms are you aware of atoms? What about being aware of another person's thoughts by means of their behaviors? If we can be aware of objects by how light reflects off them and how they vibrate air molecules that we hear, then why not atoms and thoughts?

Different things. You can be aware of conscious experiences. This awareness is not a conscious experience. Awareness is conscious, but consciousness is conscious being. You can be aware of a conscious being without the awareness being a conscious being.

So I can be aware of red. That awareness is not an experience but an observation of. The observation of red has no color. The consciousness of red is red.

I is strange that you talk of thoughts and awareness as if they are objects (nouns). — Harry Hindu

And it is a dialectic non-starter to fail to grasp that talking about a thing is the only way to objectively represent it. Of course I talk about thinking in terms of nouns. How else would I?

As for the rest....(Sigh)

I don’t see why that move is justified. You can do it, of course, but it doesn’t seem to get us anywhere.

To be aware is to sense; to be conscious is to think. — Mww

Again, I don’t see why consciousness has to be linked with thinking any more than awareness does. You’re sensing either way.

You can be aware of conscious experiences. This awareness is not a conscious experience. — EugeneW

It isn’t?

Seems unnecessarily confusing. If I’m aware of this chair, I’m also conscious of this chair.

Aware means conscious. Consciousness is conscious being. It's a small but important difference. Your view of the chair is being conscious of the chair. You are aware of that consciousness. You have created a distance to that consciousness by being aware of it.

Aware means conscious. Consciousness is conscious being. — EugeneW

Awareness/consciousness is a characteristic (or state) of being.

“Consciousness is conscious being” makes little sense to me. I can’t make heads or tails of it.

Consciousness is conscious being” makes little sense to me. I can’t make heads or tails of it. — Xtrix

Yeah it's confusing. In German "Bewustsein" ,(litterally
"aware being")cmeaning consciousness or awareness, and "Bewust", aware, are two different things. "Are you aware of that" has a dìfferent meaning than consciousness. "I'm aware of the situation" is active, consciousness is passive. I have consciousness, I am aware. So conscious being is passive while being aware is active.

You’re sensing either way. — Xtrix

If you can add any set of random four-digit numbers together in your head, you are thinking without sensing.

And it is a dialectic non-starter to fail to grasp that talking about a thing is the only way to objectively represent it. Of course I talk about thinking in terms of nouns. How else would I?

As for the rest....(Sigh) — Mww

Sigh. Thoughts are nouns. Thinking is a verb. I fail to see how scribbles that are experienced just like everything else are objective representations of things that are experienced.

If I can't understand your position because you are being inconsistent and intellectually lazy then your objective representations probably aren't objective at all but a result of the bubble you've chose to live in.

Different things. You can be aware of conscious experiences. This awareness is not a conscious experience. Awareness is conscious, but consciousness is conscious being. You can be aware of a conscious being without the awareness being a conscious being.
So I can be aware of red. That awareness is not an experience but an observation of. The observation of red has no color. The consciousness of red is red. — EugeneW

Thanks for moving the conversation past what is intellectually capable of.

Red only exists in your head. Color does not exist in the world. So by being aware of red, are you not being aware of the contents of consciousness? How does being aware of red allow you to be aware of apples that are not red, but ripe? Causation - the relationship between causes and their effects is information.

So you are aware (informed) of the ripeness of the apple by being conscious of a red apple. You can be aware (informed) of other people's thoughts by being conscious of their behaviors (which includes making verbal utterances and drawing scribbles).

I reserve awareness in reference to sensibility, but consciousness in reference to understanding. To be aware is to sense; to be conscious is to think. — Mww

That’s not really how I see it, although I understand your distinction as a reduction IF we only consider living systems to be aware. I consider consciousness and sensibility to be different complexities of awareness. To be aware is to be informed by relation to ‘other’; to be conscious is to be aware at the level of potential; to sense is to be aware at the level of actuality. To think is one method of processing information from this level of potential. It isn’t the only one.

I don’t see why that move is justified. You can do it, of course, but it doesn’t seem to get us anywhere. — Xtrix

Where are you trying to get to? Awareness as information in relation to ‘other’ gives us a basic structure of information we can apply to all levels of relation, from virtual particles to conceptual systems (and possibly beyond), without entertaining the idea that rock are conscious.

To be aware is to be informed by relation to ‘other’; to be conscious is to be aware at the level of potential; to sense is to be aware at the level of actuality. — Possibility

This works for objects of perception, for real objects in the world which affect our sensibility. We know this from the fact we sometimes are affected by objects but don’t know what that object is. So....we are aware of an actual sensation but also conscious that what we are aware of, could be anything, so has a level of potentiality.

But that doesn't account for conditions of consciousness without awareness, of which there are two. One is being conscious of that for which there will never be an awareness at the level of actuality, or that of which we will be potentially aware at the level of actuality iff we ourselves cause it to become an object of perception. The former is, of course, our feelings, and the latter is things like numbers, laws, possibilities, and so on.
————-

To think is one method of processing information from this level of potential. It isn’t the only one. — Possibility

What is another one? That isn’t the least anthropomorphic?

This works for objects of perception, for real objects in the world which affect our sensibility. We know this from the fact we sometimes are affected by objects but don’t know what that object is. So....we are aware of an actual sensation but also conscious that what we are aware of, could be anything, so has a level of potentiality. — Mww

To vague to be useful. Give an example of being affected by an object but don't know what that object is.

I can think of blind-sight patients but the sensation they are aware of is their own reaction to something that they are neither aware of nor conscious of. They are never aware of the object, only their reaction to it, which goes back to my description of causation - that they conclude by the process of thinking that their reaction indicates that something is there, but they don't know what it could be, which is different than something appearing in consciousness in which you have no prior experience of, which comes back to the type of thinking that is interpreting sensations that are in consciousness. You can only think in sensory forms, so if there is no form in consciousness (as in blind-sight patients) then there is nothing to think about. The only form (sensation) that appears is their own reaction to something that isn't there. Tree rings are the effect. How the tree grows throughout the year and how many years it has being growing is the cause. Information is the relationship between the two.

To be aware is to be informed by relation to ‘other’; to be conscious is to be aware at the level of potential; to sense is to be aware at the level of actuality.
— Possibility

This works for objects of perception, for real objects in the world which affect our sensibility. We know this from the fact we sometimes are affected by objects but don’t know what that object is. So....we are aware of an actual sensation but also conscious that what we are aware of, could be anything, so has a level of potentiality. — Mww

It COULD be anything - it CAN be narrowed down - this is the difference between possibility and potentiality. It’s where conceptual structures - predictions based on the relation of actual sensation/affect to past experience, knowledge, language, values, etc - come into play.

But that doesn't account for conditions of consciousness without awareness, of which there are two. One is being conscious of that for which there will never be an awareness at the level of actuality, or that of which we will be potentially aware at the level of actuality iff we ourselves cause it to become an object of perception. The former is, of course, our feelings, and the latter is things like numbers, laws, possibilities, and so on. — Mww

This is where a narrow understanding of potential as quantitative probability trips us up. Potential also refers to value or significance. It has a qualitative aspect that is too often dismissed as improbable or even irrational. But our feelings do inform us at a level of qualitative potential - we are aware of something that alters the potentiality of affect without necessarily conforming to conceptual structure.

As for numbers, laws, etc - these are conceptual structures that we develop an understanding of through a potential correlation of quantitative knowledge with qualitative experience. We CAN be aware of them at the level of actuality by paying particular attention in our experiences - it’s just more efficient with prior knowledge of logical structure.

So....we are aware of an actual sensation but also conscious that what we are aware of, could be anything, so has a level of potentiality.
— Mww

It COULD be anything - it CAN be narrowed down (...). It’s where conceptual structures - predictions based on the relation of actual sensation/affect to past experience, knowledge, language, values, etc - come into play. — Possibility

Yes. Close enough.

As for numbers, laws, etc - these are conceptual structures that we develop an understanding of through a potential correlation of quantitative knowledge with qualitative experience. — Possibility

Again, true enough.

it’s just more efficient with prior knowledge of logical structure. — Possibility

What if conceptual structure is itself logical? If it is, then the efficiency we have is all we’re ever going to have, and there wouldn’t be any prior knowledge that isn’t already structured logically.

And if conceptual structure isn’t logical, indicating there is more efficiency to be had, what does the logical structure look like, and how would we know it as such?

You have betrayed yourself! :smile:
You said "As far as I'm aware". Can you equally say, "As far as I'm conscious"? Most probably not. Of course, "as far as I'm aware" is an expression, similar to "as far as I know", and does not reflect what awareness actually is, i.e., what it commonly means, which is, a state and the ability to perceive the existence of something. In that sense, it is synonymous with consciousness. They are almost the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Which is also what you believe.

But this only as concepts, as nouns. Their verb form differs. The verb "aware" has more meanings and applications than the verb "conscious", as I already indicated at start. Other examples: you can say "I'm aware of the fact", "I am aware of what is happening at this moment", etc. You cannot replace the word "aware" with "conscious" in these sentences. It will be incorrect. The verb "conscious" is much more strict and limited in scope. It can be only used in the sense that "I am in a state and I able to perceive things", "I am awake and I can respond to my environment", etc. But again, this is not what "Consciousness" as a concept means, a term with a much wider significance. One that is quite controversial and most probably will always be! :smile:

***

Note: I said "verb" referring to "aware" and "conscious". It's a mistake. They are adjectives. I had in mind the verb forms/expressions "I am aware" and "I am conscious", as my examples show.