n short, the OP isn't really about the word "consciousness", nor is it about consciousness, it's actually about language in general and Latin & English in particular. — TheMadFool

I'm happy for us to look at the language issues about "consciousness" and related words as you have done, but no, the post is not about language in general or Latin and English in particular. It's about a mental phenomenon or phenomena.

I was not criticising it, but simply read it when waking up in the middle of the night, so my response may have seemed a bit grungy. — Jack Cummins

I didn't think your post was critical at all. This is the kind of conversation I want to have.

The reason why I think your question is so good is that we use the word so often on this site, and I know that I have written threads including the word consciousness. While people are inclined to seek definitions, I am not sure that there are many discussions here about the specific meaning of the term consciousness. — Jack Cummins

As I noted, this is exactly why I started this thread.

I have a different position. My own understanding of consciousness incorporates a possible collective unconscious as a source of consciousness, or of levels of consciousness as dimensions. But, I will stop here, because I am going into what is consciousness and I believe that you are looking more specifically at what we mean by the term consciousness, although it is linked because people probably use the word differently. — Jack Cummins

I like talking about all aspects of consciousness. It tests my understanding of the interactions between human understanding and reality. But, as you note, if we drift off target I'm afraid the main goal of this discussion will be lost.

On the other hand, as I mentioned in an earlier response to one of your posts, I think we do need to talk about the subconscious and unconsciousness. My first take is that they are part of our minds but not of our consciousnesses. I'm not sure about that. If you want to discuss that, that would be fine. As I noted before, I will add more on that if I can just catch up on all the comments.

But (contentious as what I’ve so far written might be) back to the central point: My take so far is that all interpretations of “consciousness” will encompass awareness. This although certain notions of consciousness will specify only certain forms of awareness and therefore label other forms of awareness as not constituting consciousness proper. — javra

First off, I didn't think your discussion of "awareness" was contentious at all. As I noted in my OP, I did not consider it because I thought it was a general term. You're right, though, you can't be self-aware without being aware. I have no objections to keeping it in the discussion. Do you think it adds to the discussion of "consciousness" in a way that "self-aware" does not?

‘Oh, too bad. How’s the rock? And the tree?’ — Wayfarer

I used to be an emergency medical technician. When we gave our reports on patients we would say they were "conscious and alert," although we never had to take a rock or tree to the hospital.

At first glance, this can look absurd. — Amity

I think @Banno was being a smarty-pants. Perhaps I was wrong.

Thinkers within philosophy and other disciplines may use the term consciousness in differing ways, and surely, thinking about it should not be reduced to one way of seeing it. — Jack Cummins

You're right, there are many meanings for "consciousness," but I am trying to focus in on one particular aspect, which I don't think has anything to do with first aid training. I know you understand that.

I have found "experience" a useful term - we have the experience of being in the world. We are not directly in the world, we experience it and thus are at least somewhat removed from it. There is a space there, a distance. This self-understanding of being in the middle of the act of experiencing the world seems like awareness to me.

We can step aside and see ourselves being born into a specific moment in time, into specific set of local customs and meanings, but we can distance ourselves from that specific moment and that specific cultural context. And then at least aim for universality, sub specie aeternitatis. At least to a degree, there is a space for that. I would imagine that for an insect there is no such space, that insects cannot distance themselves from the world, they don't observe themselves experiencing the world.

Not so much meaningless as wrong. — Banno

I agree, but there are some who believe that inanimate objects are conscious. When we get in those kinds of conversations, I just want to make sure everyone is talking about the same phenomenon.

Neither of them seem to know who the current Prime Minister is. It's not looking good. — bert1

Depends on where the accident is. Here in the US, no one knows who the British Prime Minister is. Is it still Gordon Brown?

I'm afraid that I am having a problem with you wishing to narrow down the idea of consciousness to that of a first aid test. — Jack Cummins

I think Banno is being intentionally contrarian.

I'm happy for us to look at the language issues about "consciousness" and related words as you have done, but no, the post is not about language in general or Latin and English in particular. It's about a mental phenomenon or phenomena. — T Clark

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me — George Bush

:lol:

It's not about a single definition but about seeing examples of it in practice. The people involved.
The whole human experience. — Amity

Except that it's not. I've tried to be clear. I want to talk about the meaning of "consciousness" in the sense it is used when one says "the hard problem of consciousness."

This understanding of consciousness may be the best we have, but I am only saying that I don't think it is helpful to try to exclude all other usages of the term, because some people may be using it differently. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I agree.

Best, not only. It's the one that is clearest; the one with which no one will disagree... — Banno

But, as you are aware, it's not the one I set out to discuss. It is not relevant to the question at hand.

I see why you may want to clarify these terms. I'm not sure how useful it's going to be. The simpler the definition the better. Consciousness can be said to be awareness. Self consciousness means awareness of one's being aware. And so on. But defining a term says little about the phenomenon. — Manuel

Yes, there are different meanings of "consciousness," but I think I've been clear. I'm talking about a particular meaning or meanings related to a particular usage, i.e. the discussions we have here on the forum. I'm looking for the language to use in those discussions to make what I am trying to communicate clear to other participants.

But, as you are aware, it's not the one I set out to discuss. It is not relevant to the question at hand. — T Clark

[rant] I do get a bit triggered when people don't respect the OP. Otherwise every thread becomes the same free for all for people's opinions on whatever they want to sound off about. A bit of discipline and focus would be really nice. Then each thread would have a proper subject. Banno knows better and is capable of staying on topic, but chooses not to. [/rant]

As in, if I say consciousness is to be defined as what-it's-like to be something and someone replies "that's no good, you can't be a rock. Also, can you tell me what it's like to be a bat?" Then we simply get stuck in discussing the definition as opposed to the phenomena. — Manuel

But this thread is specifically intended to discuss the definition as opposed to the phenomena. That way, theoretically, possibly, one hopes, we can avoid focusing on the definition as opposed to the phenomena in future discussions.

I do get a bit triggered when people don't respect the OP. Otherwise every thread becomes the same free for all for people's opinions on whatever they want to sound off about. A bit of discipline and focus would be really nice. Then each thread would have a proper subject. Banno knows better and is capable of staying on topic, but chooses not to. — bert1

I try to be considerate in my posts and make sure I am discussing the issues raised in the OP. I appreciate it when others do the same for me. Thank you.

We all know what consciousness “is” because we all experience it (supposedly), but the problem with experience, is that experience is subjective and may not be conveyed to others, outside of the use of abstract language. — Present awareness

And this is why I started this discussion, to help give us common language to discuss this issue.

I have found "experience" a useful term - we have the experience of being in the world. We are not directly in the world, we experience it and thus are at least somewhat removed from it. There is a space there, a distance. This self-understanding of being in the middle of the act of experiencing the world seems like awareness to me. — hwyl

You're right, experience is a good word in the context of this discussion. Perhaps I should have included it in my list. It helps differentiate between different meanings of "consciousness" and focuses on the type of thing consciousness is. "Consciousness" does not only mean an experience, but that's the aspect of the word I want to examine in this thread.

I think "experience" might be a good word to use. Experience being occurrent mental events or processes, what's happening now as you read these letters. Then there is the experience of thinking about an idea that you may want to articulate.

One can have experience of that little itch one may have on one's arm, or the experience of closing one's eyes. There's then the experience of breathing through your nose and the experience of seeing a blue sky. There's the experience of walking, as one walks, and the experience of frowning. You can focus on the sound you hear and that would be sound experience. There's the experience of looking at numbers, or of talking, or of being angry or sad, etc.

You may think of a specific memory and as that specific memory comes back, it evokes certain images or sounds, this would be experience too as is happens.

So that's what I propose. We use experience in this broad sense to refer to conscious goings-on. Everything else that is not part of experience at this moment (minus other people who one assumes have experience too) would be non-experiential.

I find it useful. Consciousness tends to have a lot of baggage attached. Experience is a bit less ambiguous.

So that's what I propose. We use experience in this broad sense to refer to conscious goings-on. Everything else that is not part of experience at this moment (minus other people who one assumes have experience too) would be non-experiential.

I find it useful. Consciousness tends to have a lot of baggage attached. Experience is a bit less ambiguous. — Manuel

Yes, I agree. The aspect of consciousness I set out to examine is the experience. If I had added that to my list of words in the OP, it might have made it easier for us to keep on target.

So I’m curious, can anyone provide an instance where one is conscious of X without being aware of X? — javra

Gods (re: believers). Lies (re: believers). Other minds (ergo 'theory of mind'). My death.... — 180 Proof

Just checked definitions to see how “aware” can have a specialized meaning as you imply. Wiktionary provides two, one of which is “conscious or having knowledge of something”. So I so far don’t follow your examples. Could you be more specific about consciousness sans awareness?

One can think of X without perceiving X e.g. "unicorns", right?

First off, I didn't think your discussion of "awareness" was contentious at all. — T Clark

OK. Cool. :grin:

As I noted in my OP, I did not consider it because I thought it was a general term. You're right, though, you can't be self-aware without being aware. I have no objections to keeping it in the discussion. Do you think it adds to the discussion of "consciousness" in a way that "self-aware" does not? — T Clark

Self-awareness becomes redundant it is specifies an innate distinction between self and other, an innate awareness of selfhood in this sense. An ameba will hold awareness of this distinction, but we do not say it is self-aware. Lesser vertebrates can become unconscious—e.g., due to sedatives—but when conscious we likewise don’t consider them self-aware in the senses defined in the OP. Defining consciousness by self-awareness, as self-awareness was specified in the OP, constrains “consciousness” strictly to critters that can not only conceptualize information but, additionally, can conceptualize information about (and thereby hold abstract knowledge of) their personal innate awareness of their own selfhood via which other is discerned. A conceptualization of self which young enough human children cannot do. So, in equating consciousness to self-awareness, one would be forced to state that human infants hold no consciousness. This being something I’m personally very adverse to doing. If, however, consciousness is equated to awareness, then human infants and lesser animals can all be conscious (again, in contrast to being unconscious). But, in so defining, then unicellular organisms can then be deemed conscious as well, since they hold awareness of things, including of that which is other relative to themselves—and, hence, of themselves relative to that which is other.

All this to me gives good reason to keep “awareness” rather than just “self-awareness” on the table in the discussion of what consciousness is.

One can think of X without perceiving X e.g. "unicorns", right? — 180 Proof

Of course. As I wrote in my original reply to the OP, re: one can be aware of being content without perceiving oneself to be content.

Are we not aware of what we know ourselves to be thinking?

Strict materialists often make the argument that we are essentially machines, that there is very little authentic base for awareness or mind or consciousness (some of this is based on study of brain functions). But thinking of machines, say cars, do they ever wonder if they are basically machines? If we are, we are quite a peculiar kind of machines with tendency to self-doubt and capability for ferocious arguments whether we actually are "just" machines. This would seem somewhat strange behaviour for a car or a hairdryer etc.

Being a hairdryer would really suck...

Being a hairdryer would really suck... — bert1

Being a vacuum would suck more. :razz:

T Clark!

Not to be glib, but in a word or so, consciousness is a mystery. You know kinda like God, cosmology, mathematics, music, and whole host of other things found in living structures.

In the alternative, you could say that consciousness (the explanation of) is illogical, or outside of, or beyond the usual categories of human thought and/or reason. But then that sounds paradoxical... .

You're probably getting tired of me saying that :joke:

Nice OP dude!