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

I'm seeing the numbers, in my case. Regardless, even if I were blind I don't see how arithmetic is relevant here, unless we want to define "thinking" as numeric operations.

In some Buddhist traditions, mind itself is a sense. And presumably, you have to be conscious to add numbers.

I don't see any reason to take for granted traditional ideas of thought, mind, sense, or consciousness.

Where are you trying to get to? — Possibility

A clearer understanding of consciousness and awareness -- basically by acknowledging that there's no good reason to see them as anything but synonymous.

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. — Possibility

Awareness = information in relation to "other" is meaningless to me. If you want to make that clearer, I'm happy to learn.

Again, there's no technical notion for either word. What I'm asking about is usage. It appears most people (so far) do not use them interchangeably. Fair enough. But I'm not seeing good reasons for doing so thus far.

Let me be lazy and quote Wikipedia:

Awareness is the state of being conscious of something. More specifically, it is the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events. Another definition describes it as a state wherein a subject is aware of some information when that information is directly available to bring to bear in the direction of a wide range of behavioral actions.[1] The concept is often synonymous to consciousness and is also understood as being consciousness itself.[2]

I think this is pretty fair.

It's ultimately a minor point, I suppose. I see most of our lives as being lived in a fairly automatic, unconscious/unaware state anyway.

:up:

I don't see any reason to take for granted traditional ideas of thought, mind, sense, or consciousness. — Xtrix

I don’t either. Take for granted, that is.

But ya gotta admit.....seeing the numbers in your head, or not seeing a reason, is just the same form of conceptual misappropriation as awareness vs consciousness.

Where are you trying to get to?
— Possibility

A clearer understanding of consciousness and awareness -- basically by acknowledging that there's no good reason to see them as anything but synonymous. — Xtrix

So long as you assume consciousness, sure. But if you need to distinguish between conscious and non-conscious, then you need a more accurate understanding of awareness. There’s a reason why we have two words.

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.
— Possibility

Awareness = information in relation to "other" is meaningless to me. If you want to make that clearer, I'm happy to learn. — Xtrix

Carlo Rovelli explains it better than I could, in his book Reality is Not What it Seems. Information (as Shannon defines it) “measures the ability of one physical system to communicate with another physical system.”
“Democritus says that when atoms combine what counts is their form, their arrangement in the structure, as well as the way in which they combine. He gives an example of the letters of the alphabet.”
“If atoms are also an alphabet, who is able to read the phrases written with this alphabet? The answer is subtle: the way in which the atoms arrange themselves is correlated with the way other atoms arrange themselves. Therefore, a set of atoms can have information, in the technical, precise sense... about another set of atoms.
“This, in the physical world, happens continuously and throughout, in every moment and in every place: the light which arrives at our eye carries information about the objects which it has played across; the colour of the sea has information on the colour of the sky above it; a cell has information about the virus attacking it...”

But I have supported your view! :smile:
More particularily, I said "In that sense, it is synonymous with consciousness" and also "Which is also what you believe."

(It's quite unusual to see someone "protesting" (re: "Again, ...") and explaining to me about things that I have already agreed with! :grin:)

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. — Mww

Conceptual structure is never purely logical, despite how we may perceive it. Either it has a qualitative aspect that determines its significance and applicability, or it lacks the logical structure that renders it reliably applicable.

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? — Mww

Conceptual structure isn’t either logical or qualitative, it’s both - that’s how it improves the accuracy of our interactions. It’s predictive. We develop conceptual structure by experiencing which predictions work for us and which ones don’t, and how they relate to each other according to both significance and probability. So trial and error, basically. Being aware of prediction error (pain, humility, lack) and learning from it.

There’s a reason why we have two words. — Possibility

What’s the reason?

This wanders too far afield.

A system predicated on prediction and trial and error cannot be as efficient as one predicated on pure logic, given the excruciatingly simple premise that reason doesn’t like a guessing game, or that which can be reduced to it.
————

I have no idea how to connect pain with prediction error.

Prediction: let’s try this. Error: Crap!! I’m now aware that didn’t work!! I felt pain. To feel less pain, try this...try this...try this....where does it end? It ends in no pain, of course. Shall we add sheer luck to prediction and trial and error?

OK...so.....why didn’t it work? Was it because of its logical structure, or because of its qualitative aspect? Or even on the other hand... did it work because of one or the other? If both...equally, or more of one than the other? And if it doesn’t matter, why were they there in the first place?

How was logical structure/qualitative aspect determined, anyway? Or were they given, and in which case, by what?

In subsequent circumstance, under sufficiently congruent conditions, to fall back on prediction or trial and error is absurd, insofar as experience makes them obsolete. So why employ them at all, if they only work once? Sometimes we need something that which works infallibly, all the time.
————

Prediction and trial and error have their place, just as logical structure and qualitative aspect has theirs. Just not the same place.

A system predicated on prediction and trial and error cannot be as efficient as one predicated on pure logic, given the excruciatingly simple premise that reason doesn’t like a guessing game, or that which can be reduced to it. — Mww

Reason doesn’t always have a choice in the matter. Take QM, for instance. Its logical equations were originally determined by...prediction and trial and error.

I have no idea how to connect pain with prediction error.

Prediction: let’s try this. Error: Crap!! I’m now aware that didn’t work!! I felt pain. To feel less pain, try this...try this...try this....where does it end? It ends in no pain, of course. Shall we add sheer luck to prediction and trial and error? — Mww

Pain is a basic biological signal that our predicted distribution of effort and attention (affect) in a particular situation is currently insufficient in some area. The aim is not necessarily to feel less pain or no pain, but to use that qualitative data to adjust how reasoning logically and qualitatively structures affect - ie. when to push through the pain, where to redirect attention, increase/redirect energy intake or cease action. It’s not a matter of ‘falling back’ on trial and error, but collaborating with non-reasoning aspects of the system to act on reasoning.

There’s a reason why we have two words.
— Possibility

What’s the reason? — Xtrix

Because there’s more to life than consciousness. Understanding awareness in non-conscious entities is how we improve the accuracy of relationships and interaction with our environment and the universe.

A system predicated on prediction and trial and error....
— Mww

Reason doesn’t always have a choice in the matter. — Possibility

Irrelevant, insofar as ‘predicated on’ as a general methodological necessity is not the same as ‘recognition of’ a particular exception. In the case of QM, reason merely conveys that for which a certainty is impossible, under the strictest of conditions reason itself provided, in accordance with observation. Humans, as such, don’t function in the quantum domain, and I’m a big fan of staying in my own lane, so.....
—————-

Pain is a basic biological signal that our predicted distribution of effort and attention (affect) in a particular situation is currently insufficient in some area. — Possibility

Yeah....no. Here’s me, walkin’ down a public road, mindin’ my own damn business, hummin’ Jimmy’s solo bridge in Stairway to Heaven.......punk-assed banga jumps out of the bushes, whacks me in the noggin, relieves me of my Rolex. So the pain of embarrassment I felt in the loss of my watch is the signal that I paid too little attention to making it and my wrist inseparable? Or maybe the pain of the lump on my head signals that I made too little effort in formulating an escape from a situation for which there was no antecedent reason, insofar as the situation itself was a complete surprise?

This is what I meant by guessing games. If such-and-such is true in one case, but not in another, there must be something logically underpinning them both.

Pain, or pleasure, is a basic signaling parameter. Period. All they in their various degrees do, is inform of a relative exception to a given rule, and it’s up to reason to figure out the particulars related to it. Anything else is mere anthropology or (gaspsputterchoke) empirical or clinical psychology. Of which the proper speculative metaphysician treats as the proverbial red-headed stepchild, while the “vulgar class”, as Berkeley would say, or the “vulgar understanding” as Hume would call it, think them as some major importance in the governance of the fundamental human condition.
———-

Understanding awareness in non-conscious entities is how we improve the accuracy of relationships and interaction with our environment and the universe. — Possibility

Surely you didn’t mean to say I can improve my relationship with a swimming pool if I only understand my diving into it doesn’t cause it any pain. Or, on the other hand, my relationship with the pool improves if I understand it appreciates me diving into it because that is one way the pool was meant to be treated. Your assertion can certainly be interpreted like that.

Point/counterpoint. All in good dialectical exercise.....

A system predicated on prediction and trial and error....
— Mww

Reason doesn’t always have a choice in the matter.
— Possibility

Irrelevant, insofar as ‘predicated on’ as a general methodological necessity is not the same as ‘recognition of’ a particular exception. In the case of QM, reason merely conveys that for which a certainty is impossible, under the strictest of conditions reason itself provided, in accordance with observation. Humans, as such, don’t function in the quantum domain, and I’m a big fan of staying in my own lane, so..... — Mww

I had already said that prediction and trial and error were nowhere near as efficient as reason, so I’m not sure why you still feel the need to push this point. Besides, our confidence in reason is predicated on prediction and trial and error.

Pain is a basic biological signal that our predicted distribution of effort and attention (affect) in a particular situation is currently insufficient in some area.
— Possibility

Yeah....no. Here’s me, walkin’ down a public road, mindin’ my own damn business, hummin’ Jimmy’s solo bridge in Stairway to Heaven.......punk-assed banga jumps out of the bushes, whacks me in the noggin, relieves me of my Rolex. So the pain of embarrassment I felt in the loss of my watch is the signal that I paid too little attention to making it and my wrist inseparable? Or maybe the pain of the lump on my head signals that I made too little effort in formulating an escape from a situation for which there was no antecedent reason, insofar as the situation itself was a complete surprise?

This is what I meant by guessing games. If such-and-such is true in one case, but not in another, there must be something logically underpinning them both.

Pain, or pleasure, is a basic signaling parameter. Period. All they in their various degrees do, is inform of a relative exception to a given rule, and it’s up to reason to figure out the particulars related to it. Anything else is mere anthropology or (gaspsputterchoke) empirical or clinical psychology. Of which the proper speculative metaphysician treats as the proverbial red-headed stepchild, while the “vulgar class”, as Berkeley would say, or the “vulgar understanding” as Hume would call it, think them as some major importance in the governance of the fundamental human condition. — Mww

Is that really how you would process this event? A surprise situation is one that was not predicted - this is prediction error, and all the pain you feel is simply because you were unaware of any antecedent reason for - or potential structure to - the situation, which might have enabled you to predict it, and either prevent or minimise the resulting pain. It’s not about attributing blame or dismissing it as an exception, but about being aware of information that might have drawn your attention more readily to an increased potential for the situation, as well as the options available and your own capacity to ameliorate the overall potential surrounding the situation. Then if by chance it looks like it could happen again, it won’t be so much of a surprise. Of course you could dismiss it as the punk ass banga’s fault, or a “relative exception to a given rule” (people just don’t jump out of bushes to steal Rolex watches), and learn nothing from the experience. Clearly people do - I’m not saying make a big deal of it, but ignoring or beating the red-headed stepchild it is not going to make them cease to exist.

Understanding awareness in non-conscious entities is how we improve the accuracy of relationships and interaction with our environment and the universe.
— Possibility

Surely you didn’t mean to say I can improve my relationship with a swimming pool if I only understand my diving into it doesn’t cause it any pain. Or, on the other hand, my relationship with the pool improves if I understand it appreciates me diving into it because that is one way the pool was meant to be treated. Your assertion can certainly be interpreted like that. — Mww

No, of course not. I’m talking about awareness and NOT consciousness, so all your talk about pain or appreciation is just a strawman. Read my other posts. What I’m referring to is more along the lines of recognising that the water in the pool will enable bacteria to develop in it over time (which may be harmful to me if I ingest or inhale it) unless I add chlorine at a level that is effective, but not so much that my eyes sting or my hair turns green.

Ok. Thanks, it was fun. For awhile.

There’s a reason why we have two words.
— Possibility

What’s the reason? — Xtrix

For what reason does a language have synonyms?

Can you be conscious without being aware of anything? Can you be aware of anything without being conscious as well? Can you report anything that you are not either aware or conscious of?

Some will use examples of dreaming and hallucinating to distinguish between being aware and being conscious, but it seems that the distinction isn't between being aware or being conscious, rather the distinction lies in the interpretation of what it is that you are both conscious and aware of. Interpreting a hallucination to be an awareness/conscious of something outside of your head vs inside your head. In hallucinating you are aware/conscious of something but not sure if what you are aware/conscious of is located outside of your head or inside.

Depends. Sometimes interchangeably, sometimes not.

Conciousness is often defined more basically. Something is concious if it is "something for which there is something to be like." That is, there is a first person perspective corresponding to it.

Awarenesses can better denote meta cognition. When you zone out while driving, experiments suggest that sights and sounds still pass through conciousness, but they aren't kept in memory very long, and little executive function is dedicated to them. Metacognition is being aware of your own thoughts and perceptions, and awareness might be better term here. Cats might be concious of the noise of a mouse, but are they aware of the fact that they, a subjective viewpoint, are experiencing hearing a mouse?

However, in normal language this definition is not clear cut. It's arbitrary.