GENIUS FORUMS

David wrote,

If we were to set up a scale which has total unconsciousness at one end and supreme consciousness at the other

Let’s agree, for the sake of discussion, that this statement is about normally functioning human beings, and not sleeping human beings or incapacitated human beings, animals, or inanimate objects. Let’s agree, again for the sake of discussion, that consciousness means awareness or attention, but not necessarily control. (If these two assumptions are not acceptable, then please correct them and I’ll either rephrase my question or withdraw it.)

Is the average human being less conscious than the wise human being, which is what David seems to imply – or – is the average human being as aware as the wise human being, but lacks the understanding of the wise human being?

Do no harm,
clyde

I would say that the average human being is less concious, less aware, and has less understanding of what he is aware of than the wise human being.

Assuming that at one time you were less wise than you are today, were you walking into walls in your younger days? Or was it that your attention was on other, now considered by you less significant things?

clyde

(awareness & conciousness) There were things I did not perceive - for example I always thought that all the other children were picking on me. In retrospect, I recognize that in 3 of the schools, there were a number of children who just ignored me instead.

(understanding) There were things I didn't understand - like why so many of the girls in one school would tell me they were my friend in private and tell me not to tell anyone - and then tease me mercilessly "to be popular" amongst the other girls who did exactly the same thing.

(conciousness & awareness) There were things that I didn't consider - like the extent of duality.
.

Elizabeth;

Is awareness different than consciousness? If so, please explain (so we can communicate better).

Is “(awareness & consciousness)” different than “(consciousness & awareness)”? If so, please explain (so we can communicate better).

How is that you can,

In retrospect, I recognize that in 3 of the schools, there were a number of children who just ignored me instead.

unless you were aware of this at the time, even if you didn’t attend or understand that awareness at the time?

clyde

Awareness and conciousness are very closely linked. One can not be concious of something without being aware of it - which can be either very mundane or esoteric. IMO, conciousness is like attention, except with lingering effects. For example, you could be paying attention to the concepts presented here and become concious of them. At a later time when your attention is on something else, your response to the situation might be different because you have attained conciousness of applicable principles. You recall the principles and apply them, but yout attention is on the matter at hand.

A mind can collect raw data, yet not have what could reasonably be considered "awareness" of it. Have you ever been looking for something and gone right past it, then said to yourself "Wait a minute" as you realized you saw what you were looking for, and gone back and gotten it? That was a gap between receiving data and becoming aware of data.

To draw retrospective awareness of the situation at those schools, in one case I recall pretty much the whole class, recall (some specifically, some generally) the instances of being picked on, and recall roughly who said or did what - leaving some that I only recall being in the background for.

In two other schools, I did not even bother to become familiar with all of my classmates, and in one, I am pretty sure that I didn't even bother to look at the faces of each of my classmates. Since I never even met some of them, it is impossible they could have picked on me. This is logical deduction.

The things I did not perceive were more awareness than conciousness because had someone pointed out at the time that particular students were not picking on me, I would have had enough conciousness to apprehend that - but since I did not have awareness, I also did not have conciousness. Also, had someone pointed that out to me, I would have improved my observation skills.

"Things I didn't consider" would basically mean thinking. One can see something, be aware that it is there, and think about it some but but never think about it deeply, and therefore not really be concious of it. For example, as a child I knew that some things were true and other things were false. This is a form of duality, but I did not explore duality to its fullest extent. Over time, I questioned things such as reality vs unreality, thought about the meaning of infinity, and the nature of time, but I did not relate them all under the category of duality. Sometime in my 20s I saw some ying/yang symbols and asked what they were (in retrospect, some of the answers were kind of funny) but eventually someone gave me a description that I now recognize was a horrible description of duality. I never actually heard of the philosophic concept of duality until I came here. Because of that particular line of progression, I could say that I developed conciousness before I developed awareness of duality (although I was aware of components of it) - but without the awareness of duality and the associated prompt to explore the concept further, I could not have expanded my conciousness to where it is now.
.

Elizabeth;

Awareness and conciousness are very closely linked. One can not be concious of something without being aware of it - which can be either very mundane or esoteric. IMO, conciousness is like attention, except with lingering effects. For example, you could be paying attention to the concepts presented here and become concious of them. At a later time when your attention is on something else, your response to the situation might be different because you have attained conciousness of applicable principles. You recall the principles and apply them, but yout attention is on the matter at hand.

The first two sentences seem to state that consciousness is a subset of awareness. You then seem to state that consciousness is the after-effect of attention (which exists only in the present). From your description, it seems that consciousness is more like habit.

A mind can collect raw data, yet not have what could reasonably be considered "awareness" of it. Have you ever been looking for something and gone right past it, then said to yourself "Wait a minute" as you realized you saw what you were looking for, and gone back and gotten it? That was a gap between receiving data and becoming aware of data.

Yes, I have had that experience, but isn’t that a function of attention (or the lack thereof) as distinct from awareness? Or what does it mean that “A mind can collect raw data, yet not have what could reasonably be considered "awareness" of it,” and what do you call it?

Do you identify “you” with your attention (and equate awareness with attention)?

clyde

clyde wrote: The first two sentences seem to state that consciousness is a subset of awareness. You then seem to state that consciousness is the after-effect of attention (which exists only in the present). From your description, it seems that consciousness is more like habit.

Well, consciousness should be a habit. :) Attention is just focused awareness occurring in the present. Consciousness is awareness plus good thinking.

clyde wrote:Yes, I have had that experience, but isn’t that a function of attention (or the lack thereof) as distinct from awareness?

A lack of attention would make someone unaware.

clyde wrote:Or what does it mean that “A mind can collect raw data, yet not have what could reasonably be considered "awareness" of it,” and what do you call it?

I'd call it information stored in the subconscious.

clyde wrote:Do you identify “you” with your attention (and equate awareness with attention)?

On the one hand, "you" is just a construct of convenience for reference; on the other hand, you are your thoughts. If your mind goes blank, you disappear, even though your body remains essentially in its previous condition.

Attention is not a thought, but it is how you feed your thoughts. Attention is not part of you, but it contributes to who you are. If you couldn't pay attention, you would have as much of a problem as your body would have if your mouth was glued shut.
.

Elizabeth;

Your definition of consciousness (as I understand your postings) is awareness plus attention plus “good thinking”. Is this your position? And what is "good thinking"?

Your description of the function of attention is “it is how you feed your thoughts”. What does that mean?

What is awareness without attention and without thinking?

And your definition of you, “you are your thoughts”, seems wrong (incomplete) to me, but you are welcome to it.

clyde

clyde wrote: Your definition of consciousness (as I understand your postings) is awareness plus attention plus “good thinking”. Is this your position?

No that is not what I said, and thank you for your next question to let me clarify my meaning a bit on what I did say. I had said that consciousness is awareness plus good thinking. Attention can come and go without losing consciousness, it is just that not as much is added when attention is gone.

The difference between awareness and attention is that attention is more focused - more detail-oriented. Awareness is more of a general concept.

clyde wrote:And what is "good thinking"?

In the context of the components of consciousness, it means highly logical and rational processing of a full set of fundamental data to the advanced level.

In another context it could mean simply logical and rational thought including a critical observance of the input data (which would include attentiveness).

clyde wrote:Your description of the function of attention is “it is how you feed your thoughts”. What does that mean?

There is information both being fed in through the senses and information that is the result of your own thinking.

If one does not pay attention to the information being sent in through the senses, not only is that person unaware of the outside world, but the person than does not have that missed data to think about. Recently someone on the board mentioned that they either were reading a book or just looking at the words and thinking they were reading it - and that is a good example here. If one reads a book, one is able to think about the story. If one is just looking at the words, by the end of the book, the person still won't know what the book was about, and won't be able to think about the story.

If one does not pay attention to one's own thoughts(yet remains aware of their thoughts), one does not get as much out of their thinking. If they do not get as much out of their thinking, the end thought would not be as complete as an attentivly thought thought - and it would be like reading a book with every 5th page missing.

clyde wrote:What is awareness without attention and without thinking?

Knowledge.

clyde wrote:And your definition of you, “you are your thoughts”, seems wrong (incomplete) to me, but you are welcome to it.

Thanks :)
.

Elizabeth;

Your welcome. I will leave you to your thoughts.

clyde

The difference between the average person and the enlightened sage is like the difference between a toddler and an adult.

A toddler is conscious enough to avoid walking into walls, to reach out for things he desires, to recognize his parents, etc, but he knows nothing about the workings of society, science, economics, sexual relationships, and so on. As far as these things are concerned, he is entirely unconscious.

He might find a box of matches and start playing with them, not knowing the dangers. Or he might run out onto the road, blissfully unaware that he could get run over. Or he might pull the wings off a butterfly, not knowing that it is a rare, almost-extinct species.

In a similar vein, the average person has little or no consciousness of spiritual, philosophical and psychological matters. He has no real awareness of the extent and nature of his own ego, or the larger consequences of his actions. He is unaware of the extent to which illusion rules his mind, nor has he any inkling of the nature of Reality.

-

David;

He [the average human being] is unaware of the extent to which illusion rules his mind, nor has he any inkling of the nature of Reality.

I agree with this, although I would rephrase the last section to “nor is he fully aware of the fundamental nature of reality.”

That doesn’t imply a state of unconsciousness, but rather the average human being is aware of other things, even if those other things are illusions.