Awareness vs Consciousness

[tcaudilllg]

Given the apparent truth of conflict as a relation between divergent perceptions of entity characteristics, it seems plausible at this point to define more accurately the concepts of consciousness and awareness.

• Awareness is the perception of bodies and fields. "I am X; she is Y": these are forms of awareness. Whenever we recognize an object or group of objects as seperate and distinct, we are experiencing awareness.
• Consciousness is the perception of relationships between bodies and fields. "X is doing B to Y.": this is a form of consciousness, because one is simultaneously aware of 'X' and 'Y', yet also consciously processing the 'B' relationship between them. One can only process the relationships between bodies and fields by means of the IM elements: Y is always a behavior that can be intuitively reconciled with one of the eight information aspects, an aspect of X's current relationship to Y. The nature of the relation corresponds to the IM element used to express it.

This seems to me indicative of a great many details of interest.


EDIT: "Y is always a behavior" changed to "B is always a behavior."

[tcaudilllg]

Given the apparent truth of conflict as a relation between divergent perceptions of entity characteristics, it seems plausible at this point to define more accurately the concepts of consciousness and awareness.

• Awareness is the perception of bodies and fields. "I am X; she is Y": these are forms of awareness. Whenever we recognize an object or group of objects as seperate and distinct, we are experiencing awareness.
• Consciousness is the perception of relationships between bodies and fields. "X is doing B to Y.": this is a form of consciousness, because one is simultaneously aware of 'X' and 'Y', yet also consciously processing the 'B' relationship between them. One can only process the relationships between bodies and fields by means of the IM elements: Y is always a behavior that can be intuitively reconciled with one of the eight information aspects, an aspect of X's current relationship to Y. The nature of the relation corresponds to the IM element used to express it.

This seems to me indicative of a great many details of interest.

I think you mean B is always a behavior. . . rather than "Y is always a behavior" right? Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Yes, sorry. I will make the correction.

why don't you provide and example for the "X is doing B to Y."? say it's James is doing a beating to John. how John is behavior and not object? i think you should always provide examples to keep your theories tied to reality.

How about this? "Bob is smacking Tom upside the head". That's obviously : the relationship is Bob's hand exerting force against Tom's head. Another example: "The ball is moving about in the air in a figure- eight pattern." Again, : a relationship of a body to a field: ball is a body, air is a field; the relationship is the figure-eight movement pattern. (granted it's more complex than that, but you see the general outline.) For perceive that example, you need awareness of the ball, the air, and capacity to process the balls translation in the air as a figure-eight movement pattern. ( with assistance from )

Could a dog assess this behavior? Not likely. The dog will wait for the movement to stop, or not go after it at all. Why? Because the dog has no capacity for , and thus cannot predict anything. It can remember objects though (people, simple objects) and also has field awareness in the form of pack behavior. (in fact, if we were to attribute the pack instinct to field awareness, we would probably get by.) It also has , by which means it responds to constantly moving objects and assesses an animal's strength, velocity of objects, etc.. Dogs are aware of health and have a strong sense of smell, so we can say they have . They do not think causally, nor do they apprehend facts. They do seem to express emotion and a form of , though. (don't think their antics at the table are meaningless; they know how to appeal to your and get from you what they want.) So we can say that dogs have as functions S and F, but neither N nor T.

Contrast a cat. Cat's are highly intuitive. They will learn a pattern and anticipate a moving object's position. Strong N. They form relationships with others. Strong . They know if they knock something over they. (try giving a dog the same task; if they don't knock it over by mistake they'll never find it.) They don't care for what you feel, nor can they be said to have any ethics of any kind, therefore we can say they have little to no F. But they do WANT F from us, and when they get it they purr. They are not territorial and do have care for violence, suggesting weak to no . I can't comment on their health or unhealth, but it is usually worse than dogs and they don't seem aware of either weakness or strength. They avoid chasing after fast moving objects, instead prefering to focus on still objects or objects they can predict, again a sign of weak .

Finally, consider a bird. Birds seem to flitter from one object to another in search of food. They have flock behavior to varying degrees, suggesting they have field awareness. They may have limited F, but beyond that nothing.

Further down, we come to insects. They probably have no genuine awareness, just substance reactions that seem to be such.

[krieger]

Can you confirm that I understand this correctly:

- Universalists/Liberals and Specialists/Conservatives are Awareness oriented.

- Adaptationists and Traditionalists are Consciousness oriented.

Don't you use the term "Life" sometimes aswell? Which of those is "Life" equivalent to?