@salima,
salima;86257 wrote:there is a part of us that IS aware of more than the part of us that is taking part in this discussion. so there is in fact besides consciousness or awareness a something that is conscious or aware. isnt there? hmm...
Yes, I think so. Not everything in consciousness receives our attention equally. For example, right now, the slight sensation of hunger that I'm experiencing is hardly noticable in comparison to the thoughts that I'm experiencing and the sensual experience of pressing keys on my computer.
Quote:my thoughts originally had centered around the idea of sensory information being received by consciousness-but this is only a name i give to some part of the brain. and as rich said, there is the danger of our defining consciousness in such a way that there is no need to discuss it because the way we define it becomes purely biological.
Agreed.
Quote:so in other words, i would ask bright noon regarding your definition "the sum of all experience of sensation or thought"....would perception be more accurate than sensation? for instance, there may be some sensation that goes unnoticed for whatever reason-being drunk or whatever. then i have to ask why mention senses at all? is consciousness the sum of all experience and thought? experience is very subjective...maybe that is what we are looking for? and i also began wondering: when we think, arent we experiencing our thought?
A few things. 1) If you mean that 'sensation' as used in my definition refers to the biological understanding of sensation, that is not the case. I don't mean to refer to external stimuli affecting sense organs. Moreover, I hope no one else is using 'sensation' in that sense because, as you say, that precludes debate of the question (is consciousness a biological problem?). I mean the pure qualia as experienced, nothing more, nothing less. 2) If a sensation (qualia) goes competely unnoticed, then it isn't a sensation, is it? We aren't going to say that qualia exists independently of our experience of them, are we? No, sensation is subjective, sensation is phenomneological, sensation is experienced. As I noted earlier though, some sensations are experienced more distinctly or powerfully than others. 3) I think you may be getting at a problem that I was anticipating; 'BrightNoon, why the use of both sensation and thought?' Everyone but me may find my inclusion of these two terms unneccessary because they are included under the heading 'experience;' they are both a sort of experience, and together, they account for all experience. So why not leave them out and just use 'the sum of all experience?' I wanted to include these two categories of experience specifically because my theory of consiousness, which I'd like to present if we ever get into the substance of the debate, rests on an certain udnerstanding of the relationship between them. Namely, that thought is composed of sensation; that thought is a complex of sensation, and the two differ only by degree. This is also important for my explanation of the relationship between consciousness and the external world which we all assume exists independently of our experience of it. So, in other words, we could cut out sensation and thought from the definition is people like. I could just as easily, once the debate gets going, offer my description of what constitutes experience: i.e. sensation and thought.
So, it's up to you Salima. We (you and I, who voted for my first definition), could stick with the original or go with 'the sum of all experience' instead. Or of course you could could cross the aisle altogether...but you better not! :bigsmile:
EDIT: richrf, I just noticed that you posted that 'the sum of all experience' is acceptable to you? Shall I take that as a vote? Salima, same question to you. Do you vote for that? If so, I do as well. That makes three!