Deepak: I have been perusing your book and have listened to a bit of your YouTube presentation. I want very desperately to be constructive here — to see if there are ways of synthesizing perspectives on difficult topics. This, is surely, a difficult one. I must disclose the following core assumption. I do not believe that it is possible to being a discussion of consciousness unless we begin with our own phenomenology, and by taking a broadly phenomenological view. I want to claim that we cannot even recognize what we call consciousness or awareness in the other except as filtered through our own personal experience and as articulated by intersubjectively coordinated linguistic concepts. From this perspective, in my initial scan of your text and talk, I do not yet see a definition that I can identify as phenomenological — nothing yet (perhaps I have not looked closely or far enough — to be sure) that seeks to understand awareness or consciousness as a form of experience. What I do see is a theory and set of metaphors that may be able to understand “awareness” in mechanistic and mathematical terms — in terms of stimuli, processing and response. My question is: Where is the experience here? Am I correct in assuming that you approach is one that seeks to explain awareness and consciousness in functional terms? If so, I see value in that. Perhaps your interests are simply different from mine — I am interested in understanding concepts like awareness and consciousness phenomenologically, and in understanding how our phenomenology operates within a process model (function?) of human experience-in-action. Thoughts? Mike > On Oct 4, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > On 10/4/2020 7:34 PM, Nicholas Lattanzio wrote: >> I would first argue that most casual references of consciousness do refer to aspects of awareness that we are conscious of, largely being perceptual and cognitive images (versus the actual processes of perception and cognition/thinking). One always has operations of consciousness that are not in one's attentional field, and we can direct our conscious attention to bring things into consciousness and in the same throw lose consciousness of others. We have loose correlational research to suggest that consciousness and attention are different but related, and probably interdependent processes, I have yet to see anything close to compelling about awareness. > DL: 'Awarness & Consciousness - Distinction, Discovery & Evolution. The New Upanishad' (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.in_Awareness-2DConsciousness-2DUpanishad-2DDeepak-2DLoomba_dp_1692201220&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uOumf2cQXQuHL-psQ8yWcbaI6m5X7d7ZUsL4I9VBfxY&s=IAp9MmtNEMdvVbrJ5rN69GXJ-DellJuyH-wiSILJ0WY&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.in_Awareness-2DConsciousness-2DUpanishad-2DDeepak-2DLoomba_dp_1692201220&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w58pDIHVblDLYVGoBLS0pk5QSky7E0KpKB4ut-2Belk&s=if08IlxlNoMcyrwEQZo56JFDgSCp4Ls_M84s9liCLGM&e=>) is all about awareness being distinct from consciousness. With clean objective easy to comprehend, calculable mathematical description of awareness. > > Yes attention is linked to awareness. Awareness has three components - Stimuli (6 types), Processing (3 types) and Response (4 types). Attention is salience of response. The book describes why attention physically doesn't exist. What we term attention is actually an inverse of physically existing "distraction". Distraction (inverse attention) has 4 states - Chaotic (gaseous), Fluid (ordered), Icy (Unity) and Anticipative (Vacuum). Each state has been discussed in detail. > >> >> In my experience (I.e., in my consciousness), > DL: Consciousness is not just experience. Will the heart/body experience stress on being injecting with dobutamine while the patient is unconscious (I know it will not be administered to an unconscious patient)? Yes it will, though one is unconsciousness. >> awareness seems to be more fundamental to existence than consciousness. One can be asleep (unconscious) but we still have a bare sense of existence, which I argue is what awareness 'is' and is what we fundamentally 'are.' > DL: 100%, fully with you on this, assuming 'existence' means 'life'! See the image enclosed it distinguishes between, awareness, life, cumconsciousness & consciousness. Why to be? & who to be ? have also been addressed as an outcome of ALCCO. >> >> My perspective is highly nondual and phenomenological in nature, and I truly don't believe we have the scientific means to say we can define consciousness and awareness, or even mind in a precise or empirically reliable and valid way. I'm sure others on this thread with share more technical theories, but short of solving the hard problem of consciousness (if we even understand the question correctly), theory is all we can say we have. > DL: ALCCO is closest among all in resolving it. Because it addresses the most critical question first - how did intent evolve from spontaneous processes like atoms & electrons, in which it is unique. Awareness stands completely resolved. I will be very happy to receive a challenge or critique on it. I am yet to. The definitions of awareness & consciousness along with the distinctions, provides theoretical resolution to most of the neurocognitive issues like distinguishing deep sleep unconscious, unconscious by collapse, anesthesia-induced unconsciousness, alien hand syndrome, bipolar syndrome differences between trichromats & tetrachromats & many more. Jointly, with premier most NIMHANS (National Institute for mental health and allied sciences), Centre for Consciousness, in Bangalore, we are starting to work on verification of components of ALCCO. It will be a long drawn process of course. I would recommend to read the book. >> >> Regards, >> >> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. >> >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020, 8:43 AM Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> Hi All: >> >> Can someone please suggest definitions for “consciousness” and “awareness”. Is anyone here arguing that these are two different processes? I’m not sure what it means to say that an organism can be aware but not conscious (unless consciousness means “self-conscious”). >> >> M. >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: >> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> or click the following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> >> ############################ >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>-- > <Signatures DL Gmail WO Cell.jpg> > ############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> <ALCCO Set.jpg> > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1