In fact James’response clarified it somewhat. The limits of understanding, in this mode, depend on sense data, including all aspects of sensation. I immediately associated primary association with seeing, and the fact that tactual, identification is included, brings forth the idea of non distinctive and remote identification which is probable and likely as in the thermodynamic example given by James.
Visual identification, and limits are in the Leibnitzian sense is a question of discernibility, whereas indescernibles are proximal lay beyond a limit. This is where that is coming from, and a calculus seems involved. But does such calculus embide within a tactual awareness? Say in an example where a heat source is proximally brought closer to a metallic object, is there a point where changes in shape and size can be measured in a metal, given the specifications? And can not that change be measured as a direct algebraic relationship, rather then a more
complex calculation?
I’m not sure what you are getting at, but how a conscious being responds is a different issue than whether it is conscious of what to respond to. If the being responds in the exact same manner, one wouldn’t be able to tell from the outside whether the being was conscious or not. It would not be displaying any consciousness that it might have.
I can’t think of anything a TV remote is remotely recognizing, unless you are referring to the TVs recognition of the remote’s signal (an extremely low form of consciousness). A TV remote (standard issue) merely responds to button presses and sends a signal. The more modern TV can recognize who is in the room, if they are looking at the TV screen, what part of the screen, what they are saying, and what TV programs they prefer. And yes, those TVs are conscious of who is in the room and a little of their history and mindset. I think Sanyo is leading in that “Smart TV” arena.
Yes, that is the issue concerning the real limits for the ability to be conscious concerning any being/entity. There are many things and situations that forbid any true consciousness of them. If fact, that is the entire motif of spy, secret, and other Godwannabe organizations - Obfuscation beyond the limits of discernability. And it all starts with our old friends; Plausible Deniability, False Flags, and Blame Shifting … the daughters of the Serpent, Suspicion.
One can be “sure enough”, although one can never be absolutely certain. Certainty can only be obtained of principles, not current physical situations (in the midst of their changes).
The issue in life and mind is to be certain ENOUGH to obtain MIJOT.
