Thus it can be said that inanimate objects and creatures that have a disabled mental functioning, are not conscious even though there is still purely physical awareness of environment.
The thesis was demanding a distinction between direct physical response (awareness) and remote recognition (consciousness). Inanimate objects, such as that electron, have direct physical awareness in that they respond to their environment. But inanimate objects do not recognize anything at any distance away from themselves and respond only by simple, one-to-one contact, thus do not have cognitive awareness, involving memory references and recognition, nor what we normally refer to as “consciousness”.
Consciousness ≡ Remote Recognition.
Why are in that text often used words (e.g.: “respond”, “aware”, “distinguish”, “reacts”, " attempting", “recognize”, “attempt”, “reaction”)which suggest or advise consciousness or at least awareness of particles and of the whole universe by itself?
Because in the past people have not distinguished between a simple response and remote recognition response, thus their languages do not reflect the distinction. The difference in those is very relevant in distinguishing conscious vs non-conscious and a living entity and non-living entity (although it is not the definitive distinction for “life”). Without making that distinction, philosophers can run around endlessly speculating about what is conscious and what isn’t as well as what is live and what isn’t.
The reason this helps to resolve the object/subject issue is because of what it takes for remote recognition to work. For remote recognition to function at all, an ontology must be formed within the entity. That ontology is a “map of relevant existence for the entity” with which is attempts to discern objective reality in a relevant way. And we define “True” as the condition of the ontology when it is a reasonably accurate representation of the objective reality.
The conscious creature’s mind functions entirely via his ontological map.
This is a diagram that I hadn’t posted because it isn’t really showing what I was after, but is still relevant to this discussion;
The left image is an ontological “truth” for literally any and everything we call a “body”. The outside circle, “Entropic Ambience” is referring to the objective world “out there”, outside of the body, in all of its chaos. The inside circle represents a bonding mechanism that works against entropy such as to retard entropy, yielding a suspension in time. And the light brown circle between them is the Anentropic Interface (or what in other posts, I have referred to as the “Entropic Shell”) that keeps the inside distinct from the outside.
The Anentropic Interface is possibly the most relevant issue in all thought. It is what separates the “good and bad” or the “positive and negative”. It distinguishes angels from devils, Ego and superego from Id, nutrient from toxin, rational from irrational, and “Us from Them”. It is the Media and Border Patrol between any entity and its surroundings and thus is used in every attempt to control or modify the entity through modifying the entities ability to filter what is to be considered good/positive or bad/negative. It is the source of all laws and thoughts other than the one law that forms the entire universe.
But that is merely “a body”.
The diagram to the right is “a body with a mind”. A mind is an ontological type of body, the functioning of a neurological system. It has the same circles of relevance except that the outer circle, the ambience, is the physical body that it hosts. The neuro-physiology of the body is the ambience of the mind. And the inner circle of the mind is formed by a similar anti-entropic bonding that retards entropy of thought such as to yield greater permanence, known as “memory”.
What all of this has to do with Objective vs Subjective is that first, such a distinction between a mere body and a body with a mind, is necessary for an understanding of what “subjective” actually means. The concept of “subjective” is itself a portion of the ontological map within the mind. “Subjective” is not itself an objective entity, but an ontological distinction or a declaration of a “reference frame”: “With respect to John, X is good and Y is bad”. Thus subjectivity is entirely an ontological construct that applies only within minded bodies. Subjectivity is not a part of the physical universe, but rather a part of an understanding, ontological map, pertaining to the physical universe.
When one asks whether he is in a dream, he is asking of the accuracy of his ontological construct. He is asking, “Is this image that I am seeing true?” Since every image he sees is merely an ontological map constructed by his mental mechanisms that is possibly flawed, it is a valid question. So he isn’t actually asking about objective reality as much as asking about “Truth”.
How do you know when an ontology is True?
1) Is it consistent throughout the ontology?
2) Is it comprehensive in every relevant detail?
3) Is it relevant to my subjective concerns?
And that requires detailed analysis. How do you know when the media is lying to you? - Detailed analysis of those “Three Angels of Truth”.
Many distinct ontologies can be all true and yet due to not making a distinction in the languages they use, people assume a common ontology referred to as “The Truth”. In reality what is positive or good for John might well be different than what is positive or good for Mary. But when they communicate, they don’t make that subjective reference distinction and thus conflate not only the subjective concerns of good, but also any objective concerns of good. Their language reveals their lack of understanding that everyone has his own ontology. And even though a common ontology for all can be developed ( such as Affectance Ontology), the struggles to dominate prevent a coherent and complete ontology from being known to the populous.
Once a True ontology is the common ontology, much like English being the common language, objective and subjective references and understandings will become so inherent that people wouldn’t even understand how they could have ever been confused.
So to sum it up;
Everyone has their own eschewed subjective/relative ontology and tend to use common words when communicating and thus intending to be saying one thing while being interpreted as saying something at least slightly different. They have to use their own remote recognition mechanism, their consciousness, in order to live. And they do not currently have a common True ontology such as to be able to have a common reference of Truth to represent objective reality (spoken of in scriptures).
The way to discern truth from fiction is to carefully examine for;
1) Inconsistencies
2) Lack of details
3) Irrelevance
And that relates to how one can know that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics, although useful, are not actually True. Detailed analysis reveals inconsistency (and especially throughout the Mainstream Media).