if you are a true psychologist you should be able to tell me.
IF not, then you are just another employee.
The very fact that one is able to utter a sentence means that one is aware.
the other fact is, one can utter a sentence without being aware.
By looking internally at your actions.
how can you look inwards if you cannot look outwards?
Well, one looks outwards with their physical eyes to see physical things,
and one looks internally to see mental things.
are you saying mental things, can be used as physical evidence in the courtroom?
By merely saying this one can prove they are aware of their awareness:
[size=200] " I am. "[/size]
this is a loaded question. we can go our entire lifetime thinking that we’re “aware,” as in conscious and in existence, but most likely we’ve barely scratched the surface. awareness is the ability to look within and without simultaneously. awareness realizes that we are a part of the whole, every living cell is of the same stuff, every move that is made affects the energy of all things the world over. awareness is the wisdom to confront ourselves, to discover the source of our issues and deal with them in a peaceful, self-explorative way rather than unconsciously turning our unresolved aggression, depression, sadness, etc outward on the futile quest for answers or relief. true awareness the world over would solve the all major problems that exist, right down to their core. and with true awareness comes the realization, the knowing, that we are indeed aware.
two things exist within our reach: awareness and choice. when awareness is attained, one then acquires choice. choose as you will, with full awareness of the outcome.
There is no work you can do to become aware, your are born aware unless you one of the few that was born severely defective and somehow survived to be a useless burden to others.
Enlightenment is a different thing but closely related, this you have to work at IMO.
I’m surprised no one has said it yet:
I think therefore I am.
If you’re instead talking about an operational definition of awareness, then you’re a moron, for saying that any ‘real’ psychologist can answer it. In all fields of soft science, the definition of awareness is a long debated topic, and is in no way, shape, or form clear. By your definition, there is no true psychologist in existence. Don’t try to force qualification onto people in your questions, it only ends up belittling you when they backfire.
Despite this, I’ll attempt an operational definition anyway, as the question, minus the snide comment, is still somewhat valid:
Awareness, operationally, is the ability to form motion based on internal and undefinable processes. Any further awareness beyond that is unprovable, and thus, operationally, can not be considered.
Please note: This is not an ad hominen argument: I am not attacking his argument by smearing his name, simply calling him names based upon the invalidity of his argument. Even Socrates noted the need to act as a gadfly, now and again. Especially to pompous arses.
Hmm. I don’t think “internal and undefinable processes” quite cuts it. If you’re looking for an operational definition of “awareness,” then the way to approach it is through the ability to respond meaningfully to stimuli. The response indicates “awareness” of the stimulus, operationally speaking.
However, in proffering such a definition of awareness, we must as philosophers recognize that it is creating a technical term of psychology whose meaning is not quite the same as the one used in ordinary language. There is an inherently subjective element of awareness. It’s feasible to program a computer to make meaningful responses to stimuli, which would satisfy the definition above, but (we assume) the computer is not subjectively aware, as we know ourselves to be.
So we can speak of objective or operational awareness, defined as the ability to respond meaningfully to stimuli, and we can also speak of subjective awareness, defined non-operationally as the ability to experience events (this is non-operational because there is no way to demonstrate it to another).
Do the two have any connection with one another?
Can anything be said about what subjective awareness come from or what causes it?
Thanks. Thats pretty much what I was going for, just couldn’t think of a way to phrase it without either using awareness in the definition of itself, or taking a whole 'nother exclusive turn, that I didn’t want to complete. And the meaningful part is definately a qualifier we have to take into consideration, now that you mention it. But then, another question comes up: What about retards? Some of them don’t show any form of meaningful response. Same goes for autistic people…they ignore quite a lot of stimuli, and yet are said to be aware. So…how can we define meaningful, without excluding groups that we know, logically, to be aware, in some form or another?
Should limited awareness be defined seperately?
Or should we expand the definition somehow in an attempt to include those whos awareness does not fall into the traditional spectrum of responses?
Or, as Navigator suggests elsewhere in his post, should we just regulate the study of awareness to the subjective fields, and use the Jesse Helms pornography defense (For those that don’t know, Jesse Helms was famously quoted as having said “I don’t know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it”) as an applicable option for awareness?
As for a connection between the subjective and objective, there has to be some connection, in much the same way that the study of the mind would be incomplete without both Psychology and Neurology. The strength of the connection, of course, is a big one for debate, but…it should still exist.
To me: being aware is keeping on top of things/ not being fooled by people, but knowing things for ourselves - and such other things that help us preserve our diginity, morality, and sense of self/ our purpose for existing 
just my thoughts on the matter you raised…