You are aware due to your alertness.

This topic was inspired by a recent torrentfields post.

To be aware of something or to experience something like life must you also be concious? Or is the only requirement awareness as mr.knowitall states? IF awareness is all we need to experience life then what about conciousness?

I looked up the word Concious and the word Aware. They both have different meanings. Concious means to be alert and Aware means to have knowledge.

To be aware you must first be concious. To be concious does not require you to be aware. From my source of definitions, conciousness only requires alertness, not awareness. With your ‘alertness’ you eventually become aware. Please correct me if I am wrong.

To take it further, I am going to say that the only way to be aware of this physical world is to have a body or 5 senses. I think we can all agree that without a body we definately cannot be aware of what is going on in this physical world.

Does this count out conciousness, though? Like I said before you must first be concious or alert to be aware. Now take away ‘aware’ and what do you end up with? Conciousness?

Now, I also mentioned that we are bound to this physical world by our awareness or knowledge through our bodies or 5 senses. To be concious you do not have to be aware, only alert. Take away our body or 5 senses. We now have taken away our awareness. Again, what are we left with? Pure alertness? Pure conciousness?

Our bodies die and so does our knowledge of this world. Our alertness does not die because to be alert (concious) you do not need knowledge (awareness) or a physical body in this case. We do not need a body to be concious! You are knowledgeable (aware) due to your alertness (conciousness). You are alive due to your death.

I will tell you how you can prove me wrong. Prove to me that you must have knowledge to be alert or attentive. I double-dog-dare you.

I have the idea that this is directed torward me for the following reason, do forgive me if I’m wrong.

"Where did I give any inclination that I did not understand that aware means knowledgeable?

I am sorry, I forgot I was speaking to Ms. Knowitall. I am wrong and you are right. I am not worthy. I will leave now."- Murdoc

If this is the case:
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

Notice the use of the word “awareness” as the definition of knowledge and in your own quote having contradicted yourself with your last statement
“Prove to me that you must have knowledge to be alert or attentive.”

There you have it, proof that knowledge must have awareness and awareness must have knowledge in order to make sense.

Bingo! Now where’s my prize? I like candy…

Philosophically, to be conscious of something implies the awareness, which in turn implies the experiencing of that something. It is not problematic at all to say being conscious of a cat on the mat is knowing that there is a cat on the mat. I think your distinction is a psychological distinction, and not necessarily a philosophical distinction.

of course knowledge remains impossible…


Alert of what?

If u have no senses how exactly are u alert?

responsive to what?

To be alert or concious u need not only have the capability for it… but u need to actually realize it… For which u need Awareness…

If u are unaware of everything… u are not responding… and therfor not alert… not concious

But this seems silly… :stuck_out_tongue:

He was not saying that you did not say knowledge = awareness. He was talking about what you first stated, which was that consciousness = alertness. I do believe that is what you said.

I don’t necessarily think that consciousness implies sensory perception though. There is afterall the ability to be conscious of your consciousness while in deep sleep. And during deep sleep there is nothing to differentiate. This is consciousness persisting through all three states of awareness, Waking, Dreaming and Deep Sleep. This is why Ramana Maharishi stated “that which is not present in deep dreamless sleep is not real” because for whatever is real to be real, it would have to be present in all three states of consciousness, awake, dreaming and deep sleep. Many sages have said this is like a reheasal for death, because after death, all you have left is knowing, without any physical attachments. I know a lot of people will probably just dismiss this, but have you ever attempted to remain conscious during all three states of consciousness? Probably not.

Therefore I think it would be possible to have have consciousness without sensorimotor perception. /shrug

All he asked was that I prove you must have knowledge to be alert or attentive, that I did.
“for whatever is real to be real, it would have to be present in all three states of consciousness, awake, dreaming and deep sleep.”
I dream of fairies fluttering around a garden made of gum drops and lollipops…and games like bingo!

Yes but you see do those fairies persist through deep dreamless sleep? Read the whole post next time.

No, but through that one sentence it’s your claim.
Have you ever had a seizure or been in a coma? What is their place in your theory?

No I said, the ultimate reality must persist through all states of consciousness, waking, dreaming and deep sleep. And sensorimotor perception does not persist through deep dreamless sleep.

As for coma victims, I can’t say I’m familiar enough with that subject to give any insight on it. What was the relevance of that anyway?

I forgive you.

Please, explain how this is contradictory to:
“Prove to me that you must have knowledge (awareness) to be alert or attentive.”

I am afraid this is over your head.

Very true. To know the cat is on the mat you must first be concious of it. The point here is that you are concious of the cat on the mat before you know the cat is on the mat not you know the cat is on the mat before you are concious of it. You absolutely must be concious before you can even begin to know. A 2 step process you could say. Death being pure conciousness and life being thought or knowing.

Alertness. Does that not make sense?

Because alertness does not require knowledge. Through our senses we attain knowledge. If we do not need knowledge to be alert then we need no means to attain knowledge to be alert, which would be our senses in this case.

Look at it this way. Interchange bodily senses with knowledge because we now know that to get knowledge we have to use our bodily senses. They are basically the same thing.

“If you have no knowledge (senses) how exactly are you alert?”

Now that we have interchanged knowledge and bodily senses we have a nice little simple question with an easy answer:

Because alertness does not require knowledge. Do you think alertness requires knowledge?

A coma is a form of reality and yet you do not sense it, does this mean that those who haven’t experienced a coma are not completely attuned with the ultimate reality?

I have no idea where you brought comas into this equation. I never said you have to be in a coma to be attuned with ultimate reality. Please tell me how this applies to what I previously stated. The main problem is we confuse the world as it is, with the way we think about it, talk about it and describe it. This is why most of us are out of touch with reality, and therefore we feel the need to seek for answers to questions that are meaningless.

What are you implying is that someone must experience every conceivable form of “reality” in order to be completely attuned with it. Is it not? I don’t think one needs to experience the experience of a dog, or a stroke, or a seizure, or LSD, or any other altered state of conciousness to be attuned with the ultimate reality. In fact, you can be attuned with the ultimate reality in your normal state of consciousness, if you are listening to your mind, instead of thinking. The only thing I was presenting is that it could be said that which is not present in deep dreamless sleep is not real. Because one can be conscious during deep dreamless sleep, and there are no sensorimotor perceptions during this state of consciousness.

It’s not mentioned but it qualifies in the equation. You often times don’t know you’ve been in a coma when you wake up, hence, you’re not conscious. You said in order to be conscious you need to be in 3 states of reality, but where do comas come in? They’re a state of reality but they’re not conscious.

Thank you. That clarifies it.

Sorry Imp, I nearly missed your post.

You mean infinite knowledge remains impossible, correct? If so I can assure you it will always remain impossible, too. :slight_smile:


Imp, my explanation is to pacify the empiricists: not necessarily the way I would argue. I tried, though, to defend the skeptics in another thread.

I think you’re all nuts.

But this is good:

Alright, who remembers the old Tootsie Roll commercial:

"The world looks mighty good to me, 'cause tootsie-rolls are all I see…

Whatever it is I think I see…"

(finish it if you know the words. Come on, Imp, you know the tootsie-pop commercial so you should know this one too.)

becomes a tootsie roll to me…

or something to that effect…


then again, knowing it is a tootsie roll is quite impossible…


Just as a reminder, moderators, my ad homs are not dangerous. They are ironically an expression of respect and attention. Like punching you in the arm.