Man's Nature

[BigApplePi]

I posted something about the nature of man on another bulletin board back in 2005. It may not be specifically oriented to the Six Tools for Understanding, but I thought it might be of interest to repeat it here. Pardon the abstract nature and length.

Do the statements below make sense or is anything questionable?

"Humans. The human being is a puzzling organism. It has self awareness yet doesn't understand that of which it is aware. It operates with a number of parallel systems each of which have varying depths of awarenesses. One system may not be aware of another and multi-awarenesses are difficult to manage.

The human organism is aware of things both inside and outside of itself. It is aware of both input and output. Some bodily desires and needs for input and output are imposed and not subject to easy control. Systems inside have a vital center, a protective intermediary and an exploratory periphery.

Now the human being, unlike other animals, is aware of a great deal outside of itself:: Other things both animate and inanimate as well as other humans like itself. Its awareness of what is inside is vastly different from that of what is outside. This occurs in spite of other humans being organizationally like itself. The difference is it experiences itself as having a center while it experiences others as input/ output not by their center.

Evaluation of input/ output ranges from open to random to controlled to closed. Each in turn has its own advantages and disadvantages.

One of the many human systems is the center of its awareness and is called the brain. This mental system is aware of both the inside and the outside world, but the latter in a hugely different way. While the inner systems are bounded and relatively defined, the domain of the brain is not. The brain experiences outer systems randomly. It is fooled by its experience with inner systems and tries to impose control on the outer ones. It fails miserably.

There are many outer systems. Inanimates are treated not with respect for their intrinsic value but only for their value as input/ output. Animates, though respected, are treated with caution for though they supply input/ output, they themselves can be dangerous as they may take from oneself.

There is such a thing as a "Whole" outer system but the human brain though aware of its existence has almost no understanding of its input/ output except that it is there. It is worshipped by some and safely ignored by others.

Of the animate outer systems, the human is aware of those like itself. It has no choice but to crudely project its beliefs about its own self onto its fellow humans. It becomes greatly confused when it discovers what is expected to be like itself is not.

While a snapshot of each human system has a center and a periphery, some system centers are constantly in motion.

Examples of changing focus are::
An expanding micro-organism spreading poisonous output.
An external human being stirring reproductive urges.
A threatened offspring representing the introjected life of oneself.
A goal to win or accumulate representing input insurance.
An annoying poster on a bulletin board."

 

[BigApplePi]

Looks like only a few hours left in the day to erase the post above.

 

[Treece]

Indeed humans are confusing and that seems to be the key point throughout the rest of the paragraphs. The second to last sounds strangely like a toddler being egocentric. The child believes everyone thinks like them and can't fathom that anyone thinks differently. I think when some adults are confronted with something that does not fall in line with their beliefs that they are indeed shocked. I believe my logic is not flawed lol, so I'm always baffled when people don't agree about certain things (there are others where it seems to make sense that people will have varying responses).

This was interesting to read and for me would require a little more thought to fully understand.

 

[BigApplePi]

Treece you are referring to:

Of the animate outer systems, the human is aware of those like itself. It has no choice but to crudely project its beliefs about its own self onto its fellow humans. It becomes greatly confused when it discovers what is expected to be like itself is not.

The second to last sounds strangely like a toddler being egocentric. The child believes everyone thinks like them and can't fathom that anyone thinks differently. I think when some adults are confronted with something that does not fall in line with their beliefs that they are indeed shocked.

Yes to the child and it's broader than that. I think of Americans traveling to a foreign land and how upset they can get when other cultures are not like theirs. Think burka. Think Taliban.

Or reaching out to shake hands. Not kosher in Japan. (One bows.)
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...5&tbnw=199&start=0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

Or possbly a thread begins with a troublesome post by a "known troublemaker." We expect people to behave in a manner we can handle. If we can't, we are traumatized to excluding them.

More generally what we are is largely unconscious surrounded by a surface awareness. So we gravitate toward those who share our awarenesses. All else requires more energy as when our native language is English we demand the company of English speaking peoples.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Do the statements below make sense or is anything questionable?

They're clear enough, as far as that goes.

 

[BigApplePi]

They're clear enough, as far as that goes.

If that much is clear about man, then how is man basically different from other animals?

 

[Mello]

Man has been deconditioned to be an animal.

 

[BigApplePi]

Man has been deconditioned to be an animal.

What?

 

[Mello]

What?

Well, we constantly remind ourselves how we're better than all the other animals.

We're not.

We keep thinking we're human. Human is just a concept. (Or a species.)

 

[BigApplePi]

Well, we constantly remind ourselves how we're better than all the other animals.

We're not.

We keep thinking we're human. Human is just a concept. (Or a species.)

I agree we are not necessarily better, but we go beyond the other animals. How so?

 

[Mello]

I agree we are not necessarily better, but we go beyond the other animals. How so?

We raise other animals to slaughter.

 

[BigApplePi]

We raise other animals to slaughter.

Other animals hunt other animals and "slaughter" them.

 

[Mello]

Other animals hunt other animals and "slaughter" them.

That doesn't make it okay.

What we are doing is genocide.

Bears don't genetically modify humans to make them taste better. Bears don't store us in confined cages, in warehouses, and slit our throats.

 

[BigApplePi]

That doesn't make it okay.

What we are doing is genocide.

Bears don't genetically modify humans to make them taste better. Bears don't store us in confined cages, in warehouses, and slit our throats.

What's wrong with any of that? We are storing up a food supply.

 

[Mello]

What's wrong with any of that? We are storing up a food supply.

A living food supply.

We should store humans and eat them. That would be more fair. :3

[We should just stop raising animals to be slaughtered. If we let them roam free then we can hire 'hunters' to kill them and that will create more jobs. But we have to be respectful of the animals.(Too lazy to go into details.) ]

 

[Treece]

Well, we constantly remind ourselves how we're better than all the other animals.

We're not.

We keep thinking we're human. Human is just a concept. (Or a species.)

I actually agree with this...

But one could argue that we are indeed better because of our "higher intelligence"

But then the counter argument could be that intelligence covers all forms.

Reading a book is indeed smart, but do you know how to stalk prey effectively?

Makes sense?

 

[Mello]

I actually agree with this...

But one could argue that we are indeed better because of our "higher intelligence"

But then the counter argument could be that intelligence covers all forms.

Reading a book is indeed smart, but do you know how to stalk prey effectively?

Makes sense?

It does make sense.

Well, humans are actually better than all the other animals because we have the ability kill all of them.

We don't have to though.

America can feed the whole planet if we wanted to.
We don't want to.

Humans don't have to fight pointless wars.
We want to.
We listen to those higher in command.

Even wild animals belong to parts of families. We're just killing our brothers.
We belong to the same kingdom.

We're monsters to them.
We're monsters to each other.

 

[Treece]

It does make sense.

Well, humans are actually better than all the other animals because we have the ability kill all of them.

We don't have to though.

America can feed the whole planet if we wanted to.
We don't want to.

Humans don't have to fight pointless wars.
We want to.
We listen to those higher in command.

Even wild animals belong to parts of families. We're just killing our brothers.
We belong to the same kingdom.

We're monsters to them.
We're monsters to each other.

So very true. I think it's like a "I can do it, and I want it. So I will do it and I will have it." situation. History plays out very well to that statement especially when it involves other humans.

 

[SteelEye]

I find I must disagree with most of the arguments here for why humans are superior to animals. I would disagree more so with most of the arguments for why humans are "monsters" in comparison to animals. Anyway, I find myself with time to elaborate...

Well, humans are actually better than all the other animals because we have the ability kill all of them.

We don't have to though.

How many species have humans attempted to eradicate? We would have great difficulty killing even the mosquito population if we tried, not to mention common strains of bacteria. Claiming that we, collectively, can successfully kill any single animal is irrelevant. Most animal species could collectively kill any single one of us. Plenty of animals could even kill one of us without collective effort on their part.
Unless you speak of nuclear genocide of the whole planet...then maybe I will concede that we have the ability to kill all of them. In that case you are correct, we do not have to kill all of the other animals, just as we do not need to kill all humans.

America can feed the whole planet if we wanted to.
We don't want to.

I agree, we don't want to. If we tried, we might succeed for awhile; but then populations would increase. This would counteract food surplus until America was no longer able to feed the whole planet. If the country continued to try, it would become unable to feed itself any better than other countries would be able to feed themselves. Is it better to allow a "pocket" of wealth to accumulate in America? Well, if we figure out a solution to overpopulation then that "pocket" of wealth might be a handy resource of implementation in the future.
Summary: There are problems bigger than world hunger.
With that aside, I never witnessed ants in America helping ants in Africa, or vice versa. Actually, I never witnessed any group of animals intentionally helping the entirety of their species at cost to themselves. How does our similitude to animals act as evidence of our superiority or inferiority to animals?

Humans don't have to fight pointless wars.
We want to.
We listen to those higher in command.

ANY war is pointless to someone and vitally important to someone else. Either you argue that every war is important, no war is important, or wars are important based on some standard apart from human subjectivity. I'm not sure what standard you are using to determine what a "pointless" war is, making it difficult to dispute that standard directly.
Those higher in command are there because we listen to them, not the other way around. If you want any human to be higher in command than another, then listening to them will naturally follow. Also, are we still tracking how humans are DIFFERENT from animals? Lots of social insects have what might be considered "pointless" wars, and I would point to monkeys to represent hierarchy of command if not for the immense irony that would ensue.

Even wild animals belong to parts of families. We're just killing our brothers.
We belong to the same kingdom.

I'm going to just rephrase this bit for amusement purposes.
"Even wild animals kill parts of the families to which they belong. They're just killing their own brothers. We belong to the same kingdom."
I'm still looking for this standard outside of humanity, outside of the animal kingdom, and outside of observable reality which you insist that humans implement.

Honestly, I was having more fun than being too serious with those counters. I agree that if anything makes humans different it must be related to intelligence. I just doubt the claim that our intelligence allows us to completely ignore the code of survival that nature has decided to enforce. Selfishness, wars, and even fratricide were deemed useful tactics by our mother nature. If we want to beat mother, though, I agree that we must come up with our own tactics.

Lastly, so I don't feel like I'm just taking up space; I'll make an attempt at actual contribution:

Evaluation of input/ output ranges from open to random to controlled to closed. Each in turn has its own advantages and disadvantages.

I have difficulty understanding the different forms of evaluation, or even determining if each was addressed in the OP. Elaboration on different types of evaluation might add structure to your idea and illuminate new facets of human nature.
Also, referencing the brain as a whole is a little vague in this context. Maybe specifying the frontal cortex or some sort would prove beneficial?

My signature is applicable!

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
Evaluation of input/ output ranges from open to random to controlled to closed. Each in turn has its own advantages and disadvantages.

I have difficulty understanding the different forms of evaluation, or even determining if each was addressed in the OP. Elaboration on different types of evaluation might add structure to your idea and illuminate new facets of human nature.

I (2012 self) have difficulty too as that was my 2005 self who wrote that, lol. Let me see what I was talking about. The "input/output" referred to other human beings in reference to the self:

Open - one welcomes others, one and all indiscriminately
Random - one takes encounters with others as they come without deliberation
Controlled - one requests management/power over others
Closed - one refuses to accept large groups of peoples, perhaps unlike oneself

Also, referencing the brain as a whole is a little vague in this context. Maybe specifying the frontal cortex or some sort would prove beneficial?

Right. The OP failed in that way to distinguish man from the rest of the animals.

 

[Mello]

I find I must disagree with most of the arguments here for why humans are superior to animals. I would disagree more so with most of the arguments for why humans are "monsters" in comparison to animals. Anyway, I find myself with time to elaborate...

Humans think they are superior. If they think they are, are they not?
Monsters because we ignore our natural urges.
Humans don't give other animals right of way.
[They're just stupid animals. Who cares? (Roadkill on the pavement.) That was someone's companion.]

How many species have humans attempted to eradicate? We would have great difficulty killing even the mosquito population if we tried, not to mention common strains of bacteria. Claiming that we, collectively, can successfully kill any single animal is irrelevant. Most animal species could collectively kill any single one of us. Plenty of animals could even kill one of us without collective effort on their part.
Unless you speak of nuclear genocide of the whole planet...then maybe I will concede that we have the ability to kill all of them. In that case you are correct, we do not have to kill all of the other animals, just as we do not need to kill all humans.

We've killed millions of species because of the environmental damage we've caused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

I agree, we don't want to. If we tried, we might succeed for awhile; but then populations would increase. This would counteract food surplus until America was no longer able to feed the whole planet. If the country continued to try, it would become unable to feed itself any better than other countries would be able to feed themselves. Is it better to allow a "pocket" of wealth to accumulate in America? Well, if we figure out a solution to overpopulation then that "pocket" of wealth might be a handy resource of implementation in the future.
Summary: There are problems bigger than world hunger.
With that aside, I never witnessed ants in America helping ants in Africa, or vice versa. Actually, I never witnessed any group of animals intentionally helping the entirety of their species at cost to themselves. How does our similitude to animals act as evidence of our superiority or inferiority to animals?

All my statements are contradictory. Why are you asking me questions you know the answer to?
America would not have to constantly feed the world. We would help them survive, then they may perhaps grow with us.

ANY war is pointless to someone and vitally important to someone else. Either you argue that every war is important, no war is important, or wars are important based on some standard apart from human subjectivity. I'm not sure what standard you are using to determine what a "pointless" war is, making it difficult to dispute that standard directly.
Those higher in command are there because we listen to them, not the other way around. If you want any human to be higher in command than another, then listening to them will naturally follow. Also, are we still tracking how humans are DIFFERENT from animals? Lots of social insects have what might be considered "pointless" wars, and I would point to monkeys to represent hierarchy of command if not for the immense irony that would ensue.

I'm not debating anything.
I'm telling the truth.
Every war is important. Every war is pointless.
You don't have to listen to anyone else.
You want to listen to them. You think they know what they're doing.

I'm going to just rephrase this bit for amusement purposes.
"Even wild animals kill parts of the families to which they belong. They're just killing their own brothers. We belong to the same kingdom."
I'm still looking for this standard outside of humanity, outside of the animal kingdom, and outside of observable reality which you insist that humans implement.

I don't understand your point.

Honestly, I was having more fun than being too serious with those counters. I agree that if anything makes humans different it must be related to intelligence. I just doubt the claim that our intelligence allows us to completely ignore the code of survival that nature has decided to enforce. Selfishness, wars, and even fratricide were deemed useful tactics by our mother nature. If we want to beat mother, though, I agree that we must come up with our own tactics.

Humans are not intelligent though. hahahahaha
Humans are just the best communicators. We've defined meaningless words.
Humans just talk too much.
If someone feels compelled to take action, then they should just do it.
Honestly, I'd rather not debate at all. Because I can counter every 'point' I just made.

If you're not being serious, then why counter at all. It's just irritating.

 

[BigApplePi]

A living food supply.

We should store humans and eat them. That would be more fair. :3

[We should just stop raising animals to be slaughtered. If we let them roam free then we can hire 'hunters' to kill them and that will create more jobs. But we have to be respectful of the animals.(Too lazy to go into details.) ]

Yes we could eat humans but then we would be competing with ourselves ... a win-lose situation. There is something about the other animals that would appear to make it win-win for humans. I'm not saying the something makes us "better", but there is something different. How do we put our finger on that "something"?

 

[rattymat]

. It has self awareness yet doesn't understand that of which it is aware.."

I don't really understand what distinction you are trying to make. It has awareness only to the degree of its awareness, is basically all that you have said, self awareness inclusive in this. If it doesn't understand what it is aware of, then it lacks whatever awareness is required to understand it.

 

[SteelEye]

If you're not being serious, then why counter at all. It's just irritating.

Sorry if it came across as irritating, I was going more for "thought-provoking" really. I was 'not being serious' in the sense that I could come up with counters to all of my own statements, but stated them anyway; similar to the sentiment you yourself demonstrated. I'll drop the debate on human morality as well, as I'm no longer in the rare mood for senseless assertion.
Perhaps the accidental mass extinction phenomenon will prove interesting to explore in another thread, but the intelligence in humans (or lack thereof) strikes me as a much more profound and interesting topic at the moment.

Humans just talk too much.

I think we may have found the "something" that makes humans different!

EDIT:

I don't really understand what distinction you are trying to make. It has awareness only to the degree of its awareness, is basically all that you have said, self awareness inclusive in this. If it doesn't understand what it is aware of, then it lacks whatever awareness is required to understand it.

Or it has the awareness required to understand it, but is missing some other vital component. Awareness of a phenomenon does not imply understanding of that phenomenon nor even awareness of the cause of that phenomenon.

 

[Mello]

Sorry if it came across as irritating, I was going more for "thought-provoking" really. I was 'not being serious' in the sense that I could come up with counters to all of my own statements, but stated them anyway; similar to the sentiment you yourself demonstrated. I'll drop the debate on human morality as well, as I'm no longer in the rare mood for senseless assertion.
Perhaps the accidental mass extinction phenomenon will prove interesting to explore in another thread, but the intelligence in humans (or lack thereof) strikes me as a much more profound and interesting topic at the moment.

I think we may have found the "something" that makes humans different!

It's all good. hehe. You could start another thread on human intelligence.

But, on the subject of the "something":
It feels wrong to hunt/eat our own kind.

The "something" might be that we can plan for the future and recognize the past.(?)

Wild animals just live in the moment. They survive.

 

[BigApplePi]

I don't really understand what distinction you are trying to make. It has awareness only to the degree of its awareness, is basically all that you have said, self awareness inclusive in this. If it doesn't understand what it is aware of, then it lacks whatever awareness is required to understand it.

Yes that wasn't clear. Man has awareness of something only to a degree. What I meant was man has awareness of the whole but not of the details. It fails notoriously to get the details. Examples:

1. Man knows it is alive but not how.
2. I can raise my arm up high but do I know how that is done?
3. Physicians are notorious for being able to treat patients but do they know how what they do works?
4. Man is very aware of war but asks, "Why did this happen? Why are people killing each other?"

If some super-intelligent being came around, they would say, "Boy is man stupid."

 

[BigApplePi]

I still have something in mind that animals don't have that man has that is very basic. This "something" allows man to mess with the entire planet in a way no other animals can do. I think cake is very close here:

The "something" might be that we can plan for the future and recognize the past.(?)

 

[Otherside]

Why does "man" feel such a need to differentiate himself from other animals?

You're a smart monkey. That's all.

Take a stroll through the jungle without a gun and you'll find out how superior you are.

 

[Treece]

Why does "man" feel such a need to differentiate himself from other animals?

You're a smart monkey. That's all.

Take a stroll through the jungle without a gun and you'll find out how superior you are.

+1

Pretty much what I'm thinking. We're smart in our rights, but so are wild animals.

 

[BigApplePi]

Why does "man" feel such a need to differentiate himself from other animals?

Does a lion need to differentiate itself from an antelope?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Humans are apes with articulate empathy.

 

[snafupants]

Humans are apes with articulate empathy.

And enhanced memory, imaginative, prioritization, conceptualization and planning functions. Ape 2.0 perhaps. Available in stores this November.

On a slightly more serious, not necessarily upbeat, note, I find Schopenhauer instructive for demarcating humans and animals. Humans, he would argue, are capable of intellect, whereas animals are manifestations of will. This basically means that the more rarefied the genius, the less the will and boredom and all of the crap that comes with being nature's pawn.

For the latter, this maxim, which could be misconceived, means that creatures of will pretty much lack autonomy and are subject to the whims of the clockmaker, so to speak. Schopenhauer was less than kind when he equates dolts and black people with animals in that both utilize will more than intellect, in stark contrast to genius and fully formed human intellect.

That neon-electric blue on top makes my eyes water.

 

[BigApplePi]

Something about man has allowed him to "conquer" the Earth.

Spoiler

It's more than having an opposable thumb which allows tool usage and walking upright which allows all sorts of stuff. This is just about unique to man.

What you've said below is very very close:

And enhanced memory, imaginative, prioritization, conceptualization and planning functions.

Originally Posted by Cake
The "something" might be that we can plan for the future and recognize the past.(?)

Originally Posted by Cake
Humans just talk too much.

Humans are apes with articulate empathy.

Two of these five tools for understanding come to mind:
1. Perspective -viewpoint
2. Translation - interpretation of perspective
3. Distance - separation
4. Motion - direction & speed/motivation
5. Fuzziness - clarity's opposite

 

[SteelEye]

Hmm... Planning, organization, articulate empathy, imagination... When I try to combine all of these into one facet of humanity I think of our tendency to create useless bits of cool stuff.

Animals simply don't do this often, if at all. We started by building massive pyramids, making huge sculptures out of rock, and sculpting curious little things out of soapstone. We do useless stuff simply because it has never been done before.
WE LANDED ON THE MOON A TOTAL OF 6 TIMES ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO AND NOT ONCE SINCE!

Animals use tools, farm various other animals, communicate, and even have social hierarchies and systems of cooperation. Animals do not build toys, domesticate animals solely as pets, tell jokes, or have political debates that won't really affect them or anyone else they know.

We dominated the world because it seemed like a cool thing to do. Mostly useless, but it hadn't been done before!

Anyway, just a hypothesis; feel free to pick it apart for inconsistencies.

 

[BigApplePi]

I was looking for something basic (at the foundation) that man has that no other animal has. (Of the five tools I listed, I picked distance and translation.) The tool distance had me wondering how man did all he has done like trading and the internet. The tool translation had me wondering how social groups could build large things. In two words, man has symbolic language. It is with symbolic language man can do everything you've thought of so far. Apparently man has a large cerebral cortex that provides (among I'm not sure what else it does) for language.

Man can speak. He has been able to refine this speech and found a way to write it down. Once there was writing (one can pass on stories with language orally also), man can record history of how to do things so he doesn't have to invent twice. Man can now communicate over the distances of space and time. No other animal has this symbolic language. (I've heard whales can communicate with sounds over possibly thousands of miles, but that's probably only for sex).

 

[sti_lin]

Lol this is entertaining reading. I am reading a lot of opinions and fancy language skills to try and substantiate the human desire to be unique, different from every other person. Most of the info above is not new or abstract. Bottom line, what are you trying to answer? Most of the scientifically concluded and popular ideas of what separates man from other species has been mentioned.

I would hunt other men just like animals if it was not contradictory to popular beliefs or illegal. Man has no more of a right to exist than any other being.

Let's get down to the root of the real questions and avoid the superiority complexes associated with fancy language and vague statements.

Awareness is acknowledgement and evaluation of inputs, internal and external. Can you be aware of that which you are not exposed to? If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is around to hear....

I hate typing on my iPad ><

 

[BigApplePi]

I hate typing on my iPad

Steve Jobs would be appalled. Dare to go out and buy a real computer.

Awareness is acknowledgement and evaluation of inputs, internal and external. Can you be aware of that which you are not exposed to? If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is around to hear....

One may not be aware of what one is not aware of, but they can be aware they are not aware. There are lots of fallen trees behind my house. Sometimes I hear one fall. Just don't let one fall on the house!

 

[sti_lin]

Don't get me wrong I love my iPad and I posted the above reply while laying in bed with my wife, I do have a desktop as well as a laptop but my iPad gets used most these days.

They can be aware that they are not aware...?? To be aware that you are not aware of something would require awareness to that unknown, which is a conflict. Awareness requires an input... So no they can not be aware that they are not aware.

It comes down to an understanding/interpretation of the meaning of awareness. Enlighten me to the logic behind your statement

 

[BigApplePi]

They can be aware that they are not aware...?? To be aware that you are not aware of something would require awareness to that unknown, which is a conflict. Awareness requires an input... So no they can not be aware that they are not aware.

It comes down to an understanding/interpretation of the meaning of awareness. Enlighten me to the logic behind your statement

I made an ambiguous statement. I meant awareness about unawareness in the sense of awareness of ignorance. It's like the black box. One doesn't know what's inside but knows the black box is there.

Awareness or knowledge exists in a hierarchy (HIERARCHY - UMS) . One is aware at one level but go up or down and it eases from consciousness.

 

[sti_lin]

I made an ambiguous statement. I meant awareness about unawareness in the sense of awareness of ignorance. It's like the black box. One doesn't know what's inside but knows the black box is there.

Awareness or knowledge exists in a hierarchy (HIERARCHY - UMS) . One is aware at one level but go up or down and it eases from consciousness.

Ok, wasn't clear what connection you were trying to make. To have awareness that you aren't aware of everything is basic.

The level of awareness is interesting to dissect. Is the level tied to cognitive understanding of the subject or something more innate?

 

[BigApplePi]

The level of awareness is interesting to dissect. Is the level tied to cognitive understanding of the subject or something more innate?

Hmm. My awareness of what you are after seems to be below my cognitive level, lol. (If awareness has something sensual about it, I suppose ... well that would be sensual understanding, not particularly intellectual or thinking.) Isn't that like asking, are cognitive functions innate? If we try to go from awareness to what is innate, don't we have to pass through CF's? That is, CF's are conscious. So is awareness.

 

[sti_lin]

Hmm. My awareness of what you are after seems to be below my cognitive level, lol. (If awareness has something sensual about it, I suppose ... well that would be sensual understanding, not particularly intellectual or thinking.) Isn't that like asking, are cognitive functions innate? If we try to go from awareness to what is innate, don't we have to pass through CF's? That is, CF's are conscious. So is awareness.

I am asking you to define levels of awareness that you mentioned. Then I took a stab at what might be a way to define them. Awareness is something that can be raised but does that only apply to your sensory awareness? How might one raise their cognitive awareness, if it's even possible within the definitions of cognition and awareness.

 

[BigApplePi]

I am asking you to define levels of awareness that you mentioned. Then I took a stab at what might be a way to define them. Awareness is something that can be raised but does that only apply to your sensory awareness? How might one raise their cognitive awareness, if it's even possible within the definitions of cognition and awareness.

Examples of awarenesses:

S - you touched me with a feather
I - the INTP Forum is something we experience
F - you touched my heart with your caring; I'm crushed by your betrayal
T - 10 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 whether you go bowling or not

I think of awareness as commonly used as occupying the surface near the level between the subconscious and conscious. Knowledge and understanding occupy higher levels and constitute more of a system than an event. Awareness is more of a dynamic event at one level.

I think what I said before could be better expressed:

Awareness or knowledge exists in a hierarchy (HIERARCHY - UMS) . One is aware at one level but go up or down and it eases from consciousness.

Knowledge and understanding are more intuitive in that one is aware they can go up and down levels of those. Awareness is more here and now (sensation) where one is aware at one level but loses awareness of the immediate as one passes to another level.

Example: I am aware of this post. I'm aware I can experience what I read here. I can sift through "SIFT" above but as I do so, I lose awareness of the prior as I move on to the next. I can't keep awareness of both in my head simultaneously. The items in SIFT are at the same level, but the post reading experience is at a higher level.