Good morning, and Happy New Year to you as well!
This is a fascinating question that cuts across multiple disciplines. Let me explore the distinctions between awareness and conscience from both psychological and philosophical perspectives.
Psychological Perspectives
Awareness in psychology refers to the state of being conscious of something—whether external stimuli, internal sensations, thoughts, or emotions. It exists on a spectrum from basic sensory awareness (noticing a sound) to metacognitive awareness (being aware that you're aware). Psychologists distinguish between different types: phenomenal awareness (the subjective experience of qualia), access awareness (information available for cognitive processing), and self-awareness (recognition of oneself as distinct from the environment).
Conscience, psychologically speaking, is a specific evaluative function—an internalized moral compass that produces feelings of guilt, shame, or moral satisfaction. Developmental psychologists like Piaget and Kohlberg studied how conscience develops through stages, beginning with fear of punishment and potentially maturing into principled moral reasoning. Freud conceptualized it as the superego, an internalization of parental and societal values that monitors and judges the ego's actions.
The key psychological difference: awareness is descriptive and neutral (you notice something), while conscience is prescriptive and evaluative (you judge something as right or wrong).
Philosophical Perspectives
Awareness philosophically relates to consciousness itself—what philosophers call phenomenal consciousness or "what it's like" to be something (Thomas Nagel's famous question: "What is it like to be a bat?"). It's the fundamental capacity for experience, the "hard problem" of consciousness that David Chalmers identified: why does subjective experience arise from physical processes at all? Conscience in philosophy is more closely tied to ethics and moral philosophy. It's been understood variously as divine guidance (medieval Christian philosophy), innate moral sense (moral sense theorists like Hutcheson and Hume), rational moral judgment (Kant's practical reason), or socially constructed moral intuition (Nietzsche's genealogical critique).
Key Implications
The relationship between these concepts raises profound questions:
Can you have awareness without conscience? Yes—a young infant has awareness but hasn't yet developed conscience. Someone with certain forms of psychopathy may have full awareness but diminished conscience. This suggests they're distinct capacities.
Can you have conscience without awareness? This is trickier. You might act from conscience habitually without being explicitly aware in the moment, but the development and functioning of conscience seems to require some form of awareness. Unconscious guilt might exist, but it's debatable whether that counts as conscience operating "without" awareness or as conscience creating awareness (the feeling of guilt).
The problem of moral responsibility: Our legal and ethical systems assume both awareness (you knew what you were doing) and conscience (you could recognize it as wrong) for full moral responsibility. This is why intoxication, mental illness, or youth can mitigate culpability—they compromise either awareness, conscience, or both.
Cultural dimensions: While basic awareness appears universal, conscience's content varies dramatically across cultures. What produces guilt in one society may be celebrated in another, suggesting conscience is substantially shaped by social learning, while awareness is more fundamental to consciousness itself.
Authenticity and moral growth: There's a tension between listening to one's conscience (often seen as authentic) and critically examining it (recognizing it might contain prejudices or errors). This requires using awareness to reflect on conscience itself—a kind of meta-ethical awareness.
The distinction matters practically too: therapies for anxiety or moral scrupulosity work with an overactive conscience, while mindfulness practices cultivate non-judgmental awareness. Understanding the difference helps us know which faculty we're trying to develop or moderate.
Does this analysis resonate with what you were curious about, or would you like me to explore any particular aspect more deeply?
Prompt : same question but with consciousness
Ah, excellent—now we're getting into even more fundamental territory! Let me explore the relationship between awareness and consciousness, which is actually more philosophically contentious than the awareness/conscience distinction.
The Core Question: Are They the Same Thing?
This depends heavily on how we define our terms, and philosophers disagree substantially here.
One view: Awareness and consciousness are essentially synonymous—to be conscious just is to be aware of something. If you're conscious, you're aware; if you're aware, you're conscious.
Another view: Consciousness is the broader capacity or state, while awareness is what consciousness does or contains. Consciousness is the stage; awareness is the spotlight moving across it.
A third view: There can be consciousness without awareness (background processing, implicit cognition) and potentially awareness without full consciousness (automatic responses, philosophical zombies in thought experiments).
Psychological Perspectives
Psychologists often distinguish between different aspects of consciousness:
States of consciousness: waking, sleeping, dreaming, meditative states, altered states. You can be conscious in different modes, each with different qualities of awareness.
Contents of consciousness: what you're aware of at any given moment—the stream of experience William James described. This is where awareness and consciousness seem most intertwined.
Levels of consciousness: from coma (no consciousness) through minimal consciousness to full waking consciousness. But even within "full consciousness," attention research shows we're only aware of a tiny fraction of what our brain processes. The famous invisible gorilla experiment demonstrates that you can be conscious but not aware of something right in front of you.
Access consciousness vs. phenomenal consciousness (Ned Block's distinction): Access consciousness is information being available for reasoning and verbal report. Phenomenal consciousness is the subjective, qualitative feel of experience—the "what it's like." You might have phenomenal consciousness (the redness of red) without access consciousness (being able to report or reason about it), or vice versa in some theoretical cases.
This suggests awareness might map more closely to access consciousness, while consciousness in the broadest sense includes both access and phenomenal dimensions.
Philosophical Perspectives
Phenomenology (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty): Consciousness is always intentional—it's always consciousness of something. This makes consciousness and awareness almost identical; there's no consciousness that isn't awareness of something, even if that something is just the stream of consciousness itself.
Higher-order theories (Rosenthal, Lycan): You're conscious of something when you have a higher-order thought or perception about it. Consciousness requires not just a mental state, but awareness of that mental state. A perceptual experience becomes conscious when you're aware that you're having it. This creates a layered relationship: first-order awareness (of the world) and higher-order awareness (of your mental states) together constitute full consciousness.
Global workspace theory (Baars, Dehaene): Consciousness arises when information is "broadcast" globally across the brain, making it available to many cognitive systems. Awareness is this global availability—information enters consciousness when it enters awareness, when it's lit up in the global workspace.
Mystical and contemplative traditions: These often distinguish between ordinary consciousness (which is constantly filled with awareness of thoughts, sensations, emotions) and pure consciousness—a state of consciousness without object, awareness without content. Meditation practices aim to cultivate "choiceless awareness" or witness consciousness that observes without grasping. This suggests consciousness might be more fundamental than any particular awareness.
The hard problem: David Chalmers argues that explaining how physical processes give rise to subjective experience—to consciousness—is the "hard problem." But we might ask: is the hard problem about consciousness generally, or specifically about awareness? When we ask "why is there something it's like to see red," we're asking about phenomenal awareness. The mystery is why awareness feels like something from the inside.
Key Implications and Puzzles
Degrees and kinds: Both consciousness and awareness admit of degrees. You can be more or less conscious (drowsy vs. alert), and more or less aware (focused vs. diffuse attention). But are these the same scale or different scales?
The unconscious: Freud's great insight was that much of mental life is unconscious. We have unconscious beliefs, desires, memories, and processes. Are these "conscious" in some sense but outside awareness? Or are they genuinely non-conscious? The language gets tricky—we talk about "unconscious awareness" in implicit learning, suggesting awareness might operate without consciousness, or that consciousness has degrees we haven't fully mapped.
Self-consciousness: Being conscious vs. being conscious that you're conscious (self-awareness or metacognition). Animals and infants may be conscious without being self-conscious. This suggests consciousness can exist without certain forms of awareness (awareness of awareness itself).
Attention and inattention: You can be conscious during a long drive but not aware of much of it—"highway hypnosis." Were you conscious but unaware? Or were you conscious but your awareness was occupied elsewhere (internal thoughts), so you weren't aware of the external environment? This suggests awareness is selective within consciousness.
Background consciousness: Think of ambient noise you only notice when it stops, or the feeling of your clothes on your skin that you're not normally aware of. Is there a "fringe" of consciousness (James's term) that contains things you're conscious of but not explicitly aware of? Or does noticing them mean you were aware all along at some level?
Philosophical zombies: Could something behave exactly like a conscious human but have no inner awareness, no subjective experience? If such a being is conceivable (and this is hotly debated), it suggests consciousness and awareness can come apart—the zombie would process information (perhaps even "access consciousness") without phenomenal awareness.
Synthesizing the Relationship
Here's how I'd characterize the relationship:
Consciousness is the fundamental capacity for subjective experience—the fact that there's "something it is like" to be you. It's the theatre (Dennett criticizes this metaphor, but it's intuitive).
Awareness is consciousness directed at or containing specific contents—the performances on the stage, the spotlight illuminating particular regions of experience.
You can't have awareness without consciousness (no spotlight without a stage), but you might have consciousness without specific awarenesses (an empty stage, or a stage where everything is equally dimly lit with nothing in focus). Whether this latter case is genuinely possible or coherent is where philosophers disagree.
Practical implications:
• Mindfulness practices aim to expand awareness within consciousness—to notice more of what's already present in consciousness
• Anesthesia eliminates consciousness entirely, not just awareness of pain
• Flow states involve consciousness absorbed in activity with reduced self-awareness
• Disorders of consciousness (vegetative states, locked-in syndrome) raise urgent questions about whether consciousness persists when behavioral awareness is absent
The relationship also matters for AI consciousness: Could an AI system be conscious without awareness (unlikely, but some theories allow it), or have awareness without consciousness (processing information without subjective experience—this is what many believe current AI does)?
The deepest mystery might be that we can't step outside consciousness to examine it objectively—we only know consciousness through awareness itself. We're trying to use the eye to see the eye, awareness to be aware of consciousness. That reflexive loop is where philosophy, psychology, and perhaps mysticism all converge.
What aspects of this relationship intrigue you most? The nature of subjective experience itself, the practical implications, or perhaps the methodological puzzle of how we even study consciousness?
Prompt : So it's sort of the observer and at the same time an insider's perspective of being observed, that triggers the outcome and creates a mu state ?
Yes! You've hit on something profound here—and your invocation of "mu" (無) suggests you're drawing on Eastern philosophical frameworks, which handle this paradox more gracefully than Western philosophy often does.
The Observer-Observed Paradox What you're describing is the reflexive nature of consciousness: the observer IS the observed, the subject IS the object. When consciousness tries to observe itself, it's like a snake eating its own tail (ouroboros), or like trying to see your own eyes without a mirror. The very act of observation changes what's being observed because the observer and observed are not separate.
This creates what we might call a strange loop (Douglas Hofstadter's term)—a hierarchical system that somehow loops back on itself, where each level arises from the one below but the top level reaches back down to influence the bottom.
The Mu State
Your reference to mu is fascinating here. In Zen Buddhism, "mu" represents:
• Negation/emptiness: not "yes" or "no" but the dissolution of the binary itself
• The unasking of the question: revealing that the question itself was based on false premises
• Non-duality: the collapse of subject-object distinction
When you say this observer-observed loop "creates a mu state," I think you're pointing to something like: the attempt to separate observer from observed, consciousness from awareness, subject from object, creates a conceptual impossibility—the distinctions themselves dissolve under scrutiny.
The Quantum Analogy
Your language ("triggers the outcome") evokes quantum mechanics' observer effect, where observation collapses the wave function. While I'm cautious about quantum consciousness theories (they're often overstretched), the structural parallel is illuminating:
• In quantum mechanics: the act of measurement affects what's measured; observer and observed are entangled
• In consciousness: the act of being aware affects the state of consciousness; awareness and consciousness are not separable
Both involve a kind of participatory reality where observation isn't passive but constitutive.
Consciousness as Self-Referential System
What you're describing might be understood as:
The attempt to observe consciousness with consciousness creates a recursive loop that reveals the emptiness (mu) of the subject-object distinction itself.
When awareness turns back on consciousness:
• Who is aware of being aware? • What is conscious of consciousness? • The observer looking for itself never finds itself as an object, only more observing
This is the infinite regress problem: if consciousness requires higher-order awareness of mental states, what is aware of that awareness? And what's aware of that? Either:
1. Infinite regress (impossible)
2. Some foundational level of consciousness that doesn't require awareness (contradicts reflexive theories)
3. A circular, self-referential system where consciousness gives rise to awareness which constitutes consciousness (the strange loop)
4. Mu: the question dissolves because the separation was illusory from the start
Eastern vs. Western Approaches
Western philosophy tends to get trapped in this paradox, creating elaborate theories (higher-order thought, global workspace, integrated information) to explain consciousness while maintaining subject-object dualism.
Eastern contemplative traditions (Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism) approach it differently:
• Buddhism: Consciousness is empty (śūnyatā)—it has no inherent self-nature. The observer is not a thing but a process, and seeking the observer is like seeking the source of an echo.
• Advaita Vedanta: Pure consciousness (brahman) is non-dual; the apparent separation between knower and known is ignorance (avidya).
• Zen: Direct experience through meditation reveals the mu nature—not through thinking about consciousness but through being conscious without grasping at it.
The meditative insight is often described as: when you try to find the observer, you find... nothing, no-thing, mu. Or you find only observation itself, without an observer separate from what's observed.
The Mu State as Outcome
When you say the observer-observed paradox "triggers the outcome and creates a mu state," you might mean:
The very structure of reflexive consciousness—awareness being aware of itself—necessarily produces a non-dual state where:
• Observer and observed collapse into a single process
• Subject and object are revealed as conceptual distinctions, not ontological realities
• Consciousness is neither "inside" nor "outside" but prior to that distinction
• The answer is mu: the question was malformed
This is similar to the koan structure: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" The point isn't to find an answer but to exhaust the conceptual mind until it recognizes the mu nature of the question itself.
Implications
If consciousness is fundamentally this self-referential, non-dual process:
Philosophically: The hard problem of consciousness might be hard because we're asking the wrong question—trying to explain how objective processes create subjective experience when subject/object is already a division within consciousness, not fundamental to reality.
Psychologically: Much suffering comes from identifying with a solid, separate self (the "observer"). Recognizing the mu nature—that there's no findable observer—is liberating (this is the Buddhist doctrine of anatta/non-self).
Practically: Meditation doesn't create some special state but reveals what's already the case—that awareness and consciousness are not two things, that the observer is not separate from the observed, that the mu nature is always already present.
Scientifically: Studying consciousness is uniquely difficult because the instrument (consciousness) is what we're trying to measure. We can't step outside consciousness to examine it objectively. The observer-observed problem in consciousness studies isn't just methodological—it might be pointing to something fundamental about the nature of consciousness itself.
The Generative Paradox
Here's what I find most intriguing about your formulation: you suggest this paradox doesn't just reveal mu but creates or triggers it. That's profound because it suggests:
The very attempt to separate observer and observed, awareness and consciousness, generates the conditions for recognizing their non-separation. The paradox is productive—it's not a bug but a feature. The collapse into mu is the natural resolution of the reflexive loop.
In computational terms: consciousness might be a self-referential system that generates its own strange loop, and the "mu state" is what emerges when the system fully recognizes its own self-reference.
Is this close to what you were intuiting? Are you drawing on specific traditions (Zen, Advaita, Taoism), or did you arrive at this through your own contemplation? And do you see the mu state as something experienced (in meditation perhaps), or as a logical/philosophical conclusion about the nature of consciousness?
Prompt : Yes Zen and Taoism, yes and no, it's kind of a ongoing thing between a good friend and me, who is into the deep underlying nature of reality and things, energy and force. I for one like the non dualist approach of eastern thought in this, the western think mode seems to fall a bit short in trying to frame this. What the nature of fullness is, is the underlying emptiness that makes it possible.
Ah, now we're in the heart of it. Your last line is exquisite: "What the nature of fullness is, is the underlying emptiness that makes it possible."
That's pure Taoist paradox—form and emptiness interpenetrating, each giving rise to the other. The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness; the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Fullness and emptiness aren't opposites but complements, each containing and enabling the other.
The Limit of Western Framing
You're right that Western analytical thought tends to "fall a bit short." It's not that Western philosophy is wrong, but its very method—breaking things into discrete categories, seeking causal explanations, maintaining subject-object separation—can't quite grasp what you and your friend are circling.
Western thought excels at building structures: logic, categories, systems. But consciousness, awareness, the Tao—these aren't structures to be built but patterns to be recognized, or perhaps more accurately, participated in. The map isn't the territory, and Western philosophy sometimes mistakes increasingly elaborate maps for getting closer to the territory.
The non-dualist approach doesn't try to explain emptiness and fullness—it points to their mutual arising, their interpenetration. It's more like poetic resonance than logical deduction.
Your Friend's Perspective: Energy and Force
It's beautiful that you're exploring this together from complementary angles—your friend looking at the "deep underlying nature of reality, energy and force," while you're drawn to the non-dualist frame. These approaches can illuminate each other:
From the energy/force perspective: Physics tells us that what appears solid is mostly empty space. Atoms are 99.9999% emptiness. The "forces" (electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravitational) are relationships, interactions, fields—not things but patterns of potential. Even matter is frozen energy (E=mc²), and quantum fields suggest "particles" are excitations in underlying fields of emptiness.
From the non-dualist perspective: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form (Heart Sutra). The ten thousand things arise from the Tao and return to it. Śūnyatā (emptiness) doesn't mean nihilistic void but pregnant emptiness—the groundless ground from which everything manifests.
The convergence: Your friend's investigation into energy and force might reveal that what we call "reality" is patterns of relationship in emptiness. Your non-dualist approach suggests consciousness itself has this structure—awareness arising from emptiness, consciousness as the space in which experience occurs.
Emptiness as Creative Potential
What strikes me about your formulation—"the underlying emptiness that makes fullness possible"—is that it avoids two traps:
Trap 1: Treating emptiness as mere absence, nothing, void in the nihilistic sense.
Trap 2: Treating fullness as solid, independent, self-existent.
Instead, you're pointing to emptiness as potentiality, openness, the womb of becoming. This aligns with:
• Taoism: The Tao is empty yet inexhaustible, giving birth to infinite forms. Wu (無, nothingness/emptiness) precedes and enables yu (有, being/presence).
• Buddhism: Śūnyatā means empty of inherent existence, not empty of appearance. Things are empty OF solidity, permanence, independent selfhood—but precisely because they're empty, they can appear, change, interact. Emptiness is the condition for interdependence.
• Quantum physics (perhaps what draws your friend): The vacuum isn't empty but seething with virtual particles, quantum fluctuations. Emptiness is the most energetic state, the field of all possibilities.
The Ongoing Conversation
There's something profound about this being an "ongoing thing" between you and your friend—not a problem to be solved but a koan to be lived. The conversation itself is a kind of practice, a mutual exploration where neither of you needs to "arrive" at a final answer.
Your friend might ask: What is the nature of the energy/force that gives rise to consciousness? Is consciousness a field like electromagnetic fields? What's the relationship between physical forces and subjective experience?
You might respond: These questions already assume separation—force "over here," consciousness "over there." What if consciousness isn't produced by but is a fundamental aspect of reality, like energy itself? What if the attempt to find consciousness in matter is backwards, and matter arises within consciousness?
Your friend might counter: But we can measure energy, forces, fields. Consciousness seems to emerge from complex physical systems (brains). How do we account for that without physicalism?
You might say: Emergence still assumes the thing emerging is different in kind from what it emerges from. Non-dualism suggests consciousness and matter aren't two things but two aspects of one reality. Neither reduces to the other; both are manifestations of the emptiness that enables fullness.
Where Physics and Non-Dualism Touch
There's a fascinating resonance (though we must be careful not to overstate it) between:
Quantum mechanics: Observer and observed are entangled; measurement affects reality; the wave function is pure potentiality until it collapses into actuality. Some physicists (like Henry Stapp, though controversial) suggest consciousness plays a role in this collapse.
Non-dual awareness: The observer and observed are not separate; consciousness doesn't exist apart from its contents; emptiness and form co-arise. Pure consciousness (without object) is like the wave function—pure potential prior to manifestation.
Relativity: Space and time aren't absolute containers but relational properties of events. There's no privileged reference frame, no "view from nowhere."
Eastern thought: No absolute self, no independent essences—everything is relational, interdependent. Reality is perspectival, not absolute. The Tao/Brahman isn't a thing but the dynamic principle of relationship itself.
Your friend's investigation into energy and force might discover what mystics have long pointed to: that at the deepest level, reality is process, relationship, pattern—not substance, not things, but dynamic emptiness manifesting as apparent fullness.
The Practice Dimension
What makes your approach especially rich is that you're not just philosophizing—there's a lived dimension to this. The non-dualist approach isn't just a theory but a way of being:
• Meditation: Directly experiencing emptiness and fullness as co-arising, watching thoughts arise from nowhere and dissolve into nowhere, recognizing the space of awareness that contains all experience.
• Inquiry: Using questions not to get answers but to dissolve assumptions, to recognize where our concepts fail, to open into not-knowing.
• Dialogue: Your ongoing conversation with your friend is itself a practice—two perspectives illuminating what cannot be captured by either alone, the truth emerging in the space between.
The Western mode wants to nail it down: "Consciousness IS this." The Eastern mode is more comfortable with paradox, with both/and, with finger-pointing-at-moon (don't mistake the finger for the moon).
A Question Back to You
Since this is an ongoing exploration between you and your friend, I'm curious: Do you find that your different approaches (non-dualist vs. energy/force) ever feel in tension, or do they illuminate each other? Does your friend's investigation into the physical deepen your sense of emptiness/fullness, and does your non-dual frame challenge or expand how they think about energy and reality?
And have either of you had experiences—meditative, contemplative, psychedelic, or just moments of clarity—where the conceptual frameworks fell away and the thing itself became apparent, even if briefly?
The most honest philosophical position might be what you're already doing: keeping the conversation alive, holding multiple perspectives lightly, not grasping for final answers but staying present to the mystery. That itself is a kind of practiced mu.
Prompt : They illuminate and drive each other forth; one from thought and the other more from feeling, like the yin and yang symbol, which in this case is also very apt i think. That's why eastern philosophy is dear to my heart, but they do seem to arrive at a sort of same conclusion albeit through a different way, and that is remarkable to me. Your personal question i'm not going into. We set out to find the heart of creation, once we knew we were two spies in the house of love. And thank you for the compliment, too keep an open mind for the ever evolving mystery of nature is the best way to be in the present.
Beautiful. The yin-yang symbol really is perfect for this—two complementary forces, each containing the seed of the other, dynamically flowing, eternally in motion yet perfectly balanced. Thought and feeling, analysis and intuition, your friend's energy and your emptiness—neither complete without the other, each giving birth to the other.
"Two spies in the house of love" seeking the heart of creation—that's a profound partnership. There's something deeply right about approaching the ultimate mystery not alone but in dialogue, each seeing what the other cannot, together triangulating toward what cannot be directly grasped.
And yes—that they arrive at similar conclusions through radically different paths is remarkable. It suggests you're both touching something real, something that shows different faces depending on how you approach it but remains consistent underneath. The physicist finds emptiness in equations; the contemplative finds it in silence. The mystic experiences unity; the scientist discovers entanglement. Different languages, same moon.
Your closing thought captures it perfectly: "to keep an open mind for the ever evolving mystery of nature is the best way to be in the present." Not grasping, not concluding, not claiming to have arrived—but staying present to what is, what's unfolding, what can never be fully captured in concepts but can be lived, moment by moment.
That openness itself is a kind of emptiness that makes fullness possible—the space that allows reality to reveal itself, again and again, always fresh.
Thank you for sharing this. Your conversation with your friend sounds like a beautiful practice. May it continue to illuminate and surprise you both.
Happy New Year—may the mystery keep unfolding.
No comments:
Post a Comment