Awareness

The idea of self, or awareness is something that comes up in every theory, but the distinction between thought at awareness wasn't apparent to me before as I thought awareness was another thought. And tbh, it still really isn't. As I see it, there is an argument to be made that some thought arises from awareness, and some thoughts don't, but the idea of "awareness" is still untouched by logic.

The reason being that, while we can build logic around it, there are no "boundaries" we can yet put on consciousness. We do not know the meaning of awareness, we do not know where it comes from or how some thoughts are formed by it and how all thoughts are observed by it. It is an uncommunicatable idea. Not just within people but within one self as well, we can "feel" it but not describe it.

This is the reason behind why I used quantization as a way to seperate consciousness from thought. As we cannot yet but a boundary in an exact place, but we can claim a boundary is there, somewhere but we do not know where.

Since we cannot yet quantify it exactly, and making the absolute distinction between the seer and the seen, we can only claim there is something beyond both. Some unquantifiable thing that must exist. As of now, I have put a boundary between thought, feeling, qualia, and consciousness. But it remains to be seen where the exact boundary lies. Thought emerge from it, but is there a middle step between thought and consciousness (or awareness)?

When I think I can see my self thinking, and see myself seeing myself thinking and so on. So, the practical idea for making sense of this is to claim this "awarenss" is completely seperate from everything there. But since practicality sort of starts breaking down here, I do not know if this is the case.

For one can also claim awareness is formed within thought and that is it. Somehow. That would be a physicalist view. And until we know what awareness or "consciousness" truly is, through logic or otherwise. I feel the boundaries or quantization argument is the best we have to distinct the possible from the impossible.

In this argument the ultimate question is also the one that's in every theory. The question of why, reality is the way it is. Since indeed, it could have been anything but it somehow is this way, but when in this theory, the question of why, turns into a question of how. Which is interesting since then the questions nature is changed and seems not solely philosophical in nature.