Re: virus: FAQ: question (a) - Level 3

Robin Faichney (
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:59:28 +0100

In message <002001bebb4f$91a56a20$>, Eric Boyd <> writes
>Robin Faichney <> writes:
><< {SB says "There are other ways of being conscious."}
>As a Buddhist, SB implicitly believes in level 3.
>Yes. Susan's lime just above that ("There can be consciousness
>without self-consciousness") sums up her position quite well. Perhaps
>I misunderstand level 3, but I always though of it as depending on
>self-consciousness and the selfplex (how else do "you" choose "your"

Richard endorsed a recent post of mine in which I said, "you" have to discover it, not invent or adopt it. Or, if you like, allow it to reveal itself to you. Some religious types would say, be still, and God's plan for you will become clear. There's a motto, which may derive from a Bible quote, used by Sussex University among others, which goes something like "Be still, and know".

>I personally think the two words above ('consciousness' and
>'self-consciousness') are one and the same in meaning, but given a
>contrast between them, I guess consciousness must be something like
>'thought processes' or 'cognition'. In which case Susan is saying we
>can think without _thinking_ about thinking, which is clearly true
>(although, like she says, more than little disconcerting when you
>notice that it has happened...)

SB's concept of consciousness seems more like mine than yours. For us, there's a very significant difference between self-consciousness and non-self-consciousness. Basic consciousness is closer to simple (?) sensory awareness, than to any kind of cognition. So you have sensory awareness, then conceptualisation, one of the concepts being the self, self-awareness being awareness of that concept (along with associated emotional baggage, etc.).

Robin Faichney
Visit The Conscious Machine at