Yes, much like "dreaming" is a way of saying "having a dream". A "dream" and a "perception" are synonymous in this respect.Terrapin Station wrote:Perceiving" is a way of saying "having a perception,"...
The "dreaming" (the "having-of-a-dream") is one thing; the activity.
The "dream" is another thing; the object of the activity.
The "perceiving" (the "having-of-a-perception") is one thing; the activity.
The "perception" is another thing; the object of the activity.
You can't "perceive" if there is no 'something' to perceive, ...right?...isn't this "something" the "perception" that we perceive?
Not so. It's stressing the activity of "we", the subject. "Perceptions" and "dreams" don't act. "We" (subjects) act.Terrapin Station wrote:...or in other words it's simply a way of actively referring to a perception. It's stressing the activity of perception.
RJG wrote:Perceptions ARE the "somethings" that we are conscious of.
It seems that (when you use plain English and "cut-to-the chase") you are simply saying that we can be conscious of something that we are not conscious of. ...yes?Consul wrote:No, (extrospective) perceptual consciousness doesn't require (introspective) perceptual consciousness of (extrospective) perceptual consciousness.
The "consciousness-of-X" is one thing; the activity.
The "X" is another thing; the object of the activity.
TWO different things.
...agreed?
You can't be "conscious-of-something" if there is no 'something' to be conscious of, ...right?