I'm forced, by talking about anything out of the proverbial blue, to refer to myself in some way. Which is unfortunate, as that gives it a little bit of the stereotypical whiney sound of today's one-track tracts. When I write, I don't mean to whine, I simply mean to portray a particular mindset or feeling without drawing on the fact that someone actually has that mindset.

Anyway, tangent aside. The nature of consciousness, self consciousness, self awareness and sentience. They all sound like the same thing, don't they? Yes, mental shortcuts are a very seductive thing. Consciousness I think, can be thought of as the Turing machine of beings. Notice how it's hard to concisely describe any of the above without relying on any of the others in an axiomatic way. Damn informational dependencies.

Consciousness then, for the sake of this rambling, is what makes a being seem alive. A set of actions and reactions mixed with instincts and built in mental schemata such that the being appears too complex to be explained away by a simple, lay action-reaction cause-effect observation.

Self awareness - I present this as a consciousness that has become so complex as to understand that it is a separate entity from those around it. That's it, though observe that this doesn't imply that it understands what it is, or indeed even that it is what it is! Only that it is separate.

Self consciousness. Now this is where it gets interesting, I think. This is where the being has internalised the knowledge that it is in fact simply an intricate layering of, what else, but action-reaction cause-effect stimulus-response. Self consciousness then, embodies some sort of understanding not just that the individual is a separate entity and independent of action, but actually having a rudimentary understanding as to what that cause and effect makeup is, what drives the individual; such as instinct, cognitive models, learned appropriate and advantageous reactions.

Sentience on the other hand - this actually surprised me when I came to understand what it means - is actually the possibility of experiencing emotional feelings.

Now, I'm not in any way a professional epistemologist, but treating this as the defining characteristic or attribute of advanced beings seems ever so slightly backward. It implies that following instincts (see consciousness above) is somehow a more advanced trait than understanding the reasons for the development of those functions and instead of overriding those now-understood actions and thoughts, to simply abide by them.

This is the part where a trail off as my brain has simply rotted away. I've written above the essential predicates to what I'm about to say though, so hopefully it will be understandable.

Logic, beliefs, arguments. Essentially this can be summed up within: 'What, the, *explicative*?!' We're now in the 21st century. Philosophers two thousand years ago were more in tune with their own minds, thoughts and deeds than most people are now.

Please, sit back. Relax, think. Is what you're thinking, what you're saying, sound? Are you simply riding on the wind of preserving mechanisms that evolution gave us? The necessity of these is long behind. We do not need to rely on macros of the mind. Mental shortcuts are inaccurate and indeed, sometimes lead to guaranteed falsehoods. They are damaging to the knowledge commons in today's world. It is not hard to recognise them, not hard at all.

So what do we do for enjoyment and what fellows over the pond seem to call "mind-veging" without simply letting it all out within debates and explanations? Well, a quick click on "recent deviations" would pretty much be the answer. Art. Entertainment - though I hasten to add entertainment is certainly not on the same level as art with regard to value. Voila, no need to affect, to damage the knowledge commons with primeval urges and automation.