As above.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Is the awareness of awareness of an object an object?

If the awareness of an object is itself an object, then it only makes sense that the awareness of the awareness is also an object.

Of course, the first premise is arguable.

Of course we are now aware that we are aware that we are aware.

And now we are aware, that we are aware that we are aware, that we are aware.


....

Do we have an arbitrarily large number of observers?

Rather, I think these are just mental constructs that provide an artificial higherarchy to levels of thought. I think there is one observer, and an infinite number of frames of reference for that observer. Much in the same way, if you hold two mirrors in front of each other with you standing between them, you might see a virtual infinity of you's, but there is still only one you.

And now you know; and I know that you know...and I know that you know that I know that you know...

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think there is one observer, and an infinite number of frames of reference for that observer.

This is functionally identical to there existing multiple observers with separate frames of reference, except your version is unnecessarily complicated and psedo-mystical.

Would you care to explain?

Your claim that we are all one observer, with different frames of reference, is just an unnecessarily mystical way of stating 'we are different people.'

Part of being defined as a person is to have your own frame of reference. Therefore, to say we each have our own frame of reference AND to say that we're all one observer, is inconsistent. To have a different frame of reference IS to be a different observer, not the same one.

Originally posted by TheERK
[B]Your claim that we are all one observer, with different frames of reference, is just an unnecessarily mystical way of stating 'we are different people.'

What is mystical about this? Rather, I think these are just mental constructs that provide an artificial higherarchy to levels of thought.

This statement is clearly not mystical by any stretch of the imagination.

Part of being defined as a person is to have your own frame of reference. Therefore, to say we each have our own frame of reference AND to say that we're all one observer, is inconsistent. To have a different frame of reference IS to be a different observer, not the same one.

I said that we have an infinite number of frames of reference for one observer. In the strictest physical sense, if I move to the right one foot I have changed my frame of reference. Am I now someone different?

a moment ago I did not understand a problem, now I do, Am I different?

If we pursue this line of reasoning, uniqueness exist only in the moment; this still leaves only one observer for any observation.

Originally posted by TheERK
If the awareness of an object is itself an object, then it only makes sense that the awareness of the awareness is also an object.

Of course, the first premise is arguable.
Do you assume tnat the awareness of a real object is the same as the awareness of perception?

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Do you assume tnat the awareness of a real object is the same as the awareness of perception?

Yes. We have no other way to be aware of something other than our perception of said thing--and then, a mental interpretation of those perceptions.

You're not directly aware of the computer screen in front of you, but you're aware of the visual field influenced by it. Because of this, you are aware of the idea of 'computer screen', because your brain analyses that data.