When doing philosophy in the Wittgensteinian vein, we like to take inventory, of the many ways in which a given word, the one under study, gets used in actual practice.
We cultivate our ability to conjure up all the ways in which we use “consciousness” for example, or just “conscious” versus “not conscious” versus “unconscious” and so on.
The EMT (emergency responder) wants to know of X is conscious, meaning aware of X’s surroundings, responsive to stimuli.
But then you’ll get a guru stepping in to talk about “levels” of consciousness, with “higher” and “lower” as possibilities. People talk about “raising consciousness” which would seem to have not much to do with the EMT’s meaning.
Sometimes “conscious” means “sentient” i.e. we think sensations must be happening. But other times we might say “this sentient being has no consciousness” meaning in some sense “no sense of self”.
But what does it mean to sense a self? We have to keep taking inventory, multiplying the number of special case examples.
To sense a self has to mean knowing a difference between sense of self and sense of other. This is what Wittgenstein would call a grammatical remark vs some deep truth or empirical finding. It’s “deep” in the same way “grammar” is deep, he’d famously put it.
Clearly, when we stop to really think about it, the number of language games in which “consciousness” figures is quite large, and then comes the game of explaining the “essence” of consciousness.
Per Wittgenstein, that’s just another game, typically philosophical in nature, with the connotation (in his writing) of empty wheel spinning.
Who says there needs to be some “essence” to which all these usage patterns must distill at the end of the day? Bad philosophers? Weak thinkers?
We might want to shift away from “consciousness” in some contexts, giving preference to the word “awareness” and emphasizing its “of otherness” focus, as in defining otherness we likewise define not-otherness, meaning self.
Awareness is a of a self-otherness dichotomy.
Do we need “self awareness” on top of simply “awareness”? Judging from common English, we need that nuance, yes.
So is awareness the same thing as consciousness then?
If your mental model is there’s this Thing, call it C for Consciousness (what it is, in itself) and Awareness and Consciousness are both labels for that Thing, then yes, “same thing” is apropos.
However, those following in Wittgenstein’s footsteps have learned to question the questionable dogma that there’s this Thing, this spooky essence.
We have the operational utility of these words, and get our work done with them.
Who says these terms are actually “labels of” or “pointers to” some Object (i.e. the “true meaning” per this particular superstition)? Weak thinkers? Dogmatists?
What does a pawn on the chessboard point to, as its meaning? Not the right question, right? Pawns don’t “point”. So now consider “consciousness” to be your pawn, your tool, your artifact. Use it however. And good luck making it point to some Thing. We all suffer from fevered dreams from time to time.
