>>8587474>But there is either awareness, or no awareness - the presence or absence of awareness is binary. Any bit of awareness, and you're already aware as opposed to unaware.
I'm not convinced this is true. I slightly suspect that it's too confused and too simplistic to be true or false. However, I offer no contest at this point.
For example, let me take something from Dennett (<3). In a room full of college professors who study philosophy of mind, he did the change blindness test on the audience of professors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness
Afterwards, Dennett said, paraphrase: "At some point, you saw the images, quickly changing from one to the other. Your optical nerves registered the difference from the start, but it took most of you a second or more to 'consciously recognize' the difference in a way that would allow you to vocalize and describe the difference in English. So, did you have qualia of the difference before this moment, or not?"
A third of the professors said "obviously yes, I had qualia of the difference before I noticed it", and another third said "obviously no, I didn't have qualia of it if I didn't notice it", and the last third said "oh my god, I never thought about it like that".
I similarly suspect that the term "aware" is not rigorous enough for the discussion, and I suspect that we don't have enough understanding, in order for what you wrote to be really meaningful.