[usmhot]

[ QUOTE ]
One can be consciously aware of the tree without interpreting/discriminating about its size, color, position in respect to perceiver. How is pure perception different from consciousness-awareness?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is exactly your use of the word 'aware' in this that confirms the nature of consciousness. We have a perception system which receives innumerable sensations, but the vast majority of these we are never 'aware' of - in other words never enter consciousness. For something to go from perception to consciousness it must be attended to and pulled into a contextual interpretation.

And, further, by saying 'One can be consciously aware of the tree' you are admitting to contextualisation, as to classify is to contextualise. To be aware of something is to identify it, classify it, contextualise it. Indeed, it is impossible to be conscious of something without identifying it.


[ QUOTE ]
"Also, it is impossible for two different observers to perceive the same reality."

Should they both be operating from a 'blank slate of consciousness' would their reality's not be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed no. The important point is that it is impossible for two observers, in any state to receive precisely the same perception sensations.

If they are separate in space then their perceptions are dependent on their disparate spatial locations - a different angle of perception will always yield different perceptions as nothing can be absolutely uniform.

And if they are separate in time (though at the same spatial location) then their perceptions are dependent on their disparate time locations - everything is subject to change and so cannot remain static from one moment to the next.