Do you ever drive your car when not conscious of driving and when you pass a wreck you start driving while being conscious of driving.  Have you ever looked in the yellow pages for a shoe store only to discover a local shoe store that you pass twice ever day going to and from work that you were never conscious of.

No, I try to be conscious of everything I do.  I amost think you are talking of daydreaming.  You write a good piece, but i see little of substance.Lastly copying and pasting 90% of your previous post does not strengthen your argument.  Repetition does not make truth.

Sometimes it takes a little thought and imagination!  Unfortunately our schools and colleges teach us what to think and not how to think.  This will be good practice if you try.

I claim that comprehending is a hierarchy and can usefully be thought of as a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid is awareness that is followed by consciousness, which is awareness plus attention. Knowing follows consciousness and understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid.Two aspects of this comprehension idea deserve elaboration: consciousness and understanding.When I was a youngster, probably seven or eight, my father took me with him when he drove to a local farm to pick corn for use in the caf? the family managed. We drove for a significant amount of time down local dirt roads to a farm with a field of growing corn.We went into the fields with our bushel baskets and filled them with corn-on-the-cob. Dad showed me how to choose the corn to pick and how to snatch the cob from the stalk.On the drive home I was amazed to observe the numerous fields of corn we passed on the way back to town. I can distinctly remember thinking to myself, why did I not see these fields of corn while we were driving to the farm earlier?Today I have an answer to that question. I now say that on the way to the farm I was aware of corn-on-the-cob but on the way back home I was conscious of corn-on-the-cob. There was a very significant difference in my perceptions regarding corn-on-the-cob before and after the experience.We are aware of many things but conscious of only a small number of things. We were aware of Iraq before the war but now we are conscious of Iraq. There is a very important distinction between awareness and consciousness and it is important for us to recognize this difference.To be conscious of a matter signifies a focus of the intellect. Consciousness of a matter is the first step, which may lead to an understanding of the matter. Consciousness of a matter is a necessary condition for knowing and for understanding of that matter. Consciousness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowing and understanding to take place.When discussing a topic about which I am knowledgeable most people will, because they recognize the words I am using, treat the matter as old stuff. They recognize the words therefore they consider the matter as something they already know and do not consider as important. Because they are aware of the subject it is difficult to gain their attention when I attempt to go beyond the shallowness of their perception. The communication problem seems to be initially overcoming their awareness and reaching consciousness.Understanding is a long step beyond knowing. Understanding is the creation of meaning. Understanding represents a rare instance when intellection and emotion join hands and places me in an empathetic position with a domain of knowledge. When I understand I have connected the dots and have created a unity that includes myself. I have created something that is meaningful, which means that I have placed that domain of knowledge within my domain that I call my self. I understand because I have a very intimate connection with a model of reality that I have created. It is that eureka moment that happens rarely but is a moment of ecstasy. As Carl Sagan says ?understanding is a kind of ecstasy?.When I read I almost always read non fiction. I have tried to read fiction and to learn from reading what is considered to be good literature. However, my effort to read good literature fails because I thing that learning by reading good literature is a very inefficient means for gaining knowledge and understanding.I claim that I can acquire more knowledge in one hour by reading non fiction than I can while reading good literature for ten hours. That is, I claim that learning by reading non fiction is ten times more efficient than learning by reading fiction, i.e. good literature.

Simple, Morality is not knowledge.  No two different groups agree on a common moral code therefore there is no universal moral truth.  Unlike in physics, in morality one person thinks killing is justified and another does not;  gravity is there whether you believe in it or not.  Debating a universal morality is a circular exercise because everyone will never agree, unlike true science where experiment verifies observation.  Any supposed science of morality is a pipe-dream. 

Thus spake Sunday school morality.

We have developed a technology that places great power in our hands and we lack the sophistication, especially in matters of morality, to control such great power.

Collectively, we have enough firepower to blow up the whole earth 500 times over.  Why aren't we doing it if we're so lacking in sophistication?

We have the ability to perform a systematic and disciplined study (science) of any domain of knowledge.  I am aiming for a science of morality and thereby to remove the impression that this is a responsibility only for theologians and priests.  If we do not get a handle on this matter we will surly self-destruct before long.

I'm not saying it's the responsibility of theologians and priests.  What I meant is that religion is a very strong motivating factor for human morality.  That is a fact.

  One reason that we have so much difficulty with moral judgments is because no one knows any thing about these matters

So are you saying humans don't know right from wrong? What about those who haven't attended Sunday school or church and who are generally moral?

  We have allowed religion to take over this domain of knowledge and thus many of our wars that are fought in the name of religion.

It "appears" wars are fought over religion, but if you look deeply at many of these religious war, it's more about power, control, and in many cases freedom, than it is about religion.Morality is not a field of science. It is more sociology asnd philosophy.  It cannot be studied using scientific methods because we don't know how monkeys feel and think. 

The fact that X has been predicted but X has not happened does not justify the conclusion that it won't happen.Relgion is a strong motivating factor war.Humans know little about morality.  That is why a science of morality is so important.Any domain of knowledge is a field for systematic, disciplined, and empirical study.