Except that it's not. I've tried to be clear. I want to talk about the meaning of "consciousness" in the sense it is used when one says "the hard problem of consciousness." — T Clark

Except that the whole OP, fascinating as it is, is not clear at all.

The thread title is: 'What does ''consciousness'' mean ?'.
This is a general question. It is a more holistic question. And one that attracts many ways of looking.
Never mind 'consciousness', the meaning of 'meaning' is itself ambiguous.

I don’t mind discussing other meanings or shades of meaning, but generally only with the goal of addressing ambiguity. — T Clark

That is exactly what @Banno kicked off with his cryptic and 'absurd' comment.
Its quirky creativity drew me in until my last response:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532625

It would be nice if the people starting those discussions would be clear about these kinds of issues. That's not likely to happen. I mostly started this post to clarify in my own mind what I mean when I use these words. — T Clark

If there is confusion in any thread as to the use of the word 'consciousness', then it is probably best addressed by questioning the author at that specific moment.

'It would be nice if...'
People could be less 'triggered' by and hostile to others who look at issues from a different angle. That there is relevance there, even if it might seem that it doesn't 'respect' the OP.

"Consciousness" does not only mean an experience, but that's the aspect of the word I want to examine in this thread. — T Clark

And this is why I started this discussion, to help give us common language to discuss this issue. — T Clark

:smile:

There's this: 'Dancing in The Dark' - Bruce Springsteen (3:58)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=129kuDCQtHs
With focus on his body...I mean...just look at even the cover of 'Born in the USA' :cool:
Dancing with Courteney Cox.

and then, there's this:

'Dancing in The Dark' - Bruce Springsteen (7:41)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7lfzARGXGw
Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band performing "Dancing In The Dark" at the Hard Rock Calling festival in London, 2013.
Recreating the video, this time he pulls in his Mum, later his 'baby sis' playing guitar with him...

Martin Rowson on Labour’s hopes in Hartlepool byelection – cartoon

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/may/05/martin-rowson-labour-hartlepool-byelection-keir-starmer-boris-johnson-cartoon

Yup.

Labour has suffered a humiliating byelection defeat in Hartlepool after the party’s former heartland town elected a Conservative MP for the first time in 62 years.

The Tories won 15,529 votes, with Labour recording 8,589

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/07/hartlepool-byelection-result-labour-starmer-conservatives

I think the political landscape will look quite different in a few years time. But will we be happy with the Tory rule again and accepting a more US style of politics and economy, or will we be turning socialist and rebuilding our country and real economy, more along social democratic lines and realigning with the EU? — Punshhh

I am following the election results:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/may/07/elections-2021-latest-results-scotland-england-wales-hartlepool-labour-conservatives-snp-live

Not looking good for Starmer
Elections 2021: Starmer facing Labour backlash after Tories’ historic win in Hartlepool – live

I wasn't just responding to your post, but the trail of the thread which does seem to be wishing to narrow down the use of the term. I thought that the OP was trying to explore the term rather than come up with the most commonplace definition. — Jack Cummins

I think the thread is going well. I don't see any wish to narrow down the use of the term.
Yes, it is an exploration.

From the OP:

Part of the problem is that the words in my list have other meanings. Examples:

When I wake from a coma, I become conscious
When I stop daydreaming, I become aware
When I feel shy and embarrassed, I am self-consciousness

I don’t mind discussing other meanings or shades of meaning, but generally only with the goal of addressing ambiguity. — T Clark

I think that @Banno has offered 'The First Aid course' as an example where all aspects of the meaning of 'consciousness' can be explored. That is, if there is the imagination to consider it from another angle...to see the different types and nature of 'consciousness' as arising and working in, through and around people...

You don't seem to have read or understood my post.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532572

:smile:

I'm afraid that I am having a problem with you wishing to narrow down the idea of consciousness to that of a first aid test. — Jack Cummins

That's not what he is doing.

I have attended first aid training, so of course, it is an essential definition, but a medical one rather than a philosophical one — Jack Cummins

It's not about a single definition but about seeing examples of it in practice. The people involved.
The whole human experience.

thinking about it should not be reduced to one way of seeing it. — Jack Cummins

Indeed.

a First Aid course involving people training people to look after people, it is a total picture of:

Consciousness
Self-consciousness
Awareness
Self-awareness
Sentience
Mind
— T Clark

Think about it... — Amity

keeping one eye on the practicalities might be useful as the conversation proceeds. — Banno

Yes. And the other eye/s on...?

Shit or get off the pot. — bert1

:smile:
You are right. I should stop wasting my time here and get on with something else more productive.
Bye. But @Banno is spot on...

OK, so please could you explain your point? — bert1

I could.
And so could @Banno if he so desires...

Ok, I just did. — bert1

Not long or hard enough.

The best answer is to be found in a First Aid course. — Banno

At first glance, this can look absurd.
However, a First Aid course involving people training people to look after people, it is a total picture of:

Consciousness
Self-consciousness
Awareness
Self-awareness
Sentience
Mind — T Clark

Think about it...

...consciousness isn't as important as it thinks it is. — TheMadFool

If it is consciousness that you wish to discuss, then think about folllowing the advice offered by @Possibility

I’m thinking you might need to be clearer with your use of ‘brain’, ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’. — Possibility

visiting the relevant Wikipedia pages — TheMadFool

If you haven't already researched 'Consciousness', here's a start:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

At the very least, it is necessary to differentiate between the different types and approaches.

Best wishes.

I know when blood rushes from one head to the other head, we discover a beautiful truth. — James Riley

:smile:

I decided to go play elsewhere:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/531767

10 Signs You Are a Dickhead (3:24)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6g9zUxDCxk

fainting/syncope. — TheMadFool

what explains the loss of consciousness when the brain shuts down? — TheMadFool

The brain does not shut down in the case of loss of consciousness.
See previous responses:

Non-essential body and mental processes are shut down.
However, the brain is still essential. — Amity

I think you may be incorrectly assuming that the entire organ shuts down, but we commonly lose consciousness without losing all brain function. It is consciousness, then, that can be determined a non-essential function in times of crisis, not the brain — Possibility

With reference to Syncope, the mechanisms re loss of consciousness and blood supply are explained here :

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-do-humans-faint

The sympathetic nervous system makes sure the small blood vessels in your body's tissue maintain a baseline level of constriction. This resistance as blood flows through all your narrow blood vessels contributes to sufficient blood pressure for the whole system.

An increase in parasympathetic activity reverses this resistance, allowing blood to linger in the peripheral tissues rather than heading to the heart and brain. A lack of resistance, along with the lowered heart rate, causes a dramatic decrease in blood pressure.

And you've fainted – or more technically, experienced a neurocardiogenic syncope. While sometimes embarrassing, it's fairly common and, in itself, not overly dangerous.

the point is consciousness is the first to be switche off and that implies, it's of least importance. — TheMadFool

You have moved from claiming that the brain is non-essential to consciousness being of least importance.

We're forced to conclude, like it or not, that the brain/mind is the most nonessential organ in our body. — TheMadFool

Nope. It is not the case that the brain is the most nonessential organ in our body.

My brain talking to your brain...two nonessential items vying for what appears to be the last position in the rankings. — TheMadFool

Perhaps your brain is nonessential, not mine. Thanks for the exercise - not vying for any position on any TPF 'rankings' - just to keep on thinking...for better or worse :roll:

A deep song, eh? I think I have one. — Manuel

Now that is deep. What else could it be ?
Tangled up in blue.
Never heard this before. Thanks :cool:

As to my earlier 'pick', so pale pink.
But the title ain't bad ?

Removed comment. Not worth pursuing.

...

More facts about the brain:
https://www.rchsd.org/health-articles/brain-and-nervous-system-2/

In other words, insofar as the body is concerned, the brain/mind is a nonessential i.e. it can be and is shut down in times of crisis — TheMadFool

Utter nonsense.
As is:

To sum it all up,

1. The belief we have that our minds/brains come first - defines what it is to be human, takes precedence over any and all - is a grand illusion, a delusion of grandeur, a misconception of the highest order.

2. The irony of this realization, if it counts as such, is not lost on me and the reader too must come to terms with the truth that this post/thread is simply the brain/mind telling itself how insignificant it itself is in the grand scheme of things I suppose. — TheMadFool

Where did you drag all this up from and what do you hope to achieve by posting such ?

From: https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-science-behind-ptsd-symptoms-how-trauma-changes-the-brain#2

The 3-Part Brain

The Triune Brain model, introduced by physician and neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean, explains the brain in three parts:

Reptilian (brain stem): This innermost part of the brain is responsible for survival instincts and autonomic body processes.

Mammalian (limbic, midbrain): The midlevel of the brain, this part processes emotions and conveys sensory relays.

Neommalian (cortex, forebrain): The most highly evolved part of the brain, this area outer controls cognitive processing, decision-making, learning, memory and inhibitory functions.

During a traumatic experience, the reptilian brain takes control, shifting the body into reactive mode. Shutting down all non-essential body and mind processes, the brain stem orchestrates survival mode. During this time the sympathetic nervous system increases stress hormones and prepares the body to fight, flee or freeze.

Non-essential body and mental processes are shut down.
However, the brain is still essential.

Justin Hayward (20:36)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6qkMD6-7Qk&t=0s

From Ted B -
A selection of favorite Justin Hayward compositions, 2 with the Moody Blues and 2 solo (with John Lodge) from "Blue Jays".
Songs
1) The Land of Make Believe (Seventh Sojourn 1972)
A wonderful song, my favorite from the Moody Blues.
2) This Morning (Blue Jays 1975)
Another top song, not far behind 1)
3) Nights Winters Years (Blue Jays 1975)
A lovely song. To my mind, one of few successful pop songs with full orchestral backing.
4) Nights in White Satin (Days of future passed 1967)
A classic for all time, well deserved.

'Isn't Life Strange' - The Moody Blues (6:04)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESER7DFXWiI

"Isn't Life Strange" is from the album "Seventh Sojourn"
(Images are from Michigan's Silver Lake Sand Dunes)

Isn't life strange
A turn of the page
Can read like before
Can we ask for more?
Each day passes by
How hard man will try?
The sea will not wait
You know it makes me want to cry, cry, cry -

Wished I could be in your heart
To be one with your love
Wished I could be in your eyes
Looking back there you were, and here we are.

Isn't love strange
A word we arrange
With no thought or care
Maker of despair
Each breath that we breathe
With love we must weave
To make us as one
You know it makes me want to cry, cry, cry -

Wished I could be in your heart
To be one with your love
Wished I could be in your eyes
Looking back there you were, and here we are.

Isn't life strange
A turn of the page
A book without light
Unless with love we write;
To throw it away
To lose just a day
The quicksand of time
You know it makes me want to cry, cry, cry -

Wished I could be in your heart
To be one with your love
Wished I could be in your eyes
Looking back there you were

Wished I could be in your heart
To be one with your love
Wished I could be in your eyes
Looking back there you were

Wished I could be in your heart
To be one with your love
Wished I could be in your eyes
Looking back there you were...

Songwriters: J Lodge
For non-commercial use only.
Data from: Musixmatch

4 more songs from Justin Hayward, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/531659

1) The Land of Make Believe
2) This Morning
3) Nights Winters Years
4) Nights in White Satin

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QOARhF6yHoo

"Love Me or Leave Me" (3:18)
performed by Billie Holiday, Teddy Wilson &
His Orchestra, 1941
written by W. Donaldson & G. Kahn, 1928 — 180 Proof

Excellent :heart: :cool: :sparkle:

I had only ever heard this sung by Doris Day. Enough said...

The love of this process is a love of the process itself. I think it was yGasset who said “I do not hunt to kill. I kill to have hunted.” Answers are nice, but ancillary to the process, the struggle, the honing of one’s edge upon hard stone, the being a hard stone upon which others might hone their edge. Hard does not mean being an asshole. There are other venues where that may be a good thing. But being an asshole buries the process, the hunt, within another process, obscuring the first, and obscuring the process which the lover of wisdom loves. — James Riley

Thank you for taking the time to respond in such a careful and thoughtful manner. I agree with all of this.

All the best with your eye surgery — James Riley

Appreciate the best wishes.
It's on Thursday, so I should be giving my eyeballs a rest.
*sigh* - not the wisest of birds, huh ? :roll:

Thoreau talks about this in Walden:
There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. — Fooloso4

I wonder about the context. What made him say this ? A disenchantment with a type of philosophy as taught in academia ? Mainstream. Fair enough. But not all professors of philosophy are limited to the confines and theories of the teaching environment - they are well read and open to other aspects of life. Not everyone can take time out in the woods. He must have known this...so why the comment ?

Thoreau himself was a philosopher - among many. He is to be admired. He understood philosophy as a way of life. As such, he not only lived in contemplation in nature but was also involved in political action.

He was an activist involved in the abolitionist movement on many fronts: he participated in the Underground Railroad, protested against the Fugitive Slave Law, and gave support to John Brown and his party. Most importantly perhaps, he provides a justification for principled revolt and a method of nonviolent resistance, both of which would have a considerable influence on revolutionary movements in the twentieth century. — SEP article: Thoreau by R. Furtak

I like that he connects facts and values as holistic and natural.

Thoreau urges his reader not to “underrate the value of a fact,” since each concrete detail of the world may contain a meaningful truth (“Natural History of Massachusetts”). Note the phrase: the value of a fact. Thoreau does not introduce an artificial distinction between facts and values, or between primary and secondary qualities, since he understands the universe as an organic whole in which mind and matter are inseparable. When we perceive sights, sounds, and textures, we are not standing as disembodied consciousness apart from a world of inanimate mechanisms; rather, we are sentient beings immersed in the sensory world, learning the “essential facts of life” only through “the perpetual instilling and drenching of the reality that surrounds us” (Walden, II)...

Contemporary philosophers are increasingly discovering how much Thoreau has to teach—especially, in the areas of knowledge and perception, and in ethical debates about the value of land and life. His affinities with the pragmatic and phenomenological traditions, and the enormous resources he offers for environmental philosophy, have also started to receive more attention—and Walden itself continues to be encountered by readers as a remarkable provocation to philosophical thought.
— SEP article: Thoreau by R. Furtak

That's an in-depth analysis. — Manuel

Yeah, I know. I need to go lie down now...
I blame the video, it kinda grabbed my attention - should just have listened :wink:

I like this. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting lyrics and video of self-drawing then the scrunching up of the pages, the physical images of the self being erased...

'I'm beginning to find that when
I drive myself my light is found'

When all the selves are scattered at the end of the video, it seems as if the driver is in reverse.
Perhaps circling back to feeling
'... the fear of
Uncertainty stinging clear
And I, can't help but ask myself how much I'll let the fear
Take the wheel and steer'

However, ends up with a certainty that:
'Whatever tomorrow brings I'll be there
With open arms and open eyes'.

Really :cool:
Not to mention - the guy is fit :100:

I answer only as broadly as I needed to in order to convey my experience of studying, practicing & discussing philosophy which some may recognize as similiar to their own experience. — 180 Proof

That is wise. And I do recognise it as similar to my own. Although, my own experience is not as deep or knowledgeable.

wiki is a reliable prompt, can't let it become a crutch — 180 Proof

Well, it's not always that reliable but serves its purpose as a provider of basic information which you can choose to take or leave. Or even amend, should the desire take you...
I have other helpers and support when necessary.

Enjoying the connection with you and @Fooloso4 and others, of course...even some disconnection issues in some areas...

primarily, philosophy for me is – apparently, you as well, Fooloso4 – experienced as an contemplative practice and, therefore, is better understood intersubjectively (i.e. mutually recognizable, shared experiences of fellow (dialectical) autodidacts) than objectively (i.e. a reductive, subject/pov/language–invariant, algorithm). — 180 Proof

Well. That I like. Intersubjectivity. Sounds wholesome. The holistic view of life. :cool:
But wait, am I too quick to agree?

Intersubjectivity is a term coined by social scientists as a short-hand description for a variety of human interactions. For example, social psychologists Alex Gillespie and Flora Cornish listed at least seven definitions of intersubjectivity (and other disciplines have additional definitions):

people's agreement on the shared definition of an object;
people's mutual awareness of agreement or disagreement, or of understanding or misunderstanding each other;
people's attribution of intentionality, feelings, and beliefs to each other;
people's implicit or automatic behavioral orientations towards other people;
people's interactive performance within a situation;
people's shared and taken-for-granted background assumptions, whether consensual or contested; and
"the variety of possible relations between people's perspectives".[1] — wiki

How many definitions ?!
Recognising, Contemplating and Discussing shared experiences - is that all there is...to the purpose of philosophy ? But no, you said 'Primarily'...

The pragmatic maxim is used in the process to make concept clearer in relating to the pratical. If the object of an concept don't relate to the pratical anyhow, it's meaningless as the goal of thought is to create habit of action. — Nzomigni

Well so far, I think much of this makes sense. Thinking geared towards practical implications and action.
However, I take issue with the idea that 'the goal of thought is to create habit of action'.
Where do you find this ?

Dewey thought that "true" carried so much baggage with it that it was best avoided. So, he took to using (in his writings, anyhow) "warranted assertibility." Dewey rejected the "spectator" or correspondance view of knowledge, and instead claimed that what we know results from our interaction with the rest of the world. Ideally, that would be the result of inquiry, through the employment of the scientific method in some cases, but could be the result of trial and error, solving problems, and seeing what "works" in particular circumstances. With enough evidence obtained through inquiry, we may be warranted in asserting that something is the case, and may act upon it in the future. "Truth" is better applied to judgments than propositions as a result. As a result what we consider "true" or what we think we "know" may change, as new evidence is received. Truth isn't static, therefore. — Ciceronianus the White

I am with Dewey in not being overfond of certain uses of the word 'true'. Acting on warranted assertion - or a confidently held fact - following inquiry as described - that makes sense to me.
It is true that what we consider 'true' or what we think we 'know' may change.

I liked the BBC text that Amity quoted, in particular:

It took knowledge to be meaningful only when coupled with action. The function of thought was taken not to represent or "mirror" the world, but instead was considered an instrument or tool for prediction, problem-solving, and action. In this way, it was a philosophy deeply embedded in the reality of life, concerned firstly with the individual's direct experience of the world they inhabit. — T Clark

Yes. I also liked but query this one:

According to William James, the pragmatist "turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power".

I see thought or thinking as a tool but not just for practical decision-making but also leaning 'towards power' or creativity or energy. It includes imagination...which is not particularly 'concrete'. But I think know I am being too lazy and superficial at the moment - just plain wrong to look at snippets :yikes:
More in-depth stuff required...like actually following up on and listening to my own links:

This is followed by an 'Introduction to American Pragmatism' (41:26)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmbyCybs_QI — Amity

Appreciate all the input; the background information most interesting and the links I will follow up.
At some point... :sparkle:

This shows the problem with the question about the purpose of philosophy — Fooloso4

Yes :100:

People are engaged in different activities, and the only thing they all have in common is that they are called philosophy. — Fooloso4

Well, not all activities on here are called 'philosophy' are they ?

It is an aid to processing our own thoughts, feelings and attitudes when any character, other than the love of wisdom, takes a seat. Granted, no one is perfect, and the proof of that, in oneself, is in trying to carry another, especially when that other is looking for reactions instead of reason. — James Riley

For the ancients, I think that the 'love of wisdom' was not about reason alone but concerned knowledge of the self and of the whole. For the examined life, the psychological 'character' is included.
Feelings and attitudes do 'take a seat' - they have their place but not necessarily centre stage.

I don't know what you mean by 'carrying' another. I agree it is difficult, and perhaps a waste of time, to carry on a conversation with someone who is only looking for an emotional reaction.
However, others might want to poke you and your thoughts with a pointy stick.

You are a better man than me. — James Riley

Nope.

I don't believe it is an either/or proposition. The vetting described is the demonstration of passion and action. I'm seeing it in you, now. — James Riley

Neither do I. I see the same passion and action in you. Of course, I am due to have an operation on my left eye so my vision might be impaired. However, it does sound like you are fairly emotionally involved in your defence of reason and 'love of wisdom'.

[Socrates]...If he presented himself to an open forum, I would ask him questions to understand why he is or is not as I perceive him to be. If he wanted me to piss him off in the pursuit, I guess I could try to humor him. But he would have to tell me that, or I'd have to ask him: "Hey Socrates, how best can I get you to explain to me why I think you are wise? Should I piss you off, so you can show me I am wrong about you? Or should I just ask well-thought-out, probing questions?" — Amity

[ Note: this and the original quote is that of @James Riley - not mine.
Don't know how to fix that ? Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/530955 ]

Well. I think it is more likely that it would be the other way around. If S. were to appear in a public meeting place, it would be him asking the pesky questions. He was aka 'The Gadfly' and seen as a pest who could and did 'piss people off'.
However, his aim was to encourage people to examine their lives and the status quo of the day. He was seen as a major threat by the authorities. You know the rest...

He was 'tried' in more ways than one in everyday life.
Apparently, he married a shrewish woman who would, I guess, provide a challenge to his presence of mind...as well as an income.
If S. were to appear here - as a strange and penniless pain in the arse, I hope we would make him welcome. Who knows - perhaps he is here in spirit :scream:

I did not number them as you did. In my opinion, doing so makes them seem exclusive as opposed to complementary. — James Riley

Yes. Apologies for that. It was for ease of reference. It turns out that it didn't make things easier at all.

Thanks for clarification of what you meant by 'a better vetting process'. It is not the moderation of participants as I thought it might be.

If my intellectual curiosity is sincere, then I will not ask you a question in such a way as to get the answer I want. The vetting I suggest would be questioning intended to elicit a reasoned response — James Riley

OK. If the intention of a questioner is simply to find agreement there is doubt about the whole point of the enterprise. However, that isn't necessarily wrong or insincere, is it ?

Questions are not always easy to form. Even well thought out questions with a view to reasoned discussion can lead down surprising avenues to explore, including others' reactions.

We aren't ideal, we have to deal with the unideal. And we ask unideal questions for all kinds of reasons.

Having seen teachers help students makes fools of themselves in front of a class did indeed reveal the character of the student in his response. But it was usually just a witness to human nature and nothing new. Anyone can piss someone off. — James Riley

Compared to the classroom experience, the 'new' part of learning in TPF environment is perhaps less about people showing or witnessing character but more about processing our own thoughts, feelings and attitudes.

Reason tends to fly out the window when we feel under attack. Initial sensations of dislike or discomfort can limit our ability to stand back and think 'straight'.
I don't mind being 'pissed off' or people being 'pissed off' with me.
It shows passion and action.
It is better than complete apathy or indifference.
A little bit of aggravation is good for the soul. Now is that 'wise' or not ? :chin:
Does that last question meet the standard of a 'sincere intellectual curiosity'?
Does that one...?

The only thing which I wonder about is your remark that you are not sure if yours was a peak experience

The conclusion which I have at present is that I don't think that we should worry too much about whether ours is the real thing. Really, I see it as an entire spectrum of potential experiences which go beyond the mundane. In opening the thread I was really wishing to enable people to explore all the possibilities of this, with a view to thinking about consciousness explorations, and how this can be potentially enhance our lives. — Jack Cummins

Yes. I agree that any experience which is out of one's ordinary or usual state is part of a spectrum.
It is how we interpret it that matters. After the initial weirdness, there can be a reflection on whether or not it has changed anything about the way we see the world, and our place in it.
Just as in any 'reading' of texts, music, art...there can be many 'Wow!' and 'Non-Wow' moments.
All with potential importance...for growth and development...fun and batteries included.

I wonder if a lot more people experience some kind of peak experiences, but are a bit cautious, and reserved about talking about these. — Jack Cummins

I am not certain that what I described was a 'peak experience'. What is a 'peak experience' ?

According to Maslow, often reported emotions in a peak experience include "wonder, awe, reverence, humility, surrender, and even worship before the greatness of the experience", and reality is perceived with "truth, goodness, beauty, wholeness, aliveness, uniqueness, perfection, completion, justice, simplicity, richness, effortlessness, playfulness, self-sufficiency".[2]

An individual in a peak experience will perceive the following simultaneously: — Wiki - Peak experience

• loss of judgment to time and space[6]
• the feeling of being one whole and harmonious self, free of dissociation or inner conflict[3]
• the feeling of using all capacities and capabilities at their highest potential, or being "fully functioning"[6]
• functioning effortlessly and easily without strain or struggle[6]
• feeling completely responsible for perceptions and behavior. Use of self-determination to becoming stronger, more single-minded, and fully volitional[6]
• being without inhibition, fear, doubt, and self-criticism[6]
• spontaneity, expressiveness, and naturally flowing behavior that is not constrained by conformity[6]
• a free mind that is flexible and open to creative thoughts and ideas[6]
• complete mindfulness of the present moment without influence of past or expected future experiences[6]
• a physical feeling of warmth, along with a sensation of pleasant vibrations emanating from the heart area outward into the limbs.

I am glad that someone else is admitting to having some experiences. — Jack Cummins

I only share what I think might be helpful in a given context. It is not a case of 'admitting to'.
At one time, I wouldn't even have done that. There are reasons why people don't talk about certain experiences, especially on a public forum. Understandable. Some give far too much away, leaving them vulnerable...

I've never been quite sure how to interpret this 'love of wisdom'. It sounds passive and slightly lackluster. It seems to miss something of the vigor attached to challenging one's assumptions and beliefs and actually fighting to comprehend something new and alien. — Tom Storm

Like-wise.
However, the 'wisdom' part can be seen as a 'notion'; what is 'wisdom'.
The 'love' part can be seen as the 'emotion', the spark which triggers the 'motion', the process you talk about. That earlier 'notion >emotion > motion' we talked of before.

Wisdom: what is it to be 'wise' ? Well, you will find different types according to any espoused 'religion'.
I tend to a practical, everyday type - the desire to lead a life combining knowledge and experience to gain insights into what might be the best action to take in certain circumstances.

That depends on context and connections, not having an absolute ready-to-go answer.

The Philosophy Forum is a gym...And some of us (me) should learn to stretch and pace ourselves or we'll pull a muscle. — James Riley

Yes. For me, strange as it may seem...coming here is a way to exercise my brain. It needs all the help it can get. It is also a way to increase tolerance levels, or not. To learn how to respond, or not.
Spending time to think - read, question and respond carefully. That's about my limit. I can't 'do' the heavy stuff nor can I read like the junkie I once was...the physicality of it tires me out. Pacing is practically compulsory...

I guess love can be feigned. Maybe a 1. better vetting process would help. Maybe trying to 2. avoid triggering someone with comments about their thoughts. Maybe 3. questions from sincere curiosity. 4. Maybe trying to be helpful instead of superior — James Riley

'Love of wisdom' - might be taken as 'love of philosophy', doing philosophy, writing philosophical theories, acting philosophical...
Are they the same thing ?
We can all self-deceive as to the quantity and quality of our professed love and wisdom.

Yep, and sometimes the ones who think they aren't, are and the ones who think they are, aren't. — Tom Storm

@James Riley - see my numbering and underlines in your quote above.
I agree with 3. and 4.
I question 1. and 2.
1. What kind of vetting ? How would it help ?
2. Comments about thoughts are part and parcel of being challenged, no ? They are a stimulus which can be responded to. Both in positive and negative ways. Part of the learning process.

So, the purpose of philosophy. If it is a love of a certain way of life, what does that mean?
For me, it is a cyclical, ongoing process.
Observing, reflecting, assessing, evaluating, decision-making, acting.
Appreciating in awareness. But then just getting on with it all...to the best of my ability.

And I explore - a lot - perhaps too much :nerd:
I found this:
http://blog.cambridgecoaching.com/blog/bid/315728/Philosophy-Tutor-What-is-the-love-of-wisdom

Though with me it's been (mostly) with novels. — Manuel

It's like the core of my consciousness remains still while the surrounding waves of experience start spinning in place. They go around me and end up coming back to were I was, but I'm slightly different. — Manuel

Well. I want that novel. And I want it NOW !! :cool:

Like many, there are times when reading that words affect me so that I have to stop and savour the moment - other times I get carried away...
I always mean to take a note, perhaps for later quoting, but I never do, so wrapped up in the experience.
And yes, everything we take in makes a difference to us in some way or another...