Attention is then where things get escalated because more thought and focus is needed. — apokrisis
Those who defend the view that attention is identical with consciousness must either say that any animal capable of navigating and selecting features from the environment is conscious, or claim that these basic forms of information processing do not deserve the name 'attention'. Because of the evolutionary considerations we are using as theoretical background, as well as the broad consensus that these basic forms of attention are empirically confirmed, we find both options highly problematic. — Montemayor and Haladjian
A question worth bringing up is to ask, why is it that we think that the ID or super-ego would have a sort of will of their own?
I still feel like you're implying that neuroticism, which is simply sensitivity to negative emotions, is in itself problematic... is blindness to negative emotions preferable? It's basically shy people.
You also should understand that what is considered healthy, and sane is up for debate, and not agreed about by everyone.
it is not so much that the individual in questions 'wants' to eat, for example, but that it is uncontrollable, uncontainable
I just wanted to mention that there is a body of scientific and philosophical opinion that attention and consciousness overlap, but are clearly dissociated. — mcdoodle
Yes but I was talking about intentions. And it was my usage you were attacking. If you want to talk about intentionality, then that is a different subject. — apokrisis
Instead, arriving at a state of attentional focus is a process of evolving development. It begins with the vague potential of the many different attentional outcomes that could be the case, and then arrives eventually - half a second later - at the outcome, the state of intentionality, which appears to have the best fit for whatever are the challenges or opportunities of the moment. — apokrisis
Attention forms a generalised intent (that being the novel part), habit puts that into words (that being routine skill), and then attention can sign off on the final utterance - or at least come up with hasty self-correction having spotted something wrong with the way the words just came out. — apokrisis
In regards to habit or attention, they are both intentional or goal directed in a general sense. One is just intentions learnt and fixed while the other is the forming and particularisation of intentions. — apokrisis
So something vague like a discomfort leads to the intention to look closer. And yet something vague like a discomfort attracts your attention so that you might develop a suitable intention.
Hmm. See your problem? — apokrisis
So the facts you think significant are ones that are already accommodated. — apokrisis
So it should be clear that it was you making the category error, not myself. You talked about how "intentionality", and "a generalised intent" forms from attention, but when I took exception to this, you insisted you were talking about particular intentions. — Metaphysician Undercover
No I don't see any problem here. It is quite clear that intention develops from the more general toward the more particular. I'm hungry, I intend to eat. I look in the fridge and see some ground beef, so I intend to eat hamburger. I decide to turn on the BBQ and intend to eat grilled hamburgers. Intention is always there, whether it's in the more general, or more particular form. — Metaphysician Undercover
I take it we are in agreement then. It is incorrect to say that intentionality, or generalized intent is formed from attention. It is correct to say that things like attention and habit are formed with intention. So when I find you speaking in this incorrect way in the future, you should not object when I correct you. — Metaphysician Undercover
You are still not getting it. I said the process of attending leads to a particular state of intention. So it brings intentionality - our general long-run state of orientation to the world - into some particular focused state. — apokrisis
However we can talk also of intentions - some focused mindset that exists at some point of time. That would be intentionality particularised. — apokrisis
But you yourself said you had to notice that you were hungry. So attending to a feeling was a first step. And from there flowed an action plan, an intention to actually do some particular thing. Choices can only form following attention. Although faced with the same situation often enough, those choices do become habits. I know its confusing. — apokrisis
And then in doing that, the particular attentional/intentional state should be understood not as something already fleshed out and action specific, but instead a fixing of limits, a production of a state of generalised constraint on action.
From that generalised constraint on action, a habit level of performance can take over. — apokrisis
No, I'm not yet getting you understand a word I say. — apokrisis
A better neuroscientific division than conscious vs unconscious is attentional vs habitual. And in humans, both would have then have the extra feature of being linguistically structured. — apokrisis
2.9k
↪Nils Loc Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty are all similar to the myth of Psyche and Eros (Eros' mother Venus is the wicked queen/evil stepmother/malevolent fairy.)
The real is not lost, we have become unconscious of it, it is still there, just unable to speak. — Cavacava
Actually, you said that intentionality is formed by "attentional" focus. — Metaphysician Undercover
You lost me with your claim that attention and consciousness, habit and non-conscious, cannot be related. Just too contrary. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.