John Searle talks about intentionality rising to the level of background abilities. In other words, your mind steers at the level of its expertise (which is a function of experience and skill). A beginning skier focuses on 'shifting weight onto the downhill ski' in each corner, while an expert skier just 'picks a path' down a slope. — Pantagruel

The example is Searle's, from the book Rediscovery of Mind.

:up:
I think this concept fits well with the approach of embodied or embedded cognition as well.

If consciousness is understood as a pragmatic modelling relation "we" have with "the world", then this ever-larger ability to anticipate the actions and reactions of our environment are what we would mean by a "deepening" consciousness. — apokrisis

Yes, this is exactly the sense in which I cited Searle on intentionality and background abilities. Exactly. Situational awareness.

Another interesting dimension is the idea of 'cognitive effort'. For example, it can be more difficult for someone with muscular dystrophy to lift an arm than for a weightlifter to lift 200 lbs. People do seem to have different degrees of willpower, so that, with either much more focused or much more prolonged effort one person can accomplish more than another having the same set of physical capacities. I'd venture this is another difference in degree of consciousness.

:up: Yep. So, we create our own reality? We create ourselves? - within physical constraints, including the constraint of being a node in a lineage of life. — Pop

Yes, the mental certainly seems to occupy a unique and irreducible role in evolution. I don't know if we create reality so much as shape it. Maybe those are not really different. Form become content.

:up:

So we are the origin point formed by having so many "shapes" of action or states of intent available to one coherently integrated neural system. Or as humans, the origin point for the space of actions available to a suitably encultured and economically enabled creature. — apokrisis

Yes, the self and sociation definitely becomes integral to what consciousness is.

Specifically, I like the notion of mental shape because shapes have specific properties, and our properties or abilities 'fit' with what I've described as environmental gradients. I think objective reality itself can be viewed in terms of physical gradients. Density, for example, if you reduce it far enough; density has significance only insofar as a region of one density adjoins a region of a differing density. In which case, it isn't so much what the density of one region or the other is, what is significant is the density gradient between the two regions.

What do you think is the maxim behind that? — baker

The first precept against killing, since all life is sacred. And all living things partake of Buddha nature.

As I pointed out alread, "awareness" (like "self-awareness") is not "consciousness"; so yeah, I agree, "awareness" is gained, but not "consciousness". — 180 Proof

As I offered, I consider this type of awareness, situational awareness, to be the exemplary state of consciousness qua consciousness. This is why the highest level of intentionality presents at this level situational expertise, to look at it in Searle's terms.

assuming different beings have different degrees of consciousness serves a particular ideology -- such as that it's okay to treat children like cattle, or that animals don't feel pain or much of anything — baker

These are all non-sequiturs. If anything, partaking by degrees of the same consciousness as us should afford rights, not subject to ignomies. Buddhists don't step on insects.

I'd call it 'situational awareness.' And, to use your terms, a more experienced consciousness does become more aware. John Searle talks about intentionality rising to the level of background abilities. In other words, your mind steers at the level of its expertise (which is a function of experience and skill). A beginning skier focuses on 'shifting weight onto the downhill ski' in each corner, while an expert skier just 'picks a path' down a slope.

This confuses "consciousness" with experience or form with content; like an empty balloon, "consciousness" stretches as one grows from childhood to adulthood as the accumulation of experience fills and shapes it like being blowing up with air. We gain experiences, consciousness, as you say, expands; my consciousness becomes more experienced, not "more conscious". — 180 Proof

No, it doesn't confuse anything. It corresponds to 'degree of awareness' which conforms with what I'm talking about and focusing on. If you want to call something else consciousness, that's your prerogative. You are providing an explanation, whereas I am providing a description. I think that my description of the phenomenon is better than your explanation to the contrary.

I agree with Wayfarer ( :yikes: ), it's binary not "a matter of degree" like a dimmer. — 180 Proof

I'd counter that the universal experience of being a child versus being an adult is exemplary of a difference of degree of consciousness. Speaking from personal experience, the "horizon" of my awareness now extends much further, encompassing not only places I've been, different types of new things I have encountered, but, most importantly, awareness of ongoing patterns of things about which I have gained knowledge. All of which was not just unknown to me as a child, but completely inconceivable. It is a short step to extending some degree of consciousness to lower life-forms. Which I think most people do extend. It would make a good poll.

Ok. Then I can offer: referring (as a semantically competent speaker) to its thoughts as pictures.

To be honest, a proper (contra Chinese Room) semantics is the whole of it. Confusing thoughts and pictures is just the hard problem that isn't really. — bongo fury

Well, my (complete) presentation is really systems theoretical in its orientation, so semantics is "high level" versus the kind of natural operation I'm describing.

If you say so. (An app can't make mistakes?) — bongo fury

The person who designed the app certainly can. I've never heard of a photon making a mistake.

... mistaking its thoughts for pictures. — bongo fury

Ok. Mistaking is a uniquely mental operation.

More intelligent, maybe. But more conscious - I don't know. Something is either conscius or it's not. Birds, bees, humans are conscious - unless they're not - but one is not 'more conscious' than the other. But I'm sure that birds are more intelligent than bees, and humans more than birds. — Wayfarer

I think "intelligence" describes a certain modality of consciousness. What I'm suggesting is that some modalities are more paradigmatic of consciousness than others, those in which it is maximally self-determining or self-shaping. Creative evolution, to steal from Bergson. Certainly humans are evolving at a rate unparalleled by other species in many ways.

I think where my train of thought is leading Jack is that certain modalities of consciousness are more paradigmatic, those which are related to reality in a "constructive-rational" way. Whereas disorders of consciousness may be more like artefacts, which point to modalities of self-repair, of bringing consciousness to its optimal state where it can be constructive-rational.

The key metaphor I am working on - and I don't even think it is a metaphor or an analogy but essentially true - is that consciousness determines abilities, and these essentially are a kind of shape. The mind that sees the stick as a lever "rolls" through its perceived world along appropriate natural gradients (based on that ability) whereas the mind that lacks this insight is like a block, which cannot exploit such gradients.

I'd call it a pragmatic, systems-theoretic view in which form is mutually determined by the world and mind.

Lots of good answers. Our thoughts do have distal effects by way of symbolic interactions. As said, mind and matter aren't really separate, rather they together constitute a system. The mechanics of that system are such that ordinary thoughts can be effected with greatest efficiency. I'm not sure what the 'cost' of me levitating a glass of water into my hand is, but odds are its a whole lot higher than me just walking over to the sink and getting it. As far as healing goes, I was an ultrarunner and I've seen lots and lots of people who defied the limits of the physical on many occasions. I blew out an ankle really badly a week before my first fifty mile race. Having trained for several months, I was damned if I was going to miss it. I did four ultrasound sessions that week, wrapped it up super tight and went for it. Despite rolling it again in the first 30 minutes I still finished, and in a decent time.

:up:

A baby-boomer could be prototypical or stereotypical but there's no such archetype. — praxis

ar·che·type
/ˈärkəˌtīp/

1. a very typical example of a certain person or thing.
"the book is a perfect archetype of the genre"

You seem to have a somewhat restrictive view of the definitions of words. Especially one whose origins and essence are literary. Literary usage can be quite 'relaxed,' by its very nature.

Stereotypical, prototypical, and archetypal denote substantially different things. — praxis

They are quite different words, each with a variety of meanings, but variations on "type." A stereotype was originally a kind of relief printing plate cast from an original, and one meaning of archetype is the original which has been imitated. So the stereotype might be cast from the archetype. And I could be a stereotypical baby-boomer. Or, if I am old enough, I could be an archetypal or a prototypical baby-boomer. If you just met me, you wouldn't know and might use any one of the terms. The words do indeed cover a range of meanings of typology, but the accuracy of the usage depends on the degree of knowledge of the person applying them in a given context. Which is really what is in question. An interesting study in typology.

Stereotypes are necessarily shared culturally and not an individual or esoteric type of categorization. — praxis

And yet they are not explicitly defined, so one person's version of a stereotype may differ considerably from another's. And as you say, they are a kind of heuristic. So maybe it is just convention to call negatively slanted preconceptions stereotypes. They exist in a wide range. The stereotypical baby-boomer could be identified in the context of technical skills, financial security, etc. Someone could just as easily be the "prototypical baby boomer" or the "archetypal baby boomer."

Moo.

Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens
I love Dickens as historical documentation of the exploitive excess of early capitalism and the counter-balancing social sentiments and trends. Dickens is a great complement to Marx.

What I'm trying to establish is why everyone would have some perspective on how to live life well. All that everyone past middle age has done is lived life. There's no reason to believe any have done so well, in fact most seem to have done so appallingly badly and continue to. I'm wondering what you think their insights are going to contribute the your project of living live well. — Isaac

Well, there are definitely lots of people who make mistakes when they choose things they believe to be in their best interests. Plato says no one knowingly desires the bad, and I think the vast majority of people can be said to be living their life according to the principle of choosing what they think will be in their best interest. I'd say that aligns with the general description of choosing to live well.

I don't disagree that a lot of people are not successful at this though. I'd say relative success at the project of living well would be good evidence of having attained some measure of wisdom.

Stereotyping is the process of assigning a "type" based upon a preconceived concept of the appearance, behavior and mannerisms of that type — Sir2u

Yes, that's right. It is the expectation that inner and outer mutually correspond.

I'm not saying that there are not bad stereotypes, certainly that's the most usual connotation. And certainly stereotypes based on physical characteristics like a lisp are not accurate. But that was also my point. The "loving mother" is also a stereotype (a positive one) but it's an oversimplified characterization. Not all mothers are loving.

I was reading a book just now that talks about stereotypes and one thing pointed out is that they always contain negative attributes, — praxis

Maybe that is a negative stereotype of stereotypes.....

And the other way around too, some people "know" astronomy very well, but can't fix a broken desk. — Manuel

Yes, one wonders where philosophers would be without farmers. And yet there is little philosophy of farming.

This was something I always liked about monastic orders. Historically they have been, to the extent possible, self-sufficient communities, with each individual participating very broadly in all duties, regardless of specialization. Specialization is like a...reward.

I don't really.

All I am doing is reporting what my memory and impressions tell me. It may well be wrong but it is all we can do. — Tom Storm

Well, somewhere between "all we can do" and all we do do lies knowledge.

I am heading into late middle age. I don't think I have learned anything much from the passing of time or experience. I'm not sure how I would test this — Tom Storm

This is kind of the whole point. How exactly do you quantify knowledge? Is it measured by the salary that it facilitates? Or is it in the types of things that you do with that salary? Or the way you use your free time?

Google definition of "fact": a thing that is known or proved to be true. — TheMadFool

Ok. So if you repeatedly mistreat people in the pursuit of success, will you ultimately reap some kind of negative reward? Is that a fact? It's at least as important as an anomalous muon precession frequency in the human world. Probably much more so.

Maybe such 'human' facts are only statistically true, true in some cases. That's the case in objective science too.

Why would you bother with that challenge? — Isaac

Because the project of life is to live well, and what that means exactly is a mystery that can only be discovered through living. And there are not enough moments in a single life to do it justice. So we need to develop a lexicon for sharing the complex understandings that each of us uniquely develops. That's why mythologies exist.

Everyone has a perspective, and there is a reason for that perspective. So even if the perspective itself isn't objective, for example, it can still be meaningful and valuable.

↪180 Proof here's two: When scientists claim there is no god. When scientists claim they are understanding the nature of reality.

It would only be right to make assertions like this if reality was merely physical — emancipate

:up:

Yes, science is a method and a body of incomplete and approximate facts. It isn't meant to be an ultimate truth, just one of many tools we should employ in the search for ultimate truths.

The middle-aged mind preserves many of its youthful skills and even develops some new strengths. — Banno

:up:

One thing I see more and more as I get older is that everything has happened before — T Clark

Yes. Repetition compulsion is pretty powerful.

We probably have at least as much to learn on average as we have to teach. But I think that's a good thing.

Is that wisdom? Not really. If you live long enough and have an average memory, you see things over and over again. — T Clark

Or maybe it is?

Selected Philosophical Essays by Max Scheler

I have so many it's hard to pick. Exile on Main Street for sure. Deja Vu.

Lately I've given up on albums and just shuffle vintage jazz and funk on Amazon music. Yesterday it was Renaissance Lute.

A lot turns on 'evidence' and what constitutes it. — Wayfarer

Exactly. I believe that life is a kind of very large scale experiment. The longer we live, the more likely we are to encounter 'complex evidence', where over a long time certain of our behaviour patterns result in certain types of effects returning to us in our lives. Like karma. Objective evidence, but dependent on a lot of subjective experiences. Stochastic effects are common enough in nature. This is why I would never dismiss the concept of God with any kind of trivializing argument. How do we know that the idea of God has not somehow contributed to a material change in someone's world based on certain of their actions?

I think the limits of consciousness is shown in my argument to be the inputs, our senses. Everything which takes in information. — Dale Petersen

Just because mental events have neural correlates doesn't mean that they are neurally caused. Embedded cognition views mental events as existing within complex systems comprised of both organism and world. Emergent properties in complex systems do not necessarily reduce simplistically to the components of those systems. Rather, the essence of an emergent property is its qualitative novelty. Yours is an argument for a biological reductionism, from which standpoint consciousness of course remains "a great mystery."