[TheStranger]

Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction towards an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not all do so in the same way. In presentation something is presented, in judgement something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. This intentional in-existence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We could, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.

Thoughts on this directed, nested approach to consciousness? It's interesting that objects within itself is a concept strung on a similarity string throughout all aspects of consciousness, yet supposedly differ in how they achieve it. There is also a categorical issue, namely, distinguishing between mental and natural phenomena.

What complicates this is something known as the Quinean double standard, which states that from an ontological perspective that nothing should be deemed as intentional, but the language of "intentionality" is highly necessary. So then, initial views on this?

[Polymath20]

I feel like modern neurology makes a better attempt to identify the mechanisms of "mental phenomenon". There are actually specific, identifiable signals in your brain, nerves, and skin which signal intention before you are aware of it.

For instance, the Japanese built a robotic exoskeleton that responded to nervous activity in the skin over the muscles which would move. Ironically, the exoskeleton moved before its wearer did (only by fractions of a second)

[TheStranger]

Right, and there are assertions that Intentionality isn't able to fit into the natural sciences (in terms of factual cohesion), and the origins of that particular vein of philosophy are fairly old (which doesn't necessarily mean anything).

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by TheStranger To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Right, and there are assertions that Intentionality isn't able to fit into the natural sciences (in terms of factual cohesion), and the origins of that particular vein of philosophy are fairly old (which doesn't necessarily mean anything).

	Originally Posted by Wiki
	The term intentionality was introduced by Jeremy Bentham as a principle of utility in his doctrine of consciousness for the purpose of distinguishing acts that are intentional and acts that are not.

I suspect if one drills down into this philosophy it will be found to be built off of materialism.

	The concept of intentionality has its foundation in scholastic philosophy with the earliest theory being associated with St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God and his tenets distinguishing between objects that exist in the understanding and objects that exist in reality.

God/Dog, eh ? I'd say that boat sunk right out of dry dock.

[Apophenia]

Haha! That's so INTP. So meta..

Actually, isn't that the sentiment? That consciousness is an inherent meta-ness (separation) that echoes infinitely far from an object?

It's like how there must be an inherent physical/mental separation in order to have a subsequent connection (ie people - it takes two). One must not be a specific object in order to perceive that object. So the capacity to perceive distance is the means to perceiving connection (and perception/conception of action and interaction).

So the further one can remove themselves via their (passive) intentionality, the higher their level of consciousness! HA! If there even are levels... (it's probably more like colors of consciousness) That's why some people think they have raised/altered their consciousness - they're experiencing everything in an alternate (if not further removed) state of intentionality for objects to serve their personal functionality (and that's why they can/do behave differently).

Intentionality (passive) is the mechanism for altered consciousness. Like Joan of Arc.

I'm sure there are those with great skill to actively alter their consciousness (by this definition of consciousness) through such understanding as described in the OP.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Apophenia
	Actually, isn't that the sentiment? That consciousness is an inherent meta-ness (separation) that echoes infinitely far from an object?

Sure, the separation is the illusion that is so ubiquitous among the species due to the system configuration. The system is built to appear that way (see The Illusion of Time, BBC or Beau Lotto on how we see illusions). Our physical sensory systems constrain analysis by evolved design.

---------- Post added 01-14-2012 at 05:09 PM ----------

	If there even are levels... (it's probably more like colors of consciousness)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.