Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself. We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by mickthinks »

Consciousness is usually taken to refer to an attribute or feature of something else. By making it the subject of the sentence, you conjure it into an independent existence as a thing-in-itself and then derive conclusions based on limitations which the "something else" does not have.

It's like arguing that redness has no power to put out fires and concluding that fire engines are real.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Trajk Logik »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself.
Then how is it that you are writing scribbles on this screen about consciousness if consciousness cannot cause things? How can one talk about anything that isn't the cause of something, namely the effect of scribbles appearing on this screen for me to read?
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
What is the distinction between "we" and "consciousness" and "experience" and "minds"?

Most of the problems in philosophy are the result of a misuse of language.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

mickthinks wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 12:17 pm Consciousness is usually taken to refer to an attribute or feature of something else. By making it the subject of the sentence, you conjure it into an independent existence as a thing-in-itself and then derive conclusions based on limitations which the "something else" does not have.

It's like arguing that redness has no power to put out fires and concluding that fire engines are real.
By consciousness, I mean the ability to experience so I am not referring to something but a feature of something.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself.
Then how is it that you are writing scribbles on this screen about consciousness if consciousness cannot cause things? How can one talk about anything that isn't the cause of something, namely the effect of scribbles appearing on this screen for me to read?
Consciousness is necessary in order to able us to cause.
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
What is the distinction between "we" and "consciousness" and "experience" and "minds"?

Most of the problems in philosophy are the result of a misuse of language.
By we, I mean anything that has a mind. Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause. Consciousness is the ability to experience. Experience is a phenomenon that indicates that there is something there/here.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Trajk Logik »

bahman wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:36 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself.
Then how is it that you are writing scribbles on this screen about consciousness if consciousness cannot cause things? How can one talk about anything that isn't the cause of something, namely the effect of scribbles appearing on this screen for me to read?
Consciousness is necessary in order to able us to cause.
In other words, consciousness is a [necessary] cause for us to cause other things, ie consciousness is not inert and does cause things.
bahman wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:36 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
What is the distinction between "we" and "consciousness" and "experience" and "minds"?

Most of the problems in philosophy are the result of a misuse of language.
By we, I mean anything that has a mind. Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause. Consciousness is the ability to experience. Experience is a phenomenon that indicates that there is something there/here.
Information is an irreducible substance. Experience is in essence information. Indicating there is something is no different than being informed that there is something. Consciousness/mind is just a particular form information can take. Visual, auditory and tactile depth and extension is one form conscious information can take, was well as color, brightness, loudness, rough and smooth are other forms information can take. Consciousness is where all sensory information comes together in a kind of fault tolerant system that helps to eliminate sensory illusions by one sense. Think of how you determine that straw in your glass is not bent (a visual illusion) by touching it with your fingers and feeling that it is not bent.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 7:13 am
bahman wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:36 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm
Then how is it that you are writing scribbles on this screen about consciousness if consciousness cannot cause things? How can one talk about anything that isn't the cause of something, namely the effect of scribbles appearing on this screen for me to read?
Consciousness is necessary in order to able us to cause.
In other words, consciousness is a [necessary] cause for us to cause other things, ie consciousness is not inert and does cause things.
Consciousness is necessary but not sufficient. We make decisions all the time and then cause.
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:36 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm
What is the distinction between "we" and "consciousness" and "experience" and "minds"?

Most of the problems in philosophy are the result of a misuse of language.
By we, I mean anything that has a mind. Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause. Consciousness is the ability to experience. Experience is a phenomenon that indicates that there is something there/here.
Information is an irreducible substance.
That is not true. We cause/create information all the time.
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm Experience is in essence information.
No. The information is the content of the experience.
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm Consciousness/mind is just a particular form information can take.
Consciousness is different from than mind. Consciousness is the ability to experience. It is the ability of mind. Information cannot take form since it is not a substance. Again, information is the content of experience.
Trajk Logik wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 5:00 pm Visual, auditory and tactile depth and extension is one form conscious information can take, was well as color, brightness, loudness, rough and smooth are other forms information can take.
These are the different forms of Qualia. Qualia is a substance and can take a form so it contains information.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by mickthinks »

bahman wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:30 am By consciousness, I mean the ability to experience so I am not referring to something but a feature of something.
Okay, I'm in agreement. But now it seems to me that the inference you've used as a title for this topic is a misrepresentation of your idea. I think you are camouflaging the underlying simple tautology here: that consciousness is a feature of mind, therefore mind exists.

Certainly if A is a feature of B then A entails B. But by the same token, to doubt B is to doubt A. To argue that A removes all doubt of B is circular, because B is a hidden premise on which A rests.

If your aim is to persuade those of us who are inclined to doubt or deny Cartesian duality, this will not do.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

mickthinks wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:19 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:30 am By consciousness, I mean the ability to experience so I am not referring to something but a feature of something.
Okay, I'm in agreement. But now it seems to me that the inference you've used as a title for this topic is a misrepresentation of your idea. I think you are camouflaging the underlying simple tautology here: that consciousness is a feature of mind, therefore mind exists.

Certainly if A is a feature of B then A entails B. But by the same token, to doubt B is to doubt A. To argue that A removes all doubt of B is circular, because B is a hidden premise on which A rests.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that consciousness is necessary for causation but it is not sufficient. In order to cause, you need to have the ability to decide and cause too. So having only the ability to experience, consciousness, does not allow us to cause. That is what I meant by that consciousness is inert. So, here we are dealing with two extra features, namely decision-making and causation, that people ignore. So, even if we accept that consciousness is an emergent property, what materialists believe, we still need two other features, namely decision-making and causation, that materialists ignore. Matter however follows the laws of nature and cannot decide and then cause/not cause depending on the decision. Therefore, materialism, which is a version of monism is false. So we are left with dualism.
mickthinks wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:19 pm If your aim is to persuade those of us who are inclined to doubt or deny Cartesian duality, this will not do.
I am a dualist too. I believe in mind and Qualia, mind being an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, decide and cause, and Qualia is the subject of experience and causation being a reducible substance.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Dimebag »

bahman wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:38 pm
mickthinks wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:19 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:30 am By consciousness, I mean the ability to experience so I am not referring to something but a feature of something.
Okay, I'm in agreement. But now it seems to me that the inference you've used as a title for this topic is a misrepresentation of your idea. I think you are camouflaging the underlying simple tautology here: that consciousness is a feature of mind, therefore mind exists.

Certainly if A is a feature of B then A entails B. But by the same token, to doubt B is to doubt A. To argue that A removes all doubt of B is circular, because B is a hidden premise on which A rests.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that consciousness is necessary for causation but it is not sufficient. In order to cause, you need to have the ability to decide and cause too. So having only the ability to experience, consciousness, does not allow us to cause. That is what I meant by that consciousness is inert. So, here we are dealing with two extra features, namely decision-making and causation, that people ignore. So, even if we accept that consciousness is an emergent property, what materialists believe, we still need two other features, namely decision-making and causation, that materialists ignore. Matter however follows the laws of nature and cannot decide and then cause/not cause depending on the decision. Therefore, materialism, which is a version of monism is false. So we are left with dualism.
mickthinks wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:19 pm If your aim is to persuade those of us who are inclined to doubt or deny Cartesian duality, this will not do.
I am a dualist too. I believe in mind and Qualia, mind being an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, decide and cause, and Qualia is the subject of experience and causation being a reducible substance.
So there is experience and the agent in your model.

You term the agent mind, and experience quaila or consciousness.

Do you believe that matter of the universe is inert, or must it be set in motion intentionally? Is the universe a great game of billiards, or more like a game of chess, with each move being thought out?

I am not saying it is incorrect.

Some Vedic teachings differentiate the seer and the seen, the seer being the witness, and the seen being qualia. The seer being without any qualities.

Yet, the higher teachings also note that the seer and the seen cannot be differentiated, or separated. There cannot be a seer without the seen.

Do you think there can be the mind without the qualia?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:38 pm
mickthinks wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:19 pm
Okay, I'm in agreement. But now it seems to me that the inference you've used as a title for this topic is a misrepresentation of your idea. I think you are camouflaging the underlying simple tautology here: that consciousness is a feature of mind, therefore mind exists.

Certainly if A is a feature of B then A entails B. But by the same token, to doubt B is to doubt A. To argue that A removes all doubt of B is circular, because B is a hidden premise on which A rests.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that consciousness is necessary for causation but it is not sufficient. In order to cause, you need to have the ability to decide and cause too. So having only the ability to experience, consciousness, does not allow us to cause. That is what I meant by that consciousness is inert. So, here we are dealing with two extra features, namely decision-making and causation, that people ignore. So, even if we accept that consciousness is an emergent property, what materialists believe, we still need two other features, namely decision-making and causation, that materialists ignore. Matter however follows the laws of nature and cannot decide and then cause/not cause depending on the decision. Therefore, materialism, which is a version of monism is false. So we are left with dualism.
mickthinks wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 12:19 pm If your aim is to persuade those of us who are inclined to doubt or deny Cartesian duality, this will not do.
I am a dualist too. I believe in mind and Qualia, mind being an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, decide and cause, and Qualia is the subject of experience and causation being a reducible substance.
So there is experience and the agent in your model.
There is an agent in my model that I call mind. It has the ability to experience, decide, and cause.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm You term the agent mind, and experience quaila or consciousness.
The mind is the agent. It experiences qualia. Consciousness is the ability of the mind, namely the ability to experience.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Do you believe that matter of the universe is inert, or must it be set in motion intentionally?
I said that consciousness cannot move/cause things. It is necessary for causation but it is not sufficient. I believe in substance dualism in which there are mind and Qualia. Mind is an irreducible substance and cannot change. Qualia in another hand is reducible and changeable. It is mind that causes a change in Qualia.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Is the universe a great game of billiards, or more like a game of chess, with each move being thought out?
What we experience is Qualia. What is the substance that people call matter? It could be only Qualia in which all its changes are due to a mind or minds and Qualia (for example each electron has a mind). It is not apparent to me which model is correct. It could be a super-mind that causes all changes or many minds that each is responsible for a specific change.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm I am not saying it is incorrect.

Some Vedic teachings differentiate the seer and the seen, the seer being the witness, and the seen being qualia. The seer being without any qualities.
To me seer has qualities. A thing that has no quality even existence is nothingness therefore it does not exist. Something that does not exist cannot affect reality.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Yet, the higher teachings also note that the seer and the seen cannot be differentiated, or separated.
That is a sort of monism which as I showed is incorrect. I once perceived my mind. I have an argument for the existence of the mind too (OP).
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm There cannot be a seer without the seen.
To me, mind is an irreducible substance so it exists even if Qualia does not exist.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Do you think there can be the mind without the qualia?
Yes, but not the opposite in other words there cannot be a Qualia without mind.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Dimebag »

bahman wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 9:41 am
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:38 pm
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that consciousness is necessary for causation but it is not sufficient. In order to cause, you need to have the ability to decide and cause too. So having only the ability to experience, consciousness, does not allow us to cause. That is what I meant by that consciousness is inert. So, here we are dealing with two extra features, namely decision-making and causation, that people ignore. So, even if we accept that consciousness is an emergent property, what materialists believe, we still need two other features, namely decision-making and causation, that materialists ignore. Matter however follows the laws of nature and cannot decide and then cause/not cause depending on the decision. Therefore, materialism, which is a version of monism is false. So we are left with dualism.


I am a dualist too. I believe in mind and Qualia, mind being an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, decide and cause, and Qualia is the subject of experience and causation being a reducible substance.
So there is experience and the agent in your model.
There is an agent in my model that I call mind. It has the ability to experience, decide, and cause.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm You term the agent mind, and experience quaila or consciousness.
The mind is the agent. It experiences qualia. Consciousness is the ability of the mind, namely the ability to experience.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Do you believe that matter of the universe is inert, or must it be set in motion intentionally?
I said that consciousness cannot move/cause things. It is necessary for causation but it is not sufficient. I believe in substance dualism in which there are mind and Qualia. Mind is an irreducible substance and cannot change. Qualia in another hand is reducible and changeable. It is mind that causes a change in Qualia.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Is the universe a great game of billiards, or more like a game of chess, with each move being thought out?
What we experience is Qualia. What is the substance that people call matter? It could be only Qualia in which all its changes are due to a mind or minds and Qualia (for example each electron has a mind). It is not apparent to me which model is correct. It could be a super-mind that causes all changes or many minds that each is responsible for a specific change.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm I am not saying it is incorrect.

Some Vedic teachings differentiate the seer and the seen, the seer being the witness, and the seen being qualia. The seer being without any qualities.
To me seer has qualities. A thing that has no quality even existence is nothingness therefore it does not exist. Something that does not exist cannot affect reality.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Yet, the higher teachings also note that the seer and the seen cannot be differentiated, or separated.
That is a sort of monism which as I showed is incorrect. I once perceived my mind. I have an argument for the existence of the mind too (OP).
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm There cannot be a seer without the seen.
To me, mind is an irreducible substance so it exists even if Qualia does not exist.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Do you think there can be the mind without the qualia?
Yes, but not the opposite in other words there cannot be a Qualia without mind.
If the seer has qualities, then it is not the seer. Any quality can be seen. The seer cannot be seen, therefore has no qualities. Imagine the seer like the screen of a tv, and the seen as the image in the screen. The screen allows the image to appear, yet itself is not any image. The image cannot be separated from the screen.

The same is true for qualia (the seen) and awareness (the seer). One thing is, the seer can become identified as parts of the seen. This can give the impression that it has qualities.

Another question.

Where do you place awareness? Is it in the category of qualia or the category of mind?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself. We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
I think it's good to separate out awareness from function. Experiencing from certain (seemingly) more active processes. So a lot of what gets called cognition and can be somewhat to incredibly complex is what we batch under mind, and ongoing consciousness/awareness is seen as something else that may or may not be dependent on some minimal part of cognition. Often when we write about consciousness we have mind mixed in. Perhaps it must be, perhaps not. Perhaps awareness is a facet of all matter, but cognition, from very simple cognitions in simple animals (and plants I would argue), depends on more and more complexity. Civilized humans have been very reluctant to grant that even other humans have consciousness and certainly animals and plants have been off the table for a long time. It's different for certain subgroups, various pagans and indigenous groups and many before, for example, the Abrahamic religions came in.

Anyway, that's all a bit of a tangent.

In response to the assertion in the thread title: what about collapse of the wave function? It could be argued that mere attention is causal there.

An essay on this issue is here.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Do ... m_Collapse
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 12:59 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 9:41 am
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm
So there is experience and the agent in your model.
There is an agent in my model that I call mind. It has the ability to experience, decide, and cause.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm You term the agent mind, and experience quaila or consciousness.
The mind is the agent. It experiences qualia. Consciousness is the ability of the mind, namely the ability to experience.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Do you believe that matter of the universe is inert, or must it be set in motion intentionally?
I said that consciousness cannot move/cause things. It is necessary for causation but it is not sufficient. I believe in substance dualism in which there are mind and Qualia. Mind is an irreducible substance and cannot change. Qualia in another hand is reducible and changeable. It is mind that causes a change in Qualia.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Is the universe a great game of billiards, or more like a game of chess, with each move being thought out?
What we experience is Qualia. What is the substance that people call matter? It could be only Qualia in which all its changes are due to a mind or minds and Qualia (for example each electron has a mind). It is not apparent to me which model is correct. It could be a super-mind that causes all changes or many minds that each is responsible for a specific change.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm I am not saying it is incorrect.

Some Vedic teachings differentiate the seer and the seen, the seer being the witness, and the seen being qualia. The seer being without any qualities.
To me seer has qualities. A thing that has no quality even existence is nothingness therefore it does not exist. Something that does not exist cannot affect reality.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Yet, the higher teachings also note that the seer and the seen cannot be differentiated, or separated.
That is a sort of monism which as I showed is incorrect. I once perceived my mind. I have an argument for the existence of the mind too (OP).
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm There cannot be a seer without the seen.
To me, mind is an irreducible substance so it exists even if Qualia does not exist.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Do you think there can be the mind without the qualia?
Yes, but not the opposite in other words there cannot be a Qualia without mind.
If the seer has qualities, then it is not the seer. Any quality can be seen. The seer cannot be seen, therefore has no qualities. Imagine the seer like the screen of a tv, and the seen as the image in the screen.
The screen of a TV has properties. Doesn't it?
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm The screen allows the image to appear, yet itself is not any image.
The screen causes the image. Of course, it is not the image.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm The image cannot be separated from the screen.
Of course, they are different and can be separated.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm The same is true for qualia (the seen) and awareness (the seer).
Qualia is a substance. Awareness is a state.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm One thing is, the seer can become identified as parts of the seen.
No, the seer cannot become identified as part of the seen. Again, Qualia is a substance. Awareness is a state.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm This can give the impression that it has qualities.
What you are referring to by "this"?
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Another question.

Where do you place awareness?
Awareness is a state.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 9:32 pm Is it in the category of qualia or the category of mind?
None. Awareness is a state of mind. You are aware normally but not aware when you are in a coma for example.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:00 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:31 am Consciousness is inert which means that it cannot cause things by itself. We, however, are able to experience and cause therefore we should have minds with the ability to experience and cause.
I think it's good to separate out awareness from function. Experiencing from certain (seemingly) more active processes. So a lot of what gets called cognition and can be somewhat to incredibly complex is what we batch under mind, and ongoing consciousness/awareness is seen as something else that may or may not be dependent on some minimal part of cognition. Often when we write about consciousness we have mind mixed in. Perhaps it must be, perhaps not. Perhaps awareness is a facet of all matter, but cognition, from very simple cognitions in simple animals (and plants I would argue), depends on more and more complexity. Civilized humans have been very reluctant to grant that even other humans have consciousness and certainly animals and plants have been off the table for a long time. It's different for certain subgroups, various pagans and indigenous groups and many before, for example, the Abrahamic religions came in.
Consciousness is not due to the complexity. I don't believe in strong emergence. I have an argument against it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:00 pm Anyway, that's all a bit of a tangent.

In response to the assertion in the thread title: what about collapse of the wave function? It could be argued that mere attention is causal there.

An essay on this issue is here.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Do ... m_Collapse
I think that the Bohmian interpretation is the correct one. So there is no collapse of the wave function, no Shrodinger cat paradox, etc. In regards to measurement, a quantum system just gets disturbed when you make a measurement. Why? Because it is delicate.
Post Reply