What are the two types of causes? I was trying to limit my discussion to efficient cause. Did I fail? — T Clark

I don't know if you failed according to Aristotle, or anyone roast. I'm saying the reason the 8 ball moved is the physical impact of the cue ball, and the reason the cue moved is your decision to move it. Those seem very different to me.

Do all fall under the umbrella of thoughts?
— Patterner

It is difficult to answer that question. We would have to define what a thought is. In my view, a thought is a relationship with an idea where the idea is actualised, but the idea is a diffuse problem, so the thought does not represent the idea. If we think of something as simple as a football, the thought extends to consider football as a sport, the players, how a ball is thrown, how it is kicked, a whole context that nevertheless remains virtual, waiting to be actualised as the thought progresses in its determinations. Thought is that mental phenomenon such as an image, a notion, a concept that is constantly being determined. But the important thing is that this is not a representation of something outside the mind. A football does not represent the kick or the throw; both are a virtual objective that happens to the ball and is determined as a concept in our thinking. — JuanZu

I think you are making my point. "If we think of something as simple as a football..." We're thinking. Doesn't thinking involve thoughts? Can we think without thoughts?

I think the discussion would go differently with a better understanding of math. What do you know about using math to discover things or explain how things work? — Athena

I don't know exactly what you have in mind, but consciousness seems outside of the scope of mathematics.

Isn't weighing options and choosing among them a mindful activity? — RogueAI

It is.

How does that work on a physical basis alone? — RogueAI

It doesn't. The world is filled with things people chose to make that would not exist if not for our minds. This is why we have always differentiated between natural and man-made objects. We can usually tell the difference at a glance.

I was just saying that the links in the chain of events you listed represent two very different types of cause. I wasn't intending that to be an argument or contradiction to what you're saying.

Well, I certainly appreciate you trying to understand me! Let me try to make things a bit more clear.

1. Consciousness and Subjective Experience are the same thing. Or maybe better to say the definition of Consciousness is Subjective Experience.

2. Consciousness is fundamental.

3. Consciousness is thus an essential property of fundamental particles or whatever is fundamental in the universe.

4. The fundamental particles have no mind even though they have consciousness (subjective experience). Consciousness isn't simple existence at that level. Rather, all that is subjectively experienced at that level is simple existence.

5. An information processing system (not just any old process will do) is not only a unit in regards to processing information. It is also a unit in regards to consciousness. Information processing unifies consciousness. Or maybe information processing is the environment in which consciousness merges. Or something...

Now all that can be internally consistent, but it's still speculation.

Mind is another matter. There are minds. We just don't necessarily have a good definition of it, know it's true nature, or all agree on the definition.

I can understand why Ogas and Gaddam say what they say. And it's surely the beginning.

A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body.

Surely, that describes minds. Even ours, at least in part. But it's still difficult to say a bacterium has a mind. It may have been inevitable, though, that, once there was information processing, sensing and acting upon what is sensed would come about.

At some point such a configuration can bring about thinking off the kind we do. Can thinking take place without a mind? How is "mind" defined such that it exists, but does not think?

I'm not clear about thoughts/ideas. Can we have an idea other than by thinking it? Has there ever been an idea that wasn't thought? I don't see how that can be.

But does that mean all thoughts are ideas? Are there types of thoughts that are not ideas?

There is surely thinking in non-word form. As I recently said somewhere, Ildefonso is a great example.

ChatGPT... I don't know. Is information being processed? I think the information processing has to be for - "in the eyes of" - the system doing the processing. DNA and some other molecules turn the information in DNA into proteins, which house the DNA, allowing it to keep synthesizing protein, and reproduce. Photons hit the retina, signals of that event are sent to the brain in a different form, *insert a thousand more steps*, the brain can act accordingly.

I don't think a calculator is processing information. It's just a tool we use. Is ChatGPT otherwise? I'm not arguing that it's not. I'm just thinking it might be a Chinese Room? It takes input, and outputs something. But is any of it relevant to ChatGPat? Or does it only mean something to us?

So a few things came to mind. The first is obviously that you're attribution of consciousness to fundamental particles contradicts current knowledge — Jack2848

What knowledge does it contradict?

Namely the definition you use for consciousness and subjective experience for fundamental particles and everything else as a result. No longer requires the usual abilities. Such as a living real-time changing awareness rather than a dead one. — Jack2848

I don't understand what you mean.

You even define consciousness at the fundamental level as 'just existing'. Which makes sense because there's not much there at that level. — Jack2848

I don't define consciousness as "just existing" at that level. I'm saying that's all there is to subjectively experience at that level. I'll try my vision analogy again. If i look at a ball that's just sitting there, that's all i see. A ball just sitting there. That doesn't mean I define vision as "just sitting there".


There is no information processing going on in a chair. So the particles are all subjectively experiencing, but they are not experiencing as a unit. And what they are experiencing is simple existence. They have no mechanisms or processes that could be subjectively experienced as things like feeling.

Can't a sorry old pragmatist like me not have values and meaning without all the claptrap? Just living a productive life and enjoying it? — apokrisis

If that's what you value, knock your socks off! :grin:

I guess that’s my understanding of what a constraint is— something that prevents something else from happening. It reduces the number of possible futures. — T Clark

Sure. But doesn't every action, even inaction, constrain things one way or another? Aaron Judge hitting the ball is a constraint, because he prevented the ball from hitting the catcher's mitt. That wasn't his goal. his goal was to hit the ball. It just so happens that hitting the ball prevents that. Is there a line between something being a constraint and the idea that any course taken means every other course is not taken?

Sure. I have no problem with that as long as you recognize that that particular way of breaking things up is not the only way of looking at it. It’s a matter of convention. You decided which particular aspects to focus on based on your own judgment, and not on any kind of universal principle. That focus was a matter of human value, not scientific principle. — T Clark

That's how you broke it down in your OP. I was just replying to the parameters you gave.

Here's where the break comes. Your muscles and bones moved in those specific ways because you chose to move them in those specific ways, because you intended the cue to hit the cue ball, because you intended the cue ball to hit the 8 ball, because you intended the 8 ball to go into the pocket. (i'm assuming you intended to hit the 8 ball into the pocket.) But that didn't have to happen.
— Patterner

Are you saying that the appropriate place to make a break is based on human intention? So that causality only is significant when there’s people around. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, so I think I must be misunderstanding. — T Clark

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. :grin: No, I didn't mean that. I was trying to distinguish between different types of causes. Cue hitting cue ball, cue ball hitting 8 ball, and 8 ball falling in the pocket are all one type. I don't know what anybody else might call them, but I would probably just call them brute force causes? Thing 1 bangs into Thing 2, and Thing 2 moves.

That's very different from you intentionally moving the cue in a certain way in order to make something specific happen.

When I go back to what I wrote about the chain of causality, one thing that jumps out to me is that constraints—events that prevent future events—have a bigger effect on what happens in the world then causes—events that result in future events. The asteroid didn’t cause humans to evolve, it prevented dinosaurs and other organisms from continuing to evolve. Hitler didn’t cause me to be born, he prevented other potential futures from taking place. — T Clark

I don't think the asteroid and Hitler were constraints. The asteroid prevented the continued evolution of dinosaurs by wiping them out. Or, iirc, it wiped out land animals above a certain size. Hitler prevented a lot of potential futures by murdering millions who would have had children. If a constraint is "a limitation or restriction", then I don't think it applies to these two cases?

Argh! My last word was a mistake. I meant to say:
Are you saying actual information is information that is being processed? If it is not being processed, it is potential information?

So, I would rephrase to say, when information of a system is not being actively processed, its form or state is Potential instead of Actual. For example, there is lots of information in your brain, that you are not currently aware of or thinking of. But it's available to activate, when needed. — Gnomon

It is complicated. Photon hits retina, it's converted, a signal is sent to the brain, where it's represented in a certain way. Assuming no malfunction in the pathway, that will happen. Information about light will be in the brain, in non-light form. But that information might never be acted upon at all. It's possibe that acting upon it is impossible, like if I have locked-in syndrome, even if I interpret it.

But I might not interpret it. We don't interpret everything that comes in through our retinas. So information that had to be created (as opposed to the information in a book) is never even interpreted.

Nice OP! I've only looked at the Chain so far.

My initial thoughts are...

The 8 ball went into the pocket because the cue ball hit it. It couldn't have done anything else.
The cue ball hit the 8 ball because the cue hit it. It couldn't have done anything else.
The cue hit the cue ball because your muscles and bones moved in specific ways. It couldn't have done anything else.

Here's where the break comes. Your muscles and bones moved in those specific ways because you chose to move them in those specific ways, because you intended the cue to hit the cue ball, because you intended the cue ball to hit the 8 ball, because you intended the 8 ball to go into the pocket. (i'm assuming you intended to hit the 8 ball into the pocket.) But that didn't have to happen. You could've played darts instead. Or hit on a girl. Or sat at the table and talked to a friend. Or various other things. But you chose to play pool. And, when the table ended up just as it ended up, you could've chosen to miss or scratch, or walk away without hitting the ball at all.

The car could not have done anything other than what it did. The driver could've chosen something else. You could've chosen not to go with your friends. Your mother giving birth to you? I guess there's a lot of choices in all of that, but one of the most important things that was not a choice was exactly which sperm hit the egg. Even that depends on various things, such as when the mood hit your parents, and other factors we don't need to discuss about your parents.


The asteroid hitting the Earth was a big factor in the conditions on the Earth when humans evolved. However, after it hit and played its role in setting up those conditions, any number of things could've happened. It didn't cause humans to evolve, because humans might not have evolved at all. Mutations are random. The mutations that led to humans might not have happened. They might have, and could have, happened in various other places where other factors did not make that mutation an advantage.


Hitler was like the asteroid. He had a lot to do with setting up the conditions that lead to your birth. But either of your parents could've made any of 1 million other choices in the days weeks and months before they met, which might have made it impossible for them to meet. Hitler didn't have anything to do with the choices they made that did lead to their meeting. or at least certainly not all of them.

Are you saying actual information is information that is being processed? If it is not being processed, it is potential energy?

Information in a dead organism has been transformed into Entropy (dissipated Energy). — Gnomon

Doesn't the fact that people have sequenced Neanderthal DNA, among other groups, say it is still information?

We seem to be going a bit off topic. I was about to start another thread so we didn't hijack this one. Then I realized it's your thread. :rofl: So all good.

My position is such that most of what you're saying just doesn't fit. I'll be as brief as I can, although I know it's still so long that I can't blame anybody for not reading it. Also, my position is relatively new to me, having taken various ideas for granted for so long, without having put much thought into them. Hopefully, I am not contradicting myself because of automatically saying things the way I did for so long.

1) My position is that consciousness is fundamental. It is a property of particles, just as things like mass and charge are. So there is always subjective experience.

Everything experiences its own being. For the extreme majority of the universe, it's only particles that are subjectively experiencing. Particles don't have any kind of mechanisms for mental abilities, perception, or anything else I can think of. Their consciousness is of simple existence.

Not that existence is simple. I'm just saying consciousness is there even when things like thinking, sentience, and awareness are not. The phrase I use is:
The things we are conscious of are not what consciousness is.


2) I think groups of particles are conscious as a group when information is being processed. The system that's processing information is a physical unit, and the act of processing information allows the consciousness of all the particles to subjectively experience as a unit.

I would guess the beginning of information processing was DNA synthesizing protein, although I'm sure there would have been precursors. But DNA has no mechanisms for things like mental abilities and perception. (At least the protein synthesis system, itself, does not. Obviously, once the body is made, which is the end result of protein synthesis, the mechanisms are there, and, at least in our case, so are mental Abilities, perception, and awareness.)


3) MINDS
I've quoted it several times, most recently just a few days ago in another threat. In Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam write:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.

They then beginning discussing the simplest minds - molecule minds:
All the thinking elements in molecule minds consist of individually identifiable molecules.
It seems quite a stretch to say archaea or bacteria are thinking when photons got they're eyespots, and their flagella nice in response. And humans think in ways that have nothing to do with changing inputs into outputs in order to influence the welfare of the body. But I do think their definition is where thinking begins. Thinking would not have come to exist if the entities where it began in this extremely basic way were not interacting with the environment in ways that helped them survive. Thinking can be abstract now, but it couldn't have originated that way. It needed solid footing. Maybe the solid footing didn't have to have anything to do with the physical, but the physical did the trick. It offers consistency. So response to stimulus can be counted on to do what it's expected to do. That's needed, because thinking needs to make sense.

Among the changes evolution brought about was the addition of information processing systems. More and more were added, all tied together in the same physical unit. Therefore, all subjectively experiencing as a unit. Enough information processing systems and feedback loops are subjectively experienced as what most would say is true thinking, awareness, and self awareness.


4) As I said, human minds are far beyond simply changing inputs into outputs for the benefit of the organism. We have all manner of abstract thoughts. This is what I'm talking about when I ask if a mind exists if there are no thoughts. (I think "thoughts" is a better word than "ideas" in this.). I think people who arrive at the human mind in entirely different ways might be able to ask the same question. Certainly, there can be a lot going on in a human mind without anything abstract. We can and do "think" in the way Ogas and Gaddam describe. But for those who only consider the more abstract to be proper thinking, what do you have when there are no such thoughts taking place? The extreme example being under general anesthesia. Is there a mind present?

Those who say the mind is exactly and nothing other than the brain might say the mind is present, since the brain is. It's just not thinking.

Those who say the mind is a certain kind of brain activity might say there is no mind, since that activity is not taking place. I'm in this camp. I don't think there is a mind separate from brain activity. (Our consciousness - our subjective experience - of that mind is another matter.)

Those who say the mind is something different from the brain (soul?) would have to say whether or not there is a mind when someone is under GA.



So, as I said, much of your post doesn't apply to my position:

If something is an object or process and has subjective experience then it has consciousness or a mind. — Jack2848

There's always consciousness, since it is fundamental. There is not always a mind.

But a mind exists only if there's subjective experience (which you deem to be consciousness). — Jack2848

There's always subjective experience, since it is fundamental. I say a mind exists only if there's activity of certain kinds taking place. And, again, our consciousness - our subjective experience - of that mind is another matter. I suspect the abstract thinking is only possible when sufficient information processing systems, feedback loops, and consciousness are all present. Consciousness is always present. But we are the only things we are aware of that have sufficient information processing systems and feedback loops. Archaea's subjective experience of its mind, if we're willing to call it a mind for the sake of argument, is nothing like ours, and it doesn't not have abstract possibilities.

Chat gpt is an object or process but doesn't have subjective experience. — Jack2848

If my position or right, it does. Everything does. At least the particles do. And there is probably information processing taking place, so it may be subjectively experiencing as a unit. And I think we can probably give AI the "solid footing" that interacting with the physical world gave naturally-occurring thinking, just as we gave it information processing. But we need to give it a lot more, and feedback loops.

Yes, it's always Information, but it comes in different Forms. — Gnomon

What is the form of there information in the DNA of a dead organism? What is the form of there information in a book that is sitting in a box in the basement?

DNA is chemistry, and it is inert until it is read & implemented by a biological system. The information is encoded in the patterns of interrelationships.

Yes, it's like a tree falling in a forest : it doesn't make a protein unless there's RNA to read it, and ATP to power the change, and amino acids as raw material. So, the verbal Information (EnFormAction) of DNA is not static chemicals, but the active process of reading & implementing the code. :smile: — Gnomon

I don't understand what you're saying. Particularly "the verbal Information". I don't know if you're answering my question. Is the order of the bases in the DNA of a dead body, or written in a book that is sitting in a box in the basement, information?

I think it's always information. I don't think it only becomes information when it is being processed, or being interpreted by a mind.

Ha! I'm not that clever with computer technology, but I can copy & paste. :nerd: — Gnomon

I meant someone hacked your account and is posing as you, but gave thself away by not doing the footnotes.

First of all, I suspect you are a hacker, because I have never seen Gnomon post without footnotes. :rofl:

True. Information is a verb, not a noun, a process, not an object. It's what I like to call EnFormAction : the power to transform from Potential to Actual. Shannon's abstract Data has potential, but no actual meaning, until it is interpreted by a Mind. :smile: — Gnomon

I think I disagree. I believe DNA is information. The codons mean amino acids, and strings of codons mean proteins. (I know not everyone agrees with that, so you might consider my point incorrect already.) Processing that information is a verb. In its natural form, the information is processed.

There are times when it is not processed in its natural form, such as when the organism is dead, as well as when in other forms, such as written in books or modeled with Tinker Toys. Is it not still information? At these times, there is usually no mind interpreting it. Is it not still information even then?

I suppose this could be a philosophical question similar to the tree falling in the forest.

Yes, I agree about what an idea is made of. My bullet points are a general idea of what I think.

So you think to fall into the category of "idea" it must involve relationships and encounters. What we have in our head of a marble isn't properly called an idea. It is only an image.

Do all fall under the umbrella of thoughts?

I guess there are different types of ideas, and some are more complex than others. I think the complexity of the idea of justice is getting in the way of what I'm wondering about, and what I think the OP is about. Can we discuss a less complex idea? Any simple object. A marble. Right now you have the idea of a marble in your head. What is the nature of that idea? What is it, so to speak, made of?

And I wonder if there's a difference between ideas and thoughts. Are there any thoughts that are not ideas? Are there any ideas that are not thoughts?

I just posted this on another thread. It certainly fits here. Obviously, nobody is going to agree with me. :grin: But this might be my answer.

• The brain is a physical object.
  
• There is activity in the brain.
  
• Our consciousness of - that is, our subjective experience of - the brain's activity is the mind. At least some of its activity. Not, for example, the activity that keeps the heart beating. I'm talking about the activity that perceives, retrieves stored information, weighs multiple options and chooses one over the others, and other things that we think of as mental activity. All of these things are physical activity, involving ions, neurotransmitters, bioelectric impulses, etc. The mind is our subjective experience of that mechanical activity. Brain activity is photons hitting the retina, sending signals to the brain, etc. Our subjective awareness of that is red.
  
• I'm not sure there's a difference between mind and ideas. What mind exists when there are no ideas? Information about past events and thoughts are held in a storage system. At any moment they are being accessed, they are memories, which are part of the mind. What about when they are not being accessed? They are physical structures (I don't know the specifics of the storage mechanisms) just sitting there, not doing more than they would be doing if time was frozen. This idea isn't limited to memories. It applies to anything regarding our minds and thoughts.
  
  Or is there a difference between thoughts and ideas? Are there thoughts that aren't ideas?

You're right. But 's video is damn cool!

I’m aware that it’s controversial, but that wasn’t my main point. I was just trying to show that it is unreasonable to assume that language is necessarily required for thought. — T Clark

I agree.

The common usage of "mind" though is that it is a noun that adjectives apply to. — RogueAI

Which adjectives apply to the mind?

I'm really not sure what you're asking.
— Patterner

You think the mind if a process, right, an action not a thing. Well, are ideas processes to? — RogueAI

How does this sound?

• The brain is a physical object.
  
• There is activity in the brain.
  
• Our consciousness of - that is, our subjective experience of - the brain's activity is the mind. At least some of its activity. Not, for example, the activity that keeps the heart beating. I'm talking about the activity that perceives, retrieves stored information, weighs multiple options and chooses one over the others, and other things that we think of as mental activity. All of these things are physical activity, involving ions, neurotransmitters, bioelectric impulses, etc. The mind is our subjective experience of that mechanical activity. Brain activity is photons hitting the retina, sending signals to the brain, etc. Our subjective awareness of that is red.
  
• I'm not sure there's a difference between mind and ideas. What mind exists when there are no ideas? Information about past events and thoughts are held in a storage system. At any moment they are being accessed, they are memories, which are part of the mind. What about when they are not being accessed? They are physical structures (I don't know the specifics of the storage mechanisms) just sitting there, not doing more than they would be doing if time was frozen.
  
  Or is there a difference between thoughts and ideas? Are there thoughts that aren't ideas?

I was going to bring up A Man Without Words. Someone here brought him to my attention several months ago. Ildefonso was born totally deaf. Nobody ever tried to communicate with him until he was 27. He literally had no language. It was like Helen Keller in The Miracle Worker when he realized these things the woman was doing represented objects. But harder than Helen Keller, because she at least had the beginnings of language when she got sick at 19 months. Anyway, Susan Schaller says Ildefonso was obviously very intelligent. Though he was ignorant about most everything, it was clear that he was trying to figure things out.

After he could communicate with sign language, people asked him what it was like before he had language. He says he doesn't know. Language changed him so much that he can't remember.

What is/was the first step in the process that came to be what you call "thinking"?
— Patterner

Language. Not communication - birds and bees communicate - but language, representation of objects and relations in symbolic form. — Wayfarer

The first step in thinking is language? Nothing prior to language is considered a step in the developing of thinking?

No. I'm trying to think of it that way now, but not having any luck.
— Patterner

What about ideas in your mind? Do you think those are physical processes? Imagine a sunset. Isn't what you're imagining a thing? — RogueAI

I am imagining a visual scene. I don't suspect that scene has been recreated in my head. And, even though I don't have any personal experience with brain scans, from either side of the machinery, I'm pretty sure nothing indicates a tiny little sunset happens inside my head. When I look at a sunset, there's no weight or solidity to it. Do you think maybe it's there, but it just doesn't weigh anything? I'm really not sure what you're asking.

I can also imagine a baseball. It being solid and heavy, I'm quite certain a baseball has not been recreated in my head. Much less my imagining of the Rocky Mountains,

I think thinking is a process because it spans a period of time. The Empire State Building is the ESB every instant. If you froze time, it would still be the ESB, just sitting there. But if you freeze time, or my brain, there's no thinking. When I stop imagining a baseball, the imagined baseball no longer exists. Not even as an imagining. It's only when I'm actively imagining it that it exists in that way.

But isn't your intuition that your mind is also a thing that you can ascribe qualities to? — RogueAI

No. I'm trying to think of it that way now, but not having any luck.

Your mind is a physical system? What color is it? How much does it weigh? How big is it? — RogueAI

I believe the idea is that the mind is a physical process. It's a verb. As is a basketball game. What color is a basketball game? How much does it weigh? How big is it?

Different uses of terms, perhaps? What do you call the physical processes of the brain that receive signals from the retinas, compare them with stored information of previous signals received from the retinas, recognize a situation that previously lead to damage, etc.?

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.
— Patterner

That describes how organisms respond to their environment - which the vast majority do, quite successfully, without thought. — Wayfarer

What is/was the first step in the process that came to be what you call "thinking"? I suppose it depends on your definition. The authors have stated theirs.

What does it mean to 'think'? — Jack Cummins

In Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam write:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.

I think that's pretty good. The very basic idea that, perhaps, anything else anyone calls "thinking" is built upon.

I think action is a key element. If you don't do, there's no way to learn. In Annaka Harris' audiobook Lights On, starting at 25:34 of Chapter 5 The Self (contributed), David Eagleman says:

I think conscious experience only arises from things that are useful to you. You obtain a conscious experience once signals makes sense. And making sense means it has correlations with other things. And, by the way, the most important correlation, I assert, is with our motor actions. Is what I do in the world. And that is what causes anything to have meaning. — David Eagleman

I disagree with Eagleman in ways, but I think he's right about meaning coming with doing.

That depends on what we mean by "communicate". I claim that this communication consists solely of provoking significant effects from one person to another. In other words, through signs we provoke something in the other person's understanding. But nothing is transmitted. What we provoke is meaning, or information. — JuanZu

Yes. That's how we communicate.

According to my theory, there is no information in that list, as if something passes from your mind to symbols on a screen. As I have tried to explain, the symbols on the screen have their own autonomy and cause effects in our learned language, generating meaning or information. In this sense, information never crosses anything but is constantly created. But we are under the illusion that something crossed from one mind to another, that we communicated something, when in reality what we have done is affect another person with the use of signs, causing meaning or information in that person. — JuanZu

We did communicate something. With the use of signs.

In other words, information is always provoked but is never something that crosses things like a ghost contained in signs. — JuanZu

Still, I had information in my mind, I wanted it in your mind, I took actions that I hoped would accomplish that goal, coding that information in the medium we are using to communicate, and that information is now in your mind. It's still the same information, but it changed form.

All the information in anybody's DNA can be written down in the book, or entered into a computer. Again, it's the same information, but in different form.

But you are right. There is no substance, not even ghost-like, that crosses over. I guess proof if that is when the receiver gets wrong information. Thinking I meant one thing when I meant another. That happens when you incorrectly interpret my signs. It wouldn't be possible if there was a substance going from my mind to yours. (A scenario that sounds like a fantasy/scifi story, and would lead to horrible manipulation.)

Most people who understand how to use the word 'consciousness' do not attribute it to matter in general. — bert1

I do. I think consciousness is one of the properties of matter. I do not think physical properties are the only kind of properties of matter.

I don't know if this is the case with you, but a problem is often that people think I am saying consciousness is things like thinking, sentience, and awareness, and that particles think, are sentient, and aware. I am saying neither of those things.

It needs some extra work to defend the causal efficacy of consciousness if all it is is the capacity to feel. — bert1

When the nature of the thing being experienced is that of a particle, there is certainly no causal efficacy. There is no thinking, sentience, or awareness. No desire, no wanting something that does not exist. Nor is there any ability, any mechanism, to do anything.

When the nature of the thing being experienced is that of a human, brain activity of such nature is experienced as thought, sentience, awareness. There is desire, and wanting things that do not exist. There is also the ability, the mechanisms, to do things.

↪Patterner Well, I’ll go back to saying it’s an attempt to rescue materialism by attributing consciousness to matter. — Wayfarer

I will continue to say the universe is not comprised only of physical.

That was you who defined consciousness as the property by which matter subjectively experiences! Now, you are saying this property, consciousness, has the ability to cause as well. You don't notice that a property cannot have ability. — MoK

Depends on your wording. Does mass have the ability to warp spacetime?

If you say so. Saying yes, however, does not make the claim true. — MoK

Do I even have to point out that saying no does not make the claim false? Your proclamations are as groundless as anyone's.

No! — MoK

Yes!

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences
— Patterner

But only organic matter. Consciousness is what differentiates organic from non-organic matter. Agree or disagree — Wayfarer

Disagree. I mean, I'm the one saying particles subjectively experience, eh? :smile: I suspect you are talking about mental abilities. I think those are things humans are conscious of. We are not aware of anything non-organic that is anywhere near as complex as most forms of life, so nothing non-organic is experiencing what we experience. But no reason non-organic cannot be sufficiently complex.

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences.
— Patterner
Correct. That is an acceptable definition of consciousness. Consciousness, given this definition, cannot be causally efficacious in the material world. — MoK

It can. It is. Here we are, after all.

Edit. Didn't mean to post yet.

A property cannot have any ability. — MoK

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences. Just as mass is the property by which matter warps spacetime. (Not sure "by which" is the right phrase. Apparently the best I can do at the moment.)