I'd like to see the return of Streetlight to be honest. — Jamal

The "natural" is anything that exists that is causally connected to the actual physical world through laws of nature. — Relativist

through analysis of the universe. — Relativist

Every theory of mind has some problem, — Relativist

That’s not a cognitive failing, it’s a conceptual one. — Wayfarer

"consciousness is [the] experience of". — Gnomon

"Abstract: In the April 2002 edition of JCS I outlined the conscious electromagnetic information field (cemi field) theory, claiming that consciousness is that component of the brain’s electromagnetic field that is downloaded to motor neurons and is thereby capable of communicating its informational content to the outside world. In this paper I demonstrate that the theory is robust to criticisms" — McFadden

I actually thikn what you're talking about is highly important, and you're dealing with it well. It just seems utterly wrong to think it answers something like the Hard Problem. — AmadeusD

You are not exactly a guy for the details, even if you continually demand them. — apokrisis

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, I'm sure it would be quite easy to explain — AmadeusD

We don’t need to explain “consciousness” as if it is some magically emergent non-material stuff produced by nervous systems. — apokrisis

It we understand the semiotic modelling relation that gives us life and mind, we can then start to analyse “consciousness” as the stack of modelling relations that an embodied and socially cocooned organism can weave around its being. — apokrisis

So we know how the brain generates consciousness by solving all these timing issues. — apokrisis

Do I hear the furious stamping fury of the world's tiniest jackboots? — apokrisis

My sister nearly threw the phone at me, in tears, and left the room. My philosopher, on the other hand, was in an absolutely superb mood.

What just happened? My sister was the unfortunate survivor of a philosopher-attack. — Alan Cook

Elsewhere, however, Descartes says that a substance is something “capable of existing independently”; “that can exist by itself”; or “which exists in such a way as to depend on no other thing for its existence” (AT 7: 44, 226, VIII A 24). Descartes contrasts substances, so defined, with modes, qualities and attributes, which can depend for their existence on substances.

In these locations, Descartes affirms an independence criterion of substancehood. This idea may be implicit in Aristotle’s Categories and is gestured at by Al Farabi, but Descartes appears to be the first influential philosopher who explicitly defines substances as those things that are capable of existing by themselves. Descartes adds that only God truly qualifies as a substance so defined, because nothing else could exist without God, a view that would be reaffirmed with greater emphasis by Descartes’ most influential follower, Spinoza. However, Descartes recognises two kinds of “created substance” – things that can exist without anything else, leaving aside God: material body, which is defined by extension, and mental substance, which is defined by thought, which, in this context, is more or less equivalent to consciousness. — SEP

So "having nothing in common" is already ruled out, from the beginning, as a false representation. — Metaphysician Undercover

In this way we have substance dualism, one type of substance contains matter, the other does not. — Metaphysician Undercover

↪apokrisis The question I asked was this:

Why would they need some kind of neurosemiotic model to get to what I would want to call consciousness?
— bert1 — bert1

I’ll talk about the quality of writing, not necessarily the quality of the ideas, although I guess it’s not easy to separate them. There’s a quote I read somewhere that I can’t find again. I’ll paraphrase it—Clarity is so important and so unusual, it is often mistaken for truth. Here’s another— Clarity means expressing what you mean in a way that makes it obvious you’re wrong.

So… clarity. I’m pretty smart. I should be able to figure out what you’re trying to say and whether I agree with it. Reality is not all that complicated. If you can’t describe it so a reasonably intelligent adult can understand it, I question the value of what you have to say. — T Clark

So stop being a lazy bugger and define what you mean by consciousness in a way that is relevant to how I treat it. — apokrisis

Panpsychism is a brute fact claim rather than a causal account. So why do you badger me endlessly for my causal account except to again crow about your brute fact claim. — apokrisis

You show no interest in what I say. And yet you won't leave me alone. — apokrisis

Why would they need some kind of neurosemiotic model to get to what I would want to call consciousness? — bert1

Why what? — apokrisis

And to get to what you would want to call consciousness, they would need some kind of neurosemiotic model. — apokrisis

Biosemiotics argues that life is fundamentally a process of sign production, interpretation, and communication, which is the basis for meaning and cognition. — ApoAI

]Biosemiotics attempts to address the "hard problem" of subjective experience (qualia) by positing that proto-experience or a basic level of awareness is a fundamental aspect of all matter/biological processes, which then expands to higher degrees of consciousness through complex, hierarchical information processing in the brain. — ApoAI

First-Person Perspective: It incorporates a necessary first-person, internal perspective, recognizing the subjective, felt qualities of experience that are difficult to capture with a purely functional, third-person approach. — ApoAI

Then semiosis actually defines life and mind as a modelling relation within the entropic world — apokrisis

So there is a lot of backstory to my particular take on Peirce. — apokrisis

at some point you have to change from what you see about you to how you want things to be — Banno