How are you defining mind?

You can't perceive something that isn't there, otherwise you'd just be imagining it. If you environment is chaotic, then all you can perceive is the chaos.

And a second question: could it be that to look or otherwise sense is to try to create order? — frank

Perception doesn't create order. If you perceive order, then order was already there. It is also possible to imagine order when there is only chaos.

First, I think we've over-simplified the processes of the mind. I see the mental processes as organizing/directing mechanisms which derive order, not necessarily from chaos (depends on definition of chaos) but from disoriented fragments. The orientation (directing/organizing) is what gives context and, consequently, significance (perhaps even meaning) to objects/subjects/circumstances. In this way, I agree with @frank.

Perception doesn't create order. — Purple Pond

I think perceiving, in itself, is an act of ordering. That is, what would sensation be if not organised into percepts? The relationship which perception draws in connection with memory, observation, reason, imagination, etc is for the sake of giving context (significance/meaning) to an otherwise amorphous and incoherent mess.

If you perceive order, then order was already there. — Purple Pond

Possibly. But, it is also possible to create order out of chaos, that is, organise the disorganised.

It is also possible to imagine order when there is only chaos. — Purple Pond

That would be the mind creating order because imagination is part of conception.

I think perceiving, in itself, is an act of ordering. That is, what would sensation be if not organised into percepts? The relationship which perception draws in connection with memory, observation, reason, imagination, etc is for the sake of giving context (significance/meaning) to an otherwise amorphous and incoherent mess. — BrianW

What I meant was that perception doesn't create order in the world. I'd agree that the act of perceiving creates order to mental phenomena from messy stimuli as you describe
.

Possibly. But, it is also possible to create order out of chaos, that is, organise the disorganised. — BrianW

Agreed.

That would be the mind creating order because imagination is part of conception. — BrianW

That would be a case of the mind creating order to its mental imagery.

That would be a case of the mind creating order to its mental imagery. — Purple Pond

What other order could there be?

Things impact a surface and the missiles imbed themselves into the surface to add on to the totality of the surface. Over time they deteriorate, leaving the surface with a lack of totality. This lack of totality is the falling short of the sum of all it has been. This lack forces the surface into a transformation, into being of a relationship, giving it an existence beyond what it was, in order to be what it truly is, not separate from that which was subtracted from it after its addition. And so a bond is formed, a channel between which outer and inner becomes. The only purpose of this system is to equalize. It is, fundamentally, an unstable system... And like the sides of a chemistry equation, they must balance. The volition is the will to being balanced... Or... Homeostasis

Get it?

Get it? — Blue Lux

No, I don't. Does it imply that the initial status was chaotic or that chaos was introduced causing it to seek equilibrium?

Chaos was introduced causing it to seek equilibrium.

But chaos was not yet to be.

But chaos was not yet to be. — Blue Lux

What does this mean?

Chaos is precisely the mode of instability. Stasis moved to instability causing a reaction for that stability, albeit dealing with new factors.

The infant comes into the world terrified. Only the mother can console and transform the world from chaos into something capable of being understood atop the premise of a neutral state.

Will give better argument when have time:

But effectively limit and no limit, through the point, line and circle as foundations of both empirical and abstract reality as effectively all phenomena through all phenomena.

We observe reality through limits with these limits forming our observations with this reciprocation being a limit in itself. In these respects, observation or mind and limit-no limit are one in the same.

Will give better argument when have time: — eodnhoj7

Cool. I'm interested

Major issues with time constraints but the 13 prime directives I am arguing (along with points 1 and 6 which I am currently defining, hopefully clearly, and the eventual explanation of the other points) give a base foundation.

The ancient philosophers argue that God, and this point will mirror the individual constitition as an image of God under certain premises, is a sphere or set of limits which effectively in prisons chaos through pure order. Other philosophers, including modern ones such as Hall in his observation of ancient religions, observes God as being a trinity of the point, line and circle where this triad exists as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.

In simpler terms the human ability to reason effectively gives direction to movements, through axioms which provide focal point of awareness as centers of origin in measurement, with these movements effectively giving boundaries that structure both the subjective and objective reality of the individual while simultaneously the environment through which the individual exists.

This structuring process, as directing intellectual, emotional and physical movements further extends at the group level as well and a form of reciprocation occurs in which the individual and group as existing through a series of movements as limits in themselves gives further precendence to li it being the foundation of mind.

This can be observed in a simple example of a man measuring materials for a house, with these materials representing various degrees of movement or "flux", which in turn forms the house. The house, as built, in turn forms the man and effectively changes him (provides relative stability which changes he emotional status and perception). This change in the man in turn is directed back towards the house and a form of reciprocation between the man and the house occurs where they exist as extensions of each other.

So the basic limits the man applies to forming the house, points, lines and circles, in turn form the man's consciousness. Consciousness as forming and existing through the basic point, line, circle limits as axioms in turn shows these limits as forming the consciousness with this connection observing consciousness exists through limit as a form of directive capacity.

The question occurs, considering under these premises consciousness extends from these axioms and consciousness is self aware, as to the degree in not just which the universe is conscious but also how the line point and circle (as "the all" through "the all" as "the all") manifests through various phenomena such as empirical sensory reality, language or even psychology as well considering all phenomena as existing as structures are composed of limits with all limits premised in the point, line and circle.