The "mind". Whatever that is best understood to be.
(Remembering that there is no reason to think that it wouldn't feel like something to be in a modelling relation with the world - especially when that modelling relationship it is as complex and agential as the one instantiated by a socialised human brain.) — apokrisis
I believe you are trying to say what I am saying. See above. — schopenhauer1
All these words/phrases bolded, can you please provide a definition of each — schopenhauer1
Maybe. If you can define "process". — apokrisis
Is there a difference? Are we not being the process of observing? We must be our own processes or else how can we talk about the differences in what we observe from each of our own unique points in space-time?The Difference of Being a Process and Observing a Process — schopenhauer1
That would be a category mistake to say that minds are sub-processes of another mind.Process philosophy itself has been pretty much hijacked as a term by theist philosophers. So that shifts you into a different kind of distinction. You wouldn't be seeking a better description of physical nature but talking about what it is like to be participating in the divine cosmic mind. :grin: — apokrisis
Physically interacting in a way that they work together in a system. — schopenhauer1
Show that nature cares to prevent what it appears to permit. — apokrisis
And nature only seems to care about differences that make a difference in some practical sense. Nature is essentially statistical. — apokrisis
So, the onus is on you to demonstrate why nature would create differences which do not make a difference, when it doesn't care about such differences. — Metaphysician Undercover
But my claim is that nature fails to limit those differences - they are simply accidents that don't change anything - while your claim is that nature creates them, and thus somehow they must exist for some (still undefined by you) reason. — apokrisis
They were not created by human beings, so they were created by nature. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know what "nature fails to limit those differences" could even mean. — Metaphysician Undercover
Hmm. Nature creating seems to pose no issue for you. Yet nature failing to prevent accidents does.
Backwards as usual. — apokrisis
but your claim is that nature only produces differences which make a difference. — Metaphysician Undercover
What is it about the physical interacting that meets a definition of working and a definition of system? — apokrisis
And when do you start talking about processes that are informational models and processes that are material flows? — apokrisis
First though, are you familiar with the second law of thermodynamics? — Metaphysician Undercover
Whence are these informational models? — schopenhauer1
Sharing of valence electrons, attraction based on forces, sharing of chemical molecules, etc. — schopenhauer1
Genes, neurons, words, numbers. The basis of a symbolic modelling relation aren’t a secret. — apokrisis
So what goal is served such that it “works”? In what sense is causality closed such that it is a “system”? — apokrisis
Defend? I'm not interested in defending any of my ideas. This isn't to say I don't have inclinations, or strong feelings about some issues, but I'd rather think of it as mutual exploration of each others' ideas.Make up your mind then. Did you intend to defend a substance ontology or a process one in talking about this "substrate" you call "mind". — apokrisis
You mean that obscure theory about all the many ways to arrange some system that are differences that don’t make a difference? When a system arrives at equilibrium, changes no longer result in a change? — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.