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

All these words/phrases bolded, can you please provide a definition of each and how they relate to a) the environment and b) the neural/biological substrates?

Instantiated is a tricky word for example. It provides a bit of the magical. We know sociological events exist- but that is ALREADY at the level of mind. We know environmental inputs exist- that is at the level of the physical events happening. We know agents exist- but that is already at the level of mind.

Even if you try to get to the level of precepts/concepts or primary/secondary consciousness... I take the primary/precepts to be still to be justified.. That is the starting place.

No it bloody isn't. The psychological process produces the difference between a "self" and a "world". That is the function. — apokrisis

"Self" and "world" are concepts, mental impressions...not the originating mind itself (mind as substrate).

I believe you are trying to say what I am saying. See above.

I believe you are trying to say what I am saying. See above. — schopenhauer1

Mind is the generative order of mental objects. Mental objects/thought forms don't cause mind, mind causes mental objects/thought forms. The event causes the agency; the agency is an emergent property of the event. Now, what's it like to be the event? Beyond definition.

(mind as substrate) — Anthony

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".

All these words/phrases bolded, can you please provide a definition of each — schopenhauer1

Maybe. If you can define "process".

Maybe. If you can define "process". — apokrisis

Integrated interactions of a series of events. Say for example, chemical bonds are integrated interaction events.

What do you mean by integrated? In what manner exactly?

Rocks are insentient. — Wayfarer

No they aren't.

Yep, that's obvious. — schopenhauer1

No, it isn't!

The Difference of Being a Process and Observing a Process — schopenhauer1

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?

When we think about the mind (when we are self-aware), are we not turning the mind into an object of observation? At that point we are being the process we are observing - a process loop.

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

That would be a category mistake to say that minds are sub-processes of another mind.

Minds are just one type of process among (an infinite) number of other types. Minds are a sub-process of the universe, and the universe a sub-process of the multi-verse. We could keep going on forever zooming out or zooming in, but it is interesting to note that once we zoom down to a certain point (sub-atomic) that we begin to have problems with interpreting the process of our observations (QM).

Physically interacting in a way that they work together in a system. What is it like to be that integrated systen?

Physically interacting in a way that they work together in a system. — schopenhauer1

What is it about the physical interacting that meets a definition of working and a definition of system?

And when do you start talking about processes that are informational models and processes that are material flows?

Show that nature cares to prevent what it appears to permit. — apokrisis

It was you who said:

And nature only seems to care about differences that make a difference in some practical sense. Nature is essentially statistical. — apokrisis

Nature creates differences which do not make a difference to us. 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. Who would create something without caring about what was being created? That would be like random production.

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.

So the onus is on you to support your crazy theories about nature.

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

These differences do exist, or are you denying their existence? If they exist, then they must have been either been created by nature, or artificially. They were not created by human beings, so they were created by nature.

I don't know what "nature fails to limit those differences" could even mean. How would nature act to limit differences? By creating sameness? But no two natural things are the same, so nature doesn't create sameness, it creates differences. Sameness is artificial, created by human minds which seek to classify thing,. it is not created by nature. And since nature is in the business of creating differences, it is illogical to refer to nature in terms of limiting differences.

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.

Hmm. Nature creating seems to pose no issue for you. Yet nature failing to prevent accidents does.

Backwards as usual. — apokrisis

I am working with your premise, which already implies that nature creates differences, but your claim is that nature only produces differences which make a difference. When the alternative is that nature is failing to prevent particular differences, because it only cares about differences which make a difference (as you claim), the clear choice is that nature is producing, or creating all the differences, not just producing the ones which make a difference to some pragmatic purpose.

- Mind is the generative order of mental objects.

Thats a bit like saying language is the generative domain of linguistic objects, or that liquids are the generative order of nearly incompressible fluids that espouse thr shape of their containers. Not only does it says next to nothing about the specific ontological class constituted by the objects selected, it tend to reify the category formed by these objects.

Which is why you still speak of 'Mind' as if it was a scrutable object with a definite ontological status. You started by reifying the sum of the cognitive processes as 'mind' instead of finding a commonality between those processes.

Inb4 "Where are mental images located?"

Lets say that you have one of those self-driving cars. In your onboard computer, there is a neural network looking for signal lights and differentiate them from green, yellow and red. Asking where are mental images located is a lot like asking where, in the onboard computer, is located the green, yellow and red lights. You could say they arent there, because you could break apart the car and would never find these specific lights. You could also correctly say that they are, in a way, there as distributed values across multiple nodes of the network.

Because of this ambiguity, which rest solely on the inadequacy of 'locality' when it comes to processed information, unbridled idealism is still a popular outlook in Philosophy of Mind, and this despite 70 years of cognitive sciences.

but your claim is that nature only produces differences which make a difference. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wrong.

Thanks, I'll reassess my beliefs about what nature does in relation to differences. Perhaps nature doesn't create differences, maybe it limits them, as you say. First though, are you familiar with the second law of thermodynamics?

What is it about the physical interacting that meets a definition of working and a definition of system? — apokrisis

Sharing of valence electrons, attraction based on forces, sharing of chemical molecules, etc.

And when do you start talking about processes that are informational models and processes that are material flows? — apokrisis

And here is where the crux of our issue lies. Whence are these informational models? It is akin to "What is mind". What IS the information (processes of a kind)?

Bertanlaffy already defined all these concepts in the GST. What you call integration is already a requirement of systematisation.

System: An organized entity made up of interrelated and interdependent parts.
Boundaries: Barriers that define a system and distinguish it from other systems in the environment.
Homeostasis: The tendency of a system to be resilient towards external factors and maintain its key characteristics.
Adaptation: The tendency of a self-adapting system to make the internal changes needed to protect itself and keep fulfilling its purpose.
Reciprocal Transactions: Circular or cyclical interactions that systems engage in such that they influence one another.
Feedback Loop: The process by which systems self-correct based on reactions from other systems in the environment.
Throughput: Rate of energy transfer between the system and its environment during the time it is functioning.
Microsystem: The system closest to the client.
Mesosystem: Relationships among the systems in an environment.
Exosystem: A relationship between two systems that has an indirect effect on a third system.
Macrosystem: A larger system that influences clients, such as policies, administration of entitlement programs, and culture.
Chronosystem: A system composed of significant life events that can affect adaptation.

First though, are you familiar with the second law of thermodynamics? — Metaphysician Undercover

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?

Whence are these informational models? — schopenhauer1

Genes, neurons, words, numbers. The basis of a symbolic modelling relation aren’t a secret.

Sharing of valence electrons, attraction based on forces, sharing of chemical molecules, etc. — schopenhauer1

So what goal is served such that it “works”? In what sense is causality closed such that it is a “system”?

You are not really saying anything about a process yet.

:ok:

Genes, neurons, words, numbers. The basis of a symbolic modelling relation aren’t a secret. — apokrisis

No, not the basis for them. What is the final result besides being self-referential as symbolic modelling or information?

So what goal is served such that it “works”? In what sense is causality closed such that it is a “system”? — apokrisis

Usually it has to do with creating stability with surrounding atoms/chemicals. In terms of forces, like the strong nuclear force, they are fundamental parts of nature that naturally attract or repel matter based on on scale.

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

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.

For example, because thought can't be measured outside of subjective reporting, it's impossible to empirically prove that thought and thought forms even need be open to energy for their existence. All physical systems require energy, hence the inordinate appeal to computer models (cognitive science) to explain away the mind. Information and organization of the psyche doesn't follow the same laws as the brain inasmuch as they are mental in nature and not physical (brain and mind, together, probably do obey some encompassing law, I think Bohm called it the holomovement; neutral monism seems a most sensible alternative); obviously the brain requires a lot of energy...but this says nothing at all about mentalese and mental imagery, dreaming and imagination, for these phenomena can't be exposed to any contrivance humans have to measure and quantify them with (and can't be said to be open to energy). There's really no clear evidence the brain produces the mind or consciousness; that we all remain invisible to each other, in a way, is a fact that's easy to overlook; my thought-forms always have been and always will be, for all other people know, nonexistent.

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

Right, doesn't the passage of time (nature) create these differences?