The below link leads to a video: — Pop

I hate videos. Could it be an article from a specialized magazine?

There, no doubt you will now agree
— Pop
There are a lot of objects that offer entangled, integrated, and unified information. A schedule board, a newspaper page, a puzzle book, my hat tag... I don't think any of them have a consciousness. — David Mo

These are expressions of consciousness

If you separate it from the experiences, emotions and thoughts. It's nothing, apart from this. — David Mo

I believe this is a misconception. Conscious beings have experiences, it's not a matter of being attached to them. Experience is not passive, it's a process, an activity.

These are expressions of consciousness — Pop

Indeed: from a human mind that has created them. But they are not minds.

Experience is not passive, it's an activity. — Wheatley

Indeed. And the mind is that activity.

Why can't consciousness be empty then?

I believe consciousness is like the air in a basketball.

How can you separate experience and consciousness?
— Pop

As used in this thread the term "consciousness" (as equivalent to "mind") cannot be. Experience is one of the elements that form consciousness. — David Mo

No, experience is equivalent to consciousness.

You have a conscious experience.

Experience = Thought + Emotion
Consciousness = Thought + Emotion

When you look into your consciousness you find thought plus emotion - this is your experience.

The below is all confused:

What is consciousness then? If you introspect into your consciousness you will find experiences and emotions. Nothing more. Remove the experiences and emotions and your consciousness will be empty. — David Mo

But they are not minds. — David Mo

Yet you take instruction from them!

Why can't consciousness be empty then? — Wheatley

Because to say that a pitcher is empty, you have to describe the pitcher separately from its possible contents. And you can't do that with your mind. Whenever you define the mind, you define the contents, never the container.

Yet you take instruction from them! — Pop

Then something that gives me information doesn't have to be a mind. Information is the product of a mind: the mind that gives me information and/or my mind that extracts the information. Without minds there are facts. Only facts.

Experience = Thought + Emotion
Consciousness = Thought + Emotion — Pop

So: experience=consciousness. Pure logic.

The below is all confused: — Pop

Confused? Try to tell me what is on your mind right now that is not experiences, emotions and thoughts about experiences and emotions or ideas based on experiences and emotions.

Whenever you define the mind, you define the contents, never the container. — David Mo

We talk about the contents of the mind in a metaphorical sense, but they aren't real stuff. I say the mind is empty.

And I think the container metaphor is wrong. I say the mind is like the air in a basketball, and a basketball isn't a container.

basketball isn't a container. — Wheatley

Is the air not contained within the ball? I don't think you can say otherwise.

I say the mind is empty. — Wheatley

Where do you place (metaphorically or otherwise) your thoughts on this sentence now? Is it not in your mind? Where does that thought occur? Not in your cousin's, of course.

Where do you place (metaphorically or otherwise) your thoughts on this sentence now? Is it not in your mind? Where does that thought occur? — David Mo

Somewhere between my mind and my brain. On the borderline.

The borderline between my mind and my brain.

Confused? Try to tell me what is on your mind right now that is not experiences, emotions and thoughts about experiences and emotions or ideas based on experiences and emotions. — David Mo

You are bound to stay confused whilst you continue to use outdated concepts such as mind.

Mind is a state of consciousness.


Consciousness is fundamental. A state of entangled, integrated, and unified information must exist for any thought to arise. It is all ineffable until this happens.

The idea that consciousness is a subset of mind is a nonsense ,as the basis of any thought is a state of entangled, integrated, and unified information ( consciousness )

Somewhere between my mind and my brain. — Wheatley

As far as location is concerned, I don't see the mind having a different place from the whole nervous system (there are neurons in my bowels, also). I don't see my mind thinking from the table or from the back of the room. When my nervous system moves, my mind moves with it.

You are bound to stay confused whilst you continue to use outdated concepts such as mind. — Pop

Old-fashioned? 65 Categories found in PhilPapers. 10 Journals - including the prestigious Mind (over 20,000 articles).
Doesn't seem like a very old-fashioned topic when it has such a large audience among philosophers and psychologists.

Do you establish any difference between mind and consciousness? I'm not clear on how you use the concept of consciousness.
For me there is a difference between being aware of something and thinking about something, but that difference doesn't seem to be taken into account in this thread.

You continue to evade the proposition posed to you, this is getting tiresome.

You continue to evade the proposition posed to you, this is getting tiresome. — Pop

What proposition? I don't find it. Repeat it, please.

What proposition? I don't find it. Repeat it, please. — David Mo

Mind is a state of consciousness.


Consciousness is fundamental. A state of entangled, integrated, and unified information must exist for any thought to arise. It is all ineffable until this happens.

The idea that consciousness is a subset of mind is a nonsense ,as the basis of any thought is a state of entangled, integrated, and unified information ( consciousness ) — Pop

Do you accept the verdict? — David Mo

The defense accepts the verdict (despite the fact that genetically the two individuals cannot be identical if there is an age difference but anyways)

The idea that consciousness is a subset of mind is a nonsense — Pop

It depends on what you mean by conscience. Sometimes consciousness and mind are used as synonymous words. For example in this Wikipedia definition sense 2 is similar to mind:

Consciousness 1. awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact: intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self
                •  inward awareness of an external object, state, or fact
    2. the state or activity that is characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, or thought.

Mind: The mind is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion.

This ambiguity permits the mind-body problem be treated in the articles "Mind" and "Consciousness" at once.

If you want to undo the ambiguity of the concept of conciousness in your texts some present confusions in this discussion can be avoided.

The Court appreciates the willingness of the defence.
Case closed.

You continue to evade the proposition.Obviously I am challenging the prevailing view. If I could pose my proposition to wikipedia or to the 20,000 odd authors you hide behind I would, but I cannot. So its up to you, or anybody else who has an interest, to defend the prevailing understanding.

I will state my case one last time:

Consciousness = thought + emotion

Thought = ( entangled + integrated + unified ) information

Emotion = hard problem

For consciousness to take place a thought must form. The basis of any thought is a state of entangled, integrated, and unified information. Prior to this occurrence all is ineffable - its not possible to state anything about a thoughtless state. As a thought takes form, consciousness occurs. - this is the beginning of any and all thinking.

It follows that consciousness ( a state of integrated information ) is fundamental, as nothing can occur before this dose!

If consciousness is fundamental, then it cannot be part of the set of mind as described below. Mind must be a subset of consciousness.

As a consequence the following wikipedia quote would be misinformation:

" Mind: The mind is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion."

It is close, but just misses the mark, and the result is a confused understanding..
It should read :

Consciousness is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as , imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion.

Please respond to the pertinent part of my proposition : That consciousness arises at the same time as a thought is formed, and that this is the fundamental first step of all thinking.

PS: I would appreciate anybody's input

If consciousness is fundamental, then it cannot be part of the set of mind as described below. Mind must be a subset of consciousness.

As a consequence the following wikipedia quote would be misinformation:

" Mind: The mind is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion." — Pop

There is no misinformation in the Wikipedia definition. It is the use that the major dictionaries collect and the use in tens of thousands of psychological and philosophical articles and books. For them, what you call "consciousness" is called "mind". I would say that it is your use of the word that produces some verbal confusion. As I explain below.

That consciousness arises at the same time as a thought is formed, and that this is the fundamental first step of all thinking. — Pop

This is true, if you include in consciousness more than thoughts, as your own definition suggests. That is, "consciousness", in your definition, would be active when some unconscious activities are functioning: desires, emotions, dreams, associations of ideas would be part of this "consciousness" or we would need another word to designate them. Freud called it "unconscious" to oppose it to conscious. In my concept of mind, this would fit in nicely. How does it fit in with your concept of consciousness? Because it sounds strange that there's an unconscious part of consciousness
And if you admit that there are two differentiated processes, the conscious and the unconscious, what do you call the whole of both? Is it not logical to call it mind and talk about the mental in this sense?

What seems clear to me is that the mental world is somewhat more extensive than mere thoughts and is closely associated with brain activities that can be approximately located and even measured in some cases in the form of electrochemical impulses.

Thank you for your considered and thoughtful response.

That consciousness arises at the same time a thought is formed seems correct.
Once the thought is formed a qualia arises.
The time in between is when the subconscious is dealt with.

This is my best understanding at the present time. Its highly speculative, so thank you for bearing with me and for your valuable input.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Heidegger did not identify the Being with any form of consciousness. Therefore, turning to Heidegger to justify that consciousness exists outside the brain doesn't seem helpful. Therefore, I ask you to describe this Being common to all things and to explain what makes you think it is a consciousness that exists outside the human brain. In your own words, if possible. — David Mo

You are correct. Heidegger did not identify Being with our current understanding of consciousness, he considers Being to be more basic. He provides justification for something more basic than our current understanding of both the brain, the mind, and consciousness. Our holistic, referential world of significance is what is most basic for Heidegger. It is does not involve awareness, thought, or subject-object duality. This is the same type of holism described by panpsychists. If you think of consciousness as the platform within and upon which everything appears, in other words the essence or background of all things, rather than a mere observer, state of awareness, and so on, then you get a very different picture of consciousness than the one currently considered a property of the mind, brain, self and so on.

Right. I think this draws on Husserl’s understanding of ‘umwelt’ and ‘lebenswelt’ which are likewise very basic or foundational and for that reason very difficult to discern. And why? Because ‘to discern’ is to bring into focus, to make of it the figure against a background, where the lebenswelt is the background against which we discern particulars. So in that sense, to speak of it is already to misunderstand it.