Simply put, it is that which is creating. — Rich

How something which doesn't have any essence can create? Mind should be something.

Another way to understand it, it is that which is peering through the eyes. — Rich

So mind experience as well. Does that decide too?

That is definition of mind in my opinion: The essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and create/act.

For this there is the "Big Bang Theory". Armand Delsemme in "Our cosmic origin" imagined a possible way of start at Big Bang. It too comes with its own baggage of problems though. — Santanu

Yes, we simply don't know.

Is Inter Mind Conscious?
I think only the Conscious Mind is Conscious. The Physical Mind and the Inter Mind are front end and intermediate processing stages. The only thing we know is what we experience in our Conscious Minds. — SteveKlinko

So you could consider them as subconscious mind. Unless you have a reason to distinguish them from each other.

What is mind?

So you are a dualist?

If motion is imperfection, perfect does not exist at all and probably is beyond imagination.
If God is an intelligent being and creator of everything, why should He do so?

If He has created out of pleasure, then He is too irresponsible to break the perfect symmetry
If He has created out of kindness/ pity, then question is for whom was this kindness (there was nothing before in perfect condition), the unnecessary kindness is akin to ridicule/ mockery to His own creation
If He has created out of no reason, then He is an Idiot — Santanu

You are right with your observation. But the question is about ability to create imperfection. Perfection is the end.

In all these cases it goes against the concept of God as the creator of everything. If God is without a form/ body, it itself cannot initiate any creativity. If God is ultimate intelligent being, there must be someone more intelligent who created God. That's an infinite loop. I would prefer to keep it simple and imagine that the motion/ imperfection always existed. — Santanu

That is logically impossible too. The argument for this is as following: You cannot reach from infinite past to now with waiting. Therefore there is a beginning.

PS: These are philosophical thoughts of early Indian Philosophers during 7th century BC (Buddhism, Jainism, some factions of Mimamsa etc.) — Santanu

Interesting.

Therefore there is one process and one consciousness if we believe that consciousness is the result of process.

One can look at it as one process or many. It is a matter of perspective. One can say I see many processes (the heart beating, the blood flowing, the lungs breathing, etc.), or one can say they is only one process - living. One cannot be divorced from the other and there is no reason to even try. — Rich

Could we agree that everything is interacting with each other?

It would be better if you can give some examples of imperfections which is created (by God) — Santanu

Things were in motion after creation and they still are in motion. Therefore things have been not perfect.

Maybe he made the perfect mistake? — Sir2u

The question is about ability. Does God have power to create imperfect thing? Is it logically possible.

Or maybe it is only humans that see them as imperfections. — Sir2u

Things are imperfect since they are subject to motion. Motion is not an illusion.

Or made he did not create anything at all and the imperfections came about just as the perfections did. — Sir2u

Maybe.

Bismillah.

Perfection is in the totality. No end, no beginning. Each part eternally perceived by a timeless creator, that has in itself no limits. Imperfection is a consequence of finitude. I think we might perceive imperfection because we are parts looking at parts, and the totality is beyond our capacity. When we look at something, we have to neglect everything else to see it. When you shine a torch in the night to see, you may illuminate what you point it at, but you make the darkness around it even darker.

Although we may describe things as imperfect, our description exists as one layer among indefinite layers. So although to some degree it may be correct for us to describe it as such from our relative perspective, taking the totality into consideration leads one having to ponder whether or not it may be a deception to think in such terms.

Best I think, to submit to the creator. What will be will be.

Peace be with you. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The whole is sum of its parts and each parts is imperfect therefore the whole is imperfect. In fact we can grasp the whole. The whole also is subject to change therefore it is not perfect.

Because the only thing which can be perfect is God. Nothing else can match Gods perfection. For Example, humans can never be perfect when they are living in the "Physical" world as they are burdened with a body which restricts them. God, on the other hand, does not have such a body or physical form as he lives in the world of forms and ideas. He is perfect because he is a soul and does not have a body. In Geometry, if you use your mind and think, you can have two perfectly parallel lines. Those two lines are perfect, straight and parallel. Yet if you try to draw them on a piece of paper you will find such a task to be impossible as you are restricted by the physical world, because the piece of paper, the pencil and human are all imperfect. So actually god does not just create imperfection. The imperfection lies in the material world and the senses, the perefection lies in the metaphysical world and the mind and in God. — René Descartes

I am arguing against an imperfect act which cannot be performed by a perfect being since perfection is the end.

Imperfection isn't created; it is the corruption of something that was once perfect. In the case of the artist and the eraser, no new information was added, hence nothing imperfect was created. Rather, the painting became imperfect but was not created imperfect. — Lone Wolf

That is logically impossible since an imperfect being/thing doesn't change.

If the process is one of endless self-differentiation over time then one would expect to find infinite variation of pattern and structure within cosmology, organismic forms, consciousness and culture. — Joshs

I don't understand your comment. Could you please elaborate?

Is Qualia generated by brain? — SteveKlinko

I believe so. It is simply subconscious mind providing stuff for conscious mind.

The Inter Mind is the connection between the Physical Mind (Brain) and the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind is a translator. I think the Physical Mind can only do Neural Activity things. The Inter Mind is in contact with the Physical Mind and translates the Neural Activity into something that the Conscious Mind can use, like Qualia. The Conscious Mind is a further processing stage that uses the Qualia as input data. Qualia is just another type of Data. — SteveKlinko

Is Inter Mind conscious? If yes then we should be aware of it. Otherwise I call it subconscious mind. We might have several subconscious mind.

Some people enjoy pain. We are not naturally inclined to pain because it is correlated to body destruction. It is our fabric which dictates this.

Formation just allows consciousness to be informed. We are asking why there is just not one consciousness since there exists only one process.

If you say there are no waves you are missing a lot. I believe most people will see waves. — Rich

Waves are just formation of the ocean.

I would say that there is only ocean. Waves just give ocean a form.

If you try to create lines of demarcation between the ocean and the waves, you will be frustrated. Oceans and waves are continuous? — Rich

There is no wave if there is no line of demarcation.

No. The first question is whether ocean has consciousness and if not why? The second question is why there is not only one consciousness when there is one process? Everything is related to each other.

in way yes, because it can be considered all one process. But consider this. You observe a football team acting out a play in unison or an orchestra creating a sound in unison, are these examples of one process and one mind? — Rich

No, unless you claim that there is a consciousness related to unison.

What I am arguing is that there should be one mind since there is one process.

The question is how a unified subjective experience is possible when each part experience different thing. You are not providing an answer to that.
— bahman

That question is essentially like wondering why is it that an entire car is capable of movement when that movement is entirely born out of motion of its parts. It is not terribly relevant philosophically. In General System terms, it marks the difference between an output of a part of the system, and an output of the system itself, that is all. — Akanthinos

No, the problem of emergence of a unique consciousness is different from example you gave.

Can you give me an example, except than consciousness, of a property of a system that is not function of properties of system's parts?
— bahman

Urban traffic, movements in flock of birds, hell, even hashtags and retweets. — Akanthinos

Of course urban traffic is a function of number of cars and structure of road. We are dealing with conscious beings in movements in flock of birds...

This idea is problematic, relations are not intrinsic properties of parts. — aporiap

I just put them in the same package giving them a name. What you wishes?

As a quick example, the words 'Dog' and 'God' are composed of the same letters but form different words. The difference is in the relative position of each letter. If you decompose these words into letters, you don't conserve the relations between the parts and so you loose the properties intrinsic to the whole word (that it sounds like 'dog' vs 'god'; that it means 'dog' and not 'god'). You can make the same point with molecular systems -- e.g. constitutional isomers. These are compounds that are formed of the same atoms but with a different bonding pattern [e.g. 2OH vs H2O2; 1-propanol vs 2-propanol]. It's the bonding pattern in combination with the properties of the constituent atoms that determine the properties of the whole compound. — aporiap

Yes, and there is no emergence up to here.

Since the relations are unique to the whole and determine the whole's properties, you can make a case for a kind of 'soft' emergence:

1) The properties of wholes are determined by the parts of a whole and their unique relations with each other [e.g. [behind(x, y); in front of(x, y)]:

2) A system is reducible if all components are reducible

3) Relations are not reducible

Therefore by (1), (2), (3) the properties of wholes are not reducible. — aporiap

What do you mean with relations are not reducible?

The other example I gave was life. — T Clark

Life simply is what you call statistical mechanic when you subtract consciousness from it. It doesn't think and it doesn't have any feeling either. You know that sperm follow the path toward egg because of distribution of chemical, etc.

What is this "one process", and how does "single consciousness" follow from it? — Caldwell

All particle are interacting with each other and the motion of the whole is given by Schrodinger equation. That one process. Materialists claim that consciousness is the result of process in matter.

I observe consciousness pretty much everywhere interacting with no clear line of demarcation. — Rich

You are not claiming that your consciousness is mine? There is of course a line between me and you. You have your personal world and I have mine. Our thoughts and feelings are different.

I don't have any problem with the examples you provide, except they are not examples of emergence. They are examples of statistical mechanics. Those are completely different things. — T Clark

Can you give me an example, except than consciousness, of a property of a system that is not function of properties of system's parts?

Also, forgive me for being a nitpicker, but temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, not force. I recognize that doesn't affect the point you're trying to make. — T Clark

I am aware of that and I didn't say that temperature is related to force.

For what regards consciousness which is a side topic one can argue that it is impossible to measure it.
— bahman

The smallest measurement possible is a token of presence : if you can't measure something, you either haven't defined it well enough for measurement, or there is nothing at all there to measure. — Akanthinos

It is not about being small or large. Consciousness is a first person phenomena so you cannot measure it from third person view. All which you can observe is motion of electrons if consciousness is really related to motion of electron which in my opinion it doesn't have any relation.

We were discussion whether electron for example is conscious. He answered yes. Then I question how a unique consciousness is possible when all parts of your body are conscious separately?
— bahman

Then my answer still holds, despite not being about electrons. A unique consciousness is possible through the passive synthesis of our inputs, when it is acheived. If it is not, and perhaps it is the normal state of affairs for certain living beings, then you truly have multiple consciousness related to different body parts in a single organism. There is nothing a priori wrong with this, and there is no deep philosophical connection to make with this, except perhaps in regards to the fact that, seemingly, most living beings do unify their experiential data into a single "stream of consciousness". — Akanthinos

The question is how a unified subjective experience is possible when each part experience different thing. You are not providing an answer to that.

Well, this thread was about emergence. I argue that it is impossible.
— bahman

I've already shown you why your, let's say, your meriology doesn't represent O'Connors type of causal asynchronous emergence, but it doesn't represent the standard supervenience account of emergence either. — Akanthinos

I am not claiming that emergence of any kind is possible. I am claiming that any property of a system is a function of properties of system's parts. There is nothing extra. I would be happy to know an example rather than consciousness.

In your account, all properties are defined en bloc, at once, with no regards to dynamic relations. In the standard supervenience account, it becomes necessary to define further subsets of Pi, where each of those subsets may also be attributed properties. The relational properties of those subsets are seen, by virtue of their structural peculiarity, as equally primitive as those properties we generally would define as primitives. Since the effects described are not technically the result of causal relationships, but of relationships betweens sets of causally entangled properties, they are additionnally often not described as 'causal' events, but rather as 'synchronous' events. — Akanthinos

Dynamic is important and I included it as a property of parts.

Because each parts are vested in the same context, from the same point of view, that of a singular organism.

The problem of passive synthesis is solved through a proper analysis of the multitude of "selves" generated by a living organism, and even more dramatically by a mature human being. We don't "observe separate consciousness related to separate parts" because we are normally functionning living beings that relate directly to their sense-data through a unification of those different inputs on a singular field. This could and sometime is different. Alien Hand Syndrome is a thing, you know.
We also don't have a tendency to question the unity of our consciousness because we all have an autobiographical and historical selves which remain more or less the same in-between our daily losses of consciousness. Everytime I wake up I could start by questionning who I am, if I'm not a new being that just started existing. But then I would each time remember that I am myself, that I have my particular history, and that as far as I can tell, that history is just about the same one as the one I would have come up with yesterday, and would come up with tomorrow. That, although it is not an exercise we actually need to consciously perform, unifies my experiences and consciousness just as much as the peculiarity that is passive synthesis. — Akanthinos

We were discussion whether electron for example is conscious. He answered yes. Then I question how a unique consciousness is possible when all parts of your body are conscious separately?

Well, this thread was about emergence. I argue that it is impossible. Please read this post for further illustration.

For what regards consciousness which is a side topic one can argue that it is impossible to measure it. Therefore consciousness does not belong to scientific/physical realm.

I went back through the past 10 or so of your posts but I'm not sure what your argument is in this context. Can you briefly restate it. — T Clark

Let me if I can summarize the discussion. Matter is made of parts which each part has a set of properties. For example electron has, charge, mass, spin, position and motion. The properties of the system however is a function of its parts' properties. There is always an observable which is defined as average of properties of parts. Let me give you an example: Think of pressure that a gas exerts to the wall of container. Pressure is an observable. It is related to average force which atoms/molecules of gas exert to the wall of container. That is true for any other observable such as density, average velocity, temperature, and more complex things such as conductivity in more complex system such as superconductor, etc. In all these physical examples an observable in macro scale is expressed in term of average properties of the parts. There is no such a thing as emergence in physics.

What I was trying to say was that consciousness is a physical process. It results, emerges, from the behavior of the brain and other parts of the body. — T Clark

Then you have to deal with my argument.

It seems, then, that mind must come into being as mind qua mind. How is this coming into being not an emergent quality from parts that don't have the quality? — tim wood

There is still an issue even if you assume that parts are conscious: How a unique consciousness could arises from parts motions and configurations? We don't observe separate consciousness related to separate parts.

Being is a part of reality which has specific properties, like intelligence. Reality is what we experience. Existence is affirmative which shows that reality is objectively there or not, an illusion.