Do I hear the furious stamping fury of the world's tiniest jackboots? — apokrisis

My sister nearly threw the phone at me, in tears, and left the room. My philosopher, on the other hand, was in an absolutely superb mood.

What just happened? My sister was the unfortunate survivor of a philosopher-attack. — Alan Cook

Elsewhere, however, Descartes says that a substance is something “capable of existing independently”; “that can exist by itself”; or “which exists in such a way as to depend on no other thing for its existence” (AT 7: 44, 226, VIII A 24). Descartes contrasts substances, so defined, with modes, qualities and attributes, which can depend for their existence on substances.

In these locations, Descartes affirms an independence criterion of substancehood. This idea may be implicit in Aristotle’s Categories and is gestured at by Al Farabi, but Descartes appears to be the first influential philosopher who explicitly defines substances as those things that are capable of existing by themselves. Descartes adds that only God truly qualifies as a substance so defined, because nothing else could exist without God, a view that would be reaffirmed with greater emphasis by Descartes’ most influential follower, Spinoza. However, Descartes recognises two kinds of “created substance” – things that can exist without anything else, leaving aside God: material body, which is defined by extension, and mental substance, which is defined by thought, which, in this context, is more or less equivalent to consciousness. — SEP

So "having nothing in common" is already ruled out, from the beginning, as a false representation. — Metaphysician Undercover

In this way we have substance dualism, one type of substance contains matter, the other does not. — Metaphysician Undercover

↪apokrisis The question I asked was this:

Why would they need some kind of neurosemiotic model to get to what I would want to call consciousness?
— bert1 — bert1

I’ll talk about the quality of writing, not necessarily the quality of the ideas, although I guess it’s not easy to separate them. There’s a quote I read somewhere that I can’t find again. I’ll paraphrase it—Clarity is so important and so unusual, it is often mistaken for truth. Here’s another— Clarity means expressing what you mean in a way that makes it obvious you’re wrong.

So… clarity. I’m pretty smart. I should be able to figure out what you’re trying to say and whether I agree with it. Reality is not all that complicated. If you can’t describe it so a reasonably intelligent adult can understand it, I question the value of what you have to say. — T Clark

So stop being a lazy bugger and define what you mean by consciousness in a way that is relevant to how I treat it. — apokrisis

Panpsychism is a brute fact claim rather than a causal account. So why do you badger me endlessly for my causal account except to again crow about your brute fact claim. — apokrisis

You show no interest in what I say. And yet you won't leave me alone. — apokrisis

Why would they need some kind of neurosemiotic model to get to what I would want to call consciousness? — bert1

Why what? — apokrisis

And to get to what you would want to call consciousness, they would need some kind of neurosemiotic model. — apokrisis

Biosemiotics argues that life is fundamentally a process of sign production, interpretation, and communication, which is the basis for meaning and cognition. — ApoAI

]Biosemiotics attempts to address the "hard problem" of subjective experience (qualia) by positing that proto-experience or a basic level of awareness is a fundamental aspect of all matter/biological processes, which then expands to higher degrees of consciousness through complex, hierarchical information processing in the brain. — ApoAI

First-Person Perspective: It incorporates a necessary first-person, internal perspective, recognizing the subjective, felt qualities of experience that are difficult to capture with a purely functional, third-person approach. — ApoAI

Then semiosis actually defines life and mind as a modelling relation within the entropic world — apokrisis

So there is a lot of backstory to my particular take on Peirce. — apokrisis

at some point you have to change from what you see about you to how you want things to be — Banno

I'm not sure that is enough to understand what I mean. — Red Sky

Surely “consciousness” is synonymous with “living”? — Punshhh

"All powerful"? Whatever gives you that idea? — Relativist

According to the theory, laws are relations between types of objects. — Relativist

To see if their "artificial" body can generate sapience or consciousness. — Copernicus

This self-referential loop—where the cell both contains and enacts its own design—may be the root of sentience.
It embodies three critical principles:

1. Self-containment (it maintains boundaries separating self from environment)
2. Information feedback (it stores and interprets data through DNA and biochemical processes)
3. Adaptation and evolution (it changes in response to experience)

These mechanisms mirror the functional properties of consciousness itself: awareness, memory, and adaptation.
Thus, the cell might not only be the first living structure but also the proto-conscious one—a physical architecture enabling the emergence of the mind. — Copernicus

Cheers. If there is something in particular that I ought follow up on, let me know. — Banno

That is not the view of law realists. They suggests there to be an ontological basis for the observed regularities.

Example: two objects with opposite electric charge (e.g. electron & proton) have a force of attraction between them. This force is a necessary consequence of their properties. The properties and force are ontological. — Relativist

Why think that, other than that it's possible? — Relativist

By “we”, you mean you. — apokrisis

Anything born out of (may or may not be within) the universe. — Copernicus

When I said physical, I meant a product of physical events — Copernicus

The universe is physical. — Copernicus