How different can an experience be and still remain an experience?
As I said, experience is possibly not the best word for it given how you are intending to use the word.
I am using it in the manner that a building experiences a blackout, for example.
I am assigning no consciousness to that experience.
You seem to be tying the words together that was not intended, hence I am saying it was not the best use of word by me.
You seem to be ascribing subjectivity to a purely objective process. Isn't that assuming the existence of what you hope to explain?
I am not ascribing subjectivity to it.
Hopefully the above clarifies.
You said it experiences itself. Isn't that some level of consciousness?
No.
A building is not conscious yet can experience a blackout, for example.
That was the intended understanding of the word, thus no consciousness implied.
Yes. I assume dualism just as you assume monism. Why do you bring that up?
Assuming something from the outset in an argument to try to demonstrate its existence is a circular argument.
Duality should surely only be posited when necessary.
This necessity has not be shown.
There are enormously complex things and structures and processes that we don't recognize as conscious. 3 body systems for example. Weather systems. And other chaotic systems. What are the logical or at least empirical grounds for positing complexity as giving rise to consciousness?
Do not confuse chaos with complexity.
Chaos is the sensitivity of a system to an input.
Complexity is the level of interactedness between the number of components, the more components and interconnectendess the more complex.
But a complex system need not be chaotic and a chaotic system need not be complex.
Furthermore ther are many orders of magnitude of difference in complexity between systems such as the weather and the human brain.
The empirical grounds for positing it are simple: reduce the complexity of the interactions within the human brain and you lose consciousness.
This certainly is not proof, but it is grounds for positing it as a theory.
Why do I need to do that? Unless you are saying the human brain is the only system complex enough to attain consciousness.
You need to if you wish to use the argument that no other thing gets more complex and becomes conscious, as you did.
If you can not provide evidence of one other thing that is as complex as a conscious brain then how can you know that consciousness does not arise out of that complexity, assuming it is complexity of the right things?
But again, why would level of complexity determine consciousness? There is no more reason to think a very complex system would be anymore conscious than a less complex system.
Yet here we are, a very complex system, far more complex than anything else we are aware of, and we are conscious.
Do you see a car and wonder how it works, given that each individual component does not have the necessary property?
Until you can rule out complexity for being a driving influence in how our consciousness came about, why invoke duality?
So it isn't just the complexity of being a function. It needs to be the right kind of complex system to be conscious.
Of course.
Complexity is a property of a system, not the system itself.
This works against your claim that the mind is a function in that you are enlisting more conditions beyond the function that are required to produce a mind.
Eh?
A function has properties of which complexity is but one.
That's 4 things now---functions, complexity, the right kind of complex system, and emergentism, all to explain the conscious mind. Aren't we in danger of violating Occam's Razor here?
That's like saying that a brick is many things: material, length, width and height, weight etc.
There is just the brick.