The difference between immanent and transcendent is the same as posing the question of whether a quality is 'bound' to a collective of states and conditions or is
an independentive aspect of being that is merely associatively
compatible with the 'house' or 'body' it is present within.
The question can be translated in to: - is function contingent on form (its presence)? - is function (performance) inseparable from form?
I liken the qualia of mind and consciousness to the qualia
labeled 'between'. Between is an independent relation~qualia,
but is has no presence, no 'existence', without the presence
of two or more other 'instantiations' that are separated by
a third condition~parameter. "Between" is real and present
on the basis of 'heterotelic' conditions. That is, it 'exists'
conditionally on the presence of other factors. It doesn't exist independently even though it can be parsed and understood
and identified 'independently'.
With that as the foundational notion, who is to say that 'mind' or consciousness - as we experience it, know it, appreciate it - is restricted to being instantiated by one and only one set of rigorous preconditions?
What if there are degrees of 'sufficient conditions', such that 'life' can be said to be present when sufficient interactives occur to reach the interrelation level called 'metabolism'?
Who is to restrict the notion of 'metabolism' to aerobic interactions
only? Anaerobic interaction groupings also qualify. So right there
you've got an expanded category. Then consider whether only carbon
based systems are 'living'. Other elements can place-hold for carbon
and whole metabolic ensembles be extended around those instead. A further expansion of the 'life' realm.
So it realizingly appears that the presence of satisfying relations
is premiere to the original question, more than any 'forms' per se.
But the relations are so inextricable intrinsic to forms - the aspects we are foremost congnizant of - that we shortcut the labelling
and simply point the form~structure to note the dynamics and process
we are really discussing.
At that notion, we can leap to extreme situations, knowing that our criteria set for analyzing and labeling and identifying qualia will include all these factors, no matter what 'system' we examine or scrutinyze.
For me, the operational qualia comes down to enactifiable volition.
Does a collective of states~qualia reach the threshhold of being
able to initiate action - - independent of the world-environment its embedding within and co-extant with?
When this becomes the defining question, then all forms and performances can be looked at, whether the traditionally 'organic' or not.
And for me, I can identify precursive qualia which -will- satisfy the question, all the way down to the structure and fabric of spacetime.
Consciousness and mind require the dynamic instantiation of active
transfer of information. No conveying, no inter-involvement .. then no co-performance or binding of performances, and therefore no
projective recognition or acknowledgement takes places [exists].
(Out of sight, out of mind .. to use a raw simplistic metaphor).
Without activity, mind does not exist. (which satisfies the first line intuitive common sense recognition of a bodyform being alive or dead ...no collective brainwave impulse set :: no thought, no life ; no metabolism :: no life)
Extendingly, rudimentary consciousness -is- present when there is 'action'. And that generalization can include more than most conventional mindsets care to consider in their comfort zones of considerations. :-)
Jamie Rose