Complex phenomena which include a form of reflexivity are not always modeled as minds, for example the stock market. It is often said to behave as if it has a mind of its own, but this is not an attribution that sticks, it is sometimes useful similie at most. This perhaps is because it lacks individuality or mortality, these being closely related or overlapping notions. A machine, which has mortality of a sort, is seen as having more individuality than a social organisation which is a far more complex, self-reflective and hierarchically organised structure. Social organisations are admittedly also mortal, but unlike machines they don't leave corpses behind, they don't have the pathos of mortality. Is that the difference, or is it just the collective nature of organisations, their relative immortality, or their structural inability to relate in a one to one way to individuals - unlike a car, say? What seems to be behind these speculations is the circular idea that mind, or self, is what appears as mind-like to other minds. Alternatively, you might say that a peculiar pathos of mind is its desire to find an objective representation of itself. Mind is what desires but fails to represent itself. Consciousness is something else, since one thing that is clear about it is that it has no pathos. It is too crude to equate it with transparency and appearance, with undisclosedness. Consciousness, were it a thing, would be the least disclosed of things. It is what makes appearance possible, under the promptings of desire, without ever appearing. Consciousness is not self-conscious, and it is also the only 'thing' that makes identity possible without having an identity.