In this post we discuss how the two models of characterizing perceived reality lead to two different ways of assigning authorship. In a previous post we discussed how perceived reality can be characterized as a cognitive bias by separating the mind from the senses. In this post we discuss how this leads to different ways of attributing authorship to a body work.
If perceived reality is not characterized as a cognitive bias, and the individual is considered to be their physical body, then any work done by the individual can have their name attached to the work, with the name implying the physical body.
If perceived reality is characterized as a cognitive bias, i.e., the mind and senses are separated, and the individual is represented by an abstraction, then the work done by an individual would be attributed to the power that gives the individual understanding in their mind and the energy to document the work. We believe that this might be the reason why texts like the Upanishads[1] don't have any attributed authorship, although we qualify that we haven't checked whether all of them attribute their authorship to the power that gives knowledge, and our understanding comes from intuition rather than study.