On 1 January 2014 04:09, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book > on Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate. > > To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish between > consciousness ITSELF and the contents of consciousness that become > conscious by appearing within consciousness itself. >
Yes, good point (and one I always make :-) Hume, Dennett and co claim consciousness IS its contents but we know better, eh? > > The nature of consciousness itself, why things seem conscious, is the > subject of Chalmer's 'Hard Problem', whereas the various structures of the > contents of consciousness are the so called 'Easy Problems', the subjects > of the study of mind. > Exactamundo. Don't listen to those materialists they realise that getting consciousness to supervene on matter is non-trivial so they try to eliminate it! > > Chalmer's formulation of the Hard Problem is 'How does consciousness arise > from a physical brain?' Let's generalized this a little to 'How does > consciousness arise from a physical world?' > I hope youv'e read Tim Maudlin's "Olympia" paper before you wade into this debate. And you should understand Bruno's comp of course. > > The key to the solution is understanding that the world is not 'physical' > in the sense assumed. It is not a passive clockwork Newtonian world that > just sits there waiting to be brought into consciousness by an observer. In > fact the notion of observation is intrinsic to reality itself in a manner > that reality actively manifests most of the defining attributes of reality > on its own and all the conscious observer adds is participation in that > process from a particular locus with a particular computational nformation > structure. > Waffle... > > I'll explain how this works though the theory is subtle and requires some > work, and there is a lot to it I don't cover here. > Yep. > > In ancient times there was an extramission (emission) theory of vision, > that objects were seen because the eyes shown light on them. Today we still > have the functionally identical emission theory of consciousness, that > things become conscious because mind somehow shines consciousness on them. > > Both theories are wrong. Things are conscious because reality continually > SELF-MANIFESTS itself. It continually computes itself into existence, and > existence self-manifests. It is immanent because it is actually real, and > actually present, and has actual being. This is what I call Ontological > Energy (OE). Things are really really real, they are really actually there, > and consciousness just opens its 'eyes' and participates in this reality. > Rather than the mind shining consciousness onto things, things manifest > their actual reality, their actual real presence in reality, to whatever > interacts with them, including human brains. > Hang on you're the person who thinks energy is created in every moment, and that the MWI violates the conservation of energy. Ho hum, you had me going for a moment there, but I see it's more of the same. "the theory is subtle and requires some work" indeed. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
