Hi Edgar, > My theory of consciousness is made considerably clearer in detail in my book > on Reality if you want to get the full story :-) > > The answers to some of your questions: > > Sure dreams are real, like everything is, but their reality is that they are > dreams. Actually mind is continually actively simulating reality whether > asleep or awake, It continually goes off on its own predicting what it > thinks will happen before it even happens. When we are awake this process is > continually corrected by incoming sensory information and brought back on > track. During dreams sensory input to the process is minimal and that > self-correction process is minimal and the mind is freer to follow > directions of its own based on internal priorities.
Ok, this is how I believe the brain works too. At a high-level: the hard stuff is in the implementation details :) > All this is explained in > detail in Part IV: Mind and Reality of my book. > > Ontological energy is NOT any form of physical energy. It's a somewhat > deficient term to signify the fact that reality is actually real and actual > and actually here, present and happening right now. It is the 'stuff' or > 'substance' (entirely logical rather than physical) of actual existence and > being, and because it is such that makes the forms and computations that > appear within it real and actual. What do you think of the Universal Dovetailer? Could it be what you mean by Ontological Energy? > OE is obviously difficult to properly describe. To paraphrase Lao Tse, "The > ontological energy that can be named is not ontological energy". In fact the > ancient concept of Tao was an ancient approach to pretty much the same > concept. If you know how to describe this without "overloading of terms" > then take a shot at it... No, I tend to agree with Lao Tse... > You ask "how do I know the physical world (doesn't) arise from > consciousness?" I don't claim that. I agree the 'physical' world DOES arise > from conscousness. That's what I've said all along, if you've been > following. > The actual external reality is NOT physical, it's computational. So you believe in comp? > It consists entirely of the computational interaction of information forms > in OE. This sounds like comp and UD. > All so called physical worlds are how organismic minds simulate their > interactions with this information world. Organismic, including human, minds > simulate information reality as a physical reality because that makes it > easier to compute and interact with and thus function within. All the many > ways this happens is described in detail in my book... Ok, again this seems compatible with the concepts of 1p/3p, which are frequently mentioned in this mailing list. (not everyone likes them, for sure... I do) Cheers Telmo > The only 'physical worlds' are products of organismic minds and occur only > within those minds as simulations of the external information reality. > Actual fundamental external reality is computationally evolving information > in OE only. > > Edgar > > > > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:06:49 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> Hi Edgar, >> >> Ok, I'll bite :) >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:09 PM, 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 >> >> This seems circular. >> >> > by appearing within consciousness itself. >> > >> > The nature of consciousness itself, why things seem conscious, >> >> I would argue that why things seem conscious can be explained with >> neuroscience + computer science. The real mystery is why I am >> 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. >> >> Several theories of mind address consciousness, notably comp (as Liz >> pointed out) >> >> > 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?' >> >> Here you're already making a strong assumption. How do you know it's >> not the other way round: the physical world arising from >> consciousness? >> >> > 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. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > 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. >> >> This makes sense to me. I have similar intuitions but I don't feel >> this is sufficiently rigorous or well-defined (as my intuitions are >> also not). >> >> > It is immanent because it is actually real, and >> > actually present, and has actual being. This is what I call Ontological >> > Energy (OE). >> >> Ok but I dislike this kind of overloading of terms. Unless you argue >> that Ontological Energy has some convincing similarities to the well >> accepted concept of energy. >> >> > 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. >> >> So are dreams real? >> >> > The only thing an individual observer brings to consciousness is an >> > interaction with reality from a particular location, and an interaction >> > with >> > the information contents of consciousness filtered through its own >> > perceptual cognitive structure. >> >> Ok. >> >> > Thus consciousness itself is simply the immanent actual real presence of >> > reality, whereas the information structures of the contents of conscious >> > are >> > due to information computations of the brain interacting with >> > information >> > from external reality. >> >> So what you're saying is: stuff is conscious, stuff is complex? >> >> > This is the best, most convincing theory of consciousness of which I'm >> > aware. But like most of my theories it requires a big paradigm shift in >> > understanding since it's a completely new interpretation of reality. >> >> Edgar, I agree with some of what you say here, but I don't understand >> what the theory is. It feels more like a collection of intuitions. Do >> you think you could make your theory more explicit and precise? >> >> Cheers >> Telmo. >> >> > Best, >> > Edgar >> > >> > -- >> > 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. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
