Telmo, I don't know what the "universal dovetailer" is...
Again, for the nth time, my theory has nothing to do with "comp" or "UD". It's a completely different theory. Just go by what I say and don't assume any similarities. It's possible there are some but I'll leave that up to others... Edgar On Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:32:17 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > 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] <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected]<javascript:>. > > > 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.
