I think that you are on the right track and I both understand and agree with your view of theory and reality all being part of the same ocean - however, there is a difference between an artist painting a picture and a painting of an artist painting a picture of himself. The former can be said to be a real person, a real artist, whose body is present objectively as a body in other people's experience and subjectively as a kind of a sensory-motive fugue of experienced qualities. The latter is a real painting, but the artist which a human observer sees "in the painting" has no private presence and is in fact a re-presentation within the human visual-cognitive context. The person in the painting is not really an artist, and not really a thing at all, only a chromatic medium arranged to symbolize a thing *for us*.
It doesn't matter how sophisticated you make the painting - turn it into a 4D holographic movie that is a front end for a conversational bot... it's still not anything but a collection of intentionally synchronized facades. Anything which is constructed in this manner, from the outside in, whose operation is controlled by the agenda of a designer is not a 'real' presence, but a puppet or doll in which a human audience is invited to project their own empathy on, like a stuffed animal or an emoticon . I see this confusion as a form of the Pathetic Fallacy. Once we have a clear picture of the difference between a doll and a person, and can see that a person is 'real' in many more senses than the doll is, we can see that even though there is more computation going on in a doll than an atom, an atom, as a whole, natural phenomenon, is more like a person than a doll is. The doll does not know that it is a doll, but an atom is the embodiment of atomic density of sensitivity. An atom detects, attracts, repels, and bonds with other atoms to make new coherent wholes. A doll's reality, by contrast, has no more whole coherence than does one of the molecules that it is composed of. It does not detect or respond to anything as a doll, but rather as a piece of plastic. The doll quality is limited to a particular audience (human beings) and a particular sense modality (dolls don't smell or taste like people, don't usually sound or feel like people, etc, they only look like dolls of people to other people). I share also the view of the single ocean of ontological energy, however I identify that "energy" as simple sensory-motive experience: aesthetic participation - awareness. Within awareness the ability to reflect and invert, to exclude and objectify makes any further 'energy' or 'ontology' redundant. Sense is all that is needed. Consider that the concept of "computations in the brain" is also not primitively real, but is in fact part of our experience as what human beings of this era in history can understand about ourselves. We are not 'computational forms in the brain', nor can computation alone cause any form or feeling. Computation is the representation of sense - it's a doll which cannot make itself real. I see this time as a time of profound misunderstanding of the world and of consciousness. The belief in computation and mechanism is too close to the inverted image of anthropomorphic religion to be considered neutral or scientific. We should see through this information dollhouse and into deeper reality of the ontology of experiential relativity - of multisense realism...but alas we may have a long run left to go. I find myself in the ironic position of seeing the other side of the very view that made so much sense to me for so long, now it has become the obstacle to overcome. Life and death, awareness and the meaningless meshing of digital gears have become indiscernible and the whole of science and art is flushed down the toilet of mindless mathematical regurgitation. /rant Craig On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, > > Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include > theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that > reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most > certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic > definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) > are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the > physical world). > > While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it > fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is > computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that > same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table > with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about > reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is > electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both > computations in the brain. > > The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore > part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving > information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its > reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms > actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds > interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that > distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and > experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally > evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. > > Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes > everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. > > But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists > independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact > prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, > but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. > > This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it > real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I > call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of > reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and > everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists > exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in > the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and > actuality. > > Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists > exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is > nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no > possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is > only the different categories of reality of different information forms > within reality. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.