Hi Edgar,

Ok, I'll bite :)

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to