On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:29, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Terren,

I don't find the panpsychism label useful. Mine is an entirely new and independent theory.

The way it works starting from the beginning:

At the fundamental level reality consists only of computationally interacting information forms made real by occurring in the reality of being.


So you commit yourself ontologically (like a pope). It would be more clear if you make this into an hypothesis, and clarify your notion of being, computation, interaction, etc.

Bruno



Every form can be said to 'experience' the other forms with which it interacts via changes in its own form. At the generic non-organismic level I call this Xperience. In fact in this interpretation the universe can be said to consist of Xperience only. Things and events are a subsidiary distinction both included in the concept of Xperience.

To answer your question in this sense a rock does Xperience the interaction of its information forms with other information forms, as do all information forms that make up the universe.

When it comes to organismic awareness we have a particular subset of Xperience we call EXperience in which some of the forms that are altered are those in that organism's internal mental simulation of reality. These are functionally no different than feedback forms on modern automobiles etc. that enable these devices to monitor (Xperience) their own states except in biological systems they are enormously more complex and detailed. The working of such biological self-monitoring systems is what we call experience.

So organismic EXperience is simply a specialized subset of the all pervasion phenomenon of Xperience that occurs in biological organisms with complex self monitoring systems associated with their internal mental simulations of the actual computational external reality they exist within.

So everything in the universe can be said to Xperience whatever its forms computationally interact with, but only biological information forms can be properly said to EXperience other forms, and then they always internally interprete and embellish that experience as some personal variant of a classical material world, something which does not actually exist expect in their internal mental simulations of the true external information world.

So to categorize Xperience as to what is actually occurring we examine the type of forms themselves to see what they actually do rather than trying to impose arbitrary human categories upon them....

Edgar



On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:43:43 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
Edgar,

Thanks for clarifying. Your theory sounds like a spinoff of panpsychism... would you say a rock is capable of experiencing? If not, what is the theoretical difference between a rock and a baby that demarcates what is capable of experiencing, and what isn't?

Terren


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
Terren,

All human babies are automatically consciousness. They are conscious of whatever input data they have. I don't see the point of your question which is why I didn't answer before...

Edgar



On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 2:42:24 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
On the contrary, I replied with a question that went unanswered.

It was a question about whether a human baby, fed a stream of virtual sense data as in the movie The Matrix, could be considered conscious in your theory, as you seemed to suggest that consciousness was a property of reality, as a function somehow of "ontological energy".

Terren

On Jan 8, 2014 1:49 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net> wrote:
Telmo,

Thanks for the link but see my new topic "A theory of consciousness" of a few days ago which no one has even commented on and which is much more reasonable and explanatory.

Edgar



On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:57:37 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
In case you haven't seen it...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

Seems like an attempt to recover materialism, which strikes me as
somewhat unexpected from Tegmark. Am I missing something?

Cheers,
Telmo.

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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