Telmo,

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. 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. 

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...

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. 
It consists entirely of the computational interaction of information forms 
in OE. 

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...

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 <edga...@att.net<javascript:>> 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > everyth...@googlegroups.com<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 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