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 <edga...@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-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 <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.
