Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #425025 > unrolled thread

Consciousness Explained - New book

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Consciousness Explained - New book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 08:07 -0700
    Consciousness Explained - New book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 08:26 -0700
      Re: Consciousness Explained - New book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 10:58 -0700
    Consciousness Explained - New book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 08:28 -0700
    Re: Consciousness Explained - New book Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 18:29 +0000
      Re: Consciousness Explained - New book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 12:23 -0700
        Re: Consciousness Explained - New book Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 19:55 +0000
          Re: Consciousness Explained - New book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 14:48 -0700
            Re: Consciousness Explained - New book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 14:49 -0700
            Re: Consciousness Explained - New book Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:37 +0000
    Consciousness Explained - New book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 15:43 -0700
    Re: Consciousness Explained - New book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-15 15:48 -0700
    Re: Consciousness Explained - New book Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-07-16 19:51 -0500
      Re: Consciousness Explained - New book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-16 21:14 -0700
        Re: Consciousness Explained - New book Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-07-17 04:55 -0500
          Re: Consciousness Explained - New book Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-07-20 06:41 -0500
    Re: Consciousness Explained - New book RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-21 15:14 -0700
      Re: Consciousness Explained - New book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-21 18:24 -0700
        Re: Consciousness Explained - New book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-23 11:21 -0700

#425025 — Consciousness Explained - New book

Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true TOE even though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics itself can't possibly construct a true TOE.

Consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon and thus the universe it exists within can't be physical in the usual sense of consisting of material objects.

There are two steps in understanding consciousness.

1. Thus the only solution to the problem of consciousness is to add something to the universe that is compatible with the existence of consciousness. There is only one thing this can possibly be. It must be the actively self-manifesting existence or reality of everything in the universe that science completely takes for granted and ignores. 

But if things didn't have an actively self-manifesting existence they simply wouldn't exist, so they must have it.

We can call the actively self-manifesting existence of things their immanence. Immanence is an old idea that expressed the hidden presence of the divine in things but I use it completely absent any religious connotations.

2. The second step is to understand how the brain's simulation of reality works to understand how consciousness appears within it.

Our simulation continually computes an internal information model of reality in which it encodes external objects and events as neural data representations of them. So far this all occurs at an unconscious level.

But there is a little subroutine in the simulation called the focus of attention routine that actively monitors representations in the main simulation. The action of this focus of attention subroutine generates data that representations are being focused on, that they are being experienced.

Thus what we call experiences are the data that representations of things are being focused on or experienced in the brain.

What we call consciousness is simply the immanence of the data of such experiences. Because of their immanence experiences become conscious.

Thus consciousness is a combination of the immanence of existence that all the data that makes up the computational universe has occurring in specialized brain structures encoding that experiences are occurring.

It's a very simple and straightforward explanation of consciousness, and it appears to be the only possible actual explanation.

This is all explained in detail in my book Consciousness Explained, It's True Nature Finally Revealed, available on Amazon under my name.

Edgar L. Owen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#425029

Edgar Fool just stepped off the deep end of Mysticism 


http://insulinnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Insulin_Nation_Low_Men_in_Black.gif

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425045

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 11:26:03 AM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Edgar Fool just stepped off the deep end of Mysticism 
> 
> 
> http://insulinnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Insulin_Nation_Low_Men_in_Black.gif

David,

There is no mysticism whatsoever in this theory of consciousness. It's a completely logical and rational explanation of consciousness.

Edgar L. Owen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425032

Quit spamming your crappy books here. 
Consciousness has ZERO in common with Relativity 

Scram you leech, 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425051

Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true TOE even
> though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics itself can't possibly
> construct a true TOE. Consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon and thus
> the universe it exists within can't be physical in the usual sense of
> consisting of material objects.

So much nonsense, what's wrong with you former half-engineers, mixing 
incompatible, different domain, things together all of the time. No one 
can define consciousness, soul, personality etc. Reality is the closest 
you may come in a definition, but even that is vastly debatable.

What you may define, and we all will agree, is an Observer and a 
Measurement.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425057

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 2:29:50 PM UTC-4, Garfield Dieter wrote:
> Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 
> > Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true TOE even
> > though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics itself can't possibly
> > construct a true TOE. Consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon and thus
> > the universe it exists within can't be physical in the usual sense of
> > consisting of material objects.
> 
> So much nonsense, what's wrong with you former half-engineers, mixing 
> incompatible, different domain, things together all of the time. No one 
> can define consciousness, soul, personality etc. Reality is the closest 
> you may come in a definition, but even that is vastly debatable.
> 
> What you may define, and we all will agree, is an Observer and a 
> Measurement.

Garfield,

Since consciousness is an actual part of reality it clearly must have a logical rational explanation, and my books clearly provide a convincing explanation...

Edgar L. Owen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425064

Edgar L. Owen wrote:

>> So much nonsense, what's wrong with you former half-engineers, mixing
>> incompatible, different domain, things together all of the time. No one
>> can define consciousness, soul, personality etc. Reality is the closest
>> you may come in a definition, but even that is vastly debatable.
>> 
>> What you may define, and we all will agree, is an Observer and a
>> Measurement.
> 
> Garfield, Since consciousness is an actual part of reality it clearly
> must have a logical rational explanation, and my books clearly provide a
> convincing explanation... Edgar L. Owen

My friend, not two individuals on this planet mean the same with your 
"consciousness". Entirely epiphenomenal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425081

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 3:55:48 PM UTC-4, Garfield Dieter wrote:
> Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 
> >> So much nonsense, what's wrong with you former half-engineers, mixing
> >> incompatible, different domain, things together all of the time. No one
> >> can define consciousness, soul, personality etc. Reality is the closest
> >> you may come in a definition, but even that is vastly debatable.
> >> 
> >> What you may define, and we all will agree, is an Observer and a
> >> Measurement.
> > 
> > Garfield, Since consciousness is an actual part of reality it clearly
> > must have a logical rational explanation, and my books clearly provide a
> > convincing explanation... Edgar L. Owen
> 
> My friend, not two individuals on this planet mean the same with your 
> "consciousness". Entirely epiphenomenal.

Garfield,

If we can't understand consciousness we don't fully understand the universe no matter how well we understand the physics...

Edgar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425082

Ed Spewed
Garfield, 

If we can't understand consciousness we don't fully understand the universe no matter how well we understand the physics... 

Edgar 


No .... the two are Completely Unrelated 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425320

Edgar L. Owen wrote:

>> > Garfield, Since consciousness is an actual part of reality it clearly
>> > must have a logical rational explanation, and my books clearly
>> > provide a convincing explanation... Edgar L. Owen
>> 
>> My friend, not two individuals on this planet mean the same with your
>> "consciousness". Entirely epiphenomenal.
> 
> Garfield,If we can't understand consciousness we don't fully understand
> the universe no matter how well we understand the physics...

So what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425089

Edgar L. Owen Scribbled 
Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true TOE even though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics itself can't possibly construct a true TOE. 

This is EXACTLY WHY YOUR POSTING HERE IS NOTHING MORE THAN LITTERING

This forum is not Psychology  or Religion. 

This is not a place to discuss the Turing test either. 

Your Brain is like a trash heap of junk on the side of a desert highway. 

Just random Junk 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425090

Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 
> Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true TOE even though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics itself can't possibly construct a true TOE.
> 
> Consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon and thus the universe it exists within can't be physical in the usual sense of consisting of material objects.
> 
> There are two steps in understanding consciousness.
> 
> 1. Thus the only solution to the problem of consciousness is to add something to the universe that is compatible with the existence of consciousness. There is only one thing this can possibly be. It must be the actively self-manifesting existence or reality of everything in the universe that science completely takes for granted and ignores.
> 
> But if things didn't have an actively self-manifesting existence they simply wouldn't exist, so they must have it.
> 
> We can call the actively self-manifesting existence of things their immanence. Immanence is an old idea that expressed the hidden presence of the divine in things but I use it completely absent any religious connotations.
> 
> 2. The second step is to understand how the brain's simulation of reality works to understand how consciousness appears within it.
> 
> Our simulation continually computes an internal information model of reality in which it encodes external objects and events as neural data representations of them. So far this all occurs at an unconscious level.
> 
> But there is a little subroutine in the simulation called the focus of attention routine that actively monitors representations in the main simulation. The action of this focus of attention subroutine generates data that representations are being focused on, that they are being experienced.
> 
> Thus what we call experiences are the data that representations of things are being focused on or experienced in the brain.
> 
> What we call consciousness is simply the immanence of the data of such experiences. Because of their immanence experiences become conscious.
> 
> Thus consciousness is a combination of the immanence of existence that all the data that makes up the computational universe has occurring in specialized brain structures encoding that experiences are occurring.
> 
> It's a very simple and straightforward explanation of consciousness, and it appears to be the only possible actual explanation.
> 
> This is all explained in detail in my book Consciousness Explained, It's True Nature Finally Revealed, available on Amazon under my name.
> 
> Edgar L. Owen



but consciousness has never been proven to...exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425246

Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true
> TOE even though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics
> itself can't possibly construct a true TOE.

Nonsense.

> Consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon

It is a *consequence* of three physical phenomena:

1. The development of cell structires with a capacity for the
   behaviours that we call "memory";
2. The development in those cells of a capacity for the behaviours
   that we call "habituation" and "aversion";
3. The development of mssively complex structures in which squillions
   of those cells interact.

No need to "add something" to the everything.

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425254

Ned Latham wrote:
> 
> Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> >
> > Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true
> > TOE even though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics
> > itself can't possibly construct a true TOE.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> > Consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon
> 
> It is a *consequence* of three physical phenomena:
> 
> 1. The development of cell structires with a capacity for the
>    behaviours that we call "memory";
> 2. The development in those cells of a capacity for the behaviours
>    that we call "habituation" and "aversion";
> 3. The development of mssively complex structures in which squillions
>    of those cells interact.
> 
> No need to "add something" to the everything.
> 
> ----snip----

Those three points creates the "illusion" of ...consciousness.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425285

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > >
> > > Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true
> > > TOE even though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics
> > > itself can't possibly construct a true TOE.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > > Consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon
> >
> > It is a *consequence* of three physical phenomena:
> >
> > 1. The development of cell structures with a capacity for the
> >    behaviours that we call "memory";
> > 2. The development in those cells of a capacity for the behaviours
> >    that we call "habituation" and "aversion";
> > 3. The development of massively complex structures in which squillions
> >    of those cells interact.
> >
> > No need to "add something" to the everything.
>
> Those three points creates the "illusion" of ...consciousness.

It's an illusion in *some* cases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425669

Ned Latham wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Consciousness is part of reality and must be covered in a true
> > > > TOE even though physics completely ignores it. Thus physics
> > > > itself can't possibly construct a true TOE.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > > Consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon
> > >
> > > It is a *consequence* of three physical phenomena:
> > >
> > > 1. The development of cell structures with a capacity for the
> > >    behaviours that we call "memory";
> > > 2. The development in those cells of a capacity for the behaviours
> > >    that we call "habituation" and "aversion";
> > > 3. The development of massively complex structures in which squillions
> > >    of those cells interact.
> > >
> > > No need to "add something" to the everything.

Which is what the universe is.

> > Those three points creates the "illusion" of ...consciousness.
>
> It's an illusion in *some* cases.

Of course, there are those who aren't conscious of that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425786

On July 15, 2017, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Thus consciousness is a combination of the immanence of existence that 
> all the data that makes up the computational universe has occurring 
> in specialized brain structures encoding that experiences are occurring.
> It's a very simple and straightforward explanation of consciousness, 
> and it appears to be the only possible actual explanation.

Prove you aren't a figment of my imagination.

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425804

RichD wrote:
> 
> On July 15, 2017, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Thus consciousness is a combination of the immanence of existence that
> > all the data that makes up the computational universe has occurring
> > in specialized brain structures encoding that experiences are occurring.
> > It's a very simple and straightforward explanation of consciousness,
> > and it appears to be the only possible actual explanation.
> 
> Prove you aren't a figment of my imagination.
> 
> --
> Rich


what kind of imagination do you have to promte books on usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425913

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> RichD wrote:
> >
> > On July 15, 2017, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > > Thus consciousness is a combination of the immanence of existence that
> > > all the data that makes up the computational universe has occurring
> > > in specialized brain structures encoding that experiences are occurring.
> > > It's a very simple and straightforward explanation of consciousness,
> > > and it appears to be the only possible actual explanation.
> >
> > Prove you aren't a figment of my imagination.
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> 
> what kind of imagination do you have to promte books on usenet?


According to your logic RichD, you wrote the book "Consciousness
Explained".

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web