Tom,
One minor correction -- I do not consider consciousness 'periperal' I consider it central (or integral). My remark was that you treated it peripherally. For a brief perspective on my view of consciousness see Fundamental Physics of Consciousness, my essay in the ultimate physics fqxi contest. The associated comments thread expands upon the essay.
I definitely do not assume a 'mystical state of free will'. In fact my definition of consciousness is awareness plus free will, because both in my experience and in any logical analysis, these two aspects cannot be separated. I'm not sure what you mean by 'process' but if you mean that awareness 'emerges' from properly arranged matter, then I would argue against that. [see my essay]
The key to consciousness (for those who even believe in consciousness) is not to try to figure out how it 'arises' as this will never succeed, but how it interacts with (the rest of) the physical world. I believe that my treatment is the only one to attack this problem seriously. I expand upon this treatment in Gene Man's World.
You mention Brian Whitworth's VR essay. I discuss that on his thread, so won't clog your thread with those arguments (unless you have some point you wish to discuss here.)
Also, with respect to Verlinde's approach to gravity, I have discussed that briefly here at Jan. 30, 2011 @ 00:41 GMT.
As for time=information=gravity; because one can equate symbols that one assigns to map the physical world, and because the simplest definitions may even allow one to 'equate' A to B and then B to C symbolically, does not mean that physical A = physical C. [It may be true, but simplistic symbolic definitions do not guarantee it.]
In my view 'consciousness' is part of reality, and 'information' is about reality.
So, we are interested in the same things, and are tracking them on others threads. Unless you wish to discuss specific issues, I'll just keep on working on the relevant threads, and see you there.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman