nD epistemo-,onto-& methodo- logies and other meta-issue

[thigle]

firstly, please, note that to 'speculate' shares root with 'speculum' which is a mirror in latin. then speculation is not purely free fanciful and playful thought on diverse matters, but 'mirroring' in the true(=etymological) sense of whatever is being speculated issue at-hand.

most often, higher dimensional spaces are presented 'as if' purely 'abstract' and very often misunderstood as unreal, not concretely present in the fabric of physus, with their existence often exiled into the realm of the logos, but often not even there is poor higherDimensional family's passport valid.

my question is, is there anyone heretherewhere, who doesn't consider these multidimensional spaces as without any isomorphisms to any of structures/processes presenting to us in these life-flows(experiential continuums) ?

I mean, anyone does try to implement his/her knowledge of multidimensionality into the beyond of the objective domain of its own discipline, into his own Being ? now i mean it ontologically, epistemologically, methodologically. is anyone maintaining/caring after 'multidimensional knowledge' instead of just 'knowledge of multidimensionality' ?

anyone does consider multidimensional possibilities as actually present and operational within the unfolding of the physus (that so many unconsciously wrongly identify with usual substitutionwithin external 'reality'his own dynamics of thought/perception/action, or at least allow it into the (usually) unseen realm of the logos ?

or even someone who considers the microgenetics of perceptual processes as multidimensional in their nature ? psychenauts or any actual consciousness explorers ?
any personal mythologies/ontologies ?



please feel free to blow your head's skulltops off and speculate, floating in levity.

[PWrong]

Ok, all I can gather is that you're discussing branches of philosophy (ontology, epistemology and methodology), in the context of extra dimensions. Let me see if I understand these terms.

Ontology is the study of existence and being, right? So talking about 4D in an ontological context means discussing whether or not 4D "exists".
Epistimology is the study of knowledge.
Methodology is apparently the study of methods, but Wikipedia doesn't have much information on it. It's also sometimes used when scientists describe an experiment.

most often, higher dimensional spaces are presented 'as if' purely 'abstract' and very often misunderstood as unreal, not concretely present in the fabric of physus, with their existence often exiled into the realm of the logos, but often not even there is poor higherDimensional family's passport valid.

When I talk about higher dimensional spaces, they are defined to be purely abstract and mathematical. If yours are not, then we're not talking about the same thing.

my question is, is there anyone heretherewhere, who doesn't consider these multidimensional spaces as without any isomorphisms to any of structures/processes presenting to us in these life-flows(experiential continuums) ?

As far as I know, isomorphic means something like "equivalent because one can be turned into the other". I don't know of any nonmathematical meaning for the word. As for life-flows and experiential continuums, I have no idea what you're talking about. I very much doubt these things would be isomorphic to multidimensional spaces, any more than a torus is isomorphic to "happiness".

[thigle]

...you're discussing branches of philosophy (ontology, epistemology and methodology), in the context of extra dimensions...

approximately so. :wink:

_on ontology:

Ontology is the study of existence and being, right? So talking about 4D in an ontological context means discussing whether or not 4D "exists".

well, first part right, but conclusion wrong, in the shadow of bimodal logic.
thinking ontologically about any entity (generic 4-spaced in this case) means not determining whether it is or not (able to exist) although it doesn't exclude these considerations.
ontological distinctions concern not only whether or not, but also how, when/where, who and why of the matter. so 'talking about 4D in an ontological context means discussing' mainly how something is, in what ways it's ecSisting/functioning/operating, under what conditions. not only if or not.

etymologically(=truly,actually), ontology means the 'study of the logic of Being of beings(things,entities,events...)', not simply the study of being.
also, computer/information sciences, especially semantic web building today, has taken and appropriated 'ontology' concept into ots own domain, usually meaning a list of possible entities/processes within a given system.

_similarily, epistemology is the study of the logic of knowing. how we acquire knowledge, how we learn, how we think the thinking. epistemological knowledge is the knowledge of the 'understanding/knowing' processes, a meta-understanding. it is the study of background structuring processes functioning (oranismically) behind the apparent (surface) understanding.

for an exemple of epistemological hierarchy(after K Palmer), aha:

(unbound totality)
data
fact
theory
paradigm
episteme
ontology

this is an epistemological hierarchy with (undefined) and...
.data at one end of the knowing process, being chosen out of undefined totality by bounding sense-media. these percepts are taken as...
.facts, because the state of perceptual media is usually taken as objectively given, static and unchangeable. a socially constructed reality. on the facts (as consensual givens)...
.theories(=seeings, perspectives) are elaborated. however, these are implicitly driven by previling...
.paradigms in their disciplinary/social contexts. paradigms (from para+doxa(Dogma,opinion in contrast to Ratio)) are assumptions behind theories, based on, or have to do with our schemas., i.e. inner coherence of our thought; paradigm shift - when assumptions behind theories change. however, paradigms rest on...
.epistemes - fundamental categories of our thought. in philosophy known as philosophical category theory such as that of Aristotle or Kant. deeper still, 'allowing' the Being of all these, are the...
.ontologies. this is the ontological level of our understanding of the world, underlying even the categorical level. however, the level of ontology has become fragmented in our times and civilisation. Being itself is considered a paradox, and as all the 'normal' people are considering Aristotle's identity dictum as fundamental and the only possible, this has become the deepest Taboo of today: the omnipresence of paradox.

_methodology is the study of (the logic) of methods, as you say.
so for exemple, me knowing/using the 4valued (~4dimensional) logic of Nagarjuna or Boole and it's relation to socially stabilised 'normal' aristotelian logic, i explained (implicitly, back up in this post) how bimodal logic limits the possible outcomes of any inquiry into fundamentally dual results which are most often than not inadequate to wholeness.
so being methodological means keeping track not only of What one is doing, but parallely being aware of How one is doing it, and understanding and acting on/out of that.

When I talk about higher dimensional spaces, they are defined to be purely abstract and mathematical. If yours are not, then we're not talking about the same thing.

well, again. this is a prime exemple of dual logic: either/or.
but you can go on talking about purely abstract and mathematical and i can go on with my research, and there doesn't have not to be any disagreement: if you are aware of the vast context of your mathematical specification, and I of the contexts of my (transdisciplinary) knowledge, we can BOTH see that the sea in which our disciplinary understandings float is the same. that is the deeper ground on which we can meet in meaningful insights, without despecting the other's approach, but mutually supporting each other's strenghts, and pointing out the weaknesses.

for the isomorphic issue, just play with the languague, or get etymological. that word is used outside of mathematical contexts. for exemple translate it as 'certain(iso) kind of smilarity of morphe(shape)'. you can use it then out of the mathDomain boundaries. (biology for exemple...)

As for life-flows and experiential continuums, I have no idea what you're talking about. I very much doubt these things would be isomorphic to multidimensional spaces, any more than a torus is isomorphic to "happiness".

actually, you might be closer with the torus/happiness exemple than you think. (oh no ! he cannot be serious on that, can he ? ) anyway, by experiential continuum i mean the incessant flow of the happening of the experience. in tibetan vajrayana, there is this conception of "rgyud" - the continuum, the 'thread' of ecSistence, the very fact that there rather IS something than nothing present. this means that all we encounter (science & multidimensional spaces included), we encounter in an incessant flow or continuum of experience.

actually, i wanna discuss consciousness in the light of multidimensional contexts. i claim that the structure of experiencing (of whether subjectivity, or objectivity, or of a measurement of an objective scientific experiment) is structured by the structure of the internal experiential space-time geometries.
in other words, that any percept is interdependent (mutually arising) with consciousness, and that it is the structure of the consciousness (which is undoubtedly multidimensional, otherwise no multidimensional thought could be distinguished or contained in the history of our time-binfing activity as humans) that determines the structuring of experience(of appearances).

therefore, it is not what appears to us that appears, but it is how it appears that truly appears. what appears and how it appears are not same. what appears is different from how it appears, and we conformally mistake the latter for the former. we cannot understand fully what/how/where we think, without understanding what techniques/methods and media(consciousness in any case) we use for our understanding.

so to cut this straight: anyone into any hyperspatial theories AND speculations on the multidimensional nature of consciousness ? ( which is just another word for Being with emphasis on its aspect of presence. (from the indo-european languague-traditions. you know, there was no word for existence in european tradition and no word for Being in arabic languague world. before the greek knowledge was temporally exiled into Arab hands, transcribed by the Arabs, and then re-discovered after middle-ages and re-translated back from Arabic. so the Arabs got Being and europeans EcSistence in exchange. we know greeks mainly from the translations from the Arabic transcriptions. there was no such distinction as Being/existence prior to this cultural interaction))

[PWrong]

actually, you might be closer with the torus/happiness exemple than you think. (oh no ! he cannot be serious on that, can he ? )

I thought you might say that. Reductio ad absurdum just doesn't work on you, does it?

actually, i wanna discuss consciousness in the light of multidimensional contexts. i claim that the structure of experiencing (of whether subjectivity, or objectivity, or of a measurement of an objective scientific experiment) is structured by the structure of the internal experiential space-time geometries.

Internal to what? According to this claim, two scientists measuring the gravititational constant G, should get different answers depending on their "internal experiential space-time geometries". Do you agree with that?

in other words, that any percept is interdependent (mutually arising) with consciousness, and that it is the structure of the consciousness (which is undoubtedly multidimensional, otherwise no multidimensional thought could be distinguished or contained in the history of our time-binfing activity as humans) that determines the structuring of experience(of appearances).

I disagree that consciousness is neccessarily multidimensional. I believe consciousness is an emergent property of a very complex system. Any system can be simulated by a Universal Turing Machine, which is one-dimensional (or if you prefer, one "memory" dimension, and one time dimension). So there's no reason why consciousness couldn't develop in only one dimension.

[thigle]

actually, i wanna discuss consciousness in the light of multidimensional contexts. i claim that the structure of experiencing (of whether subjectivity, or objectivity, or of a measurement of an objective scientific experiment) is structured by the structure of the internal experiential space-time geometries.

Internal to what? According to this claim, two scientists measuring the gravititational constant G, should get different answers depending on their "internal experiential space-time geometries". Do you agree with that?

internal to our 4d spacetime, each point of which is an internal symmetry space.
you misinterpret my claim: 2 scientists measuring G should get similar answers, though their experience of the measurement and its evaluation(reading) might differ. as well as interpretations.

I disagree that consciousness is neccessarily multidimensional.I believe consciousness is an emergent property of a very complex system. Any system can be simulated by a Universal Turing Machine, which is one-dimensional (or if you prefer, one "memory" dimension, and one time dimension). So there's no reason why consciousness couldn't develop in only one dimension.

i agree, if by consciousness is meant just that. UTM is 2d. but consciousness can be even 0 dimensional. but in what dimension does that point dwell ? a 6d point differs from -1d point, or classical 0d point.
within the whole spectrum of (the modalities of) consciousness, already the self-consciousness radically differs from just consciousness (as generic term).

ordinary form of consciousness is strongly habituaded to flatE3, but we can learn to alter these internal spatiotemporal structurings into other modalities.

but is measurement necessary under all circumstances ? what do you measure in topology ? or in projective geometry (apart from incidence) ? we don't need measurements for everything do we ? how do you measure love, for exemple ? how do you measure the measure(er) ? do you wanna claim measurability's importance over the immeasurable ? if sou then you should be explicit with your motives.

[PWrong]

you misinterpret my claim: 2 scientists measuring G should get similar answers, though their experience of the measurement and its evaluation(reading) might differ. as well as interpretations.

True, but the data itself should be constant, and that's the whole point of the experiment. What does it matter if one scientist enjoys the experiment more, or has a different opinion about what gravity means?

but consciousness can be even 0 dimensional. but in what dimension does that point dwell ? a 6d point differs from -1d point, or classical 0d point.

Can you give an example of a situation where a single point can potentially be conscious?

within the whole spectrum of (the modalities of) consciousness, already the self-consciousness radically differs from just consciousness (as generic term).

So there's a spectrum of consciousness, is there? Where do humans fit in on this spectrum? Maybe you should define consciousness for me. I'll tell you whether your definition is meaningful.

what do you measure in topology ?

Dimension, codimension, the number of "crossings" in a knot, number of holes...

how do you measure love, for exemple ?

It's usually not hard to tell when someone is in love. If you have trouble, you can always ask them.

how do you measure the measure(er) ?

With another measurer, usually a standard unit that is measured the same for everyone. For instance, you can measure speed as a fraction of the speed of light. See SI units for more information.

If by "measurer", you mean the person doing the measuring, the answer is "you don't". The scientist doing the experiment should be irrelevent to the experiment itself. Do you have any specific problem with the way scientists measure things?

[thigle]

you misinterpret my claim: 2 scientists measuring G should get similar answers, though their experience of the measurement and its evaluation(reading) might differ. as well as interpretations.

True, but the data itself should be constant, and that's the whole point of the experiment. What does it matter if one scientist enjoys the experiment more, or has a different opinion about what gravity means?

it doesn't from the dataworld point-of-view, in the 'dataworld'. but we ain't passive data, data is just the first freeze imposed on experiential space by us. so it does not matter if wholeness does not matter.
however, it does matter from the point of view of wholeness, or at least aspiration for it: one's scientists ontological attunement might allow one to think what the other scientist cannot even imagine. so for one, the meaning of the name gravity is closed while for the other - it's open. thus one might explore purely the 'objectiveness' of gravity, the other its 'subjectiveness', while another still can explore both without finding that as a conflict: if he dwells in this, actual world, embodying cognition.

the whole 'point' of the experiment, is not so much about constancy of the data. 'experiment' comes from ex(out) and perimeter. that is - going out of, reaching beyond the perimeter. so the point of the experiment is not a point, nor a constancy of data: it is to feedback an existing theory, or to give specific substrate(for ex.:data) to allow for a new theory through creative insights during the experiment.

but consciousness can be even 0 dimensional. but in what dimension does that point dwell ? a 6d point differs from -1d point, or classical 0d point.

Can you give an example of a situation where a single point can potentially be conscious?

i meant not point as conscious but consciousness as point.
in portugal 2003, i floated the focus of my attention above my laying body, and traveled upwards to the sky (where i met 2 dragons made of absence. btw, only thing i 'understood' was that 'the only in-formation is the disappearance of noise'. ) anyway, the point is the point, and my consciousness truly became pointlike - i could turnback on the ground up from the sky where i floated, seeing the whole landscape with me as a small body laying down there under my floating point-like ecSistence, with dancing trancers scattered all around.
most meditative traditions from around the world contain a focusing, or concentrating form of meditation, or mind-training. these all strive to attain continuity of one-pointed focus, which allows much more than simple point-like telepresence of the kind i experienced back there in portugal.

also, 2d, planar, cartoon-like xistence can be experienced, when time seems to stop.

the point is that point is possible, for consciousness is not dimensionality-bound, i believe, although it is dimensionality-habituated. dimension is where things start from.

within the whole spectrum of (the modalities of) consciousness, already the self-consciousness radically differs from just consciousness (as generic term).

So there's a spectrum of consciousness, is there? Where do humans fit in on this spectrum? Maybe you should define consciousness for me. I'll tell you whether your definition is meaningful.

i won't give you a definition of consciousness. i think that semantic issues clarifyng our use of this word should be cleared up first. but you might check this out, for a general overview, though i don't agree on many issues of Wilber's model, especially its planar, flat mapping. anyway: pragmatic history of consciousness.

It's usually not hard to tell when someone is in love. If you have trouble, you can always ask them.

i ain't got trouble with that , as i am not using measuring where it is not appropriate. i didn't mean to imply that I don't measure, count, or care about figures at all. quite to the contrary. just that determinism is not that much of a big deal. to determine to predict, i never valued that more than to understand what is.

how do you measure the measure(er) ?

With another measurer, usually a standard unit that is measured the same for everyone. For instance, you can measure speed as a fraction of the speed of light. See SI units for more information.
If by "measurer", you mean the person doing the measuring, the answer is "you don't". The scientist doing the experiment should be irrelevent to the experiment itself. Do you have any specific problem with the way scientists measure things?

i meant just that this milieu, or the medium of measuring, is the consciousness, which is disregarded as unimportant by people/scientists that rely too much on rotten paradigms, that apply mechanistic knowledge-structures inadequately to realms of consciousness, life, social phenomena and even beyond into the light of existence. scientist doing the xperiment should be not irrelevant to the experiment, unless he is doing something like reduced, objectivizing science, or some other (pseudo)science...

[PWrong]

scientist doing the xperiment should be not irrelevant to the experiment, unless he is doing something like reduced, objectivizing science, or some other (pseudo)science...

Let's suppose you're right, and that the outcome of any experiment depends sensitively on the scientist performing it. What does the experiment tell us about the laws of physics elsewhere in the universe?

it doesn't from the dataworld point-of-view, in the 'dataworld'. but we ain't passive data, data is just the first freeze imposed on experiential space by us. so it does not matter if wholeness does not matter.
however, it does matter from the point of view of wholeness, or at least aspiration for it: one's scientists ontological attunement might allow one to think what the other scientist cannot even imagine. so for one, the meaning of the name gravity is closed while for the other - it's open. thus one might explore purely the 'objectiveness' of gravity, the other its 'subjectiveness', while another still can explore both without finding that as a conflict: if he dwells in this, actual world, embodying cognition.

I agree that imagination is needed to interpret the data. But given wrong data, or no data, the subjective understanding of the world can (and will) be misguided. Think of experiments as the inspiration for physicists. Physicists need inspiration just like artists. Incidentally, please don't think of me as a physicist. I'm a mathematician, so I hate experiments. :wink:

most meditative traditions from around the world contain a focusing, or concentrating form of meditation, or mind-training. these all strive to attain continuity of one-pointed focus, which allows much more than simple point-like telepresence of the kind i experienced back there in portugal.

I'll accept that, (although I'm a bit concerned about the "dragons of absence"). However, attaining one-pointed focus doesn't neccessarily mean your consciousness literally becomes a point.

i won't give you a definition of consciousness. i think that semantic issues clarifyng our use of this word should be cleared up first. but you might check this out, for a general overview, though i don't agree on many issues of Wilber's model, especially its planar, flat mapping. anyway: pragmatic history of consciousness.

Ok, let's clear up the semantic issues then. It's getting increasingly obvious that we're not talking about the same kind of consciousness. Do you think of consciousness as a physical object in our 3D universe, an emergent property, or something spiritual or multidimensional?

i meant just that this milieu, or the medium of measuring, is the consciousness, which is disregarded as unimportant by people/scientists that rely too much on rotten paradigms, that applied mechanistic knowledge-structures inadequately to realms of consciousness, life, social phenomena and even beyond into the light of existence.

Which sciences specifically are you talking about, and what have they done wrong? Very few scientists apply their "mechanistic knowledge structures" to vague ideas like the "light of existence". Only psychologists and neuroscientists have anything to do with consciousness. And they use an strict but elegant definition of consciousness that may have little to do with yours. So anything they discover won't apply to your spiritual, multidimensional "consciousness". So what are you complaining about?

[bo198214]

I'm a mathematician, so I hate experiments. :wink:

PWrong becomes more and more simpatico. *ggg* (Exactly that was the reason for not studying physics for me.)

Only psychologists and neuroscientists have anything to do with consciousness. And they use an strict but elegant definition of consciousness

Lets hear!

Btw. where comes your nickname from? Do you always take the wrong password?

[PWrong]

Quote:
Only psychologists and neuroscientists have anything to do with consciousness. And they use an strict but elegant definition of consciousness

Lets hear!

Sorry, I didn't realise how that sounded. I don't actually know what it the definition is, I just assumed they have one (or more):oops:. I shouldn't have said elegant, but it would always be strict enough to make consciousness detectable.

Btw. where comes your nickname from? Do you always take the wrong password?

Good try , but my real name is Paul Wright. Someone once decided that my original nickname had to be abbreviated.

[bo198214]

Only psychologists and neuroscientists have anything to do with consciousness. And they use an strict but elegant definition of consciousness

Its only that I doubt, they have. Thatswhy that would really surprise me. Though I know that really interesting experiments were made. For example split brain persons (for those who have heard about it). And it makes the topic even more difficult, when realizing that a (my) consciousness could have two subconsciousnesses. The question what is 'me' then really become unanswerable. And it always have to do with connection/communication of consciousnesses. The other interesting experiments are those of Libet (which Jinydu already mentioned), which lets us doubt about free will.

my real name is Paul Wright. Someone once decided that my original nickname had to be abbreviated.

And what was your original nickname and what means 'ong' , Oh No! God! or Paul Wright On Net Games *nudge*

[PWrong]

Its only that I doubt, they have. Thatswhy that would really surprise me.

You may be right. Now I think about it, they probably have several words that mean something similar to conscious, like self-awareness.

And what was your original nickname and what means 'ong' , Oh No! God! or Paul Wright On Net Games *nudge*

My original nickname was Paul Wrong. Get it now?

[bo198214]

Hm, but to look at a "Wrong" in the nickname still causes a strange feeling in me (am I talking with an error?). A "PLeft" would be much more unproblematic I think.

[PWrong]

A "PLeft" would be much more unproblematic I think.

I've never had a complaint before :?. Pleft is a good idea though .

[moonlord]

I don't think you can say whether a point is conscious or not. It depends on what do you understand by consciousness. If something if conscious because it asks it-/him-/her- self why it/he/she is there, then a point isn't. What change can you see in 0D? The point can exist, or not. So either it is intrinsecally conscious, either it is not and cannot ever be. That's how I see the problem.

[thigle]

"point" is an archetype, not an idea. let's not repeat Plato's erring.

as such it is present by its absence. so the right distinction is that consciousness can make the operational scheme of point functional in its dynamics.
therefore, nothing mysterious about some states of consciousness being point-like.

so let's not get radically mixing, radically distinct instead is a better choice. (the best one, some would argue).

...are not Kinds(essences) are not Ideas are not Instances are not...