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) ?
...you're discussing branches of philosophy (ontology, epistemology and methodology), in the context of extra dimensions...
Ontology is the study of existence and being, right? So talking about 4D in an ontological context means discussing whether or not 4D "exists".
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.
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 ? )
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).
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?
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.
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.
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).
what do you measure in topology ?
how do you measure love, for exemple ?
how do you measure the measure(er) ?
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.
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?
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...
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.
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 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.
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.
PWrong wrote:I'm a mathematician, so I hate experiments. :wink:
Only psychologists and neuroscientists have anything to do with consciousness. And they use an strict but elegant definition of consciousness
Quote:
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 wrote:Only psychologists and neuroscientists have anything to do with consciousness. And they use an strict but elegant definition of consciousness
my real name is Paul Wright. Someone once decided that my original nickname had to be abbreviated.
Its only that I doubt, they have. Thatswhy that would really surprise me.
And what was your original nickname and what means 'ong' , Oh No! God! or Paul Wright On Net Games *nudge*
Return to Where Should I Post This?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests