I have never made my mind up on panentheism. A simplistic way of looking at it: In the beginning there was:
1. God. He made the universe from part of his own substance.
2. God and some stuff. He made the universe from stuff.
I have no evidence either way so it seems like 50%/50% for/against panentheism — Devans99

The only evidence we have about anything prior to the BigBang is what we learn from studying the aftermath : the "creation". In my personal worldview, I took the Quantum Theory "evidence" that everything in the world consists of various forms of Generic Information (causal power), which I call "EnFormAction". Shannon Information = destructive Entropy; Boltzman Information = creative Energy; Traditional Information = Mental substance; EnFormAction = cause of all of those forms.

Since Information (mind stuff, computer stuff, matter stuff) seems to be the fundamental "substance" of the physical and metaphysical universe, I equate it with Spinoza's "Single or Universal Substance", which he also called "God". But that theory was postulated centuries before the Big Bang theory, so he assumed the world was eternal. And his theory was called PanTheism. We now know it has not existed forever, therefore we must look beyond the BB barrier to sensory knowledge, and logically infer a self-existent source of Enforming Causal power. Hence, the creative entity, whatever it is, must be both Eternal (metaphysical, Ideal) and Temporal (physical, Real). And the modern scientific & philosophical term for such a deity is PanEnDeism, which does not assume any biblical revelation or personal characteristics of the creative Principle. :smile:


Information : Matter, Energy, Mind are all forms of Generic Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Information is Fundamental : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

EnFormAction : I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

PanEnDeism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Spinoza's Substance : God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

Sounds like a sensible position. I would say I am agnostic-deist but strongly leaning towards deism. — Devans99

Unfortunately, the term "Deist" has gained some debatable baggage over the years, from its origin as simple (pre-big-bang) acknowledgement that the world had a beginning, a creation moment, hence a creator. So, I no longer emphasize that term, and instead call my worldview Enformationism, which is merely a theory of how the world evolved after the creation. I remain open-minded but agnostic about anything super-natural.

By a wider universe outside spacetime, I do not mean a multiverse. I mean something timeless - it has permanent existence - it was never created - it will never be destroyed. This timeless thing is then the root cause of everything in existence. So it is not turtles all the way down - the buck stops with the timeless first cause. — Devans99

I was merely noting that your brief description could be interpreted as a reference to the Multiverse. I didn't think you intended it that way. :smile:

This nevertheless means that cause and effect isn't universal. I was really just pointing out that logical contradiction. — Echarmion

I agreed that the First Cause is not "universal", in the sense of limited to the known universe. I was just pointing out that the Logos is ubiquitous, comprehensive, omnipresent, and eternal. So it's not a logical contradiction, but merely a semantic distinction. :joke:

Why adopt even this? — Banno

I adopted the Deist/Logos worldview simply because the Materialist ethos does not even address the fundamental philosophical question : Why? It tells us How the world evolves, but leaves us with the impression of a completely random meaningless process. Yet, Science would not be possible if there was no meaningful Order to the world. The creator or organizer (First Cause) of the logical process of evolution (physical causation) is a valid rational question. And the emergence of Mind from Matter is still the "hard problem" that some materialists dismiss as a non-scientific disputation. But it is, and always has been, a philosophical question.

So, I suppose you could say that my curiosity goes beyond the empirical limits of the scientific method. But it is not satisfied by the pre-scientific "revelations" of Religion. Consequently, I began with a cutting-edge insight of Quantum theory --- that all is Information --- and proceeded to develop my own personal worldview; which explains, to my satisfaction, how and why the world is the way it is. Moreover, as (non-theistic) philosopher Robert Wright concluded in The Evolution of God, "The beauty of the Logos was that you didn't have to take anyone's word for it". The evidence (information) is inherent in the physical world all around us, and the Logos conclusion is completely logical.

But, if your curiosity is content with a materialistic model of a world with a mysterious inexplicable elliptical beginning . . . . then that's OK with me [see Dawkins quote]. :cool:

Logos : the divine algorithm
___Robert Wright

Logos : A principle originating in classical Greek thought which refers to a universal divine reason, immanent in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections in the cosmos and humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

Secular Deism : 3- Absolutely. I’ve seen no evidence that Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are against each other in anyway. Those who ascribed to these defined beliefs may disagree on some minor specifics about the likeliness of a creator, but that’s about it.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/11/atheism-deism-and-agnosticism-should-have-the-same-goal-secularism/

Don't leave your argument dangling. — Banno

I wasn't making an argument. Just noting that the "authorities" referred-to are highly-credentialed scientists. So your dismissive remarks, implying that the OP is irrational and anti-science, are unjustified. :smile:

An appeal to authority. Dropping names without explaining were and how they might apply. — Banno

I suspect that Amen was assuming you'd Google those names if you were really interested (not just dismissive) in how their expert theories "might apply". But we can get into more detail here, if you want to know about some "authoritative" alternatives to Atheism, that don't depend on ancient scriptures. :nerd:

Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99

Yes. As I reached adulthood, I became an Agnostic because I no longer believed the Bible was the inspired revelation of an omniscient deity. But I could never go all the way to Atheism, because I had no better explanation for the temporary existence of our contingent world. Augustine saw the logic of Aristotle's First Cause argument, but used it to defend his faith in the Christian Jehovah. My current position on the god-question is Deist, remaining Agnostic about any personal traits of the Creator of space & time; which scientists called "The Singularity", and I call "G*D".

But if cause and effect hold universally there cannot be a first cause, because that first cause would, by definition, be outside of cause an effect, and so it's no longer universal. — Echarmion

The Cause of space-time is "first" in the sense of "ultimate", not merely the first of a series. Logically, the Creator of our evolving universe must be prior-to the big-bang emergence of space-time, hence Eternal, and external to the Physical universe, hence Metaphysical. Prior, not in time, but in logical order.

Ultimate : a final or fundamental fact or principle
Prior : existing or coming before in time, order, or importance

I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible. — Devans99

Your "wider" universe is what scientists postulate as The Multiverse. My problem with that "more-of-the-same-forever" speculation is that it doesn't address the primary concern of philosophers today : how could Life & Mind arise by natural evolutionary processes? Atheists take it on faith, that physical Science will eventually answer "the hard question". But, I'm skeptical.

My alternative to the Turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse, is to assume that the potential for Conscious Beings must have been included in (programmed into) the original Singularity. As a Agnostic, I prefer not to speculate on an eternal regression of the "same-old-same-old", which doesn't provide any new information anyway. My theory says that Information itself (power to enform, to create) is the causal energy that powers the progression of evolution. It's "just a theory", but it explains more than the Multiverse theory.

Turtles : http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page41.html
Information : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

It - the first cause - has to be something real (physical) and permanent: — Devans99

In my worldview, the First Cause is not Real, but Ideal, Metaphysical, not Physical. And it's permanent in the sense of existing necessarily, outside of the space-time world it created.

Metaphysical : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Yes a fair point, I should clarify what I mean by God:
- not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient
- capable of independent action
- inteligent
- able to create spacetime
- benevolent
- timeless
So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations). — Devans99

My Deist notion of G*D is all of the above, including "omnipresent". But, it's not an ancient anthro-morphic interventionist King in heaven, because we now know that our world is on automatic pilot --- it seems to be programmed with laws & constants & selection criteria to handle all contingencies via adaptation.

Since my abstract G*D is not a person, or a blob of "noodly appendages", it can be called by various names, depending on the context : Nature, Logos, Chaos, ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. It's the eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part, and, as the Creator of physical space-time, can be known by humans only by what it does, not what it is.

Any questions? :grin:

Wanting attention is not the same as wanting sexual attention, and wanting sexual attention is not the same as wanting to be objectified. — Possibility

The males and females in this thread seem to have different feelings about Objectification. For men, it's intended as a complement. A wolf-whistle is a rude & crude way of complimenting an attractive woman on her sex appeal. And some self-confident women seem to accept such boorish behavior as a positive ego-boosting comment. But for many women, objectification by an unknown male could be perceived as an implicit threat, or a sign of dominance. The "helpful" distinction you make in your post is exactly the same as the one in my first post : Sexual versus Political objectification. [ Note added ]

The history of that instinctive gender distinction is clear : in most cultures, unattached women (unmarried or without children) have all-too-often been considered "fair game" by predatory males. Women have been raped and otherwise abused, when they had no husbands or family to protect them. That's why rape, by conquering armies, has been so common. Most "nice young men", in their own society, would not think of raping a woman. But the anonymity of war, and the absence of male protectors, allows them to commit unconscionable acts of violence ("booty", in ancient times; "war crimes", in enlightened modern political parlance).

The Sociobiology explanation for such "antisocial" behavior is that sexual aggression & political competitiveness are innate to the male genetic inheritance. That amoral scientific assessment was unfairly criticized for dismissing overt male dominance as merely a case of "boys will be boys". A Biblcal explanation is that all such "evil" tendencies are an inheritance from the "fall" of Adam & Eve. A self-serving interpretation of innate evil is that a raped woman got what she deserved. But Continental and Postmodern philosophers typically deny the notions of Human Nature and Original Sin. Instead, they blame most of the evils of the world on Human Culture, with the implication that an inclusive Socialist government could rectify the errors of previous male-dominant Capitalist political systems. Unfortunately, we have only a few examples (e.g. Sweden) of such egalitarian societies.

The June 2020 issue of National Geographic magazine has an article on the sad state of women in politics. In a Democracy Index table of of male/female representation in government, the United States was merely average, and Sweden was judged most gender democratic. Ironically, the former socialist republic of Russia lagged far behind. Moreover, even when quotas for women in politics are mandated by law, as in Afghanistan, the women are still dominated by men, and dismissed by women. One female Aghani parliamentarian lamented : "the problem was that the main decision-makers in this society are men, not women; even if we become politicians, the first and last word is said by a man".

So, it seems that the ideal of an egalitarian society, where women are respected as "agents" rather than used as "objects", remains a future fantasy. On the brighter side though, we can take some comfort from the documented fact*1 that humanity has made measurable moral progress, including Women's Rights, over recent centuries. Compared to Old Testament times, women have made gains in agency, but still have a long climb ahead to penetrate the "glass ceiling". That may be why the male posters don't see Sexual Objectification as a major problem for modern liberated women, compared with their long history of abuse & misuse. :cool:


Sex & Aggression : Humans follow gender‐specific sexual strategies, display aggressive behavior, and respond to physical pain as do other animals. Yet human beings have the intellectual ability to express these tendencies uniquely in either destructive or constructive ways. The human being, unlike any other animal, must reckon with sexual ethics, the problem of violence, and the meaning of suffering.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0591-2385.00160

*1 Moral Progress : human rights. Ongoing global campaigns have targeted child labour, capital punishment, human trafficking, violence against women, female genital mutilation, and the criminalization of homosexuality. Each has made measureable inroads and, if history is a guide, these barbaric customs will go the way of human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, chattel slavery, heretic burning, torture executions, public hangings, debt bondage, duelling, harems, eunuchs, freak shows, foot binding, laughing at the insane, and the designated goon in hockey.
https://www.intelligentoptimism.com/steven-pinker-moral-progress

*1 Pinker's Progress : https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-18/steven-pinkers-ideas-about-progress-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

Biblical women's rights : men of the city gather around Lot's house and demand that he give them the two guests so they could rape them. In response, Lot offers the mob his two daughters instead, noting that they are virgins
Genesis 19

Glass Ceiling : an unofficially acknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession, especially affecting women and members of minorities.

The men would still be wrong to touch, harrasss proposition, leer, etc., the women in question. . . . The objectification is a separate action, taken by other, in response to the presence of a person. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Of course, male boorishness is Wrong by modern democratic egalitarian standards. That's why the 16th century notion of a "Gentleman" was invoked by upper-class nobles in order to distinguish their superior morality from the uncouth crudeness of the lower classes. Apparently, it was common among commoners for men to grope, and even rape, women without permission. But the nobility was (in theory) held to a higher moral standard. In public, they deferred to their lady's whims, and postponed sex until after marriage. Nowadays, we typically refer to even lower class women as "Ladies" to indicate that they are worthy of respect.

But women in urban ghettos live among politically & economically lower-class men who don't even pretend to be Gentlemen. They accept rough treatment by their "pimp-daddies", because women's lib hasn't yet reached the inner cities. They even refer to other women as "hoes", as a sign of their submission to dominant "thugs". By contrast, some uptown "gentlemen" in male-dominated offices, while outwardly professing nobility, are still motivated by their power-position to treat subordinate women as "objects" and "hoes" --- as long as the dominated women let them get away with it. The parties to such relationships presumably don't think in political or philosophical terms of "objectification", but in practical terms of "I'm horney", or "maybe I'll get a raise or a movie role". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that "what is, is what ought to be"; but that what-ought-to-be is a never-ending quest for a moral Utopia.

Unfortunately, the gender-based consciousness-raising that began over a hundred years ago, still has a long uphill battle to change the thinking and behavior of both men and women. And a majority of people in the world remain un-enlightened by Western Christian or democratic or socialistic morality. Political Laws can enforce outward behavior, but changing hearts & minds is beyond the reach of politics. Even the Chosen People in the Old Testament were accused of all sorts of depravity and immorality. But after constant chastisement by hell-fire prophets, and enduring repeated severe punishment by their Chosen God, some elements of the masses persisted in their evil ways, up to this very day. So, yes, I make a meaningful distinction between ideal political ethics and practical popular morality.

Perhaps, in another thousand years, humanity will reach a higher general moral standard, as depicted in the egalitarian society of Star Trek. But even in that enlightened future age, the women still wear mini-skirt uniforms to differentiate the female from the male soldiers. Why? Could it be a vestigial remnant of old-fashioned Objectification? :joke:

Gentleman : a gentleman is any man of good and courteous conduct.

Thug : primarily male gang-members who flaunt their disdain for the laws and morals of polite society

Gentleman : an effeminate p*ssy-whipped white male
Thug vocabulary

PS___Internet Porn is accepted as morally socially "Wrong", even by those who enjoy "leering" at naked women. But, like illegal and immoral drugs, it is still a major money-maker in our society. Is it wrong to smoke pot? What are we going to do about it? Make war on drugs & sex, or make sure that violations from the moral norm do as little harm as possible? That's the political question.

I don’t think it’s helpful to distinguish between sexual and political objectification. All that does is permit objectification in sexual relations. Just because a girl changes her aesthetics to direct your effort and attention towards her, it does not follow that she consents to ‘sexual’ objectification - which is valuing a sexual being only as an object to the exclusion of agency. So sexual objectification IS political. — Possibility

Helpful? That depends on what question you're seeking help with. The OP seemed to be questioning the implicit hypocrisy of a 21st century liberated woman, who overtly directs the attention of her male oppressors to her distinguishing female sexual charms --- objectifying them as-if they are attractive shiny objects like jewelry. They draw attention to their lips with artificial color, mimicking the bright red bottoms of sexually receptive chimpanzees. If they have ample bosoms, they may display them with uplift brassieres or decolletage. Or if they have “hot legs” they may showcase them with short skirts or long slits. The OP assumption seemed to be that true political Feminists would dress like Lesbians, forcing the males to deal with them as equals & agents & subjects.

I'm aware that you have an aversion to making philosophical distinctions in general, but I don't. So, I'll try to distinguish between two legitimate categories of human interaction : natural sexual behavior, and cultural power hierarchies. Obviously, the two are inter-related in practice. Male mammals (e.g. chimps) typically dominate the females in their tribes, both sexually and politically. Bonobos are a rare exception, due in part to less sexual dimorphism. In my prior post though, I accused the OP of failing to distinguish between sexual and cultural objectification. The innate tendency for males to focus on the distinguishing body parts of females, rather than the person as a political agent, would never have become such a hot-button political issue, if humans had never developed a rationalized culture. Reason is analytical, not holistic, but it is motivated by feelings. So modern cultures are all about rationalizing social distinctions : sex, race, religion. Cultures can permit certain behaviors, but they can also prohibit those that are deemed harmful to society. In any case, females, as a class, have been second class citizens since the era of hunter-gatherers. Guess who got the dangerous-but-glorified jobs of warriors and hunters, while their “better halves” stayed home with babies on their hips, and cooked dinner?

Do you think Sex and Politics are functionally the same thing? That seems to be the view of 20th century Feminists. And their homogenized position was understandable, because they were primarily motivated by political injustice for women, and blamed institutionalized male sexual dominance for the prevailing inequity in sex relations. Likewise, many African-Americans tend to lump-together all racial distinctions (e.g. profiling) into one category : political injustice via negative discrimination based on race. Unfortunately, that indiscriminate categorization ignores the majority of white people who treat non-whites with respect. It was mostly high class white people, who provoked a civil war between "brothers" to end an egregious form of dehumanizing discrimination. It was also white people in power, who mandated positive distinctions (affirmative action) to rectify past negative discrimination. And the Women's Lib marchers didn't win the Vote by a direct assault on male privilege, but by appealing to the moral conscience of the men who loved them.

At a high point in human moral history, the women's empowerment movement has succeeded, to a surprising degree, in effecting political reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. But, it has still not completely erased the innate differences that cause fertile females to be sexually attracted to fickle males, and to use their feminine charms and wiles to manipulate them into committing to long-term relationships. Ironically, it seems that the most sexually attractive males are also the “bad boys” (warriors) who are more likely to use and discard women as short-term sex toys. So, the “hypocrisy” implied by the OP, is merely the human foible of trying to conform to two different standards : natural sexual relations, and cultural political relations. Sexual objectification is only as political as you make it.

Perhaps the next political solution will require all women to conceal themselves in burkas and hijabs, in order to offset the aggressive dominating cave-man sexual behavior of those testosterone-fueled males. [ simply neutering the males would leave unwanted females in a quandary ] Or maybe, women will be required by law to carry pepper spray, or to learn martial arts for self-defense of their virtue. Or, if all else fails, a knee to the groin will usually politically neutralize unwanted advances. :cool:

vive la difference : ​used to show that you think it is good that there is a difference between two people or things, especially a difference between men and women

I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool

I don't claim to understand women, or men for that matter, in terms of inherently irrational sexual relations. But your question seems to be confusing Political objectification with Sexual objectification. Young girls quickly learn, by observation or via the grapevine, what boys are looking for in girls. And what they discover is that boys tend to be analytical about casual sex. By that I mean they typically focus on body parts instead of the whole person. So the girls are merely being pragmatic when they emphasize their best features to make themselves attractive --- meanwhile hoping that their personality will seal the deal for a long term and loving relationship.

A beautiful and successful actress on a talk show was asked about the long slit in her ankle length skirt. And she matter-of-factly answered that she was not well-endowed up top, so she decided to "show some leg" --- to put her best foot forward, so to speak. She didn't seem to object to being Sexually objectified by the "male gaze" of the audience. More recently, a beautiful actress in a skit was analyzing herself in the mirror --- as she wondered why she couldn't hold on to a man. The sensible & practical alter ego in the mirror suggested a boob job. And the skit was written by the flat-chested actress!

However, I suspect that these modern women would not appreciate being Politically objectified as a sex-toy to be used and thrown away, or stored in a closet. Unfortunately, women throughout history have been both Sexually and Politically objectified. In early civilizations, they were basically marketed as a man's "help meet", or as sex slaves, and their value was often judged like a commodity, a camel or a goat, rather than as a partner in a life-long relationship. This interpersonal inequity all too often resulted in abuse or abandonment. So societies were forced to enact political laws of marriage to protect wives & children from spousal trashing. Unequal power/sex relations are common among animals, and seems to be inherent in human nature (dimorphism, psychology, etc). But humans can choose to modify their inherent urges & behaviors in the interest of social harmony.

As your "Burka" note suggested, some absolutist moralizing cultures even went to the extreme of banning all sexual "displays" by females, because they were viewed as temptresses, luring young men astray from sexual chastity. But this complete segregation of the sexes is unnatural, and may result in unsavory covert behavior on both sides. So, modern democratic societies, with egalitarian & romantic ideals, have tried to have their sex and chastity too, by "liberating" women, and trusting men to "keep it in their pants". That's like playing with matches around beautiful fireworks : high risk, high reward??? I'll leave it for you to decide how well that combination of sexual & political liberation is working. :joke:

Sex Differences : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

Chastity : the ability to resist temptation

Help Mate : a subordinate household worker and associate.

In essence, Pascal considered it an extremely dangerous affair not to believe in god - that's fear and fear is precisely what sustains the beast of slavery. — TheMadFool

Yes. Christianity and Islam have made unbelief, and especially apostasy, into a one-way ticket to Hell. That embedded fear may be why I was so slow to make a clean break from Theism, long after my disbelief in the Bible was rationally confirmed. Actually, I still believe in what I call "G*D", but I'm not afraid of Mother Nature. She may punish violations of natural laws, but everlasting fire is not a natural punishment. It's a sadistic torture device dreamed-up by religious rulers to keep the unruly in line with the stick of awe & fear, because the carrot of promised blessings is so mundane by comparison, and also because mere Death happens even to fervent believers. :worry:

PS__As mentioned in my prior post, I suspect that what you call the "desire to be enslaved" is merely our herd animal instinct to follow the leader. Most of us timid souls are not aggressive and ambitious enough to challenge the top-dog, or the top-god. As human societies grow larger and more complex, the hierarchical power structures become more rigid. But we still have romantic notions of the individuality and freedom enjoyed by Noble Savages, which may have inspired our occasional experiments with Democracy, that usually revert to Fascism when the herd is threatened by outside forces. The god of monotheism is a Fascist Fuhrer who "makes the trains run on time", but requires absolute obedience to official commandments, and has prepared a "Final Solution" for those who don't conform.

P.S. This isn't a comprehensive analysis but is just an exploratory effort on my part into how theism maybe a reflection of a slavish instinct within us all. — TheMadFool

Formal Theism is a late development in human religion. For thousands of years, Neanderthals and primitive Homo Sapiens were "slaves" of Nature. They had no control over natural events, including life or death scenarios. So, all they could do was pray to whatever powers might be for some very practical interventions : recovery from illness, rain for crops, a healthy baby. But as people began to form complex societies in bronze-age civilizations, they also formed more specific images of the gods : one god for each major aspect of Nature & Culture --- weather, success in battle, etc. Eventually Universal Montheism, of the sort you seem to be contemplating, was devised to reflect the all-powerful emperors & courtiers of the Iron Age earthly empires, wherein everybody was a slave to his superiors in a rigid top-down hierarchy. Some modern liberal Christians and New Agers, though, seem to imagine God as a sort of democratic president in the sky, so all men are free, and subject only to the beneficent laws of reason.

But there has always been a less hierarchical minority view of god. By that I mean the "god of the philosophers", which is now known as Deism, in contrast to Theism. This is a god, generally identified with Nature, and knowable via Science, but not assumed to intervene on behalf of supplicants. The Deus does not inspire fear, and doesn't require slavish behavior (except for obeying natural laws), but it also doesn't appeal to the emotions, inspiring feelings of comfort & peace, or fear & dread. As a rational person, you could easily make the leap to faith in a Cosmic Nature God, but you'll have to find emotional support and salvation elsewhere. :cool:

How we interact with the ‘physical world out there’ is necessarily informed by the potential in our conceptual systems (including our shared social reality) which is informed in turn by our perspective of this infinite possibility (including our shared meaning). We refer to it as ‘individual imagination’, but it’s more that we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways. The idea is that we gradually refine and restructure this necessarily reductive process in ways that broaden and improve the accuracy of our awareness, connection and collaboration with all reality: physical, social, imaginative or otherwise. — Possibility

This meta-personal imagination reminds me of Bernardo Kastrup's notion of "The Other" and "Mind At Large" in his book, More Than Allegory. After reminding the reader repeatedly that his metaphors are not real & true, in the ordinary sense, he relates some experiences in non-social reality within his own mind. While working for a secretive multi-national foundation, he took psychoactive drugs (the "recipe") and wore a cap to stimulate his brain with electromagnetic patterns. [Note : I used a similar cap several years ago (without drugs), but had no notable experiences]

During his "trips" he had an internal two-way dialogue with an amorphous entity anonymously labeled "The Other". This entity communicated in the form of images, which sounds similar to imaginative poetic Intuition. It was difficult to translate those images into words for the book. He didn't use the term, but The Other reminded me of Freud's "Super-Ego", an abstract top-down conscience. I won't go into any more detail here. I just wanted to see if any of his ideas are similar to how you imagine the extra dimensions. I haven't finished the Kindle book yet, so I don't know what to think about it. :nerd:

Quotes from the book :

"The deeply obfuscated but knowledgeable complex of my own mind that, at the same time, was also entirely alien to my ego". [The Other, Mind At Large]

"Clearly, my experience was mental and, as such, not concretely and palpably real".

"Perhaps the Recipe has just brought me to a parallel universe of some kind." [Fifth Dimension???]

"The transcendent 'space' where the dialogues with the Other unfolded . . ." [Fifth Dimension???]

"Mind-at-large is pure subjectivity"

"the human ego spans but the top layers [dimensions???} of differentiation [conscious awareness]".

"By letting go of your ordinary attention in just the right way [meditation, drugs, technology???] you can indeed reduce the obfuscation of these deeper layers."


PS___I'm enjoying our dialogue in "social reality". although I'm still mystified by some of the references to non-social reality (Ideality?). It's stretching my old stiff arthritic mind into new dimensions. But I have to take an aspirin after each exercise in mind expansion. :joke:

. . . relative imagination . . . constructed intersubjective conceptual system . . . beyond which is the infinite possibility/impossibility that I assume you refer to as G*D. — Possibility

Relative Imagination : personal subjective knowledge structured into concepts (words) for communication with other subjective perspectives???

Constructed intersubjective conceptual system : Is that what we humans call "Objective Reality" --- constructed by convention from many points of view ???

In my thesis, "G*D" is both infinite Possibility (great beyond) and finite Actuality (mundane world), in the sense of PanEnDeism. The Real world was created from god-stuff, Infinite Potential, via a process of EnFormAction (creative energy). Hence, everything in our world (matter, energy, mind) is an emergent form of universal EnFormAction. That's why I say, "all is Information" (the power to enform and the forms themselves).

PanEnDeism : belief in a god who is both panentheistic and deistic, e.g. a god who contains all of the universe, but who nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe, who does interact, but does not necessarily intervene in the universe, and that a personal relationship can be achieved with it, in as much as a person can have a relationship with his/her own rational thoughts.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/panendeism

god-stuff : Spinoza's Universal Substance
https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

So there is no pre-ordained structure or Logos to be ‘discovered’ . . .
we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways. — Possibility

Yes & no. G*D (Logos & Chaos) is all-Information-all-the-time (power to be, to enform, to create) . But I make a distinction between actual Space-Time Information, and potential non-dimensional (Enfernity : eternity + infinity) Enformation. Our space-time is structured by the limits-on-possibility we call Natural Laws & Constants & Mathematical Logic. But the spaceless-timeless state that our world emerged from, in the Big Bang, is what I call "Chaos", in the Platonic sense. Therefore, our Reality is "pre-ordained" (programmed) and structured (sensible). But Ideality extends beyond space-time into un-defined omni-potential infinite possibilities, that I call "Chaos" or "G*D" : "the source of infinite possibility", where nothing is impossible.

Pre-ordained Structure : Reality is not an instantaneous creation, but the gradual evolution of a creative program, which unfolds in space & time.

Chaos : random unformed unlimited Potential (the power to be) that I call "BEING".

This ‘random (indeterminate), non-linear (multi-dimensional) complexity’ refers to a five-dimensional (ie. atemporal) structure. There’s no occult source — Possibility

How can this "five-dimensional structure" be structured, if it is spaceless, timeless & indeterminate? Sounds like a logical structure that has not yet been actualized (i.e. Logos). "Random, indeterminate, non-linear " sounds similar to what I call "Chaos" (unstructured potential, Plato's Forms), except that it has no measurable dimensions or structured complexity. The real-world structure is constructed from random Chaos by the combination of Logos (Reason) and Intention (EnFormAction). Perhaps it's the imprint of that timeless logical structure (mathematical patterns) that we perceive via Intuition rather than by sensory perception?

By contrast with Exoteric (physically sensible) natural sciences, most Occult (esoteric, magical) theories would identify their Hidden Source of Information with the timeless super-natural realm of Spirit. But, in my thesis, we have no access to any information that is "out of this world". I, personally, have no spiritual insights into cosmic mysteries. All I have is mundane Intuition, which draws from Information stored in the physical brain (subconscious memory of past experience). [ Note: see next post ]

But while intuition as a five-dimensional information system is not yet replicable or predictable, it is understandable to some extent . . . human interoceptive networks map and share information in five-dimensions all day, every day — Possibility

Humans mentally map incoming information into the three conventional dimensions of space-time. This logical structure seems to be innate. But, AFAIK, I don't personally map other kinds of information into other dimensions. If you could define those extra-sensory dimensions in some common-sense terms or metaphors, I might discover that I've been tapping into a higher or deeper resource "every day". Apparently, Intuition senses non-conscious information in the brain. But is that info actually contained in a non-physical non-space-time dimension???

not yet replicable or predictable : in other words, Theoretical?

Interoception : the sense of the internal state of the body. This can be both conscious and non-conscious

Kant : Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/

As I wrestled with the idea of the divine, a thought crossed my mind - should I just take the plunge, make the leap of faith, and just believe in god, a benevolent creator who will unfailingly look out for me no matter what? — TheMadFool

You were contemplating a rational voluntary belief in a debatable concept. But that's a calculated cost/benefit approach; it's a gamble. It's the rational pragmatic solution that Pascal came up with. The problem with that kind of belief is that it can be swayed by a change of circumstances. For example, many Christians & Jews in Europe became practicing Muslims or Christians, when it was the lesser of two evils : death or conversion. Yet, when the dominant political entity changed, some of those pragmatic folks switched their allegiance to a different god-concept.

Ideally, true Faith is involuntary and irrational. It's based on feelings, not reasons. Or at least, that was what I was told when young and impressionable. So, I suspect the emotion you felt while imagining a benevolent god, was only half of the Faith calculus : Hope plus Trust. Hope is a felt need for succor, but it can be fleeting. Trust, though, comes with positive feedback. If you pray to god for something that can be confirmed, and it comes to pass, your Hope will be augmented. Ironically, irregular reinforcement of Faith is more effective than when every prayer is answered. That's why Gambling is so addictive. The faithful, and gamblers, reassure themselves that they are betting on an almost sure thing. :nerd:


Pascal's Big Bet : Pascal's wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory,[4] marked the first formal use of decision theory, existentialism, pragmatism, and voluntarism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Succor : assistance and support in times of hardship and distress.

Intermittent Reinforcement Schedule : Gambling is an example of intermittent reinforcement.
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Intermittent+Reinforcement

Is belief in god then a symptom of slave mentality? — TheMadFool

That was Marx's economic-class-based view. But a more general view of the god/man relationship might be Dominant/Submissive. In other words, the gods represent human leaders who are both feared and respected. And in polytheism, the gods had hierarchies of their own.

As societies grew larger and more complex, the egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes --- whose gods were mostly ancestors (i.e. family) --- evolved into Chieftainships, with a top-down hierarchy. Then city-states & empires formalized their bureaucracies into even more rigid differentiation between Nobles & Commoners. At each step in the development of political bodies, the separation between Dominant leaders and Submissive followers was widened, until the human leader was regarded as a god or a son of a god. Since some gods seemed to be able to punish disobedience with sickness or death, the leaders were deemed to also have absolute life or death authority over their subjects. Thus, commoners who wanted to solicit favors were expected to approach their mercurial leaders on their knees or prostrate --- demonstrating their non-threatening submissiveness.

This submissive prayer posture was required even of lower-ranking nobles. So it was not only slaves who had to bow and scrape before their masters, but the whole hierarchy had a politically defined pecking order. And, when Monotheism emerged, the top-god was viewed as being the Lord even of Kings. In that sense, all of humanity was enslaved. But since the remote universal god leaves most day to day regulation to his human administrators, the religious-political system allowed varying degrees of freedom, based on the official or de facto hierarchy of the society.

So, the mentality of political & religious subjects is not simply that of abject slaves, but of bureaucratic role-playing that can change as the political structure changes. For example, after one society has been absorbed into a new empire, its hierarchy can shift dramatically. A former king may be put in the stocks, as a laughing-stock. And a former slave could be promoted to a position of authority, as in the stories of Joseph and Daniel in the Bible.

Humans are instinctively like wolves or sheep or chickens, in that they have dominant/submissive relationships that vary all the way down to the rank of powerless slaves. And human leaders, including priests, take advantage of that submissiveness to leverage their personal power by claiming divine authority. Hence, us commoners are not just slaves of gods, but slaves of everyone above us in the chain-of-command. :gasp:


PS___Some might view their relationship to their god more positively, as good soldiers following orders from above.

The logic we believe to be ‘inherent’ in Nature is constructed and defined within a human perspective. — Possibility

That assertion may point to a key difference in our worldviews. Your quote makes it seem that Reality is a figment of my individual imagination (solipsistic idealism). Yet, scientists assume that there is a physical world out there for our senses to perceive (Realism). My view is a bit of both. I think our Reality is a figment of G*D's imagination (e.g. Berkeley's Idealism). But our bodies are also creatures of G*D mind. So we are endowed with physical senses that can detect the objects of G*D's imagination (Logos). Human "objectivity" is a form of collective imagination via communication of subjective intuition (i.e. Science).

That dualism may sound awkward, but it's basically the same Model Dependent Realism theory that cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman presents in his book The Case Against Reality. He calls the "objects of our perception "icons" that represent a deeper "reality" of pure information. In my BothAnd philosophy, it's not a matter of either "Reality" or "Ideality", it's both at the same time. Ideality consists of raw EnFormAction (creative information), while what we call objective Reality is a sort of communal delusion --- i.e. we all see more or less the same illusion. "A rose is still a rose . . ."

Interface Reality : He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

We're straying a bit from the sub-topic of how the Fifth & Sixth Dimensions fit into the Enformationism worldview. Since I don't understand how those dimensions are relevant to me personally, I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the questions I've been asking in this thread. For now, I'm assuming those extra dimensions have something to do with Intuition, as opposed to the traditional four we know via intuitive classification of sensory experiences, and then rationalize into formal definitions of Space & Time. You seem to focus on the subjective feelings rather than the objective reasons. With that notion in mind, I'm quoting some excerpts from the Complexity book I referred to before.

This from Seth Lloyd on how to make computers intuitive : "For non-linear systems, control requires intuition. . . . For the algorithm to model the system successfully, it must be an adaptive algorithm : to acquire intuition, it must learn." Hence, his approach to the mysteries of complexity, involves both "algorithmic and probabilistic information." What we now call "complexity" seems to be what the ancients called "mystery", and associated with spirits & gods on higher planes of existence. Lloyd doesn't use mystical methods to delve into fuzzy ambiguity & unpredictable uncertainty. Instead, he uses the mostly linear rational techniques of mathematics and computer processing of information. As computers evolve though, he will use entangled Quantum processing to deal with non-linear problems, that currently only humans can grasp by intuition. Meanwhile humans have one last shred of dignity that computers can't do better.

If Intuition is based on mundane learning and adaptation, then perhaps humans also acquire their intuition from ordinary experience with how the world works, rather than from occult sources in higher dimensions. Presumably, intuition matures along with all other aspects of human personality. What we call "intuition" is simply the millions of minute details the brain has stored for future retrieval. Just like the recall of names though, it works best on automatic. When we consciously try to recover such information, we often draw a blank. Which is why sleep or meditation allow the brain to process that loosely-categorized deeply-engrammed information.

Logos : the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning

Engram : a hypothetical permanent change in the brain accounting for the existence of memory; a memory trace.

Law & Disorder :
1. Reason -- Rule-based linear processes
2. Intuition -- Random non-linear complexity
Intuition learns from the errors of experience, and exceptions to the usual rules.

Only to the interpretation of the body of these results as implying reductionism. — Pantagruel

Back in the day, Reductionism was an innovative method of analysis of Nature. Not only was it required to break-down complex systems into bite-size chunks our baby teeth could masticate, it was also a way to work around the authority of the church, which made outdated religious and philosophical dogma into big beliefs, to be swallowed whole. Unfortunately, we have ridden the horse of Reductionism about as far as it will carry us. That's why the cutting-edge of Science is venturing into holistic Systems Theory, and Complexity Theory, and even Quantum Indeterminism.

Science by its very nature is incomplete — Pantagruel

That's why Science must evolve or die out. Reductionism and Determinism are endangered species. But their fittest genes are still working in those newer forms of scientific investigation.

We disagree on how we ‘carve nature’, it seems. I see categories as how we agree to divide the world in social reality. They are constructions of perception by prediction. — Possibility

Yes. I prefer to carve Nature at its joints (i.e. inherent logical categories). But you seem to think there is no inherent logic to Nature, so all categories are arbitrary and imaginary. If that is the case, then Science is impossible, and we'd have to rely on a Shaman to interpret the world for us.

I'm not familiar with the phrase : "constructions of perception by prediction".

While I recognise there is a ‘natural’ structure of relations between what we think of as social and physical reality, I don’t think it’s inherently definable. I certainly don’t see it as a ‘joint’. We wilfully categorise and classify the world as it suits us. This is how we relate to the world. — Possibility

The "natural’ structure of relations" is what I call the "Logic" of Nature. And it's what scientists are trying to determine and to exploit for human purposes. The "logic" I refer to is the patterns, structures, and laws (pure logic = mathematics) that we observe in the natural world. Human reasoning (logic) is a poor approximation of the natural order, but we seem to have inherited a disposition to recognize systematic order when we see it. It's true that rational Science is influenced by human emotions and ego-drives to "willfully categorize". That's why the Scientific Method includes checks & balances to cancel-out individual egos & wills. But the only other option I'm aware of is direct communication with God or Nature (visions, intuitions or revelations), which is the method religious authorities have claimed to use for millennia to classify the world as it suited them into hierarchies of angels & demons, supernatural powers & occult forces. Is this how you relate to the world?

Nature is Understandable : Science presumes that the things and events in the universe occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible through careful, systematic study. Scientists believe that through the use of the intellect, and with the aid of instruments that extend the senses, people can discover patterns in all of nature. . . . But they tend to agree about the principles of logical reasoning that connect evidence and assumptions with conclusions. Scientists do not work only with data and well-developed theories. Often, they have only tentative hypotheses about the way things may be.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm

You seem to be looking for the ‘correct’ question, but what I’m looking for is the pattern relation that enables us to predict an answer given the question. — Possibility

What's the difference? For me, the "correct" answer is one that leads to pragmatic applications. Without supernatural help, we'll never obtain perfect answers.

Pragmatic Science : The pragmatic position, by my definition, views science as one of our best tools for figuring out our place in the world and our world’s place in the universe. To the extent that truths can be uncovered, science is one of our most effective methods for finding them. But it’s not the only one. Logic is another, as is philosophical inquiry and the humanities, among others.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/08/21/why-we-need-pragmatic-science-and-why-the-alternatives-are-dead-ends/#761f14ea777b

I don’t think it’s inherently definable. — Possibility

I just read an article, in an anthology of The Evolving Idea of Complexity, that seems pertinent to our different views of scientific/philosophical definition. Complexity Theory is an offshoot of Systems Theory, which is an attempt to apply scientific methods to whole systems (holism), rather than just the parts (reductionism). Unfortunately, Complexity is a metaphysical feeling about natural systems, not a physical object. So, it can only be defined in terms of metaphors that relate to sensory knowledge.

John Casti began his article with an anecdote about defining "complexity". One scientist asserted cynically that "complexity is what you don't understand". To which his colleague replied, "you don't understand complexity". For much of the last 30 years, Complexity has been a theoretical (philosophical) science. But Casti then noted the absurdity of trying to make a Science, "without benefit of anything even beginning to resemble a definition". He referred to those early stages of academic complexity studies derisively as "wrapped up in language vague enough to warm the heart of any continental philosopher". [ I take that to be a reference to Postmodernism ]. Anyway, he sums up, " the problem is that an integral part of transforming complexity . . . into a science involves making that which is fuzzy precise".

It's the fuzziness of your assertions about multiple dimensions that makes it difficult for me to relate the concept to my limited knowledge of how the world works. In theory, I should be able to find a place for those extra "dimensions" in my Enformationism thesis. But to me, your evasive, oblique, and yes "fuzzy" references sound more like religious beliefs (defined by authorities, not by laymen), than scientific concepts.

However, you and I both are cognizant of the limitations of scientific Reductionism. Which is also the flaw that Casti critiques in his article, "in which any reductionist approach of this sort irretrievably destroys the very nature of the problem". [ dissect the frog to see what makes it a frog ] So, Casti argues that "the missing ingredient is the explicit recognition that system complexity is a subjective, not an objective, property of an isolated system" To which, I suspect that you can agree. Nevertheless, Casti is determined to find a way to define Complexity scientifically and as precisely as possible, in order to avoid, "opening up all sorts of depressing debates and semantic confusions of the kind that permeate the arts and humanities". [ has he been lurking on our thread? ] :joke:

Just another thought. I did not see Sentience in your Glossary. — 3017amen

The Blog Glossary is intended to give an Enformationism flavor to common dictionary words, and to give a pertinent definition of neologisms that are found only in the thesis. I haven't yet addressed the notion of "Sentience", as you describe it. I suppose the closest Glossary entry is the one for "Consciousness". Other generally related terms are defined in the pertinent blog post.

Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
Is that even close to your meaning of Sentience?

INTRO : This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago. .

It is this key distinction that you make which confuses your supposed aim to bridge the divide. — Possibility

Who's confused? I still don't understand your distaste for "distinctions" and "definitions". Without those analytical steps we would have to deal with the world as one awesome mystery. A bridge doesn't erase the gap between things, it merely makes a two-way link between them. My aim is not to transcend the divide by imagining that it doesn't exist, but to understand it as an inherent aspect of our otherwise complex and perplexing reality .

In my BothAnd philosophy, I want to discover natural distinctions (parts, categories, classes), and then to see their relationship to the whole. I suspect that one alternative method would be to view Nature as Supernatural (mystical, unanalyzable), and another would be to simply "carve nature" at arbitrary points willy-nilly. Is the Fifth Dimension a natural "joint", or a willful categorization?

Carving Nature at its Joints :
Plato famously employed this “ carving ” metaphor as an analogy for the reality of Forms (Phaedrus 265e): like an animal, the world comes to us predivided. Ideally, our best theories will be those which “ carve nature at its joints. ”
https://philarchive.org/archive/SLAILF

However, it is important to note that in Panentheism, as Davies posits, the Di-polar God is that where both timeless and temporality are folded into one entity. A combination of both determinism and indeterminism on a quantum scale. A God that is both imbedded in the stream of time, yet retains it's eternal an unchanging character. — 3017amen

That is essentially how I imagine the axiomatic G*D of the Enformationism thesis. It's not a god of religion to be worshiped, but a Logos of philosophy to be aligned & allied with. This PanEnDeistic deity is imagined as Real in the form of our space-time universe, but Ideal in the form of Enfernal (eternal/infinite) BEING. Unfortunately, for us, such a rationalized essence remains a tantalizing mystery, whose only revelation is the world that we know via personal experience, and by scientific exploration. :nerd:

Panendeism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

and yet psychology, evolutionary biology and many other fields of application continue to perpetuate the mythical assumption that feelings and emotions are inherent, instinctual and universally defined. The latest research in neuroscience shows instead that personal and cultural conditioning lead to the construction and learning of emotional concepts. — Possibility

Where did you get this information?

we have spent at least the last five thousand years trying to make sense of this atemporal aspect of experience, — Possibility

Unfortunately, I am still a troglodyte who doesn't grok "atemporality". In my thesis, I assume that there is a timeless state (Enfernity) from which space-time emerged. But that doesn't mean that I have any experience or intuition of what-it's-like to be timeless. It's merely an abstract concept imagined as a back-story for the Big Bang. That's why I don't claim to know anything about that presumptive "state" or "dimension" or "level" of existence. From the article linked below, what I "got" was that Atemporality is an imaginary metaphor to put our experience of space-time into a broader context. In other words it's a fictional concept, just like my Enfernity. But I don't claim to know anything about its internal structure or patterns. I just view it as structureless infinite Potential or Possibility. Of course, fiction-writers can simply make-up stories about the structure of their imaginary realms.

Atemporality for the Creative Artist : So, what is ‘atemporality’? I think it’s best defined as ‘a problem in the philosophy of history’. . . . The first is about atemporality as a modern phenomenon. What does it look like and feel like, as it actually exists? And the second part of the speech is: what can creative artists do about that? . . . (If you don’t get what atemporality is by the end of these few images, I probably can’t help you.) ___Bruce Sterling, sci-fi writer
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/atemporality-for-the-creative-artist/

I hypothesize that, using past experience as a guide, the brain prepares multiple competing simulations that answer the question, ‘what is this new sensory input most similar to?’ — Lisa Feldman Barrett, 2017

Barrett's hypothesis makes sense in terms of my Enformationism thesis, but the technical exposition is way beyond my competency. As with Sterling (the "artist"), I'll just have to take her word for it. The world of imagination is practically infinite, encompassing all possibilities. But the world of space-time is finite, so we can attempt to verify any assertions of what-is and what-ain't. Some "simulations" may be closer to truth than others.

FWIW, the main reason I refer to mental structures of information as ‘five-dimensional’ is to describe theories such as this and quantum mechanics, which enable us to cross the idealism/materialism divide, in relation to information theory without resulting in confusion between information-as-thing (3D), information-as-process (4D) and information-as-knowledge (5D). — Possibility

I can accept the notion of higher dimensions as metaphors for discussing "things" that are not physical things (i.e. ideas). But I still need some grounding in common-sense reality in order to grok the metaphors. For example, what real-world difference does this concept make to me personally? Can I directly access this dimension of my own mind to obtain self-help wisdom, or should I just attend a Tony Robbins seminar?

I feel the need to explain one of the reasons for my pig-headedness (pardon the passive-aggressive self-deprecation). I came of age in the 60s. Which for some people (hippies) was The Age of Aquarius : "when peace will guide the planets, and love will steer the stars". But in my part of the world, it was The Age of Jesus' Return (the second coming). Since I was not a participant in the hippie subculture, I never learned the lingo of Astrological myths, Buddhist/Hindu theology, or Western Mysticism. Instead, my rebellion against the stagnation of Western Culture/Religion was modern Science, with its myths of Virtual Particles & Parallel Worlds. That's my second language, but I'm still not fluent in it. Consequently, the notion of "Fifth Dimension" in my mind is associated with a beautiful fairy tale. It sounds lovely, but science is more practical for mundane affairs. :yum:

I don’t think either of us are talking about actual real things here. We’re talking about information. — Possibility

I wasn't asking about the definition of a "real" thing. I was requesting a succinct definition of your concept of whatever kind of "thing" these extra dimensions are. Without some kind of defining mental image, I am at a loss to know what you are talking about. Physically, space is emptiness that can be filled with something sensible and measurable. What kind of "things" are filling these extra empty containers.Praxis offered a couple of examples : "fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions". But I don't grasp how the processes of adapting personal and cultural beliefs can be localized to specific places in "mind space".

Those metaphysical "dimensions" sound like the spiritual language of heaven & hell (imagined as real places) but translated into sciencey sounding modern terminology. They are spatial metaphors intended to allow us to imagine unreal "things" as-if they are real. Spiritual leaders have always used such physical imagery to convey metaphysical concepts. And they typically imply some causal connection (spiritual energies) from human minds to those abstract places in Mind-Space. This spiritual "mechanism" gives the impression that we can gain leverage over occult forces that bedevil us. But humans have typically relied on specialist Shamans to operate the spiritual system.

PS__My questions are not directed toward distinguishing "real" things from "ideal" concepts, but to discern "factual" from "fictional". For example : Time is generally accepted as an objective fact, but people's notions of that fact vary. Some think of Time flowing like a river, but Einstein pictured Time as a static block. Which metaphor is true? Depends on what kind of truth you're looking for. We all experience Change, but that simple fact has inspired all kinds of stories about change, from Fatalism or Destiny to Opportunity and Possibility. I'm looking for a Time story that is useful for my needs, that are mostly pragmatic instead of emotional.

No - the fifth dimension is not located IN space-time. — Possibility

I get that. But what kind of stuff is figuratively "located" in those multiple dimensions? How do we detect those "containers", and how can we differentiate one dimension from another? Are alternate forms of consciousness (drugs, meditation) required to access those dimensions?

But so much of what you write here also seems to perpetuate the divide, so I’m not sure what to make of that. — Possibility

I too, keep repeating and stipulating that I make a key distinction between Physical and Meta-physical aspects of our experience of the world. Empirical Science deals with Physics, and normally leaves Meta-Physics to Philosophers and Spiritualists (until forced to deal with abstractions and unknowns). Your extra dimensions seem to be metaphysical metaphors that are supposed to have some Effect on human Affect. But how that works is not clear. Scientists have a pretty good understanding of the physical causal forces (e.g. neurotransmitters) that elicit the Affects we call Feelings and Emotions. Are you saying that there are other "forces" involved that physical scientists are blind to?

BTW. My Information Theory was based on cutting-edge science, not on New Age philosophy. So I am not well-versed in the alternative lingo of mysticism.

I’m not sure where you got ‘state space’ from. — Possibility

It's a mathematical term for a metaphysical "container" that seems to be similar to the dimensions you are talking about.
State Space : The state space of a dynamical system is the set of all possible states of the system.

What is affected is the perception or structure of potential, the five-dimensional information from which the observation is a reduction. It isn’t an ‘actual change’ as such - it’s a selected ‘mental’ structuring of potential information which determines and initiates the actual distribution of effort and attention in the observation itself. — Possibility

I need a translation into less abstract terminology.

Affect is an instruction for the distribution of effort and attention requirements, so it’s both: it’s the relation between a physical transfer of energy (actual, 4D information) and the sum of feeling/knowledge (potential, 5D information) as a prediction of change. — Possibility

Where do you get this information? Is there a book or website that gives grounding and backup for these assertions? Are these concepts related to Jungian psychology?
Or to mystical psychology? : https://www.sacred-texts.com/myst/myst/myst06.htm


Space-Time : the metaphysician Immanuel Kant said that the concepts of space and time are not empirical ones derived from experiences of the outside world—they are elements of an already given systematic framework that humans possess and use to structure all experiences. . . .
However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

Here, this might help (with respect to your Glossary/Time): — 3017amen

One topic, relevant to time, that I discuss at length in the blog, is the concept of Timelessness. One of my favorite neologisms is "Enfernity" (Infinity & eternity), which encapsulates my understanding that the state from which space-time emerged was unitary and formless : nothing measurable, except in terms of Mathematical and Logical relationships. :nerd:


Time & Purpose : It can be said that the world of mathematics exists in an eternal present, a state in which neither the past nor the future have any meaning
http://www.torahscience.org/mathematics/time1.html

informational legacy — Pfhorrest

Most people leave very little record of their existence in the overall narrative (history) of the world, except for the genetic information of their offspring. Only a few heroes and villains are long remembered for their contributions-to or subtractions-from the teleological "purpose" of the world. But even those memorable legacies will have faded into oblivion, long before the Heat Death of the universe.

I assume that you are hoping to leave behind some of your personal ideas (memes) in lieu of children (genes) to make your mark on the world --- perhaps to add some bit of personal insight to the lore of philosophical literature. That's an honorable goal, and a common aspiration among those who seek abstract Wisdom instead of the usual food, shelter, and sex. Self-actualization is at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. All I can suggest is, "sow your meme-seed, and hope for the best". :smile:


The Meanings of Life : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page65.html

Abraham Lincoln : The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. Gettysburg Address

The play's the thing :
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth by Shakespeare


Childless Philosophers : Plato, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were childless. And so were Kant, Hume, Hobbes, Locke, Kierkegaard and Spinoza. In fact, of the 20 most important philosophers of all time, as listed on the influential philosophy blog Leiter Reports, 13 of them never had children — or 15, if you wish to include Descartes (who, though not married, had a daughter whom he saw little during her five-year-long life), and Rousseau (who took Aristotle’s decree to the word and disowned all of his five children by sending them off, soon after their birth, to a foundling home).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/opinion/philosophy-fatherhood.html

As a favor, I'm offering a critique of your Glossary Page. Maybe I missed it , but why did you not include Time? — 3017amen

I discuss the notion of Time in many blog posts. But at the time I was writing the Enformationism thesis, it wasn't a big issue.

Let me know if you see any more omissions. I'm currently working on an addendum to the Glossary.

Yes, thanks, but not really novel, nor a paradigm buster. — 3017amen

I wasn't talking about a Spiritual paradigm, but a Scientific paradigm. But Enformationism is also a religious paradigm-buster, at least compared to the fundamentalist Christian worldview of my youth.

I've interpreted what Possibility has written about it to be like a dimension of measurement, if that makes sense. Affect is a dimension like depth is a dimension. There is depth information available to perception as there is affect information available to perception. Make sense? — praxis

An Effect is a physical change. To Affect, is to make a difference emotionally. For psychologists, "Affect" is how inner emotions are displayed in outward behavior. I can understand that emotional feelings are metaphorically similar to the feeling of Touch, by which we "measure" physical things. And all personal meanings are ultimately feelings.

Unfortunately, my personal Affect is rather flat. I don't have strong emotional swings. That's not a sign of depression, but of a stable happy-go-lucky temperament. I am by nature rather Buddha-like in the sense of a peaceful state of mind. I suppose that's why my general mood seems rather two-dimensional to more emotionally volatile people. Anyway, I've never experienced anything I'd call "Enlightenment". I suppose the closest I've come to that deep insight was when I realized that mental Information is the essence of everything in the world. The Effect of that intuition was to give me a foundation for my personal worldview. It was more of an intellectual "awakening" than a spiritual transformation, though.

What would it take for me to experience the Fifth Dimension stage of enlightenment? Mystics seem to be innately tuned for such a state. Others use drugs, or mediate to "lift" their vibrations. But, since my normal state, as an introvert, is basically meditative, whatever vibrations I may have resonate only in the usual four dimensions.

Can you give some examples of "depth information" you have obtained from forays into the higher dimensions? :cool:

Aaron Doughty : spiritual advisor -- "calibrate your vibrations"
https://aarondoughty.com/

5th Dimension : Let’s consider, why would somebody living in this amazing Age of Awakening try to leave it. Really, leave it by “lifting your vibrations.” In short, “upgrade” your awareness away from how humans are built to experience life:
If your wish is to not have to deal with everyday human problems.
Or should you desire to develop kinds of intelligence more like spirits than like humans.
Maybe even dream of becoming the ultimate human. So vastly superior to hairy, smelly, confused human beings!
https://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2020/01/04/5th-dimension-nonsense-serious-warning/

the reason the end of the universe seemed so bad despite being so far away was that it seemed to make everything pointless. — Pfhorrest

Most people in Western Civilization have been told that the point of terrestrial life is to qualify for a ticket to eternal life in heaven. When Atheists realized that heaven was a fictional future, they went through an existential crisis. So they decided to place their hopes on Secular, Material, and Pleasurable pursuits. For some, the point of life was Fame, or Wealth, or Love. But all of those are fleeting. Yet by taking one day at a time, you can create your own personal meaning. Eventually, the Existentialists learned to focus, not on a point, but on the process of living. And that's my approach to dealing with pointlessness.

Or you could meditate on Time. The only time you will ever possess is Now. The Past is a memory, and the Future is imaginary. The Heat Death of the universe is not real, it's a scientific myth. Now is the minute moment between past & future. That "point" in time is all you will ever know. So, make the best of it. :joke:

PS___Sorry for the platitudes. I was just waxing philosophical for a moment. But I'm over it now.

I'm sure it would help if you familiarized yourself with: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience — praxis

I scanned the article, but it doesn't say anything about higher dimensions. I assume you are implying that we know those occult planes, not by outward physical senses, but by inwardly directed intuitive feelings. Do you "feel" those dimensions? What do they feel like? How do they affect you?

I have an internal mental model of the universe; my reality. It's intuitive & instinctive, and guides my emotions. But I've never felt any extra dimensions. Do I need to open my Third Eye? :chin:

Are there any absolute's in your theory (s)? — 3017amen

The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent.

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Necessary Being : https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml

he attempts an answer to the question that was the initial fixation of my existential anxiety last year (the seemingly inevitable eventual end of everything in the heat death of the universe). — Pfhorrest

Why are you worrying about an event (the Big Sigh) that won't occur for billions of years. Even if you were alive to witness The End, it would be so gradual --- like increasing the heat so slowly that a frog in a pot won't notice until it's too late --- that you wouldn't feel a thing. The End is Not Near. :joke:

FWIW, I have a somewhat more optimistic attitude toward the death of the living organism we call the Universe. The space-time cosmos is indeed finite, but the Creator is infinite. So, I view this world, and my minor role in it, as a cosmic experiment, that will only be meaningful to the Experimenter. Like mice in a maze, ours is not to reason "why?", but to do and die. :cool:

Cosmic Evolution Graph : click to enlarge image
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Rationalism vs Fatalism : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

Another suggestion that a Black Hole might be a portal to another galaxy, civilization, dimension, etc. etc. The funny thing is, apparently when you enter, you can't get out : — 3017amen

The notion of Black Holes was a godsend for sci-fi authors. Like the Warp Drive of Star Trek it allows us to fantasize about escaping the downer limitations of reality. I don't take up much time speculating on the infinite possibilities of a tunnel to another universe. I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes. :smile:

I've been meaning to ask, and I keep forgetting so I'll ask now, does your theory consider any old- school Hermetic philosophy/cosmology? ( It seems to dovetail a bit with PAP/Panentheism. .) — 3017amen

My Enformationism thesis has nothing to do with mystical occult esoteric Hermetic traditions. I prefer scientific exoteric empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, the most common mis-construal is that it's a New Age philosophy. It is instead intended to be a 21st century alternative to ancient mystery religions, including Christianity, and to the ancient philosophy of Materialism, which has been obsolete since the advent of Quantum Theory.

The implicit cosmology does have some affinity with PanEnDeism, in that it assumes a cosmic Mind of some kind to provide the Generic Information that we interpret as both Matter (objects) and Mind (subjects). It's a Deist worldview (not a religion) in the sense that the Enformer or Programmer or G*D presumably "designed" the Program (evolution), but does not interfere with its automatic execution. In other words, no miracles, no magic, no occult mysteries. The theory is Spiritual only in the sense that what used to be called "Spirit", and is now called "Energy", is actually what we now know as "Information".

Paul Davies is a primary source of ideas about Information as the fundamental element of the cosmos. He hints at Panpsychism, but tries to avoid falling into Mysticism. My worldview may also be similar to Wheelers' PAP, but I was not aware of that concept ,as I was following the lead of a quantum scientist, who stated the obvious : that a virtual particle of matter (in a state of super-position) is un-actualized immaterial mathematical information. In other words, matter and energy are merely states (or forms) of essential Information. I also acknowledge a debt to Spinoza, and his theory of Universal Substance, which I take to be Generic Information : the power to Enform, to Create, So some kind of Creator is logically necessary. But since I have no direct experience with that hypothetical entity, for me, G*D is merely a philosophical Axiom. :nerd:

Might want to check who you’re speaking to before you attack... — Possibility

What do you mean? I copied the quote from your post. The "passive-aggressive" crack sounded more like Praxis, but I was replying to your put-down. Did you interpret my calm measured defense as a counter-attack? BTW. I included "you and Praxis" in my response.

Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison. — Possibility

Of course. A person's worldview is a belief system, not a scientific theory. Do you understand the theories I "prop it up with"? [ I prefer the more positive term : "support" ] If not, how do you know I don't understand them? What scientific theories do you support your theory with? [ I've repeatedly asked for references ] I also prefer the more philosophical terminology of "challenge and response" instead of "criticism and personal attack" Your mis-interpretation of my intention may say more about you, than about me. :joke:

Anyway, since we are both arguing about little-known belief systems, can we at least find some common ground? A simple summary of your theory of Fifth Dimension would be a good start. Here's what The Fifth Dimension means to me :

https://youtu.be/gebehJw946I

https://youtu.be/VlrQ-bOzpkQ

Granted I've been unnecessarily rude. I've gained interest in the topic and would like to be more cooperative. You cannot fault Possibility's conduct, by the way, which has been remarkable by any standard. — praxis

That's OK. I'm used to rudeness on anonymous internet forums. You can continue to "cooperate" by challenging my ideas, and giving me a chance to respond. I don't expect to convince you that my personal worldview is more up-to-date than the current paradigm of Materialism, or more scientific than New Age Spiritualism. But the feedback helps me to see how others (mis-) interpret my ideas. It helps me continue to refine the theory in my blog.

I began to dialog with Possibility because it's possible (pun intended) that a multi-dimensional cosmology could have some bearing on my own unorthodox understanding of reality. Unfortunately, it has been frustrating, because P doesn't directly answer my questions asking for empirical evidence or logical reasoning. I suspect that part of the communication problem is that my vocabulary is largely Modern and Post-postmodern, instead of the Postmodern lingo of the 80s & 90s. Although I can see that postmodern philosophers made legitimate criticisms of Modernism, I can't follow their oblique and circuitous (non-linear) arguments.

So, I still don't know how the hypothetical Fifth Dimension might fit into my theory of Information. I don't understand how it differs from the spiritual New Age notion, or from the mathematical universe of String Theorists. My Enformationism thesis has a lot to say about space-time, but doesn't mention higher or multiple dimensions. That's because I have no personal experience with anything beyond the mundane dimensions of apparent reality. :cool:

I’m wondering if you’re familiar with this guy. — Pfhorrest

Yes. I often link to his site for technical details that are way above my knowledge level. His worldview seems to be similar to mine, in that "Immaterial information is perhaps as close as a physical or biological scientist can get to the idea of a soul or spirit that departs the body at death." And that "Metaphysics based on information philosophy can answer some of the most profound questions about the fundamental origins, nature, and evolution of reality".

. But, since I haven't read all of his extensive website, I can't be sure that we agree on all points. I doubt that he is familiar with my website. However, I may eventually communicate directly with him.

He gives some background on his credentials on this page : http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/