If you're going to butt-in, at least become familiar with the discussion.If I might butt in for a sec. — praxis
I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread?It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse — praxis
No. It was just a personal opinion. Do you know what "IMHO" means? If you disagree with that opinion, start another thread. :razz:Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error? — praxis
Are you also a Global Warming denier? :joke:You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying. — praxis
Yes. Time is not a physical thing that can be measured with a yard/meter stick. But it is a dimension only by analogy to spatial dimensions. Time measures Change. What does your Fifth Dimension measure : Meaning, Values, Significance . . . ? Like the passage of Time, such qualities are completely Subjective and Relative, until we agree on conventional units of measurement, such as objective physical Moon revolutions. What kind of units do you use to measure the structure of the Fifth Dimension? How do you "observe" that structure? — Gnomon
Many world religions claim to have "worked out" how to "observe" those metaphysical properties : divine revelation, visions, mystical experiences, faith, Intuition, meditation, drug trips, etc. Are you looking for a new more certain method to measure the incommensurable? If these properties are "not imaginary" (mind pictures), does that mean they exist outside the mind, in the objective real world? If so, can we use pragmatic methods to observe them? — Gnomon
Please reference some venerable or historical definitions of the Fifth Dimension. Do they match your meaning of the term? Are they different from the examples I gave above? Do you have a new way to perceive that extra-sensory dimension, besides the methods I mentioned above? — Gnomon
If you can't control the meaning of your words, then they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. Why do you think philosophers throughout the years have split so much ink on defining conventional words, and so often resorted to creating new terms with no prior baggage? Was Kant haughty when he coined the term "categorical imperative" and "pure reason", by combining old words into novel concepts? Enformationism is a new paradigm, which would be incomprehensible in terms of the old paradigms of Materialism or Spiritualism. — Gnomon
How do you propose to "remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions", without proposing unconventional meanings? Do you think that consciousness raising will magically remove millennia of prejudicial interpretations of common words? Demonizing the blunt term "cripple" in favor of "handicapped" or "impaired", may have changed attitudes toward certain previously marginalized people, but if you continue to use old spiritual terminology, how can you change attitudes toward the variety of uncompromising religions with us-versus-them attitudes toward their fellow spiritualists? How can you remove the perceptual limitations of seekers like me, who were raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts? — Gnomon
I am enjoying this dialog, in part, because I sense that you and I have similar aspirations. For example, I am trying, in my own idiosyncratic way, to legitimize the concepts of Metaphysics and Spiritualism, which were banished from scientific and philosophical discourse most decisively by Descartes. His Body/Soul division was later called "non-overlapping magisteria" by S.J. Gould. It gave science license to investigate all of Nature, except the aspects we are all most intimately familiar with : our own experiences & feelings & ideas. Yet those of other people remain shrouded in myths and "spiritual mysteries". — Gnomon
1. The argument from 'iterability of meaning' (refer to video if you like) was that which I was referring to, where there is need to reach consensus in (contextual) definitions first, before proceeding into a debate or discussion etc. about the concept. In other words, agree (or disagree) on the definitions about the subject matter beforehand. — 3017amen
Another spirited/working example comes from the doctrine of vagueness:
"Where does the tail of a snake begin? When posed as a rhetorical question, the speaker is hinting that there is no definite answer. But the tail can be located by tracing down from the snake’s rib cage. A false attribution of indeterminacy will lead to the premature abandonment of inquiry. The risk of futile inquiry into questions that cannot be answered must be balanced against the risk of abandoning questions that are actually answerable. " — 3017amen
2. IMO, your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. Meaning, as being a sort of paradigm-buster myself (in his case him being a recovering Fundy), I have argued or suggested in the past that in the 21st century we needed to re-define many old-school belief systems that are either unsophisticated, oppressive, or otherwise deleterious to our way of Being (part of the problem and not the solution). Similarly, Derrida's work in part, was an effort in the 60's socio-political movement where change was much needed at the forefront of Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, etc.. — 3017amen
Do you have some kind of image or diagram to illustrate the multilayered structure of space? The diagram below is a simplified interpretation of 3 dimensions, and could also illustrate the fourth dimension by moving the diagram from one point in time to another. String theorists have developed some computer renderings to represent their extra mathematically defined dimensions. Can your Fifth Dimension be represented in a similar manner? Or is it something else altogether?The analogy to spatial dimensions often leads to an oversimplification of what ‘time’ is, based on the misunderstanding that ‘space’ as a dimensional existence refers to a container instead of a multi-layered, complex conceptual structure of three, two and one-dimensional relations. — Possibility
This sounds similar to my own notion that, fundamentally, Information consists of inter-relations --- not between Things but Possibilities --- that can be represented as geometric ratios. One of the "properties" of complex & integrated relationships is what we interpret as Meaning. Simpler patterns are merely mathematical, but can be used as syntactical Shannon Information to compute higher order patterns, that we can translate back into semantic meanings. This is just the beginning of new way to think about Information. But I'm afraid it will take someone much smarter than me to develop it into a structured concept that can be understood by the average person.Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’ — Possibility
Unfortunately, human understanding mostly takes the form of "mind pictures" : simplified icons analogous to "real" things out there in the world. If you want to communicate your own abstract concepts to others, you'll have to dumb them down into simplistic pictures of more familiar things. :nerd:So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality. — Possibility
My intent is not to "legitimize" those -isms as isolated traditions, but to integrate "woo" & "mysteries" into a whole system with empirical Science. Most scientists and atheists "dismiss" ancient metaphysical notions as non-sense. Yet I think the pre-scientific religious founders and philosophers were just as smart as modern materialists. They were simply using metaphorical language to describe transcendent concepts. Unfortunately, some of their followers took their metaphors too literally and dogmatically.I’ll be honest with you, though - my aim is not to legitimise any ‘isms’ or to go in to bat for the validity of metaphysical ‘woo’ or ‘spiritual mysteries’. — Possibility
That is the complete opposite to my intent. On this forum I am often critical of Scientism, but that's only in response to posters who are hard atheists, and dismissive of anything that smacks of religion. I, personally, am not religious at all. And I could be labeled "spiritual" only because I seriously entertain metaphysical notions that are anathema to physicists. BTW, FWIW, I am also completely a-political --- a militant moderate. My personal worldview is built upon cutting-edge science, not ancient religion.There remains an affective and sometimes even political loading to your language which implies a blanket dismissiveness on the part of science, philosophy or fundamental religion to any collaboration between physics and metaphysics, — Possibility
That sounds like a fatalistic Postmodern attitude toward communication of ideas. Like Marxism, it assumes that all human behavior boils down to brutal us-versus-them politics. I am optimistically searching for some common ground in the "Better Angels of Our Nature". :cool:So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile. — Possibility
That is the point of the BothAnd philosophy.Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide, — Possibility
I too, avoid the use of spiritual language (mostly metaphors for transcendence), except as necessary to re-define them into 21st century concepts, compatible with the best of modern science.This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language. — Possibility
You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. Critiquing and de-constructing out-of-date terminology is my way of "broadening awareness" and eliminating "ideological biases". :cool:I recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms. — Possibility
Sorry, that was a generic "you" in the quote. I wasn't saying that Possibility was using spiritual terminology.Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify — Possibility
It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse
— praxis
I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread? — Gnomon
Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error?
— praxis
No. It was just a personal opinion. Do you know what "IMHO" means? If you disagree with that opinion, start another thread. — Gnomon
You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying.
— praxis
Are you also a Global Warming denier?
I suspect that Possibility is aware and concerned about this philosophical dilemma, for which the Fifth Dimension theory is a proposed partial solution. If the "Rift" is no concern of yours, please butt out. — Gnomon
Thanks! The whole point of Enformationism is "paradigm busting", not merely saying the same old thing in strange words. — Gnomon
I’m with you here. Not sure how it applies to my comments, though. — Possibility
recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms. — Possibility
Do you have some kind of image or diagram to illustrate the multilayered structure of space? The diagram below is a simplified interpretation of 3 dimensions, and could also illustrate the fourth dimension by moving the diagram from one point in time to another. String theorists have developed some computer renderings to represent their extra mathematically defined dimensions. Can your Fifth Dimension be represented in a similar manner? Or is it something else altogether? — Gnomon
This sounds similar to my own notion that, fundamentally, Information consists of inter-relations --- not between Things but Possibilities --- that can be represented as geometric ratios. One of the "properties" of complex & integrated relationships is what we interpret as Meaning. Simpler patterns are merely mathematical, but can be used as syntactical Shannon Information to compute higher order patterns, that we can translate back into semantic meanings. This is just the beginning of new way to think about Information. But I'm afraid it will take someone much smarter than me to develop it into a structured concept that can be understood by the average person. — Gnomon
Ironically, my first impression of your transcendent Fifth Dimension theory was that it attempts to validate "metaphysical woo", such as New Age notions of higher dimensions — Gnomon
That is the complete opposite to my intent. On this forum I am often critical of Scientism, but that's only in response to posters who are hard atheists, and dismissive of anything that smacks of religion. I, personally, am not religious at all. And I could be labeled "spiritual" only because I seriously entertain metaphysical notions that are anathema to physicists. BTW, FWIW, I am also completely a-political --- a militant moderate. My personal worldview is built upon cutting-edge science, not ancient religion. — Gnomon
That sounds like a fatalistic Postmodern attitude toward communication of ideas. Like Marxism, it assumes that all human behavior boils down to brutal us-versus-them politics. I am optimistically searching for some common ground in the "Better Angels of Our Nature". — Gnomon
That correlation wasn't my idea. Aristotle's Metaphysics has been associated with Religion and Spiritualism for thousands of years. For the purposes of my thesis, I have a completely different interpretation of what Aristotle was talking about.try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism — praxis
My comment was a general impression, not an assertion based on historical research. But, FWIW, I do believe that there is something like Teleology at work in the world. This is not a Christian teleology as proposed by Hegel, but a scientific teleology based on the upward curve of Evolution. The key difference from Christian teleology, is the inference from evolutionary history that the world was not designed fait accompli in the let-there-be Genesis manner, but it was Programmed as an ongoing self-developing system. The mechanism of the program is basically Darwinian, but updated to include Quantum and Information processing.It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve. — praxis
I doubt that you have any idea what my focus is on this topic. You'd have to read the thesis and subsequent blog posts to get a good idea of how I address the Rift. My posts in this thread have been mostly responses to criticism of specific details, not the whole concept of Enformationism.The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues. — praxis
What I'm doing is not academic philosophy focused on a narrow topic. Instead it's a general universal Theory of Everything, and is based primarily on post-classical 21st century scientific discoveries, such as Quantum Theory and Information Theory. More to the point, it's my personal worldview, and philosophical principle. It's not a religious narrative for the masses, or a scientific paper for specialists. It's my layman's understanding of how the world works, and my role in it. Is that philosophy? :cool:my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else. — praxis
try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism
— praxis
That correlation wasn't my idea. — Gnomon
Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction. — Gnomon
A philosophical forum is full of "misunderstandings". That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds. But both words (concepts) and minds (belief systems) are hard to change. Yet, as philosophers, we keep stubbornly trying to change the world with words instead of with swords. :worry:to avoid misunderstandings — praxis
I don't assume that the point of Evolution (the Program) is to make things better for us homo sapiens. In the overall scheme of things, we may be merely one brief experiment among millions of trials & errors. But, at this point in time, we seem to be the only species with knowledge of Good & Evil, and awareness of Past & Future. That's why human Culture has assumed that Nature is not looking-out for us, and the gods are unreliable, so we have to look-out for ourselves. Modern science has taken over the role of ancient deities, by working miracles (e.g. vaccines) specifically to make evolution go better for our kind. We are our own Chosen People. :smile:Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us? — praxis
Because the term "Fifth Dimension", is associated in my mind primarily with the New Age of Aquarius notion of a transcendent level of consciousness. Since you evaded my requests for your own personal definition, that's all I had to go on. Except for the various other scientific or pseudo-scientific applications of that terminology, that I linked to, and you shrugged off. So, what is it : Woo or Science? Or both??? :wink:Yeah I got that loud and clear. Still not entirely sure why, though. — Possibility
That is how Spiritualists view themselves : as punching bags for science. (I am not a Spiritualist). So, I can also sympathize with materialist scientists, who feel besieged by god-fearing Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. (I am not a materialist) I can argue for or against both sides, because my personal philosophy is BothAnd. :yum:You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general, — Possibility
But, I AM trying to control the meaning of words that I use to express my personal worldview. Is that approach misguided? If I fail to convey my meaning, what's the point of the message? Did you think I was trying to define Ultimate Truth? :nerd:If you’re NOT trying to control meaning, then I think your approach might be misguided. But you did say that was your aim with neologisms. — Possibility
That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds. — Gnomon
Moral Progress — Gnomon
I have given some thought to that question. And my answer is "maybe". When your body turns to dust, the information associated with that matter is dissipated, like Entropy. But, if G*D, the Programmer, has some good reason to recompile your personal information pattern, you wouldn't "survive", but you could be re-incarnated. But, since I don't have a plausible revelation of G*D's will, I'm not banking on having a second chance to get my life right. For me, it's now or never. :cool:"Can our personal information survive? — 3017amen
Again you missed the point of my unconventional worldview. I think "what most understand metaphysics to be" is either Super-Natural, or an impractical abstraction from natural real-world Physics. The medieval definition of "Metaphysics", emphasized the essential distinction between Body and Soul. Later, the modern interpretation of the same word, has placed Mind/Soul under the general category of matter-based Physics. But, my definition of "what lies Beyond Physics" is, I think, actually closer to what Aristotle had in mind when he divided his encyclopedia into materialistic Physics (science) and mentalistic Metaphysics (philosophy). The ideas discussed in volume II were focused on our human concepts & attitudes about Nature and Culture. Hence, what I mean by "Metaphysics" is the mental aspects of the world, including Cultural Evolution as contrasted with Natural Evolution. To use old words for new concepts would lead to complete "miscommunication" my intent and meaning.I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication. — praxis
Since you seem to prefer conservative traditional philosophical terms, your definition of "Metaphysics" can be found in conventional dictionaries, as Ontology, etc. But, since my radical worldview is proposing a new paradigm of reconciled Science, Philosophy, & Religion... — Gnomon
Actually, my problem here is that you (Possibility) are using mundane terminology in an unconventional sense. I have repeatedly asked for your own personal definition of what the "Fifth Dimension" is, and how it relates to me. I even quoted several scientific definitions, that don't seem to apply to your theory. So, it seems that you are expecting me to grasp your totally abstract meaning intuitively. But my meager talent for intuition needs some grounding in reality. And that's the role of metaphors. Not to be taken literally, but to be intuited figuratively. Now, after all these wordy posts, I still don't know what the Fifth Dimension is, or does --- just that it's out there somewhere, measuring something.
I don't understand your visceral distrust of definitions, but I'm guessing that it may come from the Postmodern philosophy taught in colleges since I graduated back in the fading Modern era. Concepts that are left undefined are ambiguous, and can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily how the author intended. To me, that's like a farmer scattering a bunch of uncategorized seeds, with no concern whether they will grow into corn or weeds. Unfortunately, the freedom for each reader to "construct" his own meaning results in a Tower of Babble. — Gnomon
However, in more than one episode, the writers explored the mind-bending question : is the reconstituted body really my Self/
Soul, or a new person altogether? :chin:
Gnomon
17 hours ago — Gnomon
I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand. That's because they are breaking new ground, instead of recycling old ideas.Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here. — praxis
I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand. — Gnomon
I don't expect the concept that "Information is the new Atom" will become common knowledge until long after I've gone to the big forum in the sky. — Gnomon
You seem to be focusing on our differences, but communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities. However, communication of novel concepts in Science and Philosophy is seldom presented in the vocabulary of the masses. Instead, it is first directed at those who are already well-versed in the technical language of a particular field.But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown. — Possibility
So you just give-up on putting your ideas into specific words, and rely on ESP? When you present specific ideas in vague general ("uncertain & variable") terms, a few people may grasp your meaning intuitively, but you'll never know for sure if they grokked your meaning or made-up their own meaning. In Shannon's Information Theory, successful communication can be verified to make sure what was received is what was sent.It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable, — Possibility
Of course not. All I can hope to do, is throw a lot of mud on the wall, and hope some of it sticks. :wink:You’re assuming that you can determine my exact meaning from a definition: — Possibility
It's called analysis of complexity into simple components. Are you opposed to analytical thinking? I understand that your notion of a Fifth Dimension is a broad concept. But couldn't you break it down into smaller chunks, that babies like me can digest? I still think your Multidimensional worldview may be compatible with my Information-based worldview. But your presentation has been so deliberately vague and non-committal that I can't be sure what you're talking about. Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums. :yum:But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept. — Possibility
So, you're stooping to calling me names again? Are you saying I'm Stoopid? :sad:called a troglodyte. — praxis
I could try to answer your question, but I'm a Neanderthal, and I don't speak Postmodern Babble. :cool:What's the difference between a bit of information and a bit of an atom again? — praxis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.