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:

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?

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

Gnomon!

Just another thought. I did not see Sentience in your Glossary. I would consider adding the concept to your informational theories if you haven't already… . Here are a couple sound bites for you to chew on:

Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others. When we ask about sentience in other animals, we are asking whether their phenomenological experience is similar to our own. Do they think about themselves the way we do? Do they ponder their own lives? Do they know that other individuals have feelings and thoughts? And, do they have an autobiographical sense of the past and future?

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care.

There is a fundamental harmony and purpose to the physical reality and to the spiritual reality and to their inherent relationship with one another. It ultimately has to do with who you are, where you came from, why you are here and where you are destined to go. This holds true for sentient life everywhere, regardless of the vast differences in appearance, environment and understanding.

The freedom that must be emphasized is a greater internal freedom—the freedom to find the way to Knowledge, the deeper intelligence that God has placed within you and within all sentient life.


Gnomon, I didn't see Material Reductionism in your Glossary either. Point being, you can contrast the above thoughts on sentience, with how self-awareness and consciousness is not likely to have emerged from a piece of wood :chin:

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. — Gnomon

If you pay attention to how you organise, store and retrieve memories in your mind, you may notice that they’re not necessarily organised chronologically. Some of your most vivid and readily accessible memories are far from your most recent, and most of those you would probably struggle to arrange confidently on a timeline, at least initially. We don’t always (or even often) arrange our memories, thoughts or beliefs according to their temporality. The most readily accessible are the most valuable, significant or relevant, not necessarily the most recent.

So yes, ‘atemporality’ puts our experience of ‘spacetime’ into a broader context, just as ‘time’ puts our experience of ‘space’ into a broader context. It’s speculative, sure - I don’t claim to ‘know’ anything either - I’m just presenting my view. But in my view, potentiality is not as structureless or as infinite as one might think. It does exist irrespective of temporality, though. Its structure is variable, but it always boils down to affect: a predictive distribution of effort and attention in relation to localised spacetime. This is calculable through quantum physics, conceivable through neuroscientific research, and it’s debatably empirical, through self-reflective reasoning. You can call it ‘fictional’, if it makes you feel better. But it’s in imagining infinite possibilities and testing them that we come to understand the distinction - and eventually a probabilistically predictable structure - of atemporal, finite relative potentialities.

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. — Gnomon

But you don’t have to take Barrett’s word for it. She presents testable hypotheses, as well as an entire book of background research, real world examples and non-technical explanations supporting her theory. The article Praxis linked is a highly technical presentation - her book is longer, but a significantly easier read. The world of perceived, atemporal potentiality is finite, just as the potential energy in the universe is finite, even as it suggests a broader context than space-time.

The simulations are based on past experiences, so yes, some are more accurate than others. The process is very much like the scientific method:

Your brain works like a scientist: It’s always making a slew of predictions, just as a scientist makes hypotheses. Like a scientist, your brain uses knowledge (past experience) to estimate how confident you can be that each prediction is true. Your brain then tests its predictions by comparing them to incoming sensory input from the world, much as a scientist compares hypotheses against data in an experiment. If your brain is predicting well, then input from the world confirms your predictions. Usually, however, there is some prediction error, and your brain, like a scientist, has some options. It can be a responsible scientist and change its predictions to respond to the data. Your brain can also be a biased scientist and selectively choose data that fits the hypotheses, ignoring everything else. Your brain can also be an unscrupulous scientist and ignore the data altogether, maintain that its predictions are reality. Or, in moments of learning or discovery, your brain can be a curious scientist and focus on input. And like the quintessential scientist, your brain can run armchair experiments to imagine the world: pure simulation without sensory input or prediction error...
In many cases, the outside world is irrelevant to your experience. In a sense, your brain is wired for delusion: through continual prediction, you experience a world of your own creation that is held in check by the sensory world. Once your predictions are correct enough, they not only create your perception and action but also explain the meaning of your sensations. This is your brain’s default mode. And marvellously, your brain does not just predict the future: it can imagine it at will. As far as we know, no other animal can do that. — Lisa Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’

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

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. .

Where did you get this information? — Gnomon

Barrett’s book maps the history of essentialist and constructionist views quite comprehensively.

At press time, Microsoft is analysing facial photographs in an attempt to recognise emotion. Apple has recently purchased Emotient, a startup company using artificial intelligence techniques in an effort to detect emotion in facial expressions. Companies are programming Google Glass ostensibly to detect emotion in facial expressions in an effort to help autistic children. Politicians in Spain and Mexico are engaging in so-called neuropolitics to discern voter preferences from their facial expressions. — Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’

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? — Gnomon

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.

Each construction is real, so questions of accuracy are unanswerable in a strictly objective sense. This is not a limitation of science: it is just the wrong question to be asking in the first place. There are no observer-dependent measurements that can reliably and specifically adjudicate the matter. When you can’t find an objective criterion to compute accuracy and are left with consensus, this is a clue that you are dealing with social, not physical reality. — Barrett

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.

I’m not saying that we don’t define this relational structure - it’s necessary in order to have any effect on reality. But each time we do, we find that this definition, this answer, will differ depending on what question we ask or how we ask it. 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.

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:

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. — Gnomon

Science isn’t impossible - we just need to accept its limitations of certainty/objectivity in relation to precision. This is what quantum theory and its various interpretations are wrestling with. The logic we believe to be ‘inherent’ in Nature is constructed and defined within a human perspective. So we need to recognise that the certainty of this definition is not objective. And if we strive instead for objectivity, then we need to recognise a lack of certainty - a fuzziness. Categories are arbitrary - there are patterns and structures to be found in nature, but any sense that we can draw a precise line between them or define them with any precision is based on how we perceive the world, not on what exists objectively.

When you categorise, you might feel like you’re merely observing the world and finding similarities in objects and events, but that cannot be the case. Purely mental, goal-based concepts such as ‘Things That Can Protect You From Stinging Insects’ reveal that categorisation cannot be so simple and static. A flyswatter and a house have no perceptual similarities. Goal-based concepts therefore free you from the shackles of physical appearance. When you walk into an entirely new situation, you don’t experience it based solely on how things look, sound or smell. You experience it based on your goal.

So, what’s happening in your brain when you categorise? You are not finding similarities in the world but creating them. When your brain needs a concept, it constructs one on the fly, mixing and matching from a population of instances from your past experience, to best fit your goals in a particular situation. — Barrett

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? — Gnomon

It isn’t so much human emotions and ego that lead to wilful categorisation. It’s functionality. We define and categorise the world according to its utility: our perception of potential. The scientific method doesn’t cancel this out. As a result, Science has come to recognise its own limitations in the position of the observer.

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.

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). — Gnomon

That’s not how I see it. When I say ‘within a human perspective’, I’m referring only to how we construct and define it, not to how it is ‘out there’. Objective reality extends beyond our sense perception - it requires both a relative imagination (to structure meaningful/possible information) and a constructed intersubjective conceptual system (to structure valuable/potential information) in order to make sense of it all in relation to the “physical world out there for our senses to perceive”. We relate diverse sensory input within our perception of a relative, shared social reality, and we relate diverse conceptual structures within our relative imagination of possibilities - beyond which is the infinite possibility/impossibility that I assume you refer to as G*D.

For me, it’s all information, existing as an infinite possibility of complex relational patterns and structures. So there is no pre-ordained structure or Logos to be ‘discovered’ - existence IS the Logos: the cosmos making sense of itself, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration in whatever ways it perceives potential and/or possibility. 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.

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. — Gnomon

We’ve already established that we’re on the same page regarding intuition and its sources. So we are mostly in agreement here. But I believe that intuition is more than simply details. This ‘random (indeterminate), non-linear (multi-dimensional) complexity’ refers to a five-dimensional (ie. atemporal) structure. There’s no occult source - it’s just an additional aspect to information. Barrett shows that how these details are ‘stored’ and how they are retrieved can be understood, evaluated and refined as learned conceptual structures and patterns. We’ll often draw a blank only because we’re expected to justify thoughts, words and actions with objectively certain, measurable/observable information in a logical format. But none of these features are necessary in order for such events to be either determined or initiated by the brain, and in fact are often available only after the event. The way I see it, this non-linear complexity is a feature of human intention and other quantum systems. The only difference between ‘intuition’ and conscious reasoning is our ability to define a rule-based linear process that can justify the event after the fact. Affect refers to a reduction of both quantitative and qualitative potential information to map the body’s predictive distribution of effort and attention in relation to space-time. The brain doesn’t select between reasoning and intuition until it is required to consciously reflect on intention/causality. Then, much like an ‘observed’ quantum particle, it collapses into a rule-based, linear process in space-time, or is dismissed as either ‘subjective feelings’, or ‘intuition’ (fuzziness).

But while intuition as a five-dimensional information system is not yet replicable or predictable, it is understandable to some extent - if you can cope with either the subjectivity or uncertainty. Casti and Lloyd are waiting for computer science and mathematics to catch up, but human interoceptive networks map and share information in five-dimensions all day, every day. This is not just how we think, learn, develop and adapt - it’s how we construct and define our social reality.

. . . 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/

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 : 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 ??? — Gnomon

Personal subjective knowledge that can be structured into concepts forms part of our conceptual systems. All words and concepts we use to communicate can only be constructed intersubjectively. This is our social reality. Many people believe ‘objective reality’ to be determinable from this by dismissing personal and socially ‘constructed’ subjective knowledge - eliminating the fuzziness by ignoring uncertain information. But in my view, objectivity can only be obtained when ALL subjective points of view are accounted for.

Relative imagination, then, is our limited perspective of infinite possibility/impossibility, inclusive of information beyond our conceptual systems. It includes what we may personally or subjectively know, understand, believe, feel, remember and think, but have been unable to conceptualise or put into or words. It also includes what others have expressed to know, believe, feel, think, etc, which we don’t understand. It is the ‘chaos’ of our reality, all-the-information-all-the-time. It is everything that matters, that has meaning, whether we can attribute any value to it or not; whether or not it is real or true, logical or possible, significant or intelligible. Relative imagination is all the information we have to draw from.

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. — Gnomon

I don’t agree that such a duality exists in information, and I don’t agree that our physical reality was programmed in that its existence was pre-selected from known possibilities of structure. The supposed ‘limits-on-possibility’ you describe have been randomly determined, and they persist and evolve as such insofar as they enable information (meaningful relation) to occur. Anything that doesn’t relate at all would exist/not exist as possibility/impossibility - pure imagination. But finite, eternal potentiality is an existence quite different from infinite possibility/impossibility, because it exists as a meaningful relation between matter/anti-matter.

The thing is that the spacetime structure of our reality did not emerge from chaos with a single, purposeful Big Bang - it only appeared to do so in time. Rather, it evolved within the amorphous structure of this spaceless-timeless ‘state’ that you refer to as ‘Ideality’. A lot of random, yet meaningful relations develop this pure possibility into a finite structure of potentiality, with the capacity to determine and initiate a constructive Big Bang.

For this to be programmed assumes the existence of certain knowledge (of structural possibilities) that can only come from experience. So what you’re referring to as G*D is the collaboration of spaceless, timeless experience (random/meaningful and valuable/potential interrelation) leading to and including the Big Bang. This makes sense within a dualistic worldview. But what you have is still the mind of G*D and the physical actuality of G*D, and no explanation as to what this ‘mind’ looks like or how it relates to physical reality. You’ve simply crafted your understanding of reality into a comfortingly familiar human metaphor of experience. It doesn’t explain the diversity of human actuality, experience, potential or meaning, let alone what we do with it all.

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 ] — Gnomon

Yes - it IS a ‘logical’ structure that has not yet been actualised! But it isn’t chaos - it’s all structured according to value relations, including mathematical and logical patterns, electromagnetism, aesthetics, probability, wavefunctions, Boolean logic, qualia, feelings, reason, etc. These various structural relations enable the information to be combined and collapsed in a wide variety of ways to construct all manner of potential ‘real-world’ interactions.

I think it’s important to note here that information is not ‘stored in the physical brain’ as an actual memory, for instance. Rather, the memory is conceptualised and forms value relations with other patterns of past experience. We can reconstruct memory information from these relations - although the accuracy often depends on how we conceptualised it in the first place - ie which values we were paying attention to at the time.

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??? — Gnomon

If all your mind mapped was the three spatial dimensions, then you wouldn’t classify as ‘living’. Just because you don’t refer to them as ‘dimensions’ doesn’t mean the information isn’t part of your construction of reality. In order to even acknowledge the existence of ‘space’ as useful information, we need to map (ie. interrelate) the changes to shape and distance information of an object in an extra dimension: time. Time is not a spatial dimension. We don’t really ‘sense’ this information - we perceive it as a relational structure of localised differences in the two-dimensional information in relation to an object. In the same way, we could only acknowledge the existence of ‘time’ as information by observing/measuring localised differences in the three dimensional information in relation to an event (ie. relative distance, shape and space of and between objects), mapped in an extra dimension: experience.

So in order to acknowledge subjective experience as information, we need to note the localised differences in four-dimensional information (interoceptive states) in relation to the subject, and map this difference in an extra dimension (meaning/interpretation). But it has no practical use in this form, so - in the same way that three-dimensional information of space can be reduced to a two-dimensional map to render the information transferable - we reduce our five-dimensional information of experience into four-dimensional expressions of thoughts, words and actions.

Except it’s not that simple, because every four-dimensional event is a relational structure of three-dimensional objects, which are relational structures of two-dimensional molecules and chemical relations, which are relational structures of atoms, which are relational structures of energy. And so to determine and initiate any event in reality involves each of these relations to work together - to have the same intention, regardless of reason. The most efficient transfer of information across all of these dimensional relations at once is as a distribution of energy in terms of both effort and attention: also known as affect.

The process by which we reduce the complex, five-dimensional information of mathematical and logical patterns, electromagnetism, aesthetics, probability, wavefunctions, Boolean logic, qualia, feelings, reason, etc into a continual four-dimensional distribution map of effort and attention involves our intersubjective conceptual structures in both conscious and unconscious reasoning. We utilise both sensory input and our relative imagination to hypothesise, test and adjust these conceptual structures, enabling us to continually improve the accuracy of interactions between our constructed predictions and what’s really real.

Intuition refers to the fuzziness of these structures in our understanding. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with the patterns between external and internal experiences and events - without ignoring subjective feelings and other qualitative information - can help to demystify intuition.