the quantum-level arrangement of an integrated system in superposition. — Possibility

I would love to see any study/article about so,
in my research I've never noticed a connection to superposition.

I would love to see any study/article about so,
in my research I've never noticed a connection to superposition. — Augustusea

That’s because it’s pure speculation. How would one even begin to test such a theory?

That’s because it’s pure speculation. How would one even begin to test such a theory? — Possibility

I believe it could be tested mathematically only, we cannot actually test a lot on the quantum level,
for me I wouldn't go into the quantum level for consciousness, but its still a possibility I guess.

Does the mind occupy a space? — Daniel

That’s because it’s pure speculation. How would one even begin to test such a theory? — Possibility

And as far as I am concerned that wraps it all up.

Almost anything we say here as an answer to the question could and probably should be counted as speculation. If the geniuses don't know yet, I am going to sit around and wait for then to figure it out. :wink:

Something that might not be limitly speculation, meaning guessing without much thought, is that the mind seems to be a concept. Possibly just the way we talk and think about it, but whatever it is seems elusive unless you use brain and mind interchangeably. In an earlier post you stated that everything that exists exists within space. Concepts/ideas exist, therefore they exist in space. I don't understand why you say everything that exists is within space, especially that this includes concepts/ideas. This is not to put down concepts/ideas, I often love thinking about them. Here's a blatant promo to tie in with what I said: I started a meetup.com page you can find at meetup.com/Initial-Curiosity that is intended to in part discuss philosophy, which at it's most abstract, especially, is concepts/ideas. I struggle with the thought of the mind, including concepts/ideas, having anything like a location in itself.

Almost anything we say here as an answer to the question could and probably should be counted as speculation. If the geniuses don't know yet, I am going to sit around and wait for then to figure it ou — Sir2u

Yes, that’s all this discussion can be at this stage. But isn’t that what philosophy is, for the most part?

The aim is to reframe the question so that ‘geniuses’ might get closer to a more useful answer - not to have the answer already packaged up for them. If the geniuses don’t know yet, then it stands to reason that the solution lies probably outside the geometric structures and logic that limit their thinking. It will take someone looking at it differently to initiate a paradigm shift.

for me I wouldn't go into the quantum level for consciousness, but its still a possibility I guess. — Augustusea

Is there a specific reason why you wouldn’t?

Is there a specific reason why you wouldn’t? — Possibility

I don't see the reasoning behind it being in the quantum level, but again it's still a possibility.

don't see the reasoning behind it being in the quantum level, but again it's still a possibility. — Augustusea

You might find Wheeler's PAP interesting then...

You might find Wheeler's PAP interesting then... — 3017amen

got any good reads related to that?

Something that might not be limitly speculation, meaning guessing without much thought, is that the mind seems to be a concept. Possibly just the way we talk and think about it, but whatever it is seems elusive unless you use brain and mind interchangeably. In an earlier post you stated that everything that exists exists within space. Concepts/ideas exist, therefore they exist in space. I don't understand why you say everything that exists is within space, especially that this includes concepts/ideas. This is not to put down concepts/ideas, I often love thinking about them. — Antonorganizer

First of all, speculation is not ‘guessing without much thought’. It is theorising about possible answers to a question without sufficient information to be certain.

I agree that mind refers to a concept. The argument that everything that exists does so in space doesn’t preclude the possibility that a concept exists with no definitive location in space - only probabilistic relations. It isn’t so much that a concept doesn’t exist in space, therefore, but that its existence isn’t confined to, or defined by, particular spatial relations at any one moment.

In six-dimensional metaphysics, a body is defined by its varied shape in spacetime, but exists beyond the confines of 2D shape as a set of spatial relations that persists in time. Awareness of this temporal aspect suggests life. A living being is defined by the relative values of its varied spatial relations, but exists beyond the confines of 3D space as a set of events that persists in its value/potential. Awareness of this ‘value’ aspect suggests consciousness. A conscious subject is defined by a purpose to its varied lifespan, but exists beyond the confines of its 4D event as a set of value/conceptual structures that have meaning. Awareness of this aspect of ‘meaning’ suggests self-consciousness...

I don't see the reasoning behind it being in the quantum level, but again it's still a possibility. — Augustusea

A book I read a couple of years ago by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner was called ‘Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness’. If you already have a grasp of quantum physics then you could probably skim most of it, but it sets up the possibility of applications of quantum theory outside the realm of physics, particularly in cognitive neuroscience.

Your opinion of what speculation is doesn't mean it's the same as the dictionary definition, which via dictionary.com seems to include both ideas of what we're wording as speculation. Aside from that, I was thinking to myself about how concepts/ideas can be created as objects and people in space, so what you say definitely is a better description of what this exists as. I hadn't considered that.

I understand as well as perceive my life as existence beyond my body and mind, yes it seems metaphysical. What you're about that makes sense, and though it is articulate, might be jumping to multiple conclusions about consciousness. You're using an unnecessary eloquent way of saying something that can be said in more simple language.

I understand as well as perceive my life as existence beyond my body and mind, yes it seems metaphysical. What you're about that makes sense, and though it is articulate, might be jumping to multiple conclusions about consciousness. You're using an unnecessary eloquent way of saying something that can be said in more simple language. — Antonorganizer

I’m an Arts major and marketing writer - occupational hazard. My aim here was to give a sense of the overall six-dimensional geometry, as I understand it. I’d be interested in seeing it articulated in ‘more simple’ language without losing that sense.

As for jumping to conclusions, this is simply a statement of where my speculation is at. I agree that I might very well be jumping to conclusions at this stage, but I’m open to criticism if you can point out more specifically where you think my understanding fails.

thank you!

I appreciate especially your respectful approach in disagreement and in questioning what I say. As I re-read your paragraph about six-dimensional metaphysics, I realize that whether or not the detail you explain it in is necessary depends on what the overall point is. I think I can explain what I mean by that. If the point is that we, humans particularly but maybe other animals as well are living beings that exist beyond just our physical bodies metaphysically, including the mind, our ideas, within some form of space as persists over time, I can understand that without the reference to 4D etc and exceptional vocabulary. However, because you speak about dimensions and existence across dimensions, I definitely agree that it's difficult to communicate how we exist without referencing these different dimensions of existence.

My criticism isn't really that your understanding fails, I know that despite my own certainty of certain aspects of life it's smart for me to acknowledge that I ultimately don't know. My reaction is to the word purpose, the purpose of a living being's varied lifespan, which I admittedly assume that the word purpose has special weight. I don't know that we have a purpose. We do create meaning; socially, culturally and subjectively, but whether or not there's a broader meaning to life, I don't know. You say that awareness of value/conceptual structure that have meaning indicate self-consciousness. I think I understand awareness and consciousness, though both are abstract, but self as well as meaning in the way people typically consider it are questionable to me.

My criticism isn't really that your understanding fails, I know that despite my own certainty of certain aspects of life it's smart for me to acknowledge that I ultimately don't know. My reaction is to the word purpose, the purpose of a living being's varied lifespan, which I admittedly assume that the word purpose has special weight. I don't know that we have a purpose. We do create meaning; socially, culturally and subjectively, but whether or not there's a broader meaning to life, I don't know. — Antonorganizer

Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that we don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.

You say that awareness of value/conceptual structure that have meaning indicate self-consciousness. I think I understand awareness and consciousness, though both are abstract, but self as well as meaning in the way people typically consider it are questionable to me. — Antonorganizer

A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).

I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...

I believe we can see space, so since space is such an integral part of our consciousness maybe through meditation or self-hynosis we can find ourselves in another world, really somewhere else (another space). Certain drugs (like salvia) will make you feel like you are somewhere else but I don't think your consciousness leaves.

Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that
don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.

-Possibility

Almost all of this makes sense to me, along with your clarification of the word purpose. It's a pleasant surprise that you mention that other animals "lack the capacity (as far as we ascertain)" because it's easy for an average person to assume that simply because they don't have our IQ or social societal etc. complexity that they're nothing like us. I like that you acknowledge, as one example, our own limitation, which links in with a later point you make that is also a pleasant surprise just for someone to say.

A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).

I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...

-Possibility

This as well I follow, I think it's the language associated with six-dimensional metaphysics that sounds more difficult albeit much more clear to me now in this context. I definitely agree that broader considerations and conversations about existence isn't particularly necessary in day-to-day interactions, but that doesn't mean any of this is actually relevant. Too many people are way too surface level, and our culture/society is largely based on surface level existence and conversation. I see many bigger questions and what relates to them at the very least interesting. Often important. Culture/society exists in a way that people can rarely at most have to think much for themselves, unless a crisis of meaning or mental health pushes them beyond that comfort zone.

Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that
don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.

Almost all of this makes sense to me, along with your clarification of the word purpose. It's a pleasant surprise that you mention that other animals "lack the capacity (as far as we ascertain)" because it's easy for an average person to assume that simply because they don't have our IQ or social societal etc. complexity that they're nothing like us. I like that you acknowledge, as one example, our own limitation, which links in with a later point you make that is also a pleasant surprise just for someone to say.

A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).

I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...

This as well I follow, I think it's the language associated with six-dimensional metaphysics that sounds more difficult albeit much more clear to me now in this context. I definitely agree that broader considerations and conversations about existence isn't particularly necessary in day-to-day interactions, but that doesn't mean any of this is actually relevant. Too many people are way too surface level, and our culture/society is largely based on surface level existence and conversation. I see many bigger questions and what relates to them at the very least interesting. Often important. Culture/society exists in a way that people can rarely at most have to think much for themselves, unless a crisis of meaning or mental health pushes them beyond that comfort zone.

We are the god particle. Nothing is objective. Everything is subjective.