Well you should buy it. Or at least be true to yourself here. The fact is, you probably get perturbed when someone doesn't like what you are wearing. Or, as you say, when someone questions your attire. — 3017amen

I am being true to myself - you are dismissing my account of inner reality based on your assumption that everyone thinks the way you think they do. I’m trying to be honest here about my inner process, because there are very few women on this forum to represent (and you wonder why...?), and some assumptions need to be corrected. So stop telling me what I’m thinking or feeling, and try listening instead.

Yes, I get perturbed when someone feels the need to tell me that they don’t like what I’m wearing, as if assuming that I dress with their needs and preferences in mind. My self esteem is partially attached to my appearance, yes - but I am also more than what or how I appear, and I will recognise and react to being treated as if my choices are not my own.

For many reasons, this makes you feel less than a woman, because your self-esteem is partially attached to your appearance (simple psychology here):

1. Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it. True or false? — 3017amen

Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, but my self worth is not wrapped up in it at all. In most situations in my life, feeling unattractive or unsexy doesn’t even register. So false.

Yes, and I would submit you are lying to yourself. You seem to be making political statements based on an unrealistic ideology. Because sex is such a personal topic, people will typically tell you what they want you to hear. They are most likely feeding into your narrative. Have you studied the history of Sex? Are you aware of ancient concubines? Asian penis (and vagina) worship? What about porn, why are so many porn stars seemingly available on the internet? Just type-in men's dicks or women's pussies... . My point is that those women DO want sex, and they don't want it with just anybody, or wait, do they? — 3017amen

Again with the dismissive attitude towards my perspective. Sex isn’t about the act for women - it’s about an expression of agency. Women, for the most part, do NOT just want a sexual act with any body, detached from a human being. They will often choose to feed into the male narrative, but they ALWAYS do it for their own reasons, not yours. When you assume that they do it for the reasons that make sense to you, you deny them subjectivity and agency.

Sure, and this 'agency' is what a handsome well kept man, who brings a lot to the table, has to offer you. Otherwise, you would marry an ugly-fat-bald guy who smells bad just because he's kind considerate, caring and has money. The fact remains, you want it all. And you should want it all. A handsome, intelligent, responsible and successful man around your arms in a social gathering, as well as someone to father your children and snuggle at night. It follows that you would not settle for casual sex with the former, or would you? — 3017amen

Oh, dear - is that really how you think women choose sexual partners? A handsome, well-kept man who has success and money does NOT offer me agency. I already have it, thank you very much.

The truth is that most guys will be fat, ugly, bald or smelly at some point in their life. An absence of these should not be a reason to marry someone. They can, however, be reasons to pass on casual sex, which is about that moment. Rich and successful factor into the casual sex game only as part of the fantasy - a creative thinker can work poor or unsuccessful into a narrative easy enough, and still get laid.

I think you might be confusing casual sex with finding a life partner. They are two completely different strategies for women, and they’re looking for very different qualities. Just because it all looks the same from your end, does not mean it is.

As far as a threat, a threat to what? I'm not following that? If I am an attractive, successful man, why should I feel threatened? Objectively, I care for my body, and respect those women who care for theirs. — 3017amen

It is exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem. An attractive, successful man believes that he should NOT feel threatened by a woman because he assumes she has no reason to say ‘no’, and a fat, poor man assumes that a woman is saying ‘no’ because he is fat or poor - but has anyone asked the woman what HER reasoning is? You’re reducing a complex and diverse decision-making process into an over-simplified value system that is grossly inaccurate for predicting how a woman chooses.

And how exactly do you ‘respect’ a woman who cares for her body? By appreciating the body in motion, or appreciating the choices she makes with it?

Really? By all Objective appearances, absolutely. If a Doctor dresses the part, would you reasonably assume he was a doctor and thereby allow him to operate on you? Or, on the hand, while you are laying there semi-conscious, would you ask for his resume? — 3017amen

And if a scantily clad woman walked up to you and whispered “Let’s have sex”, you wouldn’t stop her to ask her why she was dressed that way. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...

You’re not just making assumptions about the doctor based on what she’s wearing - you’d be taking into account her behaviour, the situation and other people’s behaviour towards her. And it’s customary for a doctor to introduce themselves and clearly express their intentions before they even examine you. Why? Because THEY know that just because they’re dressed as a doctor, you should never assume their intentions.

Possibilty!

With all due respect, this almost seems like a head game. I don't think that's your intention, and maybe I read it wrong. Firstly, I don't know where you are getting your stats, but many women just want sex. Depending on the particular season of one's life ( in college) for example, those existential needs rear their heads. Similarly, when I worked in a night club in a tourist town years back (not in a band like I am now), women would come in and felt free to be promiscuous because they were not recognized locally. — 3017amen

Well, I don’t agree that sex as an act is an existential need. It’s a biological urge, sure. But I’d be pretty confident that those women being ‘promiscuous’ do not ‘just want sex’ as an act. I’d say they’re exercising a freedom of choice they probably don’t feel they have at home: to casually explore sexual encounters and partners so they can discover what is valuable to them. These aren’t stats, by the way - they’re opinions from many years experiencing the world as a woman and in the confidence of many other women.

Secondly, of course the old-school obvious definition of objectification is a no-brainer. I mean, it's an abhorrent, detestable example of what human nature is capable of.. . Okay then, so now what? Please tell me how objectification of men and women is a bad thing, when doing your dance? — 3017amen

Objectifying men or women in the casual sex ‘dance’ contributes to an erosion of agency. If you perceive a woman only as an object of your sexual desire, then you’re likely to perceive her agency - her capacity to reject you or to desire someone else - as an unacceptable threat. Likewise with men. It’s what men and women are capable of when threatened by an ‘object’ that can be a ‘bad thing’.

My point was that you cannot assume a woman’s intentions purely by the way she’s dressed.
— Possibility

For the most part , I respectfully disagree. If a man looks like a pimp, he just might be a pimp. If he looks like a football player, wrestler, musician, doctor...ad nauseum...you get the idea. A person's attire tells a lot about them. — 3017amen

A person’s attire suggests a lot about them, but to make assumptions purely by the way they’re dressed can be rude, insulting and dangerous. Just because someone’s wearing scrubs and a white coat, doesn’t make them qualified to operate on you, does it?

Perhaps I meet too many angry women (or man hater's not sure) but even in social environments, asking those kinds of questions, to a woman, unfortunately is not received well. People [women] have a hard time with the truth. I mean, we all want transparency, honestly, and all the rest, but many folks can't handle what they ask for...why is that? — 3017amen

This is a common excuse, but I’m not buying it. Have a little courage - I’m suggesting you ask a question, not offer a judgement or a ‘truth’.

but a fat ugly guy won’t get away with the same slick, shallow moves even if I’m desperate, I’m afraid. Most women are looking for a sexual partner - not sex, per say.
— Possibility

I'm just a bit confused there, can you explain that distinction a little better? On the one hand, you seem to be saying looks don't matter, then on the other you seem to care. For example, when you say a fat ugly guy gets different treatment, you are saying that appearances actually do matter, no? — 3017amen

I never said I didn’t care about looks - they’re not a dealbreaker, for me. Appearances matter more if I’m only looking for an ego boost, though. And if I’m willing to play the casual sex game with someone who clearly is just after a conquest, then I’m going to be choosy about it.

I think a good starting point would be your definition of 'a partner'. Is it not sex and companionship?Now, if all you are talking about is a guy who is considerate, kind, caring, intelligent, mature, that's all common sense stuff. We're adults here.

I know many women who've told me if the sex ain't good, they walk! Similarly, I can't imagine them even considering a sex partner who is unappealing. My point is, how do we escape objectification in a world of objectivity? — 3017amen

‘Partner’ indicates a human interaction between freely choosing adults. See my response to fdrake above for more on this.

Do you care if the guy is successfully putting on caring and flirting as a performance? This is something I've never gotten my head around. The hetero male flirting for casual sex metagame seems to me all about adaptively signalling caring and interest as well as desire. Like - would you see it as a transgression if they're putting on a performance like that? Or is it an acceptable risk/otherwise fine for you as part of the social rituals that mediate casual sex?

It might seem like an obscure question, but I've had quite a few very candid discussions with guys on their casual sex flirting strategies, and they're all about trying to signal interest and generate connection regardless of whether they really give a damn or not. Perhaps I am strange in finding this extremely uncomfortable, it seems deeply transgressive to me. — fdrake

It’s actually a good question. Casual sex for the most part is a mutual fantasy - it’s a dance of cognitive dissonance. He pretends he’s interested in a relationship beyond sex, and I pretend not to notice the pretense. When I stretch and test his performance, though, his true colours will show through under the surface. From this I can decide whether I think the game is worth playing out, whether I buys into the fantasy, or not.

Because there’s another layer many people don’t realise. Even in casual sex, a woman wants a sexual partner, if only for that encounter, whether she realises it or not. So the real signal isn’t just about acknowledging that she has a life - a career, interests, hobbies, etc - it’s about acknowledging that she has a choice, in this moment and the next one. This is difficult to fake. Some men wouldn’t even see her as an agent, let alone a partner in the encounter. Their aim is to gradually eliminate or obscure her options. That’s the transgression. It’s a danger that women are not always prepared for, and that men may not even realise is a problem - until they’re accused of rape.

Let me ask you: do you believe that there’s a point (which may vary between men) at which a sexual act is a foregone conclusion? Can you assume that a woman commits irreversibly to the act at some point? Because most women can talk themselves into and out of an encounter several times, at any point throughout, depending on his behaviour. What she wants from him is not just sex, but human interaction, so if she starts to feel like she should have more of a choice in how it goes then she’s going to want out. It seems to me that this is where the main issue lies, but she often realises this only when she has poor choices left.

So, for me at least, there’s a difference between not giving a damn about an extended relationship and not giving a damn about your sexual partner as a fellow human being with agency. I enjoy the pretense of a ‘possible’ romantic connection as much as the next girl, but underneath that is the real question: Is he respecting my freedom to choose?

While that's a good approach in principle, it maybe too idealistic. Many women (particularly a so-called career woman), would more often than not complain to HR/management and thus would take exception to a MAN asking her that question. She would get offended and defensive (probably because she's insecure deep down and the man was simply speaking the truth). — 3017amen

It might be. To be honest, I didn’t write this with a workplace situation in mind at all, so I can see how it could backfire in that case. It depends on how you approach it, I suppose. Work situations are such politically-charged environments. “I’m curious as to why you chose to wear this particular outfit today” seems harmless enough.

My point was that you cannot assume a woman’s intentions purely by the way she’s dressed.

My question to women out there, regarding the OP, is I often wondered about this disjuncture. An that relates to aesthetics. There is this old paradigm that used to say 'men are too visual' . Well, I think some women are kidding themselves for the following reasons:

1. Most women want an attractive man that they feel chemistry with physically, in order to have sex.

If that were not true, then the following could exist:

1.a: Some women will sleep/marry a fat ugly guy who has lots of money which in turn suggests they are not interested in sex, but security.
1.b: Some women don't care about the physicality piece, and they like sex for the sake of sex, and as long as the penis gets hard, they are good to go. In other words, they are not concerned with the visual aspect like they say men are; they will sleep with unattractive men. And that suggests they like sex more than some men. — 3017amen

I think saying ‘men are too visual’ is not quite getting at the issue. Most women are looking for a sexual partner - not sex, per say.

As a woman, I am drawn to visual appealing men, but personally I’ve found physical attraction or chemistry to be insufficient for a satisfying sexual encounter. Good looks might get my attention in a highly competitive environment - particularly if my main aim is just a sexual partner - but honestly, if you can demonstrate a genuine interest in who I am as a thinking, feeling human being, then I’m not going to write you off based on your looks - that’s rare enough in the singles game. Unassuming charm, a quick intellect and courage will always get my attention, but it isn’t all that difficult to spot the guys who are only interested in ‘closing the deal’ if you’re paying attention. That’s not to say I won’t go for the good-looking player if I’m just after an ego boost, but a fat ugly guy won’t get away with the same slick, shallow moves even if I’m desperate, I’m afraid. They’re unlikely to be too concerned with my satisfaction, either way.

So when they say ‘men are too visual’, what women could mean is that men don’t seem to be after much more than sex plus the visual - a partner isn’t a requirement for a satisfying sexual encounter.

If I must say something in addition to the above then it's this: I agree with 180 Proof that women have the right to do anything with their bodies - dress in whatever way they wish included - and being scantily clad is not an invitation for all men to hit on them but, on most occasions, this kind of behavior is aimed specifically at a certain range of "clients" - men whom they desire and wish to forge a relationship with. I sympathize with women because they're like snipers, aiming for a particular guy, but they're forced to blow their cover and so become targets of unwanted attention from the "enemy". — TheMadFool

To be honest, I’m not convinced that women who rail against objectification by men, and women who dress specifically to be hit on - even by only certain types of men - are the same individuals. My issue with your OP was that it presumes they are.

Having said that, a woman should be free to show some skin without being held responsible for ‘sending the wrong signals’ to men in whom she has no interest. If you hit on a woman and she brushes you off, the humiliation you might feel is not her fault for ‘putting it out there’. Even if her intention is to be noticed, she’s just as free to be choosy as if she had dressed modestly.

The purpose of an object’s particular feature is presumed to be the anticipated value for the observer, and no-one need question the truth of this. The purpose of an agent’s particular behaviour is a different story.

If women (in general) were individualistic then asking them would be good advice. But women are flock creatures, who not only follow the trend found in magazines and adapted by their friends but will also tell you, "I dress for myself" which cannot be relied upon by any means what-so-ever. If you can be a silly-cone boob, fake eyelash, plucked and tattooed eyebrow, outrageously coloured eye-shadow, plastic fingernails, bright lipstick, apologist then help yourself. But tell me .... how do you justify high-heeled shoes that are (for all purposes) voluntary stumble-handicaps? — Hot Potato

Women in general are individuals who can and do think for themselves, and any suggestion that they are not is ridiculous. If some women choose to exaggerate certain features of their appearance because they can, that’s their choice, and not necessarily ‘flock’ behaviour. If they do so for someone else’s benefit, that is also their own choice, and no concern of yours. Men can be just as much slaves to trends or social pressure as women. It may not be so much in appearance as in their words and behaviour, but these can also have far more serious consequences than a twisted ankle or unwanted attention.

I don’t always dress for myself, but I find that it’s often a legitimate answer. I wear three-inch heels because I like the extra height they give me (I’m 5’3”), I like how much smaller my size 8 feet look in them, and I like the change in overall subjective experience they offer me: between a casual day, and a day in the office or a night out. Personally, though, if they’re not comfortable enough to wear all day/night, they’re not practical. But that’s just me: I don’t like to complicate things, and I’m not a details person - I don’t do fake eyelashes or plastic fingernails, and I can go for weeks without shaving my legs, but I do like to be creative with colour and shape.

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

Make no mistake: Women do not clothe themselves for the purpose of pleasing men. Women choose their attire in direct competition with (and for) other women. It is precisely how we men choose our sports cars. We do it to impress other men, not for the purpose of attracting women.

So, please leave men out of the “The Objectification Of Women” equation. We’ve got nothing to do with it. — Hot Potato

Women clothe themselves a particular way for a wide range of reasons, including (but not confined to): competing with other women for social or political status, for men’s (or a particular man’s) attention, for any attention at all; pleasing a particular man, men in general, her friends, her family members or social group, her boss, OR herself; as well as for comfort, for pure functionality, or to help her feel like more than part of the furniture, a slave, a piece of dirt, invisible or whatever she happens to have been feeling like too much lately.

Here’s a tip: before making generalised assumptions about a woman’s intention in wearing a low-cut neckline or a mini-skirt, you could take the time to ASK her if there’s a particular reason why she wore that outfit today - and then LISTEN to what she has to say. She might be surprised that someone took the trouble to recognise a thinking, feeling person with agency underneath the fabric, skin and shape, but aside from ‘I don’t know’, you will probably never get the same response twice.

Because they happen to be human beings, as diverse and unpredictable in their thinking, knowledge and experiences as men, despite how they look. Surprise.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’

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’

Suppose the aim is not for you to reach 100% experience points, but for anyone to reach it. How does that change how you play the game, the types of society/civilisation groups you form, and how you communicate?

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

It is this key distinction that you make which confuses your supposed aim to bridge the divide. The aim of science is to deal with abstractions and unknowns, not just with physics. Authority in science is founded in what can be proven and universally understood, but their work has always drawn from this metaphysical level.

Scientists do NOT have a solid understanding of the ‘physical causal forces’ that elicit what we call feelings and emotions - that’s the point that Feldman Barrett makes. The classical view of emotions was disproven by neuroscience decades ago, 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.

Physically, space is emptiness that can be filled with something sensible and measurable. What kind of "things" are filling these extra empty containers.Praxis offered a couple of examples : "fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions". But I don't grasp how the processes of adapting personal and cultural beliefs can be localized to specific places in "mind space". — Gnomon

This Newtonian perception you have of space as a ‘container’ is where we seem to be getting stuck. Space IS the measurable relations between systems and structures, not a container to be filled with objects or ‘things’. Space is, and was, never ‘empty’. To talk about even the fourth dimension as if it were an empty container is to misunderstand the concept of dimensions.

When you talk on the phone to someone who lives across the other side of the world, how do you get a sense of the space between you? What about the time difference? Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ deconstructs time from the single independent measurement of Newtonian classical physics, and reveals it to consist of measurable relations between systems and structures, which are themselves measurable relations between systems and structures, and so on. This understanding of ‘dimension’ forms the basis of six-dimensional metaphysics.

So the additional aspect of reality I’m referring to, just as with time and space, consists of measurable relations between systems and structures. Those relations, just as with ‘time’, can be reduced to a single, supposedly independent yet essentially local measurement known as ‘affect’. But our attempts to understand how we arrive at this measurement have hit a snag along the way, in the distinction between internal and external reality that led to this materialism/idealism divide (damn you, Descartes!). It was not dissimilar to the dilemma facing the concept of ‘world time’ two hundred years ago, which led to the slicing up of the planet into time zones, and continues to this day in the incompatibility of the time variable between quantum physics and spacetime relativity, and the distinction of ‘time’ from the three dimensions of ‘space’.

Essentially, if we have begun to understand space and then time more accurately as a structure of measurable relations between systems and structures, then surely it makes sense to talk about any additional aspects of reality beyond time in terms of measurable relations between systems and structures as well. These measurements are necessarily ‘local’, not just in relation to spatial aspects (like time is), but in relation to spacetime. That is, these measurable relations are those specific to the location of the observer in the spacetime moment of the experience. This is evident in the imminent convergence of quantum physics with subjectivity (even as it continues to ignore, isolate and exclude the relevance of qualia).

The third dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about depth to a two dimensional structure of information, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts (changes) its relational position in four dimensions (time).

The fourth dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about change to a three-dimensional structure, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts (affects) its relational position in five dimensions (potential/value).

And the fifth dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about affect to a four-dimensional structure, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts its relational position in six dimensions (meaning or possibility/impossibility).

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

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

By ‘intuitive and instinctive’, you’re referring to internal processes you’re not fully aware of. I’ve already explained that these terms are not about occult planes or a ‘third eye’, but about a more ‘mundane’ potential for awareness of how we think, feel, remember, know, calculate, evaluate, reason or apply logic, etc - even while we’re asleep. When you ‘feel’ time, what you feel is an additional aspect to the world that is more than the three dimensional aspects of space. In the same way, we can ‘feel’ and/or understand additional aspects to what we experience than is observable/measurable in spacetime. I believe that the brain unconsciously ‘gauges’ one as affect, and we have spent at least the last five thousand years trying to make sense of this atemporal aspect of experience, to understand how it relates to the other aspects of our experience, and to eventually distinguish it from an infinite aspect of meaning.

You may have noticed this in the article:

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?’ (see Bar, 2009a,b). Similarity is computed with reference to the current sensory array and the associated energy costs and potential rewards for the body. That is, simulation is a partially completed pattern that can classify (categorize) sensory signals to guide action in the service of allostasis. Each simulation has an associated action plan. Using Bayesian logic (Deneve, 2008; Bastos et al., 2012), a brain uses pattern completion to decide among simulations and implement one of them (Gallivan et al., 2016), based on predicted maintenance of physiological efficiency across multiple body systems (e.g. need for glucose, oxygen, salt etc.). — Lisa Feldman Barrett, 2017

Feldman Barrett makes no reference to higher dimensions or information, but the patterns, simulations and action plans she’s referring to here are not physical objects, but mental structures of information. It’s easy to assume from the description above that this brain ‘activity’ occurs consciously or at least in time, like an homunculus that plays back past experiences, performs research, lays out the options and then chooses which is the best way forward based on anticipating the demands of the system. But all of this happens instantly, unconsciously and ongoing at every moment, is predictive rather than reactive, and is as real and unobservable as potential energy. As such, it also draws remarkable resemblance to ‘calculating the wavefunction’ in a quantum system. Here, Feldman Barrett’s description is similar to your own ‘phase transition’: an ‘act of changing form’. But if we consider that what she’s describing is essentially atemporal, and that this unconscious remembering, feeling, applying logic, evaluating, etc relate conceptual structures as partial patterns, or potential rather than actual information (dimensionally reduced to affect), then what we’re looking at here is an example of how five-dimensional structures of the mind impact on four-dimensional events of measurable brain activity and observable behaviour.

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).

Thanks for that interpretation of matter, energy and information. After doing a TPF search, it appears you have studied Whitehead's cosmology/metaphysics. Does he happen to provide for any insights into any of our informational theories?

Just wondering... . — 3017amen

If by ‘studied’ you mean formally, then no, I haven’t - I took an interest in panpsychism and process philosophy, and read up on the writings of Leibniz and Whitehead.

Whitehead’s systematic approach outlined a proposal for developing his process philosophy, which directly addresses the idealism/materialism divide:

”Question assumptions that underly conceptual expression of all experiences, including the nature of the experiencing entity itself.

Develop a realist ontology that:
- acknowledges the existence of a real world;
- contains an adequate account of experiencing subjects (ie. subjectivity and experience are real);
- accounts for self-causation as well as efficient causation (relationship between freedom and determinism);

Develop a rational realist cosmology that accounts for purposive organisms and mechanical, determined relations between objects.

Develop a process cosmology where ‘events’ (not things) and ‘relations’ (not separate objects) are fundamental. Account for the ontological relationship between process and substance, between subjectivity and objectivity.”

I think Whitehead’s process cosmology sets the scene for Carlo Rovelli’s physics-based description of four-dimensional reality as consisting of ‘interrelated events’ rather than objects in time (from ‘The Order of Time’), as well as his description of quantum mechanics in relation to information theory (from ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’).

I believe that in order to understand reality we have to keep in mind that reality is this network of relations, or reciprocal information, which weaves the world. We slice up the reality surrounding us into objects. But reality is not made up of discrete objects. It is variable flux. Think of an ocean wave. Where does a wave finish? Where does it begin? Think of mountains. Where does a mountain start? Where does it end? How far does it continue beneath the Earth’s surface? These are questions without much sense, because a wave and a mountain are not objects in themselves; they are ways which we have of slicing up the world to apprehend it, to speak about it more easily. These limits are arbitrary, conventional, comfortable: they depend on us (as physical systems) more than on the waves or the mountains. They are ways of organising the information which we have or, better, forms of information which we have. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’

According to Whitehead’s philosophy: the world consists of events, not things, which interfuse and interpenetrate each other, so that no actuality is an isolated, self-contained entity; and fundamental process is inherently experiential, so nature ‘feels’ all the way down.

In my notes on Whitehead, this particular quote below relates specifically to Feldman Barrett’s more recent neuroscientific theories involving affect (which in my view constitutes the five-dimensional aspect of reality):

”Process and feeling are connected because in order for one moment, now, to be related to the immediately previous moment, past, and to the immediately subsequent moment, future, the ‘now’ moment must ‘feel’ aspects of the past by including them as constituents of its own actuality; and to give something of itself to the next, future moment.”

I’m going take a few steps back, in an effort to pick up where I thought we were making progress in understanding each other. I hope you don’t mind.

Can you define your Fifth "Dimension" in a way that is not occult and magical? Metaphorical is OK, as long as it is meaningful to common sense. "State Space" and "Probability Space" are mathematical concepts that don't apply to actual real things, but to possible outcomes of physical processes, such as rolling dice. — Gnomon

It seems to me that you’re under the impression I’m making this ‘fifth dimension’ out to be an ‘actual real thing’, kind of like ‘space’? But is this ‘third dimension’ an ‘actual real thing’, or is it a relational structure of three-dimensional information? What’s the difference? I don’t think either of us are talking about actual real things here. We’re talking about information.

Your implication by referring to the entirety of this ‘state’ as ‘non-dimensional’ is that there is no such distinction. For me, however, there is a level of perception between life and meaning - which corresponds to consciousness.
— Possibility
The state I was referring to was Eternity & Infinity, both of which are immeasurable, hence non-dimensional. But you seem to think of the 5th Dimension as a non-sensory state in space-time, although not measurable out there in space or time, but only subjectively via intuition & imagination. The "distinction" between space-time dimensions (matter & motion) and mental-meaning dimensions (mind, consciousness) is like apples & oranges : true, but obvious.

Note :In my thesis, I find their commonality in the notion that both are forms of Generic Information. Just as Energy = Mass (matter) x the speed of light, Mind = Matter x Meaning (intention). But that's also a concept that defies common sense, even though it's the fundamental difference between Classical and Quantum science. — Gnomon

No - the fifth dimension is not located IN space-time. Space-time is four-dimensional information, so what I’m referring to is quite obviously more than that, in the same way that three-dimensional information is more than two-dimensional information.

A ‘state’ refers to a structural condition, usually in reference to a particular time, so I’m not sure how you would go about defining an immeasurably eternal state as an ‘actual real thing’.

I agree with you (and I don’t know why I feel compelled to reiterate this) that information is the key to dissolving the physical-mental divide. But so much of what you write here also seems to perpetuate the divide, so I’m not sure what to make of that.

For me, information makes a difference at each dimensional level: beginning with the existential binary of what matters in relation to anti-matter, diversifying into quantum particles, which relate in a one-dimensional ‘expansion’ of the universe to inform atomic relational structures. These atomic structures relate in two-dimensions to inform diverse molecular shapes and chemical potential, which relate in three-dimensions to inform space: consisting of diverse objects and chemical structures. These relate in four-dimensions to inform the diverse actions and molecular/chemical events of the unfolding universe (including cellular life), which relate in five-dimensional affect to inform a diversity of potential and value information systems, which relate in six-dimensional meaning to inform an infinite diversity of relational possibilities.

I don't understand the "level of perception" that senses a "state space" between Life and Meaning. As far as I know, Life is not a static space, but a dynamic process unfolding in time. And we "perceive" Life, not via sensory perception, but in imagination as a metaphor like a journey from point A to point B. The Meaning of Life is also not a sensible thing, but a subjective feeling about a person's history and future prospects. Some people take figurative metaphors literally, attributing properties of the symbol to the thing symbolized. For example, some idolators actually try to feed and clothe their little statues, thinking that it will make a difference to the occult deity, supposedly hanging around the state space of its artificial model. — Gnomon

I’m not sure where you got ‘state space’ from. It’s not a term I’ve used. I recognise life as a dynamic process unfolding in time. Our perception of this life is more specific than imagination, though - it comes from a perception of potential, informed by an interoception of affect (not just feeling) with regards to a person’s history and future prospects. The meaning of life is more informed again: an intersubjective relation to all imaginable possibilities, inclusive of (but not confined to) the changeability of subjective feeling. This recognition that we are not as unaffected as our conscious thought processes suggest is an important step in an accurate account of the transition between mental and physical states.

An ‘observation’ IS the process of locating or actualising an energy event. It doesn’t trigger a phase transition, but rather IS the phase transition.
— Possibility
Actually, that is close to my own concept, that the process of EnFormAction is what we call a Phase Transition. It's the act of changing form, of revealing latent possibilities in new actualities. To EnForm is to Actualize. — Gnomon

Yes, I have said this a number of times. Except that it isn’t an act of changing form, because the form - the event - is itself an act: a relational structure of four-dimensional information in itself. When you describe it as an ‘act of changing an act’, you lose the atemporal, subjective nature of the transition. What is affected is the perception or structure of potential, the five-dimensional information from which the observation is a reduction. It isn’t an ‘actual change’ as such - it’s a selected ‘mental’ structuring of potential information which determines and initiates the actual distribution of effort and attention in the observation itself.

So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect.
— Possibility
So, when a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the state of the waveform (particle)??? The problem here is that "affect" can refer to a physical transfer of energy, or to the emotional feeling of knowing something about that change. Does the feeling cause the phase change, or is it an effect of the change? Again, mixing literal and metaphorical meanings is confusing. Feynman's famous quote may apply here : "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". :joke: — Gnomon

Not quite. When a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the measured/observed state of the particle.

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

‘Feeling’ refers to a qualitative aspect of potential information (qualia), intended to distinguish it from the quantitative reducibility of potential information as ‘knowledge’. In my view, it is this exclusion of ‘feeling’ from quantum theory, and the subsequent expectation on quantitative reduction to explain the relation between potential and observable reality, which prevents understanding.

Sorry, I should have said downplaying logic.
But again, I don’t understand how you can do that. Anything that is true must be logical. The law of non-contradiction just can’t be violated. How can you call that a mere "subjective constraint"? — Congau

I don’t think I’m downplaying it, either. I didn’t refer to it as ‘mere’ - that’s you downplaying subjective constraint, not me. I’m well aware of its significance; I’m questioning its necessity in relation to objective truth; not in relation to a statement of truth.

The LNC applies to propositional statements: stating a relational position. Anything that is true from a logical perspective must be logical. But the impossibility of what is illogical is also true. There is objective truth to the simultaneous possibility AND negation of an illogical existence - no propositional statement need be made to that effect. When you collapse or reduce that information to the false logic of a propositional statement, you assume a logical perspective.

“The view from nowhere” is quite non-sensical because it tries to include two contradictory ideas. To make something objective we have to do away with any idea of “a view”; there is no position. Logic is not a position, it is eternal reality; it exists without anyone looking at anything from anywhere.

If you admit that it is meaningless, how can you insist on its objective existence? Objectivity is exactly the idea of something being pulled away from all messy relations and existing alone and in itself. The moment something depends on something else to be conceptualized as existing, it is not objective. “It is soft” – depending on something being hard and a person judging. “Soft” is meaningless in itself – not objective. — Congau

Objectively, an undifferentiated relation is both meaningless AND meaningful: it is one’s position that collapses this information either way. The ‘view from nowhere’ is objective because it strives to include two contradicting ideas, rather than assuming a position by selecting one and excluding the other. Show me something that exists ‘alone and in itself’, and I’ll show you where you’re ignoring necessary relations.

There are two ways we can ‘do away with the idea of “a view”’: we can reduce the available information by ignoring, isolating or excluding anything that suggests the possibility of an alternative view; OR we can strive to include all possible alternative views. As @Pantagruel suggests, objectivity is inclusive of intersubjective process and critical consensus. What you’re referring to is the reductive process that inevitably accompanies critical consensus in order to maximise certainty. My argument is that this critical consensus and accompanying reduction of information, while necessarily practical, also detracts from its claim to objectivity.

I got this gist when I read through a collection of your posts on various topics, and you now explicitly say, "it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation." I think we can collapse that into just procreation, by the way. I think it might help if you could explain where procreation fits. It fits somehow.

Maybe a good approach is with genes. It's easy to see how genes are information, and that it appears the one goal of genes is procreation. — praxis

Procreation is an intention to reproduce the system for its own sake: to ‘create forward’, so to speak. It extends the four-dimensional system to ‘survive‘ beyond its temporal limitations and ‘dominate’ beyond its spatial limitations. But it’s all an illusion.

If the one goal of genes is ‘procreation’ - to reproduce the system for its own sake - then it does a shoddy job of it. Genes are a method to maximise the transmission and integration of basic four-dimensional information across time, irrespective of the system from which it is manifest. Sexual reproduction is a misnomer: it maximises diversity from the genetic information of the originating system as much as the limitations of each system determine its practical success irrespective of new information. It presents a conflict of interest between this underlying impetus and the specific limitations of the relational structure (ie. the living organism) at this four-dimensional level: its ignorance, isolation and exclusion of four-dimensional information. A similar conflict occurs at every dimensional level, resulting in the diversity of relational structures both within and across dimensions, which ultimately maximises the diversity of opportunities for exposure to information.

This is the essence of my issue with your theory, at least as far as I currently know or understand it. We value awareness, connection, and collaboration, and I suspect that this is due to our being a social species. Why would these qualities be of value to the universe, or even a non-social species? It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost. — praxis

Fair enough. I don’t think I’ve given enough information on the forum to explain this part very well, particularly in relation to the universe - and no-one has really addressed my terminology before, so I appreciate you doing so.

The language of ‘awareness, connection and collaboration’ suggests consciousness, or at least a panpsychism approach when applied to the universe. I think we have a tendency to assume a certain level of intelligence as necessary for awareness, so the way I use the term here is a little unconventional, and is probably a placeholder for a more appropriate terminology. As I have said here, I am not precious about the words I’ve used: I have a conceptual structure in mind, for which the words currently make sense to me, but my aim is to be understood.

By ‘awareness’, I’m referring to the exposure of a system to particular information. By ‘connection’, I’m referring to the correlation between systems that enables transmission of that information, and by ‘collaboration’ I’m referring to a relationship that facilitates the integration of this new information into the system itself.

I think there’s an underlying reason why humans are a social species, why multi-celled organisms formed, why life originated, why atoms formed molecular or chemical structures and why quantum particles formed atomic relations. And it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation. Each of these dimensionally rare relational structures suggests a weak impetus towards increasing awareness, connection and collaboration (or exposure, transmission and integration of information) beginning with the most fundamental elements of the universe. Without it, the universe as we know it would not have existed, and neither would we.

Can you give me a link to that third definition of Physics? I don't find it with a quick search. Here's the Google definitions of "Physical", which corresponds to how I use the term.
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
[ Note : these two definitions don't cover your yes & no interpretation. But the Enformationism thesis goes into great detail to show how those "opposed" concepts are inter-related as different forms of universal Information. ] — Gnomon

Just hit ‘Translations and more definitions’ at the bottom of the entry.

First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation.
— Possibility
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives.

Based on your questions, you don't even understand Possibility's theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to you than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. If it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to your put-downs without reacting in kind. :cool: — Gnomon

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

What I call ‘passive-aggressive self-deprecation’ is your continual reference to yourself as dumb, stupid, baby, lacking in intelligence, education, etc - none of which I have even implied. Offering your neck to the chopping block is not a constructive way to defend anything.

Praxis can be uncharitable at times, but not always - the more constructive criticisms of your thesis need not be based on having an alternative, but rather on challenging you to do the work required to formulate a sound thesis in the first place. Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison.

The first thing that comes to mind for me, and I could be way off-base from not fully grasping your theory, is that what’s at the core of human morality, and perhaps everything human, may simply be procreation. So if human awareness, connection, and collaboration are fundamental to the universe then the universe is all about procreation? In what sense could that be seen as true, assuming the thought is not wildly off-base? — praxis

It’s interesting that your initial thought was simply procreation. If it was only about human awareness, connection and collaboration for its own sake, then our ‘instinctual’ drives to survive, procreate and/or dominate come across as fundamental to the universe. This rather narrow idea is that the universe cannot do without us, that our capacity (not event that - our mere existence) is the pinnacle and purpose of existence. Indeed, when we ignore the truth of our relation to four-dimensional physics, this assumption that the universe exists for humanity is even more pronounced.

The challenge of six-dimensional metaphysics argues that this is a limited perspective of reality. Increasing awareness of our relation to existence at each dimensional level brings us face to face with the temporary, fragile and insubstantial nature of this relation. The universe would not mourn our loss, should we drive ourselves to self-destruction or put a stop to procreation altogether. The idea that humanity is the source of all value and meaning in the universe has been falsified by both science and spirituality, but we struggle to make sense of this in relation to our own experience of existence.

Awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion in six-dimensional metaphysics occurs to some extent in every relational structure, from virtual particles to the Greek notion of agape. It forms the basis of matter, cause and effect and this notion of the will. It’s only in integrated fifth and sixth dimensional relations that sufficient information is acquired to develop conscious awareness, connection and collaboration with the three-step process itself.

The human organism is a relational structure in five dimensions. Within and between such structures, meaning as a six-dimensional relation is constrained by a limited human perception of value and potential. The most common denominators in the awareness, connection and collaboration of human perceived potential (ie. survival, procreation and/or dominance) is often perceived as the meaning of all existence.

But we are not the only source of value and meaning in the universe. In fact, our impact has barely registered notice at all beyond our solar system - and even within, it can hardly be considered a positive impact. The scope of that isolation alone should give us pause, but the idea that our sense of human morality pertains to this universe that largely ignores us seems hilarious at best. In my view, it is not what we do for ourselves, but what we strive to understand in relation to the entire scope of existence that matters to the universe. Procreation has proved effective in transferring information to some extent, but it is our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration well beyond the importance of our own existence, species, planet and galaxy that is of the most value to a universe whose ultimate purpose seems to have always been to matter.

Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums. :yum:

For example : What do "each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ " have in common? How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions? Who are some published authors, Scientists or New Agers, that have presented ideas similar to yours? — Gnomon

Is it a spiritual plane or a physical dimension?
Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it?

If you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ in isolation from the other four, as a dimension that relates to physical reality as an entity, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘spiritual plane’, in much the same way as physicists often refer to quantum information in terms of physical ‘fields’.

Two of the three dictionary definitions of ‘physical’ are opposed to mental (so I assume you don’t mean ‘physical’ in that sense), but the third is less exclusive: Physical - relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally.

So if you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ as relative to the other four dimensions (at least), not as something other than physics, but as part of the natural forces of the universe, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘physical dimension’.

Both terms refer to what this fifth dimension is, but neither term alone defines it.

What do each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ have in common?
They describe a difference from empirical reality in a way that can be understood as equally real and ‘physical’ in its own right.

How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions?
The way I understand it, ‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels; whereas the mathematical definitions interpret a ‘fifth dimension’ as an isolated four-dimensional reality, with its own spatial existence.

Who are some published authors, scientists or new agers, that have presented similar ideas?
I’m not aware of any, to be honest. Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far). I continue to think that perhaps I’m missing some understanding that’s obvious to everyone else and when finally pointed out to me will dissolve my theory into nothing, but everything I read seems to support the theory from a certain angle, while remaining ignorant of the whole picture.

It's been a very intriguing thread. I'm a John Wheeler/Physicist fan, and enjoy reading his theories about Information, thus (excerpt from a paper on conscious thoughts occurring 'outside' the brain/ Dirk K.F. Meijer, University of Groningen, The Netherlands) :

"Can our personal information survive?

This is where the "information theory", mentioned above, comes into play. Assuming with Wheeler that everything in the universe is composed of matter, energy, and information, according to the “Energy Conservation Law”, energy cannot be destroyed. It follows that also the information that constitutes us, may not disappear altogether. In this context, Prof. Meijer brings me back to the supposed consciousness workspace, that preserves an up-to-date picture of our total personal state of art. "If quantum information, like energy, cannot be destroyed, it is theoretical possible that when our brain dies, when we pass away, the information stored around our brain survives in some other dimension, an aspect that may be revealed in NDE conditions." — 3017amen

If information ‘stored’ in our brain were able to ‘survive’ beyond death, I believe it would do so in a form of energy that is devoid of the meaning and value it has in our mind, because the relational structures that enable this storage and retrieval system to operate rely on an ongoing dissipation of energy. Quantum information is not ‘stored’ in the conventional sense, because it refers to structures of potential energy, not actual. It exists as part of a quantum system - in order to attain this information, one needs to enter into a superposition state with the quantum system in which this information is integrated. While that’s possible enough to achieve while someone is alive, after death this quantum system is unsustainable. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be possible to eventually determine how to fully reduce, transmit and reconstruct some of this five-dimensional information before death, but currently the energy requirement to even attempt to transmit a barely noticeable portion of that information digitally remains prohibitive. Not to mention that we don’t understand how to reduce most of it.

NDE conditions, in my view, suggest not so much a survival of quantum information, but perhaps a moment of experiential shift whereby the prediction of the interoceptive system (affect) is finally unconstrained by the continual effort and attention requirements and limitations of a living organism. It might be a question of: what would you do in the next moment if you weren’t limited by what your body felt it could or needed to do in that moment? It might be worth bringing this ‘consciousness workspace’ together with Feldman Barrett’s ‘interoception of affect’ and see what happens...

FWIW, I believe that the information that constitutes us continues in those with whom we relate on a five-dimensional (affected) or six-dimensional (meaningful) level. The extent to which we interact with other quantum systems in these superposition states enables us to share or transmit the value, potential and meaning of who we are with the world, whether or not they’re aware of it as such. That’s really the only way this information can survive.

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. — Gnomon

This is a discussion centred around information theories, and information is about difference. “Communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities” seems to me a misunderstanding of what information theory is all about. The problem is that neither of us are particularly well-versed in the technical language of any particular field, are we? I’m still in the process of trying to ‘dumb down’ my theory, and you refuse to make any concerted effort to understand the quantum and Platonic theories behind your own ideas, let alone the quantum and neuroscience theories behind mine.

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. — Gnomon

If you think I’m relying ESP, then it would seem you are deliberately dismissing any opportunity to think for yourself. I cannot presume to know how you think - I need you to attempt to make sense of the information I’ve presented, before I can make adjustments to my explanations. We’re not dealing with actualities here. When you say ‘grasp your meaning intuitively’, you are relying on unconscious processes to do the work for you. I’m inviting you to be more aware of the process - to recognise that you CAN be more aware of how you relate to and integrate new information at a conceptual level. I have no ownership of meaning, all I can do is give you information about the view from my position, encourage you to use that information to try and locate what I’m referring to from where you are and give me information about the view from your position, allowing me to continually adjust the information I provide based on the difference between your position and mine relative to meaning, so that at some point we might approach a shared relation to meaning.

In Shannon’s Information Theory, semantic meaning has nothing to do with it:

Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. — Shannon, C. (1948). “The Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379-423.

Of course not. All I can hope to do, is throw a lot of mud on the wall, and hope some of it sticks. — Gnomon

It can be more systematic than that, if you stop assuming it’s ‘intuitive’ and do a little self-reflective reasoning.

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. — Gnomon

First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation. If you want to behave a like a baby, that’s your choice. I will continue to assume you are intelligent enough to think for yourself.

I recognise that my theory is fuzzy at best, which can be frustrating for analytical thinkers. It’s a work in progress, and I’ve never pretended it was ready for presentation. But most analytical thinkers can approach the theory from a mathematical perspective, at least. I’m not opposed to analytical thinking - I’m just not very good at it, I’m afraid. I understand the reductionist process, but the ‘simple components’ are the supporting theories I have already referred to a number of times: Carlo Rovelli’s four-dimensional relational structure based on quantum field theory; Feldman Barrett’s theory of constructed emotions and concept cascades; the mathematical plausibility of six dimensions demonstrated in String Theory; The rest I have tried to explain, and you have tried to ignore, it seems. But I will try to answer your questions as best I can in a later post.

It is certainly not a position. It is not even a view. Your “objectivity” is one of ever-changing perspectives, is it? It’s a mixture of meaning from all possible and impossible standpoints, but there’s always some standpoint, so for you objectivity seems to be based on subjectivity. You disregard logic since all subjective observers are not logical, and their view must also be taken into account. You mix all possible positions and conclude that reality is not viewed from a position. — Congau

Let me clarify a few points here. First, it is one’s understanding of objectivity that is based on intersubjectivity. Second, I’m not disregarding logic, only acknowledging its limited position. Third, reality can only be viewed from a position, but my conclusion is that it exists regardless of any position. It is in relating to another’s subjective position relative to reality that we can strive to understand and integrate the difference between the two, and gain a more accurate perspective of reality in the process.

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

A ‘definition’ of a concept is a practical reduction of meaningful information, an attempt to represent a particular pattern of experience in such a way as to minimise any uncertainty (noise or entropy) in sending or receiving this meaningful information between systems at a practical level. This works in theory, so long as the transmission of information occurs between systems that are otherwise identical, or at least between systems where the differences are known and adjusted for. But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown.

We commonly define an abstract concept by using words that represent other abstract concepts. For instance, a definition of ‘anger’ is stated as “a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure or hostility”. How does this define anger? It provides examples of similarly patterned concepts so that something about your experience in relation to these words resonates in your existing conceptual structure with more certainty than the word ‘anger’, and enables you to use this information to predict the variable pattern of value represented by the word ‘anger’ (in much the same way as string theorists use known values regarding surrounding planets to predict the variable pattern of value in relation to an unknown planet, as described earlier). This is described as ‘intuitive’ only because we’re not often conscious of the process, or we have an inaccurate understanding of it. The classical misunderstanding of emotion as an ‘instinctual’ bodily system fighting against the suppression of a ‘rational’ mental system is a perfect example of this inaccurate understanding, and Feldman Barrett’s concept theory of emotions opens the door to apply quantum information theories in resolving the mind-body problem.

It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable, and so any stated definition is not a true instance of that concept, only a representation of the pattern of experience. So I’m pointing out the limited perspectives in which these concepts are defined, because I think it’s possible to work charitably (if uncertainly) towards a shared meaning about particular concepts that would encompass both materialist and idealist perspectives and enable us to more accurately define (ie. reduce) these concepts for practical purposes.

You’re assuming that you can determine my exact meaning from a definition: a stated description of a particular pattern of my experience - but it would only be a representative instance of that pattern, a reduction of the conceptual structure, all the five-dimensional information I have in relation to the term. Instead, I’m trying to relate diverse conceptual structures of the same term in a more inclusive approach to meaning that can ultimately maximise accuracy of any subsequent definition.

There’s a reason why concepts such as ‘fifth dimension’ have several scientific definitions. If you start with a precise definition that relates to empirical evidence, it maximises the apparent certainty of the concept for practical purposes. But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept. If your aim is simply to exist - to live, survive - then this seems sufficient. The way I see it, though, each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ that you’ve presented relate in their own way to what this concept means. And each of them is also necessarily limited in their perspective: ignorant, isolated, exclusive. The idea is to explore how they relate to each other, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.

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

Yeah I got that loud and clear. Still not entirely sure why, though.

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

My reference to ‘political’ was in relation to power relations, not politics as such. You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general, when what you intend to do is call individuals on their dismissive attitude towards the language that you use. I understand your defensiveness, but as I’ve explained I also understand their attitude. The language of spiritualism is often aimed at trying to control meaning rather than discuss the accuracy of concepts or definitions. It’s very easy to come across as apologetic, even if that’s not your intention. I’ve learned to use spiritualist language sparingly - not because I don’t believe, but because I’m not going to argue in defence of personal beliefs using the language of a belief system.

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

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. I understand that this search for common ground is your overall intention. I’m suggesting that your execution needs work - at least here on this forum.

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

If you think that you can ‘see’ six dimensions in the image that the string theory article shows, then you’re kidding yourself. What they’re expecting from you is the same thing you’re accusing me of expecting: faith. Your faith is in their calculations. If you ignore the four familiar dimensions entirely, then it’s mathematically possible to formulate a six-dimensional existence - that’s essentially what my theory is based on, and what this computer rendering demonstrates for those who can do the maths. To the rest of us, the computer rendering at best illustrates four dimensions IF you watch it in action instead of trusting that the 2D image you’re presented with in the article really does represent six dimensions. What it doesn’t answer is how they propose that this exists ‘hidden’ at every point in the universe. The maths is not in question - it’s the interpretation of how it all relates to our four dimensional observable reality that varies and, in the case of String Theory, fails to convince. It’s basically a form of calculation that gives scientists the potential location of an unknown planet from what information they have about known planets nearby: a cosmos-level mathematical function similar to quantum theory. Its inclusion of GR is important to keep in mind as a counterbalance to QT, but its application and interpretation at the human level of experience is even less convincing than quantum theory.

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

It is very similar, yes. Geometric ratios is basically what I mean by dimensional structures of relation. Meaning as a six-dimensional relational structure allows for a broader or ‘objective’ sense of this concept of ‘information’. Meaning is not only a feature of complex and integrated relations, but of

EVERY relation, from an holistic concept of the Absolute down to the simplest relation of matter/anti-matter - two extremes that approach the same idea. At the highest level of existence and at the lowest level of reduction, we find the same binary relation - regardless of what word or value or significance we attribute - that fundamentally means I/0, or existence and its negation. To exist or not to exist: that is the question.

Meaning or what matters regardless of value is six-dimensional information. It is a concept that is both infinitely meaningful and meaningless in itself. Value/potential, what matters regardless of time or whether anything changes, is five-dimensional information. Time/duration/change, what matters regardless of where and what a relation is or how it got there, is four-dimensional information. The space/sensibility/measurability of something, what matters regardless of how the relation takes place, is three-dimensional information. The shape of the relation, what matters regardless of the energy/distance involved, is two-dimensional information. And the effort/attention itself, what matters regardless whether or not any relation is even possible, is one-dimensional information. Which brings us back to the possibility/impossibility of anything existing at all: this binary relation fundamental to existence. That’s my current attempt to explain it, anyway.

The only truth in a question of possibility is what can happen and that is determined by nature. A nasturtium seed cannot become an apple tree, but John Smith can become the king of France. In social science pretty much anything is potentially true as long as it doesn’t contradict the possibilities of nature and formal logic.

All sciences deal with truth and if a social scientist takes it upon himself to investigate John Smith’s royal potential, he aims at producing a truth statement. His conclusion, for example one in a billion, is a truth statement. It claims to have investigated all normal paths to royalty and have found them blocked. The procedure is the same as for natural science, only that there’s an infinity of contingencies that can never be exhausted, therefore one is left with an expression of probability.

But how are we ever to distinguish the truth in a statement of probability. What’s the difference between one in a billion and fifty/fifty? Whatever happens in either case doesn’t prove anything. It may rain tomorrow and John Smith may become the king of France, and those statements are equally true. Only when looking at the state of things as they now are (the actuality) does the probability express a truth. In the potential as directing towards the future, there is no truth. — Congau

You keep returning to logical and actual truth, as if they’re the only way something can be true. But the meaning of truth refers to the accuracy or reliability of an existing relation, which if it aims to be objective must be freed of the constraints of actuality, logic or time.

The etymology of the word ‘true’ suggests a gradual broadening of its definition to expand the concept in relation to meaning. Initially it meant ‘loyal and steadfast’, ‘honest’, or ‘faithful’. Later, the concept expanded, and the definition broadened to ‘accurate or exact’ in terms of relative positioning or direction.

More recently it has been defined in broader terms as an agreement of subjective position in relation to reality. I understand that for practical purposes, this is truth. If we constrain our position to what is logical, what is actual or what is now, then we can reach an agreement on that relative position. But it is not, and cannot be, objective as such. It is an agreement between limited subjective positions that ‘seems’ true because we’re excluding the possibility of a position existing beyond that limitation. If that’s as broad as you can understand the meaning of truth, then you would need to concede that there is no objective truth. If, however, you believe that an objective truth exists, then its objectivity would need to be free of all subjective constraints including logic, actuality and time. In this sense, the meaning of objective truth is an undifferentiated relation to objective reality. Truth is reality.

The problem as I see it, though, is that for ‘reality’ to have any meaning for you, it must be viewed from a position. So at this point, you will continue to argue that objective truth is a position, and we will go around in circles again. You’re unable (or unwilling) to break free of logic, actuality or time enough to consider the possible existence of an undifferentiated relation. It’s meaningless, yes - it exists and doesn’t exist. I recognise that this makes no sense to you, but this is where we need to be in order to understand the pure possibility of objectivity. It’s essentially a koan.

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

Start with definitions - yes, I agree here. From there, we proceed into discussions regarding the structure of the concept, with the aim to approach a shared meaning. The trouble arises, however, when someone enters the discussion with a new definition-word-concept package as an attempt to control meaning from the start. That changes the discussion to an evaluation or critical analysis of a particular belief system in relation to its perspective of truth.

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

I’m with you here. Not sure how it applies to my comments, though.

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

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.

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

I agree that our aspirations have some similarities, and also enjoy discussing your theory because I see a lot of merit to it. The ideas you have brought together follow my own lines of inquiry.

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’. I won’t dismiss them as such, but I don’t find the divisive language at all helpful. I do also agree with the ‘oddities’ raised by @praxis - I think they’re valid concerns that you may need to address at some stage. 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, but I have found plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least in physics, neuroscience, biology and philosophy, as well as in progressive Christian circles. I’m under the impression that you have, too, to some extent - despite your apparent concern with this perpetual divide between ‘isms’.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide, instead of continually repeating outdated battlecries based on past ignorance. My concern is with the gaps in understanding between mental and physical states of the brain, consciousness, will and action, actuality and potentiality, quantum and observable interpretations of reality, and between life and lifeless matter. In my opinion, philosophy has made more genuine progress in bridging these gaps in understanding than anyone else, and science (yes, even physics) is taking its cues from this. While my own theory did originate from a more spiritual perspective, I find the top-down control and ambiguity of spiritualism hinders rather than helps in bridging these gaps. This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language. I find there is more scope to broaden scientific language to embrace metaphysical notions than to guide the diversity of spiritual language towards an accurate rendering of science.

I would like to get to Kastrup, but my time is limited and Deacon is slow-going. From what I can see, Kastrup’s reference to an alternate ‘space’ might be limiting, particularly given his focus on qualitative attention, as this may not lend itself to extending ‘attention’ all the way to the origin of existence. It remains to be seen, I suppose.

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

I understand your dissatisfaction with where I’m at in developing my theory. I have referred to this fifth dimension with a number of different terms for convenience - including potentiality, value, and more recently affect - but I’ve yet to settle on a specific term because this is still a work in progress, and I believe that a definition at this stage will limit what I’m trying to achieve. I’m not deliberately trying to be evasive - I’m trying to preserve the uncertain nature of the objective reality I’m referring to. If I define this fifth dimension, then it becomes subjective, and all the work I’m doing is lost.

As for a way to ‘perceive’ this dimension (as opposed to observing it, which is something else), I have referred a number of times to the neuroscientific theory developed by Lisa Feldman Barrett, which explains the relation between emotion, affect, brain activity and behaviour, and the way we develop, test and refine our conceptual structures. She begins by debunking the classical view of emotions as instinctive, inherent and universal, and then goes on to propose a theory of emotion, based on neuroscientific research in relation to psychology, which presents emotions as conceptual structures we develop by relating, distinguishing and recognising patterns across instances of affect. It is this affect, as a dual aspect of what she refers to as ‘valence’ (pleasant/unpleasant) and ‘arousal’ (high/low energy), that describes a mental reduction of qualitative/quantitative potentiality and value into a predictive map of attention and effort requirements for the organism. What she’s essentially describing is a neural link between mental and physical states, in a way that supports my own theory of the fifth dimension as potentiality and value, and fits in with quantum interpretations of potential reality (qualia notwithstanding). If I’m not entirely clear on how this all fits together, it’s because I’ve only recently started to piece it together.

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

I’m approaching this from a different perspective to you, so bear with me. And I will reiterate that I have no issue with neologisms as such - I just think we need to be more cautious with how we employ them at this level of discussion. Kant wrote in the context of a very different world - your reference to @3017amen about missing ‘the corrections of post-modernism’ seems relevant here (and also goes some way towards explaining your concern with the materialism/spiritualism divide). In contrast, I was at university during the 1990s (not studying philosophy, though), so you could say my view is steeped in post-modernism to some extent. ‘Haughty’ was historically par for the course among philosophers, particularly of Kant’s era. But ‘categorical imperative’ is quite a different novel concept to ‘enformation’, in my view. I don’t believe that license to ignore ‘prior baggage’ is sufficient reason to coin a new term. You’re only avoiding the necessity to eventually unpack that baggage and reconstruct a relation to the original term.

Words identify the significance of conceptual structures (patterns across instances) in relation to reality, and are taught to infants by adults.

“Infants thereby learn to categorise the world in a way that is consistent, meaningful, and predictable to us (the speakers), and eventually to themselves. Their mental model of the world becomes similar to ours, so we can communicate, share experiences, and perceive the same world.” - Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’

My aim here, however, is not to develop your mental model of the world to match mine, but rather to demonstrate the possible existence of meaning beyond the limitations of either of our existing mental models. I’m not the one assuming my definition of a word is the same as the meaning of the same word in another’s mind. Your words will mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, regardless of how you define them. Every word of your definition is open to subjective interpretation, which is what ultimately points to a perception of your meaning. So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile.

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

Your example refers to reconceptualising reality so that an existing definition is attributed a less isolating or ignorant perspective in relation to meaning. I’m not trying to change the significance - I’m trying to broaden the definition to allow the existing identity of its conceptual structure to be less ignorant in relation to meaning. There’s a difference.

I think that increasing awareness, connection and collaboration will eventually succeed in removing the limited perspectives of conventional definitions. We can’t always enforce a paradigm shift from the top down, but eventually those who continue in their ignorance, isolation or exclusion will be in the minority, as is often the case.

Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify - I wasn’t aware of this. I, too, was raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts, so that might have something to do with it...

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

A measurement of time is the relation of a perception of change to an observer, but there is no universal measure of time.

“This is time for us: a multi-layered, complex concept with multiple, distinct properties deriving from various different approximations.
Many discussions of the concept of time are confused because they simply do not recognise its complex and multi-layered aspect. They make the mistake of not seeing that the different layers are independent.” - Carlo Rovelli

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.

We ‘observe’ value, potential and significance whenever we think, speak and act. In particular when we act, we ‘collapse the wavefunction’, so to speak, and manifest an event.

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

But what they often fail to acknowledge is that the methods by which they ‘observe’ those metaphysical relations (which we refer to as ‘properties’) necessarily affect the structure, objectivity and certainty of their observation. What I’m looking for is a clearer understanding of how different methods and their limitations affect any observation, and then what we can do to improve the accuracy of these methods, and ultimately the accuracy of any interaction with reality.

Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’ - they don’t really belong to any particular object, event or experience, but more accurately refer to relations between their components. Knowledge is not a property I possess, but refers to complex relations between me and the events with which I interact. Even spatial ‘properties’ such as volume refer more accurately to relations between molecules (which are themselves relational structures between atoms, which are relations between particles) rather than what ‘belongs’ to the water, for instance. I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further.

So, these metaphysical ‘properties’ can be understood as complex relations between lower dimension relational structures, but don’t necessarily recognise the isolated relational structure to which we subjectively attribute them as a ‘property’, but rather relate to all nested structural relations down to matter/anti-matter. So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality.

You define ‘truth’ as what exists ‘right now’, but your perspective of ‘right now’ or the ‘present’ is necessarily subjective, so your understanding of truth is relative to your temporal location. Objective truth is what exists, full stop - there is no objective sense of ‘now’ or ‘here’ as distinct from ‘then’ or ‘there’. — Possibility

It’s not so much that “now” is more objective, and “here” or “there” certainly makes no difference for objectivity. Anything in the past, no matter how distant, is as objective as anything presently existing. — Congau

that’s where I think the relativity of spacetime would disagree with you. At a certain distance, here or there does make a difference for objectivity.
— Possibility
Please explain. Distance between here and there only refers to the relationship between subject and object. When something is objective, there is no subject and no distance, right? The relativity of time and space also excludes an intrinsic meaning of distance, doesn’t it? — Congau

When something is objective, there is no subject, but there is still relative distance between objects. And that distance makes a difference to what subjectively constitutes ‘the past’ for either object. My point was that what exists ‘right now’ or ‘in the past’ is not objective, because it refers to this relationship between subject and object, for which it does matter how distant.

Right. That’s not about probability only about individual uncertainty, and as such it is a piece of psychology and therefore it has objective truth to it. If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. The state of someone’s mind is an objective truth (although not available for anyone else). “I’m 90% sure it happened yesterday” and “I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow” are equivalent as a statement about objective truth. The truth condition is referring to the mind of this “I” and not to the event in question. — Congau

I don’t think you can dismiss this as ‘a piece of psychology’ not available for anyone else. How else does a future event exist, except in relation to someone’s mind? The state of someone’s mind is available as potential information: in their thoughts, words and actions. The information is uncertain and manifold, but it IS potentially available.

The accuracy of that 90% estimate is not dependent on anything outside of you. You may have had a dream or you may be intoxicated, you have that level of certainty whatever caused it. Of course, I would trust you prediction more if I knew you were basing it on observation and knowledge of familiar patterns and the more exhaustive the more trustworthy, but the probability as such cannot reach an accurate estimate when the potential information is infinite. The chance of rolling a six is 1/6 and that is a true and accurate estimate when occurring in clinical isolation (just assuming that necessary preconditions, like intention to roll, are already met) but the kind of potentiality you are talking about aims at incorporating as much information as possible, and of course the amount of information can never be exhaustive so the accuracy of the prediction can never be definite, that is to say objective. It depends on how much information you, the subject, have been able to collect. — Congau

Yes. We already dismissed the likelihood of an accurate estimate when we eliminated certainty from the discussion.

“This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true”, you say, but that can’t exist even in theory since the complexity of the relation is literally infinite. — Congau

The possibility of infinite complexity does not preclude its existence, only our capacity to understand it.