In my opinion, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist. Physics is just as concerned withconceiving as with perceiving. Is spacetime a metaphysical conception? — jgill

First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation. — Possibility

Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it? — Possibility

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’. — Possibility

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

a difference from empirical reality — Possibility

‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels; — Possibility

Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far). — Possibility

That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics. — praxis

Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension. — 3017amen

I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further. — Possibility

I’ll read about it though. — praxis

I'm curious as to who else has read him, and if so, what are your thoughts? — Grre

called a troglodyte. — praxis

What's the difference between a bit of information and a bit of an atom again? — praxis

But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown. — Possibility

It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable, — Possibility

You’re assuming that you can determine my exact meaning from a definition: — Possibility

But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept. — Possibility

Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here. — praxis

I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication. — praxis

"Can our personal information survive? — 3017amen

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

You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general, — Possibility

If you’re NOT trying to control meaning, then I think your approach might be misguided. But you did say that was your aim with neologisms. — Possibility

to avoid misunderstandings — praxis

Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us? — praxis

try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism — praxis

It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve. — praxis

The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues. — praxis

my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else. — praxis

How is 3,4,5 divine? — frank

But which came first: the idea or the visualization? — frank

Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify — Possibility

I recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms. — Possibility

Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide, — Possibility

This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language. — Possibility

I’ll be honest with you, though - my aim is not to legitimise any ‘isms’ or to go in to bat for the validity of metaphysical ‘woo’ or ‘spiritual mysteries’. — Possibility

There remains an affective and sometimes even political loading to your language which implies a blanket dismissiveness on the part of science, philosophy or fundamental religion to any collaboration between physics and metaphysics, — Possibility

So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile. — Possibility

The analogy to spatial dimensions often leads to an oversimplification of what ‘time’ is, based on the misunderstanding that ‘space’ as a dimensional existence refers to a container instead of a multi-layered, complex conceptual structure of three, two and one-dimensional relations. — Possibility

Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’ — Possibility

So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality. — Possibility

If I might butt in for a sec. — praxis

It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse — praxis

Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error? — praxis

You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying. — praxis

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. — 3017amen

Spiritual mysteries refer to the idea of dimensions as a relational structure that is as much internally extruded into an additional aspect as externally. — Possibility

I disagree that it’s a new meaning as such, or a new concept, for that matter. — Possibility

I hope you can understand my reluctance to simply coin a new term that disassociates the concept from its more limited usage. — Possibility

And I don’t believe you have reason to accuse me of “a haughty proprietary ‘top down’ intent”, because I have never once suggested that meaning was something I could control. The meaning already exists, I’m only suggesting we remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions, which prevent us from fully understanding its scope. — Possibility

Measurable is not necessarily quantitative, and not necessarily spatial. — Possibility

How we ‘measure’ or ‘observe’ the properties of these aspects such as knowledge, potentiality, value, significance, feeling, creativity and imagination without affecting the measurement or compromising either certainty or objectivity is what we haven’t been able to work out. But they’re not imaginary - just undefined and unexplained in an objective sense. — Possibility

Exactly, science has the reputation of being the purveyor of, as you put it, facts. Why is it in this exalted position? — TheMadFool

But surely there is a widespread alienation and loneliness that would not be in the state of nature? — madworld

It can be easier to coin a new term than to discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information — Possibility

I really don't see any other choice; the only thing more unnatural than modern society is a life void of community and tribe, a life of seclusion and desolation, so becoming a hermit out in the woods is out of the question. Put plainly: I am deathly afraid of ending up alone, but can’t shake the sense that I'm selling out my beliefs/principals/ideals. — madworld

Consciousness is a special kind of experience but without the lower orders of experience there would be no consciousness. — prothero

Panpsychism is said to have a “combination problem”. . . . It could be termed a dual aspect form of neutral monism. “The emergence of experience from the non-experiential would be sheer magic” — prothero

Why can’t it still be dimensional, though? — Possibility

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

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

So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect. — Possibility

What problem is it that panpsychism attempts to answer? — Graeme M

maybe something such as the mind of God. — Graeme M

As I understand it, panpsychism is the claim that mentality (consciousness, experience?) is a basic constituent of the universe. — Graeme M

Second, minds are expressed to varying degrees of sophistication — Graeme M

Third, mind is not an actual physical substance — Graeme M

Fourth, matter isn't a manifestation of mind but rather mind is a manifestation of matter. — Graeme M

if the problem of qualia were to be resolved in like manner to other physical matters (ie qualia are a describable and measurable physical event), would that undercut the rationale for positing panpsychism? — Graeme M

hence to actually say something about how things are — Banno

The OP is pretty typical of a certain type of post; a physical theory without any maths. Physics has required maths since before Newton. It's a confusion of vaguely understood physical notions. — Banno

Possibly. But in the quantum world much of the physics is the math. For example, a virtual particle may simply be a mathematical entity, an yet amateur philosophers may refer to these things popping in and out of physical existence. — jgill

The OP is pretty typical of a certain type of post; a physical theory without any maths. Physics has required maths since before Newton. It's a confusion of vaguely understood physical notions. — Banno

Intuition refers to unexplained means by which we find that we understand something, but there need be nothing magical, paranormal or esoteric about it. — Possibility

I think as humans we need to recognise that there are reasoning-type processes our brain undertakes unconsciously, not necessarily because they’re beyond our awareness, but because we’ve operated more efficiently or economically this way in terms of effort and attention requirements. — Possibility

My biggest problem with IIT is that it fails to account for, and so practically ignores, quantum mechanics. — Possibility