Mind is the "fifth" dimension
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
question
I have a quick question and please don't think me obtuse. I have pondered the "dimention" question for some time and have wondered. Our perception of this exsitence is just that, "perception". We can only prove or disprove things that can be quantified by this "perception". How then can we quantify things outside of this "perception" and therefore attempt to understand the basic fundamental laws and rules that govern this existance?
I have a quick question and please don't think me obtuse. I have pondered the "dimention" question for some time and have wondered. Our perception of this exsitence is just that, "perception". We can only prove or disprove things that can be quantified by this "perception". How then can we quantify things outside of this "perception" and therefore attempt to understand the basic fundamental laws and rules that govern this existance?
Re: question
You percieve your thoughts don't you? Do you percieve your "sense of self"? How about this: Are you aware of what a "square" is?
All are intangibles, yet we're certain they all exist - at least temporarily (in a mind).
More interestingly, these intangibles amount to more than nothing, as they are "order in the void" so to speak. Maybe, "intangibles of substance".
You percieve your thoughts don't you? Do you percieve your "sense of self"? How about this: Are you aware of what a "square" is?
All are intangibles, yet we're certain they all exist - at least temporarily (in a mind).
More interestingly, these intangibles amount to more than nothing, as they are "order in the void" so to speak. Maybe, "intangibles of substance".
Interesting
Ok, perhaps I was unclear. By "perception" I mean what we experience through all of our senses. The universe and all it's parallels are defined by our ability to experience them. Though we are able, with tools, to increase the range of our senses, they are still very limited as to what they can relate to us about our surroundings. Our "perception" therefore dictates how and why surroundings work and what laws and rules they follow. Thought is percieved, but only on levels that our senses allow. Thought probably has many more levels. Therefore, until we can expand our senses further, we're still pretty unenlightened as to existance, correct?
Ok, perhaps I was unclear. By "perception" I mean what we experience through all of our senses. The universe and all it's parallels are defined by our ability to experience them. Though we are able, with tools, to increase the range of our senses, they are still very limited as to what they can relate to us about our surroundings. Our "perception" therefore dictates how and why surroundings work and what laws and rules they follow. Thought is percieved, but only on levels that our senses allow. Thought probably has many more levels. Therefore, until we can expand our senses further, we're still pretty unenlightened as to existance, correct?
Re: Interesting
/Ok, perhaps I was unclear. By "perception" I mean what we experience through all of our senses.
Sure me too, but it seems difficult to separate the perception from the "feeling" of the perception. I think they are the same thing by the nature of the act of abstraction (the process of making perception into an intangible (all thought is intangible)).
/The universe and all it's parallels are defined by our ability to experience them.
It's a bit early to presume a multiverse I'd say, but as you wish. Your assertion depends on exactly what you mean by "define". I mean, there is a universe objective of yourself or you could not have come to be, nor could you cease to be (in both cases, oddly enough in a subjective manner it's as if though the universe ceases when you cease).
/Though we are able, with tools, to increase the range of our senses, they are still very limited as to what they can relate to us about our surroundings.
I disagree. The hubble is a good example that contradicts you.
/Our "perception" therefore dictates how and why surroundings work and what laws and rules they follow.
As best as we can tell yes. Well, that's complicated by the body of knowledge we can access that's there from the other humans.
/Thought is percieved, but only on levels that our senses allow.
That's not true. My internal landscape is far different from the input because I've abstracted it all into my perspective.
/Thought probably has many more levels.
Depends on what context you mean. I don't think your prior point was really correct, so this assertion falls with it.
/Therefore, until we can expand our senses further, we're still pretty unenlightened as to existance, correct?
Hehe. you should read Meph's thread on language and mine on "subjective geometry" and rethink that maybe. Maybe not. *shrug* The phrase "pretty unenlightened as to existance" seems silly to me because it is the very fact that we ARE enlightened as to our own existences that allows this conversation ion the first place.
/Ok, perhaps I was unclear. By "perception" I mean what we experience through all of our senses.
Sure me too, but it seems difficult to separate the perception from the "feeling" of the perception. I think they are the same thing by the nature of the act of abstraction (the process of making perception into an intangible (all thought is intangible)).
/The universe and all it's parallels are defined by our ability to experience them.
It's a bit early to presume a multiverse I'd say, but as you wish. Your assertion depends on exactly what you mean by "define". I mean, there is a universe objective of yourself or you could not have come to be, nor could you cease to be (in both cases, oddly enough in a subjective manner it's as if though the universe ceases when you cease).
/Though we are able, with tools, to increase the range of our senses, they are still very limited as to what they can relate to us about our surroundings.
I disagree. The hubble is a good example that contradicts you.
/Our "perception" therefore dictates how and why surroundings work and what laws and rules they follow.
As best as we can tell yes. Well, that's complicated by the body of knowledge we can access that's there from the other humans.
/Thought is percieved, but only on levels that our senses allow.
That's not true. My internal landscape is far different from the input because I've abstracted it all into my perspective.
/Thought probably has many more levels.
Depends on what context you mean. I don't think your prior point was really correct, so this assertion falls with it.
/Therefore, until we can expand our senses further, we're still pretty unenlightened as to existance, correct?
Hehe. you should read Meph's thread on language and mine on "subjective geometry" and rethink that maybe. Maybe not. *shrug* The phrase "pretty unenlightened as to existance" seems silly to me because it is the very fact that we ARE enlightened as to our own existences that allows this conversation ion the first place.
Last edited:
(Urson) Though we are able, with tools, to increase the range of our senses, they are still very limited as to what they can relate to us about our surroundings.
(Wesmorris) I disagree. The hubble is a good example that contradicts you.)
Hubble does expand our ability to extend our senses, but it only goes so far. As a tool, it's probably one of our most effective ones, I'll admit. Our range of perception is still very limited if you understand that there are a multitude of energy signatures that we have yet to be able to accurately detect.
(Wesmorris) Sure me too, but it seems difficult to separate the perception from the "feeling" of the perception. I think they are the same thing by the nature of the act of abstraction (the process of making perception into an intangible (all thought is intangible)).
If you mean the internalization of the senses as, "feeling" of the perception, then I have to say that is also a "sense", just like sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing. It is more highly developed, non-phyical sense, but one none the less.
As to thought being intangible, that's something I don't buy. The Substance of the universe is energy, so anything that exists is made of energy. Thought is energy and can affect the surrounding universe, depending on the strength of the thought or the ammount of similar thoughts directed at the surroundings. Intangibility is merely one energy form being less dense and therefore able to seem to pass through another energy form.
Humankind, on the whole has always believed that they knew the basic laws and rules that direct the universe. That illusion is shattered every time a new one is discovered. The law of gravity and many of the laws of Quantum Physics are just some examples. We, as a species are constantly evolving and discovering more about our surroundings, but we are still babies, in the grand scheme of things, and have a lot to learn.
(Wesmorris) I disagree. The hubble is a good example that contradicts you.)
Hubble does expand our ability to extend our senses, but it only goes so far. As a tool, it's probably one of our most effective ones, I'll admit. Our range of perception is still very limited if you understand that there are a multitude of energy signatures that we have yet to be able to accurately detect.
(Wesmorris) Sure me too, but it seems difficult to separate the perception from the "feeling" of the perception. I think they are the same thing by the nature of the act of abstraction (the process of making perception into an intangible (all thought is intangible)).
If you mean the internalization of the senses as, "feeling" of the perception, then I have to say that is also a "sense", just like sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing. It is more highly developed, non-phyical sense, but one none the less.
As to thought being intangible, that's something I don't buy. The Substance of the universe is energy, so anything that exists is made of energy. Thought is energy and can affect the surrounding universe, depending on the strength of the thought or the ammount of similar thoughts directed at the surroundings. Intangibility is merely one energy form being less dense and therefore able to seem to pass through another energy form.
Humankind, on the whole has always believed that they knew the basic laws and rules that direct the universe. That illusion is shattered every time a new one is discovered. The law of gravity and many of the laws of Quantum Physics are just some examples. We, as a species are constantly evolving and discovering more about our surroundings, but we are still babies, in the grand scheme of things, and have a lot to learn.
/Hubble does expand our ability to extend our senses, but it only goes so far. As a tool, it's probably one of our most effective ones, I'll admit. Our range of perception is still very limited if you understand that there are a multitude of energy signatures that we have yet to be able to accurately detect.
Yes but you didn't really defend your original statement that "we are still very limitied as to what they can relate to us about our surroundings". That is argument from ignorance as there is no way to know the scope of which you speak. You merely state it but don't really argue for it specifically. Personally, I think it's quite obvious that tools like the Hubble greatly extend "what they can relate to us about our surroundings". Though I would hypothesize that the "scale" of what can be known likely has no upper limit, the "size" of our current body of knowledge as a species and as individuals can best be qualified by relating it to what is known rather than hypothetical limits.
/If you mean the internalization of the senses as, "feeling" of the perception, then I have to say that is also a "sense", just like sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing. It is more highly developed, non-phyical sense, but one none the less.
How can that be? A "sense" is an input. The sense you speak of is an input of itself and also the other senses. It's not a "sense" in that matter at all, rather it's the culmination of the senses into some sort of dynamic psuedo-coherence of awareness.
/As to thought being intangible, that's something I don't buy. The Substance of the universe is energy, so anything that exists is made of energy. Thought is energy and can affect the surrounding universe, depending on the strength of the thought or the ammount of similar thoughts directed at the surroundings. Intangibility is merely one energy form being less dense and therefore able to seem to pass through another energy form.
You cannot physically touch my thoughts. You can touch me being and thusly affect thought as you've altered the input, but you cannot physically handle a thought. In that manner, it is intangible. How is that refutable?
Technically, energy is really only a concept representative of physical processes. That concept exists only as an intangible in the abstract space created (or is it "accessed"?) by your mind. The physical processes can only be integrated into your experience via your sensory inputs, again - rendering them abstract in the context of knowledge. Of course in that physical process interacts with your physical being, the physical processes that sustain your life can be interupted - that's where what you're getting at comes into play. I don't see how it's applicable to the topic at hand.
/Humankind, on the whole has always believed that they knew the basic laws and rules that direct the universe. That illusion is shattered every time a new one is discovered. The law of gravity and many of the laws of Quantum Physics are just some examples. We, as a species are constantly evolving and discovering more about our surroundings, but we are still babies, in the grand scheme of things, and have a lot to learn.
That has a lot to do with what I hope this thread is really about: Coaxing relevant understanding from the void.
Yes but you didn't really defend your original statement that "we are still very limitied as to what they can relate to us about our surroundings". That is argument from ignorance as there is no way to know the scope of which you speak. You merely state it but don't really argue for it specifically. Personally, I think it's quite obvious that tools like the Hubble greatly extend "what they can relate to us about our surroundings". Though I would hypothesize that the "scale" of what can be known likely has no upper limit, the "size" of our current body of knowledge as a species and as individuals can best be qualified by relating it to what is known rather than hypothetical limits.
/If you mean the internalization of the senses as, "feeling" of the perception, then I have to say that is also a "sense", just like sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing. It is more highly developed, non-phyical sense, but one none the less.
How can that be? A "sense" is an input. The sense you speak of is an input of itself and also the other senses. It's not a "sense" in that matter at all, rather it's the culmination of the senses into some sort of dynamic psuedo-coherence of awareness.
/As to thought being intangible, that's something I don't buy. The Substance of the universe is energy, so anything that exists is made of energy. Thought is energy and can affect the surrounding universe, depending on the strength of the thought or the ammount of similar thoughts directed at the surroundings. Intangibility is merely one energy form being less dense and therefore able to seem to pass through another energy form.
You cannot physically touch my thoughts. You can touch me being and thusly affect thought as you've altered the input, but you cannot physically handle a thought. In that manner, it is intangible. How is that refutable?
Technically, energy is really only a concept representative of physical processes. That concept exists only as an intangible in the abstract space created (or is it "accessed"?) by your mind. The physical processes can only be integrated into your experience via your sensory inputs, again - rendering them abstract in the context of knowledge. Of course in that physical process interacts with your physical being, the physical processes that sustain your life can be interupted - that's where what you're getting at comes into play. I don't see how it's applicable to the topic at hand.
/Humankind, on the whole has always believed that they knew the basic laws and rules that direct the universe. That illusion is shattered every time a new one is discovered. The law of gravity and many of the laws of Quantum Physics are just some examples. We, as a species are constantly evolving and discovering more about our surroundings, but we are still babies, in the grand scheme of things, and have a lot to learn.
That has a lot to do with what I hope this thread is really about: Coaxing relevant understanding from the void.
Likewise I could point to a wire inside a computer and say "Where is the game that I was playing? Where is my email program? How do I get it out?" Just because the cells carry information with chemicals and we have no means to interpret those chemicals, it does not grant them any 'mystical powers'.
Good point but I wasn't saying there's anything "mystical" about it. I'm just saying it's a facet of the universe that seems generally discounted as it only exists within minds and being intangible and all. Just because it's intangible doesn't mean it isn't real. Technically all of human exprience is wholly intangible, as experience cannot be grasped with other than a consciousness. That's exactly the topic of discusion: The abstract stuff that's real but intangible.
It IS mystical in the sense that it hasn't been completley explained as of yet. However I don't think there is such a thing as the 'supernatural'. IMO, all phenomenae in the universe are perfectly natural. Obviously though, the current human perspective falls short of full comprehension of this universe, so many things seem "mystical" or whatever.
Okay so I went to the library and got Hawking's book "The universe in a nutshell" last night. It was freaking me out just flipping through the thing because some of the graphics in the book I see in my head sometimes.
Okay so my point with this "mind is the 5th dimension" thing is really as follows:
Seems to me that consciousness is part of those "curled up" dimensions he refers to. The dimensions inside our dimensions you know? Those that are curled up inside what appear to be lines, (if they exist) have as much or more depth as the four-space we're used to. I'd think those dimension indepedent of time in the sense that if linked to the four space we normally think of - from the perspective of the 'curled up' dimension it would always appear to be the same time (right now), but as this connection is created by a brain in four space, it also sees the "passage of time" because it can reflect via memory and having a sense of self in the moment that is more than just the moment, it uhmm.. well rather the combination of "always right now" and "passage of time" with resources to store input from the passage of time leads to the condition of consciousness.
Actually it seems as is the brain is a time recorder, and it evolved to access the "curled up" dimensions, as it apparently turns out that allowing self-awareness is a successful evolution strategy.
Okay I haven't read the book yet, I just thumbed through it so far, had these thoughts and wanted to get them down before moving forward. I hope over the next while I'll be able to clarify some.
It's difficult for me to conteplate a coordinate system in this space. I mena, in four space, x, y, z and t and somewhat obvious as reference, or you can used whatever coordinate system I suppose, but what are the internal set of coordinates, as they are inherently subjective. Hmmm. I think there are commonalities one might contemplate as coordinates. I'll have to think more on what they might be. I was sure I had one as I was falling asleep last night but I've now forgotten. Pleasure and pain? I suppose that's sort of one scale. Hmm.
Okay so my point with this "mind is the 5th dimension" thing is really as follows:
Seems to me that consciousness is part of those "curled up" dimensions he refers to. The dimensions inside our dimensions you know? Those that are curled up inside what appear to be lines, (if they exist) have as much or more depth as the four-space we're used to. I'd think those dimension indepedent of time in the sense that if linked to the four space we normally think of - from the perspective of the 'curled up' dimension it would always appear to be the same time (right now), but as this connection is created by a brain in four space, it also sees the "passage of time" because it can reflect via memory and having a sense of self in the moment that is more than just the moment, it uhmm.. well rather the combination of "always right now" and "passage of time" with resources to store input from the passage of time leads to the condition of consciousness.
Actually it seems as is the brain is a time recorder, and it evolved to access the "curled up" dimensions, as it apparently turns out that allowing self-awareness is a successful evolution strategy.
Okay I haven't read the book yet, I just thumbed through it so far, had these thoughts and wanted to get them down before moving forward. I hope over the next while I'll be able to clarify some.
It's difficult for me to conteplate a coordinate system in this space. I mena, in four space, x, y, z and t and somewhat obvious as reference, or you can used whatever coordinate system I suppose, but what are the internal set of coordinates, as they are inherently subjective. Hmmm. I think there are commonalities one might contemplate as coordinates. I'll have to think more on what they might be. I was sure I had one as I was falling asleep last night but I've now forgotten. Pleasure and pain? I suppose that's sort of one scale. Hmm.
Last edited:
kmguru
Staff member
Well, I have been having dreams (said so in other posts) off and on for years where it looks like a different earth with different realities ...like cars built differently, long SUVs with 6 wheels. High speed wide trains instead of planes. Just little things that are different.
It may be possible to tap into other dimensions....who knows...may be we will find out soon.
It may be possible to tap into other dimensions....who knows...may be we will find out soon.
/Well, I have been having dreams (said so in other posts) off and on for years where it looks like a different earth with different realities ...like cars built differently, long SUVs with 6 wheels. High speed wide trains instead of planes. Just little things that are different.
That's funky. Ack, that is a whole deal there that is too much for me to try to tackle at the moment. I think you're thinking of "other dimensions" in what I would call "other realities" in the sense that they wouldn't be in our space-time.
/It may be possible to tap into other dimensions....who knows...may be we will find out soon.
'dimensions' in the sense that I'm using them here are directly as used in "universe in a nutshell" in that there are, according to string theory apparently, dimensions (like length, width, hieght, except not them, as they are accounted for with "space-time") "rolled up" within our space-time. Seems to me you're talking more about alternate space-time, which is totally possible (as far as I know it would be the 'many worlds' scenario), but slightly different than what I'm driving at.
Sounds like an interesting thread topic though, have you any threads of interest?
That's funky. Ack, that is a whole deal there that is too much for me to try to tackle at the moment. I think you're thinking of "other dimensions" in what I would call "other realities" in the sense that they wouldn't be in our space-time.
/It may be possible to tap into other dimensions....who knows...may be we will find out soon.
'dimensions' in the sense that I'm using them here are directly as used in "universe in a nutshell" in that there are, according to string theory apparently, dimensions (like length, width, hieght, except not them, as they are accounted for with "space-time") "rolled up" within our space-time. Seems to me you're talking more about alternate space-time, which is totally possible (as far as I know it would be the 'many worlds' scenario), but slightly different than what I'm driving at.
Sounds like an interesting thread topic though, have you any threads of interest?
kmguru
Staff member
The only experience (dreamwise) I have is that alternate reality. We can build from that if and only if there are others who have similar experience. I have corelated my dreams to my use of Vitamin B12 (liquid, sublingual) which I take once in a while (if I remember to take) in combination of Melatonin when I am travelling in different time zones.
I wonder if we can learn from other realities - imagined or real!
I wonder if we can learn from other realities - imagined or real!
wesmorris said:
no not crazy,
could you explain in more detail about how you theorise the connection between the 5th dimension and the others.
im interested thanks.
peace.
kmguru
Staff member
The otherday, I ws watching the science channel about the universe/multiverse being an 11 dimension system which is supposed to explain the pre-bigbang and the brane theory etc. One of the dimensions they were talking about is a very small micrometer or nanometer wide dimension.
What if only information can pass through it either modulated by/on one of the primary forces and connects to the other realities....
some food for thought...
That also says we can actually make teleportation work...only if we can widen the dimension artificially?
Thoughts?
What if only information can pass through it either modulated by/on one of the primary forces and connects to the other realities....
some food for thought...
That also says we can actually make teleportation work...only if we can widen the dimension artificially?
Thoughts?
Hehe, I was watching that too. 
I only saw a bit but I've seen it before and they did an article in SciAm that pretty much followed the same deal.
EFOC:
The connection would be like that of any other dim, perpendicular. When you run out of "physical dimensions" as we can percieve, it's difficult to explain how to visualize it. The way I was told by my linear algebra prof has helped me a lot over the years:
To dimension N, dimension N-1 appears flat.
Of course it's only analogy, but I think it helps fit the stuff in your head.
The thread title is a misnomer. What I suspect is that "the potential for mind exists in an extra spatial dimension". Relative to the space-time, I see it as "internal", or subjectively; more time at one time than just that time.
There is a relevant thread under discussion in general philosophy:
Abstracts Again
I only saw a bit but I've seen it before and they did an article in SciAm that pretty much followed the same deal.EFOC:
The connection would be like that of any other dim, perpendicular. When you run out of "physical dimensions" as we can percieve, it's difficult to explain how to visualize it. The way I was told by my linear algebra prof has helped me a lot over the years:
To dimension N, dimension N-1 appears flat.
Of course it's only analogy, but I think it helps fit the stuff in your head.
The thread title is a misnomer. What I suspect is that "the potential for mind exists in an extra spatial dimension". Relative to the space-time, I see it as "internal", or subjectively; more time at one time than just that time.
There is a relevant thread under discussion in general philosophy:
Abstracts Again
kmguru
Staff member
To dimension N, dimension N-1 appears flat.
That means, a person from dimension N with their limit of dimension N may not travel to N-1 or N+1 as the case may be. Correct?
Then the question comes, are we the creature of a 3 dimension and limited by such or actually our perception limits us thinking that we are bounded by only 3 dimensions but in fact we could be of N+ dimensions?
What I meant to say is that since we physically can not fly in the third dimension but build an airplane and able to do so easily....
Why can not information pass through dimensions just as light can still fill a two dimensional world...
There has to be a better way to visialize this to built contraptions to overcome the limits of such dimensions ....
That means, a person from dimension N with their limit of dimension N may not travel to N-1 or N+1 as the case may be. Correct?
Then the question comes, are we the creature of a 3 dimension and limited by such or actually our perception limits us thinking that we are bounded by only 3 dimensions but in fact we could be of N+ dimensions?
What I meant to say is that since we physically can not fly in the third dimension but build an airplane and able to do so easily....
Why can not information pass through dimensions just as light can still fill a two dimensional world...
There has to be a better way to visialize this to built contraptions to overcome the limits of such dimensions ....
why are you so into immortality when everyone
exists forever anyways, one type of dying just leads to some other perspective intake and if im going to die in one space after living there for a while, i will be greatfull for the slight change, my personal energy remembers everything ive done and will do, so im not really worried about living forever by getting rid of negative energy, you need the negative to have the positive.
If light was in control of everything it would be to overwhelming, unnesesary, and unbalanced, the polarities that bind time would collapse, dont you like to sit in complete darkness sometimes, and travel around the world that lay around you previously shrouded by light, your intake of the light supersceeding what was also there.
exists forever anyways, one type of dying just leads to some other perspective intake and if im going to die in one space after living there for a while, i will be greatfull for the slight change, my personal energy remembers everything ive done and will do, so im not really worried about living forever by getting rid of negative energy, you need the negative to have the positive.
If light was in control of everything it would be to overwhelming, unnesesary, and unbalanced, the polarities that bind time would collapse, dont you like to sit in complete darkness sometimes, and travel around the world that lay around you previously shrouded by light, your intake of the light supersceeding what was also there.