Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: Subjectivity as a dimension rather than a substance or property

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Oh come now. A line is a dimension....
    Things exist within dimensions. They are not dimensions themselves.

    The brain exists within 4 known dimensions.

    A dimension is a freedom.

    So with three dimensions you have the freedom for a 3-D object to exist. You have the freedom to have a "solid" with volume.

    Add another dimension, time, and that 3-D object can change. It can change location and change shape and structural makeup.

    4 dimensions is the freedom for entities with volume to move and change.

    We and all entities exist within 4 dimensions.

    None of us are a dimension and nothing you could point to is a dimension.
    I think we're on the same page, but using different words. You can call it the mind if you like, but it's the same principle. Consciousness is the capacity or freedom to 'extend' within the subjective dimension. You nailed it on the head when you said "nothing you could point do is a dimension". That's how dimensions work, and that's why nobody will ever be able to point to the first-person perspective by dissecting the objects that give rise to it.

    Moving back a post:

    There is experience as a cockroach. Experience as a lion. Experience as a baboon. Experience as a human.

    But experience is also individual.

    So there is experience as Mary and experience as Joe.

    The idea of qualia is just that one is a specific animal experiencing in a specific way.

    The qualia is in the experiencing. It is a part of the mind. It is not external to a mind experiencing.
    Yup. That's all true in the dimension model. Height or width is not external to objects. Each one has its own height and width, specific to whatever it is. There's the height of my desk, the height of my step-son, and the height of a stop sign. All of them are tokens of a dimension we call height, and we don't talk about "the mystery of height" or "the hard problem of height" because we understand that physical dimensions just behave in a certain way relative to the things within them, and relative to each other. Why not apply the same reasoning to the first-person mode of perception?

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    What attracts me to this view is how it removes the necessity to fully account for the mental in terms of the physical. The mind as the experiencer, the thinker, the haver of sensations and the feeler of feelings, is not being posited as a separate entity, anymore than the height of a barrel is somehow a separate entity from its width. It doesn't imply anything like a soul or an enduring self. The dimension of 'subject' as such, independent of the contents of its mind, independent of the integration between contents, doesn't need to be made out of matter or explained in terms of energy. That stuff is for events, things within dimensions, not dimensions themselves. This might seem like handwaving, but I think there may be something to it. You can still learn all about the physical substrates of consciousness and the functional behavior of the brain, but no more time has to be spent looking for the right relationship (supervenience? causality? identity? duality?) between the subjective world of experience and the objective picture of physics.

  3. Top | #13
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    I think we're on the same page, but using different words. You can call it the mind if you like, but it's the same principle.
    I define "mind". I don't just call things mind.

    Mind is that which can experience and all that is experienced.

    The ability to experience requires two things. Something that is capable of experiencing and the things that can be experienced.

    Consciousness is the capacity or freedom to 'extend' within the subjective dimension.
    Again, your subjective dimension is different from mine.

    There is never just "experience"

    There is always experience as something. As a lion, as a grasshopper. As a human. As Fred.

    So you are proposing infinite new dimensions. Not one.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    I think we're on the same page, but using different words. You can call it the mind if you like, but it's the same principle.
    I define "mind". I don't just call things mind.

    Mind is that which can experience and all that is experienced.
    Well then, we're talking about two different things. You clearly make a distinction between the subject and the object of experience. I'm talking about the subject by itself.

    Consciousness is the capacity or freedom to 'extend' within the subjective dimension.
    Again, your subjective dimension is different from mine.

    There is never just "experience"

    There is always experience as something. As a lion, as a grasshopper. As a human. As Fred.

    So you are proposing infinite new dimensions. Not one.
    Not if you take the subject in itself, apart from the contents it experiences, as the thing under examination. Divorced from the particulars of whatever is being experienced, there is no way to parse the subject into multiple dimensions. Dimensions are not countable. Multiple phenomena that occur or are measured within a given dimension do not constitute multiplications of the dimension itself. Again, I return to the spatial analogy: by your same reasoning, since there is always "height as something" (as a building, as a tree, as a person), there must be infinite dimensions of height. Is this your position?

  5. Top | #15
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Not if you take the subject in itself, apart from the contents it experiences
    Your subject is not my subject.

    Experience changes the subject.

    It changes the way things are perceived.

    The subject is never pure experience.

    It is always a way of experiencing.

    As a cow, as a cat, as Judy.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Not if you take the subject in itself, apart from the contents it experiences
    Your subject is not my subject.

    Experience changes the subject.

    It changes the way things are perceived.

    The subject is never pure experience.

    It is always a way of experiencing.

    As a cow, as a cat, as Judy.
    If you say so. Thanks as usual for your compelling contributions.

  7. Top | #17
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Not if you take the subject in itself, apart from the contents it experiences
    Your subject is not my subject.

    Experience changes the subject.

    It changes the way things are perceived.

    The subject is never pure experience.

    It is always a way of experiencing.

    As a cow, as a cat, as Judy.
    If you say so. Thanks as usual for your compelling contributions.
    You're welcome. The reason you put forth these ideas is to test them, right?

    Anybody can have an idea.

    A good idea that is new that pans out is rare.

  8. Top | #18
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,372
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,585
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Oh come now. A line is a dimension....
    Things exist within dimensions. They are not dimensions themselves.

    The brain exists within 4 known dimensions.

    A dimension is a freedom.

    So with three dimensions you have the freedom for a 3-D object to exist. You have the freedom to have a "solid" with volume.

    Add another dimension, time, and that 3-D object can change. It can change location and change shape and structural makeup.

    4 dimensions is the freedom for entities with volume to move and change.

    We and all entities exist within 4 dimensions.

    None of us are a dimension and nothing you could point to is a dimension.
    Lines have two attributes within space, an environment in which many physically adaptable dimensions are defined. Those attributes are connective contiguity, connection of points in a row and single spatial requirement, extent. To be a line it must have at a minimum an extent which serves as a for defining the most primitive spatial dimension.

    Having met the minimum does not preclude the line from being curved, abruptly jointed, or any other configuration where a single continuous movement of a describing instrument lays out it's exient. Even there the instrument may continue the line in any number of touches which stat=rt at the termination of the last touch.

    The connectivity attribute can lead to representation in more complex dimensions than that defined by extent such as plane, multiple planes, etc. At a minimum a line is connected points displaying extent.

    Freedom is related to what dimension one is considering. If one chooses planes or multiple planes lines can be represented in them and still be a line since all that is connected is extent, whether straight, or curved, or edged, etc.

    Degrees of freedom only relates to what aspects of whatever one is discussing can be measured. Lines can express planar attributes, cylindrical attributes, chaotic attributes, etc. depending on the dimensionality one uses to describe them. Still, the line itself, only has point connectivity and extent.

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    If you say so. Thanks as usual for your compelling contributions.
    You're welcome. The reason you put forth these ideas is to test them, right?

    Anybody can have an idea.

    A good idea that is new that pans out is rare.

  10. Top | #20
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    73
    OK.

    I will stop being nice.

    The idea that singular minds are all a unique dimension is absolute shit.

    A very stupid idea.

Similar Threads

  1. What justified the first instance of public property becoming private?
    By PyramidHead in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 04-08-2019, 04:13 PM
  2. Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity
    By PyramidHead in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-09-2018, 09:04 AM
  3. Intellectual Property Law
    By Jolly_Penguin in forum Morals & Principles
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 05-23-2015, 04:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •