I ask recognition from physicalists of at least 1 non-physical dimension where concepts, the inner voice, inner imagery and dreams 'reside'

[Maartenn100]

There is at least one other dimension beyond the physical dimension we witness daily: the hidden 'spatial' dimension where the inner voice, inner thoughts, inner images, and dreams 'reside'. For ourselves, this dimension is visible to our 'mind's eye'. We notice our inner voice, witness our thoughts and observe our dreams. However, the same dimension and its non-physical entities are not visible to us in others or in the rest of the physical world.

 

Thus, we do not know if ChatGPT also has such an 'inner experiential world'. Such a hidden spatial dimension.

We assume it in animals.

We hardly suspect it in a computer component or radio.

 

We do not even consider that there may be other hidden dimensions tied to the physical world that we cannot discover, which are different from that inwardly noticeable non-physical space.

 

When we see someone, we do not see their hidden non-physical dimension from which they conceptualize, dream, have inner images, and so forth. When this person dies, we also do not see what happens to this inner space. It is possible that this inner space 'expands', now that the physical matter to which this dimension was tied, crumbles. We can never directly see this space of the other, so we also do not know what happens to it after the death of the material correlates.

 

I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside! That there exists at least one non-physical domain, or 'space' or 'dimension' that each of us personally witnesses, but cannot observe in others or the other physical objects, and about which we fundamentally do not know what happens after the disintegration of the material correlates of this non-physical dimension!

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside! That there exists at least one non-physical domain, or 'space' or 'dimension' that each of us personally witnesses, but cannot observe in others or the other physical objects,

So what?

[Genady]

42 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside!

No.

[exchemist]

50 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

There is at least one other dimension beyond the physical dimension we witness daily: the hidden 'spatial' dimension where the inner voice, inner thoughts, inner images, and dreams 'reside'. For ourselves, this dimension is visible to our 'mind's eye'. We notice our inner voice, witness our thoughts and observe our dreams. However, the same dimension and its non-physical entities are not visible to us in others or in the rest of the physical world.

 

Thus, we do not know if ChatGPT also has such an 'inner experiential world'. Such a hidden spatial dimension.

We assume it in animals.

We hardly suspect it in a computer component or radio.

 

We do not even consider that there may be other hidden dimensions tied to the physical world that we cannot discover, which are different from that inwardly noticeable non-physical space.

 

When we see someone, we do not see their hidden non-physical dimension from which they conceptualize, dream, have inner images, and so forth. When this person dies, we also do not see what happens to this inner space. It is possible that this inner space 'expands', now that the physical matter to which this dimension was tied, crumbles. We can never directly see this space of the other, so we also do not know what happens to it after the death of the material correlates.

 

I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside! That there exists at least one non-physical domain, or 'space' or 'dimension' that each of us personally witnesses, but cannot observe in others or the other physical objects, and about which we fundamentally do not know what happens after the disintegration of the material correlates of this non-physical dimension!

On what grounds do you demand recognition, from physicalists, of something for which there is no observational evidence? Surely you understand that for the physicalist, unobservable entities are dismissed as non-existent?

[DanMP]

41 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Surely you understand that for the physicalist, unobservable entities are dismissed as non-existent?

Time is observable? Should we dismiss it?  🙂

 

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside! That there exists at least one non-physical domain, or 'space' or 'dimension' that each of us personally witnesses, but cannot observe in others or the other physical objects, and about which we fundamentally do not know what happens after the disintegration of the material correlates of this non-physical dimension!

What/who is a physicalist?

The place where "thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside"  is the brain. And it is something physical, biological, observable, not at all a non-physical dimension.

If you really want, you can consider the mind as the "dimension" you described. But the mind is the "product" of the brain, something observable. As time is inferred from the fact that we observe change.

Edited March 5 by DanMP

[Maartenn100]

Science (as concept) is non-physical. Without this non-physical mind you could not read these words here on the page or any other book for that matter. Take the non-physical mind away from the world, and science ceases to exist.

[Phi for All]

55 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Time is observable?

Observable and measurable, yes. 

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Should we dismiss it?  🙂

I think that would be a big mistake.

 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Science (as concept) is non-physical. Without this non-physical mind you could not read these words here on the page or any other book for that matter. Take the non-physical mind away from the world, and science ceases to exist.

Just replace "non-physical" with "physical" and "mind" with "brain":

Science (as concept) is physical. Without this physical brain you could not read these words here on the page or any other book for that matter. Take the physical brain away from the world, and science ceases to exist.

Yes.

[Maartenn100]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

Just replace "non-physical" with "physical" and "mind" with "brain":

Science (as concept) is physical. Without this physical brain you could not read these words here on the page or any other book for that matter. Take the physical brain away from the world, and science ceases to exist.

Yes.

The neural correlates are just the outer appearance of this inner world, dimension, or space, seen from the viewpoint of another mind. The neural correlates are 'this inner space and inner thoughts' seen in the perceptions of another mind. The neural correlates of consciousness do not cause the mind, they are the mind, seen from the perspective of another mind.

Edited March 5 by Maartenn100

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

There is at least one other dimension beyond the physical dimension we witness daily: the hidden 'spatial' dimension where the inner voice, inner thoughts, inner images, and dreams 'reside'. For ourselves, this dimension is visible to our 'mind's eye'. We notice our inner voice, witness our thoughts and observe our dreams. However, the same dimension and its non-physical entities are not visible to us in others or in the rest of the physical world.

How is this a dimension in a physics sense?

[DanMP]

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Observable and measurable, yes. 

Time as duration/interval is observable/measurable, yes, although a clock is just counting events, but time as a dimension is not really observable. As I wrote, what we observe is change.

Edited March 5 by DanMP

[swansont]

1 minute ago, DanMP said:

Time as duration/interval is observable/measurable, yes, although a clock is just counting events, but time as a dimension is not really observable.

Hmm. This post wasn't here a moment ago...

By this metric, length isn't observable, either

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The neural correlates are just the outer appearance of this inner world, dimension, or space, seen from the viewpoint of another mind. The neural correlates are 'this inner space and inner thoughts' seen in the perceptions of another mind. The neural correlates of consciousness do not cause the mind, they are the mind, seen from the perspective of another mind.

Sorry, I guess it makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. Just words. Got a model?

[DanMP]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

By this metric, length isn't observable, either

Length is as observable/measurable as time intervals. But time as a dimension is not as real/observable as the space. Time is a (very) useful concept but is just a concept, like the mind. The real/observable "source" of the mind is the brain and for the time the change.

[Maartenn100]

18 minutes ago, Genady said:

Sorry, I guess it makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. Just words. Got a model?

It's idealism: everything is mind, and fysicality is the appearance of the mind of nature to a localised mind.

That's not my model, that's the model or hypothesis of philosopher and computerscientist Bernardo Kastrup actually. It's called analytic idealism.  We are like whirlpools in a river. Localised minds in the Mind of Nature. When we cease to exist we go back into the broader stream of Consciousness, just like the whirlpool ceases to exist and becomes back part of the greater stream. How other 'whirlpools of localised minds' look like for 'one localised whirlpool of mind' is like a brain and body. A metabolising organism. That's an appearance in the mind of a neuroscientist, a localised mind. A dissociated alter according to Bernardo Kastrup. We are dissociated alters from the broader Mind of Nature. We perceive a shared dream, like  the dissociated alters of someone with dissociated identity disorder in the dream of this person, having a shared dream. When the alters cease to exist, the Mind awakens and recoginises: it was me all along.

Edited March 5 by Maartenn100

[DanMP]

21 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Localised minds in the Mind of Nature.

Ok, it sounds interesting, for a fantasy movie or book, but this is a science forum, so some evidence are needed. There are any?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Time as duration/interval is observable/measurable, yes, although a clock is just counting events, but time as a dimension is not really observable. As I wrote, what we observe is change.

Do you think distance is unobservable then? After all, all we can measure is distance intervals. 

Also consider that with something like energy, all we can measure is energy differences, which are a kind of interval too. 

 

Edited March 5 by exchemist

[Genady]

43 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It's idealism: everything is mind, and fysicality is the appearance of the mind of nature to a localised mind.

That's not my model, that's the model or hypothesis of philosopher and computerscientist Bernardo Kastrup actually. It's called analytic idealism.  We are like whirlpools in a river. Localised minds in the Mind of Nature. When we cease to exist we go back into the broader stream of Consciousness, just like the whirlpool ceases to exist and becomes back part of the greater stream. How other 'whirlpools of localised minds' look like for 'one localised whirlpool of mind' is like a brain and body. A metabolising organism. That's an appearance in the mind of a neuroscientist, a localised mind. A dissociated alter according to Bernardo Kastrup. We are dissociated alters from the broader Mind of Nature. We perceive a shared dream, like  the dissociated alters of someone with dissociated identity disorder in the dream of this person, having a shared dream. When the alters cease to exist, the Mind awakens and recoginises: it was me all along.

I see. It gets worse. Now, it is boring. Regurgitating of age-old philosophies. Hundreds or thousands of years old. In the recent decades, marketed by Deepak Chopra. I am out.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

Science (as concept) is non-physical. Without this non-physical mind you could not read these words here on the page or any other book for that matter. Take the non-physical mind away from the world, and science ceases to exist.

All you are saying is that science is a method which, like many things, is an abstract concept. Nobody would deny the usefulness of abstract concepts. Mathematics is abstract, and you can't do some sciences at all to any degree without maths.

What you are demanding seems to be something different: the existence, not of an abstract concept but  of an extra dimension.  This implies that objects can be situated along this dimension and assigned intervals, relative to one another, in terms of it, by some kind of measurement.  

Edited March 5 by exchemist

[swansont]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Length is as observable/measurable as time intervals. But time as a dimension is not as real/observable as the space. Time is a (very) useful concept but is just a concept, like the mind. The real/observable "source" of the mind is the brain and for the time the change.

Length is a concept, “observable” as an interval between objects. But you need the objects, like you need events to measure time. 

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, DanMP said:

Time as duration/interval is observable/measurable, yes, although a clock is just counting events, but time as a dimension is not really observable. As I wrote, what we observe is change.

I think this is Special Pleading. Dimensions are all fairly abstract concepts meant to locate or measure certain properties of an object. We observe that time moves differently depending on the observer, so we know time is coupled with the spatial dimensions. I don't understand why you say it's not really observable as a dimension. Is it because you can see and touch something with three spatial dimensions, but feel time isn't involved in the interaction?

[Eise]

18 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

There is at least one other dimension beyond the physical dimension we witness daily: the hidden 'spatial' dimension where the inner voice, inner thoughts, inner images, and dreams 'reside'.

Ah, Descartes 1.1. 'Res extensa: 3 spacial dimensions. 'Res cogitans': mind. Calling it a dimension is just obfuscating method of hiding substance dualism. 'Substance dualism', because something has to exist in this 'dimension', otherwise it is just empty.

18 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside!

Nope. To use your metaphor: our mind is a whirlpool in the brain, not in your imaginary dimension.

[Maartenn100]

You can't call it: space, dimension, place, domain, etc.

What would be a good name to point to this 'mental space' and to recognize its existence next to the physical domain in this world?

 

Because this 'mental space' exists, doesn't it? Every day we witness it personally. The whole body of mathematics is only 'visible' in mental space. The whole body of science is only 'visible' in mental space. If there was not a 'mental space', we could not read these words, could we?

So, it's time to recognize this 'mental space' as a part of the world. As some 'realm' in this world.

 

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Ah, Descartes 1.1. 'Res extensa: 3 spacial dimensions. 'Res cogitans': mind. Calling it a dimension is just obfuscating method of hiding substance dualism. 'Substance dualism', because something has to exist in this 'dimension', otherwise it is just empty.

Nope. To use your metaphor: our mind is a whirlpool in the brain, not in your imaginary dimension.

You can't call it: space, dimension, place, domain, etc.

What would be a good name to point to this 'mental space' and to recognize its existence next to the physical domain in this world?

 

Because this 'mental space' exists, doesn't it? Every day we witness it personally. The whole body of mathematics is only 'visible' in mental space. The whole body of science is only 'visible' in mental space. If there was not a 'mental space', we could not read these words, could we?

So, it's time to recognize this 'mental space' as a part of the world. As some 'realm' in this world.

Edited March 6 by Maartenn100

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

You can't call it: space, dimension, place, domain etc.

What would be a good name to point to this 'mental space' and to recognise its existence next to the physical domain in this world?

 

It is you that is asserting there is such a thing as a mental "space". The rest of us could be forgiven for not understanding why you call it a "space". That word immediately creates connotations of a dimension. It is not obvious that that is a helpful way to think about the subject, for the reasons pointed out on this thread. 

Surely the cognitive processes of the brain can be thought of as its activity, rather like the operations of a computer? Consciousness can thus be seen as an activity, not a "thing".  This way of thinking about it has at least the merit that electrical signals can be detected in the brain to show there is activity, activity which for example stops when someone dies.  

Why the need to treat it as a thing, existing in some unobservable "space"?  That seems to me to be a category error, albeit one with a long and distinguished history.

[Maartenn100]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

How is this a dimension in a physics sense?

You can't call it dimension, place, domain, etc.

What would be a good name to point to this 'mental space' and to recognize its existence next to the physical domain in this world?

Because this 'mental space' exists, doesn't it? Every day we witness it personally. The whole body of mathematics is only 'visible' in mental space. The whole body of science is only 'visible' in mental space. If there was not a 'mental space', we could not read these words, could we?

So, it's time to recognize this 'mental space' as a part of the world. As some 'realm' in this world.

34 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It is you that is asserting there is such a thing as a mental "space". The rest of us could be forgiven for not understanding why you call it a "space". That word immediately creates connotations of a dimension. It is not obvious that that is a helpful way to think about the subject, for the reasons pointed out on this thread. 

Surely the cognitive processes of the brain can be thought of as its activity, rather like the operations of a computer? Consciousness can thus be seen as an activity, not a "thing".  This way of thinking about it has at least the merit that electrical signals can be detected in the brain to show there is activity, activity which for example stops when someone dies.  

Why the need to treat it as a thing, existing in some unobservable "space"?  That seems to me to be a category error, albeit one with a long and distinguished history.

M point is, that whatever activity happens in this 'domain', it's non-physical. Even if there are physical correlates (neural correlates); Your inner voice is not happening in the physical domain, isn't it? A measuring device cannot find it in the brain. (or in other materials). It's not part of the description of the physical world (physics) or chemistry. But it exists. Your inner voice exists somehow, somewhere, but it is not described in physics, nor in chemistry, both descriptions of our material world. And because its not described in physics or chemistry, both descriptions of what exists in the material world, it's not part of this material world. But the inner voice exists and is real. What is it made off?

So, it has to be in some other 'domain' of reality. It is made of some other 'stuff' then its neural correlates. 

 

If neuroscientists talk about 'neural correlates', what does it correlate with? With something non-neural/non-physical? There are two 'things' correlating here. What is on the other side of the neural correlate? You can call it 'mental stuff'. So, my point is, as a physicalist, recognize, at least, that 'a mental domain' exists, next to the physical world, that correlates with neurons. 

 

Edited March 6 by Maartenn100