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

[exchemist]

58 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

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. 

 

On the contrary, a measuring device sees electrical activity in particular parts of the brain, when particular types of thinking take place. See for example this paper on music: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5618809/.

This kind of work strongly suggests thoughts are due to such electrical activity. 

The rest of your post seems simply to be arguing that human beings are capable of thinking about abstract concepts. We have a word for that: abstract.

As for "inner voice", what is that? I sometimes talk to myself without speaking the words. Is that all you mean? If so, it is just a process of conscious thinking, rendered into words so that I can rationally follow and audit the process of thought. I do it when I am making sure my reasoning is sound, e.g. when working with electrical wiring, or doing an algebra problem. I do not see why this need be anything more than a form of electrical activity that happens to engage the "language programming" of my brain. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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

What would be a good name to point to this 'mental space'

How about ‘mental space’? Or ‘imagination’? Or ‘the twilight zone’?

2 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

and to recognize its existence next to the physical domain in this world?

No. It’s not physical, so it doesn’t belong there.

 

2 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

 

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.

Such things are studied already. In neurology, psychology, and other fields.

[Eise]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

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.

Yep. The mind is an activity of the brain, just as a whirlpool is an activity of water. Or, @Maartenn100, is there a separate (physical?) space for whirlpools?

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

Excellent arguments for why it should not be recognized as a dimension; if it’s in your mind I can’t observe it or measure it.

[DanMP]

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

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?

We can directly observe space dimensions by moving (walking, jumping) in all directions (as long as there is no obstacle to prevent it), but in time we cannot move like that, and the only thing (regarding time) we can directly observe, is change. We see the sunrises/sunsets and we consider that a day passed between two of them, we count the oscillations of a pendulum and calculate how many hours, minutes and seconds passed, and so on. But the observables are the events we count (and the changes in and around us), not time itself.

Back on topic: I wrote that the mind is the result/product of brain activity, and that the observable is the brain, not the mind. Now I want/need to add that the mind is in fact observable, but only from inside

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, DanMP said:

We can directly observe space dimensions by moving (walking, jumping)

I see you walking before you jump. I directly observe that you don't walk and jump at the same time. 

6 minutes ago, DanMP said:

in all directions (as long as there is no obstacle to prevent it),

ALL directions, including the linear one that time follows. Time can be just as much of an obstacle affecting movement as three-dimensional matter. If the elevator doors close in three seconds, you may not have the time to walk. The doors may be an obstacle spatially, but it's the temporal obstacle that will keep you off the elevator.

16 minutes ago, DanMP said:

but in time we cannot move like that, and the only thing (regarding time) we can directly observe, is change.

It seems to me we move exactly like that, and we observe that we can run for the elevator door instead of walk, changing nothing spatially about the elevator, but making it inside before the doors close this time. 

 

[DanMP]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I see you walking before you jump. I directly observe that you don't walk and jump at the same time. 

You can see me changing from walking to jumping. You can't see the "expanse" of time as you can see the expanse of space.

 

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

31 minutes ago, DanMP said:

but in time we cannot move like that, and the only thing (regarding time) we can directly observe, is change.

It seems to me we move exactly like that

Ok, so move back in time as you move back in space

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

You can see me changing from walking to jumping. You can't see the "expanse" of time as you can see the expanse of space.

You can only sense the expanse of space because of objects in it, i.e. the observables are objects, not length itself. Just like the fact that your location changes lets you sense the passage of time.

[DanMP]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

You can only sense the expanse of space because of objects in it

I can sense the space my moving freely through it. In fact objects are not always good because they can block me (I can't really sense the space from a coffin 🙂). On the other hand, in order to see its expanse, yes, objects, like stars, are very useful. Also meter sticks are good/needed to measure lengths.

 

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Time can be just as much of an obstacle affecting movement as three-dimensional matter. If the elevator doors close in three seconds, you may not have the time to walk. The doors may be an obstacle spatially, but it's the temporal obstacle that will keep you off the elevator.

Yes, the change of doors, from open to close, can stop/block me from moving through space, but there is no real temporal obstacle, I cannot stop/block your advance in time using objects (or any thing that I can imagine). This is another major difference for time (compared to space dimensions), besides the impossibility to go back.

 

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Just like the fact that your location changes lets you sense the passage of time.

This is very similar to what I wrote in my first post here.

What you can see/observe is change, but this allows you to define a time dimension.

More about my opinion regarding time is here.

Edited March 7 by DanMP

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

What you can see/observe is change, but this allows you to define a time dimension.

No, it only allows you to measure it against a known change, but unlike like the weight of a kilo it doesn't vary with its position in space; IOW it's not a dimension itself, it's part of the description.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

I can sense the space my moving freely through it.

Only because of the objects. If you didn’t have visual cues, you could not tell if you were moving relative to them.

 

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

In fact objects are not always good because they can block me (I can't really sense the space from a coffin 🙂). On the other hand, in order to see its expanse, yes, objects, like stars, are very useful. Also meter sticks are good/needed to measure lengths.

More than useful. Absolutely necessary.

On 3/6/2024 at 11:08 AM, DanMP said:

Ok, so move back in time as you move back in space

I wasn’t aware that this a requirement for it to be a dimension.

Quote

My opinion about time is that it is something we cannot see, touch, feel in any way

This does not differentiate it from the spatial dimensions. 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

Yes, the change of doors, from open to close, can stop/block me from moving through space, 

That's not what my example is showing. The doors closing faster than you can walk is what blocks you, not the doors themselves (you can stop the doors from closing if you get there in time).

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

but there is no real temporal obstacle, I cannot stop/block your advance in time using objects (or any thing that I can imagine).

But there IS a temporal obstacle, the fact that the doors will close before you can WALK to them. Why do you need objects? The advance of time keeps you off the elevator unless you speed up your pace. Nothing spatial changes, but if you want to get on that elevator, the obstacle is time, and you're capable of using it to get on the elevator.

[DanMP]

On 3/7/2024 at 6:17 PM, Phi for All said:

That's not what my example is showing

Yes, I understood your point, and it's a good one ... in understanding time. Not in seeing it. Swansont agreed that time is something we cannot see, touch, feel in any way:

On 3/7/2024 at 6:09 PM, swansont said:

This does not differentiate it from the spatial dimensions. 

 

My point was/is that we observe/see change (in fact the succession of changes/events), and from that we understand that it must be something somehow similar with a spatial dimension, something that we call time. But, as I said, time is not quite similar with space dimensions, because you can't go back in time or stop in it (stop your advance in time, ageing).

 

On 3/7/2024 at 6:09 PM, swansont said:

Absolutely necessary

Not absolutely. A blind man can sense space just by walking in all directions. He can even measure distances, by counting his steps. 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

Not absolutely. A blind man can sense space just by walking in all directions. He can even measure distances, by counting his steps. 

How does one walk without some material object upon which you place your feet?

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

My point was/is that we observe/see change (in fact the succession of changes/events), and from that we understand that it must be something somehow similar with a spatial dimension, something that we call time.

The only problem with that argument is, that we all perceived that change at different rates, even when we're sitting on the same sofa... 

[DanMP]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How does one walk without some material object upon which you place your feet?

I was sure that you will say that 😀  and I may offer other examples, like swimming in the ocean or spacewalking, but you can say that the ocean is an object and the spacesuit is also required. So, yes, we need objects. We are, also, objects 😀

Still, the fact that we need objects in order to see/experience space, doesn't change the fact that we see/observe changes/events not the time dimension, nor the fact that time dimension is different, as I explained before (you can't stop or go back in time). 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The only problem with that argument is, that we all perceived that change at different rates, even when we're sitting on the same sofa... 

It's not a problem, because we can (and did) make clocks, devices that count repetitive events, so we have more than our subjective perception. 

 

I think that this discussion about the perception of time and space should be separated from the thread, because it is no longer on topic. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, DanMP said:

It's not a problem, because we can (and did) make clocks, devices that count repetitive events, so we have more than our subjective perception. 

Indeed we all have clocks, some of them slow and some of them fast, without them we're bloody useless at guessing/perceiving the time. 

20 hours ago, DanMP said:

I think that this discussion about the perception of time and space should be separated from the thread, because it is no longer on topic. 

Can you please clarify what the topic question actually is?

[DanMP]

On 3/10/2024 at 2:16 PM, dimreepr said:

Can you please clarify what the topic question actually is?

Read the first post and you'll see.

This is not my thread, so don't ask me for clarifications.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Read the first post and you'll see.

This is not my thread, so don't ask me for clarifications.

You're the one saying that it's off topic, why would you say that?

 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're the one saying that it's off topic, why would you say that?

 

Because it’s off-topic. We’re discussing dimensions, i.e. what is and isn’t a dimension, and why. Not perception.

[DanMP]

On 3/11/2024 at 5:09 PM, dimreepr said:

You're the one saying that it's off topic, why would you say that?

I wrote:

On 3/9/2024 at 5:22 PM, DanMP said:

I think that this discussion about the perception of time and space should be separated from the thread, because it is no longer on topic. 

and I meant that, although it was on topic in the beginning:

On 3/5/2024 at 4:20 PM, DanMP said:

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.

my idea (the one I underlined and bolded above) was contested ... and an interesting discussion about time and space developed. This discussion I suggested to be separated, because we no longer referred to the OP idea about a non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside.

Edited March 12 by DanMP

[Lucas Bet]

On 3/5/2024 at 9:48 AM, 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.

 (...)

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.

 (...)

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!

You got it!

I have developed a computational theory of the Universe recognizing what you call the "inner dimension", or the Mind, as a nested Turing machine inside the Brain.

This means what you call the "inner dimension" is actually a software layer inside our hardware Brains, which is responsible for translating our perception as language, and thus it enables our adaptability and the properties of intelligence (or Turing completeness). And we even explain how philosophy and computer science are basically the same when we are talking about intelligence, gathering teachings from Langer, Kant, Nietzche and more.

But this is not all: the Turing machine model also explains special relativity and quantum mechanics together, and, therefore, really amounts to a whole theory of the Universe. I like the theme so much, there is a whole book about it now. This is a quote from The Rabbit Whole:

Quote

Which is to say, after we developed languages that were complex enough, our own Brains became Turing complete.

Then we were able to hold consistent stories about who we are, what are our names, who are our parents and what are our memories. And we started to talk not only to alert danger, or express pleasure: language became alive inside our heads. After we become Turing complete, we got our Minds. And this fully explains why the Mind is “made of language”, because it is actually has the same nature as computer software: it is a linguistic system inside a hardware machine. But, if on one hand Turing is teaching us that a complete enough set of symbols can compute an universal machine which is whole in itself, on the other hand Susanne Langer teaches us — about the Mind — that:

“language is much more than a set of symbols. It is essentially an organic, functioning system, of which the primary elements as well as the constructed products are symbols”

In the same way Turing realized his concept of “completeness”, Susanne Langer tells us language by itself can become an “organic, functioning system”: which means, once again, both thinkers are simply adopting different languages for the same concepts!

Well, if Langer and Turing are really converging in their teachings, and because evolution by natural selection is basically searching solutions to the “decision problem”, then we can actually conclude the Mind is a nested Turing machine inside the Brain. And this explains not only why we identify with our Minds — instead of thinking we are everything we can perceive with our Brains — but also explains how a separate layer can actually exist inside the Brain, and be based exclusively on language.

This is my proposed solution to the Mind-Body problem.

Edited April 4 by Lucas Bet

[Phi for All]

33 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

I have developed a computational theory of the Universe recognizing what you call the "inner dimension", or the Mind, as a nested Turing machine inside the Brain.

!

Moderator Note

And the place to talk about that is in its own thread in Speculations, not in someone else's speculative thread.