Thought Dimensionality Theory

[sunspot]

Thought Dimensionality Theory was invented about 15 years ago. It helped me during my early explorations of the unconscious mind. The first level is 1-D thoughts. These are linear thoughts with a 1 to 1 correspondence. For example, letters of an alphabet are 1-D. The speed of light is 1-D, in that it is the same in all references. It is what it is, very linear, nothing more or less.

 

The second level of thought is 2-D. This is the basis for logic: cause and affect. The 1-D memories will populate the x, y-axis of cause and affect. One can then make rational comparisons. This is like a zigzag line moving between the two axes. For example, although the speed of light is constant or 1-D, it has many logical implications. The 1-D thoughts are sort of cause without affect. Within a 2-D plane of logic one can give affect to this 1-D cause to define cause and affect relationships.

 

The third level of thought is 3-D. This is the basis for cause, affect, and something else, which create a 3-D relationship among a wide range of cause and affects. For example, the concept of the unified force is 3-D, in that it integrates the four forces of nature. The something else needed to make it work still eludes science, yet most have a gut feeling that it is possible. The gut feeling senses the something else. The religious concept of God is also 3-D, in the sense that God is the physical and spiritual universe all woven together. It is a concept beyond reason and also needs to be perceived with intuition.

 

The 1-D thoughts are analogous to lines. As thought dimension increases slightly from 1-D curvature is added to the line. For example, most words have several meanings. In other words, there is a slight twist added to a 1-D thought. Statistical data is more than 1-D, in the sense, that the data is not absolute cause or 1-D, but often has several interpretations.

 

As thought dimension increases further, the curvature will increase, until at 1.5-D the line curves upon itself to form a circle. The ring has long been the symbol of marriage and unity in culture. This level of thought dimension is associated with prestige or a subjective enhancement associated with objects and ideas. The ring enhances the person with the prestige of marriage to another. As the dimension increases from 1.5-D, the little circle expands, until at 2-D it becomes an infinite plane of logic. The crown of the king is a large circle that marries him to his people. The larger circle extends the prestige affect.

 

Thought dimensions from 1.5-D, up to, but not including 2-D, are thoughts associated with a prestige affect with the highest dimensions associated with universal prestige. Money is almost 2-D, and represents the outer limit of prestige. For example, there is no logical reason why a pet rock could become so popular. However, using marketing to increase its thought speed association, from say 1.51-D to 1.9-D, it become important at an irrational social level, because it was given a higher social prestige value.

 

Our political process is based on the prestige affect. It is most obvious in that the higher one goes in the system the more subjective enhancement they have, even if they are not qualified for the job. The election process is not fully rational since it usually comes down to mudslinging in the attempt to lower their opponent’s prestige value. A rational person would not care about light mud stains as long as they get job done and do it well. But an irrational person is stuck making their assessment at less than 2-D where prestige created or loss is the basis for their decisions.

 

Dogma is also based on prestige at less than 2-D. It is not rational and often is not allowed to be subject to reason. Its position or social influenced is based on its prestige value staying close to 2-D. There appears to be a discontinuity between prestige and rational, although both often work together being a combination of the two. For example the theory of the earth’s iron core is has conceptual problems at the rational level, that makes it less than certain, but it retains its position in rational science due to its prestige.

 

At 2-D, the prestige circle expands into the infinite plane of cause and affect. It is infinite in the sense that there are endless casual relationships in nature, no longer limited by the restrictions of prestige and dogma, both of which narrow the thinking field. As one goes faster than 2-D, this is analogous to making a rational drawing on the plane. The curved lines on the drawing are often subtle shades of word meaning.

 

At 2.5-D, which is the upper limit of cause and affect, one can make a 3-D image. These look 3-D to the eyes, but are really drawn of a 2-D plane, to create an image of 3-D, due to shadowing and/or highlighting. For example, both political parties can draw spatial images, which sell their orientations as being the best path for the nation. Yet the reality is that they both have good and bad points. The 3-D depth of their images is primarily due to the shadowing caused by the denial of truth in the other’s point of view. It is sort of half irrational and half rational. The shadowing is often connected to an overlap of the prestige affect to help create an illusion of depth.

 

Thought dimensions higher that 2.5-D essentially convert denial of truth into depth of understanding. I call these intuitive relief drawings in that they begin to gain actual depth or an intuitive third dimension. For example, a moderate democrat or republican will try to learn the other side’s point of view and look for compromises. They attempt to take two almost opposite planes of logic, take away the shadowing, and then try to find unknown compromises in the middle, giving more depth to the truth in both sides. Ironically, such as these have lower prestige in the both parties even though they are taking the harder path of the higher thought dimension. This is logical in the sense that they lowered the prestige of the shadowing causing them to have less prestige.

 

As the intuitive relief drawings gain more and more depth they eventually reach 3-D to form a spatial of 3-D sculpture. This is cause, affect and integration of cause and affect. This is the memory range of the unconscious mind.

 

In my experience, higher is not necessarily better. These represent the range of the human mind. They are like the arms and legs of the mind, each having a specialize function. In the range of 2-D is best for science. Less than 2-D is the fun of life and relationships because anything is possible. Culture sets the hierarchy of value. The 2.5-D is useful, shadowing and all, because it provides a rational basis for beginning to define 3-D. The prestige becomes that something else or third dimension. Higher than 2.5-D is what makes us creative and allows us to find compromises.

 

One may notice that both less than 2-D and greater that 2.5-D are both irrational. Although both are irrational, the range greater than 2.5-D can slow down into the rational, whereas less than 2-D hits the 2-D discontinuity of the infinite plane of logic. The scientific method treats both the same, which is unfortunate. That is probably due to the difficulty in knowing which is which at a rational level. The key has to do with the prestige affect. Those working higher than 2.5-D often remove all the prestige affect making them lowly and less entertaining. Einstein never looked for fame and fortune because he needed to stay above the shadowing to do his difficult work.

[Connor]

so what sort of predictions does your theory make?

[sunspot]

It is a correlation of various types of thought using a geometric analogy. What kind of prediction would you like? For example, below and above 2-D show prestige and logic. These can often occur together. Most people are not aware that just because the consensus says it is so does not make it rational. Often the irrational is taken as a logical starting point. If the extrapolation from there is good logic, all the conclusions will logically follow and will also be assumed true. However, with the starting premise irrational, even at any level, the conclusion will also be propagating some of the irrational even though they are logically consistent.

 

For example, one of the assumptions before Columbus was that the world was flat. If one assumes this is true, than there must be an edge to the world since one can see the horizon. Either the edge must be dammed up or has a major water fall or both. If one goes to the edge one will fall off. As such, anyone who attempts to find the edge must either be crazy or suicidal. The logic was good, but based on an erroneous starting premise. This starting premise was maintained because of its prestige in religion, creating the illusion that the logic was also true. Some of modern science does the same thing. The Big Bang Theoyr has conceptual problems but is maintained due to its prestige, such that science continues to do some very good science based on the prestige of this fuzzy starting premise.

 

Another example is statistical studies. This fuzzy data allows even opposing theories to exist side by side. Both can not be true. As such if one is truth and the other is false, why is the other still called science if it is an illusion? For example, if the speed of light was 186,000 mi/sec plus or minus 10%. It could not be used in solid math. It would mean that the speed of light could be exceeded in a random fashion. This would lead to all kinds of fantasies that would be called valid science if they obey the laws of logic. Fortuneately, we know it is 1-D and are therefore much more confident in the conclusions.

[sunspot]

The thought dimension range, from 1-D to 3-D, represents various types of memory organization within the cerebral matter. They appear to overlap everywhere within the cerebral matter, although the left hemisphere is more rational or 2-D and the right hemisphere is more 3-D. The memory was traditionally called the soul. I use this ancient terminology because, although the ancient mind often projected the soul into nature, they seemed well aware of how it was organized. I use their nomenclature out of respect for their observations.

 

In tradition, the soul is static and given life by spirits. The spirits represent the thought dimensional range from 0-D to 1-D and from 3-D to 4-D. The 1-D thoughts are infinite lines of memory. These are our memories that remain continuously, such as letters of an alphabet. Thought dimension less that 1-D represent finite lines of thought that last only a finite duration of time. The finite lines of instinctive memory or the instinctive potentials begin at 0.5-D and almost reach 1-D. They are separated from 1-D by a discontinuity.

 

At 0.5-D is the life threatening fear associated with fight/flight. This finite line of instinctive memory lasts about 10-20 seconds. After that the animal was caught or escaped. During this finite line of 0.5-D memory, the whole body and mind is integrated for the needs of survival. Slightly below 1-D, is the finite line of memory called sleep/rest and lasts about 8 hours. This longer finite line of instinctive memory integrates the body and the mind for the needs of the body and mind that are addressed during sleep.

 

Between rest and fear is desire at about 0.75-D. Between desire and rest is sexual desire. And between sexual desire and rest is love. Between fear and desire is hate. Between hate and desire is hunger/thirst. Hunger is desire/ hate in that one must can kill or destroy (chew) that which was originally desired. Love/hate relationships are sometimes aberrations of the hunger potential. The range from 0.5-D to almost 1-D, is traditionally referred to as the animal spirits. These animate the soul with instinctive potentials.

 

When memory is created within the limbic system the memory will be given an association with an instinctive potential. For example, if one is hungry and eat a new food they like that food will have an hunger potential tagged onto it. The way the animal spirits work is when one of these finite lines of memory is induced, within the center of the brain, changes will occur within the blood and/or within the cerebral spinal fluid. This will cause all the neurons to alter their firing rates, shifting the conscious memory grid toward the memories that were created/associated at that particular potential. When the finite line of instinctive memory ends, the body gradually cleans out the blood and/or the CSF, shifting the firing rate of the neurons and the conscious memory grid. For example, an animal might be induced with instinctive fear of a predator. After fight/flight, the animal will often remain agitated for a little while until the blood clears the adrenaline. Typically, another finite line of instinctive potential will occur connected to thirst and/or for rest, each with its cerebral memory grid becoming conscious for that potential.

 

Often the hunger of grazing animals appears constant. It is actually part of a feedback loop that will replay the finite hunger potential, periodically, until there is feedback that they are full. This will shut off the replay button. A lion will gorge during the hunger potential and will continue to eat beyond the feedback of being full. This is due to the hunger memory needing to play until is ends. The feedback will not start another loop if the lion is stuffed.

 

Since the 1-D line of memory is infinite, a 0-D line will be a point or an instant. This would be analogous to something infinitely fast such as the Big Bang. As we go higher that 0-D, this would imply nuclear type vibrations, and then chemical transitions, until at 0.25-D we enter the realm of biochemical transitions. The memory range from about 0.25-D to 0.5-D, is associated with biochemical processes.

 

The range from 3-D to 4-D represent time projections of 3-D memory and begin at about 16 hours or the amount of wake time in a normal day. Time projection is essentially the 3-D memory being extrapolated to the future. The unconscious will time project to the future and then replays back how it got there and tries to reorganize the present to help optimize the needs of the future. It is sort of like planning a vacation where one looks at the optimum vacation, trying to do everything. Next, one goes back and sees what is practical in the time and money limitations, and then attempts to set up a schedule to assure the most vacation utility. Like in real life, things always come up along the vacation, requiring one adjust their plans around constantly appearing/changing contingencies. The unconscious cycles between time projection and replay optimization.

 

Time projection to 3.5-D would represent a lifetime time projection to physical death. One may notice that the fear of death, fight/flight at 0.5-D, is sort of analogous to 3.5-D. These represent the outer limits of ego consciousness. Beyond 3.5-D would represent time projections that help evolve a species, with the range below 0.5-D being the biochemical changes associated with the same evolution. We often call this relationship selective evolution, but in this case the conscious adjustment will appear first via an unconscious time projection helping the future of the species. This is the other side of the DNA mutation coin, associated with improved behavior that passes forward within a species through learning. For example, Einstein relativity outlived him and became a seed of thought that has advanced the way that humans view the universe. The biochemical change might be the rewiring of the mind, through education, which alters that way we see things.

 

As the time projections approach 4-D, these would be time projections to eternity. The role that religion has played, and still plays, is anancient intuition that the unconscious can time project to infinity. Knowing what the ego knows or has programmed into the cerebral memory sets a limit and the type of extrapolation that can occur. This may be where the concept of God fits in and why the concept continues to evolve with time and culture. The range from 3-D to 4-D has been traditional called Divine spirits. There appears to be a discontinuity at 4-D. This is the discontinuity between science and religion.

[ashennell]

Thought Dimensionality Theory was invented about 15 years ago.

 

Can you provide some evidence of it's existence? All I get from googling is your posts in various forums and other unrelated stuff.

 

A 1D hyperlink to a 2D webpage would be suffcient.

[sunspot]

Like I said, I invented it about 15 years ago and never published it. It was too different to be acceptable by anyone I contacted, back then. One of the problems is that it is so compact, yet says the same things normally requiring a whole book. If fact, all major orientations are subsets of this theory. Maybe its simplicity means it is closer to the truth rather than other theories that are still trying to rationalize intuitions.

 

Because it was so compact and not wordy enough for a book, I would often attempt to extrapolate from this foundation using the knowledge I had gained from my unconscious research. This would lose my audience because I was trying to discuss pioneering research. It was only published here on this forum, and one other.

 

The way I used it during my research was that when an unconscious phenomena became time projected I would try to plot it at higher than 3-D based on its time scale. Based on that position, I would then notice its primary output between 1-D and 3-D. Most of the earliest stuff was outputting at less much less 2-D. Often two or more time projections would happen simultaneously, less than 2-D and higher than 2-D. These were creative times where I was also very irrational. It gave me a way to separate the things.

 

Creativity is often manic depressive. One goes into a creative brooding state. Often one tries to fight the depression or whatever. But after a while I began to recognize the cycle and would let it play. Shortly after I would go into a manic cycle of creative energy. After a while I could time the creative cycle and accept both as part of the whole. Not willingly accept the dark part of the cycle but learned to live with it until I realized it was a creative brood. The longest broods created my best theories but were the most unbearable. Bit the up cycle were the best of times. It made me feel like I was running on all cylinders. Often much of that was irrational inflation that drove me on. In retropsect, some time cycles lasted years with subcycles at the same time.

[ashennell]

Like I said, I invented it about 15 years ago and never published it.

 

You have been working on this for 15 years?

 

Surely there must have been one moment of clarity in these last 15 years where you sat down and realised that 'this is all nonsense'?

 

Your posts are pretty much undecipherable. You don't seem to appriciate this as your response to requests of clarification have been more posts that are even less clear. This tells me all I need to know about your grand theory.

[sunspot]

My problem is that, after the theory was developed, way back when, and it was clear in my mind and I could explain it to others, because I knowledgeable of the times, there were no takers. Nobody gave me any good rational reasons why it could not be so, so I assumed that there was nothing physically wrong with it, because it was only subjective criticism, which has little value in science. It is important to politics. So rather than just sit ideal, I began to extrapolate from there.

 

At this point in time, I forget others have little background. I am trying to retrace my steps back to the beginning. I am having a little problem because of the same types of subjective criticism. It makes it hard for me to know what I need to do to create a meeting of the minds. So I present it from many angles. A new angle I would like to present will be the topic of a new forum. It begins with neurons and shows how the brain also acts like a large neuron. This helps define hierarchy.

[krstlmthd]

sunspot that is scary because it is a lot like my theory of the universe

 

i like to think of consciousness the same way like we are all hooked to one big multidimensional geometric structure that i call the ASTRAL PLAIN where all of our thoughts intersect

[krstlmthd]

i also want to say that i have been working on my theory for a long time too but not really 15 years probably more like 5

[sunspot]

It is hard for me to just work on one theory, because it gets boring. So to make better use of my time, I would jump to extirely different fields of thought, ie., from psychology, to chemistry, to politics, to biology, to physics, etc.. This would put one on the backburner and give me fresh energy and eyes for the new project. When a backburner one is brought to the front, I would always begin from scratch, and often come to better understanding. I would reinvent the wheel each cycle. My ideas are not carved in stone but are more like clay that is cyclically remolded. This is good for creative progression but harder for practical reality. Most people respond better to half baked ideas marketed as the final say. Most people are mostly below 2-D and this makes them happy.

 

If I got to pigeonholed down a narrow path, I would take a few days off, exercise and maybe even get a good drunk going to help scramble my brain. When my mind got back to normal, I could become more objective to myself. It is easy to form a closed loop, that becomes self forfilling. Brain scramble is sometines helpful to be objective to one's creations.

 

The place where thoughts overlap is through education. It creates birds of a feather or people of like or siimlar mindset. Someone who did not learn what you learned either externally or internally, is on a different mental plain. These are the many projected dimension of physics.

[ashennell]

Heres an idea sunspot...

 

You obviously have a lot of mental energy that needs to be directed somewhere. So choose a topic, a broad topic, in some area that you are interested. Something like philosophy of the mind or memory and write a review of the that topic. Include nothing of your own work or ideas, just what other people have written. If you feel necessary you could provide a critical analysis of why their work is insuffcient but don't add any extra explanation of your own. Why?

 

- If your review is based on current scientific knowledge then at least other people will be in a position to evaluate your review if it.

 

- If you can do this and have the result understood by others then you can be assured that you are at least thinking rationally and have a sense that your own ideas could be underatood if you expressed the correctly, maybe it would help you express them.

 

- It would give you an in depth understanding of the field that you chose to review and perhaps some new insights.

 

I dont say this to be nasty but given that most people seem to find your posts incomprehensible it could be a good focus for you. If you can't summarise a topic then why would we expect you to provide a new interpretation of it.