We live within impressions, not reality

I've been writing a piece about 'Ideology', related to my work in political thought forms.  This has led me to the various different ways in which we perceive the world.

It's become apparent that we shape ideas according to the tiny portion of reality that we perceive.  Yes, what we can real life, or RL, is just a tiny part of what nature allows us to view, through tiny windows we call senses: eyes (which perceive light waves), ears (which perceive audio waves), touch, smell and taste.  Imagine a world in which there is so much more out there, but we can't know because nature hasn't given us the equipment to know or perceive.

We have to look for impressions.  We don't even know about perceptions, save that we intuit them from our experience.  Nor do we know about experience, save that we have Impressions.  Our very self-awareness is made up of serial impressions, scenes, going from moment to moment, hour to hour, day to day, and so forth.  That's why--as I repeatedly quote from John Dewey (How We Think (1901))--that we live not in a world of reason, but in a world of scripts and stereotypes.  Simply put, reason isn't an impression, but scripts and stereotypes are.  The great impressionists that lived in the world of European/American art during the late 19th-century, were simply exploring the creative/visual side of this.

How does this relate to politics and political argument?  Well, we shape our ideas by our experiences...and more down in detail, we shape them by the impressions we feel as we experience them.  So, the world is a combination of the inside (of us) and the outside (the world), and so-called RL is the product of this.  So we're not all the same, and we're not all different, but we have a commonality in which we differ.  We have different ideologies within a gestalt that we think is real. That's--writ large--how we come to differ politically.

Sup on this for a while, and I'll return, I promise.  Meanwhile, here's a clip on ideology...yes, I know it's quantum physics, but what do you think ideology is, but our impressions of how and why it is. Think of this clip as a tool for wrapping your minds around ideology.

Calabi-Yau: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtaAM84Kt2I

Before I go any further, can you expand simply, upon this:

"--that we live not in a world of reason, but in a world of scripts and stereotypes.  Simply put, reason isn't an impression, but scripts and stereotypes are."


And thanks for doing the thread!

eddie wrote:Before I go any further, can you expand simply, upon this:

"--that we live not in a world of reason, but in a world of scripts and stereotypes.  Simply put, reason isn't an impression, but scripts and stereotypes are."

And thanks for doing the thread!

Yes, that's from John Dewey, who is described as the father of psychology.  He wrote a book that is a classic, called How We Think, right at the close of the 19th-century.

https://archive.org/details/howwethink000838mbp 

Remember, this was at the close of the so-called Age of Reason, a prior age when we expected that all cerebral activity was little packages of thought, which we could play with like we build a wall with bricks.  Dewey pointed out that we don't encounter the world as neat little packages, but as a kind of flow of (I think of as) magma, which we make sense of by writing within ourselves little vignettes Dewey calls scripts and stereotypes.  I guess what he means is, situations and personality types.

So, for example, we don't think of women's liberation as little packages of reason, to be built built like a wall, but as living, feeling experience...like say, OJ Simpson beating his wife, or the rape of a woman in a back alley....we live and feel these things as scripts and stereotypes.  At least that's how I take Dewey to mean.

But it's not an original idea of mine, except in the way I describe and think of it.  I only say that Dewey's theory is part and parcel (fits) of my theory of ideology as impression.

I have to digest and think about that. It's very interesting though.

I've been thinking about this on and off tonight and I can only come to the conclusion that if we experience everything as script and stereotype or "experience", isn't that why the "truth" is so very different for all of us?
Which means there isn't a universal truth at all, just personal ones..?

Not so sure about that. I've had dreams about places that don't exist on this planet, or that I've ever seen or experienced in this 'real life'. I haven't a clue where this all comes from but it sure isn't from my memory.

And then there's that side to it which I haven't even mentioned yet....

Without knowing whether the universe exists outwith our individual experience of it I'm not clear whether the concept of "universal truth" has meaning.

Ziz wrote:Without knowing whether the universe exists outwith our individual experience of it I'm not clear whether the concept of "universal truth" has meaning.

universal truth = mathematics
That's my preferred theory anyway


regardless of what the organism call/interprets it
2 objects will always be 2 objects
if you add another object it will always be 3 objects

All Math can be broken down to binary addition
in fact that is the only thing a computer can actually do
the rest is the work of the programmers

veya_victaous wrote:

Ziz wrote:Without knowing whether the universe exists outwith our individual experience of it I'm not clear whether the concept of "universal truth" has meaning.

universal truth = mathematics
That's my preferred theory anyway


regardless of what the organism call/interprets it
2 objects will always be 2 objects
if you add another object it will always be 3 objects

All Math can be broken down to binary addition
in fact that is the only thing a computer can actually do
the rest is the work of the programmers

That's the nearest sensible "truth" that I can get to too. - but even that is somehow unsatisfactory. Unsensibly, the universe exists outside myself only because I have agreed (with what I do not know) that that is the way it is - but when I'm gone all that I am, and all that it is, is gone too.

eddie wrote:I've been thinking about this on and off tonight and I can only come to the conclusion that if we experience everything as script and stereotype or "experience", isn't that why the "truth" is so very different for all of us?
Which means there isn't a universal truth at all, just personal ones..?

You're right, and that may be a flaw in the way nature designed us; on the other hand, it may be that Reason actually truncates things, so that our scripts and stereotypes actually take in much more data...or, are more close to our impressions and experience.

I think Dewey teaches us that reason is a reduction of the world to straight lines, and sharp corners--which do not exist in reality--so that we may intellectually manage the problems.  We take the 'magma' of reality and stretch it until we can see the logic of it (if that helps).  Thus we reduce reality to simple terms, so that we can ferret out the 'justice' and 'equality' and 'beauty' of (at least) the thought behind it.  

That's why veya's love of math is so poignant: math is pure reason.  The whole of math is a construct that does not exist in nature, but it is a grid of logic that we may impose on nature to understand it.  Likewise, we impose it on our issues and problems so that we understand those as well.  If it the math works, we say, we have found the answer.  Go back to the clip and listen to what the narrator says about ridding the "anomalies" of string theory in the course of the development of the idea.  He even uses math in his example.

Pure reason (and math) is nothing more that pure logic in intellectual form: a thing cannot both be and not be, at the same time.  Neither reason nor math exist in reality, but logic does.  Both reason and math are intellectual tools to find the logic in any given reality.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I've been thinking about this on and off tonight and I can only come to the conclusion that if we experience everything as script and stereotype or "experience", isn't that why the "truth" is so very different for all of us?
Which means there isn't a universal truth at all, just personal ones..?

You're right, and that may be a flaw in the way nature designed us; on the other hand, it may be that Reason actually truncates things, so that our scripts and stereotypes actually take in much more data...or, are more close to our impressions and experience.

I think Dewey teaches us that reason is a reduction of the world to straight lines, and sharp corners--which do not exist in reality--so that we may intellectually manage the problems.  We take the 'magma' of reality and stretch it until we can see the logic of it (if that helps).  Thus we reduce reality to simple terms, so that we can ferret out the 'justice' and 'equality' and 'beauty' of (at least) the thought behind it.  

That's why veya's love of math is so poignant: math is pure reason.  The whole of math is a construct that does not exist in nature, but it is a grid of logic that we may impose on nature to understand it.  Likewise, we impose it on our issues and problems so that we understand those as well.  If it the math works, we say, we have found the answer.  Go back to the clip and listen to what the narrator says about ridding the "anomalies" of string theory in the course of the development of the idea.  He even uses math in his example.

Pure reason (and math) is nothing more that pure logic in intellectual form: a thing cannot both be and not be, at the same time.  Neither reason nor math exist in reality, but logic does.  Both reason and math are intellectual tools to find the logic in any given reality.

Thanks for the YT links, Quill. Those lecturers know their stuff and are good communicators.
For humans the world is strictly 3 dimensional. Mentally we can stretch reality and picture a 4th dimension ... even a 5th, at a push ... then definitely we hit a wall or at least I do.
When the brain becomes capable of understanding higher dimensions it will understand strings and 'branes better.

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're right, and that may be a flaw in the way nature designed us; on the other hand, it may be that Reason actually truncates things, so that our scripts and stereotypes actually take in much more data...or, are more close to our impressions and experience.

I think Dewey teaches us that reason is a reduction of the world to straight lines, and sharp corners--which do not exist in reality--so that we may intellectually manage the problems.  We take the 'magma' of reality and stretch it until we can see the logic of it (if that helps).  Thus we reduce reality to simple terms, so that we can ferret out the 'justice' and 'equality' and 'beauty' of (at least) the thought behind it.  

That's why veya's love of math is so poignant: math is pure reason.  The whole of math is a construct that does not exist in nature, but it is a grid of logic that we may impose on nature to understand it.  Likewise, we impose it on our issues and problems so that we understand those as well.  If it the math works, we say, we have found the answer.  Go back to the clip and listen to what the narrator says about ridding the "anomalies" of string theory in the course of the development of the idea.  He even uses math in his example.

Pure reason (and math) is nothing more that pure logic in intellectual form: a thing cannot both be and not be, at the same time.  Neither reason nor math exist in reality, but logic does.  Both reason and math are intellectual tools to find the logic in any given reality.

Thanks for the YT links, Quill. Those lecturers know their stuff and are good communicators.
For humans the world is strictly 3 dimensional. Mentally we can stretch reality and picture a 4th dimension ... even a 5th, at a push ... then definitely we hit a wall or at least I do.
When the brain becomes capable of understanding higher dimensions it will understand strings and 'branes better.

I think once you understand that we are limited by our senses, but that there are many more dimensions out there, you can appreciate it in the abstract.

For example, I used to have trouble with time as a dimension, because it seemed only to go one way.  Then someone pointed out to me that the other way may lead into a dimension that is imperceptible to us--say, it's too small or nature hasn't given us the tools to detect it--so it's not missing, just yonder where you can't see it (I use the reference to vision only analogously, because it is our most impressionable sense).  

Another example is gravity...why is gravity so weak?  Your refrigerator door magnet shows you the relative strength between electromagnetism and gravity...a tiny magnet defeats the gravitational force of the entire earth.  Some argue that gravitons are so weak because they are a force from another universe (assuming M-theory, that there are other universes).

I think the one thing we may say--which is all I try to say here--is that we have absolutely no grasp on reality.  We only have the impressions, derived from sensory input, itself so utterly limited. In other words, we are only intimate with our impressions.

Yes the time thing, I've heard you say that before and I find that freaks me out...it must go back if it goes forward and yet it only exists within this second?

My post is already in the past.

eddie wrote:Yes the time thing, I've heard you say that before and I find that freaks me out...it must go back if it goes forward and yet it only exists within this second?

My post is already in the past.

Unless there is another, or other dimensions, into which the past goes so that we cannot retrieve it.  Think about how many facets to reality there are, that we don't perceive because nature doesn't give us the perceiving device (vision, hearing, smell, taste or feeling).  We know, for example, that sharks have a perception device in their nose that permits them to sense motion from miles away; we don't have that, so we would never know (were it not from indirect study).

Your post is in the past, but you leave a trace of it in electronic storage.  Otherwise, we would have no awareness of it save memory.  And what is memory?  Another sense?  Is memory another way of saying self-awareness?

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:

Thanks for the YT links, Quill. Those lecturers know their stuff and are good communicators.
For humans the world is strictly 3 dimensional. Mentally we can stretch reality and picture a 4th dimension ... even a 5th, at a push ... then definitely we hit a wall or at least I do.
When the brain becomes capable of understanding higher dimensions it will understand strings and 'branes better.

I think once you understand that we are limited by our senses, but that there are many more dimensions out there, you can appreciate it in the abstract.

For example, I used to have trouble with time as a dimension, because it seemed only to go one way.  Then someone pointed out to me that the other way may lead into a dimension that is imperceptible to us--say, it's too small or nature hasn't given us the tools to detect it--so it's not missing, just yonder where you can't see it (I use the reference to vision only analogously, because it is our most impressionable sense).  

Another example is gravity...why is gravity so weak?  Your refrigerator door magnet shows you the relative strength between electromagnetism and gravity...a tiny magnet defeats the gravitational force of the entire earth.  Some argue that gravitons are so weak because they are a force from another universe (assuming M-theory, that there are other universes).

I think the one thing we may say--which is all I try to say here--is that we have absolutely no grasp on reality.  We only have the impressions, derived from sensory input, itself so utterly limited.  In other words, we are only intimate with our impressions.

True and it's worth remembering that we don't just have the 5 senses, we have many more,  the total number runs into double figures.  Alas for the vast majority of people, these numerous senses  are still not enough to detect other dimensions.  Aside from the 5 classic ones we all have sensory tools which also help us detect temperature, pressure, proprioception, spatial awareness, vibrations, and several more.  

Now, certain gifted individuals may have extra senses (or tools as you call them) which enable them to perceive other dimensions and pick up things around them that other people simply can't. I'm not too sure it's a lucky thing to have such a gift - it sounds a bit spooky.

I have very psychic senses. I can read people almost exceedingly well and will pick up a trillion vibrations in a room of people.

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think once you understand that we are limited by our senses, but that there are many more dimensions out there, you can appreciate it in the abstract.

For example, I used to have trouble with time as a dimension, because it seemed only to go one way.  Then someone pointed out to me that the other way may lead into a dimension that is imperceptible to us--say, it's too small or nature hasn't given us the tools to detect it--so it's not missing, just yonder where you can't see it (I use the reference to vision only analogously, because it is our most impressionable sense).  

Another example is gravity...why is gravity so weak?  Your refrigerator door magnet shows you the relative strength between electromagnetism and gravity...a tiny magnet defeats the gravitational force of the entire earth.  Some argue that gravitons are so weak because they are a force from another universe (assuming M-theory, that there are other universes).

I think the one thing we may say--which is all I try to say here--is that we have absolutely no grasp on reality.  We only have the impressions, derived from sensory input, itself so utterly limited.  In other words, we are only intimate with our impressions.

True and it's worth remembering that we don't just have the 5 senses, we have many more,  the total number runs into double figures.  Alas for the vast majority of people, these numerous senses  are still not enough to detect other dimensions.  Aside from the 5 classic ones we all have sensory tools which also help us detect temperature, pressure, proprioception, spatial awareness, vibrations, and several more.  

Now, certain gifted individuals may have extra senses (or tools as you call them) which enable them to perceive other dimensions and pick up things around them that other people simply can't. I'm not too sure it's a lucky thing to have such a gift - it sounds a bit spooky.

Yes, parapsychology.

We know that the human being is an evolving organism.  How did we develop our 5 senses?  We evolved to them.  Who's to say we are not evolving to other sensory tools as we speak?  I noted the sharks ability to detect motions in the water miles away.

The mind is electronically active.  Could we be developing wi-fi capabilities as we speak?  Would we call that a form of extra-sensory perception?  Would telepathic communication be such a surprise?  This is why I don't think eddie's delving into weirdness and conspiracies is overreaching.

I also have to wonder about death.  Who says everything stops?  Hey...it could be just more travelling along some dimension.  I know positivism says you have to prove a positive before you can disprove a negative, but we don't even have proof of the negativity (of cessation of life).  In other words, we don't know what is posited.

eddie wrote:I have very psychic senses. I can read people almost exceedingly well and will pick up a trillion vibrations in a room of people.

I do too.  Both my sister and I are highly attuned to moods and intuitions of other people.  We often discuss it, though we can't in the company of, say, her husband...or his sister, whom I dated for some time.

Both her husband and his sister are among those people who are very talented and competent, careful, proficient (he's a lawyer, she's an MBA), and detailed...but they lack a certain intuitiveness about other people.  We often roll our eyes at some episode, event or other, where one or the other didn't recognize what was going on.  

After a while you begin to recognize those who have it and those who do not....and whassup with that?  How do you intuitively recognize one another? It doesn't hit you or they don't tell you (unless it's the topic of discussion)...yet suddenly you are speaking in a language--a level of awareness, assumptions, where you know what each other is talking about.

Some people have depth in that quality, and some are just a white drywall.  Is there something going on?  There has to be...but what?

HoratioTarr wrote:Not so sure about that.   I've had dreams about places that don't exist on this planet, or that I've ever seen or experienced in this 'real life'.  I haven't a clue where this all comes from but it sure isn't from my memory.

Creativity, I think the analysis under plays the potential of the mind for original thought

Although when we do think of other planets, we consider then like our own in terms of solid with atmosphere
we find it much harder to imagine them as gas giants planets like Jupiter.

So there is some truth to the idea that our mind still creates things that conform to our experiences

When I dream, I generally have some very familiar settings that come to light, in which to dream: Berkeley, New Brunswick, Manhattan, certain intersections in San Francisco, and for some reason, Edinburgh.  They are all familiar places, that I can recognize and relate to.

Occasionally, there are certain settings with which I have no familiarity whatsoever.  Sometimes it comes to me later: the Penn RR Station in Philadelphia.  Other times...nada.  It's like beyond original thought...it's spontaneous generation of the setting.

Don't know what that is.  Is it just memory, too remote to identify?  Or is it something out of mind altogether?

I thought that Dreams are the product of our daily concerns played out in an abstract form as they trigger the function of predetermined synapses!

scrat wrote:I thought that Dreams are the product of our daily concerns played out in an abstract form as they trigger the function of predetermined synapses!

Like those other seven dimensions that the particle theorists talk about, I don't think we know enough about them to understand, nor has nature given us adequate equipment to discover them. I think theories about what dreams mean are premature.

But, you know, it doesn't hurt to speculate. But that kind of speculation also led us into religion, a dead-end if there ever was one. As long as we keep in mind that truth is always corrigible.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:I thought that Dreams are the product of our daily concerns played out in an abstract form as they trigger the function of predetermined synapses!

Like those other seven dimensions that the particle theorists talk about, I don't think we know enough about them to understand, nor has nature given us adequate equipment to discover them.  I think theories about what dreams mean are premature.

But, you know, it doesn't hurt to speculate.  But that kind of speculation also led us into religion, a dead-end if there ever was one.  As long as we keep in mind that truth is always corrigible.

I thought the Calabi-Yau manifold would interest you, problem is it's all speculative, even time the fourth dimension is hard to get our heads around, we can still only relate to three dimensional space, perhaps our brains have the capacity for several dimensional constructs, as yet we do not!

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Like those other seven dimensions that the particle theorists talk about, I don't think we know enough about them to understand, nor has nature given us adequate equipment to discover them.  I think theories about what dreams mean are premature.

But, you know, it doesn't hurt to speculate.  But that kind of speculation also led us into religion, a dead-end if there ever was one.  As long as we keep in mind that truth is always corrigible.

I thought the Calabi-Yau manifold would interest you, problem is it's all speculative, even time the fourth dimension is hard to get our heads around, we can still only relate to three dimensional space, perhaps our brains have the capacity for several dimensional constructs, as yet we do not!

Wow! Yes, that clip and the one above were eye-openers. Fascinating stuff...I'm still digesting it.

scrat wrote:I thought that Dreams are the product of our daily concerns played out in an abstract form as they trigger the function of predetermined synapses!

A clinical psychologist friend of mine and me used to have furious rows about dreams (well, and the existence of creator beings, but that's for another time). He contends that dreams are akin to mental movies purposefully assembled by the mind which gives clues to our psychological state. I contend that dreams are merely the exposed (to our conscious self) product of the brain's filing system and any causality or narrative within the exposure is an illusion. The value of dreams, if there is any, is the psychological implications of what our conscious self assembles from the exposure (the dream) - in other words, the narrative we impose upon it during recall. In this respect we are "presenting", in the medical sense, to ourselves.

Ziz wrote:A clinical psychologist friend of mine and me used to have furious rows about dreams (well, and the existence of creator beings, but that's for another time). He contends that dreams are akin to mental movies purposefully assembled by the mind which gives clues to our psychological state. I contend that dreams are merely the exposed (to our conscious self) product of the brain's filing system and any causality or narrative within the exposure is an illusion. The value of dreams, if there is any, is the psychological implications of what our conscious self assembles from the exposure (the dream) - in other words, the narrative we impose upon it during recall. In this respect we are "presenting", in the medical sense, to ourselves.

Note that both of you--you and your clinical psychologist friend--are using metaphors based upon some prior experience.  He is likening them to movies; you to a filing system.  I'm not sure there is a real difference between the two of you--except of course, the adjective used--but in any case both theories rely upon experience.

The Calabi-Yau manifold that scrat and I were just talking about brings up the possibility of metaphors (if you will) that are non-experiential.  My recounting of dreams and images not within my memory suggests a thought coming to me (or anyone) by something other than experience.  In that case, there must be another dimension, another channel of communication, and...I'm not sure...but maybe it presupposes telepathic communication with another being, not present or before us.

A manifold is a a pipe or chamber branching into several openings.  If you are familiar with auto mechanics, you understand instantly.  It's an apt metaphor to describe multi-dimensional existence.  We are familiar with three, perhaps four dimensions if you buy Einstein's theory of space and time.  But suppose we live on/in a manifold where there are other portals, either that we cannot perceive or have not yet explored.  

For example, I was wondering if time is a dimension, where does the past go?  The other dimensions have two directions, right...up/down, back/forth, left/right, but time seems to only go one way.  What scrat was suggesting by bringing up the Calabi-Yau manifold, was that the other side of time goes down a portal yet to be explored...or perhaps discovered.

Ok, get off that example and back to dreams.  Where do dreams come from, and where do they go?  If the universe is a manifold, or a series of manifolds, some dreams might come from other places we haven't experienced yet.

Ziz wrote:

scrat wrote:I thought that Dreams are the product of our daily concerns played out in an abstract form as they trigger the function of predetermined synapses!

A clinical psychologist friend of mine and me used to have furious rows about dreams (well, and the existence of creator beings, but that's for another time). He contends that dreams are akin to mental movies purposefully assembled by the mind which gives clues to our psychological state. I contend that dreams are merely the exposed (to our conscious self) product of the brain's filing system and any causality or narrative within the exposure is an illusion. The value of dreams, if there is any, is the psychological implications of what our conscious self assembles from the exposure (the dream) - in other words, the narrative we impose upon it during recall. In this respect we are "presenting", in the medical sense, to ourselves.

Hiya Ziz xxx
Dreams represent our subconscious coming to the fore, as you know.
I've no idea why some dreams are so scary.
Maybe we are forced to confront our demons when we slumber?
I wonder how that ties in with the fact that certain chemicals in foods such as cheese defo make dreams more scary.  

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:A clinical psychologist friend of mine and me used to have furious rows about dreams (well, and the existence of creator beings, but that's for another time). He contends that dreams are akin to mental movies purposefully assembled by the mind which gives clues to our psychological state. I contend that dreams are merely the exposed (to our conscious self) product of the brain's filing system and any causality or narrative within the exposure is an illusion. The value of dreams, if there is any, is the psychological implications of what our conscious self assembles from the exposure (the dream) - in other words, the narrative we impose upon it during recall. In this respect we are "presenting", in the medical sense, to ourselves.

Note that both of you--you and your clinical psychologist friend--are using metaphors based upon some prior experience.  He is likening them to movies; you to a filing system.  I'm not sure there is a real difference between the two of you--except of course, the adjective used--but in any case both theories rely upon experience.

The Calabi-Yau manifold that scrat and I were just talking about brings up the possibility of metaphors (if you will) that are non-experiential.  My recounting of dreams and images not within my memory suggests a thought coming to me (or anyone) by something other than experience.  In that case, there must be another dimension, another channel of communication, and...I'm not sure...but maybe it presupposes telepathic communication with another being, not present or before us.

A manifold is a a pipe or chamber branching into several openings.  If you are familiar with auto mechanics, you understand instantly.  It's an apt metaphor to describe multi-dimensional existence.  We are familiar with three, perhaps four dimensions if you buy Einstein's theory of space and time.  But suppose we live on/in a manifold where there are other portals, either that we cannot perceive or have not yet explored.  

For example, I was wondering if time is a dimension, where does the past go?  The other dimensions have two directions, right...up/down, back/forth, left/right, but time seems to only go one way.  What scrat was suggesting by bringing up the Calabi-Yau manifold, was that the other side of time goes down a portal yet to be explored...or perhaps discovered.

Ok, get off that example and back to dreams.  Where do dreams come from, and where do they go?  If the universe is a manifold, or a series of manifolds, some dreams might come from other places we haven't experienced yet.

The substantive difference between my friend and me is that he sees dreams as actual phenomena or processes produced by the brain for a purpose - to inform the dreamer. Whereas I see dreams as illusion assembled by the dreamer when in a waking state.

Clearly then I cannot support the notion of super-dimensional dreams since I doubt that dreams exist (in the narrative sense) at all.

As to dimensions, there are 3 known spatial dimensions (x,y & z) with the attributes you describe (left/right etc) and a single dimension of time. But Time too has attributes - before/now/next - the fact that we cannot travel back (or forward at will) does not mean that Time goes somewhere once the "now" is "realized". For fun let's consider a second dimension of time at (conceptually) right angles to the first (our's). A hypothetical being who inhabits this enhanced spacetime might well be able to see our time dimension from beginning to end - it glances one way to our past and the other to our future. From its perspective our time happens all at the same time. Cool things, dimensions.

Ziz wrote:The substantive difference between my friend and me is that he sees dreams as actual phenomena or process produced by the brain for a purpose - to inform the dreamer. Whereas I see dreams as illusion assembled by the dreamer when in a waking state.

Clearly then I cannot support the notion of super-dimensional dreams since I challenge the existence of dreams (in the narrative sense) at all.

Heaven knows what ancient, superstitious people made of this. Some religious texts (I include all religions here) are simply a subjective record of people's dreams. Called visions, and now we'd probably call it 'daydreaming').

Original Quill wrote:

I think once you understand that we are limited by our senses, but that there are many more dimensions out there,  . ...

Where would one draw the line regarding the number of dimensions out there??  If you can have 3 dimensions, you can have 30,  or 300, or 3 trillion. Similarly with parallel universes, there is no reason why you cannot have an infinite number of parallels universes in hyperspace.  
Like the man said  "the possibilities are endless."  Literally.

Jules wrote:

Ziz wrote:
A clinical psychologist friend of mine and me used to have furious rows about dreams (well, and the existence of creator beings, but that's for another time). He contends that dreams are akin to mental movies purposefully assembled by the mind which gives clues to our psychological state. I contend that dreams are merely the exposed (to our conscious self) product of the brain's filing system and any causality or narrative within the exposure is an illusion. The value of dreams, if there is any, is the psychological implications of what our conscious self assembles from the exposure (the dream) - in other words, the narrative we impose upon it during recall. In this respect we are "presenting", in the medical sense, to ourselves.

Hiya Ziz xxx
Dreams represent our subconscious coming to the fore, as you know.
I've no idea why some dreams are so scary.
Maybe we are forced to confront our demons when we slumber?
I wonder how that ties in with the fact that certain chemicals in foods such as cheese defo make dreams more scary.  

I think Jung suggested that the casting of the yarrow stalks (the act of divination) somehow represented or reflected our revealed subconscious - in much the same way as the hexagram which results is in some way a representation of the universe's "state of being" frozen at that moment. The constructed narrative of dreams could be said to be revelation also.

My friend and me don't disagree that our hidden selves are revealed through dreams - simply whether dreams are "real" or constructions.

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think once you understand that we are limited by our senses, but that there are many more dimensions out there,  . ...

Where would one draw the line regarding the number of dimensions out there??  If you can have 3 dimensions, you can have 30,  or 300, or 3 trillion. Similarly with parallel universes, there is no reason why you cannot have an infinite number of parallels universes in hyperspace.  
Like the man said  "the possibilities are endless."  Literally.

Never been one for infinite parallel universes myself, there's just something that feels inefficient about it.
I much prefer the notion of infinite probabilities of which only one is "realized" at any given moment.

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think once you understand that we are limited by our senses, but that there are many more dimensions out there,  . ...

Where would one draw the line regarding the number of dimensions out there??  If you can have 3 dimensions, you can have 30,  or 300, or 3 trillion. Similarly with parallel universes, there is no reason why you cannot have an infinite number of parallels universes in hyperspace.  
Like the man said  "the possibilities are endless."  Literally.

Under string theory, the math works precisely with eleven dimensions. Now there can be an infinite number of strings, or what ever you want to call them. The suggestion of M-theory is that the so-called strings can be as small as the smallest particle, or can be as large as the universe.

Ziz wrote:

scrat wrote:I thought that Dreams are the product of our daily concerns played out in an abstract form as they trigger the function of predetermined synapses!

A clinical psychologist friend of mine and me used to have furious rows about dreams (well, and the existence of creator beings, but that's for another time). He contends that dreams are akin to mental movies purposefully assembled by the mind which gives clues to our psychological state. I contend that dreams are merely the exposed (to our conscious self) product of the brain's filing system and any causality or narrative within the exposure is an illusion. The value of dreams, if there is any, is the psychological implications of what our conscious self assembles from the exposure (the dream) - in other words, the narrative we impose upon it during recall. In this respect we are "presenting", in the medical sense, to ourselves.

I agree with you about creator issues, and it would seem only natural that when almost a third of our lives are lived through sleep, dreams IMO play a vital role in disconnecting and reconnecting the various electrical and chemical paths that zap around our conscious state, I still contend that our daily worries and concerns trigger the abstract process and facilitate a clean up, an interesting aspect of dream state is often trying to recollect the weather conditions, do we experience the sensation of rainfall in our dreams?

scrat wrote:

Ziz wrote:
A clinical psychologist friend of mine and me used to have furious rows about dreams (well, and the existence of creator beings, but that's for another time). He contends that dreams are akin to mental movies purposefully assembled by the mind which gives clues to our psychological state. I contend that dreams are merely the exposed (to our conscious self) product of the brain's filing system and any causality or narrative within the exposure is an illusion. The value of dreams, if there is any, is the psychological implications of what our conscious self assembles from the exposure (the dream) - in other words, the narrative we impose upon it during recall. In this respect we are "presenting", in the medical sense, to ourselves.

I agree with you about creator issues, and it would seem only natural that when almost a third of our lives are lived through sleep, dreams IMO play a vital role in disconnecting and reconnecting the various electrical and chemical paths that zap around our conscious state, I still contend that our daily worries and concerns trigger the abstract process and facilitate a clean up, an interesting aspect of dream state is often trying to recollect the weather conditions, do we experience the sensation of rainfall in our dreams?

Yes, but are the images that reflect our daily concerns etc actually part of the narrative of the dream as it plays out or are they projected into the dream when we later compile it during recall in our waking state? After all, every experience is compiled recall, even those which appear to be happening "now".  (Here I'm obviously discounting the possibility of timeless "quantum" experience  - and therefore Quill's dreams from another dimension - should such things exists).

Ziz wrote:

scrat wrote:
I agree with you about creator issues, and it would seem only natural that when almost a third of our lives are lived through sleep, dreams IMO play a vital role in disconnecting and reconnecting the various electrical and chemical paths that zap around our conscious state, I still contend that our daily worries and concerns trigger the abstract process and facilitate a clean up, an interesting aspect of dream state is often trying to recollect the weather conditions, do we experience the sensation of rainfall in our dreams?

Yes, but are the images that reflect our daily concerns etc actually part of the narrative of the dream as it plays out or are they projected into the dream when we later compile it during recall in our waking state? After all, every experience is compiled recall, even those which appear to be happening "now".  (Here I'm obviously discounting the possibility of timeless "quantum" experience  - and therefore Quill's dreams from another dimension - should such things exists).

i don't think dreams can be interpreted as giving us some special insight and I don't believe our worries and concerns play themselves out as some form of narrative that we can recall, perhaps they appear as inanimate objects that are then "filed" away and are thus easier to access the next time we need to encounter them, the brain appears to have evolved far beyond our understanding, perhaps all that additional capacity is for the purpose of comprehending additional dimensions, although I don't think we enter a different dimension when we dream, we already know that the brain adjusts to living in space within three days and continues to function as if it was born there, something quite amazing.

scrat wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Yes, but are the images that reflect our daily concerns etc actually part of the narrative of the dream as it plays out or are they projected into the dream when we later compile it during recall in our waking state? After all, every experience is compiled recall, even those which appear to be happening "now".  (Here I'm obviously discounting the possibility of timeless "quantum" experience  - and therefore Quill's dreams from another dimension - should such things exists).

i don't think dreams can be interpreted as giving us some special insight and I don't believe our worries and concerns play themselves out as some form of narrative that we can recall, perhaps they appear as inanimate objects that are then "filed" away and are thus easier to access the next time we need to encounter them, the brain appears to have evolved far beyond our understanding, perhaps all that additional capacity is for the purpose of comprehending additional dimensions, although I don't think we enter a different dimension when we dream, we already know that the brain adjusts to living in space within three days and continues to function as if it was born there, something quite amazing.

Broadly, and in part, that was my argument to my psychologist friend.  I contend that what we "recall" (I say "compile") from the jumble of impulses that "dreaming" streams across our consciousness is what can give us insight, not the dream itself.  This is akin to the insight a doctor gains from what a patient "presents" during a consultation.

As to our amazing brains, I take a more matter of fact view. If indeed our universe is 11 dimensional then it follows that life evolved in an 11 dimensional universe - hardly surprising then that our brains may be able to detect or sense dimensions beyond our "local" four.

Ziz wrote:Yes, but are the images that reflect our daily concerns etc actually part of the narrative of the dream as it plays out or are they projected into the dream when we later compile it during recall in our waking state?

Interesting question. Do the images interact with our mind in a one-on-one basis? Or does our mind toss things around and come back with a rearrangement of emotions and settings. After all, our mind is also constantly working, building and going in its own direction.

We have to be mindful that as we objectify and study psychology as a discipline, we are also psychological beings. Our mind is constantly churning.

Ziz wrote:After all, every experience is compiled recall, even those which appear to be happening "now".

I’m not convinced of this. Granted, if it doesn’t come from somewhere, it’s some form of spontaneous generation. That can’t be…it’s too much like the Epicurean swerve.

Is the person recalling, or living the process? This is like the discussion of art, and the need of the artist to take a chance:

Jansen wrote:“To the non-artist, it seems hard to believe that this uncertainty, this need-to-take-a-chance, should be the essence of the artist’s work. For we all tend to think of “making” in terms of the craftsman or manufacturer who knows exactly what he wants to produce…Such “making” is a two-phase affair: first, the craftsman makes a plan, then he acts on it. And because he—or his customer—has made all the important decisions in advance, he has to worry only about means, rather than ends, while he carries out his plan. There is thus little risk, but also little adventure, in his handiwork, which is consequence tends to become routine.”
Jansen, History of Art.

Maybe the dream state is not the craftsman, but the artist taking a chance. And like the artist, the art is in the finding, not in the making.

So, dreams are the process of finding what’s in it, so far from recalling… not carving a statute, but as Michelangelo said, “liberating the figure from the marble that imprisons it.”

Ziz wrote:As to our amazing brains, I take a more matter of fact view. If indeed our universe is 11 dimensional then it follows that life evolved in an 11 dimensional universe - hardly surprising then that our brains may be able to detect or sense dimensions beyond our "local" four.

I like that idea. Eds should too.

Surely, there is something that we don't know about ourselves, just as we don't know about the universe in which we evolved.

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:After all, every experience is compiled recall, even those which appear to be happening "now".

I’m not convinced of this.  Granted, if it doesn’t come from somewhere, it’s some form of spontaneous generation.  That can’t be…it’s too much like the Epicurean swerve.  

Is the person recalling, or living the process?  

Both - the brain is recalling past stimuli (albeit in many instances just nano-seconds into the past) and compiling reality for the mind of the entity it inhabits. It doing so the entity lives the process (or, if you prefer, experiences the state of "being").

Ziz wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


I’m not convinced of this.  Granted, if it doesn’t come from somewhere, it’s some form of spontaneous generation.  That can’t be…it’s too much like the Epicurean swerve.  

Is the person recalling, or living the process?  

Both - the brain is recalling past stimuli (albeit in many instances just nano-seconds into the past) and compiling reality for the mind of the entity it inhabits. It doing so the entity lives the process (or, if you prefer, experiences the state of "being").

Yes, as we discuss it, I think we're coming together on this.  Thought doesn't come from spontaneous generation; it must come from experience...creativity being a re-juxtaposing of memories of those experiences.  

That it why I think the Lakoff and Johnson works on metaphor and metaphorical thinking are important.

Original Quill wrote:Maybe the dream state is not the craftsman, but the artist taking a chance.  And like the artist, the art is in the finding, not in the making.  

So, dreams are the process of finding what’s in it, so far from recalling… not carving a statute, but as Michelangelo said, “liberating the figure from the marble that imprisons it.”

I'm attracted to the idea here, and as a bedroom musician it certainly feels as though I am discovering melody, rhythm and whathaveyou rather than making it - but extending this notion to the biological function we call dreaming seems a romantic footstep too far. Sadly for me, I see dreaming, much as scrat does if I've understood correctly, as something that is little more than a process of mental cleansing.

Ziz wrote:

scrat wrote:
i don't think dreams can be interpreted as giving us some special insight and I don't believe our worries and concerns play themselves out as some form of narrative that we can recall, perhaps they appear as inanimate objects that are then "filed" away and are thus easier to access the next time we need to encounter them, the brain appears to have evolved far beyond our understanding, perhaps all that additional capacity is for the purpose of comprehending additional dimensions, although I don't think we enter a different dimension when we dream, we already know that the brain adjusts to living in space within three days and continues to function as if it was born there, something quite amazing.

Broadly, and in part, that was my argument to my psychologist friend.  I contend that what we "recall" (I say "compile") from the jumble of impulses that "dreaming" streams across our consciousness is what can give us insight, not the dream itself.  This is akin to the insight a doctor gains from what a patient "presents" during a consultation.

As to our amazing brains, I take a more matter of fact view. If indeed our universe is 11 dimensional then it follows that life evolved in an 11 dimensional universe - hardly surprising then that our brains may be able to detect or sense dimensions beyond our "local" four.

I'm not convinced that the workings of the brain are influenced or determined by our request for insight, much like the musings of Nostradamus we can interpret events to suit our own preconceived notions, the brain simply takes our worries and concerns that occupy our thoughts throughout the day and places them into an easily accessible mode for rapid analysis, simply knitting together the electrical and chemical components for optimal performance.

There is nothing matter of fact about the human mind, we've only just mapped the surface, much like realising that there are several oceans on the surface of a planet, but with very little understanding of what exists within them.

The concept of several dimensions beyond our current understanding are often used to equate various constructs simply because without the use of additional dimensions many such theories would simply collapse.

I only used the Calabi-Yau manifold to explain the possibility that those observing ufo's today could simply be humans from the future travelling back in time, as time tourists to certain events.

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Both - the brain is recalling past stimuli (albeit in many instances just nano-seconds into the past) and compiling reality for the mind of the entity it inhabits. It doing so the entity lives the process (or, if you prefer, experiences the state of "being").

Yes, as we discuss it, I think we're coming together on this.  Thought doesn't come from spontaneous generation; it must come from experience...creativity being a re-juxtaposing of memories of those experiences.  

That it why I think the Lakoff and Johnson works on metaphor and metaphorical thinking are important.

I'm not familiar with the work of Lakoff and Johnson - one day if time permits.

But hmm, you are drifting into terra incognita so to speak with this; "thought doesn't come from spontaneous generation; it must come from experience".

I fear I'm going to sound contrary now - I think your statement is generally correct, the brain processes the information it receives and compiles "reality" for its owner - but is that all it does? Is it also capable of spontaneous thought without prior stimulus? If it is then the realities we experience are not simply the sum of our perceptible environment - there is something more. Ooerr!

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:As to our amazing brains, I take a more matter of fact view. If indeed our universe is 11 dimensional then it follows that life evolved in an 11 dimensional universe - hardly surprising then that our brains may be able to detect or sense dimensions beyond our "local" four.

I like that idea.  Eds should too.

Surely, there is something that we don't know about ourselves, just as we don't know about the universe in which we evolved.

Quill, you know the drug ecstasy? That is supoosed to open people's minds by about another 10% or so.
I've taken that years ago and I can tell you, you experience different senses.

scrat wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Broadly, and in part, that was my argument to my psychologist friend.  I contend that what we "recall" (I say "compile") from the jumble of impulses that "dreaming" streams across our consciousness is what can give us insight, not the dream itself.  This is akin to the insight a doctor gains from what a patient "presents" during a consultation.

As to our amazing brains, I take a more matter of fact view. If indeed our universe is 11 dimensional then it follows that life evolved in an 11 dimensional universe - hardly surprising then that our brains may be able to detect or sense dimensions beyond our "local" four.

I'm not convinced that the workings of the brain are influenced or determined by our request for insight, much like the musings of Nostradamus we can interpret events to suit our own preconceived notions, the brain simply takes our worries and concerns that occupy our thoughts throughout the day and places them into an easily accessible mode for rapid analysis, simply knitting together the electrical and chemical components for optimal performance.

There is nothing matter of fact about the human mind, we've only just mapped the surface, much like realising that there are several oceans on the surface of a planet, but with very little understanding of what exists within them.

Well, I'm not sure whether we agree or disagree as to the function of dreaming, it is at best the observable part of the brain's housekeeping afaic. And I continue to maintain that it has a secondary use as a diagnostic tool (hence insight) should we choose to avail ourselves of it.

I didn't say the human mind was matter of fact, I said I take a more matter of fact of view of the brain. In short, I tend to be suspicious of fanciful notions advanced simply to square the circle of the unknown concerning all things, including it.

scrat wrote:The concept of several dimensions beyond our current understanding are often used to equate various constructs simply because without the use of additional dimensions many such theories would simply collapse.

I only used the Calabi-Yau manifold to explain the possibility that those observing ufo's today could simply be humans from the future travelling back in time, as time tourists to certain events.

I take no issue here at all - seems a reasonable hypothesis and a damn sight better than many. As I often say to those who indulge in romantic notions of UFO sightings (though it earns me few friends). Any species capable of traversing the vast distances of space would have stealth technology beyond any chance of detection. And any species capable of traversing the vast distances of space which desired to contact us would not need to traverse the vast distances of space in order to do so.