Dimensional Transisiton

Hello Everyone! As you may or may not remember I normally come here to discuss things in nature of consciousness and reality. You may remember my theory on lucid dreaming and other experiments. I come with an idea. Currently I am taking a mathematics course in college, and we are discussing the constructs of the three dimensional world, and dimensions below three as well. We get to a point in the class where we graph three dimensional figures on an xyz plane if you're familiar with this. Now Id like to note that if you ever draw and construct three dimensional figures yourself you use two and one dimensional geometric figures to construct these three dimensional surfaces. in mathematics we can also graph the DOMAIN of four dimensional "objects" if you will but we cant conceive what the object itself looks like. Now I want to specifically mention the "fractals" that are appearing in the psychedelic experience. It has been largely reported and even I have experienced fractals throughout all of my trips. often times these fractals are accompanied by what are described as geometric figures or shapes kaleidoscoping into each other. Now I cant speak for anyone else in their trips but whenever I see these geometric figures appearing and kaleidoscoping I am usually just entering the start of the "disintegration" of reality or at least what we would consider sober or "normal" reality. Now here's the jump, what if these kaleidoscoping geometric figures are contracting in a way to allow our conscious mind to experience what I am calling 4 or higher dimensions! It would only make sense that we wouldn't be able to experience dimensions higher than four in our 3 dimensional bodies! the only place that would make sense for us to be able to "sense" or I just say experience the 4th dimension would be in our minds! Wouldn't it make sense that our minds would be tied to a higher dimension that's why we would be self aware!!! Answer me this why does the mind understand its body but not the body to the mind!?You know who you are but you don't know what you are! I know.... I know this is a radical claim but I had to share it!!! Oh and wait when we do ingest psychedelic substances our hypothalamus and prefrontal cortex show heightened activity and "overstimulation", it only makes sense that the part of our brain that we believe is responsible for consciousness would get overstimulated when we are entering dimensions higher than our brain can organize! Let me tell you dreams also have extremely similar traits which is why I believe dreams also take place in higher dimensions. Dreams are linked to this theory but have a different explanation of its properties. I thank you for your time and im curious as to what you think!

 

I just wanted to add a bit to your interesting ideas.

Consider that your mind can experience 4 dimensions. We perceive the real around us as euclidean 3-space, but Einstein has shown that the world is really a 4 dimensional manifold (at least, a 4 dimensional manifold with the appropriate metric better explains the experimental data - gps satelliaite calculations use relativistic calculations). Recalling what happened moments ago, and percieving that point as different from "here" and "now" suggests that we can see 4-dimensions. Just because there is no evidence of a geodesic from "(x_here,y_here,z_here, t_now)" to "(x_then, y_then, z_then, t_then)", does not mean we cannot experience both points.

You might be interested in reading David Bohm - just wikipedia him. He was a respected main stream physicist for his day job that had some radical ideas about the nature of thought and fragmentation. Some of the stuff he suggests is bullshit (I've heard he was swindled by Uri Geller), but some of it has a lot of value I think.

Do you have more evidence to back up your idea? I'm interested. The fact that the brain is showing activity while we have these experiences suggests to me that "we" don't "enter" higher dimensions. It suggest to me that your brain is positing what a higher dimension would be like. Of course we have to agree upon what "we" means, "enter" means, and even on whether mathematical structures exist. If you say, acceptance the existence of the field of complex numbers, independent of human thought, then sure, "you" can "enter" a higher dimension with (and without) psychedelllics by intense thought on the structure. But if you mean that your "consciousness" or "mind" or "ego" or "essence" or whatever you want to call it, physically goes to another place in the physical universe, I would need some strong evidence indeed.

I watched my partner have a salvia trip where she claimed to have experienced becoming planar, and flipped through, like a rolodex of cards. But that does not mean that "she" went somewhere else where that happened. I sat next to her the entire time. If I hooked her brain up to a machine to read for activity, it would show. Neurons were firing inches away from me. However, the salvia assisted her brain in constructing the representation of existing as a two-dimensional manifold in a ambient three (or 4 if you consider relativity) dimensional space.

I'd encourage you to make another post, and define your ideas a but more precisely. I am curious.

 

I found that looking at what fractals actually represented was helpful, why were they so intriguing and so god damn beautiful. There's an emotional state that accompanies the witnessing of a fractal, but we tend to miss out on it when we're not high as kites.. I began looking for that feeling present in the psychedelic states within the everyday, and cultivating the sensation. Still doing it, organising and minimising the stresses of life so there can be an extension of that "bliss"(as opposed to ecstasy) that envelops itself as time passes.

I find the key to this kind of dissolution is emotional, when high we're generally more willing to give in because we're aware of the perfection of things and there's little resistance when everything's feeling dandy.. however, on the ground there's a strong tendency to fall back into inherited routine - do this, do that, etc, bills to pay and the world remains stagnant even when our rational mind finds ways of exploring these ideas. The problem I found was that it remains ideal, i.e distant from our ontology. Direct experience is anything but ideal, and the realms of mathematics are neatly quantised and very ideal(I know there are some weird bits, but they're still pretty neat).

Where does the rubber hit the road?

 

i don't think that visualizing fractals has much to do with other dimensions. its a cool idea but not all that logical. it is also just as likely that geometry is stored in our minds and sometimes when we trip the brain hallucinates some of these dormant images. think about it, lsd causes a distortion of the senses. sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, can all be distorted, or blended together. it makes just as much sense to assume that seeing geometric images is just our brain firing off latent images.

 

I can completely see why some you would be skeptical, but to me the connection is blatantly obvious. Now im not saying your mind PHYSICALLY goes to another location, but what physically happens to your brain is the overstimulation of your prefrontal cortex and hypothalamus. prefrontal cortex is largely believed to be responsible for our self awareness. In math terms think of this. when your prefrontal cortex is being "overstimulated" this is scientifically proven to be when users report entering higher dimensions and experiencing ego death. the only way I can describe this would be like if you took the limit as your consciousness approaches infinity! what would our self awareness reach at infinity? PURE CONCIOUSNESS!! As a matter of fact I truly believe that ego death is the inability of your brain to keep up with the transition from our body's interpretation of ourselves to the true nature of ourselves which is the spirit. Now what we research and scientifically record in terms of our physical bodies on these substances could only suggest the nature of what the user Is experiencing but cant define it. Asking for physical evidence to verify that one is outside his or her body experiencing these higher dimensions is impossible. The nature of consciousness itself is defined as experience! if I closed my eyes right now and pictured an orange in my mind how could I show you this image? It would be impossible, I can show you M.R.I's or brain scans that could suggest that this is what im experiencing but I could never actually verify it for you. The only way people can experience this higher dimension is from what I know 4 ways. 1)psychedelics 2)dreaming, 3)deep meditation, 4) death. the last one is when you are fully relinquished from your physical body! think about it spirit and higher dimensions isn't really popular in western civilization which is why I understand the skepticism, but the eastern nations have embraced and understood this for YEARS! The monks even created the "mantras" to describe enlightenment which is nirvana or pure spirit form! Guess what? the mantras go on FOREVER they don't end! it is your self awareness approaching infinity, it never ends. that's why trippers always say the rabbit hole goes on forever, in each trip you can never learn or understand everything. And as for the fractals. let me ask you this, where in your life before you ever tripped have you seen geometric patterns like that. Where have you ever seen those type of shapes interacting with each other. I don't think its purely coincidental that you experience the collision of these fractals right before the breakdown of reality. And remember when ego death occurs and you are outside your body in what some call "the void" you don't use any of your senses. In order to experience this ego death you have to let go of your body, you absolutely cannot enter the void and still be attached to your body.I believe this sensation of being in a higher dimension is why people say the feel one with the universe, because they are experiencing large parts of it from the higher dimension at once! I would like to go deeper but I have class today sorry for the late response. Please any questions ask them!

 

Can you explain this more? Your mind most assuredly does not "understand" your body in pretty laughably obvious ways, as we bear the stamp of our lowly origins.

It may also be the case that there is a false dichotomy between "mind" and "body"; it may be the case that the mind is identical to the brain, and our ideas of what is "physical" and "stuff" are completely wrong.

It's really easy to build a castle in the sky out of poorly challenged assumptions and shaky definitions but if you're really interested in knowledge remember that what is true will survive all tests for truthhood you throw at it; so keep throwing those tests at what you believe, and if it falls down, be happy knowing you haven't wasted more time on a false idea.

 

But doesn't the truth change? Seems that it's more a fluid thing than just a constant. So it seems that you can create truths if you invest conscious belief into them. Such as naming a napkin John. If you give permission that its name is now John, then it is. There's nothing that can be thrown at that because it was a Truth that you created. The guy next to you might insist that it has no name, and that would simultaneously be true. It's not either/or.

 

The truth isn't fluid; only our understanding. For example, it will always be true that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion; except when the sun has long ago died, then the statement "the sun is powered by nuclear fusion" will be pointing to an object which no longer exists. So our understanding would change, because we wouldn't have a sun to look at, but that truth won't suddenly become false; it would only require some grammatical rules to become understandable to someone.

Don't be confused between truth and language. Things are true or false no matter what you believe, no matter what language it's spoken in, no matter what you hope or dread.

In your example, if you name a napkin John, then the truth here is "I have named a napkin John", not "the napkin's name is John". Someone can contest whether or not you have indeed named that napkin, and you could provide as evidence, a video of you naming that napkin, and for the purposes of this example, all parties could agree that a video would constitute sufficient evidence of this event.

It cannot be the case that an object has a name and does not have a name, not because of anything spooky about names, but because it is simply the case that:

x = x

not x =/= x

 

So it either is a napkin or isn't a napkin. Isn't there a valid argument that it's not even a napkin then? You're saying that it can't be both a napkin and not a napkin. But you're saying "I have named this object a napkin" not "that object is a napkin"...so is it a napkin or isn't it? And what is it that determines whether it is or isn't, other than the person labelling it?

One person who has never heard of napkins could see it as just a piece of soft paper. Another person could use toilet paper as a napkin. Is the alternate piece of soft paper known as "toilet paper" really not a napkin now just because you're saying it's toilet paper even though it was used as a napkin? What matters is how it was used or how it was perceived. That's what truly defines it. And this is fluidly changing depending on who is using it.

I have to disagree with you. To one set of eyes, a dog is a threat. To a very different set of eyes, that very same dog is not a threat. The first person is afraid of dogs, and the second person isn't. The dog may or may not bite you either way. I would say that it's very arguable that the dog is and isn't a threat at the same time, as there is a chance for it to turn out either way, and both person's arguments have their valid perspective.

One person declares that threat = specific dog, the second person declares that no threat = specific dog. The dog itself may have bitten before, but not often. It can't objectively and exactly either not be a threat or be a threat. It can be both at the same time. The dog might even feed off of the person's fear and then bites them simply because they were labelled as a threat, while the dog doesn't bite the second person because that person has no fear. And in another instance, the dog may bite the person who's not afraid of it because he underestimated the dog, while the person afraid of it is more cautious and therefore doesn't get bit. In a third instance, the dog bites both, and in a fourth instance, the dog bites neither. It's impossible to objectively define whether this dog is or isn't a threat.

I'll elaborate a bit more. One person brings a snowball onto a bus. They get suspended because that snowball was deemed as a "weapon". The kid who brought it on insists that it was not intended to be used as a weapon. But the school board doesn't see it that way. Trusting that the kid truly didn't want to use it as a weapon, isn't this an instance where the same snowball both is and isn't a weapon simultaneously? It literally just depends on who is perceiving it and labelling it. It COULD be a weapon but it's not a weapon objectively and absolutely in and of itself. The subjective use and perception of it is what determines what it is.

There's nothing inherently vulgar about the middle finger in and of itself, but it's the implication of what it is a symbol for that gives it its power of vulgarity. The middle finger both is and isn't an insult at the same time, depending on how you want to dissect it, and depending on how the person on the receiving end reacts to it. If they are insulted easily, then it will be an insult. If they aren't insulted easily or are unaware of the meaning of the middle finger, then it won't be an insult.

But the important part is that the middle finger isn't literally equivalent to "insult" in and of itself. It's just your finger. But it's labelled as an insult, and therefore is one only because of this labelling. But it's not objectively and absolutely equivalent to an insult.

"The world is made of Language" -Terence Mckenna

 

China you're getting lost in language again. What Mckenna meant by that quote was that your reality as experienced by you will be determined in part by the system of language you use to describe it and mentalize it.

In your example, the situation was not naming a piece of paper a napkin, it was giving a person's name to a napkin.

You are arguing about the fluidity of language, not about big T Truth.

Truth is that which remains after you are finished pondering on the nature of words. It comes far before language.

 

The whole point is that the language that is used determines what anything is.

There is no big T to anything outside or independent of the Observer who is observing it. Reality does not exist "out there" objectively outside of the Observer.

"Truth" cannot remain after one is pondering something without someone observing it. It's literally impossible to prove this "truth" that you speak of without first looking at it. Therefore, Truth is dependent on You.

 

This is exactly what I talk about in regards to my philosophy of Archephenomenalism. I am a phenomenalist, meaning that I follow the philosophy that the only way we can experience reality is through phenomena---not the actual existent, or as Kant would say, the thing-in-itself.

My philosophy incorporates Quantum Mechanics, and Einsteins theories which philosophy has, for the most part, ignored.

I haven't done any hallucinogens since I was a teenager---though I do have a bit set aside for one day soon. But I am amazed at how people describe a hallucinogen-induced perception of reality that aligns right with my philosophy. DMT, acid, and even shrooms stir people to view reality as archephenomenalism describes it. Arche, means First Cause, and I described consciousness as the First Cause----this leaves a lot of room for many diverse interpretations from god, to cosmic mind, to the Hindu Atman, or the Buddhist Void.

But mind as we know it---the individual sentient consciousness, I believe is actually of a higher dimension---higher than the 4th dimension as I believe that is the dimension of the wave side of the wave-particle duality. Something that people find controversial is that I describe the wave as nonphysical. I find it fascinating that people struggle with it---and on the one hand it may simply be a matter of semantics, but there is very good reason why I do that:

1.) Science describes the wave side of reality as something that exists simutaneously through time and space, and quantum mechanics adds to that as being more like a field that stretches clear across the universe in a superposition. In other words the wave is every where and every time at the same time. This is unlike the particle that exists in a specific position in space-time (i.e a specific position in both space and time). People may argue that we measure waves and interact with them therefore they must be physical. But the fact is, no matter how this happens, there is always a collapse first into a particle. For example, if we measure the signal strength of a radio wave---the antenna turns (so to speak) the wave into electrons in order to measure it---particles which move down the antenna into the measuring device.


2.) Modern man is so wrapped up in physical reality that we must present a deconstruction of physicality in order to shake man out of this bias. Mind is, after all, nonphysical by definition---a fact that Modern Man has trouble dealing with. I have therefore turned one side of our scientific perception of physical reality into a nonphysical thing.

I also suggest that physical reality exists only in the present---and each point of the present happens at the smallest point of time----infinitessimal----1 Planck Length at 1 Planck Time. Physical reality is therefore a hologram-----and if this is correct, then because it exists at a time and length that are equivalent (1 Planck Time is the time it takes a photon to move 1 Planck Length, and the universal constant (the speed of light) is our actual absolute speed of time), then by the Theory of Relativity----physicality is in fact, just like light, of zero-time, zero-space. This means that physicality, just like light, does not actually exist in the physical universe.

It is all illusion created by phenomena---yet it still exists at an existential level. It is the repetition of physical present moments that create physicality, just as it is the repetition of light that gives light a physical quality.

 

MVW, have you ever read Autobiography of a Yogi?

 

The electrical activity of the brain is physical phenomena. It is the manifestation of a higher dimensional existent centered within the 3 physical dimensions. The reason we view reality only in the context of the 3 physical dimensions is that we are held in place by our ego. I use a Jungian definition of ego, which is a filter that filters out all nonessential phenomena and information to keep us focused on conscious reality. Its main purpose, according to Jung, was to maintain a consistent personality, but I would add to this that it also keep us centered and focused in physical reality.

Every moment of now, what I call the Quantum Now, is represented by all simultaneous probability wave collapses (into physical particles) clear across the universe. It is within this very small point of time that a particle actually has a position---but particles are in fact in motion, so just as quickly as they appear to have a position, they are once again superpositioned as a wave.

Nonetheless, this point of physicality happens because of an encoded probability---quantum information. The particle happens to manifest, with another particle, when two waves (that is, what we loosely call waves---they are in fact fields as much as they are waves) interact in a decoherent manner such that both particles define each other's positions, and they therefore mutually manifest as particles (this is called decoherence). An example would be a wave of light hitting a wave that represents an atom within the vision cell of your eye, and suddenly there is both a photon and an atom. Another example would be the radio wave and the antenna in the example of measuring the strength of a radio wave in my previous post. A wave representing an electron in the antenna, and the radio wave, mutually create an electron in the antenna (obviously part of an atom) and an electron from the radio wave.

This decoherence of the Quantum Now represents a mutual perception of a phenomenon. The vision cell atom perceives the light while the light perceives the vision cell atom---there is an exchange of quantum information. Each Quantum Now ends creating new phenomenon---the photon is absorbed into the vision cell atom, while the atom undergoes a photoelectric reaction and issues an electron (which is a wave, as is the atom now) until the next decoherent interaction (e.g. the electron is picked up by an atom in a nerve cell) and so on. I refer to the transfer of phenomena from one Quantum Now to the next as the Phenomenal Sequence.

Therefore there is always, what the 19th Century philosopher Brentano called, an intentional object---which he applied to consciousness, for thought is always a though of 'some thing.' Therefore, I argue, there is some level of consciousness at every single point of manifested physicality in the universe. But this also means that the electrical activity of the brain, which you referred to, represents a physical manifestation of something happening in a higher dimension----thought. Because the mind is, by definition, nonphysical, and thought represents an action of the mind, therefore it is a nonphysical event. But because the brain represents a part of the physical manifestation of who we are, and that it manifests our thoughts in a physical sense, then it makes sense that thought would manifest in a physical sense: the firing of electrons between synapses (in other words a phenomenon culminating in a decoherent probability wave collapse, and in turn creating new phenomena).

We are not ‘entering’ into a higher dimension---we already exist as a higher dimensional self. As that higher dimensional self, we create our own local reality within the 3 physical dimensions, and we are shaped by the local reality around us---the mind of others, and the mind of nature---being-in-itself, as Sartre would say, or the Tao if you will. The measuring of electrochemical responses within the brain is a measure of that reality we are creating---phenomena of mental activity.

The philosopher, Edmund Husserl, labeled our ability to maintain an understanding of reality from one moment to the next as retention. It is because of retention, he explained, that we do not need to re-remember a whole song up to the present moment just to enjoy it at the time of its next note. We are able to enjoy the song because we retain all of what has been heard within each new moment.

The Second Principle of Archephenomenalism is that in regards to physicality, only the present exists. The past is gone, and has not physical existence, the future is yet to manifest---therefore only the present has existence.

I have added the concept of ‘Material Retention’ to Husserl’s retention----it is the illusion that material, or physical existence continues from one moment to the next. In each new Quantum Now, there is a whole new set of particles, a whole new set of positions. The Second Principle is an a priori, as that is our experience of reality---only a continuing present moment. Once that present moment has happened we can never physically go back to it.

The Third Principle is a synthetic a priori (synthetic from the First and Second Principles (The First being Descarte’s First Principle---I think therefore I am)), and basically states that the mind transcends the physical present----hence retention.

While physical reality exists only in the present----mentally we can remember the past, anticipate the future, and perceive the present. We can use volition or intention to alter the future, and so forth. It is because we transcend the physical that we have free will, or existential freedom.

By the way, hallucinogens and other drugs enable us to go deeper, to alter or disarm the ego, and hence we are able to experience higher dimensions or reality outside of the box so to speak.

 

I have not.

 

Exactly----though let me clarify that I personally do not agree with the Eastern interpretation that our goal should be to re-merge with the cosmic mind, or consciousness as a universal whole. I think that our individual consciousness is meant to be---like a finger in a hand---I would not want my thumb or forefinger, or any other finger to become 'enlightened' and remerge into my body---I need those fingers as fingers. I believe that our purpose is to experience and that we do this in a process of becoming ever more individuated.

Having said that, however, archephenomenalism is a multiplistic philosophy and therefore would allow for an Eastern interpretation too. Though I place emphasis on subjective reality, and Eastern philosophy is much more objective in this sense.

 

There you go!

 

^

Other than the experience of phenomena which arranges itself to a form that is evidently true to the parameters of our sensory interaction, following which, whatever occurs in the mind is directly a product of that now past experience.

2 distinctly different levels here. Touch(which sound, light and radiation can be considered as), and thought. Thought/mind is subject to associative reasoning, so there's an inherent latency with the moment As It Is because mind is always searching through the filing cabinets in the back room. Attention is elsewhere.


I think firmly understanding this distinction is the key to really understanding where Archephenomenalism is heading, because I think there's another step beyond the previously described to firmly grasp the meat of what Wolf brought to the table. To me it presents itself as contextual relevance to our human experience.. very little fantasy about it, as to grasp it is to satiate the minds requirement to distract itself with childish existential pornographic fetishes(whatever those may be for you), but rather what it is and what the fuck are you doing with it?

And you don't need measurements for that either. No need to build fortifications of truth unless you wanna make pointless but cool shit like an iPhone 7 or a megalomaniacal cultural disposition. Or clean energy, need more o' that for sure.

 

I like a lot of these points but wasn't Bohr more about these Quantum views than Einstein?

 

Good point. The Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechaniocs work together the best in a holographic universe which my philosophy presents.

But my real point is that philosophy has not kept up with theoretical physics. Einstein's theories and Quantum Mechanics have largely been ignored by philosophy, and we certainly cannot leave these theories solely to the reductionist and pragmatic viewpoints of scientists.

Because philosophy has not kept up with the advancements of science, it is pretty much dead----in fact that is what Stephen Hawking wrote in 2012. Today philosophy in America is really playing word games---in case they missed something hidden in the meaning of words... (Analytical Phliosophy).

Yet science has opened a whole new door for philosophy----in fact, it is pretty earth shattering for much of 20th Century philosophy. We can now go back and re-examine Hegel, Aristotle, Plato, Husserl, and so forth, in some pretty amazing ways (see my thread, The Quantum Mechanical Argument for Essentialism, in the philosophy section, for example).