My Ghost Story

[Jodie]

OK, so you grudgingly acknowledge that I haven't insulted you, so would you now like to withdraw the insult you levelled at me?
And for the record, I do reject what you're saying. My understanding of the scientific method is sufficient to reject it based on that alone. JayUtah and others, who are way more knowledgeable about physics that I, have shown in great depth how the sources you quote do not support your claims. Conversely, you have provided nothing but speculation to support what you say. Who wouldn't reject such claims?

No they haven't. I've stated that my theory is speculative since the discussion started.

He is most definitely a fundamentalist. I suggest actually looking at the links before you reply, especially in light of what you've been saying about others not doing so.

The fact that he is a fundamentalist may create bias in his interpretation. Unlike others, I think he and Tegmark are essentially asking the same questions but approaching it in slightly different ways. Tegmark states he is trying to show that consciousness is not influenced by something outside and then goes on to demonstrate the opposite IMO.

[qoute]Nice try. I asked you this:[/quote]

You responded with this:

My response:

Your response was a dodge. You admit that the scientific method did not exist in the Dark Ages, but stop short of admitting it was therefore an irrelevant comparison. Nothing in the Dark Ages was based on science, as science as we know it now did not yet exist- as you admit. To then say that a paradigm shift in scientific thinking such as I outlined has occurred by citing this example is deeply flawed. Your response does not answer my point at all: in fact, you tacitly admit you were in error. Why not just admit it? After all, this is just a discussion- no emotions involved, so nothing to get upset or embarrassed about, right?

And here comes another dodge!
I asked you

You responded by citing the germ theory. My response:

You ignored that entirely:

I didn't ask you if it revolutionised medicine. I asked you if it had destroyed decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results. Your response dodges that entirely. Care to try again?
Then you go on to contradict yourself entirely. Having tried to claim as fact something that would totally overturn decades of scientific research, you then say

So which is it? Is science built on evidence from previous research, or is it a series of unexpected, out-of-the-blue paradigm shifts in our thinking? You can't have it both ways.

I haven't responded because the discussion is completely off topic and irrelevant to the conversation, and ill informed to say the least. Science is built on evidence from previous research. If you think that the scientific method didn't exist during the dark ages, or prior to that, you are incorrect. It was definitely the exception instead of the rule. No one called it that but the exercise and application of the process did exist, or at least it did in the field of medicine. These are just a few from antiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrodora

http://sri.sagepub.com/content/19/3/337.extract

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_early_cultures

 

[Jodie]

Asked and answered. "The mathematics" contains nothing to support other dimensions as you use the term. And as you've admitted (in a different thread) you have little understanding of higher mathematics, I don't think you're in a position to say it does.

Then where did the theories come from, handwaving by select physicists?

Then can we expect you to stop accusing your critics of shallow understanding and closed mindedness if they decide to disagree with your personal, unevidenced, lay opinion?

I've stated that this is speculation since the beginning of the discussion. For some reason you insist that I'm stating it as fact. You can disagree with me but you have no evidence to support your stance since nothing I've stated has been tested or can be tested at this time.

You demanded we explain it, when you made zero effort to substantiate it. You used the expected inability to explain it for rhetorical advantage. You are being appropriately taken to task for that.

Where did this happen? I asked how it could have been correct in what it predicted. What you call taking to task is mediocrity masking as superiority.

You've also said repeatedly that it's "based on science," and berated your critics repeatedly for not taking it a seriously as you wish them to. In fact you keep advocating its alleged scientific validity in this very post. As Garrette noted, you are bold when there is no opposition and timid when there is. This is known as the Motte and Bailey argument. It is unconvincing.

I've berated you because you have cherry picked what data you would like to accept, just as I have, for a topic that is not falsifiable. What bold/timid thing are you talking about? I'm just responding in like kind. Who is Motte and Bailey?

Then you don't understand his research.

I understand perfectly. You need to understand how the brain works here first before you can understand what evidence to look for in how it might work as a receiver for thoughts, ideas, feelings that might come from some other you in another dimension.

No. It does not support the notion of dimensions as you use the term.

What else does the word dimension describe if not space?

It is certain you don't. See, well, all my previous posts.

I saw your previous posts but they don't have anything to do with what Tegmark stated in his paper regarding consciousness as a state of matter.

Asked and answered. Your description changes willy-nilly to ensure it remains untestable according to the sciences to which you allude.

My idea is not testable regardless of what terminology I use to describe consciousness or interdimensional space.

Then do you agree your critics' rejection of its alleged prophetic nature becomes more and more rational?

Because I am discussing it here, I am rereading material that I've previously read many years ago.Based on the many worlds theory prophecy is pointless. I think my critics reject my prophetic dream based on other reasons which vary in degree on rationality.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No they haven't. I've stated that my theory is speculative since the discussion started.

Bingo! I'm the lucky winner who gets to do this first!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10985977#post10985977

I haven't responded because the discussion is completely off topic and irrelevant to the conversation, and ill informed to say the least. Science is built on evidence from previous research. If you think that the scientific method didn't exist during the dark ages, or prior to that, you are incorrect. It was definitely the exception instead of the rule. No one called it that but the exercise and application of the process did exist, or at least it did in the field of medicine. These are just a few from antiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrodora

http://sri.sagepub.com/content/19/3/337.extract

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_early_cultures

Asking whether there is a precedent for the kind of scientific revolution you are proposing is in no way off-topic or irrelevant. For your speculation to have any substance or possibility of reality, it would need to overturn decades of research and experiment, a point I have (I think) clearly made many times. If this hasn't ever happened, and is unlikely ever to happen, then what is the point of your speculations? Especially, as has been repeatedly pointed out, you constantly attempt to cite science as support for your ideas.
With regard to your point about the Dark Ages, this is a term that specifically applies to Europe, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the early Middle Ages. Linking to information about science in Classical Greece, the Middle East or the Far East is irrelevant. It also undermines your earlier point, which you appear to have forgotten. You brought this up as an example of how modern science has overturned previous beliefs. If we go with your own, unique, definition of the Dark Ages, you have just argued against yourself. Anything discovered by using the earlier attempts at the scientific method is still, more or less, valid now: Eratosthenes' measurement of the circumference of the earth, for example. Not 100% accurate, but close enough. Nothing founded in the scientific methods utilised in the cultures cited in your articles has been completely overturned by modern science.So either we use your definition of the Dark Ages, in which case there is no precedent for the kind of revolution of proven fact you are arguing for, or we use the conventional definition, in which case there was no use of the scientific method, or a use that had almost no effect on learned opinion at the time, in which case your example is irrelevant.

 

[Jodie]

Bump for Jodie. She's complaining here and elsewhere that she's not being properly addressed. Specifically that people are simply telling her she's wrong without explaining how she is wrong. And since she's clearly referring back to this thread, it seems we should resurrect it.

Previously in this thread, thoughtful (and often lengthy) explanations were provided to expound Jodie's various misconceptions and simplifications. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.) Jodie dismissed much of what her critics said as a "posting tantrum." As she did in this thread, so in the above-referenced thread she has continued to dismiss criticism as somehow compromised by the alleged emotional immaturity of the critics.

You and a select few others were having emotional tantrums without explanation at the time that was said.

Clearly Jodie disagrees with her critics regarding what constitutes a meaningful response. This raises a legitimate question. When proposals are simply ignorant of the relevant sciences, to what extent and to what depth is a detailed, expostulatory rebuttal merited? If someone walks into a concert hall who has never played a note of music and tells the conductor he's doing it wrong for various naive reasons, is that person entitled to a full expounding of musicology from the conductor? If someone walks into a fourth-year medical school classroom bragging about how all diseases can be cured by dietary supplements, is the only viable rebuttal a replay of the entire medical education the audience has obtained?

You don't need to understand music theory or play an instrument to know when the music has no harmony.

Fringe claimants often seem to have this inflated sense of entitlement. Despite often admitted shortcomings in their own knowledge and experience, they seem to presume their claims "somehow" still have enough merit to warrant careful consideration and (if necessary) a detailed rebuttal. And when they don't get it, they complain that they're being "ignored." Well, in a certain sense they have been -- and rightly so. There are gatekeeper criteria to serious consideration, and in meeting them a claimant must demonstrate to a sufficient degree that he understands the fundamentals on which the claim is predicated. In short, a claimant doesn't get to presume that his uninformed, speculative claim is not patently dismissable.

In most books, theoretical physics for example, the physicist goes to great lengths to explain what the math for the theories indicate. I might be wrong in assuming that they know what they're talking about but many of you here are assuming others know what they are talking about when you quote their research. I don't see a fundamental difference in those two situations.

But amid the harshness of the real world, Jodie has had the luxury of serious consideration and thoughtful rebuttal, even though her claims don't meet the gatekeeper criteria. All except her latest proposal, which has been correctly dismissed as caricature.

Who is the gatekeeper?

So let's look at your latest offering, Jodie. I've highlighted and labeled each of the instances of vague handwaving.

By the numbers, then:

1. Application vs. model.

Applications are commercial products, generally trivial ones to solve well-phrased problems and having a certain degree of reliability. You may think this doesn't matter for your proposal. But instead of an "application," what you should be looking for is a model. You're purporting to do science, not bake cookies or plan treatment for obstetrics patients. That's not to say the latter is easy. But it's a deterministic problem with well-studied procedures and decision points. Hence it can have an "application."​

OK, I can see that.

2. Suitability is not a given.

Here you just assume that similarity is appropriate. Expert systems for medical diagnosis and treatment are elementary implementations of the rete algorithm or some other production-rule system. Now these can be arbitrarily large and arbitrarily complex. But one thing they must be is deterministic. One thing they cannot be is probabilistic in the sense required by the only formal model of consciousness you cite: Tegmark.​

That makes sense.

You've been told numerous times how you misunderstand and misinterpret Tegmark. Even assuming Tegmark's definition of consciousness is suitable, he doesn't formulate consciousness; he formulates matter. That is, he creates the limiting case, not a predictive or descriptive model. Alongside this, he doesn't model conscious matter; he just models matter. He does so in the most general way, using Hilbert spaces defined over the complex abstractions used to define quantum fields. His finding is that his formulation of the phenomenology of consciousness is not precluded by investigable properties of matter. That doesn't mean all matter is conscious. It doesn't mean he knows what consciousness is. It doesn't mean he knows how to make conscious matter. It means there is no behavior inferred from his definition of consciousness that cannot be produced by some ordinary manifestation of matter.

He is modeling consciousness as a state of matter. He's pretty clear about what his equations mean. I don;t think there is much room for misunderstanding.

This is your first fatal flaw -- i.e., that the math you've alluded to previously in this thread is testable in the way you've proposed. We could stop here, as your theory cannot recover from this.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not testable.

3. Quantum mechanics is not discrete.

This is your fatal flaw. The paradox of quantum mechanics is that while it deals with discrete quanta, the values in the model are not -- and cannot be -- discretes. Because of uncertainty, they can only be expressed as probability distributions. Wrapping one's head around this dichotomy is the difficulty of understanding quantum mechanics at any useful level. Any model that purports to compute a quantum state of matter as a set of enumerable, delineated values is simply wrong from the start.​

I understand what your are saying. Atoms are not solid balls rotating around a center like a miniature solar system. The best you can do when you represent an atom is to demonstrate the quantum state of it's existence at a specific point in time.

This is your second fatal flaw. Regardless of previous deficiency, we could stop here without loss of rigor.

4. Suitability is not a given, redux.

"Something like that" incorporates things that cannot be part of any workable quantum-state model, and explicitly excludes the essence of such a model. It is handwaving at its most evident. This is common in fringe thinking. You know about X, so you assume that if a problem Y bears some superficial resemblance to X, you can transfer all your knowledge of X to Y and this will be palatable to experts in Y. There is no kind way to say this: the world is not obligated to dumb itself down to fit your understanding.​

Then why did you ask me in the first place?

5. Define consciousness.

Because of the problems I outline above, you can't apply a deterministic methodology (i.e., pattern-matching, product-rule) if you plan to invoke the "multidimensional" aspects of quantum field theory. Not only is there no agreement what consciousness consists of, there is absolutely no justification for limiting any eventual definition to discrete, deterministic systems. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.​

This sounds like you are agreeing with me. Why would you limit your consciousness to your deterministic existence here on Earth if a multidimensional universe is a theoretical possibility? It wouldn't make sense that it would only exist in the 4 dimensions we have here.

This is your third fatal flaw -- a fundamental, qualitative inconsistency in your approach.

6. Neurological process is not algorithmic.

One of the most important distinctions between neuroscience and artificial intelligence is that they are not nearly as congruent as one might think. Because computers can be made to mimic some kinds of behavior that we associate with intelligence, it is tempting to believe that all aspects of intelligence (including perhaps consciousness) can be attained simply be scaling up existing algorithmic methods. I discussed this already at length. There is no such belief in computer science, although it is a common lay belief and an equally common science-fiction meme.

Conversely because we often discuss cognition using the language of computation, it is tempting to believe that cognition is simply biological computation. Again, neither computer scientists nor neuroscience believes this. "Taking ... into account" neurological processes sidesteps a number of open questions in both fields.​

I don't disagree with this.

7. Perception can be meaninglessly algorithmic.

Artificial automata perceive. That is, they take in sensory input, apply transformative processes (even paramaterized from stored memories), and evaluate them according to a set of rules. The outcomes of those rules affect behavior. That's classically defined perception, and the algorithms are well-defined after 30 years or so of practical research.

But of course it doesn't constitute all of what we mean by human perception. That's because humans have an uncanny ability to normalize sensory input, and because human perception embodies a non-deterministic inferential component affected by motivation, emotion, and other unknowables. So you're rather stuck. If you want deterministic perception, then it can be had for the price of a smartphone. But of course that no more captures the underlying mechanisms of consciousness than the elevator door when it decides not to close on you. Sensory neuroscience has no models for you to use here, and they wouldn't fit your bill anyway.​

I don't disagree with this either, however, if you have interdimensional consciousness, yet you are only aware of here, then that is a partially independent and deterministic aspect of the whole.

8. What is the model for 'levels' of consciousness?

The neurological model of levels of consciousness consider only phenomenology. They don't consider either mechanism or causation. Below you require just such a constitutive model (not a descriptive one), but not only does science not yet have one, the descriptive one ends at our known reality and doesn't consider whatever you might imagine by "higher" levels of consciousness such as those that would let you commune with the dead, permeate the threshold of death, travel through time, or any other fringe claim you're trying to support with this model.​

I said this earlier in the thread. I used to visualize the dimensions as being like a layer cake. I don't anymore. If our first four dimensions are integrated to create what we are seeing here on Earth, then it follows that the other dimensions would also be integrated into our existence. If that is the case then our consciousness could exist in those other dimensions but we might not be aware of this.

9. Modeling revisited.

I covered this at length previously. We can certainly model the observable behavior of systems as we observe them. The motion of the planets as seen from Earth, for example, can be modeled to a very high degree of accuracy using systems of harmonic equations, up to 300 terms each. But that's not the math that governs their motion. That's qualitatively Kepler and quantitatively Newton. And that's still not the mathematics that describes the mechanism for what makes planets move. We're still working on that, some hundreds of years after Kepler and Newton.

Modeling is not a mechanical translation of behavior into "some kind of algebra." You can't even decide on even the most basic features of any such model, much less tell us whether it's possible to create a model so faithful that it expresses not only behavior but mechanism.​

I thought it was gravity

This is your fourth fatal flaw. You cannot sweep model fidelity under the carpet. You propose to establish or falsify, with this method, the extradimensional properties of consciousness. You cannot reason about findings if you can't rule out that the model is unfaithful.

This is true and why I've stated that this is speculative from the start and not likely to be tested.

10. 'Higher' dimensions are not a thing.

This just restates your biggest misconception, one which I covered at length here for your benefit. In the vector formulations for quantum mechanics, one dimension is not "higher" than another in any way. Values in quantum behavior are simply represented as vector quantities, expressing magnitudes along each of the conceptual dimensions. No one coordinate or dimension is "higher" than another. They don't describe separate realms of time and space that we can't see. In the context of four spatial dimensions and one temporal dimensions that we perceive, the remaining 7 dimensions (Einstein) or 19 dimensions (some multiverse formulations) are not "higher" in any way -- they're just the rest of the data for that particular space-time expression. They're no more conceptually "higher" or "lower" than each other than the numbers in your locker combination. They're just sets of values meant to be taken collectively.

You cannot escape the error of this equivocation no matter how vigorously you state it, how inaccurately you word it, or how often you repeat it. There is simply no concept in physics for "higher" dimensions as the fringe theory defines them.​

I have not once referred to anything here as a higher dimension. I have called them "other dimensions" or referred to the universe as "multidimensional".

This is your fifth and most egregious fatal flaw.

11. Define the simulation model.

"Develop a simulation" is simply an appeal to magic. There's no kind way to say it. The mathematics from which you infer your multiple dimensions is not translatable to discrete simulation, if the goal is to predict the next state from some instant state. Many have tried, including some of the best people in the business (e.g., U.S. Dept. of Energy). Guess whose company built and programmed the computers they used to try? There's a klunky approximation. I think it's up to partially modeling some two dozen particles -- say, a handful of fluorine atoms. But it's not promising.​

Then why did you insist that it could be done and ask me to try?

12. Formulation.

You haven't the faintest idea what "equations for consciousness" are, or even what they could be. In your attempt to fog up the lens of science that's examining your vague attempts at formulation, you've proposed a hodge-podge of incompatible alternatives. You are entitled to no more elaborate explanation of your error than to note where it contradicts itself.​

I simply borrowed the concept from a few others that tried to map the steps involved in receiving input and how processing and attention is focused. But you asked for it

so I attempted.

13. Constitutive relationships.

For any linear system to convolve with any other linear system, there must be a set of constitutive relationships between them. There must also be constitutive relationships among elements in the simulation domain. A simulation won't work at all unless the model and the inputs share some elemental constitution. Since you don't have a formulation for either the model or the environment, you have no clue whether such constitutive relationships are possible. It's never a given that they are.​

Ok

In fact, sometimes it's a given that they're not. Enter entanglement. This wonderful feature of quantum field theory ensures that you can't bound the relationships, which is an important part of the formulation. In theory, any element can affect any other element in a discrete simulation. But in practice the effect diminishes according to well-defined rules, and this decay is the only thing that makes systems with, say, 10¹² unknowns tractable in polynomial time. That well-defined behavior doesn't apply to systems with nonlinear entanglement. Thus the constitutive relationship problem isn't governed by the number of dimensions in the model, but rather by the square of the number of elements in the model. I don't know of anyone in the field who even knows a method for approaching such intractable formulations.

Ten why did you ask me to do it?

The number of fatal flaws in your proposal is staggering. Any one of them dooms it, no matter how strong the remainder. Four or five of them, explained here at length, should satisfy your desire for a complete refutation.

You've only proven what I've said all along, it isn't testable. It doesn't refute the idea.

 

[Donn]

Dimensions. Not higher, just other. For lol's sake...

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I've stated that this is speculation since the beginning of the discussion.

I'm sorry, Jodie, but you have done no such thing, as your posting history shows:

I didn't witness to you, I linked a show that demonstrated the empirical evidence for other dimensions that mathematics indicates does exist. It provided circumstantial evidence that there is more to reality than our 3 dimensional existence and ties in nicely with my example of the Allegory of the Cave. The anthropic principle isn't any less falsifiable than the suggestion that we don't exist in some form after we die.

I don't have any explanation for my visitation other than our consciousness must exist in some form, or either there is some form of consciousness that observes us, that can see the totality of time rather than the "freeze frame" horizontal way that we process our existence. There is empirical evidence that indicates that these dimensions do exist,and can work that way.

The second youtube video was a visual demonstration of how the other dimensions intersected our own, how they would work, and was based on the mathematics that demonstrate the existence of other dimensions. It wasn't made up gibberish.

If Durr concluded something from physical laws that we know about then it is his hypothesis, a hypothesis grounded in empirical data ... The existence of other dimensions doesn't fall into the woo category, it's based on mathematics. Neither does the disembodied "I" that makes you who you are depending on what research results you accept. To say these hypotheses/concepts are woo based is inaccurate.

The best I can do is provide circumstantial evidence regarding multi dimensional space. Then I borrowed from neuro research regarding consciousness in developing AI. All I've done is try to synthesize the two into a cohesive hypothesis, one that can't be tested at the moment, but that might change at some point in the future. Then I applied that to some specific experiences I've had.

Imagination provides the hypothesis, but it is based on empirical data , as I tried to demonstrate.

There is a scientific basis to what I'm saying,

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You and a select few others were having emotional tantrums without explanation at the time that was said.

Nothing I have read in any response to you fits this description. Please either back this up with reference to specific posts, or stop disparaging your critics.

 

[JayUtah]

You and a select few others were having emotional tantrums...

No. Your critics are not hopelessly "emotional."

You don't need to understand music theory...

Straw man. "Telling the conductor he's doing it wrong" is not the same as the "music hav[ing] no harmony." Quantum physics is counterintuitive and requires great study and expertise to understand. You have neither of those, neither in computer science, yet you feel justified in lecturing people on it who clearly know enough about it to know you're just waving your hands.

In most books, theoretical physics for example, the physicist goes to great lengths to explain what the math for the theories indicate.

And you don't understand that either.

Who is the gatekeeper?

The world.

OK, I can see that.

Then you agree your proposal has been refuted.

That makes sense.

Then you agree your proposal has been refuted.

He is modeling consciousness as a state of matter. He's pretty clear about what his equations mean. I don;t think there is much room for misunderstanding.

Asked and answered. You don't understand his methods or the structure of his proof. You appear to have read what others have said about him and drawn your own conclusion.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not testable.

Rail split. What I said was "testable in the way you've proposed." Therefore your proposal fails.

This sounds like you are agreeing with me.

I am not. You're proposing a discrete model for something that cannot be so modeled. Yes, you were asked to provide it, but as proof of your insinuation that it could be modeled.

I don't disagree with this either, however, if you have interdimensional consciousness, yet you are only aware of here, then that is a partially independent and deterministic aspect of the whole.

Asked and answered. See Tegmark.

I said this earlier in the thread. I used to visualize the dimensions as being like a layer cake. I don't anymore. If our first four dimensions are integrated to create what we are seeing here on Earth, then it follows that the other dimensions would also be integrated into our existence. If that is the case then our consciousness could exist in those other dimensions but we might not be aware of this.

Asked and answered. Your concept of dimensions (however visualized) is not what physics means by those words.

I thought it was gravity

Asked and answered. We can quantify the effects gravity produces. We do not know why gravity happens. This is an excellent example of why layman should not pretend to be physicists.

This is true and why I've stated that this is speculative from the start and not likely to be tested.

Asked and answered. You disclaim it as speculation when cornered, then berate your critics when they don't give it its due.

As for testability, there are two issues at stake. The first is the testability of your theory of other dimensions. We have already discussed that at length in the posts linked above. The second is your belief that artificial intelligence can be made to model the phenomena you conjecture.

Then why did you insist that it could be done and ask me to try?

You insisted it could be done even after we told you AI doesn't help you. You were challenged to come up with an example. And as the world can see, you have failed.

 

[JayUtah]

Dimensions. Not higher, just other. For lol's sake...

That's fine, I can withdraw the "higher" charge. However the relationships between dimensions in a vector formulation is still not as Jodie as explained. While three of the dimension in the standard and multiverse models relate to three spatial dimensions and are orthogonal, and while the fourth relates to a concept for which one can have an intuitive understanding (but not orthogonal to the first three), the rest are not simply extensions or variations on that theme. That's why I took such pains to explain the idea of a conceptual problem space. Quantum field theory is just such a space. "Those other dimensions" simply aren't in any way, shape, or form what Jodie envisions them as.

She said she never got to the point of studying trigonometry. That means her formal education (following USDE curricula) in mathematics ended somewhere no later than second-year algebra. She will not have studied linear algebra or calculus, both of which are absolutely essential to understanding QFE and QM. LE and calculus are both transformative subjects. Just as algebra transforms a mathematical understanding based on arithmetic by introducing symbolic manipulation, so too do those others. One simply has no prayer of understanding the vector formulations in higher physics without them.

 

[JayUtah]

Then where did the theories come from, handwaving by select physicists?

Handwaving by people desiring to use the general opacity of higher physics as a veneer of credibility over their completely unscientific beliefs

I've stated that this is speculation since the beginning of the discussion.

Asked and answered. Since the beginning of the discussion you've tried to show that your theory has some chimeric status somewhere between speculation and science. This has been shown to you many times, with examples.

For some reason you insist that I'm stating it as fact

No. What I claim is that when your critics treat your theory as the speculation it is, you get all butthurt and make personal attacks against them for not "considering" it or otherwise treating it favorably. You're trying to shame your critics away from disagreeing with you, and it's fairly obvious.

You can disagree with me but you have no evidence to support your stance since nothing I've stated has been tested or can be tested at this time.

Asked and answered. Your theories do not follow from the sources you say they're based upon. I need no external evidence to show that your hypothesis is a non sequitur. As to whether your theory might be provable on other grounds, you freely admit you have no proof and suggest that your critics should have the responsibility to disprove you. Even now you're still trying to shift the burden of proof.

Since your hypothesis is your affirmative claim, your inability to test it (for whatever reason) means your affirmative claim fails. That's not the same as asserting it is false. But it fails as any sort of proposition that lay claim to a scientific basis.

What you call taking to task is mediocrity masking as superiority.

Your critics' mediocrity and your own superiority is entirely a product of your imagination.

I've berated you because you have cherry picked what data you would like to accept, just as I have...

No. Applying the methods of science is not "cherry picking." You get upset when your critics won't let you soften science to the point where your theory can squeak by. All fringe theorists do this. They propose what they think is a great "scientific" theory, then whine that science is mean for not accepting it.

Who is Motte and Bailey?

I'll just let this particular example of ignorance speak for itself.

I understand perfectly. You need to understand how the brain works here first before you can understand what evidence to look for in how it might work as a receiver for thoughts, ideas, feelings that might come from some other you in another dimension.

No. The difference between phenomenology and mechanism has been discussed at length. You can't even show phenomenology in favor of your theory. You've put the cart before the horse and argued inferentially based on your speculation of mechanism.

What else does the word dimension describe if not space?

I covered this at length in my summary of linear algebra. And let me just say that if you have to ask this question in this way, then you cannot possibly have any sort of workable understanding of quantum field theory.

I saw your previous posts but they don't have anything to do with what Tegmark stated in his paper regarding consciousness as a state of matter.

Then you understand neither Tegmark nor my posts.

I think my critics reject my prophetic dream based on other reasons which vary in degree on rationality.

Nonsense. You berate your critics because they will not accept your particular brand of irrationality that explains and justifies your interpretation of your dream.

Your dream story is identical to a well-understood prosaic phenomenon. Parsimony demands we consider that phenomenon the likely explanation. But in order to throw a stick in the spokes of parsimony, you introduce an inexplicable element -- the prophecy. Since what is seen in a dream generally cannot be proven or rebutted, you think you have the lynchpin in your claim. And the record shows your argument relies heavily on the "But you can't prove me wrong!" rhetoric.

This whole foray into higher physics is just a red herring.

You seem to think your critics are stuck trying to explain away your ghost story because it's untestable. You say you can't provide evidence so you won't, just as a good lawyer keeps from calling his guilty client to the stand, where he would be undone upon cross-examination. But as one of your critics points out, you've shied away from every single form of affirmative argumentation you could make. And you've reminded us over and over that your claim can't be tested, from which you insinuate it can't be refuted.

Wrong.

You're perhaps hunting for an affirmative rebuttal. But your critics are not so limited. In lieu of any affirmative argument, they're free to explain the "prophecy" as a false memory or as something you just made up in order to get attention or perhaps to enable a mainstream-bashing tirade. I'm sure your critics made their minds up long ago. And I'm sure your habit of personalizing the argument and attributing to your critics all manner of intellectual and emotional infirmity has swayed their choice.

To sum up. Your ghost story fails because it is not substantiated. Your irrelevant physics claims fail because you don't know what you're talking about. This is a skeptics forum. This is the kind of discussion you're going to get here, and these are the kinds of conclusions that will be drawn here. Begging it to be different will not avail you.

 

[Garrette]

I'm not certain how I'm supposed to read your words any other way than what the words actually mean.


My belief that there are other dimensions is based on the observations related to cosmology. This is where the mathematics was derived to explain the phenomena, which indicated the other dimensions.

Consciousness, as far as what it is, and how it might exist in these theoretical other dimensions is strictly my belief with no evidence to back it up.



It was in the context of being accused of lying and making the dream up, not that the dream was a factual piece of evidence for my theory.



I've said repeatedly that my idea of non corporeal consciousness that exists simultaneously in other dimensions is based strictly on my speculation.


What pretending?



I have to say Song being a fundamentalist, at least that's the impression I got, could have his own religious bias influencing his conclusions.



Not exactly. I think he was looking for proof of a soul and trying to shoe horn that into consciousness. I tend to use the word consciousness to signify awareness and how that might exist outside the physical body. I guess it's splitting hairs, there might not be any major difference in how we are using the term "consciousness".



It was demonstrating perspective, and as applied to time, it is related to what I am claiming.



I think you missed my point. If the brain works as a receiver you need to understand how the receiver works in perceiving the 4 dimensions that we live in. Our individual consciousness very well could be a material manifestation that is only applicable here and have absolutely nothing to do with consciousness as a whole. I still think his research is relevant to my theory.



I don't think so.



The math supports the theory of other dimensions. If the experience of consciousness as individual people is an illusion then that single awareness/being would have to be somewhere else besides here. The place where that could exist is supported. What isn't supported is that we aren't really individual people, but exist outside of our existence here as a singular being, if we exist at all.



Maybe you didn't understand his research??? When Tegmark speaks of integration he is referring to how we feel as we process a multitude of incoming information. Tegmark says if we ever invent a computer that is conscious, then cut off any input from the outside that could affect it's processing, then that computer will subjectively perceive itself as existing in a parallel universe completely separate from ours even though we can probe its internal state from outside. I think that's what is happening with us and why we perceive ourselves as separate entities. If we are not all one, and are truly separate individuals, then it would explain why you wouldn't necessarily be aware of the rest of yourself existing in these other dimensions.



I think your comment illustrates your lack of understanding of what I'm trying to describe. I admit that it is sometimes hard to find the words to represent what I feel to be true, or my belief, and that I am doing a very poor job here of trying to explain myself.



The only significance that the dream really had was the message, and then only because it actually happened several decades after the fact.


As my theory evolves here, the dream does become irrelevant.



I don't think it's important in the grand scheme of things. Whatever shape or form that reality actually takes may or may not be dependent on the single independent observer such as you or me.

Time is limited for me lately, and the ever-expanding point-by-point responses can wear after a while, and as far as logical and scientific validity (or their lack) in your arguments, JayUtah is speaking far better to the points than I can, so I will defer to him.

So I will limit this post to some short comments.

Reference the first part I highlighted, your point rings hollow when you do not hold your own words to the same standard, asking us alternately to accept your claims as speculation, to accept them as founded in science, to accept them as something in between, or whatever suits your mood.

Reference the second part I highlighted, there is no issue as far as you have stated it here. Speculation is speculation, and it can be both enjoyable and worthwhile to discuss it. Where you go astray is your separate assertions that the speculation is backed up by math unrelated to it.

Reference the third part I highlighted, it was the dream that you began by asserting as fact, and the reason you did so was primarily that we could not positively prove it untrue, despite never once posting any details. Regardless, you may want to look at the fact that the apparent verification occurred so long after the apparent prophecy. It would be interesting to know by what manner and at what time you recorded the details of the dream, how your kept it preserved and uncontaminated over time, and by what standards you judged it so specific a match to a decades-later event that you reached the conclusion that prophetic dream was the most parsimonious explanation.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

Why would you limit your consciousness to your deterministic existence here on Earth if a multidimensional universe is a theoretical possibility? It wouldn't make sense that it would only exist in the 4 dimensions we have here.
--snip--

The bit I highlighted here is, I think, a perfect demonstration of the central weakness of your position. Argument from Incredulity, perhaps. It makes no sense to you for it to be otherwise, therefore you assume it true, and perhaps without realizing it, paint all your research with the color of supporting your assumption.

It is not necessary to go further than that to demonstrate the weakness, but I will go one step more anyway:

It doesn't make sense that it DOES exist in those other dimensions. It does not perceive them, and the other aspects of me do not seem to exist in them. When I reach to grasp my coffee cup my arm and hand do not twist and contort into some imperceptible and physicalized equation. I require no commune with another dimension to accomplish the task.

Why is that less parsimonious than your formulation of what makes sense?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nothing I have read in any response to you fits this description. Please either back this up with reference to specific posts, or stop disparaging your critics.

Hmmm...it is almost as if the poster has indulged herself in this approach before...

 

[eerok]

You've only proven what I've said all along, it isn't testable. It doesn't refute the idea.

No one needs to refute your ideas. By your own admission they are unsupported by evidence, so they can be summarily dismissed.

Your notion that every odd mentation needs to be proved wrong or taken seriously is ridiculous.