Mind as a vibrating hyper-membrane?

[Bernardo]

Since a long and entertaining discussion in another thread has changed into a discussion about an idealist articulation of reality I proposed there, I thought it best to move it to a new, fresh thread. To make the transition smoother, I wrote up my ideas in a clearer way in my blog, so we can continue the debate with more clarity. Here it is:

Metaphysical Speculations: Mind as a hyper-dimensional membrane

What do you think?

[XXII]

I posted this in the other thread just before Bernardo moved the topic over here... so I guess I will repost it:

I have to say that I very much agree with Bernardo on this. Despite the fact that we would likely word it in different ways I believe that at heart his thesis is in line with what I understand reality to be.

We are very much unable to bridge this conceptual gap we have created for ourselves between "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity", gap on which a great deal of modern science has built and elaborated upon.

The way I see it everything we experience is but patterns within Mind. Some of these patterns are quite stable, like the laws of Nature described by Physical science, others are relatively stable, individuals and egoic minds (our normal state of consciousness), whilst others rather unstable, altered states like dreams, drug experiences, meditation, UFO encounters and abductions, etc.

It seems that the landspace of Mind bears within it all potentialities which are actualized by the incessant interplay between patterns. As these particular modes of manifestation are expressed over and over again they become more stable and refined. The different grades of sensations and reflection contribute to the progressive structuring and linking of different areas within Mind. As these archetypes become more and more structured they 'seek out' their own actualization. In this sense the evolution of species and the manifestation of folk archetypes in the form of faeries, UFOs, etc, both take part in the actualization of archetypes latent in the landscape of Mind, albeit archetypes of a different kind.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just a few thoughts:

You keep saying things like "Strictly speaking, nobody can ever prove that there is a world outside of experience, and/or independent of experience, ...". The average guy, like me, thinks "experience" is my experience or your experience, but not some sort of external pile of experiences. So your statement appears patently false. You might want to come up with another way to say this.

And how come all these apparently different minds all seem to share the same reality, if there is no common 'outside world' modulating their experiences?
...
Therefore, the exercise here is to imagine that the patterns of our experiences are the vibrations of a hyper-dimensional membrane. They are not produced by a world outside of mind, but are the fabric of mind itself vibrating in unfathomably complex modes.

But the membrane is the "outside world." It's no less outside than a physical world. What you mean is that there is no outside world that is not mental. Again, you need to state this more clearly whenever you say it.

Even entirely new modes of oscillation, alien to the broader hyper-membrane, ...
...
All this said, the vibrations of the broader hyper-membrane are still solely responsible for exciting the vibrations within the loops.

Sounds like a contradiction. There may be new oscillations, but I'm not sure how there can be new modes.

Science only captures the parts that are identical, however much that is. This way, the 'laws of nature' are merely descriptions of the commonalities of oscillation across loops.

I'm not sure why this is a hard and fast restriction on science. Are there local oscillations that violate the "laws of nature"?

Not a bad description. Now you have to work out the mathematics of the membrane, vibrations, and local loops. I'd also be interested in knowing what on Earth the point of evolution is, or any pre-human history for that matter.

Finally, how does will work? For example, if I want an hallucinogenic experience, how do I willfully modify my local loop so that it (a) lets in the global experience of ingesting the drug, and (b) then lets in the global altered experiences?

~~ Paul

[anonymous]

What causes loops to form?

What causes vibrations in the membrane?

Do you need things outside the membrane (outside mind) to cause loops and vibrations?

Doesn't a hyperdimensional membrane imply there is also a hyperdimensional space? Doesn't that mean there is something outside mind - a hyperdimensional space - for mind to exist in if it is a hyperdimensional membrane?


How do loops in a hyperdimensional membrane have causality?

[mszlazak]

In this membrane "metaphored" talk for a single ultimately real universal experiencing entity (the ultimate ground of being), there isn't any individual independent "souls" that are also basic entities. "Souls" in this view have a life-cycle and eventually perish by merging with other transient secondary processes within this ground of being or with this ground itself.

But why should we not believe that souls are basic processes that never perish? What kind of experience would a soul/mind/conscious being like us have that would indicate it is really just a transient process of a single experiencing reality?

Also, how "smart" or conscious is this single ultimate experiencing reality?


-------------

[anonymous]

If you have a vibrating membrane don't you need a universe with physical laws for the membrane to exist in. How do vibrations get transmitted accross the membrane? By physical laws. How can mind be all that is if it exists within something else? How can all physical laws result from "mind" if those laws are required for mind to function?

[anonymous]

You are trying to understand mind in terms of things you already know and understand: membranes, dimensions, vibrations, loops. I don't know what else you can do but, it might limit you - mind and reality might require things a person who only knows the physical world can't imagine in order to explain it.

[Michael Larkin]

Originally Posted by Bernardo

What do you think?

Bernardo, I think I get the essence of what you are trying to say, and the more I think about your ideas on Idealism, the more attractive they seem to become.

However, I suspect that the metaphor you are using (hyper-membranes, folding, loops and loops within loops, etc.) is tough going for anyone who doesn't have a strong mathematical bent (count me in that category).

At the same time, I think that people like Maaneli aren't really getting it because they're having difficulties thinking outside the box. I'm not sure that trying to engage them using sciencey language is getting you very far.

You have occasionally said things in your exchanges with Maaneli that seem to almost (but not quite) nail it, for example:

Originally Posted by Bernardo

To understand Idealism, you must always come back to subjective experience. There is no reality but what is experienced. If in doubt about what Idealism would say for this or that experiment, just ask yourself: Can this be said to be experienced by a conscious entity? If not, it's epistemic. If it can, then it is ontological, even though you may not know the answer to the extent that you don't have access to the experience...

It partly governs the flow of experience of all folded human minds, yes (not the hyper-geometry of their folding). I say 'partly' in the sense that it only governs a subset of those experiences: the parts that overlap across folded minds. For instance, we all share the experience that 'objects' are attracted to the ground. That's governed by the regularities known as the 'laws of nature' as uncovered by the scientific method. What science thus acknowledges as valid regularities are by construction the shared ones, which will correspond to the 'data-stream' from the 'unconscious.'

But folded minds also have idiosyncratic experiences: dreams, visions, trances, and apparent 'breaks' in the continuity of reality that happen during sharp, waking states (missing time, absurd phenomena, and the like). Those, because of being idiosyncratic, are discarded by the scientific method (as they should be, to preserve the power of the method; which thus becomes incomplete).

I'd love for you to nail it for the layman, because I suspect if you could, then people like Maaneli would probably be able to get the principle of it better too, and then maybe you could have a separate approach tailored for the techies.

It's incredibly frustrating for me, because your exposition is right on the boundary of my capacity to understand your metaphor. There are things I'm not quite certain about, and at the same time don't really know how to ask the right sort of questions to clarify my understanding and raise valid criticisms, if there are any.

I hope that's useful feedback for you.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Doesn't a hyperdimensional membrane imply there is also a hyperdimensional space? Doesn't that mean there is something outside mind - a hyperdimensional space - for mind to exist in if it is a hyperdimensional membrane?

You also need time for vibrations to occur and loops to form and interact, so time cannot be a creation of mind either. It seems to me you are supposing what you are trying to explain: you need a space time to exist for mind to function but you say physical reality (space time) is created by mind.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by anonymous

You are trying to understand mind in terms of things you already know and understand: membranes, dimensions, vibrations, loops.

If consciousness is really fundamental, if it can't be explained in terms of simpler things, then I don't see how it can be explained in terms of simpler things like vibrations, membranes, dimensions and loops.