Qualia as a Higher Dimension from Physicality

I am starting to think that interiority represents a higher dimension from physicality.

Take the color red for example. Let's make some meta statements about both the physical (objective) and the experiential (subjective) properties of red.

Physicality = P = electromagnetic wavelength of 650 nanometers.
Quality = Q = the feeling of "redness"

1. The Q of P: feeling of red
2. The P of Q: Doesn't make sense? (the physical nature of qualia)
3. The P of P: doesn't make sense
4. The Q of Q: a continuous stream, immersion

Statements 1 and 4 are the only ones that make sense. Q and P seem to be uni-directional. Q is meta to P. Q is in a higher dimension from P.

Let's look at an example of this.

What is the length of this line? ____________________

You'd need at least a 2D perspective to measure the property of "length." Only by going up a dimension does one have the experience of "length." If you were 1D and lived on the line, you'd just see a dot.

TIME as Consciousness?!

Could it be that space::time as matter::mind?

Is consciousness the same as time? Let's not get carried away here; I am not necessarily proposing that consciousness IS time. However, there seems to be an obvious connection. Consciousness and time are often described in very similar ways. With both, we are immersed in an intangible, continuous stream of experience.

There are similarities in language that span cultures.The Aboriginals have "dreamtime," a sacred period of time at which the world was created. It is a timeless, present, and transcendent state of consciousness. In the West, we often refer in sports and meditation to "the zone," or presence experienced as timelessness, a blissful state of consciousness.

Notice how time is experienced differently in different states of consciousness. While dreaming, time moves slowly relative to a waking observer. In psychedelic states, time moves incredibly slowly. In fact, the excruciatingly slow experience of LSD is complemented by a vastly greater amount of sensory input of surrounding space. With the LSD experience, one may say that with regard to spacetime, as time is distorted and stretched, more space is experienced.

If there is no time, is there no conscious experience? Or rather, is timelessness or lack of time correlated with the most transcendent state of consciousness possible?

Let's be careful not to confuse cause and correlation. Perhaps time and interiority aren't one and the same, but time is correlated with one "dimension," of the interior experience. Could there be multiple dimensions of time?

Problems yet to be accounted for:
*Our consciousness is individualized.
*You can't lump the entire mystery of interiority into one concept, like consciousness. The realm of interiority   has many facets: Interiority, qualia, consciousness, awareness, reflection, intention, thought, feeling, emotion, the list goes on.  

* We need to account for states of consciousness, which are dynamic (i.e. sleep, brainwave states, peak experiences)

Let's play with the following ideas for further exploration:
*Find examples of lower dimensions experiencing higher dimensions
*Finding examples to deal with the "Immersion Problem": a fish knowing it's in water.

~Jess Pikorz

The Living Architecture

Usually we ask ourselves about a possible interface between the exterior, material world and the interior world, as if they are two dimensions clashing up against one another, communicating with one another. This is still material-centric and stagnant in the old paradigm of dualism.

What if instead we collapse this dualistic model so that mind and matter become two sides of the same coin? We could see consciousness as the structure, and the material world as the function. Or, instead of the phrase "material world," insert what you will: order, existence, life, etc.

To better conceptualize this, here are some examples of other structures and functions:

Structure                     Function                             
House                         Maintains a safe place to live
Language                    Communication between individuals
Physics equations        Engine power, mobility, transportation
Consciousness           Organization, life, existence….?

What makes consciousness, or interiority unique from the other examples of structure, is that it is not a static architecture. It is a dynamic process, a "living architecture."

We can also switch these two words around. Depending on your paradigm, interiority might be the function, and matter might be the structure. This would be the case for the belief that consciousness arises as a side-effect from the matter of the brain.

~Jessica

The "Anti-Study" of Consciousness

I’m imagining an “anti-study” of consciousness that is participatory, playing with the inter-subjective. However, our main barrier is the fact that the objective, out-there world, and the subjective, interior world seem so different, and we don’t know where the split between these two worlds is. If we could somehow play with borderlands between the objective and subjective, that would likely prove extremely insightful.

Is it a border, though? A mathematical limit? All actually the same “stuff,”, like matter and energy? I am thinking of times or states where we experience a blurry boundary between the objective and subjective. The only possibilities I can come up with include death, or any other situation where consciousness seems to separate from one’s body.

                                   

In that case, death might be chock full of information about the border between the objective (a cold, dead body) and the subjective (the consciousness that seems to have departed).


~Jessica

The "Gazing at Oneself" Paradox

I have noticed a particular fundamental problem with consciousness, the fact that because we are immersed in it, we cannot see it. A fish is not aware it is in water. A similar problem is that I cannot use my own eyes to look at myself. We can work with the “gazing at oneself” analogy, in an attempt to think up ways around the problem, which involves topology and perception, and then possibly apply these ideas back to consciousness.

With this in mind, how can we possibly look at our eyes with our eyes? Well, we can do a couple of things. We can take a picture of ourselves, or simply look in mirror. In those cases, we need a reflective property in order to see ourselves. Of course, we use the same word subjectively when “reflecting” back on a thought we have had. I’m wondering if we can work with this further. Is there a way in which we can create or discover a new kind of “reflective material,” or process that will allow us to look at ourselves in a more detailed way?

It should be noted that we can be aware of our own thoughts, in a top-down kind of way. We can employ specific mind processes to observe other mind processes. In that way, you can “use your consciousness to look at your consciousness.” However, I am talking about something more. Even though we can look at different conscious processes, we are still, on the whole, completely immersed in this stream of conscious experience. We have no way of getting outside of this, able to fully dissect consciousness as a whole.

Another perspective on the “gazing at oneself” analogy is to change the analogy a bit. Imagine a single finger trying to touch itself. The only way this is possible is to mess around with the topology, by folding the finger (or any object) dimensionally in on itself. So I ask, is there a way to “fold” consciousness, or touch minds? 

The problem with all of these analogies, is that we are still using material-centric language.

Another way to view the “gazing at oneself” analogy, is in terms of sociology. The dominant culture/race/class can never see itself either; it often needs an outsider to point out what is going on. As an example, in America the dominant culture is white men. Very little do we see movies or books describing and exploring the nature of white men, because they are seen as the norm. Thus, it takes someone outside of this realm in order to reflect back what they see. With that in mind, when discussing consciousness, we need to someone get outside of ourselves to reflect back what we see.

~Jessica

Creating an Original Language

It is my opinion that we need a new, original set of symbols (a language) to describe consciosness, or interiority. However, is it possible for a human being to produce something original, and if not, what is the closest we can get to pure originality?

To be purely original necessitates a lack of influence from one's prior experience. Thus, in order to embark on this goal, one must first produce a new language to express the original idea. If one uses an already established vehicle of expression, such as words or mathematics, to express the idea, then the idea, however original it may be, will be churned out as some permutation of symbols we are already familiar with. True, we may not have seen that particular conglomeration of symbols before, but if the very vehicle of expression is not original, then how can the idea itself be original?

An original idea requires an equally original vehicle of expression. We already have words, mathematics, and to some extent music. Word express out lived experience, math expresses amounts of space and time, and music expresses feeling or emotions.

If we are to create a whole new language, we first need to figure out what exactly it is that we might want to express. Concepts, argument,s emotions, amounts, these are all things we are currently able to express using our established vehicles of expression, such as words, mathematics, and music? What else in the universe yearns to be expressed? Once we can pinpoint that, then we can develop a symbolic system to express that experience, and from that truly create an original idea or art.

Possibilities:
peak experiences
psychedelic experiences
that nagging spiritual feeling that there is MORE
intuition
ESP
meditation
dreams

~Jessica

The Hard Problem

"The hard problem" is:
How/what is consciousness, or inner subjective experience (or interiority)??????
We seem to think that ineriority (consciousness) arises from exteriority (matter). How is that possible?

I have been bothered my entire life about this giant standstill we're at scientifically/philosophically/spiritually, in terms of the "hard problem." The key element for me is newness. I think in order to make any headway into the hard problem, we need a new language to express ideas in the realm of interiority. If we use an already established vehicle of expression, such as words or mathematics, to express the idea, then the idea will be churned out as some permutation of symbols we are already familiar with, through old lenses and biases.

I am intrigued by my professor's black hole idea, the concept of "information wells" of consciousness. It relates to how I've thought of consciousness as a charged fabric much like spacetime, spread everywhere, but concentrated into areas of particular density, and those extremely dense areas are separate beings. When we start talking about "more" or "less" consciousness, we enter the realm of mathematics. I am afraid of getting stuck in too narrow a lens, but if math and word are all we've got, so be it, at least for now. In class we've talked about quanta vs. qualia, so maybe we need a kind of "qualia mechanics/physics," although that name might look scientistic to the holistic crowd.

Another thing is that we often treat consciousness or interiority as if it's all one big thing, when it might be far more complex, in the same way that matter/energy ranges from electrons to animals to a living planet. Some different types of consciousness might include thought, feeling, awareness, and reflection, to name a few. Or, consciousness can work in holons or systems, growing in complexity. Maybe at the most complex system of consciousness you have a being like you or I.

There is brand new territory waiting to be discovered, and I want to be a part of it. I would like to do "consciousness & sexuality" work still, because there is a lot there, but the ultimate goal for me is dealing with the "hard problem" and developing a new paradigm.

~Jessica