Is a Metaphysics of 'Inner Space' a Rational and Coherent Possibility?

[Pattern-chaser]

All these speculations don't seem to lead to anywhere else than still further speculations. Endless.

Surely this is a common consequence of nearly all serious thought?

A consequence of speculative thought taken seriously.

No "Why?" = no speculation.
No speculation → no theories.
No theories = no investigation.
No investigation → no growth in understanding.

No speculation = no discovery; no novelty. Stasis.

We can experience events, and remember them. There is not necessarily any stasis of knowledge-acquisition, but that's it. There can be no learning: stasis. Is nihilism your thing?

[SteveKlinko]

You probably have more of an understanding of physical dimensions than I have because you come from an engineering background. How mind and consciousness fits into this though in terms of connections is extremely complex.

One aspect which I have read about in a number of books is the idea of the subtle body and the chakras, which are the energy centres in the body. This perspective is more prominent in Eastern philosophy, but is at the basis of some traditions of holistic medicine. It is different from the Western association of consciousness with the brain. One main idea within the Eastern view of the chakras is the pineal gland, which is recognized as being significant for sleep patterns in particular, because it produces Melatonin. Descartes also saw the connection between mind and body as being related to the mysterious pineal gland.

Could be. But for the Pineal gland to be involved in Consciousness it would need to be connected to every Neuron in the Cortex. I think the Pineal gland is just a Gland. It has no Neural interface. Or does it?

[SteveKlinko]

All these speculations don't seem to lead to anywhere else than still further speculations. Endless.

Surely this is a common consequence of nearly all serious thought?

A consequence of speculative thought taken seriously.

No "Why?" = no speculation.
No speculation → no theories.
No theories = no investigation.
No investigation → no growth in understanding.

No speculation = no discovery; no novelty. Stasis.

We can experience events, and remember them. There is not necessarily any stasis of knowledge-acquisition, but that's it. There can be no learning: stasis. Is nihilism your thing?

Very good. When it comes to Consciousness all we have is Speculation. If you are not Speculating about Consciousness, you are not part of the solution. Speculations will seem endless until the right Speculation comes around and is proven to be true.

[stevie]

All these speculations don't seem to lead to anywhere else than still further speculations. Endless.

Surely this is a common consequence of nearly all serious thought?

A consequence of speculative thought taken seriously.

No "Why?" = no speculation.

That correct but "why" doesn't justify speculation because it may also entail serious scientific investigation.

No speculation → no theories.

No speculation → no speculative beliefs.

No theories = no investigation.

no speculative beliefs → serious scientific investigation

No investigation → no growth in understanding.

serious scientific investigation → valid knowledge

No speculation = no discovery; no novelty. Stasis.

No speculation → no speculative beliefs → serious scientific investigation → valid knowledge → logically valid hypotheses based on valid knowledge → progress

Is nihilism your thing?

Not at all. Non-speculation is my thing. But I acknowledge that non-speculation requires disciplining a kind of 'mental impulsivity'

[JackDaydream]

@SteveKlinko

It is hard to know because it hasn't been focused on that much, but it is an acorn shape. The thing is in bringing about the physiological aspects of the chemicals in the brain there is still a lot to be learned. Chemicals such as dopamine and serotonin are basic elements but as you suggest consciousness is outside of the dimensions to some extent. That means that it cannot simply be reduced to the physical.

The book which I was reading a couple of days ago was Anthony Peake's 'The Infinite Mindfield: The Quest to Find the Gateway to Higher Consciousness' (2013) and he talks specifically about the pineal gland but on the level of it being understood in some philosophy systems as 'the third eye'. He maintains that it is responsible for many borderline sleep experiences. He suggests that it often calcified during childhood, meaning that many people only have dim awareness of its existence.

What he says about Descartes strikes me as interesting. He says, 'Descartes believed the soul was immaterial. This meant that in order to have any effect in the physical world it would need a tiny, easily moved, communication point. The pineal gland could fulfill this purpose. Of course, this would need further empirical evidence, but there is the limitations of science to pinpoint consciousness.

Peake also talks about light on a physical level in generation of vision and in the experience of consciousness.

[Pattern-chaser]

All these speculations don't seem to lead to anywhere else than still further speculations. Endless.

Surely this is a common consequence of nearly all serious thought?

A consequence of speculative thought taken seriously.

No "Why?" = no speculation.

That correct but "why" doesn't justify speculation because it may also entail serious scientific investigation.

Serious scientific investigation begins with speculation. How could it be otherwise?

[JackDaydream]

@Pattern-chaser

I am not sure how it is possible to prevent speculation because, even if it is not serious philosophy, all aspects of life involve thinking. The main way in avoid speculation would be unconsciousness or being so tranced out in inner space. Often, meditation involves trying to switch off or empty the mind, and it is not easy. That is meant to allow for deeper contemplation and I don't think that the negative understanding of speculation on this thread is about switching off the mind, but more about the need to do more than speculate.

I don't see how it is possible to come up with knowledge without speculation because the human mind is the basis for understanding, even if it is based on evidence of the senses. That is because it comes down to interpretation. The world in space as an outer construct has to be processed by the lens of perception, meaning that everything has to be taken into inner space of consciousness.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser

I am not sure how it is possible to prevent speculation because, even if it is not serious philosophy, all aspects of life involve thinking. The main way in avoid speculation would be unconsciousness or being so tranced out in inner space. Often, meditation involves trying to switch off or empty the mind, and it is not easy. That is meant to allow for deeper contemplation and I don't think that the negative understanding of speculation on this thread is about switching off the mind, but more about the need to do more than speculate.

I don't see how it is possible to come up with knowledge without speculation because the human mind is the basis for understanding, even if it is based on evidence of the senses. That is because it comes down to interpretation. The world in space as an outer construct has to be processed by the lens of perception, meaning that everything has to be taken into inner space of consciousness.

Agreed. But who is trying to "prevent" speculation, and what would be the point, even if we could/did? <baffled>

[JackDaydream]

@Pattern-chaser

I am not prepared to give up speculating. After all, I am Mr Daydream, and daydreaming and speculating are cousins. So, I will not agree to speculation being outlawed and witchhunted as the 'unforgivable sin' in philosophy. I will wage war from inner space with a metaphysical army of steampunk engines.

[stevie]

All these speculations don't seem to lead to anywhere else than still further speculations. Endless.

Surely this is a common consequence of nearly all serious thought?

A consequence of speculative thought taken seriously.

No "Why?" = no speculation.

That correct but "why" doesn't justify speculation because it may also entail serious scientific investigation.

Serious scientific investigation begins with speculation. How could it be otherwise?

Not at all. Serious scientific investigation begins with hypotheses supported by logic AND already available scientific knowledge.

[Pattern-chaser]

Serious scientific investigation begins with speculation. How could it be otherwise?

Not at all. Serious scientific investigation begins with hypotheses supported by logic AND already available scientific knowledge.

And what are "hypotheses" - prior to further investigation - but speculation?

[stevie]

Serious scientific investigation begins with speculation. How could it be otherwise?

Not at all. Serious scientific investigation begins with hypotheses supported by logic AND already available scientific knowledge.

And what are "hypotheses" - prior to further investigation - but speculation?

As written: Scientific hypotheses are supported by logic AND already available scientific knowledge (which is based on scientific evidence). Whereas speculations are groundless fabrications by thought. The latter is practiced by most forum users.

[Pattern-chaser]

And what are "hypotheses" - prior to further investigation - but speculation?

As written: Scientific hypotheses are supported by logic AND already available scientific knowledge (which is based on scientific evidence). Whereas speculations are groundless fabrications by thought.

Speculations are Einsteinian 'thought experiments', whereby we imagine possibilities. Of course they are fabrications, but they aren't necessarily "groundless". "Scientific hypotheses" are imagined possibilities, which are usually subjected to scientific scrutiny to see if they have (scientific) merit. It may be that these possibilities are based on existing knowledge, but they remain speculative until they are firmed-up by other means. Are "scientific hypotheses" somehow different?

Is "Wow! I wonder if benzene could be structured in a ring...?" a speculation or a hypothesis? It looks like both/either to me.

[JackDaydream]

@stevie

I know that you are extremely critical of my 'speculative' approach, but the question is how far can science and logic take us. The other side is imagination and intuition, like the left and right side of the brain. Even though science and art are two approaches they both incorporate aspects of each. Logic without imagination may end up with a lopsided distortion. That is where the metaphysical aspect of the thread comes in, especially the question of how many dimensions exist?

[SteveKlinko]

Serious scientific investigation begins with speculation. How could it be otherwise?

Not at all. Serious scientific investigation begins with hypotheses supported by logic AND already available scientific knowledge.

And what are "hypotheses" - prior to further investigation - but speculation?

As written: Scientific hypotheses are supported by logic AND already available scientific knowledge (which is based on scientific evidence). Whereas speculations are groundless fabrications by thought. The latter is practiced by most forum users.

There are no Scientific Hypotheses for Conscious Experience, that is why we Speculate. An understanding of Conscious Experience will take us into a whole new Category of Phenomena that Science does not know how to handle yet. But I expect it will someday.