"Without a map of our natural and social world - a picture of the world and of one's place in it that is structured and has inner cohesion - human beings would be confused and unable to act purposefully and consistently, for there would be no way of orienting oneself, of finding a fixed point that permits one to organize all the impressions that impinge upon each individual."
I came across this quote the other day while I was writing something else. Several days later I'm still thinking about it. Needs must I blog, so that the thoughts will go away.
Believe it or not, I've never attempted to comprehensively describe how my world-map has changed as a result of thinking in 5-dimensions. A world-map, as described in the above quote, contains more than one's understanding of the laws of physical phenomena. It also contains orienting values and overarching goals that one can access when trying to determine a course of action. It's that 'values and goals' part that I haven't really tackled yet. This is partly because when you assert the primacy of a particular set of values or goals, you risk being seen as less objective or impartial than you should be when dealing with matters of science.
So be it. What I have done was never really objective science as much as it was a mapping of my subjective internal experiences. If that leads to a theory that can some day be validated by objective data, my hopes will have been realized. If not, then this is just more fodder for my science-fiction writing career. ;)
But back to values and goals... I'll put down what I can, with no illusions that I can be completely objective about what guides or motivates me.
I think the most noticeable differences in my world-map reflect the differences in the way I see time. If the past is not fixed, and/or one can select a universe that reflects specific conditions from the past, then the past ceases to be as big of a source of worry or concern. Similarly, if the future is a set of possible outcomes (and there's always a set), then you are never worrying about the future. You are only worrying about the probable future. More than anything, it is what is happening now that matters. In this particular 5-dimensional perspective, what's happening now - including what's happening only in your head - is altering (however slightly) the probabilities associated with each future outcome.
Of course the past can still be used to make useful predictions about the future, and we couldn't function without doing so, but I've come to realize that using a specific event from the past to make a decision about an action now is not as useful as assessing the current situation in light of multiple interpretations of its relationship to the past. (Wow, that was a long sentence, and a somewhat convoluted thought...) Considering multiple interpretations of the relationship between past and present circumstances, and deciding how to act upon such an option-space of relationships, will ultimately bring out your optimistic or pessimistic tendencies. Both tendencies have functionality in determining outcome states, and you'll figure these out as you explore a 5-dimensional perspective.
From the same stories I just cited, you can see where the value status of material things changes in 5 dimensions. If a pizza, book, or on-sale dress is only a universe away, and I know how to get to that universe at any time, then the acquisition of that item now is only valuable if it fills a specific need that I have now. Don't get me wrong - I have hundreds of books waiting to be read. I hoard them against a great catastrophe wherein I might die of boredom. I do not claim to be the living embodiment of the set of values that I can articulate. But I do think that my values have generally shifted away from 'objects for status' and 'objects as a hedge against the future and/or link to the past', and towards 'objects for immediate use'. (Except for the books again. People I respect generally read a lot of books and have a lot of books. I can't tell you that possessing books is not, for me, in some way about status.)
Right now I'm starting to feel slightly ridiculous for writing this post. I'll shift to 'goals' for a moment to see if that helps. My motivations to do things (other than fulfill basic needs) are largely intrinsic. Perhaps they always were, or perhaps this reflects my changed perception of the nature of external motivators. Or, if you want to plumb the depths of psychology even further, you can suggest that I have a need for control (or the illusion of control) that underlies both my theory of 5 dimensions and my perception that I am intrinsically-motivated. ;)
Either way, I have goals that reflect the desire for self-mastery. Selecting an outcome requires the ability to master thoughts, emotions, and expectations. And while moment-to-moment experience is largely not a factor of conscious selection, thoughts and emotions set the general 'direction' of your trajectory (if you will permit me to sound excessively NewAge-y and non-scientific for just a moment), so mastering them can have a broader impact on the quality of the outcomes that you experience. Mastery of thought and emotion is also valuable in many other (more mundane) aspects of daily life, including interpersonal relationships and overall state of health, so it's worth your time, even if you think a 5-dimensional perspective is so much mushroom fertilizer. ;)
My other overarching goal is to learn. As biological organisms, we seem to be incapable of not learning, where learning is defined as 'modification with experience.' Perhaps it's my scholar-status bias again that makes me want to conclude that learning is the ultimate purpose, and should therefore be embraced as an overarching goal. Then again, since we can't avoid learning at its most basic level, perhaps I can be permitted a modicum of leeway in my subjective perception of its importance. ;)
Three paragraphs later and I'm still feeling as though this whole endeavor has overtones of 'pompous', so I think I'll stop for now. Until the next time I am possessed by thoughts I must explore, namaste.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives
"In every journey, the traveller must ask 'Was the right path taken?'... Those who watch the track too closely often fail to see where the path leads them."
Yesterday, in a moment of irritation, I chose the universe where the answer to a question was 'No' instead of 'Yes'. I did it consciously, because I knew that the answer was likely to be 'Yes', and I didn't want to deal with what followed a 'Yes' answer.
In your 4-dimensional world, you don't believe that such a thing is possible, and therefore I did nothing wrong. Run along then.
In a 5-dimensional world, there are questions... Did I simply alter my own trajectory through the smear/multiverse by steering myself towards the outcome I wanted? Or did my actions have a substantive effect on the other party?
If I simply altered my own trajectory, then, again, I have done nothing wrong. My choice to select that particular outcome may or may not impact my subsequent ability to make similar choices, but the morality of my decision to choose an outcome is a non-issue by any traditional code of right and wrong, as my decision did not affect someone else.
However, if I argue that the essence of observers and their observations is somehow linked together, and consensus reality reflects a summing together of those influences, then I must accept that my decision did affect someone else, and we then face a myriad of questions as to the morality of my action.
Arguing from this perspective assumes that every observer of an outcome exerts some influence on the outcome that is selected, though perhaps this influence is unequally distributed among the observers. If all observers remain unaware of their ability to influence the outcome, then again, no question of morality exists, as no one is intentionally acting on this knowledge. If one or more of the observers is aware and can make a conscious attempt to influence the outcome (and we're only discussing a non-local influence right now), then a question of relative power arises. An aware observer may or may not be the strongest agent in the selection of a particular outcome. But their awareness of their ability to consciously act puts an additional burden of responsibility upon them when faced with an opportunity to act.
By what ethics should an aware observer be bound when consciously acting to select a particular outcome? I touched on this briefly in earlier writings, but I always intended to explore the foundations of that ethic further, as it seems to come from people who have the most experience in consciously selecting outcomes. Though not explicitly stated in that particular ethical principle, the consensus seems to be that acting to suppress another person's free will harms that person, and therefore should be avoided.
How does this relate to my relative ability to select an outcome? As an aware observer who can, hypothetically, exercise a stronger influence upon the selection of the final state/outcome, am I admonished to refrain from doing so because my influence may suppress that of another person? Are we justified in equating the influence that a particular observer brings to bear on the process of state selection with his/her will?
That's an important question that warrants further exploration.
Yesterday, in a moment of irritation, I chose the universe where the answer to a question was 'No' instead of 'Yes'. I did it consciously, because I knew that the answer was likely to be 'Yes', and I didn't want to deal with what followed a 'Yes' answer.
In your 4-dimensional world, you don't believe that such a thing is possible, and therefore I did nothing wrong. Run along then.
In a 5-dimensional world, there are questions... Did I simply alter my own trajectory through the smear/multiverse by steering myself towards the outcome I wanted? Or did my actions have a substantive effect on the other party?
If I simply altered my own trajectory, then, again, I have done nothing wrong. My choice to select that particular outcome may or may not impact my subsequent ability to make similar choices, but the morality of my decision to choose an outcome is a non-issue by any traditional code of right and wrong, as my decision did not affect someone else.
However, if I argue that the essence of observers and their observations is somehow linked together, and consensus reality reflects a summing together of those influences, then I must accept that my decision did affect someone else, and we then face a myriad of questions as to the morality of my action.
Arguing from this perspective assumes that every observer of an outcome exerts some influence on the outcome that is selected, though perhaps this influence is unequally distributed among the observers. If all observers remain unaware of their ability to influence the outcome, then again, no question of morality exists, as no one is intentionally acting on this knowledge. If one or more of the observers is aware and can make a conscious attempt to influence the outcome (and we're only discussing a non-local influence right now), then a question of relative power arises. An aware observer may or may not be the strongest agent in the selection of a particular outcome. But their awareness of their ability to consciously act puts an additional burden of responsibility upon them when faced with an opportunity to act.
By what ethics should an aware observer be bound when consciously acting to select a particular outcome? I touched on this briefly in earlier writings, but I always intended to explore the foundations of that ethic further, as it seems to come from people who have the most experience in consciously selecting outcomes. Though not explicitly stated in that particular ethical principle, the consensus seems to be that acting to suppress another person's free will harms that person, and therefore should be avoided.
How does this relate to my relative ability to select an outcome? As an aware observer who can, hypothetically, exercise a stronger influence upon the selection of the final state/outcome, am I admonished to refrain from doing so because my influence may suppress that of another person? Are we justified in equating the influence that a particular observer brings to bear on the process of state selection with his/her will?
That's an important question that warrants further exploration.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Reading the Enemy's Mind
"Fight for the decrease of human alienation, the decrease of loneliness; make this struggle more important to you than the saving of a single life, even your own."
Factoring Humanity ended with the overmind of humankind making contact with the overmind of the alien race. The simultaneous awareness of 'I am not alone' was transmitted throughout the collective unconscious of humanity and brought about an almost instantaneous reduction in violence and hatred. Wishful thinking, or an accurate projection of how the intimate awareness of other minds can change a person's perceptions and behaviors?
What if we could read each other's minds? All of us, not just some of us who may or may not be delusional. ;) Let's ignore for the moment questions about whether this advancement would be biological or technological in origin.
If you had the ability to forge a connection to even one other mind, what would you notice? And how would your thoughts alter if you knew someone could access them? Speaking generally, I'll make the following predictions about what you'd find...
1) The 'sameness' of human emotions supercedes factors such as chronological age, gender and race. Emotions that are tied to culturally-driven values may differ in frequency, but the experience of shame, insecurity, or arrogance transcends the circumstances that prompted that instance of emotion. Likewise, the need for love and the need to be understood are universal.
2) The ability to feel the hurt - psychological or physical - that has been inflicted on the other person would cause you to rethink how your actions or thoughts might injure another person. You would find that you do more to bring happiness to other people because the feedback enhances your own mental state. You would also do more to alleviate the suffer of others when you see it, because you would be less afraid of being taken advantage of and more able to identify the specific need that is causing the suffering.
3) Your brain would adapt to process and prioritize this new stream of information much as it currently processes information from the conventional senses. Information that is pertinent to your survival/well-being would demand your attention, but for the most part you wouldn't know all the details of what another person is thinking.
4) Translation would be the biggest problem. You would need to integrate the incoming data with your existing knowledge structures in order to make it useful, so a person's highly-technical thoughts may be grasped by you only in more general terms.
5) Reciprocity of contact would promote more efforts to understand and appreciate the other person. After all, who wants contact with someone you can't stand? Likewise, if such a mode of communication were wide-spread, very few people would choose to isolate themselves from it, and they would adapt accordingly to the need for thought/emotion control that such contact requires.
6) Reading another person's mind requires the ability to internalize (temporarily at least) value and knowledge structures that may radically differ from your own. To the person whose mind you are reading, these are the valid operating systems. If these systems of knowledge and belief differ radically from your own, you will at least gain an appreciation of the variance in human thinking. This would generally be followed by an increase in tolerance for others and a decrease in the amount of purely dogmatic belief that one can sustain.
7) A cultural shift would take place to ensure that no person would be permitted to engage in large-scale telepathic contact without first having a stable personal identity. Likewise, those seeking contact with other minds would cultivate their own minds so that such contact with others would be an enjoyable and beneficial exchange. (Considering the prevalence of 'identity crisis', and the cultural shift away from wanting to have a cultivated mind that we currently seem to be experiencing, I say 'Bring it on!')
Factoring Humanity ended with the overmind of humankind making contact with the overmind of the alien race. The simultaneous awareness of 'I am not alone' was transmitted throughout the collective unconscious of humanity and brought about an almost instantaneous reduction in violence and hatred. Wishful thinking, or an accurate projection of how the intimate awareness of other minds can change a person's perceptions and behaviors?
What if we could read each other's minds? All of us, not just some of us who may or may not be delusional. ;) Let's ignore for the moment questions about whether this advancement would be biological or technological in origin.
If you had the ability to forge a connection to even one other mind, what would you notice? And how would your thoughts alter if you knew someone could access them? Speaking generally, I'll make the following predictions about what you'd find...
1) The 'sameness' of human emotions supercedes factors such as chronological age, gender and race. Emotions that are tied to culturally-driven values may differ in frequency, but the experience of shame, insecurity, or arrogance transcends the circumstances that prompted that instance of emotion. Likewise, the need for love and the need to be understood are universal.
2) The ability to feel the hurt - psychological or physical - that has been inflicted on the other person would cause you to rethink how your actions or thoughts might injure another person. You would find that you do more to bring happiness to other people because the feedback enhances your own mental state. You would also do more to alleviate the suffer of others when you see it, because you would be less afraid of being taken advantage of and more able to identify the specific need that is causing the suffering.
3) Your brain would adapt to process and prioritize this new stream of information much as it currently processes information from the conventional senses. Information that is pertinent to your survival/well-being would demand your attention, but for the most part you wouldn't know all the details of what another person is thinking.
4) Translation would be the biggest problem. You would need to integrate the incoming data with your existing knowledge structures in order to make it useful, so a person's highly-technical thoughts may be grasped by you only in more general terms.
5) Reciprocity of contact would promote more efforts to understand and appreciate the other person. After all, who wants contact with someone you can't stand? Likewise, if such a mode of communication were wide-spread, very few people would choose to isolate themselves from it, and they would adapt accordingly to the need for thought/emotion control that such contact requires.
6) Reading another person's mind requires the ability to internalize (temporarily at least) value and knowledge structures that may radically differ from your own. To the person whose mind you are reading, these are the valid operating systems. If these systems of knowledge and belief differ radically from your own, you will at least gain an appreciation of the variance in human thinking. This would generally be followed by an increase in tolerance for others and a decrease in the amount of purely dogmatic belief that one can sustain.
7) A cultural shift would take place to ensure that no person would be permitted to engage in large-scale telepathic contact without first having a stable personal identity. Likewise, those seeking contact with other minds would cultivate their own minds so that such contact with others would be an enjoyable and beneficial exchange. (Considering the prevalence of 'identity crisis', and the cultural shift away from wanting to have a cultivated mind that we currently seem to be experiencing, I say 'Bring it on!')
