Apr 16, 2022 09:57 PM
(This post was last modified: Apr 16, 2022 09:57 PM by C C.)
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-an..._auid=2020
The hard problem of consciousness is the most pressing unsolved mystery in both philosophy and science. To solve such a problem, we are going to need revolutionary ways of thinking. Philosopher of mind, Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes, argues higher spatial dimensions might hold the key to the hard problem.
- - - - - -
INTRO: ‘The waking have one common world [koinos kosmos], but the sleeping turn aside each into a world of their own [idios kosmos]’ – Heraclitus
The inquiry into the relation between ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ too often stops at the status of profound mystery because those very terms are poorly understood. What is understood is that the solution to the mystery requires revolutionary thought, since present concepts do not provide sufficient scope through which to see the end of this cosmic riddle. We should therefore extend our vision and experiment with ocular instruments beyond those found in the traditional philosopher’s observatory. To gain a greater gaze into this outer space we will analyse space itself – in its relation to sentience – fracturing it into three varieties and raising it beyond three dimensions. The mind-matter mystery beckons us to explore the relations between space, matter, and mind. What follows is a playful trip of radical speculation through hyperspace.
1. Mind, Matter, and Space
From the Cartesian legacy, it is often believed that matter is spatial (extensive) and mind, or sentience, is non-spatial (inextensive).
This dichotomy of spatial-matter and non-spatial-mind conveys Descartes’ dualism, and is no doubt partly responsible for the ecologically-cataclysmic scientific view of nature as merely mechanical, insentient. William James criticized the Cartesian assumption: ‘Descartes for the first time defined thought as the absolutely unextended … . But to argue … that experience is absolutely inextensive seems to me little short of absurd.’
In an earlier paper, ‘The Spatial Quale’, James had grounded such a view, speaking of the existence of spatial properties not only without but within imagination: ‘The primary [visual] sensation is a simple vastness, a teeming muchness. The perception of positions within it results from sub-dividing it. The measurement of distances and directions comes later still.’
If we close our eyes and imagine two triangles next to each other, we can speak of their spatial properties – such as each having three sides, angles that sum 180°, that one triangle may be to the left of, and above, the other, and vice versa, their relative proximity, boundaries and topological features, their relative sizes, etc. These properties are perhaps often not as stable as would be two triangles perceived with eyes open, yet they are spatial properties regardless of such stable durability.
Thus we have here two types of space, correlated yet not prima facie identical. Bertrand Russell expresses such a dichotomy when he writes that: ‘percepts are not identical with material objects, and the relation of perceptual to physical space is not identity.’
2. The Varieties of Space
Thus we are led to posit the reality of twofold space: physical space and sentient space. This pair can also, respectively, be referred to as extrinsic and intrinsic space, or objective and subjective space. Unfortunately all of these labels bear metaphysical connotations that can interfere with a proper understanding of their essences and relation – as we shall come to understand (e.g. physical space is perceived as such within our subjective space, and sentient space may not be merely intrinsic).
But for now we note the relation of this general twofold space to the Herclitus epigraph above where sentient space refers to the idios kosmos, physical space to our shared koinos kosmos. Sentient space not only includes that of imagination, but also that of hypnagogia, psychedeliscapes, and the space of dreams. Russell’s teacher and later colleague and friend, Alfred North Whitehead, also spoke implicitly of this distinctive idios kosmos:
‘The distinction between the dream-world and nature is, that the space-time of the dream-world cannot conjoin with the scheme of the space-time of nature, as constituted by any part of nature. The dream-world is nowhere at no time, though it has a dream-time and dream-space of its own.’
We must distinguish then physical from sentient space. Sentient space, however, ramifies into more than visual space. We also have the sense of space related to our bodies: somatic space. Maurice Merleau-Ponty distinguishes somatic sentient space from physical space, and argues that the distinction lies in the fact that the latter is indirectly intellectualized in terms of relations or positions to objective geometric coordinates whereas the former is directly felt in terms of a top-down ‘global awareness’ of the situationally-determined location of one’s bodily parts.
The haptic sense, touch, is a part of somatic space, and one that lends itself especially to the feeling of the real: ‘it is our sense of touch that gives our sense of “reality”’, Russell claims. Moreover, the gustatory sense, i.e. taste, is also, arguably, a type of touch (by the tongue) – one that yields more data (flavour) than does standard skin-based touch. As to whether the olfactory, auditory, and other senses, involve spatiality is a question that I shall not address here (note that James argues that all senses are spatial). It is sufficient for our purposes to show that there exist perceptual spaces distinct from extrinsic, physical space.
Further: there are spaces and spatial properties which we can conceptualize yet not visualize nor (at least directly) feel somatically. For instance, we can easily conceptualize four dimensional space by simply adding an axis w, to the traditional three – x, y, z – and thus create a hypothetical hyperspace that can be developed through algebraic geometry. However, such a conceptual space is not identical to a visual space: though a fourth dimension orthogonal (right-angled) to our traditional three can be conceived, it is very difficult (to say the least) to visualize this directly.
Now, this threefold analysis raises a question: How are these varieties of space related? Let us here approach this question with a twofold space – visual and physical space, idios and koinos kosmos – which will be a journey via hyperspace into the blackhole that is the mind-matter problem... (MORE - details)
- - - - - -
In Conversation with DR PETER SJÖSTEDT-HUGHES (video): https://youtu.be/2GLriPZGbQY
The hard problem of consciousness is the most pressing unsolved mystery in both philosophy and science. To solve such a problem, we are going to need revolutionary ways of thinking. Philosopher of mind, Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes, argues higher spatial dimensions might hold the key to the hard problem.
- - - - - -
INTRO: ‘The waking have one common world [koinos kosmos], but the sleeping turn aside each into a world of their own [idios kosmos]’ – Heraclitus
The inquiry into the relation between ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ too often stops at the status of profound mystery because those very terms are poorly understood. What is understood is that the solution to the mystery requires revolutionary thought, since present concepts do not provide sufficient scope through which to see the end of this cosmic riddle. We should therefore extend our vision and experiment with ocular instruments beyond those found in the traditional philosopher’s observatory. To gain a greater gaze into this outer space we will analyse space itself – in its relation to sentience – fracturing it into three varieties and raising it beyond three dimensions. The mind-matter mystery beckons us to explore the relations between space, matter, and mind. What follows is a playful trip of radical speculation through hyperspace.
1. Mind, Matter, and Space
From the Cartesian legacy, it is often believed that matter is spatial (extensive) and mind, or sentience, is non-spatial (inextensive).
This dichotomy of spatial-matter and non-spatial-mind conveys Descartes’ dualism, and is no doubt partly responsible for the ecologically-cataclysmic scientific view of nature as merely mechanical, insentient. William James criticized the Cartesian assumption: ‘Descartes for the first time defined thought as the absolutely unextended … . But to argue … that experience is absolutely inextensive seems to me little short of absurd.’
In an earlier paper, ‘The Spatial Quale’, James had grounded such a view, speaking of the existence of spatial properties not only without but within imagination: ‘The primary [visual] sensation is a simple vastness, a teeming muchness. The perception of positions within it results from sub-dividing it. The measurement of distances and directions comes later still.’
If we close our eyes and imagine two triangles next to each other, we can speak of their spatial properties – such as each having three sides, angles that sum 180°, that one triangle may be to the left of, and above, the other, and vice versa, their relative proximity, boundaries and topological features, their relative sizes, etc. These properties are perhaps often not as stable as would be two triangles perceived with eyes open, yet they are spatial properties regardless of such stable durability.
Thus we have here two types of space, correlated yet not prima facie identical. Bertrand Russell expresses such a dichotomy when he writes that: ‘percepts are not identical with material objects, and the relation of perceptual to physical space is not identity.’
2. The Varieties of Space
Thus we are led to posit the reality of twofold space: physical space and sentient space. This pair can also, respectively, be referred to as extrinsic and intrinsic space, or objective and subjective space. Unfortunately all of these labels bear metaphysical connotations that can interfere with a proper understanding of their essences and relation – as we shall come to understand (e.g. physical space is perceived as such within our subjective space, and sentient space may not be merely intrinsic).
But for now we note the relation of this general twofold space to the Herclitus epigraph above where sentient space refers to the idios kosmos, physical space to our shared koinos kosmos. Sentient space not only includes that of imagination, but also that of hypnagogia, psychedeliscapes, and the space of dreams. Russell’s teacher and later colleague and friend, Alfred North Whitehead, also spoke implicitly of this distinctive idios kosmos:
‘The distinction between the dream-world and nature is, that the space-time of the dream-world cannot conjoin with the scheme of the space-time of nature, as constituted by any part of nature. The dream-world is nowhere at no time, though it has a dream-time and dream-space of its own.’
We must distinguish then physical from sentient space. Sentient space, however, ramifies into more than visual space. We also have the sense of space related to our bodies: somatic space. Maurice Merleau-Ponty distinguishes somatic sentient space from physical space, and argues that the distinction lies in the fact that the latter is indirectly intellectualized in terms of relations or positions to objective geometric coordinates whereas the former is directly felt in terms of a top-down ‘global awareness’ of the situationally-determined location of one’s bodily parts.
The haptic sense, touch, is a part of somatic space, and one that lends itself especially to the feeling of the real: ‘it is our sense of touch that gives our sense of “reality”’, Russell claims. Moreover, the gustatory sense, i.e. taste, is also, arguably, a type of touch (by the tongue) – one that yields more data (flavour) than does standard skin-based touch. As to whether the olfactory, auditory, and other senses, involve spatiality is a question that I shall not address here (note that James argues that all senses are spatial). It is sufficient for our purposes to show that there exist perceptual spaces distinct from extrinsic, physical space.
Further: there are spaces and spatial properties which we can conceptualize yet not visualize nor (at least directly) feel somatically. For instance, we can easily conceptualize four dimensional space by simply adding an axis w, to the traditional three – x, y, z – and thus create a hypothetical hyperspace that can be developed through algebraic geometry. However, such a conceptual space is not identical to a visual space: though a fourth dimension orthogonal (right-angled) to our traditional three can be conceived, it is very difficult (to say the least) to visualize this directly.
Now, this threefold analysis raises a question: How are these varieties of space related? Let us here approach this question with a twofold space – visual and physical space, idios and koinos kosmos – which will be a journey via hyperspace into the blackhole that is the mind-matter problem... (MORE - details)
- - - - - -
In Conversation with DR PETER SJÖSTEDT-HUGHES (video): https://youtu.be/2GLriPZGbQY
