Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is Conciousness only available in Three-Dimensions?

  1. May 5, 2004 #1
    Consciousness and Spacetime are intricately connected, Consciousness is the Gateway of Spacetime awareness. So is Consciousness only available to thought process in three-dimensional space?..and as a direct consequence limit the speed of thinking?

    Einstein states that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed.

    Can you think faster than the speed of light?..so are the Laws of physics Consious/awareness dependant?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 6, 2004 #2
    By your own definition, if consciousness is connected to space, then it would be connected to space in all dimensions. If time=space, then time would also be connected to consciousness. Do you believe consciousness is unrelated to the thought process?
    Interesting. I will think about this...quickly.
    Perhaps. I've always wondered if the only thing the higher dimensions are for is to give perspective to each other, the third making the first two visible to light (and us), the fourth spatial adding a perspective to the first three, etc. What if one of the higher dimensions allows consciousness to move through any point in the universe, thus making consciousness faster than the speed of light?
  4. May 7, 2004 #3
    Isn't consciousness the result of information gathered by the senses and processed by the brain into something legible based on prior experiences? This would limit consciousness to the time it takes for light bounce of an object and give us a visual perception. Plus the time it takes for the neuron's electrochemical process to deliver the information.
  5. May 8, 2004 #4
    So Helen Keller didn't experience consciousness? Or only 3/5 of consciousness?
  6. May 12, 2004 #5
    As absurd as it may sound, I have to say "sort of". I have no idea who Hellen Keller is but I am assuming she lacks of some senses (sight and hearing?). Impaired people do develop their remaining senses to a sharp point. Furthermore, some people would argue that they develop their "sixth sense" which enables them to experience something before any one of us unimpaired do. But if you suddenly lost a sense, it would diminish your state of conciousness by 1/5th.
  7. May 12, 2004 #6
    You make up for it in other areas?
  8. May 12, 2004 #7
    isn't that the concept of evolution? if a sense is impaired you have to make up for its main function or simply subside.
  9. May 12, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    This thread seems to be wandering.

    Helen Keller was born blind and deaf in the early part of the 20th century. Her well-off parents hired one Annie Sullivan to take care of her. Ms. Sullivan worked for years to bring her to some communication with the outside world, seemingly to no effect. Helen learned braile but had no concept of anything outside herself. But one day as she held her hand under that stream of water from a backyard pump, and Sullivan was determinedly signging W-A-T-E-R on her other hand she made the connection. Helen later became a notable writer and celebrity, and her description of this event is one of the most heartening things you will ever read.

    The story of Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan was made into a Broadway play, famous in its time, called "The Miracle Worker". It is sad to me that this noble true story has slipped out of the public consciousness.
  10. May 12, 2004 #9
    I guess I sin for not knowing the story. If I am not mistaken, we are referring to conciousness from the beginning. The question was asked wether conciousness is related or not to the thought process. And if conciousness can travel through other dimensions, then is conciousness faster than the speed of light? I guess the question is on that line.

    From Helen Keller's example: Isn't conciousness directly related to the perception of the senses and therefore it cannot be attributed external qualities to ourselves?
  11. May 12, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Helen's autobiography says that she had conscious awareness as early as any other child, but she had no contact, and indeed no concept of an outside world until the water incident, which happened IIRC when she was seven. So to me this is first person evidence that consciousness does NOT depend on the sensory perception of the outside world.
  12. May 12, 2004 #11
    Let's consider these sources of sensory data imput and although they appear quite complex, all of a sudden, like a paradigmal model of information gathering, a new level of thought appears, where previous concepts did not exist.

    It's sort of like a neurological firing of sorts that multiplies in its diversity( nodal points in constrcution). We might see different then we had seen before. Besides visual context of reality, formation of perceptions internally helps us see the world differently?

    In the above case sighted by Olias, might we have looked at the understanding that any thought given to relativity, would have a instantaneous feature of curvature implied. I presented the Monte Carlo Effect, in terms of quantum gravity, and energy considerations. If on such a weak field measure, then what scale would we have applied to something very strong?

    The inception here would have considered geometrical understanding that regardless of these differences of strenght, apply the reality of curvature not only in terms of cosmological proportions, but present geometrical models of construction in quantum thought processes?

    Speculation of course?
  13. May 13, 2004 #12
    BEC Condensates and Soliton wave Productions?

    The reason I present this, is a continuation of what might have been reduced from dimenisonal perspectives,to specifics in reality. If we gather such complex areas of information, how would we reduce this to manageable levels for consideration.

    A post in sci.physics. strings speaks about the computational aspect of deriving information, and from this the complexity of that information, becomes truly a puzzle if we are garnering from planck length such visualization that can be computationally derived.

    This is a fundamental question, in regards to LIGO and the amount of information that is being gathered. Reduced to imaging that would reveal aspects of the events contained in gravitational information that was recieved.

    Thes two separate ideas, help us to focus on the concentrations of the energy. The peak of the bell curve?
    http://pupgg.princeton.edu/phys103_scripts/cointoss/histogram.gif [Broken]

    And here in understanding how we might have percieved the orbital in terms of that same energy?

    http://www.bcpl.net/~kdrews/mtas/s_orb.gif [Broken]

    Now, in looking at such fuzziness, we start to get a good picture of what is implied geometrically, although we have ascertained the movement to be more so in the areas of these concentrations?

    So in looking at this and in hiesenberg's uncertainty pinciple, we now have a way to look at curvature, in a way we didn't before.

    http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/stringboard/messages25/52.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. May 14, 2004 #13

    I thought about this myself many times. I tried to examine the likelyhood of consciousness being on a higher dimension, with at least an attempt to use science as help. However I found that this is an abstract idea which science can not explore, so I turned to pure reason and logic. This is what I've found:

    Since consciousness uses perception from the third dimension, than consciousness must infact exist on a higher dimension. (I.E. six squares making a cube)

    If thoughts does exist on a higher dimension, than the laws of the 3rd dimension do not apply, meaning thought has unlimited speed; however, the process within physical reality to create thought is bound by the 3rd dimension (electro-chem. messaging between neurons)

    If this is so, than the possibilities are unlimited, which may even explain pseudo phenomona like psychokinesis.

    My crackpot theory: called the "connective consciousness" theory; it says that all consciousness' are connected, and at this grand intersection, the center of all thought exists. Also, after death ones' consciousness slowly expands and disconnects from itself, to become random info. in this epicenter (called the NAVI, random other connections are the NAVI plane). To get a better idea, make 32 dots in a circle, and connect all possible lines
  15. May 14, 2004 #14
    OOPS! Last thing! in an experiment using magnetoencephalography (MEG) which finds the magnetic field made by brain cells ass they light up. It was found that a thought can be made in less than .04 seconds, and that using O15 (an unstable isotope of oxygen that has the half life of 2 minutes) in the bloodstream they found that it takes .5-2 seconds for blood to be trransfered to these brain cells. o_O
  16. May 15, 2004 #15
    She probably didn't know what running water meant. (I'm sure she took showers and drank it). She probably wondered what the smell of the fresh cut grass or of the carbon monoxide outside her window meant. Maybe this was due to her parents fear of bringing her outside. She probably wasn't very curious because at 7 you do what your parents do. But I can only think that during this time, there was a world created inside her head with tastes and smells and how hard or soft or big or small something is.
  17. May 15, 2004 #16
    "Since consciousness uses perception from the third dimension, than consciousness must infact exist on a higher dimension. (I.E. six squares making a cube)

    If thoughts does exist on a higher dimension, than the laws of the 3rd dimension do not apply, meaning thought has unlimited speed; however, the process within physical reality to create thought is bound by the 3rd dimension (electro-chem. messaging between neurons)

    There is another thread which I started regarding the question Do We See in Two Dimensions? Some people have collaborated on this discussion and the general assumption is that we see at most in 2 1/2 dimensions. This because we only see the reflection of the photons on the two dimensional surface of any object. To see in three dimensions we would have to be able to see throught (the dept dimension) an object. Just think of the following: Is there any scene you can imagine in your head or dream that cannot be represented on a two dimensional surface? a mirror or a painting (assuming a painting having no depth)

    And the speed to recreate this thoughts or dreams is limited to the time it takes to recall those memories.
  18. May 15, 2004 #17
    The speed to recall the memories, is at a minimum, .04 seconds, and as to the reply, we only see in 2 dimensions, but we think in more than 3 dimensions, so that the image we build in our minds is on a higher dimension than the actual experience. Also, since we can not experience something truly at the time it occurs, then we cannot in effect, truly see anything with depth in 2 dimensions since all that is left is the memory of that moment. Therefore, there is no image with "depth" that I can imagine in 2 dimensions.

    P.S. try thinking consciously in 4 dimensions...then stop. Why doesnt it work? we already intereperate the 3D world in more than 3d, so to try and intereperate 4D would require more than 4D perception of reality. MEaning that we would have to live in 4D to think about it...got it? (we always have to think ahead of the curve)
  19. May 15, 2004 #18
    Consciousness arrises from neural activity. Neurons exists in 3-space. Activity requires the passage of time. Counsciousness, therefore, exists in 4 dimensions - 3 of space and 1 of time.
  20. May 15, 2004 #19
    So does this mean that Quantum Mechanics is really an "un-conscious" theory?

    This may exlpain why most of the QM ideas are based on methods that are counter-intuitive, or born from a sort of 'Un-Conscious' line of thought. :rolleyes:

    Reality it seems is really in the mind of the beholder.

    I am in no way stating that to understand QM, QCD or Stringtheory you have to be unconscious! :smile:

    But one can ask if:Relativity is a consciousness based theory defined with strict Laws and observations, and Quantum Theory is an Unconsciousness based theory, where anything goes and random thought could be the fundemental concept?
    Last edited: May 15, 2004
  21. May 16, 2004 #20
    How would you marry concepts like, "curvature parameters," to consciousness?

    http://http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/st101.gif [Broken]

    What if we play around with the form of the Minkowski metric? It turns out that if the spacetime metric is arranged in the right manner, we can get something called spacetime curvature. And that is what the General Theory of Relativity is all about.

    The deflection angle df tells us how far away from a straight line the path of the light pulse in question was deflected by the Sun. The deflection angle is by definition zero when there is no gravity. We need to compare the deflection angles calculated using the Newtonian and relativistic models for gravity and spacetime.

    http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/greltop.html [Broken]

    So by taking this, and moving to a dynamical universe( brane world), we assume paradigmals models for consideration, and learn to see how events are very dynamical in the spacetime reality. How would you explain then hyperspace events taking place in a world above in the hyperspace dynamics? Remeber Edgar Mitchell's view of the planet?

    Some might see the action of the universe, and some, issues in quantum gravity, and quantum geometry.

    The elements which form their bases and starting-point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria which these separate processes or the theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. Thus the science of thermodynamics seeks by analytical means to deduce necessary conditions, which separate events have to satisfy, from the universally experienced fact that perpetual motion is impossible. The advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness, those of the principle theory are logical perfection and security of the foundations. The theory of relativity belongs to the latter class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs first of all to become acquainted with the principles on which it is based. Before I go into these, however, I must observe that the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two separate stories, the special theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation; the general theory provides the law of gravitation and its relations to the other forces of nature. Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?", Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers Press, p. 228-9.

    But there is a problem? :smile:

    If we are to consider such supersymmetrical states of existance, such a fever in mind would burn up and cause dillusional results. :smile: How would we ever consider, such chaos from such a mind that tends to such realizations?

    Yet we find that such events that are turned inside/out. That ole Klein bottle again and you are prsented with a whole new sets of realizations:) Can mind ever do such topologcal dance in genus 1 figures of consideration? Would we not have to include gravity in such a states of existance? Gravity has to be scalable in such features of visualizations in the quantum mind?

    In numerical relativity we move our vision to these very dynamical realites and we call these comological events, yet why is not mind conisdered in this feature?

    The dimsnional realization has to find a avenue for such proabbilties to move through these minds, so the door to the unconsicous, might be the subconsicous relaization of a vast network of realities? But wait did we not say that such plasmatic features realized in thsoe supersymmetrical states would burn mind? The realization of a vast world of supergravity relaizes the issues of supermetric points for consideratin yet this flow is very smooth?

    We needed to look for somehtng that could come out of scuh events in consicousness and if the ideas was given a fourth dimensioonal realization would this not have suited the realizatin that from deeper levels of reality ideas are made manifest?

    http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@10.oJdZbUpJ2MN.8@.1dde6c2f/19 [Broken]

    Some might be able to follow this thinking. I know Olias will. :smile:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook