> "Prove" is a strong word. I don't think you can > prove that we perceive > 3-space... I guess it depends on what you mean by "perceive".
If I develop software that behaves a certain way in 3-space combining observations, a plan, and then demonstrating an action in that 3-space, I'd say that system perceives in 3-space. If I take a black box and train it to do the same thing, without knowing anything about how the blackbox internals are implemented, I'd still say that system perceives 3-space. In the pleasure example, one can perceive pleasurable acts in this realm. They can do so without being limited to experiencing pleasure in this realm. I would argue that pleasure is not a law limited to the physical realm. Likewise, one can perceive in 3-space without being of it. What I mean here is that we may observe or deduce physical facilities (in the human body) for perceiving 3-space. It does not mean one perceives 3-space as a result of, and only-because-of that facility. You might observe these things or facilities (physical mechanisms) and assume that's how such abilities can be. I'd argue these things are apparent, and provide an interface between one realm and another. One might consider software operating in a computer. The machine is the mechanism used to animate the software. The software's operation implies and expresses a logical (usually) intent of the programmer. So we have three layers of expression. One is mechanical, one is descriptive (software itself), and one is the actual intent of the programmer (what it does). We can say that the entity formed at the 3rd layer (what it does) is not bound to what lies beneath it. We could say (similarly to what some sculptors say) that it was always there (what it does), and the software and the machine it runs on, simply revealed it. I would further say, that not only is the act of writing the software and running it simply revealing something that was already there, but it reveals it *here* (physical) from somewhere else (non-physical realm). > you can only observe behavior (careful! > are you assuming > 3-space in which to observe). What is it to "observe" in a non-temporal realm? If a behavior is expressed non-temporally, you have a static picture (crude approximation). Then did the person producing the behavior create that picture? Or did they simply journey to a place where it already existed? If so, why can't an observer do the same? If he can, what is observation? > On the other hand > there is plenty of > non-verbal as well as verbal evidence for pain and > pleasure (avoidance, > attraction...) I ment to say, that you may stimulate what is widely considered pleasure in someone, and they might elect to say that the stimulus is pleasurable. You might observe or deduce and test the apparent physical mechanisms for that pleasure. What I am saying is that you can associate the two by apparent cause and effect, but cannot prove the physical mechanism is the reason for the pleasure experienced by the consciousness of the person stimulated. > > our thinking in this > > consciousness > > physical existence tends to express > > things > > I can make no sense of these phrases. You seem to > have in mind the > monads of Leibnitz or Bertrand Russell. "our thinking in *this* consciousness.." I am using the term consciousness in terms of a vehicle. So our thinking in *this* vehicle. In other words: One's thoughts in a timeless-consciousness can be organized as a temporal stream of descrete thought frames... "physical existence tends to express things.." >From a mystic standpoint, the physical realm is just one place out of many, with it's own characteristics. One can take a a thing that is manifest in one place one way, and bring it into the physical and have it manifest another way. So in other words: Consciousness, normally timeless in expression, can be manifest in the physical realm. In doing so (do to the temporal nature of the physical realm) consciousness tends to express temporally as well. > You seem to > have in mind the > monads of Leibnitz or Bertrand Russell. I have no idea who those people are, nor do I have any clue what a "monad" is. :) Robert W. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
