BothAndBlog Forum

This is a new thread spun-off from the Why Philosophy thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... rmation/p1

I don’t think you’re sorry at all. — Possibility

Sorry. I've changed my mind. I will waste a bit more of my Time dimension on this off-topic digression --- for my own edification.

I'm currently reading a Kindle book by Bernardo Kastrup, More Than Allegory. It's talking about the "transcendent" realm that is revealed in religious myths and mystical visions. "These are transcendent truths, for they escape the boundaries of logic, time, and space. . . . Where the intellect stops intuition picks up. We can sense truth even if we cannot articulate it in words . . . Unreliable as this sense may be, it is our only link to a broader reality." I've just begun to read the book, so I'll reserve judgement til I can see where he's going with this.

Although he doesn't use the actual word "dimension" to describe the mythical & mystical transcendent realm --- presumably above & beyond the sensible boundaries of the four-dimensional space-time universe --- some of his other terminology reminded me of this thread. Since I couldn't get any direct answers from Possibility about the nature of those postulated multi-dimensions in our off-topic discussions, I'm assuming the vague evasive answers indicate that they are knowable only by Intuition rather than Reason. Although Kastrup is a computer scientist, and presumably uses Reason in his mundane work, when discussing Transcendence, he calls Reason the "obfuscated mind". So, he asks about Intuition, "what can it know about nature that the intellect cannot?" He explains that intuition works with emotional Symbols, not rational Facts.

After raising some perennial philosophical questions, he says "the possibility that presents itself to us is that our neglected obfuscated mind . . . could offer us answers". Later, he makes an ambiguous statement : "although this transcendent view is not literally true, it is potentially truer than anything our intellects could possibly come up with." Are our metaphors & allegories & myths somehow more real & true & meaningful than the mundane facts of science & reason? That seems to be the point of Kastrup's book. If so, how do we discern Truth from Error among the thousands of myths in the world. Is Truth whatever feels good? As Joseph Campbell said, "follow your bliss!" If so, Islamic terrorists believe they are following their bliss to Allah's Paradise, while non-Islamists think the murderers and rapists are taking a short-cut to Jehovah's Hell.

At the beginning of this thread, I took the posts of Possibility seriously, assuming that the invisible transcendent dimensions referred to, would eventually be related back to the visible mundane world of physical senses, and the "obfuscated mind". But eventually, I began to wonder if I was being punked. Whenever, I requested specific information, all I got was assurances that the vaguely defined Higher Dimensions actually exist in some sense. But I remain none the wiser for all my efforts to understand what the mysterious Referent of "Higher Dimensions" might be. Is that failure due to my bad faith or to that of the proponents of invisible parallel worlds?

As a recovering Fundamentalist Christian, I no longer take assurances of invisible or transcendent domains on faith. But, based on my Enformationism worldview, I have concluded there must be One Transcendent "dimension" : Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity), which is timeless, spaceless , and dimensionless. Hence, as Kastrup said, it's beyond "the boundaries of logic, time, and space." Which is why I make no claims to know anything about that completely abstract non-reality. We can only discuss that imaginary concept in terms of metaphors & allegories, based on our sensory experience, and our rational evaluation. And nothing we say about it is literally true.

Referent : the thing that a word or phrase denotes or stands for.

Bad Faith : acting inauthentically

Dimension : a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.
How do we measure non-spatial dimensions --- with feelings? Do we know them with spiritual eyes?

The way I see it, we continually structure, test and restructure this non-numerical data with uncertain quantitative data (as described above) in the mind, reducing into a dual ‘wavefunction’ - what we call a neural interoception of affect: a probabilistic prediction of effort (quantitative) and attention (qualitative) requirements for the organism, which then determines and initiates the observable/measurable actions (thoughts, words, movement, etc) of the quantum system (ie. the organism) in relation to other systems. — Possibility

I'm sorry if my thick skull frustrates you, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can you translate the quote above into words a non-specialist can understand? The technical terms bolded are not in my everyday vocabulary. Although I can look up the individual definitions, the whole sentence still doesn't mean much to me (me no Grok).

Are you saying that Quantum Uncertainty is "the fifth dimensional aspect of reality"? If so, what difference does that make to me? Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic?


Wave Particle Duality : Bohr regarded the "duality paradox" as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature. A given kind of quantum object will exhibit sometimes wave, sometimes particle, character, in respectively different physical settings. He saw such duality as one aspect of the concept of complementarity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality
[ Note : Complementarity is the essence of my BothAnd philosophy, but it's not derived from an understanding of the Schrödinger equation ]

Schrödinger equation :
0de8741a7d26ae98689c7b3339e97dfafea9fd26

Interoception : sensitivity to stimuli originating inside of the body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoception

Affect : touch the feelings of (someone); move emotionally.

Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.


although you won’t clarify in what way it fails to make sense in your mind — Possibility

As I said above about the concept of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity) "We can only discuss that imaginary concept in terms of metaphors & allegories, based on our sensory experience, and our rational evaluation." I need relatable metaphors for invisible abstractions.
giphy.gif
giphy.gif
3 days ago

The information isn’t hidden from them, it’s dismissed by them as irrelevant, illogical, impossible, meaningless or simply uncertain. They don’t recognise how they apply feeling to a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. On the other hand, those who consider themselves more ‘intuitive’ tend to struggle with integrating the quantitative specifics of their actions into a later explanation. — Possibility

I doubt that the average person dismisses mundane Intuition as irrelevant. But they may not be aware that most of what they think of as Reasoning is actually Intuitive. Instead, the dismissal occurs when one man's intuition clashes with another's. For example, the 20th century mystic Gurdjieff once dissed his contemporary mystic Aleister Crowley, as "dirty inside". Since mystical revelations are subjective, they are internally (among believers) cohesive, but externally (in the objective unbelieving world) divisive.

In cases of clashing faiths, an ecumenical (Rational) approach to "the way" may be necessary to untangle the various "my ways" of intuitive mystics. That's why the Catholic Church typically ignored its mystics, until they became famous after death, and could then be conformed to the Catholic "way" by pigeon-holing them as "the saint of _____", and ignoring any teachings that deviated from official doctrine.

Mystics have always been associated with Occultism because their visions and revelations are inherently hidden from their non-mystic followers, who relied on their gurus as a source of "information" about transcendent realms. The "explanations" of their intuitions are typically idiosyncratic, and often incompatible with official (rational) church doctrine. So, the problem is, which transcendent authority do you believe : the Holy Roman Church, or the Holy Roller Mystic? Can intuition resolve that dilemma? Or is plodding Reason more likely to parse the true from the false? Some people trust their intuition more than their reasoning powers, but others have learned that intuition can lead them astray. Mystics, who sit on mountaintops, or live in cells, don't have to worry about making sense to unbelievers.

I assume that "predictive distribution of attention/awareness" is a long way of saying "intuition. And "integrating the quantitative specifics . . . into explanation" is another way of saying, to translate feelings & opinions into facts & reasons.

Mystic : one who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

William James : A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.

Aleister Crowley : He founded the religion of Thelema, identifying himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century.

George Gurdjieff : his method for awakening one's consciousness unites the methods of the fakir, monk and yogi, and thus he referred to it as the "Fourth Way".
[ presumably Jesus was the third way. And Lao Tse had a "Way" (Tao) of his own. ]

Likewise, many ‘rational folk’ have a strongly intuitive social sense, even though they’re vocally dismissive of feelings as valid information. — Possibility

Such antagonism arises primarily when objective scientific facts clash with subjective religious beliefs. For example, the Theory of Evolution seemed to turn divine miracles into mundane mechanics. So, Intelligent Design proponents counter-attacked the scientists by using their own weapon of Reason against them. Both sides in the ongoing debate have a "strongly intuitive social sense", but different opinions about what qualifies as "valid information". Christians and Muslims both have Intelligent Design arguments online, but they get their valid Information from different scriptures --- different revelations of "truths beyond intellect". Can intuition tell you which revelation is true, or would you prefer to roll the dice, or to laboriously reason through the evidence?

Note : The BothAnd philosophy is intended to reconcile the world's inter-social divisions by accepting the necessity, and validity, for both Intuition and Reason in human intercourse. But each side must "doubt a little of their own infallibility". ___Benjamin Franklin
https://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html


Reasoning vs Intuition : Many people regard Reasoning the opposite of Intuition. Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, a paranormal gift, a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field.
https://thinkibility.com/2012/11/17/rea ... intuition/
[ Normal mundane Intuition is how most human thinking works. But magical, esoteric Intuition is a claim that must be taken on faith. So choose your prophet wisely, or your faith could lead you astray.]
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1

The problem with discussing this only in relation to ‘intuition’ and ‘reason’ is that we don’t really understand or agree on what these concepts are or how they operate objectively in relation to science. — Possibility

Let's try to see where we agree or disagree on the Intuition vs Reason debate. Which of the following definitions would characterize your understanding : "Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, A> a paranormal gift, B> a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or C> a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field." Or does your Fifth Dimension theory provide another option?

I cannot expect your experience of knowing ‘intuitively’ to be the same as mine, in the same way that there is no such thing as a universally recognised instance of ‘anger’. — Possibility

Of course. That's the distinction between Subjective knowing (I feel angry) and Objective knowledge (I sense an increase of adrenaline). It's the mystery of Consciousness that I can't know directly what's in your mind. Which is why rational humans, and not intuitive animals, have developed methods for objectifying their thoughts in conventional words and concepts. Some animals, such as ants, communicate their feelings about factual information (e.g. a source of food) via chemicals. Dolphins communicate their emotional states, and some factual information, via squeaks and body language. Do you suppose they have a deeper (or higher) understanding of the world than the founders of religions (holistic, oceanic oneness) , or empirical scientists (reductive, particular details), who communicate their feelings and facts via language and mathematics? Can we humans have the best of both worlds, higher and deeper?

we cannot keep pretending that concepts such as ‘intuition’, ‘reason’ or ‘emotion’ always refer to measurably identical physical instances — Possibility

Some neuro-biologists like to think they can trace all mental activity back to neuronal functions. But a few neuroscientists, such as Christof Koch, are beginning to take a more holistic approach to understanding the mysteries of Consciousness. The physical functions of brains are not fully understood, but the correlations between measurable brain activity and felt mental concepts are undeniable. So, it behooves us find the link (or common denominator) between brain and mind. In my thesis, that common measure (both physical and metaphysical) is universal Information.

The Feeling of Consciousness : Koch notes that, “much ink has been spilled over arguments that quantum mechanics is the secret to consciousness”. However, after years of research, he saw “no need to invoke exotic physics to understand consciousness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page18.html

Note : the names of metaphysical Feelings are metaphors based on physical sensations, such as touch, vision, smell.

And we need to recognise that we could very well be referring to two quite different patterns of experience, and therefore different conceptual structures, while using the same word. — Possibility

That's why I have focused on a different word, Information, to describe those "different patterns of experience". Raw Information has the potential to take on infinite Forms or Patterns.

mental relations irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance - all refer to five-dimensional reality. — Possibility

In my own thesis, that state "irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance" is what I call Enfernity (dimensionless eternity & infinity). So perhaps we have some common ground here. I begin to see where you are coming from. But I would call it "non-dimensional".

I’m not suggesting that the wavefunction is a useful tool in predicting future states - I’m suggesting that its probabilistic nature provides a useful analogy to describe the existing structural relation between belief and action. — Possibility

I can see the analogy, but the question is how we could predict the future state of the waveform upon the collapse of the stateless wave-function. How does "observation" trigger a phase transition from non-local to local, or from possible to actual. I have toyed with some scenarios, but the topic is way beyond my competence in science and philosophy, not to mention mystical knowledge.

ntuition refers to unexplained means by which we find that we understand something, but there need be nothing magical, paranormal or esoteric about it. — Possibility

Good! I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Some intuitives feel that their non-rational approach to problems is superior to plodding reasoning, in part because it is a magical connection to occult knowledge that is not accessible to mundane reasoning.

However, as you implied, they are not two separate (mundane vs magic) channels to knowledge, but merely faster (intuition) or slower (reason) processes of thinking. Most of us switch between both speeds without being aware of it. When confronted with novel situations or problems, we tend to slow down and dissect the details to see if there are familiar components that we already know how to deal with. But then, all we have is a collection of meaningless unrelated pieces of the puzzle. So, we often just stop analyzing at that apparent dead end, and turn our attention to other topics, or just go to sleep, or meditate. Meanwhile, the always-on subconscious functions of brain operation continue to process the data until a pattern emerges that ties the parts together into a whole concept.

The primary difference between Reason and Intuition is that we are consciously aware of the individual steps (movie frames) in rational processing (words, numbers), but are aware only of the final output (meaning of the movie) in subconscious processing (feelings, gist, general impressions). All humans use both procedures, but just as some are right- or left-handed, we tend to show a preference for one or the other.

I think as humans we need to recognise that there are reasoning-type processes our brain undertakes unconsciously, not necessarily because they’re beyond our awareness, but because we’ve operated more efficiently or economically this way in terms of effort and attention requirements. — Possibility

Precisely! Subconscious (non-verbal) thinking is the default mode of human and animal information processing. It is energy efficient and requires much less effort than Conscious (words & numbers) reasoning. The problem here is that the quick summary method may miss some crucial bit of knowledge, resulting in erroneous conclusions. The rational mode of thinking (science) is often frustratingly ponderous, and requires deferring the emotional satisfaction of a solution. That's why visceral (affective) feelings and mental intuition are correlated, while dispassionate (effective) concepts and mental reasoning are typically associated in personality trait theories.

Thinking, Fast and Slow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

My biggest problem with IIT is that it fails to account for, and so practically ignores, quantum mechanics. — Possibility

Yes. Dr. Giulio Tononi is a psychiatrist and neuroscientist, so his focus in IIT was on the behavior of humans. But other scientists are beginning to do research on the quantum level. My thesis assumes that higher level phenomena, such as human emotions and intuition, can be traced back down the hierarchy of metaphysics & physics to fundamental Information --- which is omnipotential. I won't go into the details here, but just as quantum "particles" are essentially bundles of potential energy, energy itself is an active causative form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). In effect, metaphysical Enformation is the new Atom of the physical world. It's equivalent to Spinoza's Single Substance, that he called "God", and I call "G*D".

Quantum Integrated Information Theory : https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01421

Why can’t it still be dimensional, though? — Possibility

In your own theory, you can call it anything you want. But as I pointed-out before, the notion of extra dimensions has been used to describe a variety of spiritual mysteries, and also referring to the far-out mathematics of String Theory, and as another word for the imaginary Parallel Worlds of science fiction. But in all those cases, the occult "dimensions" are not measurable in any objective manner. You just have to take the word of psychic adepts & math mavens & sci-fi authors that they exist. That's why I prefer to limit that common-sense word to features of reality that we can all agree on. These abstruse concepts we're both playing around with are obscure enough without straying too far from grounding in common ground.

Can you define your Fifth "Dimension" in a way that is not occult and magical? Metaphorical is OK, as long as it is meaningful to common sense. "State Space" and "Probability Space" are mathematical concepts that don't apply to actual real things, but to possible outcomes of physical processes, such as rolling dice.

State Space : A state space is the set of all possible configurations of a system. It is a useful abstraction for reasoning about the behavior of a given system . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_space

Probability Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space

Your implication by referring to the entirety of this ‘state’ as ‘non-dimensional’ is that there is no such distinction. For me, however, there is a level of perception between life and meaning - which corresponds to consciousness. — Possibility

The state I was referring to was Eternity & Infinity, both of which are immeasurable, hence non-dimensional. But you seem to think of the 5th Dimension as a non-sensory state in space-time, although not measurable out there in space or time, but only subjectively via intuition & imagination. The "distinction" between space-time dimensions (matter & motion) and mental-meaning dimensions (mind, consciousness) is like apples & oranges : true, but obvious.

Note :In my thesis, I find their commonality in the notion that both are forms of Generic Information. Just as Energy = Mass (matter) x the speed of light, Mind = Matter x Meaning (intention). But that's also a concept that defies common sense, even though it's the fundamental difference between Classical and Quantum science.

I don't understand the "level of perception" that senses a "state space" between Life and Meaning. As far as I know, Life is not a static space, but a dynamic process unfolding in time. And we "perceive" Life, not via sensory perception, but in imagination as a metaphor like a journey from point A to point B. The Meaning of Life is also not a sensible thing, but a subjective feeling about a person's history and future prospects. Some people take figurative metaphors literally, attributing properties of the symbol to the thing symbolized. For example, some idolators actually try to feed and clothe their little statues, thinking that it will make a difference to the occult deity, supposedly hanging around the state space of its artificial model.

An ‘observation’ IS the process of locating or actualising an energy event. It doesn’t trigger a phase transition, but rather IS the phase transition. — Possibility

Actually, that is close to my own concept, that the process of EnFormAction is what we call a Phase Transition. It's the act of changing form, of revealing latent possibilities in new actualities. To EnForm is to Actualize.

So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect. — Possibility

So, when a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the state of the waveform (particle)??? The problem here is that "affect" can refer to a physical transfer of energy, or to the emotional feeling of knowing something about that change. Does the feeling cause the phase change, or is it an effect of the change? Again, mixing literal and metaphorical meanings is confusing. Feynman's famous quote may apply here : "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". :joke:

PS__I may be gradually coming to "see" your 5th Dimension, but it's still a bit fuzzy. I have to translate your dimensional terminology into my own Information-based language.

It can be easier to coin a new term than to discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information — Possibility

I'm sorry you don't like my gnarly neologisms. You seem to view them as prideful dogmatic assertions of ownership of the ideas embodied in them. You may not believe me when I say that was not my intent. I was merely addressing the ambiguity and prejudicial baggage of old words in a new context. When you said "information" in 1920, it was assumed you were referring to the meaningful contents of a human mind. But in 2020, the same word now is presumed to reference the meaningless numbers of a non-human computer, processing 1s & 0s instead of concepts. Shannon focused on the material containers of Information, rather than the meaningful contents. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, I coin new words, "not because it's easy, but because it's hard" --- and necessary.

So, most of my glossary was directed at explaining why my philosophical "enformation" is not your scientific "information". True, it's easy to make-up nonsense words, like "grok". But it's hard to encapsulate a novel concept in a single word, like EnFormAction. My Website, Glossary, and Blog are ongoing attempts to "discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information".

On other forums, I was regularly forced to deflect implications of the Shannon term, defined by destructive Entropy. So I developed the neologism of "Enformy" to mean the constructive aspect of Energy. If you limited my thesis to standard definitions, there would be nothing new or important in it. I just checked the Glossary of Philosophical terms in Wikipedia, and "Information" is not on the list. I hope to change that omission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophy#I

When you are introducing a new concept, new words are necessary. By spelling Enformationism with an "E" I was deliberately disassociating my meaning from Shannon's usage. As a matter of fact, in the earlier thread, I had to insist to Sushi that I was not misusing Shannon's authoritative terminology, because I was talking about a distinctly different function of "Information". In your own theory of the Fifth Dimension, you are using an old word with a new meaning*1. Which is why I've had difficulty groking what you are talking about. But I never accused you of a haughty proprietary "top-down" intent. Does the scientific definition of "Dimension" below describe your concept? Or would you define it in a different way, to clarify the distinction from the conventional meaning? Maybe you need to coin a new word that would be more suggestive of your precise meaning. See suggestion below.


First Define Your Terms : There's no one answer to this. Plato's use of language was idiosyncratic, and he often used common terms in non-standard ways as a way of reshaping how people conceptualized them. Conversely Wittgenstein believed many classic philosophical problems were reducible to language ambiguities.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... philosophy

Dimension : The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces frequently occur in mathematics and the sciences. They may be parameter spaces or configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Five Dimensional Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space

The Fifth Dimension : https://sciencing.com/5th-dimension-11369444.html

The Intuition Dimension : a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. — Possibility

*1 Patching old cloth with new thread : https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fu ... arment.htm

Measurable is not necessarily quantitative, and not necessarily spatial. — Possibility

Yes. Time is not a physical thing that can be measured with a yard/meter stick. But it is a dimension only by analogy to spatial dimensions. Time measures Change. What does your Fifth Dimension measure : Meaning, Values, Significance . . . ? Like the passage of Time, such qualities are completely Subjective and Relative, until we agree on conventional units of measurement, such as objective physical Moon revolutions. What kind of units do you use to measure the structure of the Fifth Dimension? How do you "observe" that structure?

How we ‘measure’ or ‘observe’ the properties of these aspects such as knowledge, potentiality, value, significance, feeling, creativity and imagination without affecting the measurement or compromising either certainty or objectivity is what we haven’t been able to work out. But they’re not imaginary - just undefined and unexplained in an objective sense. — Possibility

Many world religions claim to have "worked out" how to "observe" those metaphysical properties : divine revelation, visions, mystical experiences, faith, Intuition, meditation, drug trips, etc. Are you looking for a new more certain method to measure the incommensurable? If these properties are "not imaginary" (mind pictures), does that mean they exist outside the mind, in the objective real world? If so, can we use pragmatic methods to observe them?

Incommensurable : not able to be judged by the same standard as something else; having no common standard of measurement.


BTW. I have no problem with taking Metaphysics seriously. But I try to make sure I'm not just taking it on Faith. That's why I challenge my own beliefs, with skeptical questions.

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I disagree that it’s a new meaning as such, or a new concept, for that matter. — Possibility

Please reference some venerable or historical definitions of the Fifth Dimension. Do they match your meaning of the term? Are they different from the examples I gave above? Do you have a new way to perceive that extra-sensory dimension, besides the methods I mentioned above?

I hope you can understand my reluctance to simply coin a new term that disassociates the concept from its more limited usage. — Possibility

The problem here is that when I propose a variety of old terms referring to the same general concept, you don't accept them as correct. If my list of conventional words for the metaphysical dimension are missing your point, what is the relevant difference? Wouldn't a new terminology help to make the distinction you are implying? If you are trying to avoid traditional religious and mystical definitions, why not give us a new interpretation of the ancient concept? How is the Fifth Dimension different from old fashioned Spiritualism?

BTW. After a Google search on "Fifth Dimension", I couldn't find anything that seems to match your meaning. So aren't you using old words with new definitions (i.e. neologisms)? How is 5th Dimension different from the Akashic Field, or from Heaven?

And I don’t believe you have reason to accuse me of “a haughty proprietary ‘top down’ intent”, because I have never once suggested that meaning was something I could control. The meaning already exists, I’m only suggesting we remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions, which prevent us from fully understanding its scope. — Possibility

If you can't control the meaning of your words, then they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. Why do you think philosophers throughout the years have spilt so much ink on defining conventional words, and so often resorted to creating new terms with no prior baggage? Was Kant haughty when he coined the term "categorical imperative" and "pure reason", by combining old words into novel concepts? Enformationism is a new paradigm, which would be incomprehensible in terms of the old paradigms of Materialism or Spiritualism.

How do you propose to "remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions", without proposing unconventional meanings? Do you think that consciousness raising will magically remove millennia of prejudicial interpretations of common words? Demonizing the blunt term "cripple" in favor of "handicapped" or "impaired", may have changed attitudes toward certain previously marginalized people, but if you continue to use old spiritual terminology, how can you change attitudes toward the variety of uncompromising religions with us-versus-them attitudes toward their fellow spiritualists? How can you remove the perceptual limitations of seekers like me, who were raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts?

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ___attributed to Socrates
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ____Voltaire

Neologisms : Like many other philosophers, Kant introduced a new terminology, consisting of a mixture of neologisms and expressions borrowed from tradition and given a new meaning.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... anuel_Kant

One word, one meaning fallacy : to assume that your definition of a word is the same as the meaning of the same word in another person's mind.