There is a reason why I love Jees. He makes sense. And he is real and realistic.

Sleeper who must awaken, you seem to not understand how the practice of social medicine or clinical psychiatry work. A diagnosis is made, not on the basis of some underlying base without difference, but on, quite simply, differential diagnosis.

Probable guesswork is made based upon presenting phenomena. The diversity is quite astounding when you look closely enough at personalities and minds and brains and bodies and biographies. Not one of those aspects can be separated when an individual is under analysis.

A number of therapies and pharmacological inverventions may be tried and an intitial assessment is made based upon clusters of presenting data. But any diagnosis is very general and is made in studied ignorance.

There is no underlying universal substrate except in the most general and most generic sense. And there are only probabilities and correlations when it comes to underlying "brain imbalances" and clinical diagnoses. We really don't know for example why certain drugs are effective. We have more or less thoughtful guesswork that seems to have some efficacy for some people.

No wonder Jees gets a weird feeling when he tries to understand your views. You seem to be falling into an error when you see some kind of generic "night in which all cows are black" as the truth of what any individual person is.

Each person is specific and at the same time they participate in any number of differential qualities which will always be generic.

How would that specificity of personhood ever dissolve except that they die or become a zombie?

So too with "hyperspace" as Grateful pointed out. You seem to have reified it and made it into something generic when as Jees pointed out every jumping into the stream is jumping into a new stream and every jumping is wholly personal and individual.

There is no "hyperspace" in the sense you mean it, apart from an individual perceiver or experiencer of reverie space or dream space or what have you.

Words like "hyperspace" are metaphors or ways of talking about a range of very specific experiences that very specific people are having and talking about. A danger in talking about it is that some person might think that an independently existing "thing" exists that we are calling hyperspace.

We can posit formal rules for the existence of the many possibilities for "existence" as in mathematics and theory and we might call that a kind of "hyperspace". But that will be a highly developed set of intuitions formed by people who train and work with these theories and these maths. It may or may not approximate to a "real" but it can only describe it through the manipulation of symbols. And it still requires an "intuiter" to understand it.

The real of who we are. That we can point to. That we are. But we cannot pin it down as either purely
material and generic or specific and psychical.

Why don't you give it a shot and tell us how it goes after a while?

It's pointless to consider IMO.

tseuq