Infinite Dimensions and a Dimensional Mind

Let's get started. Definitions and ClarificationsI can accept that we will not assume the current scientific definition of "dimension" to be absolutely correct. However, the opponent will not only need to introduce a new definition, but he'll also need to demonstrate why it is a better definition than our current one. Simply referencing "dimensional theory" is not enough of a demonstration. We need a thorough, clear analysis of why we should prefer a different definition, otherwise the current definition should and does stand. It is not accurate to say we should consider current definitions as "obselete" simply because they defeat the opponent's case. He chose to argue this point, not the voters or I. As such, he needs a compelling reason as to why his definition, whatever it is, is good and preferable. Color and DreamsThe opponent does not do much in the way of providing any reasonable evidence as to why color and dreams are in any way indicative of infinite, or even more than three dimensions. I agree that dreams are inherently a "hard problem", but we cannot simply fill in our gaps of knowledge with whatever fantastical idea we wish. We can claim that dreams may be indicative of higher dimensions just as we can claim that dreams may be cast into our minds by the power of unicorns. Both statements are technically true, considering the "may be" portion, but that does not mean either one should be seriously considered without compelling evidence of some sort. The mere existance of dreams has not been shown as compelling evidence of much of anything by the opponent. The same applies to higher dimensions, as they related to dreams according to the opponent. I higher dimensions may be critical to some of our ability, but the opponent has offered no real reason to believe this. Burden of ProofThe opponent has asked me to accept the "burden of dreams". I am unsure of what that means, but I assume it means the burden to prove that dreams are not indicative of higher dimensions. This is, of course, incorrect usage of the burden of proof. The BoP is reserved for the entity making the positive (existential) claim regardings the existence or state of something. In this case, the opponent is making the claim that dreams imply the existence of higher dimensions. He is making the positive claim and, thus, has the burden of proof. It is not my job to accept the burden of proof or prove anything at all beyond the idea that my opponent's claims are insufficient to uphold the resolution. This is a basic and fundemental idea in argumentation theory, and I will not break it simply because the opponent asks nicely. (He does ask nicely, though. )More On DreamsThe opponent clarifies that he is referring to the phenomenon of dreams as being indicative of higher dimensions, rather than the content of dreams. This further creates a bind for him, evidentially, as we are no longer talking about the "hard problem" of the content of dreams, but the "known reality" that dreams do occur. As of yet, no evidence or logical reasoning has warranted a belief that the occurence of dreams implies a higher dimension. Again, the fact that they may be the result of higher dimensions is irrelevant without evidence. The opponent does clarify that the 'dream argument' is meant to show the potential of the human mind, not prove the existance of more than 3 dimensions. I'm not sure that the "dream argument" even reveals anything new about the potential of the mind, as we were already well aware that humans (and some other animals) dream. LightThe opponent admits that "[he] can only [solve the light problem] through wordless perseveration, not formulating ideas with words. .. " This is fantastic in a personal experiential sense, but it has little purpose in a debate. We are supposed to be discussing with words whether infinite dimensions exist. Furthermore, Pro is supposed to be proving (with words) that infinite dimensions exist. While his experience may indicate to himself that there are many more dimensions than three, this is purely anecdotal evidence in this setting. Anecdotal evidence is largely worthless when it comes to seriously trying to prove or logically/evidentially imply something, as it cannot be repeated experimentially or experienced by any other person but the one it affected. SoundThe opponent has said that I misinterpretted the sound argument, and I do apologize for that. I was not attempting to be rude or caddy. I simply didn't quite grasp that sound was referenced as a "lower comprehension" understanding as compared to the "hard problem" of color. Back To LightIf it is not clear, I am attempting to follow the opponent's argument in the order provided. As such, my bolded titles may be repetitive. I will attempt to bring each point under its own section next round. It's important to make a differentiation here between "color" and "light". Light is the physical electromagnetic wave that propogates through space. "Color" isn't quite as easy to define. Physically, it refers to the particular wavelength of the light. Neurologically, it refers to our minds interpretation of said light in our mind. If we are referring to "light" or the physical definition of "color", there is no reason for more than 3 dimensions. Just as we can scientifically perceive depth and understand it on a mathematical level, we can rigorously understand light on the same level. Light is a physical phenomenon that propogates through three dimensional space. Length, width and depth are adequate in detailing the behavior of light and are enough dimensions to mathematically model the behavior of light. As for the "neurological" definition of color, one can still see only three dimensions are needed. This definition of color only requires the existence of a mind. We know that color exists, as this is a (nearly) universal experience. We have not found reason to believe that our mind exists in any more than three dimensions. Therefore, the neurological definition of color does not require a higher number of dimensions. So really any definition of "color" or "light" we look at, we see that no more than three dimensions are required. As for the "cube" example, the opponent confuses "physical property" with "dimension". Dimensions have to do with space while physical properties have to do with non-space related attributes. A green cube does not cause a cube to take up any more or less space than a red cube. As such, color can not be considered a "dimensional property". This goes for other physical properties, like temperature, material, smoothness, etc. ConclusionThe opponent is correct in his assumption that my complaints will be based on his lack of evidence. This is, after all, my duty as Con. It is my job to show that there is not enough evidence presented by Pro to justify the belief in the resolution. Consciousness truly is a hard problem. However, that does not excuse the opponent from the burdne of proof. In fact, the opposite is the case. He is making the truly marvelous claim that an infinite number of dimensions exist. This requires a marvelous amount of evidence, otherwise there is no reason to entertain it as anything more than a fanciful idea that is fun to think about. I personally would deny the opponent his request for a "sensory and evidence equal debate", as the sensory evidence the opponent references is completely anecdotal and not repeatable. I know that I have never had the experience that infinite dimensions exist and I'd be willing to bet that it is not a common experience. Good evidence is what matters when it comes to proof, not anecdotal wonderings. I understand that this makes the opponent's case that much more difficult, but he signed up to support this incredibly difficult topic -- not me. I look forward to Round 3!