Infinite Dimensions and a Dimensional Mind

On 'Definitions and Clarifications', I'm going to have to ignore the current 'scientific' definition for dimension, because it doesn't accept new dimensional theory; and, as far as I know, we are not restricted to past scientific theory. Given that the 'Definitions and Clarifications' argument stands, Con has won the debate before I can argue for my position. Therefore current scientific definitions are obsolete. Con has picked raw Colour and raw Dreams for scrutiny. I believe Con's argument against dreams showing promise for the mind is opinionated, and his argument against colour being a higher dimension is invalid through, what would be, after I hypothetically win this debate, obsolete knowledge about Colour. "Dreams are an ultimately anecdotal form of evidence that cannot be scientifically confirmed. " Con suggests that because our scientific process cannot confirm evident dream states, dream states are not stable evidence. I agree with Con, however, I would go on to say, dreams are a 'hard problem', one that cannot be solved by traditional means. I ask Con and judges to think about my Round 1 statement, "There is colour, there is time; respectively, in this theory, a higher dimension may be critical to some of our ability, that although we don't know, yet, is metaphorically, close enough to touch". We experience dream states, but we cannot understand scientifically a dream state beyond chemical reactions. We can sense dreams, but we cannot know dreams. My argument against Con is that dreams are evidence, but they are evidence that, as Con said, cannot be confirmed. I would go on to argue that the sense of dreams, should be treated as evidence; that although we cannot express confidently a dream, it's a hard-problem that we may be able to solve one day. The burden of proof rests not on my shoulders in this case, but the burden of dreams, does. I ask Con and judges to accept the burden of dreams, and if they cannot, provide logical reason against my argument that is not evidence-heavy. "More importantly, we have no reason to believe that dreams are indicative of reality. In fact, dreams are often fantastical in nature and non-representative of the reality we experience. " Con, in this statement has misinterpreted my argument. I do not tie dream states to the physical world in the sense he has implied. I tie dreams to the physical world, by their phenomenon, not their content, and I had suggested that because of the phenomenon, perhaps it's possible to evolve, mentally, in the way of the phenomenon. A very creative example of evolving the harness the phenomenon: a visual radar that effectively gives humans a short visualization of a nearby environment, especially in times of danger. "Dreams alone do not prove or even imply the existence of infinite dimensions in any scientifically or philosophically relevant way. " Again, a slight misinterpretation, but In Con's defence, I didn't write clearly. I stated that dreams show promise of the mind, not that dreams proves infinite dimensions. If we ever evolved some dream-akin ability, such as a visual radar I described with malleable words previously, it would prove the promise of dreams I suggested. I have no proof that this will be the case, it's a 'hard-problem', like that of 'the hard-problem of consciousness. ' Onto colour then. I will admit, I have made a stark claim without any evidence other than what I claim to be logic, that colour is a higher dimension. Con believes that comprehending wavelengths that lead to the effect of colour, is understanding of colour, but I would relate this to understanding chemical reactions creating the effect of dreams, is an understanding of dreams. Again we have a hard-problem, one that I argue can only be solved through wordless perseveration " not formulating ideas with words, but experiencing the world, colour and becoming naturally conditioned. "Sound is a broad longitudinal wave that can easily be reflected. As such, it is not surprising that we can hear sound around corners/other objects/etc. " I think Con has dodged the point here, his first show of ignorance, but since he has been respectful previously, I'll let this pass. The statements which led to my conclusion we ignored, so I will reiterate; contrary to our understanding of colour, our understanding of depth is mathematically precise " it's not a 'hard-problem'. On the other hand, colour is something that we can only understand by our understanding of the dimensions of the physical world " which Con quite correctly stated are threefold. I argue that with perseverance, we can evolve to understand the dimension of colour. I sense that the ;'dimension of colour' is a weak statement. I will therefore try to elaborate on the dimension of colour. Let's imagine a cube frame that is of the standard three-dimensions; then, let's colour it green. I have claimed that colour is a higher dimension, and the foundation to my claim is that the dimensions of a cube are not changed, but rather challenged by colour. I argue that colour it Is an additional dimension on top of length, width and depth, that quite possibly can alter these dimensions in such a way that they become abstracted {i. e. half of the cube being unseen; the cube being full and not a frame}. This, in my opinion, shows colour is a higher dimension than length, width and depth. To conclude, I imagine Con will respond with a more traditional argument, that I lack evidence and it cannot be considered a scientific debate; but I have stated it's a hard-problem, as is that of consciousness, and highlight the fact that conscious people exist. I would like to restate my request of a sensory and evidence equal debate, avoiding the evidence-heavy argument I have predicted, confidently. Thanks again, good luck this round, Con, I eagerly await your Round 2 argument.