Jordan, i don't see that it matters whether you call it a property, an aspect, a dimension or a substance; this is Cartesian dualism: you have two ontologically distinct categories, the phenomenal and the physical. The main problem then is that never the twain shall meet. Descartes struggled to account for the interaction between mind and matter since it's logically impossible in the dualist scheme ;) You write, "...no one is saying, for example, that time is a separate 'substance' from space. It is simply another dimension, or axis, of the universe." Agreed, because time and space are (deemed) physical, along with matter and forces. You say that your phenomenal dimension is not experimentally accessible, that means it's not physical and so you're in the same boat as Descartes. Does it not seem odd to you that we experience events in sequence?

Reply to omgpop: >>> The idea of subjective experience existing as another - non-spatial, non-temporal -dimension, is at least intuitively appealing - and it's cool because it does account for us being unable to experimentally verify it. <<< You're not the only one who has proposed supernumery dimensions to explain conscious experience. I quote from my paper http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/bubw3/bubw3.html Section 4 Some theorists have even proposed a kind of hidden dimension of physical reality to house the unaccounted information in conscious experience (Harrison 1989, Smythies 1994). Harrison S. (1989) A New Visualization on the Mind-Brain Problem: Naive Realism Transcended. In J. Smythies & J. Beloff (Eds.) The Case for Dualism. Charlottesville: University of Virginia. Smythies J. R. (1994) The Walls of Plato's Cave: the science and philosophy of brain, consciousness, , and perception. Aldershot UK: Avebury. I found Harrison's analysis of conscious experience, with his own hand-drawn illustrations, so compelling and insightful that I posted an illustrated summary on my own site. http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/quotes/harrison.html

Not necessarily, although I see why you might take that from what I said. For example, the solution I immediately hit on when I was first thinking about all this stuff is articulated in this camp http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/29 (excuse the clumsy expression - it was all new to me at that point and I was somewhat fumbling in the dark (still am mind you)). I have since distanced myself from the idea, but it is basically a property dualism of sorts, and quite distinct from Cartesian dualism. The idea of subjective experience existing as another - non-spatial, non-temporal -dimension, is at least intuitively appealing - and it's cool because it does account for us being unable to experimentally verify it. I'm not trying to persuade you of that idea, but I think if you consider it in depth you will see it's quite distinct from Cartesian dualism - no one is saying, for example, that time is a separate 'substance' from space. It is simply another dimension, or axis, of the universe.

In post#100 in the Dennett discussion, omgpop writes: "I don't speak for all property dualists, but Mike, as I see it - unconscious measurement devices would only ever be able to detect the presence of neural correlates, just as they currently do. Property dualism sees the qualitative aspect of experience to be a fundamental aspect of physical brain events." I can't see the difference between this and substance dualism. You are saying that there is measurable stuff - the NCC - and non-measurable stuff - subjective experience. Talk of properties and aspects seems to me just to clothe Cartesiam dualism, no?