The Geometry of Experience

The Geometry of Experience: Correlating Phases of Awareness with Prompt–Response Estimators

Our conversation revolved around the deep challenges and possibilities of creating non-clinical, non-diagnostic ways of mapping phases of constrained awareness — i.e., the shifting structures through which experience is organised.

We discussed how current psychometric approaches tend to collapse complexity into fixed categories, whereas your interest lies in mapping dynamic, process-based phases of experience. That led us to identify several conceptual issues that any such mapping system must confront:

1. The Ontological Problem

What exactly is being measured?

In conventional psychometrics, constructs like “extraversion” or “anxiety” are treated as relatively stable traits.
But phases of awareness are:

  • dynamic,
  • context-dependent,
  • fluid,
  • often transient,
  • embodied,
  • and “non-self” in the Buddhist sense.

So the first issue is:

You cannot measure a “thing” — only the geometry of a process.

This shifts the emphasis from traits to configurations or modes of constrained awareness.

2. The Linguistic Expression Problem

How does language reflect internal structure?

We explored how:

  • spacious states correspond to broader semantic fields,
  • contracted states correspond to narrower, more definite language,
  • self-referential states show up in pronoun and narrative density,
  • reflective states show up in process-oriented syntax.

The issue here is:

Language is a reliable correlate of awareness-phase,
but only at the level of structural pattern, not personal interpretation.

This makes it suitable for AI analysis, if the analysis remains structural and non-evaluative.

3. The Measurement Ambiguity Problem

No single measure (linguistic, physiological, attentional) captures a phase on its own.

Awareness-phase correlates with multiple modalities:

  • linguistic structure,
  • heart-rate variability,
  • breathing patterns,
  • attentional metrics,
  • metaphor density,
  • cognitive flexibility,
  • embedding vector drift.

But none of these “mean” anything alone.

So the issue is:

Any mapping must use multi-modal triangulation,
and treat all correlates as partial, not definitive.

This aligns with contemplative traditions, which emphasise multiple simultaneous signs of insight or contraction.

4. The Dimensionality Problem

How do we extract stable axes from inherently fluid phenomena?

This is where PCA or similar dimensionality-reduction methods enter the picture: they can uncover latent dimensions in:

  • language embeddings,
  • response trajectories,
  • metaphor-space,
  • thematic drift.

But PCA introduces its own issues:

  • it imposes a linear model on non-linear experience,
  • it can over-simplify,
  • different individuals have different semantic manifolds.

Thus:

Dimensional reduction must be used for exploration,
not classification.

It can reveal structure, but should never freeze it.

5. The Interpretive Safety Problem

How do we avoid reifying meaning-space into psychological judgement?

This is perhaps the central issue.

The moment a system begins to label or evaluate phases of awareness,
we risk:

  • misunderstanding the data,
  • pathologising normal variation,
  • conflating dynamics with traits.

Our solution was clear:

A mapping tool must be a mirror,
not an assessor.

AI can highlight structure, drift, resonance, attractors —
but only awareness interprets meaning.

6. The Correlational Integrity Problem

How do we validate correlations between inner phases and outer measures without claiming too much?

We explored how to keep correlations:

  • non-normative,
  • non-diagnostic,
  • non-evaluative,
  • descriptive rather than prescriptive.

The key principle:

Correlations reveal tendencies,
not truths about the person.

This keeps the work aligned with:

  • phenomenology,
  • contemplative science,
  • dynamical systems,
  • and ethical AI.

7. The Resonance Principle (the most promising conceptual solution)

Throughout the conversation, a deeper conceptual mechanism emerged:

Awareness and appearance interact through resonance.
Language and physiology reflect this resonance.

Resonance provides a way to conceptualise correlation without implying:

  • identity,
  • causation,
  • pathology,
  • personality traits.

Instead, it frames the project as:

Mapping how awareness resonates through linguistic, bodily, and semantic patterns.

This gives a coherent, humane, and philosophically grounded foundation for future work.

In One Sentence

We explored how one might map phases of awareness using language, vector geometry, and psychophysical correlates, while avoiding the pitfalls of traditional psychometrics — emphasising resonance, process, and structure over traits, labels, or evaluation.