KARL JASPERS FORUM

SHORT NOTE 43

PSI ASCRIBED A NEURAL FUNCTION ?
by Adrian van der Meijden
21 November 2002, posted 3 December 2002

<1>
OOBE = out of the body experience, occurs under anaesthesia, near death experiences, crisis situations and spontaneously.

RV = Remote viewing, acronym for Telepathic clairvoyancy

OOPARTS = Out of Place artefacts

ZPE = zero point energy field as also vacuum flux.

<2>
Part I: Let me argue one case: the OOBE.

What is the survival value of an OOBE?

For the human being, nil. BUT, unless a brachiating monkey can model an external world within which it moves it cannot brachiate. The exoreality has to remain stable while the body moves. So, that extends to us as well, as and while we move through an environment. There exists an automatic, unconscious process which realtime updates our environment as we move. BUT here the exference is also that the external environment is a sensory illusion. We cannot explain how we can actually move. Next comes the notion that our brain - for a physical thesis - produces mutually conflicting world models. Our senses make us imagine we observe an external world yet when compiled into a whole worldmodel in which we live, move and have our being an inverse topology occurs. We have become an object in a 3D world. The external model, a projection, is parked inside the brain, or so we say.

<3>
That offends against the rule to simplicity. One cannot cram the larger "object" inside a smaller one in an only physical sense. Of course the alternative argument is that consciousness not being confined to the brain can roam as freely as a bird.

<4>
We can further argue that science also plays it that way. Kepler's grid has three axes to map things in a space with 0 reference as the centre or origin of an action. This model is static so a [?time?] 4Dimension is postulated from which change is introduced [?intrajected?] into a 3D static world to bring about change. This topologically counterprojects the way we experience a "here and now" with us as the centre of the action. So to speak it buries the dually mapped event frame by having a static objective world into which a dynamic intrudes. At a same time as our senses observe an external world we map ourselves inside that world. Einstein reframed that as relativity where respectively this 0 positional "I" observer needs three frames to fully map what happens. On board a train the perspective varies from standing around. It is somewhat like we already have it, as an inner world for the train which moves along with us and an outer world of the train moving through the landscape. Moreover our eyes can only compile sequences of static images.

<5>
It is incidentally highly unlikely that time dilation occurs, although it has been experimentally verified. Basically, in the epiphenomenal sense, there can be no material observer elsewhere nor elsewhen than "here". Nor does the universe have a centre. We impose a measuring and locational grid. That's how we subjectively experience this and topologically introduce it while thinking or imagining. In the absence of an observer relativity cannot apply. Obviously, I hope, the universe does not need an observer, which is why science has no need of qualia or any of the trappings of consciousness. It takes some 4000 years for actual events at Betelgeuse, 4000 lightyears away, for us to become visible and yet they happen in a universal here and now. The credibility gap begins very minutely at the end of our fingertips where the discrepancy between actual events and as modelled by our sensorium accrues. It increases with distance, catered for by time dilation in Relativity. So, again, that "here and now" localisation is a byproduct of us being conscious.

<6>
The problem is that we so habitually shift relativity frames that we hardly even notice when this happens. It occurs, in so far as I can detect, in the transmutation of actual observation into topological mappings of the kind we call thinking. Hence the Bible has that in my Father's House are many mansions", symbolic of the variety of appearances around. The singularity of the real reality is now catered for by "vacuum fluctuations" that create and uncreate particles. Entanglement of the experient observer renders them stable during observation. Only people who are quite unfussy about this 1st, 2nd, 3^rd person topological set of conflicts will notice this. People in whom logical processes dominate [so called cerebrotonics] have "consistency" bury this possibility. Where observational activity dominates it is more likely noticed by somatotonics. We don't actually experience an external world, it's a mental construct.

<7>
BUT< all over, here comes the puzzle. We can dislocate our external reference of an event frame into "action at a distance". Remote viewing, as telepathy has been renamed, was investigated by the CIA as a spy tool. It was given up when the observer effect was realised by which the observer interferes or alters this event frame. The enemy can also use remote viewers to camouflage what they are up to so the RV spy gets a false or wrong image.

<8>
This one we cannot park in a more primitive ancestral survival tactic. Neither does it have a survival value in a primitive sense. We find it embodied as protective mimicry for which evolution has no explanation, except the political noise that the survivor wins, which is not a logical argument. Decades ago one Ted Serios, an alcoholic bellhop, could produce pictures of remote scenes on Polaroid film. Telepathy has further been unarguably tested with submarines.

<9>
OOBE's occur spontaneously, under anaesthetic and in crisis conditions. Most descriptions of the various heavens we get are OOBE effects. This matches how in a sensory deprivation tank, Lilly invented, we begin to hallucinate. This raises the question how come a mere physical robot can get so creative as to invent non-existent "worlds". Even when we say that we fabricate dreams that still leaves unexplained their cause

<10>
So by doing multi-perspectival analysis we find both paradoxical events managed by the brain, presumably why we need an unconscious backstage manager. We also find certain puzzles attached to this for which an only physical thesis is inadequate. We can actually, in a scientific sense, copy the 4D model and allow that consciousness is non-local and ubiquitous like "energy" until and unless vectorised to be a directional, hence localised force - which matches awareness better. Awareness can be argued as the way the senses draw our attention to things to take notice of, which has nothing to do with what Quantum Theory calls consciousness.

<11>
In a psychological sense hallucinations occur when the habitual or conventional event frame mapping misfires. That is, we should get noises coming from outside our ears, not inside. St Paul's comment is that he knew not whether he was in the body or out of it. Nor should we get visions as if the standard sensory world does not exist. But synaesthesia contradicts this convention. We may not, at our peril, project standardised "normalcy" without also making allowance for what occurs in the whole of the Bell Curve of distribution.

<12>
It further stands to reason that unless there will be a sensory, brain processed means to model such experiences in the complex outlined above there will be nothing to experience. Yet that is exactly what RV and OOBEs etc. contradict. Other worldly and elsewhere experiences are seldom composed of what we may call standard sensory ingredients. The variety of religious experiences is too varied for quick summary evaluations.

<13>
As per usual the evidence and possibilities are ambiguous. That is exactly where science stops. It cannot, it will not, tolerate events or observations unless and until they can be quantified, that is, made "precise". What is gradually becoming clear is that the rhetorical devices deployed in order to attain such precision and clarity, and exclude paradox and conflict really don't stand up to more onerous enquiry, especially when we analyse in a synectic, multi-perspective or holistic sense. I hope I have been fair to both sides, but the bottom line is "undecidable".

<14>
Part II: The OOBE Objectified.

The ?Objective? conclusion or inference now becomes as follows>

Given that homo sap simultaneously utilises THREE, Relativised reference frames produced and maintained by the brain in order to keep us oriented in our environment as a mobile life unit it follows that when "opponents" binary logic polarise interpretations across those three frames as attitudes about the material versus metaphysical aspects of such usage there's no means of reconcilation until the topological distortions introduced are clarified. Basically we fail to resolve topological "opposites" for which the maximum permute seems to be 27 triple sets.

<15>
Thus Ontology projects a 3rd person, objective, abstractive worldmodel, placing object A inside reference frame B, as it were extraspectively as a map. Epistemology relies on a 1st person subjective version of us playing subjective peekaboo games through holes in the body introspectively while the 2nd person relies on psychological processes of abstraction paraspectively. We are primarily aware of an external world and needs must make an effort to gain insights about our subjectivity. When we move this is replaced with an 'objective' "map" within which we place our self as an object. Multiperspective topological enquiry reveals the conflicts we ignore. That follows when we use ONLY formal logic and are not aware of the pre-logical maneuvres like making up definitions and exclude paradoxes + reference frame swapping, 1st, 2nd, 3rd person modalities, etc.. What appears as time dilation in theory shows itself as a topological conflict for how the brain maps a world model.

<16>
In all this my naive belief has been that the UNI-verse cannot harbour paradox. If correct it follows it all results from how the brain crunches data, rather clumsily intimated here because it is a novel approach. It simply follows from the correlation and selection of whole versus part, together with accommodating consciousness. For the whole we cannot assign locality nor causes, for the parts we cannot but assign locality which conflict cannot be linearly resolved. The archaic sentiment by which it is a world in which we move, live and have our being reflects a dynamic, static and subjective but metaphysical topology. The last one is a virtual, imaginary world of abstractions we fill up with knowledge. And If I get that lot right any attempt at a TOE is a dogmatic attempt at hegemony of one version of the truth, which amusingly sums up as an unimaginable superpositional, which is where and how ambiguity, undecidability and the assumptional arises. It concerns the universal Aristotle never explained.

<17>
Part III: Add Quantum Logic to show this multi-versus mono-perspectivism

Qlogic has put the cat amongst the pigeons, leaving us stuck to reconcile to consistency Relativity with the impossibility of including the observer into an objective event frame. The "detached" observer is a Renaissance innovation that changed the earlier, medieval triple perspective of myth represented in painting into the 3rd person, hidden and optical dimension of an audience watching a stage. Simultaneously Renaissance art invented a psychedelically distorted "trompe-l'oeil" by reflecting an image in a barrel shaped mirror. This became ?modern? [psychedelic, surrealistic] art during the 19th Cy following the invention of the pinhole camera.

<18>
This forces a still more abstract, super-positional and unimaginable, aniconic 0-Dimension, ZPE field, aetheric, Aleph null, Tao style which cannot be topologised as there arises a forthwith multi-frame set of options as to which topology to utilise. Anyhow this generalises consciousness to be not merely the human observer but relates to the issue of life itself as affecting states of matter, OOPS converting a vacuum flux into a sensory representation we call matter. I am not surprised therefore that the Q pundits cannot resolve these issues in a logical way.

<19>
If we examine stone age art we will discover that this multi-perspectivism of even pre-unconscious data crunching is embodied in it. I venture that this concerns the brain's hardware. It is preserved only in the style of Alchemy. The history of the change from artistic representation of mime and ritual ?magic? into modern linguistic abstract shows a synechdochal constraint of this complexity via a number of stages into the simple. A good example is the Egyptian Demotic which changed the simultaneously universal, symbolic, metaphoric and similetic possibilities of language, as noted by Champollion and mentioned by Dante, into our modern dead and literal usage. One cannot either understand or read Chinese and Egyptian unless one contextually decides which of those four frames apply.

<20>
The Universal is the aniconic. I shall have to refer to a friend to get websites to show this and shall include one picture as an attachment. One is coloured in to show this ooparts multi-perspectivism, usually edited away, so one is forced to visit actual caves. One may also add that ancient religions used drugs in sacramental ways to enable the experience of all this, although it can be done without them as well. The pre-verbal glyphic mode of myth is well portrayed in books like "Hamlet's Mill" and Robert Graves "White Goddess" and is attached to our ever fondness for a story. Contrary to the separation of theory or context from the facts for science in a story we get plot as theory, characterisation, theme and process changes. This enables THE simple whereas story is always complex.

<21>
PS the way I suggest time dilation occurs is as a function of appearance. The Betelgeuse we see far away in realtime lies 4000 years in the past and could go nova we would have to wait 4000 years to see. If we re-map this in microtime into a visit to a shop, leaving and returning home, the only conclusion we can draw is that for the trip there and the return trip both we invest our future as like a "here and now" moving along with us as an event frame which we project as changes in an environment while the realtime updating of our map occurs automatically and unawarely. Qlogic finds that both exo and endo changes belong together as one. If reasoned correctly then the world our senses manage is a subjective projection. Naturally too a time gap occurs between its observation and emergence into consciousness as a function of time dilation.

----------------------------------------------

Adrian van der Meijden