The Non-Centre of Human Perception and the Limitations of Linear Logic

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Before the ‘Big Bang’, space and time did not exist. Following the ‘Big Bang’, time and space existed simultaneously – everywhere. It is after the ‘Big Bang’ event that human logic and reason came into being (once the human brain had evolved to generate logic and reason). In reality, everything is ‘relative’ to the observer (as Einstein observed), and the Earth is the centre of human perception when the universe is observed (because the Earth is where humanity happens to be), but this does not mean that Earth is the centre of the observable universe. The universe appears to be expanding by 1 light year per year – but in reality it is expanding faster than light can travel (the dark energy at the edge of universe is travelling faster than light). It is probably correct to state that human perception has no definite ‘centre’, and that notions of ‘individuality’ and ‘I-ness’ are merely transitory social-cultural constructs, that have no meaning within universal reality. Linear logic is vitally important for the development and progression of human science and understanding, but prior to the ‘Big Bang’ – during the existence of the ‘initial singularity’ – the conditions that generate and support human logic did not yet exist, and cannot be defined, understood or limited to human logic today. This is why linear logic can be used in a reverse manner, working backwards toward the point of the ‘Bing Bang’ in time and space, but which cannot ‘penetrate’ the ‘Big Bang’ with conventional reason, and directly perceive that state which existed a moment before the ‘Big Bang’. The human brain appears to have evolved to perceive the observable universe in a manner that directly represents the time-space conditions that came into being directly after the ‘Big Bang’ – with the caveat that logic and reason is being used to try to understand that state of reality which immediately preceded the ‘Big Bang’, conditions that cannot be adequately defined (or ‘limited’) by logic and reason. The human brain did not exist during or prior to the ‘Big Bang’, and so did not evolve the perceptual abilities to directly understand this experience. In reality, human logic and reason is being used ‘after the fact’, to understand conditions that are not suited to its own evolutionary (developmental) circumstance. This suggests that Einstein’s theory of general relativity is correct only in the ‘post-Bing Bang’ state (i.e. the universe we all inhabit), but breaks down both during and immediately prior to the ‘Big Bang’. Ironically, it is by the use of logic and reason that this understanding is arrived at, and it could be that a ‘new’ way of using the human brain-mind nexus is just around the next evolutionary corner, as infinity has no discernible ‘centre’.

The Internal Model of Perception

Inner science is a non-religious investigation of the science of perception. It has to be ‘non-religious’ because it follows the ‘no hypothesis’ methodology associated with modern scientific enquiry. This approach is not in itself a judgement against religion, or the religious mind-set. On the contrary, it is the acknowledgement that religious methodology follows the ‘yes hypothesis’ and is the exact opposite of the scientific mind-set. Theology presents an already ‘complete’ vision of the universe, where it is assumed that theism is correct (and self-evident), and that all humanity has to do – from generation to generation – is simply to study this body of theological knowledge, conform to its strictures, and apply those strictures to everyday life. There is no questioning of the root validity of theistic thinking, and no comprehension that it has been a human mind that has ‘assumed’ theological thinking into being. This is because all theology is believed to have originated not from the human mind that first conceived it, but has rather ‘manifested’ from the divine-will of a primarily ‘unseen’ theistic entity. If people find comfort in this type of thinking, that is their right – just as it is an equal right (I would hope) not to find solace in such an approach to understanding reality. From a scientific position, it seems a matter of where one places their conscious awareness – whereas from a religious position, it is a matter of ‘belief’ or ‘non-belief’, ‘theism’ or ‘atheism’, etc.

The above programme is not religious, but entirely scientific in nature (exploring the ‘internal model’ narrative). It investigates the human brain, the human mind, perception and reality. It does this from the study of reality in the form of organic and inorganic matter. The brain is an isolated organ that exists in the skull, which is entirely cut-off from the outside world. It does not directly sense anything in and of itself, and possesses no ability to sense any stimulus in and of itself. The brain communicates with the outside world through bioelectrical impulses that are received from the senses which mediate with the external world. However, all the sensed data, regardless of its nature, be it sight, noise, smell or touch, etc, arrives at the different filtering parts of the brain in exactly the same format – namely that of bio-electrical impulses. In a process that is still not entirely understood, the brain converts these impulses into what might be called the recognisable and tangible senses. All this data serves to form an all-round image of the outer world – an outer world that the brain never directly perceives – but which is assumed to exist in the manner through which it is perceived. This situation is historical and directly related to the requirements of human survival as manifest in evolutionary development. Human beings perceive exactly as much of the physical environment that they need to survive, and nothing more. This would suggest that despite a working model of the external world that all human beings share, we cannot be exactly sure what the external world is really like in all its aspects. We may assume that the external world exists independent of the mind that perceives it, simply because the human brain from which the mind emerges, is itself composed of a material substance. Human perception constructs an image of the outer world that is functional for human survival, but which is probably incomplete in its ability to ‘sense’.

Although a working reality is generated in the human mind by the human brain, this does not mean that the outer world is an illusion that is generated from within the mind. Internal perception should not be conflated with the processes of ‘creating’ the world that is being ‘perceived’. The world exists independently of the brain and mind that perceives it, and remains unchanged in its deepest aspects by the act of general human perception. Here, a distinction must be drawn between general human ‘perception’ (which is instantaneous), and ‘observation’ (which is deliberate and in the case of science, governed by strict laws of conduct). This is despite the fact that a ‘vision’ of the outer world is generated within the brain and mind, and that it is difficult to ascertain the exact accuracy of this construction. This is probably the original meaning behind the Yogacara School of Buddhism which has been generally misconstrued as assuming that all that exists, is the inner world of ideas. The inner world of ideas definitely exists, but it is a product of a physical body that interfaces with an independently existing external environment. This is important research, but my personal opinion is that there must be a correlation between inner perception and the outer world that is sensed, and that the traps of ‘idealism’ ‘psychologism’ must be avoided to retain scientific objectivity. I suspect that human perception of the environment is ‘correct’ and ‘accurate’ – even though it might be incomplete. This is because it is unlikely humanity would have survived if its perception of the material universe was fatally flawed.

 

Other Dimensions (Out There)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The main stumbling block with analysing the idea of witnessing another reality, is ensuring that what is experienced, is not a product of the malfunction of the human brain, and its ability to perceive, cognise or interpret. An individual could be suffering from any number of internally generated psychological and physiological conditions, that interfere with the usual process of sensing the material environment. Such divergence away from normal function in the brain (and body), obviously leads to an internally generated view of the physical world, that does not actually exist ‘out there’. If a group of people appear to share a ‘visionary’ experience, it cannot be rejected out of hand, that all concerned are suffering from a perceptual ailment, or that the group is engaging in a ‘cult-like’ activity involving peer pressure, mutual conditioning, and interpretive reinforcement (i.e. a group hallucination). From a scientific perspective, these issues cannot be ignored whilst attempting to establish the theoretical principle of the existence of different planes of reality. Of course, belief systems effect how the world is perceived simply because that is one of their primary functions, but ‘belief’ does not necessarily equate to correct perception or interpretation of reality. Although theoretical physics postulates that other dimensions may exist (i.e. ‘String Theory’ and ‘Quantum Theory’, etc), these realities are mathematical probabilities, and not the product of sensory observation in the usual or mundane sense. In other words, the only manner in which these realities have been understood to exist, is through the use of numbers as cognised by the human brain. This is very different to the structure of religious or spiritual visions of other realities, which always appear to be like this (mundane) reality – but ‘ideal’ in nature. This can be ‘ideally’ good or bad, depending upon belief ad circumstance, but there is no scientific reason why other dimensions should be in anyway ‘familiar’ to human beings and their cognitive sensory array (which has evolved within a particular environment), or even ‘perceptible’ to the human mind in the ordinary sense.

%d bloggers like this: