To give an example I have used before. Down the side of cinema film is the sound track. The variations in width correspond with the frequency and volume of the sound, so that there is a principled relation between that width and the sound we hear. However, there is no similarity between the sound track and the sound other than this differential correlation. The same is true for the infra-red camera's input and its appearance of 'infra-red' on the TV screen, where the variations in intensity are shown in green light. What this makes plain, of course, is that, to take vision as our example, there is no direct similarity between input and qualia (which straightforwardly implies that, though there are unmistakably colours in the head, existing as some special brain productions, basically nonconscious, there are no colours in the external real.
Since nothing in the input comes with interpretation attached, as interpretations are driven by motivation, it is not in the least counter-intuitive to see that both input and registration are blank of conscious significance for the body (even in the case of low-level animal instincts, which are purely automatic). This is entailed by the arguments that arise out of the empirical evidence that I adduce in support of the non-epistemic nature of both input and sensory registration (Wright (ed.), The Case for Qualia, MIT Press, 2008, 8-22, 345-50). The conclusion is that the sensory registrations of whatever modality are basically not conscious, and, furthermore, retain elements of the non-conscious even within conscious perception. It is this ever-present penumbra of the non-conscious within the conscious that enables one agent to update the percepts of another, for the other agent may attend to that region and interpret from it something of value. This is an evolutionary advantage to the species -- even at the animal level, such as one Diana monkey's cry of warning to its group at -- not 'the sight' of 'a leopard' -- but the interpretation of some sensory evidence, which may still be 'mis-taken'. The experience of agnosics shows that the registration can be devoid of percepts. Smythies has described qualia as 'non-symbolical', which well characterizes the state of the case. He instances the plight of the blind who have had sight restored, having never experienced it before: all they see is 'a confused welter of light, dark, coloured and moving sense-data' (1956, 65).
Another entailment is that there is no given tie between that type of registration and the type of input. My discussion of John Smythies' insightful armchair experiment (long before virtual-reality hoods; Smythies, The Analysis of Perception, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956, 41; Wright 'More qualia trouble for functionalism: the Smythies' TV-Hood Analogy,' Synthese, 97 [1993], 365-82) which showed that its proof of the internality of qualia can be extended to the interchangeability of inputs and registrations (e.g. 'sound' for light input -- see the current discussion of blind people being provided via sound-wave to photon [not 'light'] input that is at present going on in the PhilPapers blog, where none of the discussants have taken up the notion of Sellars (pere's) differential corrrelation.
One of the possibilities I suggested was the interchange of space distributions for light-wave frequency, the colour being shown by the 3-D distance of the region of the visual display (e.g. indigo the farthest away, red the nearest), and, vice versa, real distance could be shown by colour. In both cases the differential correlations could be used as perceptual evidence. However bizarre this may seem, the possibility of some mutation having this substitution cannot be ruled out. It is possible that no outward difference in physical behaviour would be detectable.
So Smythies is correct in insisting that the 'space' of the visual display is distinct from that of the real space as source of input as there is no given relation between the two.
Correction: This blog was posted by elw33: I do not know how Schiller crept in! JS
Welcome Edmond! Very relevant and succinct post! Could you please define what you mean exactly by "structurally isomorphic", "differential correlation", and "tied proportionately", and how these relate to a concept you do not mention "functionally isomorphic"?
ReplyDeleteIndeed a hearty welcome to Edmond Wright! Actually the notion of isomorphism used in this way was introduced by Gestalt psychologists (Berlin) in the 1920s. I showed the inadequacies of the concept in my 1986 paper, "Visual Space as Physical Geometry" (published in the journal Perception), because it does not meet the criteria of congruence relations required by geometry.
ReplyDeleteAs we have all agreed here thus far there is actually much less evidence that qualia are "in the [physical] head" than one might surmise, at best only a close correlation twist certain brain processes and them: No quale has ever been observed or detected in a brain, nor is it clear how one might be detected with certainty. This is a unique scientific problem, unlike any other.
There is also no real indication that VS is "smart" per se, but that its use by intelligence and intelligent behavior may suggest that it is. The reports of restored blindness and agnosic "object blindness" perhaps suggest that VS is not organized in those conditions. That may be a mistaken impression. Rather it appears that the persons so affected are unable to interpret what they see, even though it is "all there." It is the ability to interpret the extended field one sees (VS) that is impaired, rather than the field itself--at least that is my strong impression from studying the case histories.
Being something of an expert on "sound tracks" as editor of "The Journal of Film Music" (a hobby horse of mine), the optically recorded "stripe" on the edge of a film is then "read" by an optical "reader" (playback machine) and the squiggly lines, which are optical analogs of sound waves, are converted into electroacoustical signals that are amplified over loud speakers (at least that is how it worked in the old days). The sound we thus hear is several mechanical steps removed from that optical analog recorded on film, in which something optical is converted to something acoustical. One does not have to resort to the analogy of recording, though. As Plato noted of harmony, it is not identical with the strings of the lyre, but of their vibration.
ReplyDeleteIf brain processes produce sensations they cannot also be identical with them (i.e, cause cannot be identical with effect). If that is so, then where are the sensations in the head and why can we not find them there? John's answer is that they exist in another space-time manifold, apparently in some way attuned or sympathetic to these physiological happenings in physical space-time.
Re "agnostic object blindness". One has to distinguish between "apperceptive agnosia" (in which the visual field itself is awry) and "associative agnosia" in which the VF is structurally (pictorially) OK, but cannot be interpreted.
ReplyDeleteI hope we will hear about "other space-time manifolds" from Bernard. In the meantime I will do some preliminary fleshing out of "in some way attuned" by introducing H.H. Price's theory of "Another World", as well the Thouless and Wiesner theory of "Shin"—and needed modifications to these theories (watch this space).
It would be helpful to know how VS is "awry" in apperceptive agnosia--not to mention knowing why it is called "apperceptive," since it presumably involves a disorder of perception, not apperception (which is closer to what is generally called "cognition" these days).
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall that in one condition, VS is "skewed," i.e., everything is diagonal and shapes that should have right angles are perceived as parallelograms.
ReplyDeleteJohn Smythies’ position cannot be considered to be “dualism”, if by “dualism” we mean traditional “Cartesian dualism” (in which the mind was conceived as a purely “thinking substance” devoid of any spatial properties) or even “Thomistic dualism” (in which the phenomenal results of perception were considered as simulacra of objects existing in the material structure of the brain, the only “immaterial”, that is non-cerebral, faculty being the intellect): as I understand it, John’s position should rather be called “hyperphysical non-cartesian neo-dualism”. An alternative name would be: “non-cerebral extended hyperdimensional materialism” John occasionally designates his model simply as “extended materialism”, but of course it has nothing to do with current materialistic versions of “mind-brain identity theories”. His model is not meta-physical (etymologically: beyond the physical, that is to say beyond laws of nature, thus supernatural) but truly hyper-physical (because, just as Bernard Carr’s or Richard Amoroso’s hyperphysical models, it is deemed to be testable through the future investigation and refinement or our scientific knowledge of physical space and laws of nature, without resorting to any jump into the supernatural). The problem in contemporary philosophy of mind is that it is too strongly bi-polarized between “dualism” (almost always understood as the strawman of a radical Cartesian dualism) and “physicalism” (almost always equated with a reductionist version of cerebral materialism). I really think that reality is more subtle and complex than those two simplistic categories, and that there is an urgent need to re-discover non-cartesian versions of “mind-body duality” as well as non-materialistic versions of the “physical world”. Moreover, I think that hyperdimensional models of the articulation between phenomenal space-time (in our case phenomenal visual space) and physiological (cerebral) space-time (unlike William Rosar, I would not say “physical space-time”, because future physics can integrate phenomenal space in an overwhole physical manifold organized in virtue of natural laws) can account for unusual distortions/alterations of our fields of perception (especially in the sensory visual modality but also in the motor and sensory experiences of the body image) during so-called “Near Death Experiences” and “Out of Body Experiences” (NDEs and OBEs) : this is an admittedly controversial field of research but the empirical data are getting more and more abundant and verified in drastic conditions (especially when we have physical records of cerebral activity, or lack of activity) by medical researchers themselves (Pim Van Lommel, Jean-Pierre Jourdan, etc…-Jean Pierre Jourdan, a French physician, even has elaborated his hyperdimensional model of physical space because of these visual anomalies during veridical perceptions in altered states of consciousness in OBEs and NDEs). John must have heard of that since he was part of the SPR and had a keen interest in parapsychological research: there are interesting observations about the geometrical structure and the width of the visual field (and about the aspects and colors of perceived objects) during seemingly “impossible veridical perceptions” occurring during OBEs in a clinical surgical situation. But this is a very intricate and difficult subject, and I will come back to it later, only if you deem it to be useful for the group.
ReplyDelete'Apperceptive agnosia' is the standard neurological term for this condition. Here is Wikipedia on the subject:
ReplyDelete"Apperceptive Agnosia is the visual disorder that renders a person unable to recognize objects. It is also known as visual space agnosia. Distinction between shapes is difficult, although other aspects of vision, such as ability to see detail and colour, remain intact. Recognition of, copying and discriminating between visual stimuli, even of different shapes, is problematic. Apperceptive agnosics cannot complete an object matching task. Because they are unable to recognize even simple shapes, Apperceptive agnosia is considered a problem in the early part of the visual processing system. As contrasted with patients diagnosed Associative agnosia, whom are able to recognize simple shapes and even copy complex shapes (drawing of an anchor, for example) but are unable to recognize what an object is."
I strongly agree with Thomas both as to what the new theory is and what it should be called—although "extended hyperdimensional materialism" is less of a mouthful than "Non-cerebral e.h.m." — perhaps we could leave 'non-cerebral' out. Bernard Carr and I had thought of calling it the "BPSC" hypothesis after its main developers in temporal order (Broad, Price, Smythies, Carr) but I think Thomas's title gives a better description. I also strongly agree that the philosophy (and science) of the mind should be developed in the direction he suggests.
ReplyDeleteThomas, please tell us more about the most interesting work of "Pim Van Lommel, Jean-Pierre Jourdan, etc". which is not on my current horizon (although I am still a member of the SPR with a continued interest in parapsychology).
I must have missed something along the way, John. Doesn't your theory involve substance dualism, with one set of dimensions containing physical matter and the other set containing sensations?
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge there is no theory being offered by neuroscience that purports to identify sensations with any specific neurobiological substance, or even promises to do so. Rather there seems just to be an effort to pass off close correlation of neurophysiological *activity* with sensations as being a state of identity which, of course, won't do, because there is no basis to affirm the identity of indiscernibles.
I certainly share an interest in all the anomalous experiences to which Thomas alludes above, and do not believe that they should be "explained away" as hallucinations as Susan Blackmore and others have attempted to do (and which only begs the question as to what a hallucination is!) But I am not sure what light such anomalous experiences shed on ordinary perception, unless one proposes as M.M. Moncrieff did that all perception entails ESP ("The Clairvoyant Theory of Perception"), to wit:
ReplyDelete”... our visual sensory organs are in fact selective and canalizing mechanisms to prevent us from being overwhelmed by a mass of irrelevant and therefore disadvantageous clairvoyant impressions of the outside world. Thus in ... ordinary vision, the role of the eye in binocular and compound vision (of insects) is to canalize clairvoyant sight and thus to limit the clairvoyant impressions of the outside world. In ordinary visual perception the mind, the brain and eye have, according to the above view, been evolved to exclude from consciousness - in their role as selective and inhibitory mechanisms - everything that is not actually useful in respect to our physical and psychical environment.”
This seems to be a concrete attempt to work out the details implied by Bergson's notion of the "cerebral reducing valve" by showing that the process of "reduction" begins with the sensory end organs themselves. (John, this would not necessarily conflict with the sort of "reduction" Sickles postulates in his chemical theory of perception).
We should be guided by the Greek root of "agnosia," i.e., "gnosis," which means "to know," not to perceive, and to know with the connotation of action following from such knowledge (behavior).
ReplyDeleteThe reports of the visual agnosias suggest that VS remains intact and what is affected is the ability to extract knowledge from it, in making judgments, descriminations, etc. So in principle at least, in the case of a visual agnosic, a visual line could be straight in their VS, but they would be unable to judge it as such or tell it from, say, a curved line. Of course this could be easily tested by simple comparisons, asking the patient to make just that distinction on a computer display--a very simple experiment, or series of experiments.
John, assuming that Bill is correct that your position is a version of substance dualism (perhaps not reading too much into either of the terms), my suggestion for a name would be "spatial substance dualism" since that would distinguish it from Descartes' position, which I agree is characterized in the literature and then dismissed too quickly. I think there is something to be said for a short name, and then to admit that it holds several variants, including mine.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the book John edited with John Beloff, "The Case for Dualism," very nicely defines the various forms of dualism, including his own. Decartes did not seem to be thinking of sensations in thinking of mind as an unextended substance, and I am not convinced that sensations should be considered mental, since physical science seems to be predicated on them (at least some of them, viz. Locke's "primary qualities").
ReplyDeleteYes, this theory (not 'mine' as others have contributed: say the theory that I support) is a type of substance dualism. I will start a separate post on the history of this. Glad to see Bob's mention of Moncrieff's theory.
ReplyDeleteBill, what do you mean by "predicated'?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore giving you a description of some notable visual phenomena during OBEs and NDEs and the theoretical framework that could possibly account for their existence, I must tell you that I am well aware that what I am about to describe may sound very disturbing and even quite bizarre and incredible, but I must also insist that someone like Jean-Pierre Jourdan is among the most cautious and rational researchers in that controversial field of research, and he is not the easiest person to deceive. And furthermore, he is not the only one to study these aspects of perception during NDEs. Besides, I want to reassure every member of this group: I am a sensible person enjoying a reasonable level of sanity (this is important to keep in mind, especially when you will read the following descriptions). It’s sad to say it, but in the current intellectual climate (at least judging by my experience at the academic level in my own country, in France) one always has to choose one’s words very carefully and to think twice before speaking about these “heretical” topics. When I first read about seemingly impossible veridical perceptions during NDEs, about 15 years ago, I must admit that I was very skeptical, but I now think that putting all the accumulated empirical evidence in the balance clearly points towards the authenticity of these experiences.
ReplyDeleteJean-Pierre Jourdan studied many convergent and coherent reports of anomalous but strikingly veridical visual perceptions during OBEs (anomalous because they were deployed from a vantage point that did not correspond to the position of the subject’s body on the operation table, for example). Subjects reported that there were drastic changes in their visual field: their visual field seemed to stretch itself in height and in width, thus “morphing” to become 180° wide as in a kind of cinemascope format but with the notable difference that there were no distortions in the relative proportions. The visual field seemed to open up on its sides and at its top and bottom limits.
Reports also mention that, during these experiences, the “widening” of the visual field accelerates when the subjects focus on mentally ‘’projecting” themselves to some more or less distant places that are not directly observable in their visual field or when they begin to feel more “detached” from their bodies and when they start feeling they are entering a kind of spatial “limit” or “threshold”: the visual field then seems to spread from a wide 180° screen to a complete 360° spherical one. People who experienced these modifications report that they had the impression of being in a kind of elastic “bubble” or “sphere” that could stretch itself to instantly reach the place that was mentally envisioned. Moreover, during this unusual visual experience, the colors appearing in the visual field seem to be different (brighter and with a richer hue, among other things, but the visual information about the visited distant places in the “OBE” state is accurate and that’s why these peculiarities of the visual field in these experiences cannot be attributed to mere hallucinations). While the visual field undergoes the above mentioned deformations, there is something very peculiar that is going on and that is worth being mentioned: the subjects retrospectively report that they were suddenly able to “see in all directions at will” as “in a bubble” but with no superposition of images and without any need to turn around the objects to get multiple side-views (do not ask me what it may look like: I do not have the slightest idea and I readily admit that I cannot even imagine that!). There is an even stranger phenomenon during these experiences: after the felt spatial “threshold” is crossed, the subject seems to literally “see through objects” first as if they were becoming “transparent” and as if the visual field was not limited any more to a partial presentation of the front surfaces of objects, and then. Even the internal structures of objects (and bodies) seem to become visually accessible as if there were a succession of volumetric anatomical slides of things as the so-called “visual bubble” apparently goes “through” them, sometimes visually retrieving verifiable information (eg: seeing concealed objects under an opaque clothe or behind a closed metal door, seeing what is happening in distant rooms by “going through” walls or “through” the ceiling, seeing a small object behind or under another bigger one, etc…).As mentioned above, people who had these unusual visual perceptions during NDEs also report that they were able to “instantaneously project” themselves from one point in space to another: they describe this as a kind of powerful “zoom” inducing a change in “scale”. And, last but not least, they report a deeply altered sense of time: they do not seem to experience the “passing” of time anymore, because at the apex of the experience they describe a situation in which the “succession of moments” has become a “presentation in space”.
ReplyDeleteJourdan’s theory consists in trying to account for this unusual visual phenomenology by saying that our visual field (but all the other fields of perception as well) is constructed in a substrate that is an extension of our organism and that is part of a 5th dimension of space including as a sub-set our usual 4D space-time continuum, just as a 3D space, a volume, can include a 2D space, a plane. Jourdan contends that the impression of “instantaneous projection” during an OBE or NDE does not amount to a usual motor translation but rather to a “refocalisation” in terms of a differential scale of perception. When the observer only starts “leaving” the 4D-5D cross section, he has the impression that the perceived objects become “transparent” only because he is still, so to say, in a “half-way” position, but once he is “higher” or “deeper” (forgive me, but I really do not know how to express that with our usual categories) in the 5th dimension of space, he begins to be able to adopt a full 5D vantage point enabling him to perceive a complete simultaneous “multi-angle” landscape of every point in the 4D sub-set. According to Jourdan, it is as if, in his analogy with the 3D-2D articulation, the multiple perceptual vantage points were originating from every point on the surface of a spherical volume including as an inner sub-volume our usual plane. What is interesting is that Jourdan’s higher-dimensional model of perception can give an encompassing account of every visual anomaly encountered in many OBEs and NDEs. It can also account for the alteration of the sense of time during these experiences, but this is maybe too far from our subject matter on this blog.
ReplyDeleteTo answer John's comment first, by "predicated" I mean that science is founded on Locke's (actually Gallileo's) "primary qualities" and that "secondary qualities" were deemed unfit (?) for the "objective" picture of the world sought by physical science.
ReplyDeleteWhat Thomas relates corresponds to my own reading on OBEs and NDEs, but also certain "cyclopedian" 360 degree visualization mentioned by Galton in his chapter on visual imagery. The description, though invoking a fifth dimension (more like a fourth spatial dimension I should think) could also be interpreted topologically, because from the description it sounds like the "expanded" visual world in these conditions is spherical in nature, but apparently expanding relative to some locus. One could think of it as an expanding section of a 3-space probably just as well as a spherical analog polytope (4-space).
The mental "projection" ability is described in the parapsychological literature is being a characteristic that those on "the other side" find they possess, i.e., they can "think" themselves to a different position. The question is how to characterize the viewpoint of the spherical "bubble," but the impression is that the center of the sphere has a radial character, tha the growing "bubble" is itself the visual consciousness, irrespective of an oriented observer as is normally the case. One still seems to be dealing with surfaces, though, not volumes, even in the passing through objects section by section, rather like PET scan does, and other imaging systems. The volume seems to be built up from such sections. So I suspect Bob may agree with me that we are still even in these paranormal (or supernormal) experiences dealing with projections of some kind, thus a *mapping down* of spatial (and perhaps temporal) dimensions that is effected in some way.
Thanks, Thomas, for having the courage to present this material, which indeed does seem to possess a good deal of internal consistency.
Correction: It was not "cyclopedian" visualization (a cyclops who somehow visualizes encyclopedias perhaps?) but, I believe, the term Galton used was "centripedal" to describe the ability of certain visualizers to see the entire surface of a globe as if at once. Also some visualizers claim to be able to visualize higher dimensional objects (see Coxeter's book "Regular Polytopes").
ReplyDeleteI wish to interject a comment on Locke's version of the primary secondary quality distinction, since the subject is coming up here. Locke, in Book 2 of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding makes a four-fold distinction among primary and secondary qualities (both of which he holds to be physical, and where the secondary qualities are ultimately explicable in terms of primary ones, including texture to explain the ability to reflect various wavelengths of light) and our corresponding ideas of them, which are sensations in the mind. While Locke holds that the causes of the ideas of the secondary qualities are the physical secondary qualities and of the ideas of the primary qualities are the physical primary qualities, he also holds that there is only a resemblance between the ideas of the primary qualities and their physical causes but not between the ideas of the secondary qualities and their physical causes. Thus neither primary nor secondary qualities are construed as sensations, although the ideas of both are.
ReplyDeleteLocke also notes (Bk. 2:viii:14): "What I have said concerning colours and smells, may be understood of tastes, and sounds, and other like sensible qualities; which, whatever reality we by mistake, attribute to them, are in truth nothing in the objects themselves, but powers to produce various sensations in us, and depend on those primary qualities, viz. bulk, figure, and motions of parts; as I have said."
ReplyDeleteOne might say that this is really the beginnings of a reductionistic physical theory of sensation, as a kind of byproduct of physical activity--an "epiphenomenon," if perhaps the only one there is (I've never heard or read of any other epiphenomena--are there any?)
Ruminating on the expanding "bubble" that Thomas describes above, it occurred to me that bubbles are a characteristic of the interaction of two states of matter: gas and liquid that creates surface tension. It is perhaps no accident that soap bubbles and their properties, for one, have been studied in the mathematical analysis of physical space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_bubble
ReplyDeleteWell! Thank you Thomas for giving us access to this remarkable NDE phenomenology (which I am sure is an accurate description). What struck me is how amazingly it is like the comments of Roland Penrose on Picasso's development of Cubist painting. Picasso is seeking to see the 4-dimensional reality hidden in the objects he is painting by the use of turning them into transparent crystals and by his technique of putting all sides of the object on the flat canvas at once.
ReplyDeleteSecondly it is clear that Jourdan's theory is very similar to the version of material dualism that I posted as a separate blog earlier today. More on this later. Where is Jean-Pierre Jourdan at present?
The account that Thomas gives us of Jourdan's NDE subjects, is, as Jourdan says, like what it would be like to see our 4D space-time world and its contents when observed for a 5th dimensional view point (like how a Sphere sees Flatlanders innards and all). The space dualism theory locates the observer ('O') in the fifth dimension but 'O' cannot normally experience the 4-D world of ordinary space-time—the walls of Plato's cave (consciousness module), as it were, get in the way. But, as I said earlier, if at the death of the physical body, these walls were to fall away, then perhaps 'O' could experience what Jourdan's subjects say they experience by a form of clairvoyance (psi-gamma). It is also interesting to note that the colours of the world Jourdan's subjects see are supersturated—like the supersaturated colours of psychedelic visions.
ReplyDeleteNot so fast, John! The NDE individuals describe VS as (1) an expanding "bubble" (a bubble being a two dimensional surface, in this case presumably having a perceptibly spherical shape?) with (2) an expanded visual range (3) something like X-ray vision and, most importantly IMO, (4) a shift from their normal (optico)visual "station point" (Gibson), that of seeing "through their eyes," and being "in their bodies," to another one outside their bodies, and typically above.
ReplyDeleteThat does not really correspond to looking from a fifth dimension, but a different point of view *within* the visual world (not one outside it, unless they say so) and an expanded field of vision, and one in which objects become transparent, but are still observed from a single *point of view* (that of the now seemingly disembodied observer).
The "threshold" which Thomas mentions needs more detailed description to interpret, but the NDE individuals report going into another world--not another dimension. It is not clear that those two experiences would be synonymous. Coexter in his book "Regular Polytopes" is quite explicit in describing how a polytope (a higher dimensional form) might be visualized, and it doesn't sound like what these people are describing, but involves a kind of sectioning--and it is not clear that the NDE individuals are describing sectioning, for one thing.
The experiences that Jourdan's subjects report are so outside the normal range of our experiences that it is difficult to fit them into our framework—great caution is needed! For example what these subjects see is described as coloured. Physical objects are not coloured in the sense that paranormal NDE perception of them would see them as coloured. Or are they? Can his subjects be seeing physical objects and the colours are supplied by clairvoyance? Clearly these are deep waters!
ReplyDeleteI hope we can learn more about what Jourdan means by his statement (relayed by Thomas)
"...our visual field (but all the other fields of perception as well) is constructed in a substrate that is an extension of our organism and that is part of a 5th dimension of space including as a sub-set our usual 4D space-time continuum, just as a 3D space, a volume, can include a 2D space, a plane."
But John, as you can see from my remarks above, the gist of what one can glean from Jourdan's subjects' reports *can* be accommodated by expanding existing parameters of VS, just as I described (preternatural colors aside). Physical objects are not colored at all, only our perception of them is colored.
ReplyDeleteClairvoyance may best be reserved for normal people with psi, not people close to death. The most significant change is the point-of-view "outside" the (perceived?) body. Obviously this occurs *after* the subjects eyes are closed, so there is no obvious transition from their normal optic "station point" to the one "outside" their bodies; rather the new station point seems to emerge in concert with a feeling of rising (at least often that is the case).
All that being said, it would be interesting to learn more about Jourdan's 5D model, if Thomas can supply details.