Consciousness - Anatomy of the Soul

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Their conclusions go very strongly in the direction that the non-physical mind is NOT a by-product of the brain, but it certainly USES the brain. In other words, evolution was a preparatory activity for enabling the manifestation of soul in physical reality.

I'm quoting you again here. I've finished the book. Wow is right!

"The subtitle to this work is Anatomy Of The Soul. We had never intended to broach this topic, but we found that our conclusions as to the nature of consciousness were so akin to some definitions of the soul, that we were left with little choice in the matter."

"And the LORD God formed man (of) the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

If 'dust of the ground' is symbolic of the genome that gave rise to physical evolution, then this passage suddenly has a lot of meaning. The soul is multidimensional, I believe. It is temporarily locked into this physical world through the 'machinery' of the brain and central nervous center which accesses information from the physical world through the five senses. The mind which exist in a non physical space, incorporates and synthesizes that information into a seamless stream of conscious moments much like the passing of frames of a film through a projector.

Still, there would be nothing more to all this than the pleasure and pain of physical embodiment if it weren't for the multidimensional nature of the soul which has the potential to learn and organize the data from the physical for other purposes; it's purposes, I think.

Much food for thought. Great recommendation as always.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I'm quoting you again here. I've finished the book. Wow is right!

"The subtitle to this work is Anatomy Of The Soul. We had never intended to broach this topic, but we found that our conclusions as to the nature of consciousness were so akin to some definitions of the soul, that we were left with little choice in the matter."

"And the LORD God formed man (of) the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

If 'dust of the ground' is symbolic of the genome that gave rise to physical evolution, then this passage suddenly has a lot of meaning. The soul is multidimensional, I believe. It is temporarily locked into this physical world through the 'machinery' of the brain and central nervous center which accesses information from the physical world through the five senses. The mind which exist in a non physical space, incorporates and synthesizes that information into a seamless stream of conscious moments much like the passing of frames of a film through a projector.

Still, there would be nothing more to all this than the pleasure and pain of physical embodiment if it weren't for the multidimensional nature of the soul which has the potential to learn and organize the data from the physical for other purposes; it's purposes, I think.

Much food for thought. Great recommendation as always.


Yes, this was a really good find of Ark's and the perfect ending to my year long ferocious devouring of evolutionary/genetic reading. I felt that I should know as much as science claims to know about things and at the end, it was pretty sad. The most eminent scientists of our world, even today's world, only mange to sound desperate and pathetic in their efforts to explain the origins of life. And, the fact that they don't even appear to realize how pathetic they sound is disturbing.

So, reading this little volume was quite refreshing; here is science being used in a useful and honest way and the conclusions quite the opposite of the evolutionary biologists. And these guys didn't get sucked in the "oldtime religion" trap, either.
 

scotseeker

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Thanks for the recommendation Laura, just got my copy this evening and will start on it tomorrow. From the comments on the thread I really look forward to this book.
 

lilies

The Living Force
Fascinating. I'm about half way through the book.

The attractors remind me of Jackson Pollock paintings:

https://www.jackson-pollock.org/jackson-pollock-paintings.jsp

Perhaps that is the reason some people find them so interesting.


One day I had the idea to make random scribbles. But not just any random scribbles. These scribbles would be special. They would be somehow more than random scribbles. So I tried to just put the pen down and let my body/brain do... something. I did manage to make one scribble which to me has the same quality as the Pollock paintings and the attractors.

So going out on a limb, if attractors can be recorded with a pen in the hand, then can it also work in reverse? What you write with a pen can influence or possibly enter a new kind of attractor into the brain? Is this possibly one aspect of Reiki symbols? Of course viewing the symbol or perhaps hearing it (however that would work) might be other ways of doing this?


As for the more chaotic attractors observed by the authors, what if there is a "master" attractor and the appearance of chaos is partly due to constantly changing sub-attractors revolving around the master attractor?

Lots of potential implications here.

I think the circular Reiki movement of grooving pre-session is a similar attractor/transducer: to facilitate better signal transmission from both ends - so more/better signals/data bits start to revolve around the sender and receiver and signals aren't dispersed/lost, the result being both sides are satisfied with the connection.

Just as these paintings

Going West - by Jackson Pollock


Landscape with Steer - by Jackson Pollock

..Attractors are widely used in computer art, because they are beautiful, similar to watching timelapse videos of hurricanes, but if done on a computer the animation / movement of a mathematical attractor is slowed down so you can watch it in a lot more detail to maximize viewing pleasure. For example, I saw this attractor - purely for show - and I thought it was ridiculous that you couldn't zoom in really close and make it to turn slower for maximum detail, immersion and viewing pleasure. So I dug into the code and found both the zoom-in and rotation equations and also modified a couple values to make it more artistic, a representative of a journey in Dante's Inferno. Here is the result. Click on the top left "Hide Code" and on the top right "Fullscreen". The clouds are changing shape very slowly. Fullscreen on my 8 year old PC it runs okay.
 

Possibility of Being

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Sounds interesting! Apparently, there is a companion book written by Walling and titled The Science of Angels, published in 2017.
This book is a companion volume to Consciousness: Anatomy of the Soul (AuthorHouse 2009). The scientific arguments used before are now extended to offer a theoretical description for the appearance of angels.
A preview (Preface, a few pages of Chapter 1 and some pictures) available on books.google. He seems to follow the Flatworld analogy to explain it.

Dedication:
This volume is dedicated to those bridge builders who would attempt to span the chasm between science and religion.
 

Alana

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thanks for the recommendation, I greatly enjoyed reading this lovely little book. The authors are very witty, I chuckled throughout, and though they talk about very specialized scientific processes, they use tons of examples that by the end anyone can understand what they are talking about. I also appreciated their laconic style of presenting the material, because, well -> :lkj:

On their website, they have this little video where one can see the movement from unconsciousness to consciousness, and the shapes created on the encephalogram as they reach a 3D form:

http://www.wallinghicksbrainwaves.net/media/MovieClip1.mp4

It was inspiring reading for sure, I kept thinking of how limited we are as human beings in experiencing the reality that surrounds us (we only can see the honey spoon!), BUT, at the same time, of how we have the abilities through our mind/consciousness interaction to create multiverses and reach others dimensions. At least some of us.

I wondered what the authors would think of the concepts of pre-adamic/adamic man. It will explain to them why some flatlanders will always see a sphere as a point, and that's it.
 

happyliza

The Living Force
Eagerly put on to my wish list. :-)
(Though barely keeping up with forum, let alone reading for, quite a while now, due to family responsibilities.)
:cool2:
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I read this book a couple of months ago and I thought it was a very easy read for dealing with some rather difficult mathematical topics. According to Walling and Hicks, conscious experience as we know it phenomenologically is correlated with having an EEG whose electrical activity is characterized as having a 3+D attractor in its mathematical phase space. Added to this interpretation is a discussion about the importance of the gamma brain wave being of sufficient power and frequency to chunk our perceptual snapshots into a continuous stream of conscious awareness. All in all, this is a very empirical account of consciousness, studying it from a material/structural perspective.

One thing I wonder about though is how well the observations of humans under anesthesia apply to consciousness as we see and understand it through other information sources. I'm currently reading James Carpenter's book First Sight, in which he describes the construction of conscious awareness in terms that are more functional than structural. He describes 4 processes, which he names colloquially the prophet, the artist, the scientist, and the person of ordinary consciousness. Working backwards:

D. (Ordinary Consciousness) I see X (an attributed understanding of an experience) and I think about it.
C. (Scientist) Prior to that, I experience a collection of sensations that I attempt to construe.
B. (Artist) Prior to that, sensations register subliminally.
A. (Prophet) Prior to that, an extrasensory anticipation of the event (or a psychokinetic elicitation of the event) initiates the perceptual process.

A great deal of the work of experimental psychology has focused on the processes at step Scientist, how perceptions occur and how they come to be understood. Psychologists studying subliminal perception or "perception without awareness" (PWA) added the preconscious step Artist to the cognitive account. The findings of parapsychologists add step Prophet. In the genesis of a perception, each step links to the next and orients it in a halpful way. Think of these as different parts of a person playing different roles all communicating quickly and efficiently: we might speak colloquially of an inner Prophet, Artist, Scientist, and Person of Ordinary Consciousness. The Prophet (A) knows something is coming, the Artist (B) has a sense of something interesting, the Scientist (C) sees a collection of facts and tries to form an understanding of it, and the Person of Ordinary Consciousness (D) sees X -- all in a fraction of a second.

Pairing this with Gordon Whitehead's process philosophy, construing all things (extant entities, also called actual occasions) as a function of mind, I am pressed to wonder how much of this applies to these entities, and how they differentiate according to Density.

Take 3D for example. According to Walling and Hicks, conscious experience as we know it phenomenologically is correlated with several physical events (+3D attractor, high gamma power). This level of awareness fits squarely with D and C (Ordinary Consciousness and Scientist). Other animals (such as an author's pet dog) were observed to fulfill the requirements of this higher level of consciousness, although humans when performing demanding tasks still out-competed the dog.

Having an EEG attractor of ~2.5D was correlated with delirium, where a person may grasp certain perceptions subliminally, but can't really compose a definite experience out of it the way an attractor of a higher dimension could. I wonder how well this correlates to a 2D experience of the universe, where you have a vague homeostatic awareness (think Strange Order of Things) that constitutes the bulk of an organism's experience, on top of which a more sophisticated neuromuscular system may be built in. Even the distinction pointed out in Strange Order of Things between emotions and feelings points to emotions being more primal, deeper processes (B and A) while feelings are more immediate perceptions (C and D).

My memory fails me now, but I seem to recall someone (I think it was A.I.) mentioning some theory that electrical activity in the brain may operate more to constrain or channel the flow of psychic energy (for lack of a better term) into into a coherent perceptual chain of awareness with definite aims and ends. If 1D matter exits purely only to reflect back what consciousness perceives of it, or "assume form," from the perspective of the above and the notion of electrical activity as constraining the scope of preconscious prehensions (weighing the material as important or unimportant and signing the material as a worthy object of focus or unworthy object of focus), then it makes sense that it has no electrical activity distinct from its own external electrochemical concretizations/behavior. This gives it freedom to the point of appearing to behave randomly according to science, but leaving the door open for it to be assembled and organized by information from higher densities.

This is my own rudimentary attempt to synthesize some of the information from Whitehead's process philosophy, Consciousness: Anatomy of the Soul, and Carpenter's First Sight book.

It's more or less an open secret that materialistic science has no explanation for consciousness, other than to explain it away or dismiss it outright. Reading some of these books, and trying to see how well it maps to what we observe objectively in parapsychology, our own experience of awareness, and the design/high strangeness component of life and its purpose, it's pretty clear to me we've only barely begun to scratch the surface.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
One thing I wonder about though is how well the observations of humans under anesthesia apply to consciousness as we see and understand it through other information sources. I'm currently reading James Carpenter's book First Sight, in which he describes the construction of conscious awareness in terms that are more functional than structural. He describes 4 processes, which he names colloquially the prophet, the artist, the scientist, and the person of ordinary consciousness. Working backwards:

Pairing this with Gordon Whitehead's process philosophy, construing all things (extant entities, also called actual occasions) as a function of mind, I am pressed to wonder how much of this applies to these entities, and how they differentiate according to Density.

Alfred, not Gordon. (I think you're confusing your Batman characters!) ;)

Damasio and Hicks/Walling give somewhat similar but differing accounts of consciousness. For Damasio, everything with a nervous system has consciousness, while for Hicks/Walling, there's a cutoff point - amphibians, right? So at this point, we don't know for sure, but Hicks/Walling's take is certainly interesting and compelling. But perhaps 'lower' animals have more awareness than Hicks/Walling give them credit for - they certainly seem to, as Damasio points out. And perhaps life forms without nervous systems have more awareness than Damasio gives them credit for, like the intelligent behavior observable in plants and even amoebas. Damasio falls a bit into incoherence when he tries to distinguish sensation from feeling, implying that sensation is purely mechanical, but that feeling builds on sensation to become subjective experience. He could have just called sensation a rudimentary form of subjective experience - that would've made more sense. But he's essentially a materialist/Darwinist, so he couldn't go there.

Adding Whitehead into the picture, he was a panpsychist of sorts, so he doesn't run into that problem. Like Damasio/Hicks/Walling, he didn't argue that all 'actual entities' were conscious, just that they had something akin to experience, which he called 'feeling'. He'd agree with Damasio/Hicks/Walling that only organisms at a certain level are conscious.

One thing we know from experience and experiment is that at least some creatures, ourselves included, have unconscious experience. And this unconscious behaves intelligently. It's like there is a part of ourselves that behaves as if it's its own conscious being, with goals, personality, purpose. It's just that we can't experience it. Whitehead would argue that's what's going on with beings below the consciousness threshold. All beings have unconscious experience, interacting with the world purposefully to a greater or lesser degree. But only some, more complex, beings have the particular form of experience we label 'consciousness' over and above that. And only humans can actually reason, which itself is an even higher form of experience/consciousness.

For Walling and Hicks, there is a level of nervous system complexity at which the brain can process various streams of information, integrating them into a whole conscious experience. It is built out of, and on top of, all the various sensations and streams of information synthesized by the nervous system. One possible problem with their account, however, is that they don't talk about NDEs. 'Consciousness' or mind can exist and experience even without brain function. So what they're talking about is really just a specific mode of consciousness tied to biological functioning. As you point out, this is like Carpenter's C and D. Maybe even B too, since it has to do with physical sensation.

So perhaps A is the unconscious awareness shared by everything. B is the unconscious sensation shared by creatures below the level of consciousness (with or without nervous systems, depending on whether Damasio or Hicks/Walling are correct). C is the "Hicks/Walling barrier" at which point sensation becomes conscious due to the complexity of the brain and its ability to chunk data put together in phase space. And some aspects at least of D only come with 3D levels of consciousness, where we can think symbolically and reason about the things that trigger our sensations.

Having an EEG attractor of ~2.5D was correlated with delirium, where a person may grasp certain perceptions subliminally, but can't really compose a definite experience out of it the way an attractor of a higher dimension could. I wonder how well this correlates to a 2D experience of the universe, where you have a vague homeostatic awareness (think Strange Order of Things) that constitutes the bulk of an organism's experience, on top of which a more sophisticated neuromuscular system may be built in.

I wondered the same thing while reading it. I think the way you put it could be accurate: a vague homeostatic awareness. Like a semi-conscious sense of 'good' and 'bad', but without clearly formed images that you get with various sense organs working in concert with each other.
 
From that link there is also a power point - 34 slides which might be from the book.

They actually put the whole draft of the book in word format together with all the pictures in a zip file at the end of the "Previous work" section of their website. Here is the direct link: BookPics.zip

The downside is that the pictures are not inside the word document, but they are all labeled so it is very easy to follow. The pictures are mostly the same as the power point, but there are 36 in total. I do not know if there are substantial changes in comparison to the printed version but I've read this version a few months ago and it is indeed an amazing little book.
 
R

R o l a n d

Guest
The answers seem to imply this nature is intrinsic to thought universally, not just thought as it occurs in the human brain. So which is it?

"Necessary for expression of thought in sequence" seems to imply that 2 dimensions are sufficient for the expression of a single thought, but that another dimension is needed to put the thoughts in sequence. So the first 2 dimensions are like the page the thought occupies, but if you draw one thought over another it ceases to be either thought. So if you have 2 thoughts, you must connect them through a 3rd dimension, which provides an empty space connected to the previous dimensions.

It almost seems to me that there is an implication that two thoughts cannot occupy the same 2D space. As in you cannot have 2 thoughts next to each other on the same "sheet". In the slide projector analogy, each thought has it's own 2D slide, the slides do not touch.
I would think two thoughts can occupy 2d space. Even two opposing thoughts. Which is why I consider second density as itself either more balance or chaotic. Example: prey and predator or hungry with teeth for leaf or meat. Give or take,, two thoughts occupying same space. I would say a third thought does not occupy a two thought space reality, yet perhaps as a passing shadow of third density. And intrinsically since third is above second density. Kind of like, as humans in 3rd density perception and experiencing we may witness a bleed through of fourth density or Intuit the filtering of consciousness applied to as high as seventh Density.
I thought don't use someone's example or metaphor on explaining. Because then I'll confuse myself and the reader and garble the origination of such. To include, I have two options here including I'm a person also. I can type a comment or post and/or not. okay In order for me to do either, or the thought is my choice the third is the thought of holding two choice's. or what is it I want to convey............
..... I also know this reply is 2 years, 8 months and some odd four days old yet most recent post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Recto

Jedi
I unfortunately haven't read this book yet (already added to my list though). I'm sorry if some of the material and thoughts I bring up in this post are redundant with what Consciousness - Anatomy of the Soul addresses.

Session 11 August 2018
(Ark) Yes. It's a mathematical question. One thing is to talk about gravity, and another thing is to do something about gravity. Apparently, geometry is important somehow for understanding gravity. We know our space is 3 dimensional. Well, why? Well, probably there is some reason. And then we know there are other dimensions. How many, we don't know...

A: Necessary for expression of thought in sequence.

Q: (Ark) I don't see any reason for that. It could be 2 or 1 or 4.

(L) Apparently, in order for it to be in sequence, maybe thoughts are something more than 2-dimensional things?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Well...

A: Geometry of thought requires it.

On the topic of the "Geometry of thought" the work of Buckminster Fuller (I'm sorry, I know I'm quoting him a lot lately) could be relevant in explaining what hides behind this expression (which isn't obvious to me) :

What kinds of things constitute systems? Tetrahedron, crocodile, room, chair, you, thought, .... Wait.

What about thoughts? We recall Fuller's lifelong effort never to use mankind's precious tool of language carelessly: "I discipline myself to define every word I use; else I must give it up." In a 1975 videotaped lecture, he explains that he would not allow himself the use of any word for which he did not have "a clear experientially referenced definition." Such an effort requires enormous discipline to avoid automatic associations and thereby enable an objective analysis of each word. It extends to the most basic words and actions -even" thinking." Fuller formulates his definition analytically, asking, "What is it I am conscious of doing, when I say I am thinking"? We may not be able to say what it is, but we should be able to specify the procedure.

Thinking, he explains, starts with "spontaneous preoccupation"; the process is never deliberate initially. We then choose to "accommodate the trend," through conscious dismissal of "irrelevancies" which are temporarily held off to the side, as they do not seem to belong in the current thought. Fuller places "irrelevancies" in two categories: experiences too large or too infrequent to influence the tuned-in thought, and those too small and too frequent to play a part. The process he describes is similar to tuning a radio, with its rogressive dismissal of irrelevant (other-frequency) events, ultimately leaving only the few experiences which are "lucidly relevant," and thus interconnected by their relationships.

Thinking isolates events; "understanding" then interconnects them. "Understanding is structure," Fuller declares, for it means establishing the relationships between events.

A "thought" is then a "relevant set," or a "considerable set": experiences related to each other in some way. All the rest of experience is outside the set-not tuned in. A thought therefore defines an insideness and an outsideness; it is a "conceptual subdivision of Universe." "I'll call it a system," declares Bucky; "I now have a geometric description of a thought."

This is the conclusion that initially led Fuller to wonder how many "events" were necessary to create insideness and outsideness. Realizing that a thought required at least enough "somethings" to define an isolated system, it seemed vitally important to know the minimum number-the terminal condition. He thereby arrived at the tetrahedron. "This gave me great power of definition," he recalls, both in terms of understanding more about "thinking" and by isolating the theoretical minimum case, with its four events and six relationships

There may be more to it however I still don't have explored all of his works, especially Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of thinking, which is dealing with the topic in depth (a dense book, roughly 1800 pages). Nevertheless, this short excerpt hints at two things :
  1. It is possible to map out/determine the geometry of a thought. I guess it could be extended to a collection of thoughts or state of mind just like any Geometrical construction.
  2. By taking into account the rest of Fuller's work, Geometric shapes have intrinsic properties. This connects with the quote below.

(Pierre) In previous sessions, we discussed the intrinsic informational content of some geometric shapes. Do geometric representations of the Golden Ratio carry an intrinsic informational content?

A: More like an attractor.

Q: (Pierre) It acts a bit like the spiral antenna. Does it attract any kind of information like an amplifier, or does it attract a specific kind of information?

A: It depends on many other factors. The spiral is found in many contexts and in general can be thought of as a transducer.

Q: (L) It would depend on a lot of things it seems. Remember when they talked about spirals and Stonehenge and how its spiraling "slowed down the information" so that it could be received and understood?

Fuller in his Synergetics defines at one point the equivalent of the elementary particules of his Geometry. He dubbed them "quantum modules" and can generate by their combination all Geometric construction. While A and B modules have many properties, here's the one that connects with attractors :

The surprise is that the asymmetrical A-module unfolds into one planar triangle: "an asymmetrical triangle with three different edge sizes, yet with the rare property of folding up into a whole irregular tetrahedron" (914.01). This unusual property makes it a kind of pure form. The B-module, on the other hand, will always fold out into four separate planar triangles no matter which vertex you start with; its net will never fit into one triangular frame. Figure 13-3b compares the two nets.

Fuller connects this geometric property with "energy." A-modules are thus said to concentrate or hold energy, while B's release or distribute. This conclusion is based on the fact that "energy bounces around in A's working toward the narrowest vertex," only able to escape at a "twist vertex exit" (921.15). Comparing pattern pieces, A's planar net offers three escapes; the jagged four-triangle complex of B offers twice that number (Fig. 13-3b). It is a somewhat bizarre observation to begin with, and characteristically it led to the following ambiguous assignment of meaning: a vertex, or non-180-degree junction, in a planar net represents disorderly energy-escaping properties. Hence in A-modules, energy is seen as contained, able to bounce around inside the net without many available exits, whereas in B-modules, energy is quickly released.

We can conceive of this energy in many ways-as light beams, as bouncing electrons, or even as billiard balls for a more tangible image. All three qualify as "energy events," and having a specific image in mind makes it easier to think about the different "energy holding" characteristics.
To understand and evaluate Fuller's assertion, we go along with his use of "energy," for the word covers a great deal of territory already and his usage is internally consistent. Fuller calls our attention to a geometric property that we may not have otherwise noticed, and with respect to this phenomenon of planar nets there is no doubt as to the difference between A- and B-modules. What is the significance of this distinction? What are we to conclude about the orderly contained A versus the disorderly sprawling B? In terms of physical Universe, a judgement probably cannot be made. However, for the purposes of this text and of continuing to explore the geometric interactions of the two quanta, we adopt Fuller's energy assignment: A's conserve; B's dissipate. It provides a consistent reference system with which to classify the two quanta and their subsequent interactions. Furthermore, two basic modules exhibiting the same volume and different energy characteristics provide an even more attractive model of "fundamental complementarity": equivalent weight or importance, opposite charge. Sound familiar? The parallels are tantalizing.

I believe Fuller never addressed spirals or helixes directly (e.g. he constructs at one point a "DNA helix" out of tetrahedron thus explaining the properties of the spiral with the underlying tetrahedrons), however we can see that the basic building blocks of Geometry have attracting/conserving and dissipating intrinsic properties. Which would mean, I think, that energy flow is directly linked with the underlying geometry of the structure (physical and metaphysical alike). But the metaphysical has an advantage, its "flexibility" :

The conscious mind takes the form of an ever-changing multidimensional construct in hyperspace... " and then they use the exact same analogy that the Cs have used in describing how consciousness interacts with reality, i.e. the slide projector.

Therefore, the mind being subjugated to the Will, could be directed to change its shape in order to obtain the specific properties/abilities needed at one point. All we need now is the instruction manual, or should I say the cookbook, enabling us to replicate those structures consciously (it could be the mechanism behind Neuro-Linguist Programming). Finally, one application we could draw out of this might be what Alana brought up :

It was inspiring reading for sure, I kept thinking of how limited we are as human beings in experiencing the reality that surrounds us (we only can see the honey spoon!), BUT, at the same time, of how we have the abilities through our mind/consciousness interaction to create multiverses and reach others dimensions. At least some of us.

The creation of multiverses could be a practical way to explore and shape the structure of our mind. There exist protocols and techniques that can achieve the creation of a "pocket universe" so to speak. Of course dreams and delirious hallucinations are a perfect example of that ability however they hardly qualify as a conscious and controlled process.

While reading Psychosynthesis by Roberto Assagioli, a technique used in psychology and based on imagination was described where vivid imagery was generated out of symbols. The ISP (Initiated Symbol Projection) starts with a relaxation protocol, then the patient is led by the therapist to imagine some symbolic scenery (e.g. Try to visualize yourself in a meadow"). This vague statement will prompt images akin to "hypnagogic visions" that can be described in great details and that have "a life of their own", which would mean that these images are the result of a co-creation between the conscious (choosing the symbol as a generating seed and interacting with the vision) and unconscious mind (generating most of the vision and reacting to the conscious exploration by introducing new elements). This result in a shared working space where information can be exchanged more freely.

I've found other methods which are more versatile, "user-friendly", and that truly create coherent universes based on the same co-creation principles as the ISP. Some of them hint at exploration of "other dimensions" or at least at some places existing outside ourselves. Whether it is the case or not remains to be proven and tested.
 
Top Bottom