In his new book To Die For: The Physical Reality of Conscious Survival, James E. Beichler advances a theory of the physical universe that makes room for the survival of human personality after death. Building on the work of Oskar Klein and Theodor Kaluza in the 1920s, he suggests that we inhabit a universe of five dimensions -- the three physical dimensions we perceive with our senses, the fourth dimension of time, and a fifth dimension that can be apprehended only through intuition or a sixth sense. This fifth dimension is also physical, but non-material, in the same way that a field is physical even though it is not made of matter. Our physical senses are not subtle enough to perceive this fifth dimension, but our mind can perceive it at times.
In such a universe, the survival of mind and consciousness after death would be predictable, though the specific form that such survival might take would vary from person to person, depending on the state of that person's consciousness at the time of death.
Beichler spends more than 100 pages of his book elaborating on this idea; I can only provide a few excerpts and summaries. Not being a physicist or a mathematician, I'm in no position to evaluate his theory, but it is certainly provocative. Those who want more detail are urged to read the book.
In a chapter titled "The SOFT Life," Beichler introduces what he calls
the 'single (operational) field theory' or SOFT. According to this theory, the single continuous field fills or coexists with all of five-dimensional space-time while our material four-dimensional world is just a 'sheet' consisting of a very dense portion of the field within the five-dimensional single field. Yet the 'sheet' is completely continuous with the single field, not something separate. The quantum is defined by the 'effective width' of the 'sheet' in the fifth direction, which is extremely small. This single field is the precursor to all other physical fields. It yields matter, gravity, electricity, magnetism and the other natural fields within our relativistic four-dimensional continuum ...
Our normal five senses work within the four-dimensional continuum in which our material world exists, but we have an innate sixth sense whose existence is not recognized by most people. This sixth sense works completely within the fifth dimension. It can be shown that life, mind and consciousness are specific five-dimensional field structures, rendering our perceptions of the fifth dimension completely para-normal ...
The point-by-point extension from four dimensions into and along the fifth direction must be extremely small to guarantee that we do not 'normally' sense or otherwise detect the fifth dimension.... We can rule out doubt both infinitesimally small ... as well as infinite extensions or 'sheet' widths in the fifth direction. These cases lead to anomalies, physical impossibilities and/or logical paradoxes.
The fifth direction is macroscopically extended. So, while the overall extension in the fifth direction can be extremely large and still remained closed, there is no such restriction on the thickness of the 'sheet' that constitutes our four-dimensional space-time. We cannot perceive the fifth direction in any manner that resembles our perceptions of the other common dimensions because the 'sheet' is so thin in the fifth direction, not because our overall extension in the fifth direction is so small. Only the 'effective width' or 'thickness' of the 'sheet' itself need be microscopically small, not the complete extension ...
Beichler maintains that SOFT can reconcile quantum physics with Einstein's relativity theory, and thus represents an important advance over the status quo. He further argues that chemical activity in four-dimensional space-time has a direct effect on the fifth dimension, leaving traces or signatures there.
Quantum theory only describes physics 'inside' the sheet and is therefore 'incomplete' as Einstein argued in the 1930s. Otherwise, all particles follow the physical restrictions noted in the special theory of relativity with regard to the fifth dimension. When particles move at some speed relative to the 'sheet' they undergo Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction along the direction that they are moving through three-dimensional space. This change squeezes the particle's five-dimensional 'effective volume' forcing the interior of the particle 'up' further along the fifth direction, increasing the particle's five-dimensional aspect (five-dimensional height) as a function of the increasing kinetic energy of the particle or object. As a particle slows down, its aspect or height in the fifth dimension decreases ... This mechanical like movement, 'up' and 'down' in the fifth direction, impresses or imprints fluctuations in the single field density just 'outside' of the 'sheet'. This imprint would be the trace or energy signature of the physical event in the single field ...
All chemical reactions of the same type would leave the same energy traces imprinted in the single field.
These single field density changes are 'felt' or 'sensed' by other particles and objects due to the connections of all material particles afforded by the single continuous field. The variations and changes in the single field are essentially 'communicated' throughout the whole field. That 'communication' is not restricted by our normal physical laws, which apply only within the 'sheet'. This 'communication' process forms the basis of what scientists commonly called quantum entanglement ...
An equilibrium reaction, which is ongoing and relatively stable, will produce a distinctive and continuous trace or signature. Such signatures achieve relative permanence in the fifth dimension. As these equilibrium reactions become more elaborate, the resulting signatures become more complex.
It would be possible for several different equilibrium reactions to combine their 'efforts' for a common 'cause' and form a connected or interlinked (quantum entangled) interaction ... The entanglement pattern of this chemical configuration is of greater consequence and far more interesting for this ensemble then the patterns of other simple chemical reaction[s]. The special entanglement of these equilibrium reactions renders the pattern completely stable relative to the outside environment in a manner similar to a very complex standing wave ...
The overall reaction or structure does not need to rely on the three-dimensional conditions or the environment for its internal stability although it may need to take energy from its environment at times ... The resulting density variations are imprinted in the five-dimensional single field to form a single complex yet stable entangled pattern ...
LIFE... comes into being when a specific mixture of different chemical reactions evolves into an organism by forming a special complex entanglement of different equilibrium reactions. This entanglement corresponds to a mathematical complexity that represents a self-sustaining single field density pattern in the five-dimensional extension of the reacting substances that form the material living organism ...
So LIFE is a physical (five-dimensional) but non-material (non-four-dimensional) field structure with a real physical existence ...
After life comes mind, which also has a fifth-dimensional signature, and is tied less directly to four-dimensional space-time.
The Brain has a strictly four-dimensional existence. However, the development of the Brain coincides with the emergence of an even more refined complex pattern of field density variations. This new pattern is imprinted on the LIFE pattern. Since it is a refined field imprint pattern on the LIFE pattern, the emergence of this new five-dimensional extension of the Brain could be described as a secondary complexity yielding a secondary attractor. This new secondary complexity is MIND ...
At some point, the MIND pattern may realize that there are points in space and time beyond its immediate perception - past and future, or distant locations. This sets the stage for the emergence of consciousness, which exists in the fifth dimension and is only indirectly connected to four-dimensional space-time (through the intermediary of the MIND pattern).
[MIND learns] that physical objects outside of the local range of its senses continue to exist even when they are not directly sensed. ... [Later] MIND becomes aware of its own local position in time as opposed to the temporal non-locality of the past and future. The memories stored in MIND at this juncture, which led to an awareness of both spatial and temporal non-locality, precipitate the formation of a new and subtler five-dimensional single field density pattern within the five-dimensional MIND pattern. This new field density pattern emerges as an imprint over the MIND pattern. In other words, when MIND cognizes or realizes the non-locality of space and time, a third complexity emerges which we call CONSCIOUSNESS....
CONSCIOUSNESS is a completely five-dimensional entity, whose connection to four-dimensional space-time is mediated by MIND, so it has the ability to directly sense its five-dimensional environment and the totality of the universe, without the mediation of the four-dimensional Brain. This new sense amounts to what we commonly call intuition and PSI, the basis of our sixth sense ...
Paranormal phenomena can be easily explained within this model as an entanglement between different CONSCIOUSNESSes (ESP) or between a CONSCIOUSNESS and a material object (Psychokinesis)....
Our CONSCIOUSNESS is in constant contact with the single field at all times, but we are not normally aware of this contact, which is subliminal and clouded by our five normal senses ...
Enlightenment occurs when a person develops a waking or conscious awareness of his or her five-dimensional connection with the rest of the universe ...
[The enlightened] are taught to let go of the 'self' which is considered an illusion from the point of view of a higher consciousness and reality, which would be an apt description of a five-dimensional viewpoint of our four-dimensional material 'self' ...
Beichler then discusses the possible role of microtubules in consciousness -- a long and rather technical section, the upshot of which is that "each and every axon is thus a small electromagnetic bio-transmitter and/or receiver ... The magnetic fields of the [microtubules] are the encoding device for storing and retrieving our memories [in the fifth dimension]. When all of the individual [microtubules] charge and discharge, they leave a magnetic signature or trace pattern within the overall MIND pattern in the fifth dimension. Each and every thought that we have and sensation that we feel is thus imprinted as a special magnetic pattern in the five-dimensional single field."
From here, Beichler proceeds to a discussion of life after death or, as he prefers to call it, the survival of "the MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS structure or complex." We will look at this next time.
"It can be shown that life, mind and consciousness are specific five-dimensional field structures, rendering our perceptions of the fifth dimension completely para-normal ..."
I would like to see the part where he actually shows what he says "can be shown," because that part can be evaluated to determine if he really does show it. All I see in what excerpts you've posted is a thicket of claims.
Posted by: dmduncan | March 26, 2009 at 09:51 PM
All I see in what excerpts you've posted is a thicket of claims.
There's no empirical proof offered. If I've read him correctly (and I may not have), Beichler rests his case mainly on two foundations: 1) that SOFT reconciles quantum theory with relativity theory, and 2) that SOFT allows us to view paranormal phenomena as a logical consequence of the nature of reality, rather than as mysterious anomalies.
The section on how life (or LIFE) emerges is more detailed than what I've excerpted, but still ultimately rather vague. On the other hand, the section on microtubules offers more specifics regarding memory and Mind.
I did not start jumping up and down and shouting, "Eureka, I have found it!" when I read the book, but it does present an interesting set of hypotheses. By the way, if you go to the Amazon.com sales page, you'll see Michael Tymn's review, which is worth a look.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 26, 2009 at 10:26 PM
The linked review says:
Not only will science explain matter and consciousness, but also it will recapture the right to study life and the afterlife from religion, vastly altering the shape of human culture and society within the very near future.
Science will recapture the right to study the afterlife from religion?
Science never lost the right, it never had any interest in it, it abandoned the field. If scientists object to religious doctrine they should recognize that Science has neglected it's responsibility to seriously investigate the many phenomena of parapsychology and psychical reseaerch. Science is part of the problem not a vicitim.
Posted by: | March 26, 2009 at 11:25 PM
I did not start jumping up and down and shouting, "Eureka, I have found it!" when I read the book, but it does present an interesting set of hypotheses. - Michael Prescott
--------------------------------------------
LOL! That's exactly how I felt when I read and understood Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe! When I finally saw the connection between NDE's and the holographic universe theory it was mind blowing to me. It validated NDE's and death bed visions for me.
Posted by: Art | March 27, 2009 at 01:04 AM
1) that SOFT reconciles quantum theory with relativity theory
Saying this without having read the book I don't think there is much scientifical foundation behind this hypothesis - scientists have struggled for nearly for a hundred years to unify these two theories into a grand unified theory.
Posted by: Steen Bundgaard | March 27, 2009 at 04:31 AM
Steen, maybe you'd better read the book first before dismissing it.
Posted by: The Major | March 27, 2009 at 06:18 AM
Hi there,
Look at this commnent about Sheldrake vs Wiseman's debate on experiments with dogs
http://www.michaelbrooks.org/blog/post/2009/01/27/I-never-knew-I-was-a-skeptic-till.aspx
I posted a commnent there; excuse the reference to "Larry Bird" (my heart is in the 80s) to make my point; he was one of my favorite nba players, together with Magic Johnson.
I believe the author's criticisms of Sheldrake experiments are illogical.
Posted by: Jime | March 27, 2009 at 10:18 AM
"Not only will science explain matter and consciousness, but also it will recapture the right to study life and the afterlife from religion, vastly altering the shape of human culture and society within the very near future."
Sounds like the typical everything is baloney if it's not science attitude. Has science made mythology irrelevant? Has it stopped mythic elements from appearing over and over again in story after story, even in our own lives?
If his attitude is that everything can be explained from a third person perspective, then, like so many others in science, he doesn't appear to understand the irreducible and inexplicable from the third person nature of first person experience.
On the positive side, at least he is taking paranormal claims seriously enough to offer some kind of explanation other than that people are nuts, liars, or simply can't make accurate judgments about what they are seeing.
He'll probably be viewed as a quack.
Hell, if he makes all these claims but doesn't show how he arrives at his conclusions, or if he does show his work and his conclusions do not follow from the premises, then I might call him a quack too.
Posted by: dmduncan | March 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM
He'll probably be viewed as a quack.
Probably. But most of the people whose claims are examined on this blog are viewed as quacks by mainstream science.
To my way of thinking, there are two possible advantages to Beichler's approach:
1. It frees us from mind-body dualism. In his theory, mind and consciousness are physical phenomena in the fifth dimension, which is an extension of our four-dimensional world. Viewed from a 4D perspective, mind/consciousness would still be something mysterious and fundamentally different from our spacetime universe. But viewed from a 5D perspective, mind/consciousness would be physical (but nonmaterial) extensions of 4D physical phenomena, and hence part of a continuum, rather than a discontinuity or duality.
2. On a related note, SOFT could solve the problem of interactionism - the question, "How does a nonphysical thing like consciousness operate or affect a physical thing like the brain?" SOFT's answer would be that mind/consciousness is physical and is an extension in the fifth dimension of our 4D nervous system. Thus we aren't faced with a ghost in the machine, but rather with a holistic 5D structure that includes but is not limited to the brain.
Again, I can't evaluate SOFT from a technical perspective, but it does give us another way of looking at these age-old philosophical conundrums.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 27, 2009 at 02:18 PM
"In his theory, mind and consciousness are physical phenomena in the fifth dimension"
But is that real? What compels him to introduce a fifth dimension that mind inhabits?
Why isn't the world as we know it enough for mind to exist within?
What is a dimension at all? What are its characteristics? How does he know it exists?
What are the factual premises that lead to his conclusion that there is a fifth dimension?
I would argue that there really are no dimensions at all, that height, width, and depth are mere artifices of thought. If you have a cube you can measure height, width, and depth, but how do you make a jellyfish or bowl of egg salad conform to the "dimensions" of height, width, and depth? These are abstractions that result from the mind's ability to isolate and contemplate characteristics of real things in such a way that they do not occur in reality outside of our imaginations in the same way that we think of them.
Show me, for instance, anything in the real world that has only one dimension. A line drawn on a piece of paper? That line is made of ink, and ink is matter, is it not? So that matter the line is actually made of is only one dimension, is it? I don't think so, not in the parlance of those who talk like the world is a 3 dimensional world it isn't.
Posted by: dmduncan | March 27, 2009 at 05:04 PM
“SOFT's answer would be that mind/consciousness is physical and is an extension in the fifth dimension of our 4D nervous system”
I believe there is substance and vitality and the interaction of the two is what we usually view as form. This form can be very dense matter what we call physical or less dense and be what many call astral. It appears to me with what little I have read that this person is trying to make his theory fit into what we view as a physical universe. As a physics professor he is going to try very hard to make his theory fit into his physics paradigm.
Maybe all manifestation is physical to some degree meaning it has form and the higher the vibration level of this form the less dense the “physical”. As we move to higher vibration levels (less dense substance) we reside in these higher dimensions. Would pure awareness be completely without any vibration?
Maybe this is why this pure awareness has a necessity to manifest and create. Awareness has no choice but to create and express its potential, as it is its nature to create. We have no choice but to express ourselves and we are an aspect of that pure awareness. As many have stated we are made in the image of God.
Posted by: william | March 27, 2009 at 05:08 PM
Why isn't the world as we know it enough for mind to exist within?
It may be, but then we come back to the issue of the ghost in the machine. We have tried explaining consciousness from within the context of our 4D universe for a long time, and we don't seem to be making a lot of headway. Maybe a new approach would be more fruitful.
I admit that Beichler does not offer proof of his position. This doesn't surprise me, since I doubt there is any way to empirically test theories about the nature of ultimate reality. How would one go about testing Bohm's theory of the holomovement, for instance?
Theories like this are usually evaluated on the basis of four criteria:
1. The theory must fit the equations.
2. The theory must cover all the known evidence.
3. The theory must not lead to internal contradictions, logical paradoxes, or mathematical dead-ends.
4. The theory must have a certain elegance.
The last criterion is somewhat subjective, but it does seem to be an important element in analyzing and assessing theories of this kind.
I'm in no position to evaluate items 1-3. As for item 4, I think Beichler's approach does have a certain elegance, since it could resolve the mind-body dichotomy and the associated problem of interactionism. Any theory that is monistic, as SOFT is, is probably to be preferred over dualistic theories, all other things being equal. (This would be an application of Occam's razor.)
Of course, the devil is in the details, and not being a physics professor, I can't assess the details. Beichler is a physics professor, so he at least has credentials. That doesn't mean he's right, but it may mean he's worth listening to.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 27, 2009 at 06:54 PM
"We have tried explaining consciousness from within the context of our 4D universe for a long time, and we don't seem to be making a lot of headway."
It might be that explanation is an inherently reductive enterprise and that is why it fails in regard to consciousness.
Perhaps consciousness can only be accepted as what it is experienced as, and not explained in a third person way at all.
Posted by: dmduncan | March 27, 2009 at 08:45 PM
If consciousness is infinite than it cannot be defined for to define it is to limit it. Cannot define infinite.
Posted by: william | March 28, 2009 at 04:58 AM
"I would argue that there really are no dimensions at all, that height, width, and depth are mere artifices of thought." -dmduncan
I completely agree with this. There is no particular problem with "interactionism" between mind and brain if, in the end, the physical is just a mental construct. Mind creates the barriers (or constructs the constraints) within the various realities that entities inhabit.
Posted by: . | March 28, 2009 at 05:50 AM
I haven't read this book yet, but dmduncan probably sums up succinctly my initial thoughts. For the record, I'm not sure what credit Beichler really deserves here. Kaluza-Klein 5-space theory IS a an already-existing grand unified theory in physics that achieved its unification through the positing of an extra physical dimension. Has Beichler really "built-on" other than adding paranormal elements to it?
Additionally, I saw a reference to "micro-tubules" above. If this relates to micro-tubules being able to exhibit quantum effects and how this could be tied to non-local consciousness, THAT work was done by another physicist, Richard Penrose, and detailed extensively in one of his books. I don't want to pre-judge, but what I've read here inclines me to believe Bleichner has just taken two very speculative theories and added his own far-reaching speculation with no experimental work to add to or back it up.
Posted by: Joseph G. Mitzen | March 28, 2009 at 06:45 PM
>>Why isn't the world as we know it enough
>>for mind to exist within?
>It may be, but then we come back to the
>issue of the ghost in the machine. We have
>tried explaining consciousness from within
>the context of our 4D universe for a long
>time, and we don't seem to be making a lot
>of headway.
I'm curious as to why you feel we're not making a lot of headway. I'm of the opinion we're making fantastic headway, particularly as the subject has come to be viewed in a mutidisciplinary manner, drawing together psychology, biology, chemistry, information systems and computer science. Just in the last two weeks we've seen work hit the science presses regarding an area of the brain that involves decision making, for instance. Scientists monitoring this region can tell when you've made a decision before YOU know you have, which (sadly) seems to exorcise the machine of the ghost. We saw http://www.livescience.com/technology/090312-mind-reader.html regarding research into the brain's formation of memories - and yes, this too can be seen on brain scans. Going back a little further there have been reports about the possibility of developing a drug to prevent long-term memory formation that could be used to aid military personal or other victims of trauma in preventing PTSD, etc., etc. The room for any ghost to be operating in seems to be shrinking daily, with even free will coming under firm attack.
>I admit that Beichler does not offer proof
>of his position. This doesn't surprise me,
>since I doubt there is any way to
>empirically test theories about the nature
>of ultimate reality. How would one go
>about testing Bohm's theory of the
>holomovement, for instance?
If the theory involves something that's real, it can be tested. If the theory involves something that has no physical reality or effect upon our physical reality, it's irrelevant. This is how the great computing pioneer Turing defined artificial intelligence: if people are placed in front of terminals to converse on a given subject or subject range, and they can't tell if it is a person or a machine they are conversing with, we have practical AI. This is called the Turing test and such an event is held every year (and while not there yet, the last event saw the best showing for AI ever). If something is indistinguishable from intelligence, does it matter if it really is?
I read Bohm's work when I was still in high school, so I'm fuzzy on the details, but regarding testing if reality is holographic or not - once again, the last few weeks have pointed the way! In late January the cover of New Scientist read "You are a hologram!" :-) You may read the article and the theoretical evidence for this at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html
Posted by: Joseph G. Mitzen | March 28, 2009 at 07:08 PM
I'm curious as to why you feel we're not making a lot of headway.
We seem to be unable to solve the "hard problem" of neuroscience within the current paradigm. Brain-mapping doesn't tell us what consciousness is or how it emerges (if it does) from matter. It only tells us which brain states are correlated with different emotions, etc.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 28, 2009 at 11:17 PM
THAT work was done by another physicist, Richard Penrose
Beichler credits Penrose and Hameroff in his bibliography. I assumed that most people reading this blog would already be aware of their work, so I didn't mention them specifically.
If the theory involves something that's real, it can be tested.
When it comes to ontological theories, I'm not sure this is always true. In any event, Beichler's theory may be testable someday, but I doubt it's testable now. There are many cases of avant-garde theoretical positions that could not be empirically tested when they were first announced. For instance, it was not possible to test the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox until decades after it was proposed. Or take Bohm's theory of the holomovement. Even if we may be in the position to test it now, we certainly weren't when Bohm first proposed it.
If something is indistinguishable from intelligence, does it matter if it really is?
It does, from the perspective of the being in question. A computer faking self-awareness is not the same thing as a sentient being that actually experiences self-awareness, even if it may act the same. From a third-person perspective there may be no difference, but from a first-person perspective, there is. Unfortunately, in the name of "objectivity" science has largely banished the first-person perspective, with a resulting impoverishment of science - and of scientists.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 28, 2009 at 11:31 PM
I don't think anything leaves anything. Ultimately things are too connected for the mind to leave the body.
I believe reality to be more of an illusion where the runners are not ACTUALLY moving or going anywhere. Time and space (at least the way we understand them) ultimately NOT really existing.
It is getting to the point where more and more of EVERYTHING can be squeezed into more and more smaller spaces. Whole worlds can exist on a disk or cartridge (videogames). You just can't ACTUALLY point to them. Why? Because they DO NOT actually EXIST. The worlds/everything in them are basically just coding and on/off of electricity. It may be the same with us/world.
Why anything at all? Who knows? Certainly not us because IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER WE KNOW or not. If we do find out for 100% sure, it seems to me it would be because we were "allowed" to find out. The answer already exists...just that we don't know it.
All of the above ultimately negates free will since it negates EVERYTHING/EVERYONE. It does not negate "life after death" since worlds/people/things can be changed "quite easily"...just, again, the "small inconvenience" of none of it actually existing.
Posted by: Rich | March 30, 2009 at 11:42 PM
I just stumbled on this blog in researching Eusapia Palladino. Fascinating discussion. Thanks for the insights, and for the book referrals.
Posted by: Laura Toops | March 31, 2009 at 04:35 PM
The worlds/everything in them are basically just coding and on/off of electricity. It may be the same with us/world.
We're all living in the Matrix!
Well, maybe, but I'd be wary of extrapolating from current technology to cosmology. (This is one of the problems I have with the holographic universe idea.)
Back in the day when telephone switchboards represented high tech, people liked to compare the brain to a switchboard. Once computers came in, people started comparing the brain to a computer. Whatever the latest technology is, people will liken it to the brain.
The same holds true of the universe. We figure the universe is very complex, so maybe we can understand it in terms of our most complex technology - a clockwork mechanism (in the 18th century), a hologram (in the 20th century), or a computer program (in the 21st century). Problem is, even our best technology is probably primitive and simplistic compared with the ultimate nature of the universe, so all these analogies fall short and may be more misleading than helpful.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 31, 2009 at 06:34 PM
We're all living in the Matrix
This idea has been defended by at least one contemporary philosopler:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix2.html
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 31, 2009 at 08:23 PM
"... I'd be wary of extrapolating from current technology to cosmology. (This is one of the problems I have with the holographic universe idea.)"
"...these analogies fall short and may be more misleading than helpful."
Beichler himself admits the holographic analogy for certain aspects of his theory. An article of him for the Academy of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies' 2008 Conference: "To Die For!,The afterlife as theoretical science" says:
On page 13:
"...there is another finer or subtler pattern imprinted over the electromagnetic mind pattern: A magnetic potential pattern that is purely five-dimensional. This magnetic pattern forms consciousness. So consciousness is a purely five-dimensional entity and this fact gives consciousness all of its special properties. Such a pattern would ‘look like’ a five-dimensional HOLOGRAM and could be modeled mathematically by Fourier analysis, just as Pribram predicted."
and on pag 15:
This model(Beichler's) not only explains how we store memories (HOLOGRAPHICALLY in fivedimensional space-time), but also how the brain retrieves memories and recognizes 'things'.
Posted by: Synthesis | April 02, 2009 at 07:45 PM
Burkhart Heim's theory is similar to the six-dimensionality proposed.
Droscher and Hauser, "Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heim's Field Theory.
http://www.tiller.org has a similar, 8-d theory, developed prior to superstring, which he has solid experimental data for.
"The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet,
"Kundalini West," Ann Ree Colton, and
"The Master of Lucid Dreams," Dr. Olga Kharitidi, are more heuristic, but worthwhile.
Posted by: j | April 05, 2009 at 08:05 PM