FUNDAMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY ( FP )
Part I
HYPERPHYSICAL MATERIALISM
(The nature of PSYCHE)
Chapter 2. DISTANT PERCEPTION (DP)
2.3. METAPHYSICUM
è
Further in the text a metaphysical reality  will be designated (in order to distinct it from the science of metaphysics) as METAPHYSICUM, and the object T – as metaphysical body or phantom FT of physical object T.
|
Special terms are necessary for a science of psychology for the adequate description of psyche nature/essence as well as the science of physics needs the terms like a particle, a wave, a field, like a flavour of a particle to describe adequately nature of physical reality, of physicum P.
|
METAPHYSICUM Â does not concede to PHYSICUM the degree of its existence objectivity, the persuasiveness of its materiality. Its reliability (or of any its element) can be checked on the same methodological base, by the same criterion of reliability KR as the same quality/property (the reliability) of PHYSICUM P (or of any its element). Â does not concede to PHYSICUM P also on the conformity of a known Lenin's definition of a category the matter - as reality/subject, not dependent on sensations and/or an arbitrariness of an individual/person/subject who perceives it.
The concept of METAPHYSICS – additional to the concept of physics, equal with physics in its methodological rights – was transformed by the official soviet science from a science part into almost curse, into a symbol/a synonym of methodological defectiveness, in an antipode of dialectics concept. In marxism concept "M." designates a philosophical method opposite to dialectics ... [37, page 362]. And in the edition of already "reorganizational" time it is kept: Ì. ... is opposite to dialectics philos. method considering phenomena in their invariance and independence on each other, denying inner contradictions as a source of their development [ÑÝÑ (1990), page 807]. If even it is certainly necessary to search a contrast to dialectics, so it is more likely to choose dogmatism for this as the methodology basing the opinion about truth upon authority, instead of upon practice (observation and experiment).
An operator S can receive the generalized information about his patient, in particular – about his BP both in the past, and about its (BP) tendencies, just because the patient's phantom TÂ does not belong to spatio-temporal continuum P, because it "has come from nowhere", in particular neither from the present, nor from the past, nor from the future, or, which is the same, because it belongs as to the present, so to the past, and to the future.
An image T' of reality T (of an object, event) is received as a result of processes, occurring in the substance Â, and, hence (by the test criterion KT), T' belongs to  too (has its substantial nature, concerns to it).
Formation of metaphysical object T' outstrips those physical/physiological changes (DP) in a subject's of perception (an operator's S) organism (in brain), which (DP) correspond/accompany with it (T'). One have to assert this for S has none (!) physical connection with object T of perception (such connections S can have only with a marker t of object T, and only if t is of physical nature), and consequently there are no physical abilities for DP to appear in organism of S. So physiological changes are not (cannot be) a source/cause of an image T'occurrence (at least at distant reception).
This conclusion contradicts that "psych. processes are realized by means of (it is underlined by À.Ì.) physiological mechanisms" [151, , page 550]. But it does not mean, that the conclusion is erroneous.
On the contrary, one have to assert (it is impossible to deny) that:
• either the reason of physiological/physical processes are metaphysical ones (at least - at äèñòàíòíîì perception(recognition);
• or both kinds of processes - psychic/metaphysical and physical/physiological - are caused by a some common reason of non-physical/metaphysical nature.
Both these mechanisms/variants of a perception image formation – but any third is not given at the ddistant perception (DP) – are not inconsistent mutually (do not exclude each other). And both means, that metaphysical processes become a source and a reason for physical/physiological ones (at least – at DP).
Psychical dominant above an organism (above "physiology"), dominant of METAPHYSICUM above PHYSICUM is displayed/revealed still more brightly in psychokinesis, walking-on-fire, soaring, poltergeist [ 99÷104 ], etc. – in phenomena radically contradicting to ideas/laws of mechanics, thermo- and electrodynamics, the soloid body theory and other sections of physics not only intrinsically, but as well visually/evidently.
Each element of PHYSICUM can become (potentially is already) an object of DP. Hence, each PHYSICUM element actually is object not physical, but HYPERPHYSICAL; its can be separated from it only mentally. Metaphysical component is connected with its object attributively.
The image T' is simultaneously both
• an ideal object – accordingly the concept of prevailing now scientific paradigm (fig. 1), and
• a material (metaphysical) object, – as it is found out now/above,
at that any image, irrespective of that how it is received - distantly or communicatively - are of the same nature (material/substantial quality).
|
|
CONCLUSIONS follow (inevitably!) from here:
(a) an image T' of a physical object T is a part of psyche SÂ of a person S and is a metaphysical copy of a metaphysical body TÂ (or of its part) of the object T (fig. 4); qualitatively/substantially T'= TÂ;
(b) ANYTHING, which is ideal (in philosophical sense - as something thinkable, not in everyday sense - as something perfect) – is just metaphysical, i.e. material, really, objectively, ontologically ñóùåñòâóþùåå, existing, but is not physical;
| |  |
(c)
the material world can be adequately (consistently) interpreted as consisting of two (at least than two) hypersubstances – the physical P and the metaphysical Â;
(d) any physical object (phenomenon) has its metaphysical component (or, that is the same, metaphysical body) which contains all completeness of the information about the physical one; so, there is a patient's artery; there is blood in it; its pressure upon walls of the artery is quite definite in each moment - all this is the same fact; the information of the fact exists irrespectively of whether any operator is interested in it or not;
(e) information can be not connected with any person at all, in particular with an operator – with his body, nervous system, brain;
(f) knowledge, at least part of it, is not created by a brain; it exists, conditionally speaking, in the continuum  (or in UDI – Universal Depot of Information [ 1À ]) – like a mineral which is found by a geologist, but not created by him;
(g) there is not qualitative difference between information and a thought (possession of this information), there is only quantitative difference - concerning time of their existence: a thought-knowledge appears for some instants, and is then replaced by other thoughts; a thought-information continues to exist after its replacement by other ones;
(h)
to return to one's ("old", former) thought, in particular - to recollect something, means to reveal once more the same ("old") information (to receive it
again from UDI);
(i)
the world of metaphysicum is richer/vaster than one of physicum (the physical one); it contains greater number of objects: some certain information (which can become a person's thought) corresponds to any physical object, but not any thought has a physical object, corresponding to it (fig. 5).
| |  |
The conclusions (e), (g) and (h) do not contradict the fact, that a thought can be coded (at least, in principle – there are precedents: sometimes it is possible), and that the code can be placed (in principle) on a physical carrier (such, as a notch on a stick, as a sounding word, as the neurophysiological source of an electroencephalogram, etc.).
The conclusion (g) demands explanations.
è
|
 |
|
