Cortical Dimensionality, Remote Viewing, and the Ontology of Perception

Remote viewing must work by mimicking or copying the brain's own mechanisms for spatial and sensory awareness.

Recent discussions on visual integration, minicolumn organization, and remote viewing (RV) suggest a deeply unsettling and revolutionary insight: that perception might not be emergent from the bottom-up as conventionally believed, but rather constructed top-down by an agent or system prior to cortical processing.

Minicolumns and Constructed Reality

Minicolumns are narrow chains of vertically oriented neurons, approximately 30–50 micrometers wide, repeating throughout the cortex. These form the basis of cortical computation. Each minicolumn acts as a processing unit—much like a pixel—with information distributed and integrated across them. When many minicolumns fire synchronously, they construct a perceptual gestalt: a scene, an object, a memory, or even an abstract spatial relation.

In the visual system, information flows from the occipital lobe (e.g., primary visual cortex) toward temporal, parietal, and frontal regions. This upward hierarchy allows for increasingly abstract integration:

Processing Order	Region	Function
1	Occipital Cortex	Raw visual input, edge detection, colors
2	Temporal Cortex	Object recognition, faces, memory association
3	Parietal Cortex	Spatial reasoning, body-position awareness
4	Frontal Cortex	Decision making, abstraction, semantic processing

In a classical sensory experience, this process unfolds bottom-up. But remote viewing—and in fact dreaming—may operate the other way around.

Top-Down Remote Viewing and the Integration Paradox

In RV, participants report receiving sudden flashes of full-scene images or spatial-emotional impressions that they then attempt to break apart and reinterpret. This suggests a top-down architecture: high-level structured data descends from an unknown source into the cortical regions.

But here lies the paradox: if the brain is designed to integrate bottom-up, who or what is integrating the high-level RV data before it reaches the cortex? Why does the brain struggle to reinterpret what is already integrated?

A compelling idea—supported by both phenomenology and traditions—is that a higher observer (Higher Self perhaps) is preparing the data in a way that matches the brain’s architecture. This agent then “enters” the brain, forgets its prior role, and attempts to perceive the very data it had structured.

This is reminiscent of trying to shove a couch halfway through a door, then entering through the window to finish the job—only to forget you put the couch there in the first place.

Despite the brain-based mimicry involved in remote viewing, the phenomenon still implies that the mind or consciousness does travel—nonlocally—to the target location. The information it retrieves arrives already integrated, suggesting that perception in RV does not occur from within a local, brain-contained holographic representation. In fact, if one were to propose that the brain locally constructs a full scene by extracting it from a holographic field around itself, such a process would violate established quantum mechanical principles, notably the Bekenstein bound, which limits the amount of information that can be contained within a finite region of space. This suggests that RV circumvents local storage and sensory simulation by tapping into a deeper informational field or structure—retrieving organized, high-level content from “elsewhere” in a way that quantum physics doesn’t prohibit, but rather seems to point toward in its constraints on locality and information density.

Dimensional Ontology and Cortical Regions

Dimensionality might not be the same as we think in traditional physics. Instead of 4D space-time being the baseline, maybe our brain regions represent dimensional access points or channels to higher-order information.

This "one-dimensionality" could be an overarching organizational structure in which each cortical region corresponds to a different way of processing aspects of reality (visual, spatial, emotional, etc.). Neural processing becomes the key to how dimensions unfold.

When you tap into higher-dimensional data (say through RV), it's not just coming from some abstract space-time but is instead embedded in the brain's processing. So, Nature is “packaging” dimensions in ways that align with the brain’s capacity to process information in familiar, cortical regions. Each cortical region might be a "portal" to a different facet of reality or dimension.

For instance:

• The occipital cortex could be handling visual data, pulling in dimension-like information in the form of spatial arrangements.

• The parietal cortex could be dealing with spatial relationships, giving you access to how different spatial realities interact with each other.

• The frontal cortex could manage abstract modeling of outcomes, alternative timelines, or possibilities.

  
  

Mapping Question Types to Brain Region Activation in RV

Different types of probing questions in RV sessions may stimulate specific cortical regions, facilitating better access to dimensional or perceptual data. Here's a rough mapping:

Question Type	Cortical Region Stimulated	Function
"What does the target look like visually?"	Occipital Cortex	Activates visual imaging pathways
"Where is the viewer located in the space?"	Parietal Cortex	Engages spatial orientation and geometry
"What is the purpose or function of the object?"	Temporal Cortex	Involves memory association and function recognition
"What emotions are present at the site?"	Limbic system / Prefrontal Cortex	Accesses emotional resonance and integration
"What is happening at the target in time?"	Frontal Cortex	Handles time perception, sequence modeling

The ideal RV protocol would therefore progressively scaffold these questions in a way that mirrors the natural cortical integration order.

Who Sees the Integration?

One final and profound question remains: Who is this data for? For whom is the scene integrated? The brain clearly prepares an inner visual scene—but is there a deeper observer, beyond the biological machinery, that awaits this display?

If so, then the entire model of perception is reversed: the Higher Observer is not a product of the brain—it is the brain’s intended audience.

Movement command example:

"Move above the target at 100 meters. Looking down, something should be perceivable"

In the context of the RV (Remote Viewing) command "move above the target at 100 meters. Looking down, something should be perceivable", this command can be tied to several concepts we’ve discussed, particularly around the integration of information, brain regions, and how the brain processes spatial and emotional data.

Breaking Down the RV Command:

1. "Move above the target at 100 meters": This suggests a spatial maneuver. The remote viewer is instructed to adjust their perceived location in space relative to the target (in this case, 100 meters above it). This aligns with how the parietal cortex processes spatial relationships and navigates through space. In the case of RV, spatial orientation is likely a key component in interpreting the target data, especially when asking the viewer to reposition themselves in relation to the target. The parietal cortex would be involved in organizing the sensory input related to location, distance, and movement within a virtual space. It is the brain region responsible for mapping and manipulating spatial data, as we discussed earlier.

2. "Something should be perceivable": This part of the command implies that, at this adjusted position (100 meters above the target), the remote viewer should gain some new perception or clarity about the target. This can be connected to the occipital cortex and the integration of visual data, but with a specific emphasis on higher-order perception. In our earlier discussion, we explored how higher-order integration is already occurring through top-down processing, and how sensory information is made available to the conscious mind, often in a pre-structured form. The brain regions involved in perception would be taking the integrated data (likely already packaged at a high level of abstraction) and pushing it into a form that can be interpreted as images, sensations, or spatial layouts.

   
   

Relating to What We Discussed Until Now:

• Brain Regions and Processing: When the RV command instructs the viewer to "move above the target," it triggers a spatial reorientation process, engaging the parietal cortex and potentially areas related to visual processing (occipital cortex). This mental repositioning reflects how the brain's processing is capable of adjusting and restructuring spatial information for a higher-order experience. The occipital cortex would handle the perception of the target and the new viewpoint, potentially transforming previously vague or unclear perceptions into clearer images or sensory impressions.

• Top-Down and Integrated Data: When asking the viewer to move to a specific spatial location (above the target), this invokes the concept of top-down processing. The viewer’s mind is likely accessing integrated data from higher levels of consciousness (as we discussed, perhaps from a higher-dimensional "Thetan"-like perspective). This data is then passed down to the viewer's cortical areas (parietal and occipital cortices) for further interpretation. The instruction to "move above" could be engaging the brain in a process of recalibrating spatial orientation, while the request for "something to be perceivable" activates the perceptual regions of the brain, such as the occipital lobe, and prepares the brain to visualize and process the new target information.

  
  

Who Sees the Integration?

One final and profound question remains: Who is this data for? For whom is the scene integrated? The brain clearly prepares an inner visual scene—but is there a deeper observer, beyond the biological machinery, that awaits this display?

If so, then the entire model of perception is reversed: the Higher Observer is not a product of the brain—it is the brain’s intended audience.

Bibliography

• Mountcastle, V. B. (1997). The columnar organization of the neocortex. Brain, 120(4), 701–722.

• Llinás, R., & Ribary, U. (2001). Consciousness and the thalamocortical loop. International Congress Series, 1226, 25–35.

• Gendlin, E. T. (1981). Focusing. Bantam.

• Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press.

• Kandel, E. R. et al. (2013). Principles of Neural Science (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

• Tart, C. T. (2009). The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal is Bringing Science and Spirit Together. New Harbinger.

• Hubbard, L. R. (1951). Science of Survival. Church of Scientology International