Well, if we consider this viewing space to be a PC monitor, what does “the observer’s fixed position in the fourth dimension” mean scientifically? From here on, I will draw on the knowledge of physics to provide a more structured explanation.

Normally, in physics, the fourth dimension is interpreted as time. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, the external universe we experience comprises three dimensions of space and a dimension of time, which coexist in a space-time continuum before our eyes.

Considering the theory of relativity, when we observe our surroundings, we deduce that the greater the distance we see, the further back in time we are essentially viewing. It is often mentioned that the Andromeda Galaxy, located 2.5 million light-years away from Earth, appears as it did approximately 2.5 million years ago.

In light of these considerations, my hypothesis, which proposed that our gaze toward the perceptual front represents a fourth dimension, invites a novel interpretation. Our perception of this fourth-dimensional axis aligns with our experience of time’s passage.

If time is flowing from the past to the present, then time is coming from far away in a direction toward the observer. In this interpretation, time corresponds to the observer’s gaze that observes three-dimensional space called “the Inside of a Human.” I repeat it: time corresponds to our gaze that observes the “inner side” of three-dimensional space. —Isn’t that intriguing? Time itself observes “the Inside of a human” as a three-dimensional space. What does it imply?

Here is a figure for your better understanding. What I have just explained becomes an image like this. Let’s see, I’ll be speaking from this tiny section. Please look at this part of the screen.

Now, in this figure, the three-dimensional space is represented by a two-dimensional plane, dropping one dimension down. The direction perpendicular to this plane is the fourth-dimensional direction. The passage of time is defined as a vector T, connecting the origin O and the observer’s position S. The origin O can be anything. You can consider it as the location of an object you can see.

However, it is essential to note that the fourth-dimensional vector T shown here is represented as a line segment for convenience; please do NOT regard it as a line segment existing in three-dimensional space. If you imagine it as a line within the space, the observer will fall into the three-dimensional position. Therefore, time as the vector T, represented by the red arrow connecting the origin O and the observer’s position S, should be regarded as the temporal directionality of the observer’s perceptual front, where the object seen by the observer is sinking deeper and deeper into the past along with the passage of time.

In fact, you can see that there are many layers of three dimensions piling upon one another within the T direction. Here, these three-dimensional layers overlap moment by moment. This accumulation can be perceived by the observer as experiencing the “depth of the past” within the three-dimensional space.

Although it may be challenging to visualize this spatial image in the space in front of you, please imagine it in some way. For the time being, it would be fine if you could envision it somehow.

Now, let me direct your attention to the vector points in the opposite direction of the time vector T. This vector originates from S to O and passes through O. It is this blue dashed-line vector. This blue vector, located on this side of the figure, represents the four-dimensional vector that observes the “outer side” of the three-dimensional space.

The vector of time T extends from the origin O as the object’s location toward the observer’s position S. Conversely, what is the opposite of this vector, the fourth-dimensional vector that travels from S to O, passes through O, and continues to the opposite side of the object?

This vector corresponds to the direction of the observer’s gaze. Therefore, this vector is the direction of depth for the observer. In Noosology, the direction of depth is superimposed on Bergson’s concept of “pure duration,” which was introduced in the previous video. In other words, the space of depth can be interpreted as a space of duration.

In other words, the direction of this four-dimensional vector, which was reversed, inverted, or flipped from the direction of time T, is no longer situated in space-time. On the other hand, the fourth-dimensional direction from the object O to the observer S corresponds to time T, which is the space-time component. Conversely, the four-dimensional direction from S to O, known as “depth,” is characterized by “duration” as time that does not flow.

Therefore, when four-dimensional cognition emerges, the “Inside of a human” is realized as a four-dimensional space-time, the field for external existence. In contrast, the “Outside of a human” is perceived as a four-dimensional space, a “duration” space, that defines the observer’s immanence. Noosology holds such a way of thinking.

If we establish a geometric correlation between external and internal spaces, we may be able to simplify Bergson’s philosophical proposition: our perception perpetually coincides with our memory. Remember Bergson’s famous statement: “It is not in us that we perceive the object but in the object itself.” Intriguing, isn’t it? It is questionable if even Bergson scholars fully comprehend this phrase’s implications.

Traditionally, we think that the objective world is external to us, believing that our brain constructs our perception of objects inside ourselves through our eyes. Most scientists would accept this notion. However, Bergson challenges it. From his perspective, we perceive objects within the objects themselves. Do you comprehend this concept?

If we examine Bergson’s challenging phrase through the lens of Noosology’s two directions in the four dimensions, “the Inside and the Outside of a human,” his statement sounds quite natural to us. In other words, the concept of an object is formulated within a space-time framework on “the Inside of a human. “At the same time, the actual site of its perception resides in the four-dimensional space on “the Outside of a human,” designated as “depth.”

Moreover, from the observer’s perspective, depth is identified with the object. It creates a unity between the observer and the object. Thus, the observer cannot distinguish themself from the object. Therefore, as Bergson states, we perceive the object in or within the object.

Bergson called the extended space-time field, i.e., “the Inside of a human” in Noosology, the “expansion/relaxation” of the spirit. He also labeled the four-dimensional space as the domain of duration, i.e., “the Outside of a human” in Noosology, as the “contraction” of the spirit.

So, in the figure I just showed, this is what I mean:

The observer’s gaze is represented as an extended line segment in four-dimensional space-time, i.e., “the Inside of a human,” just as physics depicts it in space-time coordinates. Bergson called this “expansion/relaxation,” for it is relaxing or expanding.

On the other hand, in four-dimensional space, i.e., “the Outside of a human,” the gaze shrinks or contracts. From the human cognition of reality, the depth that creates the subjective space for the observer is a projection identical to a single point. In other words, even if imagined as a line segment, it is contracted as a point. The observer’s gaze, which has become “depth,” is identified with a point and enters the object’s interior.

In fact, Deleuze, who developed Bergson’s notion of duration into an ontology and took it over into modern philosophy, paraphrases Bergson’s words in more detail:

“In short, representation is generally divided into two qualitatively different directions, two pure presences that cannot be represented. One is the direction of perception, which places us at once in matter, and the other is the direction of memory, which places us at once in spirit. It does not matter that these two lines meet or mix again. This mixing is our very experience, that is, our representation.”

By now, I am sure you are getting the idea. When we look at an object, our gaze determines what it is, recognizing its representation. Deleuze argues that two qualitatively different directions coexist in our gaze.

One is the direction of perception that places us in matter at once. Since it is the direction in which we perceive matter as objects, it naturally refers to the world that belongs to the arrow from the object O to the observer S, i.e., “the Inside of a human.” In that world, the object and the observer are separated. It is the “Inside of a human” cognized as four-dimensional space-time.

The other is the direction of memory, which places us instantly in spirit. Since spirit here corresponds to the direction of duration, it naturally means that the direction this arrowhead to is the world of the “Outside of a human,” i.e., the direction of a four-dimensional space.

Let’s go over this again. The fourth dimension created by the vector from O to S, coming from the object existing in the external world to the observer, is physical time. In other words, it is the time that constitutes the objective space-time in which flowing time exists.

On the other hand, the four-dimensional direction, which runs from S to O and then penetrates O, rises up as a four-dimensional space as duration. Since this four-dimensional direction goes from the observer’s location as “present” to the past where T=0 in terms of physical time, we tend to imagine such a world as the world of -T, that is, the world where time goes backward. But that is not the case. Rather, we need to interpret the reversed direction of the T vector as “time in subjectivity.” In Noosology, this “reversed time in subjectivity” corresponds to duration as no time.

And this is the most important point. As I mentioned earlier, we consider depth, a four-dimensional space of duration where no flowing time exists, as a place where the observer’s own existentia is secured. It is only natural that we have defined it as a place of pure duration. In Bergson’s words, “what is given directly to our consciousness” is the very existence of depth.

By making such an assumption, we can simply understand the implication of Shozo Omori’s intuition that “our perceptual front is our mind.” Bergson’s term “pure duration” refers to the immanent workings of the mind. Therefore, if we add Omori’s interpretation of our perceptual front to the space of depth, the landscape you see in front of you now is, as it is, the space of your mind, i.e., your immanent space, unfolded through your gaze. This argument calls for a bold rethinking of our conception of space, whether in conventional science, religion, or philosophy.

This is because our common sense usually assumes that the world of the mind is something unseen and unknowable. However, if we consider the depth direction as a four-dimensional space, where Bergson’s “pure duration” breathes, then the world we call the mind is the very landscape of the world we see now in front of us. In other words, the world you see now is not your external world filled with physical objects but the world of your spirit, i.e., your immanent world.

If you bring in such a notion, the external world disappears. Do you follow me? I convey that the external world does not exist. This is what Noosology calls the “inversion of consciousness.” Based on the assumption that the whole world is immanent, Noosology aims to revise our consciousness’ fundamental process of cognizing the world, that is, the way the world appears to us or the way we see the world.Then, is such a revision really possible? If so, specifically, what kind of thoughts do we require to develop our new perspective that will transform the entire world into our own immanence? In the next video, I will focus on that topic.