The idea that activities of the brain must be somehow associated with information processes outside of the body has been subject of many metaphysical speculations (see, e.g. [2]). This idea conforms to the 'spiritual' view of nature of the 19th century physics when it was proposed that ether is the 'true vehicle of life and mind' [3]. In this respect, we undertake experimental testing of our hypothesis on extracorporeal organization of human memory [4]. This organization takes to the extreme and refines the theory that human brain operates on holographic principle [5].

This work provides a different understanding to basically known but apparently neglected facts. In essence, the presented study of the brain functionality is built around a primitive rhetoric question: why should relocation of a photo camera influence an imprint inside?

The main conclusion of this work is that the brain employs an outside influx of information. This conclusion results solely from our interpretation of experimental observations, which are limited to afterimages. In this context, broader theoretical speculations, yet very intriguing, should be considered as a subsequent issue.

Afterimage is an activity in the head ensuing a visual stimulation. Of the two neural structures in visual perception - image/retina and eye/head - afterimages are associated with the latter (pushing the eyeball impacts real vision, but not the integrity of afterimages). In experimentation with afterimages the uncertainties associated with psychological studies can be relaxed when investigations are performed for the head with closed eyes or in complete darkness. In this case, the head can be treated as an isolated system apart from concerns about localization and particulars of the encompassed internal processes. Therefore, the obtained results are subject of a discussion on the physical grounds.

Afterimages are facile to perceive and many of their properties have been recognized since the times of antiquity [6]. The meaning of the considered experimentation with afterimages can be best illustrated using a traditional parallel of human visual system with a photographic device. Aiming at surroundings, a moving photo camera gets changing views, but after a picture is taken and the lens is shut the captured image stays with the camera. An afterimage leftover in the head with closed eyes resembles a blurred picture taken by a photo camera. So, what should happen to an afterimage when you slightly move your head?

Gaze for a moment on a small bright object and then close your eyes to get an afterimage. Thus, a good afterimage can be produced from a photoflash. For best results eyes might be adapted to darkness. When adaptation to darkness takes a long time, for example on awakening, an afterimage could be quite sharp appearing as a lingering visual picture [7]. The photo camera analogy and the common sense suggest that in isolation of the head with closed eyes afterimage should not be affected by any movements of the head. But contrary to these expectations you get a sensation of afterimage detachment. This effect is very robust and is readily acknowledged by most of the people, at least before the discussion of its implications is initiated.

In layman terms the phenomenon of afterimage detachment means that certain perception activities are not firmly attached to the head as they should be according to the photo camera analogy. To avoid such a bothering conclusion one may rather try for a simple methodological escape. However, the situation with interrelation of afterimages with the circuitry of the brain is far from trivial and, as will be shown pertains, to many interesting details.

Disengagement of human information processing from the circuitry of the brain keeps up with the theory of dualism that supposes that mind is independent of the brain. Our interpretation agrees with the interactive version of dualism presented by René Descartes who "postulated that pictures from the eye flashed onto a kind of a screen inside the brain, where the soul sat and observed them" (cited from [8]). For illustration, imagine a picture displayed on a framed screen. Two alternatives are conceivable: the picture has been painted or it is being projected from outside. To draw a distinction, consider what may happen with small movements of this construction. If relative positioning of the frame and the picture does not change then the picture has been painted. Otherwise, it is being projected from the outside.

As activities in the brain are associated with the infrastructure underlying the physical world, so the information processing of perception and the material formations are supposed to be different manifestations of a single mechanism. This line of thought leads to the identity theory assuming that mind and brain are different aspects of the same thing.

In a strict logical sense, experimental data are used not to prove but to disprove theoretical concepts. Thus, it would be more convincing to substantiate the assertion of afterimage detachment by negating the contrapositive statement. This contrapositive statement is: if visual processing is entirely attached to the circuitry of the brain then it cannot be influenced by relocations of the head. But observations show that relocations of the head do affect certain aspects of visual processing. So, visual processing cannot be entirely attached to the circuitry of the brain. In other words, some kind of a detachment of afterimages must take place.

To oppose the concept of disengagement of afterimages from the circuitry of the brain one can put forward a counter-argument assuming a built-in mechanism that is capable to detect changes in head positions and adjust the internal imagery. This counter-argument is logically sound. However, materialization of such a mechanism requires a sensory input for control. With further elaboration, the existence of this problematic mechanism can be rejected for biological and physical reasons.

The assumption that informational structures are being adjusted to compensate the movements of the head can be instrumental to explain why visual imagery remains stabilized with respect to jittering of the head. Hence, the same mechanism might be also applicable to the explanation of the detachment of afterimages. Confusedly, for afterimages this mechanism is cut off from visual stimulus and must rely upon another sensory input. This discord makes questionable the existence of a mechanism for adjusting internal imagery in response to the head relocations. Vice versa, the stabilization of visual imagery can be better understood with the concepts arising from the suggested interpretation of afterimage detachment.

Some people argue that the feeling of afterimage detachment is a part of a general property of the brain to remember the positioning of the last seen object. So, after closing the eyes, one retains a "feeling" of where an afterimage has come from. Plainly, such an explanation does not have a tangible physical meaning. Besides that it can be encountered by psychological facts as well.

The hypothetical ability of the brain to "remember" the last seen position is challenged by the fact that some afterimage-like activities can be created endogenously. Pressing on the lids of closed eyes can produce these kind of activities in the form of irregular faint spots. Then, by slightly turning your head you get the same sensation of detachment for these spots. Also, a similar feeling of detachment appears in eidetic vision and lucid dreams with no identifiable source of external stimulation.

The detachment of afterimages is a genuine physical effect rather than another curiosity among the rich assortment of optical illusions. The gist of this effect is that it is indicative of the absolute frame of reference. In this respect, experimentation with afterimages can be paralleled with the famous Newton experiment considering water in a rotating bucket. In Newton's experiment, at a starting moment water fails to ensue a turning bucket because of the property of inertia. In observations of afterimages, it appears as if they also resist to a rotational movement. Figuratively speaking, it looks like the "liquid of mental information" in the "bucket of human head" possesses a kind of inertia.

Thus, workings of the human brain seem to be able to detect absolute relocations of the head. Let us consider some possible objections. First of all, it may be assumed that afterimages are controlled by signals arising from muscular efforts in turning the head. However, the detachment of afterimages can be observed in motion of an immobilized body as a whole. For example, you can experience this effect being driven with closed eyes in a car as it enters a curved path, or resting stiff in a reclining chair when someone else moves it.

Human organism may be suspected to have an extra subsystem for "inertial navigation", which senses accelerations of the body, like an inner ear. On one hand, the detachment of afterimages occurs in very slow turnings of the head when the accelerations are well below 0.01 g. On the other hand, the detachment of afterimages can be detected in a vibrating chamber (for example, used in amusement parks) when human body undergoes random shakings with accelerations exceeding g. Since the perception of afterimage detachment sustains suppressing accelerations signals of about 100 times higher magnitude, the association of the detachment effect with sensing of accelerations of the body appears improbable.

As a matter of fact, the detachment of afterimages is caused by changes in coordinates of the head irrespective to the pace at which these changes occur. This exposes a mechanism of a positional rather than of a dynamical determination. Therefore, one can envision specific effects in human perception in relation to purely geometrical patterns of head relocations. The prediction that afterimage configurations can vary depending on the type of movement of the head constitutes a crucial test for the suggested concept.

The relocations of the head can be classified according to its three basic types of movements with respect to the perceived incidence plane of afterimages: complanar, non-complanar, and orthogonal.

The non-complanar relocations occur in rotations of the head about axes parallel to the plane of afterimages, such as in nodding or turning around. In this case, you feel the detachment of afterimages, as described above.

The complanar relocations are translations in the plane of afterimages and rotations around the axis orthogonal to this plane. They can be implemented with a stiff body in such movements as standing up, sitting down, walking sideward, or tilting. In this case, afterimages follow the head as if the detachment does not occur. Note that switching from detachment to non-detachment is determined just by supposedly insignificant changes in head rotation whereas in abstract kinematical sense nodding and turning look quite similar to tilting.

The orthogonal relocations are direct movements towards and away from the source of afterimage. In these circumstances, the afterimages not only do not stay intact but contrary to any reasonable anticipations they shrink in the former case and enlarge in the latter. This striking feature in afterimage behavior had been reported in [1]. No follow-up discussion of this impenetrable result has been found in the literature.

Formation of afterimages as outside projections on the brain is determined by image reconstruction properties in the 3D holography. To realize the meaning of afterimage transformations apart from the sophistication of the 3D holography let us consider a simplified geometric optics arrangement that can produce some comparable outcomes.

Suppose you are staying in front of a mirror wall. If you move in a plane parallel to the mirror your image will follow all your relocations, including tilting. If you start turning you will discover that your image does not follow your relocations, i.e. the image appears "detached". Now, suppose you are holding a small mirror in your hand and are looking at the reflection of the back of your head. Then, if you make a step from the mirror wall you will see this reflected image shrinking. Contrariwise, as you make a step backwards the reflected image enlarges. This consideration is intended to show that the diverse types of transformations of afterimages can be actually rationalized in terms of geometric optics.

Admitting that relocations of the head can cause transformations of visual imagery leads to an outlandish supposition that human perception in general can be influenced by the absolute motion of the Earth. This effect should occur from dislocation in space of the brain area receiving projection information. A visual image, after having been spread in a holographic form over the physical universe, is reconstructed by a mechanism of the 3D holography acting similarly to optical lenses. Thus, the size of an object can undergo changes when corresponding reception area of the brain is moved out of focus. This directly explains shrinkage and enlargement of afterimages observed in [1]. In actual vision, when the perception withstands distortions from head relocations by means of continuous refreshing with the incoming information, the visual imagery nevertheless can be transfigured because of the displacement of the brain caused by the motion of the Earth. According to our conjecture, this eccentric circumstance is revealed in the famous "Moon Illusion", "one of the most remarkable and surprising illusions" [9].

In everyday life, in the absence of fixed referral standards size variation due to the motion of the Earth may pass unnoticed. But these variations may be recognized in astronomical watchings. Celestial bodies, which are supposed to be of an unvarying angular size, sometimes appear larger on the horizon and smaller when nearer to the zenith. This phenomenon is most drastically displayed by the Moon, although it is also observed for the Sun, planets, and some constellations, mainly Orion.

The effectual displacement of the brain with respect to holographic reconstruction is determined by combination of all the constituents of the motion of the Earth: daily rotation, annual revolution, and global drift of the solar system. The size variation effect is basically associated with objects at the horizon because this line of observation corresponds to maximum projection of the linear velocity of the Earth. An enhancement of this effect occurs when the line of observation aligns with the direction of the predominant velocity of the drift of the solar system.

The alignment conditions vary for different celestial bodies depending on their position with respect to the orbit of the Earth. Apparently, these conditions actualize more frequently for the close Moon and Sun rather than for the far-away Jupiter. The constellation Orion is in approximately opposite position with respect to the velocity of the global drift of the solar system. Since this position is invariable, Orion enlargements at the horizon are observed on a regular basis. Taking into account the revolution of the Earth, we have calculated that the horizon enlargement for the Moon should be enhanced about a week before the autumnal equinox and about three weeks after the spring equinox. The former result yields the time of a spectacular event called "Harvest Moon".

The appearance of "Moon Illusion" can be accurately predicted for different objects on the basis of the described principles. The astronomical nature of the "Moon illusion" is established by the fact that this illusion emerges over the whole globe at once and is observed by all people irrespective to particular terrain and atmospheric conditions.

The concept of extracorporeal information processing may be treated more favorably with the widespread of the Internet. Creation of an individual brain as a terminal on the "Internet" of the physical universe rather than as a standalone computer has definite engineering advantages. The bandwidth and storage resources of the infrastructure of physical world are shared by individuums in a CDMA mode as described in [10]. Presently, it would be wiser to reverse a noted remark by E. Teller and say that "technology of to-day is science of to-morrow".

As afterimaging has been investigated with laboratory techniques, like fMRI, PET, and microelectrodes it is possible that subjective sensations of the detachment can find an objective confirmation. Focusing on the alleged connection of head relocations with brain’s functionality, it is worthwhile to re-examine the famous Penfield experiments on recall of past events by electrical stimulation of specific locations of the brain from which he came to a supposition that "the mind seems to act independently of the brain" [11].

The outlined scheme of perception using an outside influx of information addresses the pivotal controversy in the brain architecture: the discord between the localization of processing and decentralization of storage.

[1] R.L. Gregory, J.G. Wallace, and F.W. Campbell, "Changes in the size and shape of visual after-images observed in complete darkness during changes of position in space", Quarterly Journ. of Exper. Psychology, Vol. 11, 1959, pp. 54-55

[2] M. Talbot, The Holographic Universe, Harper Perennial, New York , 1991

[3] J. Powers, Philosophy and the New Physics, Methuen, London and New York, 1982

[4] S.Y. Berkovich, "On the Information Processing Capabilities of the Brain: Shifting the Paradigm", Nanobiology 2, p.99, 1993

[5] K.H. Pribram, Languages of the Brain, Brandon House, London, 1981

[6] E.G. Boring, Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology, Irvington Publishers, New York, 1970

[7] D.W. Massaro, Experimental Psychology and Information Processing, Rand McNally Publishing Company, Chicago, 1975

[8] L.T. Wertenbaker, The Eye: Window to the World, U.S. News Books, Washington, DC, 1981

[9] M. Luckiesh, Visual illusions, Their Causes, Characteristics and Applications, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1965

[10] S. Berkovich, "On the difference between dead and living matter: making sense of pseudo-random sequences of DNA nucleotides", The Noetic Journal, vol. 2, No 1, January 1999

[11] W. Penfield, The Mystery of Mind, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975