This brings us to a crucial point regarding the nature of perception which needs to be clearly grasped: in whatever mode, perception is not — and cannot be — consummated on the corporeal plane. It will be instructive, first if all, to consider the matter from the standpoint of the prevailing scientific approach. One knows by now that the neuronal mechanism associated with visual perception, as Sir Francis Crick reminds us, is designed “to take the picture apart,” which is to say that there exists no corresponding neuronal apparatus designed to put the picture “back together again.” How then is that prodigy accomplished? How does one survey and integrate into a single picture the “on-off” states of a myriad neurons — and do so in a “split second” no less! This is the famous “binding problem” which, as I maintain, actually admits no solution on the corporeal plane. As I have noted elsewhere, this “putting together” is in truth effected by what is traditionally termed the soul or anima, which is able to accomplish this feat precisely by virtue of the fact that it pertains — not to the corporeal — but precisely to the intermediary realm, where spatial separation does not exist. It follows that visual perception originates — not on the corporeal — but on the intermediary plane.
I would point out that the binding problem for visual perception is in fact analogous to the measurement problem for quantum mechanics in that it proves to be insoluble under the customary ontological assumptions. It can thus serve likewise to reveal the existence of what may be termed the “next higher” ontological plane: in the measurement problem this is the corporeal, and in the binding problem it is the intermediary.
—Excerpt from The Vertical Ascent