30/3-26. Reluctantly I have realized that there is a problem with a new occurrence going under the label that can be referred to by a couple of letters that is in the beginning of Cain’s sibling and in the beginning of the “informant”. It belongs to the first philosophy.
Dear all,
The 2026 world congress for psychiatry accepted my four submissions that really together introduced the field of theoretical psychiatry. I really admire their courage but no entity in Sweden covered my back so they are now withdrawn. I need my job.
See, for example,
https://karlpu.org/2026/07/02/a-treadmill-test-for-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness/.
I have new ideas that should be tested. Now we have psychiatry that is dependent upon empirical findings. The anomalies are piling up. Experiencing subjects with experiences that are not measurable. They have to be understood. So that the experiencing subject feels understood.
Nota Bene. The AI psychiatrist simulates understanding when it communicates “I understand”. It is called “validation”.
Humans, dogs and rats (and/or more suitable subjects for the design).
Subjects are placed on a treadmill.
The speed of the treadmill is increased step by step.
Measuring the heart rate the speed is increased when the heart rate is adjusted to the previous speed. At some speed (coupled with duration) Emax is reached.
Further increases of the speed will build up a backlog of need of recovery.
Lowering the pace step by step will eventually enable the subject to recover from the backlog.
Higher order biological objects will show delayed recovery.
Source: Gamper, J. Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Axiomathes (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-020-09494-8
Gamper, J. On a Loophole in Causal Closure.Philosophia 45, 631–636 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9791-y
Standard definitions of causal closure focus on where the causes in question are. In this paper, the focus is changed to where they are not. Causal closure is linked to the principle that no cause of another universe causes an event in a particular universe. This view permits the one universe to be affected by the other via an interface. An interface between universes can be seen as a domain that violates the suggested account of causal closure, suggesting a view in which universes are causally closed whereas interfaces are not. On this basis, universes are not affected by other universes directly but rather indirectly.
Johan Gamper. (2024). On a Loophole in Quantum Gravity. Qeios. doi:10.32388/RM0TK5.4.
I show that general relativity and quantum mechanics, broadly construed, are consistent in relation to the singularities inside of black holes, if the singularities inside of black holes are interfaces.
Say that if the singularities inside of black holes have no extension in space-time they cannot be accounted for by quantum mechanics if quantum mechanics only is meaningful for events at least of the Planck length. Also, say that this would imply that general relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. I will show that this inconsistency is dependent upon a premise that can be questioned.
Loophole causal closure (Gamper, 2017) predicts that the physical universe is preceded by an earlier one (that can be mathematical). This is made possible by a redefinition of the principle of causal closure. The redefinition makes interfaces between universes consistent with the principle of causal closure, which is why it is ontologically meaningful to consider the possibility of a multiverse.
The premise referred to in the Introduction is that the singularity inside of a black hole is situated in the physical universe. If there is only one universe and that universe is physical, of course, the singularity inside of a black hole is in the physical universe. If we consider, however, that there might be more than one universe and that loophole causal closure is true, we admit that there can be interfaces. According to this view, black hole singularities can be viewed as interfaces.
This scenario can be unpacked as follows. Let us define the black hole predicament as the situation where the singularity inside of the black hole is mathematical in its nature. Then we cannot explain how it has the non-mathematical, physical property of having mass. At the same time, it has mass, which is why it cannot be purely mathematical.
One solution is to view the black hole singularity as an interface between the physical universe and the mathematical universe. According to this view, the black hole singularity has a dual existence, it is both physical and mathematical.
I have written about this possibility elsewhere. See, for instance, (2023).
Accepted workshop for WADP2027, Vienna
Congress 2027 Vienna
Presentation Title:Psychic Energy and Macro Psychology
Abstract
Tragically, the society treats us as biological objects. In this workshop we investigate and discuss how this can be countered via the possibility of non-chemical biological energy and non-biological psychic energy. The starting point is Johan Gamper (2021, 2024). We apply the concepts to understand the background of psychiatric conditions and also the principles behind major psychotherapeutic methods.
References
Gamper, J (2021). Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Axiomathes 31, 497–506.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10516-020-09494-8
Gamper, J. (2024). Macro Psychology. Qeios. https://www.qeios.com/read/QTI0VB
Gamper, J. Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Axiomathes31, 497–506 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-020-09494-8
As physical things have mathematical properties we in this paper let mental things have biological properties. The work is based on recent metaphysical findings that shows that there could be interfaces between separate ontological domains. According to this view there could be mathematical objects, physical objects, and also mental objects. The aim of this study is to establish a view of the biological object that allows it to possibly generate the experiencing subject. Based on the notion that energy per se is related to the ability of a system to do some work, biological energy is defined as a biological object’s ability to recover from the load it is exposed to. Introducing the concept of the experiencing subject, the experiencing subject would be the agent experiencing the biological object’s need of recovery from the load it is exposed to. Once established, the experiencing subject may develop non-biological needs. On this basis experiencing subjects have biological properties without being biological in exactly the same manner as physical things have mathematical properties without being mathematical (would that be the case).
For those interested in the philosophy of biology I want to push for three papers of mine (2021, 2023, 2024) that go a far distance from mainstream philosophy of biology.
The first one focuses the relationship between biological objects and experiencing subjects. The other one focuses the relation between the biological object and consciousness in a formal setting. The third one focuses the biological simple in relation to, for instance, the physical simple.
References
Gamper, J. Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Axiomathes 31, 497–506 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-020-09494-8
Johan Gamper. (2023). Formal Theology. Qeios. doi:10.32388/EMANIB. [section 4.2.1]
Johan Gamper. (2024). Causal Principles in Material Constitution: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Composition of Objects. Qeios. doi:10.32388/H2B7NA.2.
Johan Gamper, psychologist, philosopher
Independent researcher
Johan Gamper. (2024). The Basic Fault in the Philosophy of Science. Qeios. doi:10.32388/BBM3ZU.
The basic fault in the philosophy of science is simple enough to put in words and now it is time to do that. This basic fault puts the food on the table for philosophers and scientists, so it is hard to actually get the word out. That is not my problem, though. The basic fault is that we still assume that there is some kind of stuff that ‘everything’ consists of. My aim is to show how we can make it right.
Numbers, dreams, marbles and chickens, according to this assumption (that there is some kind of stuff that ‘everything’ consists of), must consist of this kind of stuff. By the famous equation of Albert Einstein, the modern version of the assumption is that everything, in the final analysis, is physical energy. Numbers, at least, accordingly, have no existence of their own. Would they, nota bene, the physical world as we know it, would not exist.
The informed reader may now ask, ‘How could it be otherwise? Is it not analytical, that anything consists of only one kind of stuff?’ On the surface, yes. All material things are physical and therefore made of physical energy (this is a bit simplified). The problem is the potential existence of non-physical things. If there were such, how could they interact with the physical things? Traditionally, since the question was raised by Princess Elisabeth, the answer has been that there cannot be any interaction between things of different ontological kinds. Things of different ontological kinds are, in short, by themselves, toodifferent.
In order not to be forced to deny the existence of, say, numbers and dreams, philosophers and scientists tend to say that they in the final analysis somehow are physical (if they exist, they are not non-physical).
The informed reader may now be bored. ‘We have heard this. Over and over again. What is your point?’ Fair enough. ‘We are not a simulation.’ That is the short answer. We are what we are (humans). Numbers are what they are (mathematical entities). The crucial question is not how physical things relate to mathematical entities or how physical things relate to, say, dreams. The crucial question is — I do not know how to say this… — if we can let go of the past and consider things that are not made up of only one kind of stuff?
I know that it may sound grotesque but what I have in mind is something like this.
Consider the imaginary numbers and the real numbers. No imaginary number is a real number and vice versa. Based on the imaginary numbers and the real numbers we can define complex numbers with both imaginary parts and real parts. Accordingly, we can define complex things consisting of more than one kind of stuff. My favourite candidates are consciousness and black hole singularities. We could define consciousness as having both biological parts and (non-biological) subjective parts. Likewise, we could define black hole singularities as having both physical parts and (non-physical) mathematical parts.
I will stop here for now. Some of the things I have stated I have touched upon before. See especially (2017, 2021a, 2021b, 2023a and 2023b).
Summary
This work builds upon the paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject (Gamper, J, Axiomathes, 2020). The focus is to show how the idea of an experiencing subject can be conceived of within modern psychotherapy. We follow the track from conditioning for animals (without concern for an experiencing subject), via behavioral therapy for humans with an experiencing subject and cognitive behavioral therapy for humans with an experiencing subject where we give the subject a rational for the behavioral modification, to psychodynamically oriented therapy where we confront the very subject without going via her behavior. The three methods are explained within the context of macro psychology, a psychology extracted from the paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Conditioning concerns therapeutic methods that does not address subjective experiences of the patient and neither address subjective experiences methodologically. For instance, you do not give the patient instructions since you do not rely on the patients ability to understand them. Behavioral therapy concerns methods that that are mediated by instructions. The patient is told to follow a procedure. Cognitive behavioral therapy adds explanations to the behavioral therapy. Psychodynamically oriented therapy concerns the subject’s tendency to repress difficult inner material to feel better. This material is focused in the therapy and the patient is informed about how the therapist understands the dynamic. The framework, thus, that is presented, encompasses the major psychotherapeutic methods of today.
1. Introduction
The paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject (Gamper, 2020) contains a definition of biological energy that permits a purely mental energy that should be accounted for in its own right. Here we will look at some fundamental psychotherapeutic principles that can be drawn from that standpoint.
2. Macro psychology
Macro psychology is built upon the notion of biological energy as suggested in Gamper (2020). Biological energy is construed as the organisms ability to recover from the load it is exposed to. That load entails a need of recovery that grows with the load. The available energy has a maximum and when that is reached as far as the ongoing recovery is concerned, the available amount of energy is decreased if the load continues to grow. This is illustrated in figure 1.
For experiencing subjects it is conjectured that the need of recovery on the one hand is mediated by signals thereof, and on the other hand that the subject has a lower ability to perceive those very signals, the stronger they are, as illustrated in figure 2.
This dynamic for experiencing subjects has the odd consequence that even though the energy level lowers when load is increasing at high levels of load (compare figure 3) the subject tends to put pressure on herself to avoid the troublesome signals of need of recovery in order not to perceive them (compare figures 4-6).
3. The experiencing subject
The introduction of the experiencing subject allows for new possibilities for the organism to cope with load. We need to disentangle first, though, the biological object from the experiencing subject. For the biological object as such there is no dynamic to talk of. The object recovers if it needs to and can. When the organism is exposed to signals of need of recovery there is an experiencing subject that perceives them. Whereas the need of recovery is an abstract feature of organisms the signals of need of recovery are a reality for the experiencing subject. As depicted in figure 4 the signals can be attended to as they are perceived. This means that the biological needs of recovery are met via the experiencing subject. This, of course by assumption, is to say that the biological very needs of recovery are not perceived directly. The dynamic, however, is one dimensional — the organism recovers more or less.
The experiencing subject, on its side, can cope with its signals in other ways. To look at those possibilities we first have to focus on the the very subject. For the biological object the need of recovery is an abstract feature. The subject on the other hand has real signals of need of recovery so it is something that has the experiences of the signals. This something, the subject, has its parts. We will assume that the subject is composed of some parts as illustrated in figure 7.
3.1. Repression
The disentangling now comes to work. Whereas the biological object has need of recovery as an abstract but absolute feature the experiencing subject has its signals of need of recovery as real but with degrees of freedom to engage with them. The suggestion here is that the subject can project troublesome signals onto a single part and then repress it. This leaves the repressed part emptied of energy while the remaining parts are energized. This process can be reiterated (compare figures 8-12).
4. Psychotherapeutic principles
The psychotherapeutic processes that are interesting are the reversed ones as compared to the ones previously mentioned. Those were concerned with avoiding difficult signals of need of recovery. Whereas conditioning concerned non subjective features of the biological organism behavioral therapy (BT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and psychodynamically oriented therapy (PDT) concerns processes related to the experiencing subject.
4.1 BT
The psychotherapeutic principle of BT in the context of macro psychology is that the therapist instructs the patient to take explicit recovery measures. The patient by following the instructions recovers and by doing so has to endure the previously withheld difficult signals of need of recovery. A typical example is behavioral activation for depression where the therapist may instruct the patient to take daily walks.
4.2 CBT
The psychotherapeutic principle of CBT in the context of macro psychology is that the therapist instructs the patient to take explicit recovery measures and explains why (according to some model). In the CBT variant of macro psychology the rational would be that the patient avoids recovery to avoid the signals of need of recovery. Therefore she should try to recover even though it hurts in order to gain energy. A typical example is to accept sick leave in cases of exhaustion.
4.3 PDT
The psychotherapeutic principle of PDT in the context of macro psychology is that the therapist tries to emphasize with the patient in order to identify aspects of the patient that she has repressed. If the patient can acknowledge repressed contents she is instructed to try to endure the associated difficult signals of need of recovery that comes with it in order to regain access to to her own repressed parts.
5. Applications
Scenarios with a maltreated dog, its owner, and a therapist.
Conditioning
The therapist takes the dog to a safe environment.
Behavioral therapy
The therapist instructs the owner to take regular long walks with the dog, to feed it regularly, to let it have access to fresh water and to stop hitting it.
Cognitive behavioral therapy
The therapist instructs the owner to take regular long walks with the dog, to feed it regularly, to let it have access to fresh water and to stop hitting it. The therapist also tells the owner why.
Psychodynamically oriented therapy
The therapist tries to help the owner to reconnect to repressed parts that cares for the dog.
6. Reference: Gamper J (2020) Biological energy and the experiencing subject. Axiomathes.
© 2022 Johan Gamper
Subrosa KB
Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden
Adalja 