The entire concept of cerebral imagery as the physical basis of a mental image can find no logical support. A ``mental image'' subconsciously impressing us from beneath its language symbols in wakeful thought, or consciously in light sleep, is actually not an image at all but is comprised of realities, viewed not in the concurrent sensory stream, but within the depths of the fourth dimension.

Dreams that display events of the future with photographic detail call for a theory explaining their basic mystery and all its components, including that weird feeling of deja vu, inevitably fantastic though that theory must seem.

As in the theory of perception, established in psycho-physiology, the eye is recognized as an integral part of the brain. But then this theory confesses that it is completely at a loss as to how the image can possibly be received by the brain. The opening paragraph of the chapter titled The Theory Of Representative Perception, in the book Philosophies Of Science by Albert G. Ramsperger says, ``passed on to the brain, and there, by some unexplained process, it causes the mind to have a perception.''

But why is it necessary to reproduce the retinal image within the brain? As retinal images are conceded to be an integral function of the brain it seems logical to suppose that the nerves, between the inner brain and the eyes, carry the direct drive for cooperation from the various brain centers -- rather than to theorize on the transmission of an image which is already in required location. Hereby, the external object viewed by the eyes remains the thing that is seen, not the retinal image, the purpose of which would be to achieve perceptive cooperation by stirring sympathetic impulses in the other sensory centers, motor tensions, associated word symbols, and consciousness.