The Unification of Mind and Matter: A Proposed Scientific Model

The Unification of Mind and Matter: A Proposed Scientific Model

Robert L Shacklett, Ph.D
William C. Gough, M.S.

Submitted to the Journal Subtle Energies

Copyright 1991 by W.C. Gough & R. L. Shacklett; updated May 12, 2006.




















































Cover: DNA Molecule (Sec. II)

1. Schematic Representation of the Model (Sec. I)

2. Relation of Levels to Each Other (Sec. I)

3. The Scale of Small Things (Sec. II)

4. Flatlander Observing Effects of a Falling 3D Man (Sec. II)

5. LBL Picture of the Atoms in Mullite (Sec. II)

6. Light Interference Patterns - Mandalas (Sec. II)

7. Experimental Arrangement for Generation of Hebrew and Arabic
Letter Forms (Sec. III)

8. Twistor - From Cover of Twistor Newsletter (Sec. IV)

9. Detailed Description of the Model - Causal Linkages of Model
(Sec. IV)

10. Fractal Fern (Sec. V)

11. Compass Termite Mounds (Sec. VI)

12. Neurons Firing in a Monkey's Brain (Sec. VI)

13. Perception of Invisible Triangle (Sec. VII)

14. Perception of Two Table Tops (Sec. VII)



Robert L. Shacklett, Ph.D.
William C. Gough, M.S.


This paper outlines a proposed scientific model with the goal of stimulating a new vision towards resolving the Mind-matter question. Scientific is defined to mean that the "parts" or links already exist as useful concepts in the scientific community. The model with supporting evidence will propose that a connection exists between the realms of Mind and matter and that this connection can be understood in terms of existing scientific concepts without invoking any new interactions or "particles." To consider the proposed unification of Mind and matter, it will be necessary to highlight potential underlying belief systems and the assumptions they entail.

The paper will first examine the Mind-matter boundary of space-time from the side that physics is concerned about, being careful to point out that we are using a tool of the mind -- mathematics -- in the process. The paper will illustrate that the boundary is permeable, more like a sponge than the solid wall that conventional science has believed in for so long. Next the paper will take a look at what lies beyond space-time, realizing that this time there is little scientific tradition on which to base the argument that Mind has any connection to physical world of space-time. However, the individual strands of evidence will be woven together until they hopefully become persuasive. This will include the work of Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli on archetypes, the relation of the archetypal hypothesis to "number," and modern research on the "hidden" meaning of the ancient sacred alphabets and sacred texts.

Once the realms of matter and Mind have been covered and the linkage established, the dynamics across the linkage will be discussed assuming a self-referencing cosmos in which feedback processes abound. Evidence will be provided from the familiar physical world to support this assumption. To appreciate how the model helps us better understand our individual reality, the nature of human perception will be examined. The concepts of the model will then be extended, and its implications to our world of everyday life will be explored with emphasis upon the connection between the mind and the brain/body complex in health and illness. The model will be used to illustrate the underlying basis for some of the ancient and modern body and mind healing techniques.



The Mind-matter question is of fundamental significance in philosophy and science. The nature of the connection has been a subject of speculation and dispute ever since Descartes enunciated his famous "Cogito ergo sum" over three centuries ago. This paper presents a proposed scientific model with the goal of stimulating a new vision towards resolving the Mind-matter question. (The use of the capital M in "Mind" will be discussed below.) Both authors have worked jointly to create this new vision. One author (RLS) has focused upon the necessity for a mathematical realm of patterns beyond the physical space-time universe capable of "embodying" Mind, and establishing a credible linkage to that realm based upon accepted scientific principles. The other author (WCG) has focused upon the nature of this realm of patterns beyond space-time and the dynamics of how it manifests into our everyday reality, and establishes meaning through an inner world that includes emotions and feelings.

To consider our proposed unification of Mind and matter, one must be aware of his or her underlying belief systems and the implicit assumptions they entail. Most persons in the Western world hold one or more of the following three assumptions:

1) Space-time is the "container" for all of reality.

2) The meaning of the principal abstract symbols used in
human thought is that numbers only stand for quantities
and that letters only represent the building blocks of

3) The world we perceive is identical to the world "out

If the reader holds any of these assumptions, we request that they be placed in abeyance until completion of this paper.


Any serious probe into philosophical questions requires some degree of consideration be given to the relevant epistomological issues. How do we know what we know (or believe) about "X"? For this paper X is the relationship between Mind and matter. A first approximation might suggest that the question should divide easily between inner knowledge about mental states and outer knowledge arrived at by scientific means.

However, what science has told us may come as a surprise, as the following quote by the mathematician Morris Kline illustrates.

We have therefore come to accept that the real world is not what our unchallenged senses tell us or what our limited perceptions enable us to say but rather what man's major mathematical theories tell us. In the case of Euclidian geometry, although the concepts of point, line, plane, and the like are idealizations, they are idealizations of real objects and one can point to real points, lines, and planes as the reality. What should we point to in the cases of gravitational force and electromagnetic waves? We observe their effects. But what is physically real beyond the mathematics? Not even physical pictures, admittedly imaginative, suffice to explain the nature of these forces and fields. It seems impossible to escape the conclusion that mathematical knowledge is our only grasp of some parts of reality. (Kline, 1985, p. 200)

Hence, this paper will focus attention on understanding mathematical tools as well as how they are used in the quest to comprehend the nature of reality.


The perspective of Cartesian dualism, i.e., the separation of Mind and matter, has usually worked to the advantage of science, especially physics, because it made possible vastly simpler models which can adequately be described by (mostly) linear mathematics. Ever since Galileo began using mathematical expressions to summarize the behavior of objects moving under the pull of gravity, physicists have felt no obligation to worry about what effect their thoughts might have on some experiment they might be engaged in. After all, (so the reasoning goes) the thinking process takes place inside one's cranium (or one's "mind"), and brain waves are much too weak to have any measurable effect on a robust physical apparatus. Thus, classical physics and, to a large degree, modern physics has ignored the complexities and non-linearities that would be introduced when the observer is made part of the experimental situation.

There is no question that the science that has evolved out of this simplifying assumption has been enormously fruitful. The physical world does indeed conform, to a very good approximation, to a relatively small set of "laws" capable of being expressed by surprisingly simple mathematical statements. But the technologies that have been spun off from this scientific core carry a subliminal message to the cultures they serve. The message is that the world that science deals with is completely objective; the tacit simplifying assumption about no observer complications has all but been forgotten. The message has certainly been effective. Separation between Mind and matter, according to the Western worldview, is complete.

However, if we look carefully at what goes on when physicists make models of fundamental processes of nature we will see something strange that suggests the separation may be an illusion. Scientists have known for decades that there is a curious sort of correlation between mathematics, an activity of the mind, and the world of matter. Albert Einstein made this comment: "Here arises a puzzle that has disturbed scientists of all periods. How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality? Can human reason without experience discover by pure thinking properties of real things?" (As quoted in Kline, 1985) Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner was also impressed by this correlation. He described it in terms of the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" and stated that "the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it." (Wigner, 1960, p. 223).

Puzzles with such far-reaching implications would normally attract physicists like ants to a picnic. The fact that this one has been around for so many years without any serious effort on the part of the mainstream physics community to solve it only demonstrates how strong and pervasive is the belief in complete and total separation between mental activity and the physical world.

Nevertheless, mathematics is the tool of choice when it comes to seeking order in a complex universe. Sir James Jeans put it rather bluntly. "The essential fact is simply that all the pictures which science now draws of nature, and which alone seem capable of according with observational fact, are mathematical pictures." (Jeans, 1932)

Thus, we can only conclude that physics conducts its affairs in a rather odd way: The mental realm is used to create marvelously accurate pictures of the matter realm, yet no connection is believed to exist between the two!


In this section we provide an introduction to the model without the supporting arguments or evidence so that the reader will be equipped with a rough map of the territory explored in the rest of the paper.

First, a concise statement to prepare the way:
We propose that a connection exists between the realms of Mind and matter and that this connection can be understood in terms of existing scientific concepts without invoking any new interactions or "particles."

Next, we need to explain just how we are using the term "model." A model is a suggestion or proposal on how to thinkabout some complicated relationship, process, or mechanism ("system" for short). It shows how the system can be broken down into "parts," each of which can be understood in conventional and less complicated ways. When thinking about the original, complex system, one mentally replaces it with the model, i.e., the parts and the relationships between the parts, thereby eliminating or reducing the complexity and permitting some degree of "understanding." The adequacy of the model is measured in terms of how well it helps explain the various phenomena that are related to the system. This process of determining adequacy is often aided by the formulation of hypotheses that subject certain aspects of the model to experimental tests. In this way model building plays an essential role in scientific methodology.

A simple analogy may further clarify what we are doing. Consider the problem of explaining to a naive individual how one's kitchen faucet is "connected" to the ocean. There is a series of parts or linkages that are involved in the system, some of which are visible and readily understandable, such as underground pipes, treatment plants, reservoirs, and even rainfall. But one important link is invisible and lies in the realm of ideas and concepts -- the evaporation process or phase change in water. This would have to be accounted for in more visible or mechanical terms before the model of the system becomes useful as an explanation of the connection.

It should be obvious that there are different models possible for any given system depending on the kinds of explanatory devices that are considered "conventional" by a group or society. A scientific model, for example, would be of little interest to a group accustomed to explaining natural phenomena in terms of the actions of one or more deities. It follows that as a model becomes more widely accepted and utilized by a group (having been properly "tested"), the "parts" of the model go beyond being merely a guide to thinking and begin to take on a "reality" of their own.

Gary Zukav (Zukav, 1980, p. 313) has a rather pithy description of this process: "'Reality' is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends upon what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality."

We have described our model as being scientific. This means that the "parts" or links already exist as useful concepts in the scientific community. The fact that they happen to be based on physics and mathematics does not imply that skill with these tools is required to appreciate the model. After all, our Western culture has had no problem in accepting the pictures of the invisible world of sub-atomic matter provided by mathematical physics. Even the most bizarre creation of general relativity, the black hole, (which must remain invisible forever) is given substantial credence by a mathematically unsophisticated public.

Figure 1 is a simplified illustration showing the relationship of the basic components of the model.. At the top is the physical world of space, time, and (large-scale) matter. At the bottom is the spaceless, timeless, and non-material world of Mind. In between these two realms are the mathematical connections that provide the "pictures" that we are using to link particles to patterns in this non-material world..

Even with no further elaboration of the model we can point out that Einstein's "puzzle" described in the preceding section has a rather obvious solution. The reason that the physical world conforms so well to the mathematical pictures created in the mind is precisely because there exists a causal linkage between the two realms. The idea of separation, having been dogma for so long, needs to be seen once again as an approximation rather than an absolute.

It should also be pointed out that the proposed linkages "work" in both directions. This is in contrast with the mainstream view that has matter (or brain) as the causative agent and mind (or thought processes) as dependent "epiphenomena." This bi-directional causality is the basis for the continuous feedback and interplay between the two realities.

Finally, we need to emphasize that our model concerns Mind and matter -- a territory that encompasses much more thanmind and body (see Assumption 3 below). Therefore, if the model helps understand those aspects of subtle energies and parapsychological phenomena, for example, which occur outside the body, we believe it would be equally useful in clarifying many aspects of the body-mind connection, such as the placebo effect and health/attitude issues.


In every scientific discourse there is an underlying metaphysical context or worldview which remains unspoken but agreed upon, because without this tacit understanding the discourse would be meaningless to the participants.

In the present instance, although we are using conventional scientific terminology, it is the scientific worldview itself that is being challenged. Therefore, to ensure a basis for understanding what we are presenting, it is essential that we describe in the best way we can the worldview or metaphysical context out of which our model arises. We will do this by setting forth several basic assumptions which are necessary (but probably not sufficient) to define the boundaries of the expanded worldview.

1. The 4-dimensional space-time physical world is the "lowest" of a hierarchy of levels. We view them as nested in a "Chinese box" configuration rather than arranged in a tree structure or pyramid. (Such levels are traditional ways of categorizing the range of human experience.) (Wilbur, 1981)

2. Current physics provides an adequate description of the "inanimate" physical world. The four fundamental forces of physics -- gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force -- account for the interactions of matter, with the Principle of Least Action governing the dynamic processes involving these forces. There is no necessity to introduce any new forces or entities into the model.

3. The level adjacent to the physical is the mental realm, designated herein as Mind (with a capital M). Individual minds (with a lower case m) are sub-units of (Universal) Mind. The mental realm is different from the physical world, i.e., of higher dimensionality. It is intrinsically spaceless, timeless, and non-material; its contents are essentially patterns including those that are represented by mathematical symbols. Figure 2 illustrates the way the levels relate to each other.

4. Space-time provides an interface between the physical and mental realms and is the "stage" or foundation upon which physicists build mathematical structures representing matter and its dynamic interactions.

5. Consciousness is common to all levels of the hierarchy. The entity called the "self" or "I" is an individualization of Universal consciousness. Its boundary in the physical appears well defined but becomes more diffuse as the self extends beyond the physical realm.

In connection with this last assumption, "consciousness" probably needs to be defined for the purposes of this paper. We find it necessary to go beyond the dictionary which tends to limit the meaning to a state of awareness. We define consciousness to include an essence that is behind awareness -- that which energizes or vitalizes an entity and provides its sense of being. Consciousness at its core is ineffable to us because we are part of it.

It needs to be emphasized that, although the worldview described above is open-ended with the number and extent of levels unspecified, our model is confined to the connection between only the lower two -- the physical and the mental.



In Assumption 4 we state that space-time is the interface between the physical and mental reals. In effect, this means that we believe the search for the locus of the Mind-matter connection should begin within the realm of space-time but belowthe level of the particles of physics. The main reason we are focussing on this area is that science has already looked everywhere else in the world of matter and found no trace of a force or process that satisfactorily accounts for the breadth of phenomena with which we are dealing. It is not the lack of good data that has led science to this negative conclusion. Rather, it is the restrictive worldview that assumes that space-time is an absolute boundary.

Therefore, we are setting aside this limiting assumption and expanding our purview beneath the "roots" of matter into realms beyond the material. The left-hand side of Figure 3 is a representation of the territory to be explored on a length scale of centimeters in negative powers of ten starting with the human dimension of a finger breadth and proceeding downward to the so-called Planck length 33 orders of magnitude smaller. (The Planck length represents the "bottom" of physical space where the concept of location loses its meaning due to quantum uncertainty and fluctuation.) About half way down this scale is the realm of the elementary particles. These entities lie at the threshold of a region that physics has only recently started to explore theoretically -- the quantum vacuum. While not an integral component of our model, the vacuum is nevertheless a most fascinating region and will receive special attention later.

In order to "see" anything on this scale of smallness high power magnifying instruments are needed. The right-hand side of Figure 3 shows the kind of instrument appropriate for a given size object. A scale of energy in electron volts shows the photon or particle energy needed to resolve detail at various levels of smallness -- the smaller the object, the higher the energy. The highest energy machine shown is the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) now on the drawing boards. As a multi-billion dollar, multi-national venture, it demonstrates that peering into the vacuum is a very expensive proposition. As accelerator machines go, the SSC may very likely be the "end of the line."

The question naturally arises as to how physics can explore any further without instruments. In the past mathematical theory was used to get us to the particle level. We believe, that for extending beyond the particle level, mathematics will continue to be used as the probe of choice in science. The primary difficulty is that direct experimental testing of a particular theory using physical apparatus will not be possible. However, any theory that deals with the roots of matter is constrained by the requirements of cosmology, the science that is concerned with the origin and structure of the universe. The criterion that ultimately will have to be met is an overall consistency with data generated both by astronomy and particle physics.


Mathematics provides the "pictures" of the invisible realms beyond the reach of optical magnification. The procedure is roughly as follows. The raw measurement data provided by a complex array of apparatus is compared to numbers generated from the mathematical theory of the process or system under study. If suitable agreement is obtained the theory can then be used to predict "visual" aspects of the system. This is the approach used to "see" atoms using the scanning tunneling electron microscope. (Wickramasinghe, 1989) Here the theory not only guided the design of the equipment; it supervises the processing of the tiny electrical signals from the apparatus and turns them into video display pictures.

The theory behind our current conception of matter is called quantum mechanics. It has been combined with Einstein's special theory of relativity and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism to produce a more refined version called quantum electrodynamics. "QED" is regarded as the most precise tool ever devised for the description of charged particle interaction. Thus, there is good reason for accepting quantum theory's portrayal of the world of the very small in spite of the fact that the pictures it presents are so contrary to common sense. Since our model will build upon this base of quantum mechanics, it is important to understand some of its characteristics. Here is a brief listing of several of the main implications of quantum theory that are relevant to this discussion. For a fuller account, Nick Herbert's book, Quantum Reality is highly recommended. (Herbert, 1985)

1. The physical world operates according to probabilities rather than as clockwork. Once a physical system is specified, the theory produces a "wave function" (expressed in terms of space-time variables) which contains all the information that can be obtained by a "measurement" on the system. But rather than predicting a specific result of a measurement the wave function only yields the probabilities for a whole spectrum of possible results. The process of measurement (or observation) converts this set of potentia into one actuality. This "collapse of the wave function," while still a subject of controversy among quantum physicists, we believe can be attributed to a "choice" made by consciousness (which can lie beyond space-time). (Stapp, 1972; Wigner, 1963)

2. Matter is mostly empty space. For an atom, the size of its nucleus would be like a flea in the center of the vast space of the Astrodome in New Orleans. Yet, there is a "hardness" to solids which are composed of atoms. The reason is a result of the quantum properties of atom's electrons summarized in Pauli's "exclusion principle" which states that no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state. The electron cloud surrounding the atomic nucleus strongly resists compression; thus atoms take up space even though the constituent particles of the atom are no larger than mathematical points. This example of the vast difference between the ordinary experience of perception and the picture provided by mathematics brings into sharper focus the problem of what is meant by the term "real."

3. Exact simultaneous measurement of certain pairs of variables of a physical system is impossible. This is the conclusion represented in Heisenburg's famous "uncertainty principle." Specifically, the principle refers to pairs like position and momentum, or energy and time. The impossibility is not merely a result of an inherent "clumsiness" in the measurement process but is built into the system in such a way that a choice made to determine one quantity with precision automatically smears out the measurement of the other. The principle has a direct bearing on how far into the vacuum our mathematical probes can reasonably be expected to go.

4. A physical system, once separated, retains a "connectedness" through the quantum wave function. This is, perhaps, the most bizarre and controversial of the predictions of quantum mechanics since it implies linkages that transcend space, time, and the conventional interactions of the four basic force fields. But considerable experimental effort has confirmed that "local" connections are inadequate to explain reality; this justifies incorporating "non-locality" into our model. A more comprehensive discussion of non-locality appears below in connection with the detailed description of the model.


The mathematics of quantum theory rests squarely on the same foundation used by classical physics -- space and time (suitably modified, of course, to accommodate the invariance requirements of special relativity). What happens when the quantum theory is used to examine its own foundation? Even though the attempt to answer this question will seem like opening a can of worms it is important to do so, because it is here, at the underbelly of physics, that we will find the links to the realms beyond space-time.

In the rest of the paper we will occasionally use some technical words in order to convey more precisely certain mathematical ideas. The following definitions are intended to help make our terminology more meaningful:

Dimension: There are many different ways to define the dimension of a space. (Stewart, 1987) Usually it refers to the number of independent coordinates (expressed as a positive integer) needed to locate a point in a "space." A line or curve requires only 1 coordinate to locate a point on it, namely, the distance from some reference point. Hence, a line is said to be 1-dimensional. A plane or surface is 2-dimensional, etc. A space of dimensionality greater than 3 is sometimes called a "hyperspace." Later we will discuss fractal dimensions and their importance to our understanding of the natural world.

Since it is difficult to visualize higher dimensional spaces it is useful to look at a picture of a conventional three dimensional man falling through a two dimensional flatland space. Figure 4 shows a two dimensional flatlander observing the effects on his space. (Rucker, 1984) At one level the parts of the 3D man are all connected, yet the effects appear separate to the 2D flatlander. If there was a flatlander psychic, she might give a warning of where a "future" event would take place. However, it there were a flatlander shaman who could interact with the mind of this higher dimensional being and convince him to put his arm up straight so that it would fall through the existing body hole then the enlargement of the body hole could be avoided and there would be less damage to flatland and its inhabitants. So there are some strange things that can happen in this hierarchical world of "intelligent" dynamic patterns that we are postulating.

Manifold: This refers generally to an abstract spatial construction or geometric form whose points may be defined by n parameters, in which case it is an n-dimensional manifold.

Topology: This is a broad field, but we are using the term to refer to the study of properties of manifolds, particularly those properties that remain the same when a manifold is subjected to operations that deform it, such as twisting or stretching. In this sense, a coffee cup is topologically equivalent to a doughnut.

Space: This term usually refers to the ordinary 3-dimensional space we are used to. But the term is often used in physics and mathematics to refer to purely abstract manifolds, usually of higher dimensionality than 3. Such spaces or manifolds may be curved, as is the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere where the geometrical laws of Euclid no longer hold true.

Space-time: This is the marriage of ordinary space with time, resulting in a 4-dimensional manifold. In this marriage time and space are treated as equal partners as required by the special theory of relativity. A point in space-time represents an "event," while a line (or curve) represents a history. Usually physical laws that are expected to hold universally (i.e., regardless of the state of motion of a hypothetical observer) are expressed in the 4-dimensional setting of space-time.

Realm and Reality: Although not strictly technical terms, it is helpful to clarify the way we use these two words. By "realm" we mean a domain within which something occurs. The physical world plus time is equivalent to the space-time realm. The mental realm is within the spaceless-timeless realm. "Reality" is our perception of a given realm. We can reach consensual agreement on physical reality but have greater difficulty doing so on mental reality.

Now that we have clarified some of our terminology, we can return to the examination of the structure of space-time and see what happens when the "microscope" of quantum theory is used. The story starts with Einstein's theory of general relativity which is a theory of curved space-time where the curvature is directly related to the amount of mass and/or energy present. He took the mystery out of gravity by showing that all gravitational phenomena known at that time (around 1915) could be accurately accounted for on the basis of the curvature of space-time. Later on, others used his equations to predict phenomena which Einstein initially was unaware of, such as an expanding universe and black holes.

In spite of the elegance and success of Einstein's theory, being strictly a classical theory it is unable to accommodate the requirements of quantum theory. Decades of effort have gone into the attempt to produce a quantum theory of gravity with little success. The central problem can be understood in terms of the uncertainty principle. When there is a high degree of specificity for position, such as points lying within a Planck length of each other, the curvature of the space-time manifold becomes correspondingly uncertain leading to ambiguities in the meanings of position, time, and energy. What is even more troublesome is the non-linear feedback relationship between curvature and energy expressed in Einstein's equations. A tiny fluctuation in either quantity reverberates back and forth resulting in a kind of microscopic chaos in the fabric of space-time. Physicists have resorted to some rather creative terminology to describe this state of affairs: for example, quantum foam, cosmic Swiss cheese, wormholes in space-time. (Tobin, 1975)

This impasse, where two major physical theories, both highly successful in their respective domains, refuse to be compatible at the bottom of space-time, forces theoretical physics to look seriously at a completely different approach to the problem. Rather than working from the large to the small, or from the familiar to the unfamiliar, it might make more sense to try working in the opposite direction, from the very small up to the large. The implication is that space-time is not the nice, smooth, continuous and well-behaved structure it has been assumed to be. It very probably has much richer topological features that are intrinsically quantum-like.

It is not necessary for the purposes of our discussion to have a definitive answer to the question about the nature of space-time. All we need to know is that the manifold is not a continuous mathematical structure with points arbitrarily close together; it has "holes" in it. (Renteln, 1991) If this is indeed the case, the logic of geometrical thinking compels some kind of higher dimensional "medium" for this multiply-connected topology to exist in. The term "sponge-like" seems to be an apt metaphor for this new kind of space-time, since it implies a surrounding medium that permeates it. It is our contention that this medium can be identified with the spaceless and timeless realm of Mind.


Before continuing with the arguments supporting the model, it is appropriate to take a more detailed look at the region between manifest matter and the Planck length. This quantum "vacuum" has been explored both theoretically and, near the surface, experimentally. Some of its properties are significant for our discussion:

1. The vacuum is packed with energy of almost infinite density. Estimates vary, but the numbers are all beyond imagination. If the mass of the entire universe were converted into energy it would be less than that in one cubic centimeter of vacuum. For reasons which are still obscure, this enormous store of energy remains invisible and unavailable on the average. Since it does not seem to influence any physical processes, at least to a good approximation, it is convenient to treat it as a large constant, subtract it out of any theory, and measure all energy changes from the so-called "zero point" at the surface of the vacuum. This is comparable to measuring elevations from sea level rather than the deepest part of the ocean.

2. The vacuum is a hotbed of highly energetic "virtual" particles. Quantum fluctuations at the surface of the vacuum are displayed in the form of fleeting particle-antiparticle "pairs," emerging into matter form for brief moments and then being reabsorbed into the vast sea of energy. If sufficient energy is delivered from outside, say from a large particle accelerator, the pairs that are created are permanent, i.e., they do not instantly disappear back into the vacuum again; instead they are available for experimental purposes. The conservation laws of physics (energy, momentum, charge, etc.) appear to hold exactly in all these processes.

3. The vacuum can be polarized by sufficiently strong electric fields. The term "polarization" refers to a process in which positive and negative electric charges, initially close enough together so no long-range effects are apparent, are separated by an external force so that their individual electric influences no longer cancel out. In the case of the vacuum, virtual electron-positron pairs, i.e., particle-antiparticle pairs, which exist for only an instant, can be separated long enough to reveal their presence to experimental probes. (Greiner, et. al., 1985) For example, one of us (RLS), using precision X-ray techniques to measure atomic energy levels, showed that vacuum polarization did, indeed, have measurable consequences at the level of atoms. (In effect, this was a "Lamb shift" measurement confirming the existence of small spectrum changes for heavy elements.) (Shacklett, 1957)

4. The vacuum may be a possible source of energy. Extraction of energy from this seemingly inexhaustible reservoir has been a fond hope ever since its existence has been established through QED. Research proceeds on two fronts. Theoretical articles on possible large scale effects of this vacuum energy have been published in mainstream physics journals. (Puthoff, 1989) Considerable experimental activity, largely through efforts to obtain macroscopic polarization, is going on outside the mainstream with reports of success being published in various forms. (King, 1984) But in the absence of any noteworthy technological breakthroughs (to our knowledge), it is best to heed the advice of Puthoff (*Puthoff, 1990?, p.247), "...the prudent scientist, while generally keeping an open mind as to the possibility of vacuum energy extraction, must of course approach any particular device claim or theoretical proposal with the utmost rigor with regard to verification and validation." Our model would suggest that the extraction of vacuum energy could be sensitive to the patterns beyond space-time and, hence, to mental patterns. This would effect the "reproducibility" of such experiments.


Returning to our mathematical journey via quantum theory to the bottom of space-time, we have uncovered a troublesome impasse in physical theories as well as shown the reasonableness of positing a higher dimensional setting for the topology of space-time. To make our case more convincing we will now show that physics can resolve the impasse by introducing a different kind of topological structure for space-time. One which, it turns out, just happens to harmonize nicely with our model.

The solution to the problem of quantum gravity, which is what this impasse is all about, is a culmination of a dream of Albert Einstein, who believed that the various forces of physics could eventually be unified into one comprehensive theory. Until his death in 1955 he continued to work on unitary field theories but without making a great deal of headway. Others took up the challenge armed with more powerful theoretical tools. Then, in the early 1970's, the first major success was achieved with a theory and experimental verification of the unification of electromagnetism with the weak force.

Today, the effort continues in the high-energy physics community to apply the same techniques that worked for the "electroweak" unification to the strong nuclear force with the objective of achieving a "grand unification theory" (GUT). The ultimate goal, of course, is to be able to include gravity which would then result in the "theory of everything." This term, which is often abbreviated as TOE, appears frequently in popularized accounts of theoretical physics research. (Barrow, 1991) It is taken seriously by some, but for most physicists it is a tongue-in-cheek expression because the "everything" is limited only to inanimate matter. We will use the term in a metaphorical sense, referring to the goal of the unification program, but not implying in any way that we accept the notion that any theory can ever encompass "everything."

Nevertheless,the achievement of a "theory of everything" in physics would represent a tremendous advance in human intellectual understanding, and its pursuit is certainly as daring and exciting as would be an expedition to Mars. Barrow (Barrow, 1991) and Peat (Peat, 1988) have captured some of the flavor and spirit of this adventure.

There are three principle approaches being undertaken to the "theory of everything" which are potentially capable of providing mathematical pictures of "the other side" of space-time. All are based on novel topologies for the substrate of matter. These are called superstring theory, knot theory, and twistor theory. Superstring theories (there are a number being proposed) arise out of a 1970 proposal that elementary particles are not points but vibrating, rotating strings. (Peat, 1988) These are abstract one-dimensional objects having a length comparable to the Planck length and an energy spectrum which resembles that of ordinary particles in quantum field theory. The theories all require more than three dimensions of space. (An early version had as many as 26 dimensions!) One of the big problems with this approach is how to make the "extra" dimensions shrink into invisibility. In spite of this and other rather formidable problems, many theoreticians are investing a lot of their energies into superstrings.

Knot theory is a more recent arrival (Kauffman, 1987) and has fewer advocates who are, nevertheless, persuaded that their theory has more going for it than does superstring theory. Space-time, in knot theory, is like a medieval coat of chain mail, with tiny little loops of Planck length dimensions all linked together in a 3-dimensional lattice. (Waldrop, 1990) In knot theory (as in superstrings) there are no "points" on a continuous manifold to create the infinities that were such a bother in conventional, relativistic space-time.

The theory we wish to elaborate upon in connection with our model is twistor theory, a creation of Roger Penrose, mathematician and theoretical physicist at Oxford and author of the highly acclaimed book The Emperor's New Mind. (Penrose, 1989) For reasons which are partly aesthetic and partly technical we feel that twistors provide a better picture of what is going on down there in the "sponge" region of space-time.

A fuller accounting of the "twistor connection" will be given later when we get into the details of our model. The reader should recognize that the discussion of the unification program is really only tangential to our main purpose. The objective of the discussion was to establish the fact that mainstream physics is now ready to accept a radical topology for the space-time manifold if achievement of the unification is convincing, i.e., both astrophysical and accelerator data are comprehended by the theory. Furthermore, although only a small fraction of the physics community is directly involved in this effort, the concept of unification is a very powerful one that continually motivates both scientists and sages. (Weber, 1986) It is a goal which we believe will eventually be reached.


Throughout this paper we will be using the term "pattern" to represent a form or configuration in the cosmos. The term serves as a unifying concept for our discussion of the realms of Mind and matter. This section will focus upon patterns in our world of matter and relate it to issues in quantum physics. In later sections of the paper we will discuss the relationship of patterns to the spaceless-timeless realm.

Figure 5 is a picture of the atoms in mullite which is composed of the oxides of aluminum and silicon. (LBL Research Review, 1989) This is a photograph of atoms taken using the Atomic Resolution Microscope at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. What one sees is a pattern that looks like the close weaving in a rug. The inserts represent computer modeling of the arrangement of the atoms and one can see the close relationship. Looking at more of the patterns in the universe let's move from atoms to a large molecule. The Figure on the cover of this issue of Subtle Energies is a molecule of DNA and is a completely computer generated model done by the Computer Graphics Laboratory of the University of California, San Francisco.

These patterns of nature can also be considered as sound or music. Dr. David Deamer, a molecular cell biologist at the University of California at Davis has decoded and translated the DNA molecule into music. The genetic material in all of life and its various forms is made up of only four base molecules -- adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. These are paired up in various combinations (or sequences) along the DNA double helix structure. Dr. Deamer assigned musical notes to each of the four bases with the ground rule that another molecular biologist must be able to look at the music and decode it into the original sequences. The interesting musical sounds obtained vary and depend upon the source of the DNA -- some very meditative type of music resulted from the patterns. (Deamer, 1985)

Susan Alexjander, a composer, took a different approach. Since the four DNA bases are crystalline molecular structures, she investigated the light frequencies that would "ring these crystalline chimes," i.e., the infrared light waves that would resonate with the DNA base molecules. Scientists call this the infrared absorption spectra. By transposing this spectra into the audible range, four nonlinear musical scales were created. Using the four "DNA musical scales," Susan tuned instruments and composed music that was issued as the recording Sequencia (Alexjander, 1990). The beautiful harmonious nature of this "music of life" is astonishing.

Having considered patterns created by particles and noting the effect of light on those patterns, we will next consider the patterns generated by electromagnetic waves like light when they interact with each other. Figure 6 shows the patterns created when one takes a flat surface, punches patterns of holes, and then shines light at the surface. What you get when the light goes through the holes are interference or diffraction patterns that look very much like mandalas. (Harburn, et al, 1975)

Holography is a "quantum leap" in the science of image-making which makes use of the interference patterns from waves of light to create images in time and space. It has spawned a new art form of three dimensional light sculptures that are becoming increasingly better simulations of our perceived reality. "The hologram does not merely represent space, it isspatial." (Berner, 1980)

In order to regard the entire Mind-matter continuum as a realm of patterns we need to raise the question of whether there is an inherent difference between the patterns of matter and the patterns of waves of light? In quantum physics "light" is accorded equal status with matter and both treated dualistically by the mathematics as either wave or particle. However, only when one wants the physical representation of the mathematics does there arise a question regarding the patterns of matter or waves. In quantum physics this issue is known as the measurement problem: the shifting border between waves and particles. Where does this division occur between the world that must be described by waves and the world that must be described by particles? Where does this boundary lie?

Whenever a measurement is made on a quantum system it is done with ordinary apparatus in this classical world - a world without waves, a world of particles. However, it is possible to treat the measuring apparatus itself as a quantum system, in which case the wave equation of quantum mechanics must be used, and the apparatus then becomes wave-like rather than particle-like. But now this second quantum measuring apparatus must be observed by a classical system. In other words, to get a quantum mechanical answer to a quantum question is essentially impossible because it requires an infinite regress of quantum and classical systems. Therefore, it is necessary to step outside of the classical world of particles entirely in order to comprehend the quantum world. In effect, we must change our "frame of reference" to another realm -- a realm of "archetypal" patterns which we will discuss later.

Hence, trying to decide where the waves really are and where the particles really are represents a shifting boundary. Everything physical can be described by the mathematics of quantum wave mechanics, yet the particles only manifest when a measurement is made. In a practical application this process terminates at some point when the measurement is accurate enough for the purposes at hand. Thus, in practice the shifting border between waves and particles doesn't matter. However, it does matter in principle, and we take the position that the boundary has been extended to where the physical universe can be considered to consist of only waves or holographic patterns. (Bell, 1988)



The principle focus of the development so far has been to examine the mind-matter boundary of space-time from the side that physics is concerned about, being careful to point out that we are using a tool of the mind -- mathematics -- in the process. We have seen that the boundary is permeable, more like a sponge than the solid wall that conventional science has believed in for so long. It is appropriate at this juncture to take a look from the other side, realizing, of course, that this time we have very little scientific tradition on which to base our argument that Mind has any connection at all to space-time. It is therefore incumbent upon us to build the case by the logical use of evidence. And just as is done in the courtroom, the individual strands of evidence, while unconvincing alone, when skillfully braided together become highly persuasive.

Hence, what can be said about what lies beyond space-time and its relationship to our lives in everyday "physical reality?" In exploring this question we encountered an interesting connection between one of the important contributors to quantum physics in its developing stages, Wolfgang Pauli, and the founder of depth psychology, Carl Jung. {Footnote: Werner Heisenberg announced his discovery of quantum theory in 1925. Later in his life, Heisenberg claimed "that his most important influence had not been university professors or textbooks, but his discussions with Pauli," his friend and fellow student. (Peat, 1990, p. 31)} Pauli's quest was very similar to ours, namely, the relationship between mind and matter. Working together with Carl Jung he perceived parallelism between quantum physics and Jung's depth psychology and eventually published a joint book on aspects of their ideas (Jung & Pauli, 1955).

Jung, as early as 1919, had developed the theory of archetypes, the ordering factors in the collective unconscious, i.e., in the mental realm. In the following decades, Jung constantly deepened and broadened the theory. Pauli's contribution was that he considered it necessary to include in any unified conception of the cosmos both the world of physics and the "ordering operators," i.e., the archetypal patterns of the mental realm. Jung was profoundly influenced by Pauli's formulation and finally came to view archetypes as the ordering factors of both mind and matter. Jung applied the term unus mundus to denote a spaceless-timeless realm that encompasses the physical. Jung stated that his idea of an unus mundus is founded "on the assumption that the multiplicity of the empirical world rests on an underlying unity, and that not two or more fundamentally different worlds exist side by side." (von Franz, 1974, p.p. 8-9).

From the 1920's on Jung had been impressed by the many instances of synchronicity in his own and his patients' lives. He defined synchronicity as "the meaningful coincidence or equivalence of a psychic and a physical state that has no causal relationship to one another." (Jung, 1963, p.388) As time went on, and with the urging of his colleague, C. A. Meier, he came to view this kind of notable event as only a particular instance of a general "acausal orderedness" in nature. (Meier, 1988). These insights were of great consequence in the further development of Jung's theories.

Connection had now been made with the phenomena of quantum physics, especially the phenomena of non-locality, and with the theory of archetypes. Jung had found that archetypes were regularly activated in synchronistic events and accounted for their meaningfulness. So it was evident that archetypes reach across the boundary (or what we have called the "sponge") between the mental realm and the sphere of matter. In our model it is the feedback linkage across the "sponge" that creates the dynamism of the whole.

The possibility was raised by Jung and Pauli that there exists an ordering process beyond space-time (von Franz, 1981). We, too, assume that the archetypes represent units of ordering in this spaceless-timeless reality and that new orderings result in acts of creation in space-time. This latter point has been addressed by quantum physicist, Dr. Henry Stapp who presents a process formulation of quantum theory. He has called the ordering in the spaceless-timeless reality "process time." He distinguishes it from the ordering in space-time which he refers to the "Einstein time" of today's physics. "Process time" is "the time associated with a cumulative process whereby things gradually become fixed and settled." Thus, this "allows quantum theory to be regarded as a theory describing the actual unfolding or development of the universe itself." (Stapp, 1984) However, there is no a priori requirement that the sequence of the ordering in the spaceless-timeless reality map be a linear time sequence of events in our space-time reality.

We are assuming that there exists a hierarchical structuring of patterns at the archetypal level in a nested mode similar to the hierarchical structuring of patterns in the physical world. Thus, in the physical world we are aware of the nested patterns of bodies, organs, cells, molecules, atoms, particles, etc. In a analogous manner we could ascribe in the spaceless-timeless realm of Mind a hierarchy of archetypes to mammals, primates, humans, male/female, race, culture, family, etc. Just as in the physical body there exists feedback among the nested hierarchy of parts, so too at the archetypal level we are assuming that there is a similar "horizontal" feedback among the nested parts.

We suggest that there may exist a similar "horizontal" hierarchy within the spaceless-timeless realm. Thus, archetypes could be considered fundamental "elements" -- akin to the atomic elements from which the physical world is built and derives its structural order. The fundamental archetypes represent units or elements of ordering in the spaceless-timeless realm and new orderings result in acts of creation in space-time. Late in his life Jung had the conviction that "natural integers contain the very element which regulates the unitary realm of psyche and matter." (von Franz, 1974, p. 27)

We agree with Jung, and assume that the symbols we use in our physical world that represent "number" evolve from (and thus are representations of) these most fundamental archetypes for the order beyond space-time. Hence, these representations of the "number" archetypes serve the role of mediator between the happening in the physical or outer reality and the mental or inner reality. Jung contended that "number serves as a special instrument for becoming conscious of such unitary patterns" beyond space-time. (von Franz, 1974, p.27). Pauli held similar beliefs and stated that the concept of archetype "should be understood in such a way as to include the ideas, among others, of the continuous series of whole numbers in arithmetic, and that of the continuum in geometry." (Pauli quoted in von Franz, 1974, p. 18)

The archetypal hypothesis developed by Jung and Pauli and its relation to number was extended by a colleague of Jung, Dr. Marie-Louise von Franz. (von Franz, 1974) Dr. von Franz was also one of Pauli's analysts and had great influence on his inner development. (van Erkelens, 1991, p. 43) Based upon von Franz's research this more general archetypal hypothesis has been summarized as follows:

1) All mental and physical phenomena are complementary aspects of the same unitary, transcendental reality.

2) At the basis of all physical and mental phenomena there exist certain fundamental dynamical forms or patterns of behavior called number archetypes.

3) Any specific process, physical or mental, is a particular representation of certain of these archetypes.

4) In particular, the number archetypes provide the basis for all possible symbolic expression.

5) Therefore, it is possible that a neutral language constructed from abstract symbolic representations of the number archetypes may provide highly unified, although not unique, descriptions of all mental or physical phenomena. (Card, 1991, p. 33)

Many different symbols and formats of symbols can be used to access and describe a given archetype. The primary archetypes have been represented by the symbols for numbers (Arabic, Roman, words, etc.) and by letters (Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, etc.)as we will discuss in a later section. Thus, one can envision symbols for archetypes 1) as one dimensional such as strings of numbers or of letters as in sacred texts, 2) as two dimensional such as the matrices of quantum physics or the Chinese matrices used to represent "the total archetypal order of the unus mundus and all its conceivable contents" (von Franz, 1974, p. 141), and 3) as three dimensional such as the knots of knot theory. Any pattern such as geometric figures, mandalas, sound/music, or language can be transposed into a number format as is evident from our compact disks and computer technologies. Therefore, art, music, and poetry are representations of levels of complexity in archetypal forms beyond space-time.

Both Western science and the ancient cultures used matrices, rectangular arrays of numbers, as representations of an aspect of reality. A matrix is a generalization of the concept of "number" in the sense that an ordinary number is a 1 x 1 matrix and is therefore a special case of a general n x m matrix. Matrices are a representation of the abstract group which is the mathematical theory of symmetry and are of critical importance to Heisenberg's formulation of quantum mechanics. A very significant difference between matrices and simple numbers is that matrix multiplication is in general non-commutative, i.e., a x b _ b x a. In fact, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle "follows quite logically once matrices are chosen as the natural language for quantum physics." (Peat, 1990, p.39)

However, there exists a basic difference on how "numbers" are viewed when used by Western scientists versus ancient "scientists." In Western science, the numbers that make up the matrices are each considered only to represent a quantity. This is not true for the ancients. For example, in a Chinese matrix like the Lo-shu, each single element of the matrix is regarded as a quality of a "field." (von Franz, 1974, p. 26) with each number functioning as a hierarchically regulating element. "The single numbers of the matrices are not subdivisions but illustrations of the 'phases of transformation' that form the time-bound aspects of the whole." (von Franz, 1974, p. 42)

If we accept Pauli's contention that certain mathematical structures rest on an archetypal basis, then the observed isomorphism of mathematics with certain outer-world phenomena is not so surprising as we have already noted. (von Franz, 1974, p. 19) This view is also supported by Bertram Russell in his Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy where he denies number's aspect as a mere "quantity" and describes it, rather, as an ordering factor. (London, 1956, p. 213; from von Franz, 1974, footnote p. 40) Thus, modern science may work because it is unconsciously making use of the same patterns of order, the number archetypes, that the ancients recognized as being revealed by the "gods," i.e., originating beyond our space-time reality.

Over the centuries, symbols have been used extensively throughout all of human culture and have had specific qualities associated with them. (Cirlot, 1971) It is our premise that the patterns for all symbols in space-time have their base in archetypical patterns that are beyond space-time. Thus, symbols can be considered archetypical representations in the physical world.

Every symbol has potential meaning for an individual. Through relationships that we will discuss later, the accompanying emotion can release energy stored in the body. The meaning and hence the amount of potential energy to be released is individualized, i.e., it is different for each person and under different circumstances can be different for the same person. The amount of potential energy associated with a given symbol depends upon one's past experiences including culture, family, and individual experiences. To release this potential energy one need only focus attention upon a relevant symbol. The act of attention connects one to the corresponding archetypical pattern existing in the spaceless-timeless realm. Because of the way our brains function, the sharper the focus of attention and the longer its duration, the greater depth into a given hierarchical structure of the archetypical pattern one can penetrate.

When an archetype is activated from the physical space-time level by an individual, there is a "horizontal" feedback connection to its next more encompassing level, i.e., to a wholeness greater than the original archetype. This new level of "wholeness," in turn, manifests as "vertical" feedback from the spaceless-timeless realm to the physical space-time realm. It is experienced in the individual's body as emotions and feelings to which we ascribe meaning. The emotions are a person's internal releases of energy - releases of energy stored in the body - whereas the feelings are our judgments about something and can be without emotion.

In his discussion of archetypes, Carl Jung uses the term "numinosity" where "numen" means godlike or a characteristic of or befitting a deity. Jung states: "I must stress one aspect of the archetypes which will be obvious to anybody who has practical experience of these matters. That is, the archetypes have, when they appear, a distinctly numinous character which can only be described as 'spiritual,' if 'magical' is too strong a word. Consequently this phenomenon is of the utmost significance for the psychology of religion. In its effects it is anything but unambiguous. It can be healing or destructive, but never indifferent, provided of course that it has attained a certain degree of clarity." At another point he states: "The archetypes have about them a certain effulgence or quasi-consciousness, and that numinosity entails luminosity." (Jung, 1973/1960)

Normally we are unaware of the existence and effects of archetypes in our everyday life. However, when an individual undergoes a major disruption due to a loss of a loved one, a life's job, a near death experience, etc., there appear changes at the archetypical level that reflect to the physical. The person may undergo a period of transition from one stable state via chaos towards a new stable state. These inner messages from the spaceless-timeless reality of the unconscious can be received directly as dreams or can be made accessible through one's expressions in art, dance, music, poetry, etc. often with the help of persons skilled in such therapy. A pattern emerges as these symbolic messages unfold over time. When deeply understood and empowered by personal energy, the result is a restructuring of the person's psyche and a restoration of balance between body, mind and spirit. Failure to successfully make the transition can lead to dis-ease and sometimes death.

Our quantum linkage model would predict that the fundamental "number" archetypes permeate every level of the physical and mental hierarchies. To better appreciate the concept of "number" archetypes, let's explore how they might be operating in the pervasive attraction between "opposites" that characterizes much of the phenomena of matter and mind. At the most basic level of matter is the attraction between negatively and positively charged particles. Then on up through the hierarchy -- the attraction of adenine for thymine and guanine for cytosine in the DNA molecule. It's as if they have to find each other and marry. Then the attraction of the sperm and the ovum. Why does that sperm go on an incredible hero's journey to reach the ovum? Then all through the animal world there are unbelievably complicated ritual approaches necessitated by the attraction between the female and the male. Of course, look what happens to us human beings when we are overtaken by the force of attraction! Even in the human mind the opposites are in constant play.

Both the ancient literature and the work of Jung and Von Franz are in good agreement on the "qualities" inherent in the first five "number" archetypes. (von Franz, 1974; Hall, 1988, p. LXXII) The first numeral, one, is unity -- an archetype and attribute of God. The first distinction breaks it into opposites -- the inside and the outside. This is how a "one" gets to know itself and why self-reference and feedback permeate the universe. The even numbers represent archetypes that can be divided into two equal parts and have the female attribute of receptiveness. The odd numbers are masculine, active and disharmonic. Five is the union of an odd and even number. To the ancients it symbolized light, health, and vitality and a connection to the spiritual realms -- to the spaceless-timeless realms. This connection energizes a new archetype that results in a manifestation or creation in space-time -- in the physical.

The "two" represents polarity; it has to exist, but Nature did not intend it to exist forever. The division appears necessary to establish a limited power of discrimination -- an ability to learn. "The individual creations must of themselves search out their reunion. Creation is a process of division within unity, and evolution is finally a uniting of separated parts." (Hall, 1984) Hence, every part of duality must labor to restore unity -- this attraction would seem an inherent quality of the "number" archetypes. Another name for the unity is love -- and is why love has such great power to heal.

In summary we assume that 1) there exists a reality beyond space-time to which everything in the physical world is linked, resulting in a connectiveness that negates the apparent separateness of our space-time reality, 2) there exists an ordering principle or process in this spaceless-timeless reality that affects processes and patterns in our space-time reality via a downward causation, 3) there is a fundamental or lowest level of ordering that reflects a universally recurring, common motion of patterns for both mental and physical energy, and 4) because of the linkage, humans interact in a feedback manner with the reality beyond space-time and thus, can alter aspects of the ordering process while seeking balance with the whole.

The feedback process between the patterns of the space-time physical world and the archetypical patterns of the spaceless-timeless world of Mind and can be viewed as a mirroring or self-referencing process in both directions. The process results in a cosmos that can be considered as a self-organizing system of continuous creation -- a "Living Cosmos." (Elgin, 1988)


Mathematics is the study of pure patterns. Since everything in the cosmos can be considered a kind of pattern, mathematics is the study of this language of nature (Rucker, 1987). A preliminary step will be to elaborate further on Assumption 3 where we stated that the contents of the mental realm are essentially patterns -- archetypical patterns that include those that are accessed by mathematical symbols.

That mathematics is a mental activity seems self-evident, but where is the locus of the objects that mathematicians work with? The mathematician, Dr. Morris Kline, after quoting a number of mathematicians on the objectivity of mathematical material, concludes:

These assertions about the existence of an objective, unique body of mathematics do not explain where mathematics resides. They say merely that mathematics exists in some extrahuman world, a castle in the air, and is merely detected by humans. The axioms and theorems are not purely human creations; instead, they are like riches in a mine that have to be brought to the surface by patient digging. Yet their existence is as independent of man as the planets appear to be. (Kline, 1985, p. 200)

If this testimony from practicing mathematicians strongly suggests that the mathematical "landscape" is there to be explored by anyone so inclined, then the story of the Indian genius, Ramanujan, should be even more convincing. (Kanigel, 1991) This young man's dramatic emergence into mathematical prominence in 1915 was preceded by only the barest exposure to elementary mathematical concepts in his very limited formal schooling. Yet his formulas and theorems went far beyond the ability of advanced mathematicians of his day to prove and are only now being proved using methods completely unknown to Ramanujan.

His biographer makes this comment on Ramanujan's philosophy regarding mathematical reality:

In the West, there was an old debate as to whether mathematical reality was made by mathematicians or, existing independently, was merely discovered by them. Ramanujan was squarely in the latter camp; for him, numbers and their mathematical relationships fairly threw off clues to how the universe fit together. Each new theorem was one more piece of the Infinite unfathomed. (Kanigel, 1991, p 66)

How can the individual mind explore this landscape which gives every indication of being "public?" Penrose suggested that one's consciousness breaks through into this world of ideas and mathematical concepts and makes direct contact with it. He also felt that even though different mathematicians may come out with different mental images, they are able to communicate with each other about them because they had been in contact with the same externally existing world. (Penrose, 1989, p. 428)

It is clear that both Penrose and Kline have refrained from going as far as we have in our model in which we propose that the phenomenon of mathematics, described so clearly by these writers, is possible because the mathematical "public landscape" and the "private mind" of the mathematician are both aspects of one and the same Mind or mental realm. No journey to an "extrahuman world" or a "castle in the air" is required. The entire landscape is present and available to each and every mind that is disposed to explore it, because that mind is in the landscape and the landscape is in that mind.

Einstein once said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." We now have a basis for explaining this "puzzling comprehensibility": Matter, and thus the universe, is a manifestation of basic mathematical patterns. The human mind is capable of apprehending these patterns because it shares the same realm. Therefore, humans "understand" nature by experiencing it through those mathematical structures which harmonize or "resonate" with the patterns of nature.

The language of nature may be mathematics but it is the job of the scientist or engineer to write the script, i.e., to understand the constraints of the system. By the term "constraints" we refer to those parts of a system which represent an energy barrier which would have to be overcome to modify the behavior of the system. Once these constraints are put into mathematical form, we can determine how nature's patterns unfold over time. Mathematics then becomes a true representation of reality. This is why discoveries in mathematics have enabled us to predict and learn to use radio and TV waves which our normal senses do not perceive; and to discover particles too small to be "seen" by any existing technology.


Numbers and letters are intimately connected. For the Hebrews, Arabs, and Greeks, the letters of the alphabets were also the symbols for numbers. Thus, these languages and their alphabets are particularly intertwined with the numerical, mathematical and algorithmic thought of these ancient peoples. In addition, ancient cultures claim a universality or sacred status for traditional alphabets (Sanskrit, Islamic Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Tibetan, etc.). In studies of the Norse people's Runic characters and the Celtic symbols, anthropologists find that the symbols of alphabets appear to have served sacred and mystical purposes hundreds of years before they find evidence of their application as a written language for the general society (Branston, 1980).

We are suggesting that the "hidden meaning" of the letter/number symbols of the ancients is really the fact that the ancients knew that numbers/letters were symbols linked to an aspect of a universal idea or quality beyond the physical, i.e., connected to "number" archetypes in the spaceless-timeless realm. Thus, numbers/letters could be used as elements in a hyperdimensional map of that higher reality. These symbols for universal patterns -- whether we see them, hear them, or feel them -- are received by our sensory system and are mapped upon our brain. In the brain a comparison process and feedback to the mental realm occurs. There exists a filtering process. PET scans of the brain show that when we receive words or near words the brain "lights up" in recognition. However, when symbols or sequences of letters that are not "relevant" to a person are received by the brain, there is no indication that an active mental process occurs. (Petersen, et. al., 1990)


What evidence do we have that letters/numbers are symbols that connect us to fundamental archetypes associated with a universal idea or quality? We have not found such evidence in mainstream linguistic but rather in a commercial computer software application. The application is based upon a new linguistic and cognitive theory named READWARE invented by Dr. Tom Adi of Management Information Technologies, Inc., who developed the theoretical foundation from study of the Arabic text of the Holy Quran (Adi & Ewell, 1987; Ewell & Adi, 1987).

Although this theory remains controversial, the underlying hypothesis is that the letter symbols have inherent meaning and "that each letter acts on our mind in a way that is different from every other letter." (Adi & Ewell, 1991) Thus, letter semantics is founded on the principle that every word of a natural language is a combination of alphabetic letters, every single letter is a message in itself, and every way of combining letters is a more sophisticated message. By analogy letters could be considered particles, whereas words are more like molecules, yet both serve as symbols for linking us to the archetypes of the spaceless-timeless realm. The universe helps us "discover" letters and words. An "egg" could never be called a "horse" -- it just wouldn't resonate right in that feedback process between our brain and the mental realm -- and it would soon drop out of our vocabulary. (Adi & Ewell, 1987)
Based upon the this theory, a U. S. Patent was granted in 1989 and then commercial software was marketed. (Adi, 1989, Fellows, 1991) The first application, "The Research Assistant," is being marketed as computer software for the IBM-PC. The software performs an Idea Search in contrast to a Keyword Search. It is the first software program that understands human languages without dictionaries, synonym lists, thesauruses, indexes or the programmer's rules and strict query protocols typical of artificial intelligence (AI) text retrieval programs. Letters are converted to binary numbers in the computer. The computer program then uses two algorithms, one that computes the content of information about reality from the letters of a word, and another that computes the amount of common information content between two arbitrary words.

An independent evaluation of the software's performance recently was featured in the Library Software Review. (Urr, 1991) The reviewer noted that "The Research Assistant (RA)... offers a genuinely distinctive free-text retrieval program that uses neither the Boolean text-string methods nor any type of AI approach." After discussing the "letter semantics" theory, the reviewer commented: "This may all sound rather abstract, but I can attest that, even if you do not fully understand the theory behind this program, it does seem to work, often very well." The reviewer then went on to discuss "one of the most interesting or perhaps magical results" that occurred when he tested the program. "The program successfully found a highly relevant passage even though none of the words pertaining to the specific issue at hand, included in the search statement, appear in the text retrieved. No conventional text-retrieval program could have found the text RA did using the search terms employed in this exercise." The principle caveat the reviewer had was that the program pulled up a large proportion of apparently "utterly irrelevant items."

Because letters, or the sounds they represent, have meanings, the process may be applied to the words of all alphabetical languages, without the need for translation. (Adi, 1989, p.15). Thus, in the current software the query can be in one language, and the text to be searched can be in any of eight languages (Arabic, English, French, German, Hebrew, Russian, Spanish, Swedish) (Helgerson, 1988). In theory, the number of languages can be increased to include all alphabetic languages. In fact, Ken Ewell, President of Management Information Technologies, Inc., states that "There is no reason to believe that it couldn't also be applied to the Chinese language and its derivatives. We need only determine which of the Chinese symbols are elementary, in the same sense as in the Indo-European and other Western languages." (Ewell, 1990)


There is other evidence, again not mainstream, that purports to be the discovery of a mathematical relationship between a sacred alphabet and the sequence of letters in a sacred text. The research of Stan Tenen and the MERU Foundation is exploring the relationship between the Hebrew alphabet, the Biblical text and three dimensional geometrical forms (Tenen & Gough, 1989). What has been discovered is a mathematical relationship between a sacred alphabet (Hebrew) and the sequence of letters in a sacred text (Genesis). The letters of the Hebrew alphabet have been recreated by projecting two dimensional shadows from a three dimensional form as shown in Figure 7. Using a rotational algorithm, some of the letters even emerge in their appropriate order. From the same form letters of the Islamic Arabic alphabet have also been produced. Thus, according to this research, the sequence of letters in Genesis is just as determinable as the sequence of numbers in pi!

But how can any predetermined sequence of letter symbols yield the beauty, the poetry, of say the King James version of Genesis? Recall that each letter/number symbol has associated with it qualities of a "number" archetype in the spaceless-timeless realm that provide it meaning. Short sequences of letters will carry the more sophisticated meaning of words. In effect, the predetermined text of symbols is writing its own story -- a message from beyond space-time -- the "word of God!"

The MERU research has not been subjected to wide review or criticism, therefore, its value is untested. However, it is suggesting that the ancients were accessing the spaceless-timeless reality and expressing their discoveries via their sacred alphabets and texts. This was probably accomplished by mental processes such as meditation and prayer. Hence, the Hebrew alphabet and Bible could represent a sequence of letter/number symbols that relate to the archetypes of the spaceless-timeless realm. Thus, they may provide even deeper insights about the nature of the universe then is generally believed and may even model the life process. (Tenen, 1989, 1990, 1991).

The reconstructed model of the ancients that has emerged from the MERU research presents a theory of creation from a spaceless-timeless realm, that is both continuous and self-organizing. There is an "unfurlment" of space-time and the "things" or patterns that fill space-time. The system is open, and it is hierarchical and self-embedding. The MERU model predicts a feedback linkage between the physical and mental realms. This feedback in the MERU model is between a 3D physical world and a 6D mental universe and is via a helical (rotational) form. In complex space, the linkage can be visualized as geometric shapes that evolve from 3D towards 4D by a process of symmetry breaking. The MERU model of the ancients has considerable similarities with our quantum linkage model. We believe that the MERU work could become an important element in developing the long sought bridge between science and religion.



The approach thus far has been to focus attention on the two "sides" of the mind-matter connection in order to illustrate that they are, indeed, parts of a continuum. Now we will examine the connection itself in more detail with the objective of making plausible our contention that it can be understood within the framework of conventional physics and mathematics.

A brief review is needed to re-set the stage for this section. We have pointed out that the foundation for all the mathematical structures which so accurately describe the world of matter is the 4-dimensional manifold of space-time. The section on the Unification Program demonstrated that the classical picture of this manifold as the continuous, non-permeable boundary of all that is real is flawed and that physics is prepared to accept a new and richer topology for its foundation. Three candidates for this new topology were mentioned briefly, each having its own set of attractive aspects as well as potential drawbacks. We have selected twistor theory to describe in more detail based upon its several unique features that happen to fit in nicely with our model.

First, a disclaimer is in order. Twistor theory is an extremely abstruse mathematical subject, as one glance at the Twistor Newsletter (Twistor Newsletter, 1991) will prove, and we make no claim to being experts in it. Accordingly, we have benefited greatly from the work of other scientists who have been able to provide more readable interpretations of the highly technical writings of Penrose and his colleagues. (Ward & Wells, 1990; Gardner, 1990; Peat, 1988)

Penrose invented twistors almost a quarter of a century ago. They were created for the express purpose of replacing space-time with a new kind of topology of 4 complex dimensions (an 8-dimensional space) called twistor space. Twistors combine the spin or twist of angular momentum with an axial component of linear momentum. It is possible to visualize a twistor if it is projected to a space of 3 dimensions. Figure 8 is taken from the cover of the Twistor Newsletter; Robert Forward's verbal description is also helpful:

One way of trying to visualize the geometric view of a twistor is to imagine a small hunk of complex space shaped like a twisted rope ring that travels along its axis at the speed of light. If the twistor has a lot of energy, then it is a tiny, tightly wound, localized loop of thread. If the energy is low, then it is a bloated hawser whose influence extends for a considerable range. ... From a geometrical point of view, a twistor can be thought of as a "fuzzy" particle. (Forward, 1980, pp 40-49)
These are the entities that make up twistor space. To go over to space-time one uses the Penrose transform to take data from one space to the other. (Ward and Wells, 1990) Even though twistors are discrete as opposed to continuous, they are effective in representing space-time, because, at Planck-length dimensions, a point "fuzzes out" in twistor space as a result of the uncertainty principle.

Twistor theory has other features which help make it a serious contender in the race toward the Theory of Everything, and these are described by Peat (Peat, 1988) and Gardner (Gardner, 1990). For our purposes several need to be mentioned briefly: (1) Twistors can be combined in pairs, triads, etc., to model the properties of the elementary particles including their internal symmetries. (2) Twistors have a built-in asymmetry both in time and helicity (twist) which may be important in explaining why such asymmetries manifest at macroscopic and even cosmological scales. (3) Twistors are inherently non-local. This is such a significant property from the standpoint of our model that it needs to be discussed in a separate section below.

Some idea of the scope of the efforts of Penrose and his co-workers can be seen in the "Twistor Program" as reported by Peat (Peat, 1988, p 213):

o Extending the earlier ideas of spin networks and generating a space-time out of twistor relationships alone.
o Expressing the elementary particles, their internal structures and symmetries in terms of twistors.
o Using the complex analytic properties of twistor space to understand the various fields of physics.
o Exploring the implications of quantum theory for the twistor picture and speculating on ways in which quantum theory may be transformed.
o Understanding how space-time curvature enters via twistor space and giving a rigorous treatment of quantum gravity.

This glimpse into the intricacies as well as the power of twistor theory is to help drive home the point that there are a considerable number of physicists who are working intently on a theory, one objective of which is to show that continuous space-time is, at best, an approximation. In addition, it is possible to understand how working from the very small up to the large may be more productive for creating the TOE than the more usual large to small approach. Twistors, as well as superstrings and knots, are all capable of generating particle-like structures, and, with suitable additions (see below), the force fields responsible for their interaction.


There is one more link in the chain that needs to be discussed in connection with the details of the model. This remaining link bridges the gap between twistor space and still higher dimensional spaces that we choose to identify as sub-levels of Mind. The needed connection is provided by fiber bundle theory, a branch of pure mathematics called differential geometry. Bergmann provides this description of these geometrical structures:

Given a manifold, such as space-time, called the base manifold, one attaches new manifolds to each point. These attached manifolds, all identical, are the fibers. They may have any dimensionality, not necessarily that of the base manifold. Each fiber can be subjected to mappings, or transformations on itself, which maintain the fiber's essential properties. ... Given a fiber and its permitted self-mappings, one may introduce a connection that establishes 'corresponding' points on fibers at nearby points. (Bergmann, 1979, p.44)

Fiber bundles fit into twistor theory in an essential way. Ward (Ward & Wells, 1990) has shown that, while adequate for certain of the internal symmetries of elementary particles, twistor space is not general enough to handle the quantum forces that operate between the particles. He has, therefore, introduced fiber connections at each point of twistor space, giving it a much richer geometrical structure. Although we did not bring up the subject before since it would have required additional explanation not germane to our model, it turns out that there is an intimate mathematical relationship between the force fields (the so-called "gauge fields") of physics and fiber bundles. (Bernstein & Phillips, 1981, pp 123-137) The Nobel laureate, C.N. Yang tells the following story about this relationship which is germane to our model. He is relating a conversation with the mathematician, Shiing-Shen Chern:

I said I found it amazing that gauge fields are exactly connections on fiber bundles, which the mathematicians developed without reference to the physical world. I added, "this is both thrilling and puzzling, since you mathematicians dreamed up these concepts out of nowhere." He (Chern) immediately protested, "No, no. These concepts were not dreamed up. They were natural and real." (Yang, 1980, p 42)

Figure 9 summarizes this detailed description of the model. It shows explicitly how mathematical links connect the two realms of Mind and matter. Two caveats are needed, however: (1) Twistor theory and the Penrose transform may not be the final form of the "Theory of Everything." Some mixture of strings, knots, loops, and twistors may ultimately be necessary to provide the best foundation for the Unification Program. But we are confident that whatever eventual form the theory takes, continuous, 4-dimensional space-time will no longer be regarded as a firm foundation for physics; it will, instead, be considered as an approximation. (2) The identification of higher-dimensional manifolds (hyperspaces) with sub-levels of Mind is unique to this model and would not be regarded as orthodox mathematics. (If it were, this paper would not be necessary!) We believe, however, that the evidence and arguments arrayed here are sufficient to counter this objection.


Our model evolved from the science of inanimate small structures and is based upon quantum theory. Quantum theory has been firmly established, and however bizarre its predictions, no exceptions to the theory have been found. A key point that we wish to emphasize in this model is one particular aspect of quantum theory -- the issue of non-locality. Erwin Schroedinger called non-locality "quantum theory's most distinctive feature, the place where it differs most from classical expectations." Unlike all conventional interactions which drop off with distance and cannot travel faster than light, the quantum linkage due to non-locality is as strong at a million miles as at a millimeter, and its changes are transmitted instantaneously - considerably faster than the speed of light. (Herbert, 1988a, p. 58)

In 1964 John Stewart Bell proposed a crucial test between the predictions of quantum theory of non-locality and those of any theory based on the concept of local reality. This test, known as Bell's Theorem, did not propose an experimental situation in which non-local interactions are directly observed. Instead, Bell invented a simple argument that could be tested experimentally that would indirectly demonstrate the necessary existence of non-local connections. (Herbert, 1988b, p. 318)

Local reality means that effects that are strong within a given region of space fall off outside, so that it makes sense to divide the world into separate, self-contained systems that interact by forces and signals that fall off rapidly with distance. Thus, the idea of non-locality is shocking, because for hundred of years scientists have said that if anything moved it was because something else acted on it. Non-locality suggests that distant systems can be connected in a totally new way -- a way in which distance no longer seems to matter.

The experimental results are now in and most physicists are well satisfied that quantum theory has been confirmed and local reality has been ruled out. The tests of Bell's theorem demonstrate that the quantum linkage is real and that, whether we like it or not, nature has chosen to include this instantaneous linkage into her creation of reality. (Herbert, 1988a, p. 60) These careful experiments were carried out by Alain Aspect and others and have shown that quantum systems are correlated in ways that defy explanation in terms of any connections, interactions, fields, pushes, or pulls that would have any meaning in conventional physics. Today, the only possibility for continuing to believe in a local-reality theory is to suppose that the Bell correlations are somehow the result of a physical interaction or signal that passes between the detectors at a speed that is faster than light! (Peat, 1990).
Normally, we think locally -- that's how we divide reality. We divide it into separate self-contained systems where the interaction between systems decreases with distance of separation. Indeed, even physicists do not possess a single description of the world. They alternate between two modes of speaking about things - a classical language and a quantum language - depending on whether an object is being observed or not. The majority of physicists dismiss the quantum linkage of non-locality as a philosophical question not a phenomenon applicable to everyday life. (Herbert, 1988a p. 57) However, macroscopic quantum effects have been observed in superconductivity and superfluids. (Shimony, 1988; Leggett, 1986) What we are suggesting is that you consider in your concept of reality that such phenomena just might exist on a macroscopic scale -- even though the physics experimental data was developed on a microscopic scale.

However, not all scientists are avoiding the implication of the question of non-locality in quantum theory. Various scientists are developing ways to address the issue -- David Bohm and his Implicate Orders, Roger Penrose and his twistor theory, and Edward Witten and his knot physics (Peterson, 1990). Much of this work is seeking a generalization of geometry that lies beyond the space-time of general relativity and the non-Euclidean geometry used by Einstein.

We believe that non-locality at the quantum level underlies all phenomena and that the world is filled with innumerable non-local influences. Thus, we agree with John Stewart Bell, Nick Herbert, and others who state that these instantaneous linkages underlie everyday reality. (Herbert, 1988b, p. 319) According to Bells' theorem our knowledge via quantum connections at every level is non-local and instantly linked to everything we have previously "touched." Thus, we may ask, that if a quantum connection of some kind is established by every interaction, then why aren't all human beings experiencing this unity? One reason for this apparent absence of unity might be that, although the strength of the quantum linkage does not diminish with distance, there appears to be a form of "coupling coefficient" associated with each connection. Where coupling is defined as an interaction between systems, or between properties of a system. When there is little interaction, the coupling is said to be loose; with considerable interaction, it is called tight.

This coupling coefficient can be reduced by subsequent irrelevant interaction or reinforced by repeated interactions of the same connections. The fact that the quantum linkage can be diluted by irrelevant interactions means that to keep the connection intact, the quantum linkage may need to be protected from outside influence. It also implies that frequent direct contact is an effective way of strengthening the quantum linkage. Our suggestion is that mental thoughts/intentions can alter the coupling coefficient for a quantum linkage -- in people/people, people/matter, and matter/matter interactions.

This could be why clarity of intent, i.e., choice of a clear-cut linkage, and sharp focus of attention, i.e., removal of outside influences, are key to successful use of subtle energy in healing. In fact in all human relationships, one could speculate that any intense emotional process would initiate a persistent quantum linkage between people. Thus, forever after, their union is, in the words of Nick Herbert, "unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate" on the many levels of experience due do the quantum linkages. (Herbert, 1985, p. 214)

Also, in metaphysical traditions some of the admonitions in the practices have greater meaning if we assume that they involve quantum linkages, i.e., linkages to the spaceless-timeless reality of Mind. For example, the stressing of secrecy in the ancient traditions could reflect a recognition that the effectiveness of the process would be diluted by irrelevant or hostile mental interactions at the mental and emotional level. The emphasis on daily meditative practice could be a recognition of the need to maintain and strengthen the quantum linkage.

One could also speculate about certain types of scientific experiments. If a quantum linkage were to be a key element in an experiment, one would expect non-repeatability to rear its ugly head when there was a decrease in focus of attention or a negative outside influence. This may be at the root of some of the repeatability problems discussed in parapsychology literature. It also might be considered as a contributing factor to the strange reports of non-reproducibility in areas such as "cold fusion." (Close, 1991) However, we should avoid the temptation of attempting to explain away all mysteries by resorting to quantum non-locality -- nevertheless, non-locality is a phenomenon of nature that exists.

We will discuss later our speculation that non-local effects participate in our brain's functioning. We will also discuss how non-local effect relate to the ideas of Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli and the theory of synchronicity, i.e., that meaningful patterns in the universe are generated through acausal connections from beyond space-time. (Peat, 1987)


Bell's theorem and the requirement of non-local reality have not had nearly the impact on physics that one might imagine, given the startling implications of the theorem and its experimental tests. Ballentine has charted the annual citations of Bell's paper showing a gradual rise to about 33 over 2 decades (Ballentine, 1987). This "ho-hum" response is easily explained by realizing that to the great bulk of practicing physicists quantum mechanics is a calculational tool that works exceedingly well for certain kinds of problems, but as a guide for the formation of a philosophy or worldview it may be subject to too many differing interpretations (Herbert, 1985).

Nevertheless, to those having philosophy as a passion and who see quantum mechanics as the window to the basic structure of the universe, Bell's theorem may indeed be "the most profound discovery of science" (Stapp, 1975). Those working in this area, in particular those concerned with developing some kind of TOE, are faced with one of the most baffling problems in physics. How can a theory be formulated that incorporates the demands of Bell's theorem and still be compatible with all the other "good" theories of physics which are based on local realism? Herbert states the case rather forcefully (Herbert, 1985, p. 214):

Despite physicists' traditional rejection of non-local interactions, despite the fact that all known forces are incontestably local, despite Einstein's prohibition against superluminal connections, and despite the fact that no experiment has ever shown a single case of unmediated faster-than-light communication, Bell maintains that the world is filled with innumerable non-local influences. Furthermore these unmediated connections are present not only in rare and exotic circumstances, but underlie all the events of everyday life. Non-local connections are ubiquitous because reality itself is non-local.

It may be only coincidence that Roger Penrose was developing the beginnings of twistor theory about the same time that Bell published his famous theorem. But over the two and a half decades since that time twistors have received even less public notice than has Bell. For example, Barrow's 1991 book makes no mention of twistors while giving considerable coverage to superstrings (Barrow, 1991). This apparent neglect could be attributed to the somewhat radical approach that Penrose and his colleagues have taken as well as the difficult mathematics that must be mastered in order to deal with twistor space (Ward and Wells, 1990). The latter problem may be responsible for the dearth of literature on twistor theory for physicists who want to explore its features without too many mathematical accouterments. Fortunately, Peat (Peat, 1988) has helped fill part of this gap with a non-mathematical survey of twistors, and we have relied heavily on his work in order to provide this brief description of how they relate to the non-locality issue.

We have noted above that twistors are inherently non-local in their structure. This is because they are designed not to embody spacelike dimensional qualities; instead they combine quantum mechanical angular momentum (spin) and relativistic linear momentum (speed of light). As a result twistor space, which is made up of these objects, has the property of defining direction but not separation or distance. Non-locality is therefore an intrinsic and natural property of twistor space.

However, space-time is where we live, and it is also the abode of the conventional fields and formulas of physics. In order to take advantage of the power of the twistor formalism, the physics of space-time can be taken over into twistor space (and vice versa) by means of a set of mathematical rules called the Penrose transform (Ward and Wells, 1990). When the transform is applied to the space-time manifold it turns out that a "null line" or ray of light in this manifold corresponds to a point in twistor space. In other words, the points of twistor space can be thought of as encoding global or large-scale information about space-time. Bell's quantum connection, therefore, finds a natural home in twistor space. The deeper structures of reality do indeed lie outside of space-time.

But the "baffling problem" alluded to above still remains: How can it be that our space-time world of experience, which is dominated by four forces propagating at the finite speed of light, be coupled to a non-local reality in which connections are immediate and unmediated? This paradoxical situation, we believe, can be resolved within the context of our model. Our explanation utilizes two rather specialized subjects in physics which we have not needed to discuss up to now. The following two paragraphs will help set the stage.

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), philosopher and mathematician, has proposed a "process" model of the world which is regarded as one of the major philosophical works of modern times (Whitehead, 1929). Stapp (Stapp, 1979) has argued that this model provides a natural theoretical setting for quantum theory. "The basic elements of the model are events that actualize, or bring into existence, certain definite relationships from among a realm of possibilities or potentialities inhering in the set of prior events." The model is also in accord with the idea that "actualization" is brought about by mind or consciousness as part of a feedback loop.

The Unification Program for the forces of physics is driven by the belief that the forces are "gauge fields" (mentioned above under Fiber Bundles) and have their roots in an underlying "gauge symmetry" in abstract mathematical spaces (Barrow, 1991, p. 74) (which our model places in the mental realm). The common velocity (of light) that the forces have in physical space can be attributed to a common origin in a pattern outside of space-time.

Putting these two ideas together produces a picture of the physical world continuously "unfolding" out of the non-local realm of patterns at the finite rate of the speed of light. (This picture is not unlike that proposed by David Bohm (Bohm, 1980, 1985) with his implicate and explicate orders.) Thus quantum connectedness, which is intrinsic to the pattern realm, is compatible with the realm of matter with its universal speed limit. Since the Whitehead model provides for "actualization" via consciousness, this picture also suggests an interesting relationship between consciousness and light.

An analogy may help illustrate this point. Consider a loom which has a human operator watching the pattern unfold. The machinery of the loom runs at a fixed speed, but the operator has the ability to change the pattern at any time so that it conforms better to what she has in mind. Thus there is continuous feedback between what is unfolding and what has already been created. The weaving of the fabric of reality involves this continuous back and forth exchange between space-time and the higher realms.



Up to this point we have focussed on the static features of the model, making only occasional references to the processesthat occur in relating the parts of the system on the two sides of the space-time boundary. In this section we wish to elaborate upon the dynamics which apparently exist in this relationship. It is like describing how a telephone system works. First we show the wiring and other hardware and the interconnections. Then comes the electrical part in which the voltages and currents play their role in carrying information in both directions leading finally to meaning.

Our task is made somewhat more difficult because we do not have nearly as good a science of Mind as we do a science of matter. Physics and mathematics have evolved categories of thought which have made it possible for us to describe in conventional terms our proposed model of the connection between Mind and matter. But terminology for the mental realm is not as convenient. Although many different disciplines and ancient traditions have developed vocabularies for discussing the contents of Mind, there is not the degree of consensus on terminology that prevails in the natural sciences. Nevertheless, we have attempted to describe these dynamic processes in Western scientific terms with the hope that the reader will recognize that this effort is of a tentative nature.


In order to appreciate the dynamical nature of the quantum linkage model, it is helpful to recall one of its basic assumptions. We have assumed that the cosmos is an interconnected unity in which a hierarchy of levels are arranged in a "Chinese box" configuration with consciousness common to all levels. In effect such an interconnected unity represents a cosmos that is learning; therefore, in such a cosmos there must be self-reference, i.e., feedback processes must abound.

Indeed, feedback is an inherent aspect of how we learn about ourselves. For example, in our bodies the difference between the voluntary and the autonomic systems is the presence or absence of feedback to the brain. Once conscious feedback is achieved, voluntary control over an autonomic process is gained. This has been strikingly demonstrated through biofeedback research and training (Green, 1989). But we also receive feedback and guidance from the spaceless-timeless realm. This feedback appears as dreams and the inner voice, visions, feelings of the sixth sense which are often expressed by a person through dancing, drawing, painting, modeling, music, or poetry.

The combination of the two feedback processes, one from the body senses, the other from the mental realm, merge in the brain and cause one to experience "a strong double life on the borderland between the earthly and the divine, the temporal and eternal, nature and dream." (Jaffe, 1971, p. 88) According to Jaffe, through this combined feedback process the body, mind, and higher levels (spirit) can be balanced. Whenever this balanced condition exists there is a realization of self, and an individual becomes self-fulfilled with the emergence of an aura of authenticity. (Jaffe, 1971, p. 79)

There is a tremendous difference whether the human race recognizes and accepts the fact that there are these two distinct kinds of feedback, one in space-time, the other in the spaceless-timeless realm. This is what allows us to span the immeasurable distance between the polarities of divinity and humanity, eternity and history, dream and reality. If we do act on the basis of our dual nature, human potential is essentially unlimited (or at least we are in no position to set any bounds). If this does not occur then we can expect to continue to experience imbalance and dis-ease, both as individuals and in the society as a whole.

In addition to the self-referential aspects of the human being, all of nature seems to display these feedback properties, with mathematics supplying us with clues as to how it might be taking place. Feedback and self-reference are related to fractals -- all can be expressed as mathematical recursive forms (Kauffman, 1987). The unimaginably detailed structures created by fractal geometry have been found to succinctly describe complex natural objects and processes (Peitgen & Saupe, 1988). A fractal model of a fern produced completely through mathematics by the use of an appropriate set of parameters is shown in Figure 10. Even a landscape with all its complexity can be generated with fractal mathematics, this method being commonly used in computer animated movies.


The idea of the "dimension" of a space was defined in an earlier section, but we need to reconsider it in the light of fractals. The dimension of a "smooth" manifold (one with no holes) is the integer representing the number of coordinates for a point on the manifold. This integer is a "topological invariant," meaning that the manifold can be stretched and deformed (but not ripped) without altering its dimensionality. Consider, however, the relation between the perimeter of a snowflake and a circle. One would think they are topologically equivalent with dimension equal to one. But the snowflake's perimeter is infinite (theoretically) and cannot be put into the same class of manifold as the circle. It is regarded as a fractal. Dimensionality, for fractals, is therefore based upon metric properties rather than topological properties, i.e., properties analogous to distance. The result is that the dimension of a fractal can be a fractional value, such as 1.4427. (Stewart, 1987, pp 180-191).

Since fractals cannot be represented on a smooth manifold, their fractional dimensionality reflects "scaling properties" and results in self-similarity among scales. This means, for example, that one can take a section of coastline (a fractal) and magnify it, obtaining a result that is equally plausible as a stretch of coastline. Similarly, the fern of Figure 10 can be magnified indefinitely and still be a fern. Hence, for patterns in the physical world that can be represented as fractals, their coupling to the archetypal counterparts in the spaceless-timeless realm would appear to be independent of their physical size. In other words, for feedback from an appropriate archetype, it makes no difference if the physical pattern is on the scale of the solar system, a mountain range, a tree, a crystal, the DNA molecule, or the spin structure of an atomic nucleus. However, in addition to the effects of the archetypal patterns, the system is affected by other systems within the "horizontal" hierarchy of physical space-time thereby "bootstrapping" the infinite diversity we experience in the space-time world from a finite set of archetypes.

Thus, the mathematics of fractals gives us a form of "holographic" universe in which every pattern regardless of size can be thought of as linked in a feedback manner beyond space-time. This could represent a key organizing principle in nature. Such an organizing principle is supported by Michael Talbot's recent book, The Holographic Universe. (Talbot, 1991)


Another branch of mathematics provides a glimpse at an additional possible dynamic relationship between Mind and matter. The complex number system with its "imaginary" square root of -1 was invented to accommodate the needs of mathematicians but soon found a host of applications in physics and engineering. Imaginary numbers serve as a kind of "rotator" which moves a quantity into another "realm." The very names for the two kinds of numbers ("real" and "imaginary") suggest this sort of action. Thus, in relativity theory, time is wedded to space by making it imaginary. Also in applications involving time-varying quantities, such as electromagnetic theory, fluid mechanics, aerodynamics, and waves, complex numbers play a major role in simplifying the mathematics. But for our purposes the most interesting feature is shown by Kauffman (Kauffman, 1987) to be the fact that the self-reference process is precisely mirrored by the formalism of complex numbers.
A curious contrast exists between the roles that complex numbers play in classical physics and in modern physics (relativity and quantum mechanics). In the former, as indicated above, complex numbers greatly simplify the mathematics, although the theories could be expressed in terms of "real" variables. But in modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, complex numbers are vital to the correct formulation of the theories. It is almost as if modern physics is inviting us to move out of the "real world." Indeed, in Wolfgang Pauli's quest for a bridge between mind and matter, he received a very provocative response through his dreams about complex numbers. A Chinese lady presents him with a mathematical symbol -- the ring i, which corresponds to the complex unit circle. "As a mathematical element the complex unit circle is simplicity itself, but as a symbol it is as profound as the cross in Christianity. Its subtlety consists primarily in that it represents a marriage of two dimensions, the real and the imaginary." (van Erkelens, 1991)


The development of quantum mechanics in the mid-1920's proceeded along two distinct lines. One was Schroedinger's wave mechanics; the other was Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. It was eventually proved that both approaches were mathematically equivalent, even though the starting points were radically different. This fact suggests that we take another look at matrices and their applications even though we have already explored their connection to archetypes. Perhaps more light might be shed on the inner workings of the mental realm.

In addition to its esoteric use by the ancient Chinese discussed earlier, the matrix pattern is the basic element in the understanding of the "hidden" message in certain sacred alphabets and texts. It appears in the work of Stan Tenen in his MERU research of the Hebrew, in Tom Adi's Readware technology based upon the Arabic, and in the work of Manley and Petrie in their study of the deeper meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphs (Manley, 1920, p. 31). Thus, there may indeed exist an underlying relationship between this use of the matrix and the use of the matrix by Heisenberg in his formulation of quantum theory. Ken Ewell has speculated upon this possibility while commenting upon the recognition by physicists of the symmetry properties behind physical interactions. He says, "It is this same symmetry of the properties of the vacuum that is defined by the Binary Association Matrix, and this is the reason that I suggest that Letter Semantics is the quantum mechanics of mind." (Ewell, 1990) It may be useful to reiterate the point that matrices play a vital role in the mathematics of symmetry and group theory, providing the means for effecting various kinds of transformations such as rotations in abstract mathematical spaces.



We pointed out at the beginning of this section that a "learning cosmos" requires feedback. It also requires a means for storing the results of the feedback -- a memory. If this component is missing or seriously impaired, an organism is condemned to repeat over and over the same response to a given stimulus. Learning implies using the stored feedback information to modify the thinking or behavior. We wish to consider here the subject of the location of this stored information.

The conventional understanding of memory is, of course, that it is handled entirely by the brain. Sheldrake (Sheldrake, 1981) presents a number of arguments why this assumption should be questioned and suggests that morphic resonance with patterns is a more reasonable explanation. David Chamberlain, through his research on the memories of the newborn, is also persuaded that memory must be non-physical in nature. After concluding that "molecular events do not reveal the true boundaries of memory," he says: .

Memory may be an inalienable right of all persons, regardless of age; it seems to track our experience even under conditions of anesthesia, coma, brain injury, and damage to the senses. Although ordinary memory may be flawed, at a deeper level there is vastly extended memory, reachable in nonordinary states of consciousness. (Chamberlain, 1990)

Our model provides for connections that link the physical aspects of the body to corresponding patterns in Mind. Thus, the unfolding experience of an individual on the physical plane is communicated through the brain and stored in the mental realm in the form of enduring patterns. Retrieval of a memory involves "tuning" the brain to resonate with the appropriate pattern. Obviously, the process is much more complex than this simplistic view of it portrays. Nevertheless, something like this must occur if the brain is not the locus of memory. We will have further comments later on the function of the brain.


This discussion of the dynamics of the Mind-matter linkage has focussed on several kinds of mathematical ideas. This is not surprising since we have described the linkage itself in terms of mathematics; we are probably disposed to see other aspects of the process in more or less the same way. However, we are not able to be very specific in just how these mathematical processes fit into the general dynamical picture. It seems that all we can get at the present time is hints and glimpses about what may be going on. The various kinds of mathematics described do have a common feature, however. This is the power of transformation. Whether it be recursive forms, fractals, complex numbers, or matrices, the ability to transform is inherent. Perhaps we are getting in touch with some archetype that is behind the emergence of the physical out of the higher realms.



Do we have any evidence in our physical world at the macroscopic level of effects that might be consistent with non-local quantum connections? We are hypothesizing that a non-local effect could be considered as an "injection" of a higher level ordering into our three dimensional reality -- a type of downward causation. We would predict that when such a non-local effect manifests into our three dimensional reality it might have the characteristics of a "seed" with growth from inside outwards (intussusception). This is what is observed in living systems; but has anything similar ever been observed in non-living systems?

In crystals, normally the growth is by simple addition from outside of identical elements (agglutination). (Ghyka, 1977, p. 90) However, there now exists an interesting exception to this rule discovered at the National Bureau of Standards in 1984 called "quasicrystals" They represent a real-world embodiment of a mathematical construct called Penrose tiling. In Penrose tilings an "appropriate seed" must be produced. Even then, the proper placement of the Penrose tiles often requires knowledge of the positions of very distant tiles (Stephens and Goldman, 1991, p51). The symmetries of quasicrystals thus appear to require the presence of a higher dimensional pattern to guide the growth.

Nature might be accomplishing the trick of quasicrystals through a non-local effect - in which conditions in one region instantaneously influence events elsewhere. Indeed, Penrose has suggested that some non-local effect related to quantum phenomena might give rise to quasicrystals. (Horgan, 1990, p. 16)

This new state of solid matter, the quasicrystal, has 5-fold symmetry. This discovery violates the normal classification of crystals which shows that no crystal lattice can have fivefold symmetry: only 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6-fold symmetries can occur. However, 5-fold symmetries do play a predominant role in the shapes of living organisms, and in the diagrams of living growth. (Ghyka, 1977, p. 89) Marie-Louise von Franz, in her analysis of number archetypes, points out that in ancient Chinese number theory, five stands for the principle "which brings the spirit into material and spatial manifestation." (von Franz, 1974, p. 123)

In living systems evidence of a linkage to a more encompassing pattern in the mental realm comes from studies of other mammals, birds, fish and insects and their extraordinarily coordinated collective behavior that stretches conventional explanations to their limit or beyond. Rupert Sheldrake's work provides a large base of data supportive of our model. (Sheldrake, 1981, 1988, 1991) For example, Sheldrake describes compass termites from Australia. In Figure 11 you see that they have engineered these large and quite elaborate structures for temperature control. Aligning their broad sides so that they face east/west and their narrow sides face exactly north/south.(Sheldrake, 1988, pp.223-226) These structures are built by societies of thousands or even millions of individual insects with a complex division of labor sometimes over generations. Now each of these little termites has a rather minuscule brains, yet these structures represent a design pattern and a coordination process that human engineers would have difficulty duplicating. Sheldrake presents a wealth of other data that suggests that the individual insects are interacting with a more encompassing pattern or morphic field.

Our theory differs somewhat from Sheldrake's hypothesis of formative causation on two accounts. First, Sheldrake states that the location of the patterns which he has called morphic fields are in space-time although their medium of transmission across time and space may be "a 'morphogenetic aether,' or another 'dimension,' or influences 'beyond' space-time and then re-entering." (Sheldrake, 1988, pp.111-112) We suggest that there are archetypical patterns that reside in a spaceless-timeless realm, which we have called the mental realm, that create the patterns of space-time in a feedback relationship.

Second, Sheldrake states that new patterns, such as a newly synthesized kind of molecule, tend to form more readily all over the world the more frequently the substance is crystallized. (Sheldrake, 1988, p.131) We believe that this will normally be true, especially for the example given. However, we also believe that the rate at which a new pattern is established in the physical will be sensitive to the mental patterns of humans who link into that pattern in the mental realm. Thus, negative linkages due to individual belief systems could slow the reproducibility of a pattern, cause erratic reproducibility, or even prevent its development especially if the non-local aspects are a key element of the pattern being established.


Do we have any evidence that such non-local connections are present between human brains? The experimental test of Bell's theorem indirectly demonstrated the necessary existence of non-local connections. The experiment starts with twin photons that are then separated in physical space; yet a non-local interaction appears to link the two photon twins without crossing the physical space, without decay, and without delay. The closest parallel for humans would be identical twins separated at birth. A fascinating fact is that data from studies of identical twins separated at birth are consistent with and supportive of our model and the existence of non-local connections between human brains.

A major survey and reanalysis of all published cases of identical twins separated and reared apart was published in 1981 by Susan L. Farber. (Farber, 1981) In addition an exhaustive study has been underway since 1983 at the University of Minnesota under Dr. Thomas Bouchard using a twin family registry of 8,400 pairs. (Holden, 1980; Lykken, et. al., 1990). The value of these studies lies in the fact that they are the only studies on human subjects where the genetic component is constant while environmental components are variable. (Farber, 1981, p. 31) However, there were surprises that the investigators could not explain by genetics.

Farber states: "Physical characteristics ranging from height, to weight, to menstrual symptoms are greatly alike among the twins - perhaps not surprisingly, since at least some of these traits are presumed to have significant degrees of genetic determination. It is a little more eerie to discover that traits such as smoking, drinking, nail biting, or gestures and mannerisms are alike despite environmental differences and lack of contact." (Farber, 1981, p. xi) In a summary of "Paradoxes and Speculations," Farber asks: "Why should most of these twins laugh alike, describe symptoms in the same way, smoke similar number of cigarettes, choose similar creative pursuits, and sometimes even marry the same number of times? -- The suggested specificity at the level of mannerisms and nervous habits is hard to comprehend." (Farber, 1981, p. 269) We suggest that such similar characteristics result from non-local linkage between the brains of the twins.

In addition, the studies of identical twins reared apart provides surprising evidence in support of the concept of number/letter archetypes. This is the trail of similar names inexplicably often associated with such twins. Bouchard describes two adopted infants both named by their adopted parents Jim. When they were reunited at age 39 they found that their lives were marked by a trail of similar names. "Both had dogs named Toy. Both married and divorced women named Linda and had second marriages with women named Betty. They named their sons James Allan and James Alan, respectively." In another pair of long separated twins, Bridget and Dorothy, Bouchard notes "another case of coincidence in naming children. They named their sons Richard Andrew and Andrew Richard, respectively, and their daughters Catherine Louise and Karen Louise. (Bouchard is struck by this, as the likelihood of such a coincidence would seem to be lessened by the fact that names are a joint decision of husband and wife)." (Holden, 1980, p. 1324) Farber also reports such name similarities. In the case of Berta and Herta the twins had the same nickname of "Pussy" yet "The nicknames, it is worth adding, were in different languages since the twins lived on different continents and had not met since the age of four." This lends support to Readware's claim that the letter/number archetypes are language independent.

Another observation supportive of a non-local quantum linkage discussed by the researchers in both references is the paradox that twins with the least contact appear most frequently to be the most alike. For example, there exists a consistent finding in prior studies of series of identical twins reared apart "that the more separated the twins, the more similar they appeared to be on personality tests. --- Twins with no contact were more frequently alike than twins with ample opportunity to 'identify' with each other." (Farber, 1981, p 271)

In the physics experiments of twin photons, the particles remain "pure" in a vacuum, and any loss of information due to scattering, etc. is avoided. In the human identical twin experiments, such "scattering" could be produced by thoughts, i.e., interactions in the mental realm that change patterns. The research suggest that such mental "scattering" occurs, since twins when they come into contact "in the interest of establishing their individuality, tend to exaggerate their differences." (Holden, 1980, p. 1325) The fact that twins in contact appear to create differences in their shared patterns could also be viewed as a demonstration of the power of "free will" to change pre-established patterns.

How similar are the brains of identical twins? Research has shown that there "exists an almost perfect one-to-one mapping between each individual and his EEG" brain wave pattern. Thus, studies of the EEG's of identical (monozygotic) twins reared apart were performed. They showed that the brain wave patterns of such twins "are only slightly less similar to each other (if there is any difference at all) than is the EEG of the same person to himself over time." (Stassen, et. al., 1988)

The literature on identical twin reared apart discusses many personal characteristics such as religious attitudes, job satisfaction, antisocial behavior and other personality similarities that require a contribution other than the environment. In fact, the evidence from personality studies using identical twins reared apart suggests "that powerful convergent factors must be continuously at work over the entire life span. If this were not true, the divergent factors commonly believed to be continually operative would create greater and greater divergence and drive the correlation for MZA twins towards zero." (Bouchard, 1986) The technical literature attributes these correlations to a "genetic contribution." Our model suggests that the close coupling at birth for identical twins results in a quantum linkage that leads to strong non-local influences between the two brain/body systems. This would represent an added factor to the genetic and environmental factors normally considered. It could also be the basis for the "unexplained" phenomena being observed.


What does our model suggest about a complex system like the human brain? We are certainly not experts in brain research. However, based upon our reading of the literature and what we believe it is saying, we will outline key areas where our model may provide some insight into current mysteries.

We think you will agree that most of the patterns in the body are relatively stable. For example, when we look in the mirror, we find ourselves essentially the same as the day before except for what went on in the brain yesterday. That is the real exception. The brain is an ever changing universe of patterns. That is its purpose. Its function is to perceive, retrieve, and transmit patterns. The brain can be considered modular since different sections perform different functions. (Gazzaniga, 1989) In fact, a PET scan (positron emission tomography) that observes glucose tagged with radioactive carbon atoms clearly shows that different parts of the brain "light up" depending upon whether you are hearing, seeing, speaking or thinking. We are now able to accurately detect where energy is being used in the brain.

How little we really understand about the functioning of the human brain became apparent from data based upon scans of normal and hydrocephalic brains. Of particular interest were hydrocephalic brains in which 90% of the normal brain material has been replaced by water. Dr. John Lorber, a neurologist at Children's Hospital of Sheffield University, England observed: "There's a young student at this university who has an IQ of 126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain. -- I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms." Scores of similar accounts litter the medical literature. (Lewin, 1980) The data on hydrocephalic brains shows that (unlike an arm, leg, liver or heart that has lost 90% of its material) the human brain can still work well under conditions traditionally thought to be impossible.

Interesting research that vividly shows the brain at work has been performed by Dr. A. P. Georgopoulos and his co-workers of the John Hopkins University School of Medicine. Figure 12 represents the collective activity of neurons in a monkey's motor cortex as he performs the mental analog of a physical rotation. The change in each neuron's firing rate produced a "population vector" that accurately matched the direction of the movement. The mental rotation was continuous, and the direction of the vector changed steadily during the 100 milliseconds or so just before the monkey rotated the lever (Georgopoulos, 1988, 1989). That pattern of rotation in the brain represents an intent. The pattern could indicate that the brain has internalized many of the laws and constraints of nature. (Shepard, 1989)

Let us make some speculations about the brain based upon our model. First, we suggest that the brain may be a set of structures optimized to create, record, or change patterns so that they can resonate with aspects of the mental realm and provide feedback. Second, the brain is the principle organ in the physical body for converting the patterns received from the mental realm into electrochemical feedback to the body. Most of the scientific research on the brain/body connection has been dealing with these electrochemical phenomena.

How does this pattern changing process in the brain work? The brain is composed of scores of billions - possibly even a trillion - tiny cells called neurons. The neuron itself works electrically. However, the link between neurons are chemical. The chemical links permit the neuron's most astonishing characteristic: Neurons can change their activity, so that identical inputs lead to different outputs. It is as though the neuron has been reprogrammed. This changed activity is known as long-term potentiation (LTP). "Neuron reprogramming appears to be the basic physical event behind all learning." (Bolles, 1991, p.64, Our emphasis)

The firing of the neurons is a pure physical process. However, when the neurons fire, we become aware of certain qualities of experience. The sensations we feel at the time of firing are a pure quality of awareness, something subjective to be interpreted. These sensations are immeasurable experiences of awareness. (Bolles, 1991, pp. 163-165) Your brain has changed, but it does not store information about the reason for the change. There is no memory storehouse in the brain. Instead, the billions of processors in the brain just regularly reprogram themselves. (Bolles, 1991, pp.65-68)

One's experience of the sensations can be changed by the act of attention. Attention enables us to combine separate sensations into unified objects, and to examine objects closely to be sure of their identity. When the neurons respond to an input, a sensation suddenly enters our awareness. We can then focus our attention upon these sensations and discover qualities that the neuron processors originally missed. (Bolles, 1991, pp.53-54)

Experiments with rats have shown how this process works. When rats smell something familiar their brains respond to the first sniff with a specific pattern of activity, but the response to the next sniff is completely different. A third sniff leads to yet another pattern of brain activity. The same input produces different responses.

The reason is that when a brain cell fires, it is temporarily spent. It cannot fire again, so, as the second sniff of input occurs, the cells that have just fired are quiet. This rest period allows a new set of cells to fire. Then they too fall still and yet a third set of cells can fire. Thus this process automatically permits a perceptual analysis of the input. (Bolles, 1991, pp.65-73; Lynch and Granger, 1989) It's like looking at the "elephant" from many different angles -- we begin to obtain a deeper "meaning" for the concept of "elephant." This analyzing of a single input into a hierarchy of ever more specific qualities arises spontaneously and is why the focus of attention is so important in ancient religious and shamanistic practices.
One implication for the healing professions in our model is the prediction that the brain can reestablish a physical pattern if its linkage to the causative pattern in the mental realm hasn't been altered, i.e., reduced the coupling coefficient. Thus, if an archetypal pattern still remains active in the mental realm and the patient still remains strongly coupled to it, a problem originally solved by an alteration of the physical body might reoccur or a related substitute could occur.

The literature points out an important question in brain research known as "the binding problem." What ties the information from the different modules into some coherent pattern? (Palca, 1990) Our model suggests that the causative pattern exists in the mental realm, implying that, in theory, brain modules specialized for specific functions could be located anywhere and need not be adjacent to one another. Hence, "binding" between modules of the human brain could function in a manner that parallels the interconnectiveness observed among the individual brains of other less developed living systems, for example, the Australian termites discussed earlier.

New studies on how the brain is organized for languages suggests that language ability is localized in several discrete brain areas in a pattern that varies for each individual. The concept of a word is formed by clusters of neurons that store attributesotained from images, sounds, or letter/number symbols. A Feature Article in The Journal of Neuroscience states: "The modules of cortical language functions should include separate systems for different language functions. Each system includes localized frontal and temporoparietal areas as well as neurons widely dispersed elsewhere in the cortex, with the entire system being activated in parallel." (Ojemann, 1991) A New York Times article on this recent research states: "Language and perhaps all cognition are governed by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism that binds different brain areas together in time, not place." (San Jose Mercury, 1991) We believe that this "undiscovered mechanism" is the quantum linkage to archetypical patterns in the spaceless-timeless realm.

But what do we know about treating the brain in a quantum mechanical manner? There is a quantum theorist exploring this possibility. Dr. Henry P. Stapp has proposed a quantum theory of the mind-brain interface that addresses the question of the "operator" of the system. His theories provide a description of the physical and mental aspects of nature that can account for felt human experience, feeling being regarded as the result of a basic quantum mechanical process of the brain. The brain, he says, possesses a "projected body-world schema" which is a representation of the body and the environment that is continuously updated. High level patterns of activity inject into the quantum universe an integrative aspect. The mind is part of the hierarchical order and by its attention and intention the brain's top-level process is updated via a feedback loop with lower (or higher) level processes. In the brain's top-level process, actual events are pushed to a point where a choice is made between alternative possible instructions by association (Stapp, 1990). Dr. Stapp's quantum model of the brain supports the concept that there are non-local connections between the physical brain and archetypal patterns.


We have now reached a place in our discussion where it is necessary to deal with one of the most troublesome aspects of any scientific experiment which attempts to study phenomena involving animate or living systems, especially humans, as subjects. To illustrate with a familiar example, consider the process that must be followed in the testing for the efficacy of a new drug, required by the FDA before the drug can be marketed. Both subjects and experimenters must be blind to the identity of the pill that is administered, because the mere knowledge of the pill's true nature (whether the drug or a placebo) will invalidate the results of the experiment. It seems that people's thinking gets in the way of good, clean science. If those subjects could just be persuaded not to think about the experiment life would be so much easier for the experimenter! We all know, of course, that the experimenter is even more prone to have biased thoughts about the results, the effects of which are mitigated only in part by the double blind protocols. An excellent example of the lengths to which experimenters must go to reduce the "thinking effect" on the part of both subject and experimenter(s) appears in the first issue of this Journal. (Wirth, 1990)

The question we wish to address in this section is how the model can be used to explain the "thinking effect" described above and the great variety of results capable of emerging from it in any given experiment. In order to discuss this issue properly, we need to review a topic mentioned only in passing in Assumption 2: the Principle of Least Action.

In Assumption 2 it was stated that current physics provides an adequate description of the "inanimate" aspect of matter, with the four fundamental forces being governed in their interactions by the Principle of Least Action. "Action" is a physical quantity defined by multiplying energy and time. The action for a physical process which begins at time T1 and ends at time T2 and takes place over some "path" defined by appropriate physical variables is calculated by dividing the path into a large number of segments, multiplying the energy and time increment for each segment, and summing (integrating) the action for each segment to obtain a total action for that particular path. In order to determine which of the many possible paths connecting T1 and T2 has the "least action" one must use the Calculus of Variations, invented in the 18th century by the great French mathematician, Lagrange. It turns out that of all the possible ways a physical process can go, Nature always selects the one that minimizes the total action along the path. For this reason some have referred to the Principle as the "Law of Cosmic Laziness."
It is not sufficient merely to describe how the universe runs (which is exactly what the Principle of Least Action does). It is also necessary to explain how the Principle is to be applied in a given instance. In physics this is done using the concept of "constraints." In the present context this concept can best be introduced through the familiar example of downhill skiing. Imagine a smooth, snow-covered hillside of moderate slope with a weighted toboggan at the top (no human passengers). With a slight shove the toboggan is sent on its way to the bottom of the hill. The path taken is dependent on only two of the four fundamental forces, gravity and electromagnetism (which manifests as the friction of snow and air resistance), and the shape of the surface of the snow, this latter being the only "constraint" that governs the path of the toboggan. The resultant path is a combination of the effects of Least Action subject to the constraint of the hillside (plus, of course, the magnitude and direction of the initial shove). Given sufficient computational power and knowledge of the physical parameters and initial conditions, the situation could be modeled mathematically and the path determined through analytical methods.

Contrast this situation with that of a skier poised in the same initial position as the toboggan and given the same initial shove. The forces acting are similar, and the constraint of the hillside is the same. But the path taken is completely different. The reason is that the skier herself has imposed a whole new set of constraints by making moment by moment choices as to how to manipulate both her poles and skis. In other words, the "thinking effect" has changed a physical situation amenable to analytical methods into one which is completely beyond mathematical predictability. It is not that physical law has been set aside; Least Action still governs the entire downhill process. However, it does not have anything to do with the setting of constraints. These are the result of choices that are being made by the skier at the level of Mind and above.

Even for the "unmanned" toboggan the path was determined by choice, though in a less obvious way. In this case the "experimenter" at the top of the hill was entirely responsible for the direction and magnitude of the initial shove of the toboggan which determined the subsequent path.

All "ordinary" physics experiments are like this. (Chemistry is similar.) The constraints of the experiment plus the initial conditions are determined in advance by human choices, and natural law (i.e., Least Action) is presumed to have complete dominion between T1 and T2. The double-blind drug testing process mentioned above is assumed to fall into this category. Through rigorous protocols agreed upon in advance, the possibility of human choice altering any of the constraints of the experiment is reduced to a bare minimum. And even though the "thinking effect" on the part of the subjects cannot be controlled in advance, by having a large enough sample there will be an "averaging out" of this perturbing influence. Unfortunately, the "averaging out" does not work for the experimenters; there are not enough of them. Indeed there may be only one! What should be the proper protocol in such cases? Do not think about the outcome of the experiment? This would be like the old Indian proverb which says that if you are sick and want your medicine to be effective do not think about the monkey when you are taking it.

The reason that most physicists (and chemists) do not worry about (or are unaware of) such effects is that the experiments with which they are concerned are sufficiently "robust" so as to be immune from the effects. (The term "robust" can be given quantitative significance by supposing that the energy at any point along the path varies linearly to first order with changes in the constraints.) A "sensitive" experiment, on the other hand, would be affected by very slight changes in the constraints. "Subtle energy" experiments, by definition, fall into this category. What better illustration of this can be found than the fact that telepathic experiences appear to be influenced by the earth's magnetic field! (Spottiswoode, 1990)

In this connection it must be mentioned that there are some physical systems which are exquisitely sensitive to initial conditions, wherein minuscule changes at T1 lead to wildly different conclusions at T2 which are beyond the ability of human and machine to predict. These systems are called "chaotic" and are characterized by mathematically deterministic but highly non-linear processes. The "butterfly effect" illustrates this kind of process where the large scale weather experienced by one part of the planet is supposedly influenced by the flap of a butterfly's wings in another.

We have emphasized that choice plays a major role in the outcome of any experiment. We have also noted that choice originates at the level of Mind and above; that is, it is an act of consciousness. In fact, choice may be the fundamental act of consciousness for the following reason: We have shown that there are physical consequences of choice, either through altered initial conditions or altered constraints. Quantum theory imposes a lower limit on the size of such changes by "quantizing" action. This irreducible lower limit is represented by the so-called quantum of action, h, otherwise known as Planck's constant with the value 6.6 x 10-34 joule-sec. Thus, action can be changed only in finite sized lumps which means that there is a corresponding discreteness in the choice process (Young, 1976). Therefore, if choice cannot be broken down into smaller units or steps, the quantum of action must represent some kind of fundamental act of consciousness comparable to a basic "yes-no" decision or the binary 0 or 1 of information theory.

With the set of constraints for any specific process manifesting at the physical level and the pattern for these constraints existing at the mental level, our model provides a detailed picture of how consciousness expresses itself in and through a physical organism. We have already discussed Sheldrake's hypothesis of morphic fields and morphic resonance (Sheldrake, 1981) in which both the structure of an organism and its instinctual behavior are regarded as arising from the pattern realm. Structure, because of its obvious physical aspect, can also be understood as a fairly rigid set of constraints which provide a Least Action path for the organism's biochemistry of life. Habitual or instinctive behavior may, in turn, be constrained by the organism's structure, particularly if it has a brain. But both aspects of behavior have their roots in patterns, with the instinct pattern being generated through feedback within the species and the habit pattern through feedback within the individual.


These basic ideas serve as a framework for understanding the much more complicated (and interesting) subject of human behavior. For example, while instinct is regarded to play a lesser role for humans than for the lower species, the exact same process works to produce what Jung called "the collective unconscious," or the more recent "race consciousness." Powerful thought patterns pervade entire societies because of this process, although individuals can override such patterns through awareness and diligence.

Habits and beliefs are highly individualized patterns which regulate much of our behavior and thought. These are represented on the physical plane as structural constraints in the form of well-worn neural pathways in the central nervous system. This set of constraints has almost as much importance as body structure itself, because it is here that attitude and emotion play their causal role in the hormonal chemistry of the body. An individual's belief system can therefore be regarded as a key factor in the body's state of health and its ability to recover from dis-ease.

Beliefs, because they do represent thought patterns which are more or less rigid, determine to a large degree how flexible the brain is in its ability to tune in to a wide variety of patterns in Mind. This ability is the doorway to the paranormal, to healing, to shamanic practice, to otherwise "impossible" phenomena. Through the non-local connections present in Mind an individual can focus "attention" and "intention" on a distant target (i.e., outside one's own body) and superimpose a new pattern on that target, with its corresponding new constraint system. A new Least Action "pathway" is the result, and the state of the target is altered. Fred Alan Wolf discusses the concept of least action pathways extensively in his new book on physics and shamanic practices, The Eagle's Quest (Wolf, 1991).

Our final comment for this section relates to the concept of "letting go." The conventional wisdom teaches that the achievement of a desired paranormal result is more likely if only the result is specified in mind, not the intermediate steps. This wisdom can also be understood through least action and constraints. Physical processes usually involve the exchange of energy between a target system and its environment. If the constraints for a process are set in such a way that the necessary energy is not available, then the process will not go. If, however, only the end result is specified in mind and the limiting constraints relaxed (by "letting go"), a least action path to the goal will be found. We would speculate that this is accomplished through consciousness operating at levels higher than the individual mind.



What does a conceptual model proposing a "quantum connection" have to do with everyday life? To appreciate the importance of the model, we must first recognize that the model assumes that you, the "observer," are an element in the system that is being modeled. Hence, in one sense, the model is now going to look back upon itself. To emphasize this point, this section will not use the "objective" scientific style but will be written a second person style to emphasize that you are "within" the model.

As discussed earlier, science has demonstrated that in the quantum world, the world described by quantum theory, human perception is not an adequate tool for explaining this universe. What our experience gives us is the "illusion" of direct, unmediated access to the external world. Western science has demonstrated conclusively that there is no way to "sense" or experience the physical world directly. What seems to be our experience of an objective exterior world is in fact a subjective picture that we construct.

We all experience what we call "reality." With the quantum linkage model as a basis, let's explore how our mind/body system creates that "reality." Our perception creates our "knowing" and thus defines our personal "reality." Because the quantum linkage model includes "inputs" from both the space-time and spaceless-timeless realms, perception will include effects not reducible to the sensory input from the five physical senses. Thus, perception is about sensory qualities, not the quantities discussed by physicists. Perception is how we get to the identity and individuality of things. How we recognizes the essence of an event, i.e., perceive only the unity that characterizes the event, not the disunity that creates it.

In human perception the eye doesn't "see," the ear doesn't "hear," and the fingers don't "feel." What we do is send signals to the brain and the brain interprets the electrical patterns. We are aware only of the interpretations. Those things that come in as psychic and spiritual patterns, possibly through non-local connections, the body converts into understandable forms -- meaning that you perceive these signals as "seeing," "hearing," "feeling," etc. because they are going through the same process of interpretation in the brain as our ordinary senses.

However, there is a "filtering" system in operation in the brain. Our "interpretation" of the electrical patterns in the brain does not necessarily inform us of the true nature of what we are perceiving. Everything we have previously seen or experienced affects what we presently see or experience (Shepard, 1990). Your previous experiences affect how you perceive new experiences. Because your existing patterns are interacting with and affecting the new patterns, what you perceive as reality is a composite of old and new patterns. In general, we are unaware of the perceptual interpretation we impose on the stimuli of patterns that we receive.

For a quick example of how your old patterns affect your new patterns look at the Figure 13 of the triangle. You mentally fill in the white triangle. To convince yourself, focus your attention only upon the missing portion of the black line and you will see the white line disappear. It's an imaginary line that you have created because you know it "should" be there. (Kanizsa, 1976/1986) Perceptual truth always depends on the context. As Figure 13 illustrated, perceptual illusions can be undone by removing their context. "Perception's world is like a compelling situational language. Its vocabulary (sensations) is defined by circumstance instead of logic or absolute truth. To perceive the details correctly, you must understand the context correctly." (Bolles, 1991, p. 104)

You can also be deceived a little bit by what your senses tell you. (Shepard, 1990, p.48) Although we seem to do fairly well in the world, there are ways that we can be deceived. Observe the two table tops in the Figure 14. One appears to be quite a long rectangle while the other appears to be almost a square. Yet by placing a tracing of one over the other, we find the tops to be identical -- but our interpretations are clear -- we know what we are seeing, don't we? To understand what has happened recall that the image on the retina is two-dimensional. Your task is to discover the three-dimensional object causing the two-dimensional image and in this search for meaning you can be fooled. These effects show the critical difference between what strikes the sensory organ and what we perceive. Equally interesting examples could be given for our interpretation of sounds. (Shepard, 1990, p.30)

Figures 13 & 14 also illustrate another important point: "We expect everything we perceive to mean something. When presented with an image that has no larger meaning, we find one anyway, and science proves us wrong." (Bolles, 1991, p. 103) "Gestalt psychologists showed in experiment after experiment that people do perceive meanings - motion in lights, order in lines, and so on - that get at the very character of the events. Yet such meaning is not included in the sensory input." (Bolles, 1991, p. 24) Meaning represents the group of qualities that pulls associations together into a concrete unit -- the organizing principle that identifies the very character of an event. The quantum linkage model suggests that the organizing principle behind "meaning" occurs in the mental realm by association to a higher level archetypical pattern. In the mental realm nature always moves us to a more encompassing whole to perceive meanings. We do not develop meaning simply by adding up the pieces.

A research experiment on apparent motion performed by Max Wertheimer illustrates this movement to wholes. In the experiment a person sat in a dark room and stared into black space. Suddenly a light in front of him on the left flashed on and then off again. One-twentieth of a second later a light in front of him on the right flashed on and off. The observer reported that a single light came on at the left and then moved quickly to the right before going off. This perceived motion was a construct of the observer. In other tests the observers saw no difference between a real motion of a light and the apparent motion. The conclusion is that apparent motion looks and feels just like real motion. Subjects see the individual flashing lights as part of one unified experience. They do not perceive the components of the experience, but give a meaning to the whole input. (Koffka, 1935, p. 22; Bolles, 1991, p.p. 20-21)

A motion picture show is an everyday example of the apparent motion effect. In a movie, "afterimages explain why we do not notice the flicker of the projection, but it does nothing to explain how we see still images move. Why doesn't afterimage just turn all movie scenes into a blurry mess?" (Bolles, 1991, p. 19) By perceiving motion in still photography, the audience gets to the meaning of the display -- the reality being perceived is never considered to be a series of misjudgments about what is happening "out there" on the screen. Thus, apparent motion comes from the whole and the whole is different that the sum of its parts. In the mental realm the ordering of the "number" archetypes pull us towards these more encompassing wholes.

Indeed, we work very hard at obtaining meaning from our sensations that will serve us in the physical world. This has been demonstrated in experiments with prism goggles that invert images. At first the world "out there" is very confusing, but the person works to discover the meaning of his sensations. In a few days the confusion disappears and the person's hand-eye coordination returns even though they are wearing prism goggles that turn the world "upside down." The research proves that perceptual meaning does not come from logic. Meaning comes by associating one kind of sensation with another. (Snyder & Pronko, 1952; Bolles, 1991, p.80) We believe this association process occurs in the mental realm.

People tend to avoid the problem of unstandardized reality by perceiving stable meanings. Shapes don't change every time we move our heads and colors don't change every time the lighting changes from indoor to outdoor. "This perception of constant details is one of our most remarkable breaks with physical reality." (Bolles, 1991, p. 100) These "illusions" are useful for they keep us oriented in physical reality.

It takes time to learn a meaning for our sensations, and different people learn different lessons. We perceive what we have experienced and understood in the past. Studies of people blind from birth who suddenly gain sight always report that the person must learn the meaning of the new visual sensations -- the meaning of the sensations is not automatic. They have to learn to recognize simple visual shapes even though they know them by touch. Perceptual skills require experience and repeated exposure. It is this experience that determines your reality. (Gregory & Wallace, 1963; Bolles, 1991, p.p. 105-106)

"Experiments have shown that the perception of ambiguous sensations does depend on what you already know. One classic study had people look through a viewer that presented one slide to one eye and another slide to the other eye. In each pair there was a Mexican subject, perhaps a bullfighter, and an American subject, perhaps a baseball player. Americans usually saw the American subject; Mexicans usually saw the Mexican subject." (Bolles, 1991, p. 107; Bagby, 1957) Of course, a more accurate picture of external reality would lie in a broader perception that allowed one to see both resemblance and difference simultaneously. Thus, perception appears to be a learned interpretation of sensory experience. What you perceive depends on who you are -- on the internal reality that you have developed over time.

Dreams are the most familiar example of perceptions that have no objective source in the world beyond our skin. Dreams show what is possible when the interior performance is divorced from its external sources of input. The qualities that subjectivity brings to perception - chiefly, sensation, meaning, and value - persist in dreams. (Bolles, 1991, p. 137)

It is now established that the visual cortex of the brain (not the eye's retina) is active during REM sleep. Thus while waking perceptions begin with the physical stimulation of sense organs, REM perception begins with physical stimulation of the sensory cortex. The brain's visual cortex actively produces visual sensations. The brain's motor system is also active during dreaming. However, it turns out that just before the sleeping brain is activated, the link between the sensory-input system and motor-output system disconnects. Dreams are a clear example of how perception can create its own meanings. They show what remains when you take the physical world away. (Bolles, 1991, p.p. 141-148)

This model assumes that everyday reality is not simply out there but is a "perception" we construct from aspects of the "unity" within which we are immersed. The model implies that our experience of everyday "reality" depends upon both the current physical world inputs and quantum linkages to the archetypal patterns of the mental realm constructed over time. Whatever our current reality, that reality can be altered by changing the focus of our intention and attention. The model predicts that these changes in perception will require energy and work since new "least action" pathways must be created in the brain. However, the choice is ours -- the brain/body system is "tunable." If appropriate choices are made, such changes can move one to more encompassing wholes and, hence, to a new reality with unimagined vistas. However, such choices will depend upon the degree of your conscious awareness of the source for your perceptions.


Consciousness is like a display of oneself to oneself. But who is watching the display? A neural net can analyze the input, but meaning comes from the other direction. It jumps to see the input as part of a whole. (Bolles, 1991, p.p. 73-74) For example, what makes one sequence of notes a tune or melody and another noise? Yet, people know the difference when they hear them. One possible explanation is that the melody is not objectively out there in the music. Rather, a tune or melody might be a subjective interpretation by the listener of an archetypal pattern -- think about the effect of a song like Amazing Grace.

To better understand this process of conscious awareness we will use an analogy. Consider yourself as a type of transmitter-receiver immersed in a sea of information or patterns that you receive via antenna systems. Our ordinary senses -- our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and nerves -- serve as antenna system #1. These have a very narrow range. Our eyes detect only a minute part of an electromagnetic spectrum -- which ranges from below radio frequencies to the far reaches of cosmic rays. Signals outside the visible spectrum simply do not exist for our normal visual reality. Further, even within what the eye can see, we interpret. Colors, for example, have no meaning in the "outer" world, only in the "inner." Sounds also do not exist objectively. Our ears only detect vibrations between 20 and 20,000 cycles per second -- all other vibrations do not exist for our normal acoustical reality. So it is with the other senses; all are sharply limited in what they can detect.

What science has done is to extend that range -- to convert signals in nature into forms compatible with our narrow range of perception. Thus, we "see" in the infrared and the ultraviolet, and use electrons to "see" atoms, etc. The narrow range of human perception has a purpose. It is fortunate that we don't hear or see everything that is going on in nature -- that would be an informational overload. At every moment through the space you occupy pass many radio and television programs, and a multitude of other signals that you are not picking up directly. Yet, many of these can be predicted or described by today's mathematics and physics. We engineer to convert these signals into the narrow range of our perception -- and sometimes create our own informational overload.

Our reality is also shaped by information from "inner" sources which must constantly be integrated with the flow of sensory input from the "outer" world. These signals are received on antenna system #2 which has sometimes been called our "sixth sense." From the combination we seek to form a single, self-consistent reality. The antennae in system #2 have been described in various cultures by terms like the chakra system and the acupuncture/meridian systems. What we are suggesting is that when you think of the antenna system of the sixth sense, think of the possibility of quantum non-local linkages to the spaceless-timeless realms.

Information received by antennae tuned to the "inner" informational spaces appears to use the same physical channels in our brain as input received via our five normal sensors. This information must compete with information from our normal senses. It can often be accepted only after we have tuned into our "inner" sensory system and tuned out input from our "outer" sensors. In the quiet of sleep, we have dreams and thereby often receive knowledge from the spaceless-timeless realm. If, during our normal waking state, we have developed the ability to adequately tune our "inner" sensors while stilling the normal senses, we may see auras or visions, hear voices, or even begin to experience the unity of the universe.

The effectiveness of these two human antennae arrays seems to depend upon how well they are balanced. This is reasonable; as with any antenna array, poor tuning necessarily leads to inefficient coupling and weak and often distorted information reception. Hence, an important part of our total reality is determined by how effectively we can control our sensory antennae as well as their capacity and limitations. It is not surprising that every person on earth possess his or her own individual picture of the external/internal world -- yet all are true!

Let us now expand a bit on two psychological terms -- attention and intention. We believe these terms help us understand the process by which consciousness intervenes in the mental realm to produce the effect of "choice." Attention is like the channel selector knob on a radio transmitter/receiver; it selects the target by "tuning" to its pattern which may be from our five normal senses or be totally mental, i.e., through the use of antenna system #1 or antenna system #2. The longer you remained "tuned," i.e., hold your focus of attention, the deeper will be your understanding of the pattern.

Intention is more like the strength of will and could be likened to the gain control or amplification setting on the transmitter/receiver. This sets the degree of coupling or correspondence between the pattern of the target and the pattern held in the mind. The process in bi-directional, i.e., one's brain functions as either receiver or transmitter. In the case of the former it is called ESP; for the latter it is psychokinesis (PK). However, it is important to remember that our model considers the operator of the transmitter-receiver as the archetypal pattern of the person's psyche in the spaceless-timeless realm. This is the source for the physical system's "knowing" what knobs to turn.


We have discussed primarily the brain, however, the brain is only one part of our physical body. We may consider each organ in the body and each cell in the body as having a "mind" in itself because each and every level of physical matter is connected via a direct quantum non-local linkage to the hierarchal patterns in the mental realm. Thus, in addition to the brain, you can think of informational input coming directly to the immune and nervous systems, to the endocrine glands, etc. with every cell having a quantum linkage to the mental realm. In effect we have a "thinking body" -- this expression has been used by Dr. Deepak Chopra is his book "Quantum Healing." (Chopra, 1990)

However, the body is not a static system. At the atomic level our body is continually changing -- 98% of the atoms in our body were not there a year ago: the atoms in our skeleton have been changed in three months, the atoms in our liver have been changed in six weeks, and the atoms in our skin are changed in one month. (Chopra, 1990, p.p. 48-49) We are very much like a whirlpool of water in which the water molecules are continuously being replaced, but the form of the whirlpool -- its pattern -- stays. In a similar manner, our body's pattern stays and changes relatively slowly but the atoms that form the material basis for the body are flowing right through us. Because our body is a dynamic system, if you change the memory patterns, you can change the body and it's behavior. There exists a feedback process -- a direct linkage between the patterns of the physical realm and the patterns of the mental realm -- the archetypes of Jung and Pauli.

One of the best examples of how a change in memory patterns can change the body's behavior is in the literature on multiple personalities -- with one personality a person will have allergic reactions and with the other personality they won't; or have hypertension with one personality or no hypertension with the other; or, in fact, they can have epilepsy or not epilepsy; or even color blindness or not color blindness. (Chopra, 1990, p.p. 122-125) So we are suggesting that patterns in the mental realm affect the patterns in the physical realm. This, in turn, has a direct impact upon one's body.

In fact, if we accept the concept that the memory pattern of our body outlives the body's physical components, then it is plausible to think that there may be patterns associated with us in the spaceless-timeless realm that continue after death and that they could even "reincarnate" into a new body.


What do we mean by "experiencing" or "knowing" the spaceless-timeless realm? How can what has been postulated become more than an intellectual "reality" for you? In modern society this "knowing" often comes as the result of an accident such as a near death experience or through the use of hallucinatory drugs. However, in ancient societies we believe that such an experience was a planned goal. Hence, the purpose of the ancient initiation rites may have been to take a person and help them get into that realm beyond space-time, thus removing the illusion of separation.

These ancient societies developed many techniques to aid this process by mapping appropriate symbols onto the brain. Some consisted of feedback from the body to the brain through the use of sacred dances, yoga positions, or other special positions of the body, arms, and hands (Goodman, 1990, pp. 71-175). These are all processes to map from the body into the brain and then to the mental realm. Another technique is direct sensory input to the brain through the use of mandalas, the shri yantra, letter by letter reading of sacred texts. Music and sounds will also map on to the brain.

Modern society has new tools to aid this process. Biofeedback of brain waves allows one to tap and bring into conscious control an aspect of the unconscious in the mental realm. (Green, 1989) A highly recommended technique is to use mental processes through the brain directly such as the various meditation techniques. Various combination of these techniques can also be used. For example in ancient Chinese practice of the QiGong exercises there is movement and specific body positions, focused thoughts and intentions, breathing practices, etc. (Chia, 1986; Dong & Esser, 1990) All of these are techniques to help a person tap into realms beyond space-time. Because you are venturing into unfamiliar and potentially dangerous realms, the assistance of an experienced teacher who knows the "territory" is generally advisable.


A conceptual model has been presented which demonstrates that the two realms of Mind and matter can be linked with conventional, scientifically valid, causal connections. The connecting elements of the model are taken from mathematical physics which, we have argued, provides the best "pictures" of the invisible structures beyond the level of atoms including the very fabric of space-time itself. An important factor in the model is the argument that space-time is not an impermeable barrier which confines human experience to the world of matter. This argument was based on the fact that Einstein's dream, the unification of the forces of physics, cannot be realized apart from a new, more radical, topology for the space-time manifold.
Accordingly, we presented a description of the Penrose twistor as an example of the approach being taken by some of the workers in the unification program and which, coincidentally, provides us with an acceptable connecting link between the level of elementary particles and abstract spaces beyond space-time. This final connection between lower and higher dimensional spaces is accomplished using the mathematical device called a fiber bundle.

The identification of abstract mathematical spaces with sub-levels of the mental realm is a unique aspect of the model and represents a departure from mathematical orthodoxy. Physicists, typically, have not gone this far, contending that these are the "internal spaces" of particles or merely "abstract spaces." Because this portion of the model does not have the weight of scientific tradition, we presented a variety of evidence to support our contention that Mind, both individual and Universal, is the locus of spaceless and timeless patterns including those that are the basis of mathematical thought. We showed that the concept of archetype as developed by Jung and Pauli is basic to the pattern realm and that numbers and letters are primary elements in the pattern hierarchy. Examples from Readware and MERU illustrated how such patterns emerge into physical reality via human language.

We discussed the puzzling subject of non-locality and how our model accommodates this requirement of quantum physics by providing for connections in the pattern realm beyond space-time. Data from identical twin research were adduced to support this point. The dynamic aspects of the model were emphasized by showing that the mind-matter connection was bi-directional and provided continuous up-dating between a pattern and its physical manifestation illustrating Sheldrake's morphic resonance. And, while not a major aspect of the model, the quantum vacuum was described and suggested as a plausible source for unusual manifestations of energy, including "subtle energies."

There are numerous other implications and ramifications of the model which are beyond the scope of this paper. However, we will list several since they do illustrate the wide range of the explanatory power of the model.

1. The great variety of parapsychological phenomena falling under the categories of extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis can be understood in terms of a direct Mind-matter connection (Mitchell, 1974).

2. Pattern-based psychologies such as the enneagram from the ancient Sufi teachings, The I Ching: The Book of Changesfrom ancient China, or the Tarot from 14th century Europe whose origins actually may be in ancient Egypt are illuminated by the model (Palmer, 1988; Wilhelm/Baynes, 1950; Metzner, 1971, pp.14-29 & 54-81).

3. Western and Indian Vedic astrology can be understood in terms of patterns and need not be explained by any kind of physical influence emanating from planets and stars (Metzner, 1971, pp.106-140).

4. Information storage in physical materials as manifested in psychometry, homeopathic remedies, crystals, and sacred relics is comprehended by the model.

5. The importance of body position in Indian Yoga, Chinese QiGong exercises, and sacred dances can be inferred based upon the model.

6. The model provides hints that could result in a deeper understanding of chaos, entropy and the arrow of time.

At the beginning of the paper we emphasized that a model is a simplifying suggestion or proposal on how to think about something that is more complicated. Therefore, we concluded the paper by providing examples of how to use the model to think about phenomena at the human level -- to understand how we perceive "reality" and the role that the brain plays in connecting the body to the appropriate patterns beyond space-time. The patterns that form the basis of our belief systems and habitual thinking were thereby tied in to the set of real physical constraints that govern the chemistry of the body. Thus, the model provides a physical basis for understanding why there can be no actual limits to human potential.



1. M. Kline, Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge (Oxford University Press, New York, 1985), p. 200.

2. Ibid., p. 216.

3. E. P. Wigner, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1 (1960), pp. 1-14.

4. J. H. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1932), p. 149.

5. G. Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters (Bantam Books, New York, 1980), p. 313.

6. K. Wilber, Reflections on the New-Age Paradigm, ReVision, 4, 1 (1981), pp. 53-74.


7. H. K. Wickramasinghe, Scanned-Probe Microscopes, Scientific American, 261, 4 (1989), pp. 98-105.

8. N. Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics (Doubleday, New York, 1985).

9. H. P. Stapp, The Copenhagen Interpretation, American Journal of Physics, 40, 8 (1972), pp. 1098-1116.

10. E. P. Wigner, The Problem of Measurement, American Journal of Physics, 31, 1 (1963), pp. 6-15.

11. I. Stewart, The Problems of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, New York, 1987), pp. 180-186.

12. R. Rucker, The 4th Dimension: Toward a Geometry of Higher Reality (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1984), p. 26.

13. B. Tobin, Space-Time and Beyond (Dutton, New York, 1975).

14. P. Renteln, Quantum Gravity, American Scientist, 79, 6, (1991), pp. 508-527.

15. W. Greiner, B. Muller, J. Rafelski, Quantum Electrodynamics of Strong Fields (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985).

16. R. L. Shacklett and J. W. M. DuMond, Precision Measurement of X-Ray Fine Structure; Effects of Nuclear Size and Quantum Electrodynamics, Physical Review 106, 3 (1957), pp. 501-512.

17. H. E. Puthoff, Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy, Physical Review A, 40, 9 (1989), pp. 4857-4862.

18. M. B. King, Macroscopic Vacuum Polarization Proceedings of the Tesla Centennial Symposium (International Tesla Society, Colorado Springs, 1984) pp. 99-107. See also Spring Catalog (High Energy Enterprises, PO Box 5636, Security, CO 80931).

19. H. E. Puthoff, The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research, Speculations In Science and Technology, 13, 3 (1990), p. 247.

20. J. D. Barrow, Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation (Oxford University Press, New York, 1991).

21. Ibid.

22. F. D. Peat, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything (Contemporary Books, Chicago, IL, 1988).

23. Ibid.

24. L. H. Kauffman, On Knots (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1987).

25. M. M. Waldrop, Viewing the Universe as a Coat of Chain Mail, Science, 250 (1990), p. 1510.

26. R. Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989).

27. R. Weber, Dialogues with Scientists and Sages: The Search for Unity (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1986).

28. Atomic Landscapes, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Research Review, 14, 2 (1989), pp. 18-31.

29. D. Deamer, DNA Music: Molecular Meditation ; Music Translated from the DNA Molecule: Blueprint of Life Itself(Science & the Arts, Box 27555, Oakland, CA, 94602, Copy right, David Deamer 1985).

30. S. Alexjander, Sequencia (Science & the Arts, Box 27555, Oakland, CA, 94602, Copyright, Xjander Prods. 1990).

31. G. Harburn, C. A. Taylor, and T. R. Welberry, Atlas of Optical Transforms (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1975), Plate 14.

32. J. Berner, The Holography Book (Avon Books, New York, 1980).

33. J. S. Bell, Nonlocality in Physics and Psychology, Psycho logical Perspectives, 19, 2 (1988), pp. 294-312.


34. Werner Heisenberg announced his discovery of quantum theory in 1925. Later in his life, Heisenberg claimed "that his most important influence had not been university professors or textbooks, but his discussions with Pauli," his friend and fellow student. -- F. D. Peat, Einstein's Moon: Bell's Theorem and the Curious Quest for Quantum Reality (Contem porary Books, Chicago, 1990).

35. C. G. Jung and W. Pauli, The Interpretations of Nature and the Psyche (Pantheon, Bollingen Series LI. New York, 1955).

36. M. von Franz, Number and Time: Reflections Leading Toward a Unification of Depth Psychology and Physics(Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, 1974), pp. 8-9. (Transla tion of 1970 German edition).

37. C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Pantheon Books, New York, 1963), p. 388.

38. C. A. Meier, Science and Synchronicity -- A Conversation with C. A. Meier, Psychological Perspectives, 19, 2 (1988), pp. 320-324.

39. M. von Franz, Meaning and Order: Concerning Meeting Points and Differences Between Depth Psychology and Physics, Quadrant, 14, 1 (1981), pp. 4-22.

40. H. P. Stapp, Time and Quantum Process, University of Cali fornia Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report No. LBL-17576, March, 1984. Also published in Proceedings of the Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time Conference, Claremont, CA (1983), pp. 264-270.

41. von Franz, (1974), p.27.

42. Ibid., p. 27.

43. Ibid., p. 18.

44. Ibid.

45. H. Van Erkelens, Wolfgang Pauli's Dialogue with the Spirit of Matter, Psychological Perspectives, 24, 1 (1991), pp. 34-53.

46. C. R. Card, The Archetypal View of C. G. Jung and Wolfgang Pauli -- Part I, Psychological Perspectives, 24, 1 (1991), pp. 19-33.

47. von Franz, (1974), p. 141.

48. Peat, (1990), p. 39.

49. von Franz, (1974), p. 26.

50. Ibid., p. 42.

51. Ibid., p. 19.

52. Ibid., footnote, p. 40.

53. J. E. Cirlot, A Dictionary of Symbols (Philosophical Library, New York, 1971). (Translated from the 1962 Spanish edition by J. Sage.)

54. C. G. Jung, On the Nature of the Psyche (Princeton Univer sity Press, New York, 1973), pp. 115, 101. Extracted fromThe Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Vol. 8 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung (Bollingen Foundation, New York, 1960).

55. von Franz, (1974).

56. M. P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages: An Encyclo pedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicru cian Symbolical Philosophy (The Philosophical Research Society, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 1988), p. LXXII.

57. M. P. Hall, On the Pythagorean Philosophy of Numbers, Lecture Notes #307 (The Philosophical Research Society, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 1984).

58. D. Elgin, The Living Cosmos: A Theory of Continuous Creation, ReVision, 11, 1 (1988), pp. 3-22.

59. R. Rucker, Mind Tools: The Five Levels of Mathematical Reality (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1987).

60. Kline, (1985), p. 200.

61. R. Kanigel, The Man Who Knew Infinity (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1991).

62. Ibid., p. 66.

63. Penrose, (1989), p. 428.

64. B. Branston, Gods of the North (Thames & Hudson, London, 1980), pp. 5-6.

65. S. E. Petersen, P. T. Fox, A. Z. Snyder, and M. E. Raichle, Activation of Extrastriate and Frontal Cortical Areas by Visual Words and Word-Like Stimuli, Science, 249 (1990), pp.1041-1044; also discussed in Brain Images Reveal Key Language Areas, Science News, 138 (1990), p. 134.

66. T. Adi and K. Ewell, Letter Semantics in Arabic Morphology: A Discovery About Human Languages, Presented to the Linguistic Society of America, Stanford University, CA, July, 1987.

67. K. Ewell and T. Adi, Natural Language is as Natural as Natural Phenomena, Presented at the AI EAST Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Atlantic City, NJ, October, 1987.

68. T. Adi and K. Ewell, A New Mathematical Model of an Ancient Paradigm for Information Processing, Presented to the 54th American Society for Information Science Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, October, 1991.

69. Adi & Ewell, (1987).

70. T. Adi, Method and Apparatus to Identify the Relation of Meaning Between Words in Text Expressions, United States Patent number 4,849,898, July 18, 1989.

71. Personal communication, Nov., 1991, from John Fellows, President, Readware Systems Corp., 600-1111 Melville Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada, V6E 3V6.

72. C. Urr, Software Reviews of Text Search and Retrieval Program -- Research Assistant, Library Software Review, July-August 1991, pp. 301-304.

73. Adi, (1989), p. 15.

74. L. Helgerson, CD Data Report, 5, 2 (1988), pp. 14-15.

75. K. Ewell, A Testimony to Letter Semantic Validity - Observa tions of the Real World, copyrighted paper, MITi, Jan. 26, 1990.

76. S. Tenen and W. C. Gough, MERU Project: Origins of Ancient Alphabets and Sacred Texts, March 1989. (MERU Foundation, Dept. SE, P.O. Box 1738, San Anselmo, CA 04079).

77. S. Tenen, Geometric Metaphors of Life, video tape of lecture presented on Feb. 16, 1989, A Coat of Many Colors, a supplement to the preceding video tape, 1990, and A Matrix of Meaning for Sacred Alphabets, a video tape of lecture presented on Jan. 10, 1991, MERU Foundation, Dept. SE, P.O. Box 1738, San Anselmo, CA 94979.


78. Twistor Newsletter, Mathematical Institute, 24-29 St. Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LB, England, 1991.

79. R. S. Ward, and R. O. Wells, Jr., Twistor Geometry and Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990).

80. M. Gardner, The New Ambidextrous Universe (W.H. Freeman, New York, 1990).

81. Peat, (1988).

82. R. L. Forward, Spinning New Realities, Science 80 (1980), pp. 40-49.

83. Ward & Wells, (1990).

84. Peat, (1988); Gardner, (1990).

85. Peat, (1988), p. 213.

86. P. G. Bergmann, Unitary Field Theories, Physics Today, 32, 3 (1979), p. 44.

87. Ward & Wells, (1990).

88. H. J. Bernstein and A. V. Phillips, Fiber Bundles and Quantum Theory, Scientific American, 245, 1, (1981), pp. 123-137.

89. C. N. Yang, Einstein's Impact on Theoretical Physics, Physics Today, 33, 6 (1980), p. 42.

90. N. Herbert, Notes Toward 'A Users Guide to the Quantum Connection', Psychological Perspectives, 19, 1 (1988), pp. 56-63.

91. N. Herbert, How Bell Proved Reality Cannot be Local, Psycho logical Perspectives, 19, 2 (1988), pp. 313-319.

92. Herbert, (1988a), p. 60.

93. Peat, (1990).

94. Herbert, (1988a), p. 57.

95. A. Shimony, The Reality of the Quantum World, Scientific American, 258, 1 (1988), pp. 46-53.

96. A. J. Leggett, Quantum Mechanics at the Macroscopic Level, In The Lesson of Quantum Theory, J. de Boer, E. Dal and O. Ulfbeck, Eds., (Elsevier Science Publications B.V., 1986),
pp. 35-57.

97. I. Peterson, Islands of Truth: A Mathematical Mystery Cruise (W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1990), pp. 52-61.

98. Herbert, (1988b), p. 319.

99. F. Close, Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1991).

100. F. D. Peat, Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind (Bantam Books, New York, 1987).

101. L. E. Ballentine, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Since the Bell Inequalities, American Journal of Physics, 55, 9 (1987), p. 785.

102. Herbert, (1985).

103. H. P. Stapp, Bell's Theorem and World Process, Nuovo Cimento, 29B, (1975), p. 270).

104. Herbert, (1985), p. 214.

105. Ward & Wells, (1990).

106. Peat, (1988).

107. Ward & Wells, (1990).

108. A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality (Macmillan, New York,1929).

109. H. P. Stapp, Whiteheadian Approach to Quantum Theory and the Generalized Bell's Theorem, Foundations of Physics, 9, 1/2 (1979), p. 1.

110. See, for example, Barrow, (1990), p. 74.

111. D. Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980).

112. D. Bohm, Hidden Variables and the Implicate Order, Zygon 20, 2 (1985), pp. 111-124.


113. E. E. Green and A. M. Green, Beyond Biofeedback, (Knoll Publishing Co. Inc., Ft. Wayne, IN, 1989).

114. A. Jaffe, The Myth of Meaning (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1971), p. 88.

115. Ibid., p. 79.

116. L. H. Kauffman, Self-reference and Recursive Forms, Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 10 (1987), pp.53-72.

117. H. Peitgen and D. Saupe, Eds., The Science of Fractal Images (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988).

118. I. Stewart, The Problems of Mathematics (Oxford University Press, New York, 1987).

119. M. Talbot, The Holographic Universe (HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 1991).

120. Kauffman, (1987).

121. van Erkelens, (1991).

122. R. W. Manley, Philosophic Catenary of Thought (Self- published, Cleveland, OH, 1920), p. 31.

123. Ewell, (1990).

124. R. Sheldrake, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation (J.P. Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 1981),

125. D. B. Chamberlain, The Expanding Boundaries of Memory, ReVision, 12, 4 (1990), pp. 11-20.


126. M. Ghyka, The Geometry of Art and Life (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1977), p. 90.

127. P. W. Stephens and A. I. Goldman, The Structure of Quasi- crystals, Scientific American, 264, 4 (1991), pp. 44-53.

128. J. Horgan, Quasicrystal Clear, Scientific American, 262, 1 (1990), pp. 16-17.

129. Ghyka, (1977), p. 89.

130. von Franz (1974), p. 123.

131. Sheldrake, (1981).

132. R. Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature (Times Books, New York, 1988).

133. R. Sheldrake, The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God (Bantam Books, New York, 1991).

134. Sheldrake, (1988), p. 223-226.

135. Ibid., pp. 111-112.

136. Ibid., p. 131.

137. S. L. Farber, Identical Twins Reared Apart: A Reanalysis (Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1981).

138. C. Holden, Identical Twins Reared Apart, Science, 207
(1980), pp. 1323-1328.

139. D. T. Lykken, T. J. Bouchard, Jr., M.McGue, A. Tellegen, The Minnesota Twin Family Registry: Some Initial Findings, Acta Genet Med Gemellol, 39, (1990), pp. 35-70, from the Sixth International Congress on Twin Studies, The Mendel Insti tute, Rome, Italy.

140. Farber, (1981), p. 31.

141. Ibid., p. xi.

142. Ibid., p. 269.

143. C. Holden, (1980).

144. Farber, (1981), p. 271.

145. Holden, (1980).

146. H. H. Stassen, D. T. Lykken, P. Propping, and G. Bomben, Genetic Determination of the Human EEG, Human Genetics, 80 (1988), pp. 165-176.

147. T. J. Bouchard, Jr., Diversity, Development and Determinism: A Report on Identical Twins Reared Apart, In Bericht uber den 35. Kongrelb der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Psychologie in Heidelberg 1986, Band 2 (M. Amelang, Verlag fur Psycho logie, Gottingen, 1986).

148. M. S. Gazzaniga, Organization of the Human Brain, Science, 245 (1989), pp. 947-952.

149. R. Lewin, Is Your Brain Really Necessary?, Science, 210 (1980), pp. 1232-1234.

150. A. P. Georgopoulos, Neural Integration of Movement: Roll of Motor Cortex in Reaching, The FASEB Journal," 2, 13 (1988), pp. 2849-2857.

151. A. P. Georgopoulos, et al, Mental Rotation of the Neuronal Population Vector, Science, 243 (1989), pp. 234-236.

152. R. N. Shepard, Internal Representation of Universal Regu larities: A Challenge for Connectionism, In Neural Connec tions, Mental Computation (L. Nadel, L. A. Cooper, P. Culicover, and R. M. Harnish, Eds., A Bradford Book, The M.I.T. Press, 1989), pp. 104-133.

153. E. B. Bolles, A Second Way of Knowing: The Riddle of Human Perception (Prentice Hall Press, New York, 1991).

154. Ibid., pp. 163-165.

155. Ibid., pp. 65-68.

156. Ibid., pp. 53-54.

157. Ibid., pp. 65-73.

158. G. Lynch and R. Granger, Simulation and Analysis of a Simple Cortical Network, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 23 (1989), pp. 205-241.

159. J. Palca, Insights from Broken Brains, Science, 248 (1990), pp. 812-814.

160. G. A. Ojemann, Cortical Organization of Language, The Journal of Neuroscience, 11, 8 (1991), pp. 2281-2287.

161. New York Times, September 17, 1991, as reported in San Jose Mercury News article, Rethinking the Mind's Methods -- Studies Uproot Ideas on Brain, Language.

162. H. P. Stapp, A Quantum Theory of the Mind-Brain Interface, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report No. 28574 Expanded, (1990).

163. D. Wirth, The Effect of Non-contact Therapeutic Touch on the Healing Rate of Full Thickness Dermal Wounds, Subtle Energies, 1, 1 (1990), pp. 1-20.

164. S. J. P. Spottiswoode, Geomagnetic Activity and Anomalous Cognition: A Preliminary Report of New Evidence. Subtle Energies, 1, 1 (1990), pp. 91-102.

165. A. M. Young, The Reflexive Universe (Delacorte Press, New York, 1976), p. 20.

166. F. A. Wolf, The Eagle's Quest (Summit Books, New York, 1991).


167. R. N. Shepard, Mind Sights (W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1990).

168. G. Kaniza, Subjective Contours, Scientific American, 234, 4 (1976), Republished in The Mind's Eye (W.H. Freeman & Co., New York, 1986), pp. 82-86.

169. Bolles, (1991), p. 104.

170. Shepard, (1990), p. 48.

171. Ibid., p. 30.

172. Bolles, (1991), p. 103.

173. Ibid., p. 24.

174. K. Koffka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (Harcourt Brace and Co., New York, 1935).

175. Bolles, (1991), pp. 20-21.

176. Ibid., p. 24.

177. F. W. Snyder and N. H. Pronko, Vision with Spatial Inversion, University of Wichita Press, Wichita, KA, 1952).

178. Bolles, (1991), p. 80.

179. Ibid., p. 100.

180. R. L. Gregory and J. G. Wallace, Recovery from Early Blind ness, Experimental Psychology Monographs, No. 2 (1963).

181. Bolles, (1991), pp. 105-106.

182. Ibid., p. 107.

183. J. Bagby, A Cross-Cultural Study of Perceptional Predomi nance in Binocular Rivalry, Abnormal Social Psychology, 54 (1957), pp. 331-338.

184. Bolles, (1991), p. 137.

185. Ibid., pp. 141-148.

186. Ibid., pp. 73-74.

187. D. Chopra, M.D., Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Medicine (Bantam Books, New York, 1990).

188. Ibid., pp. 48-49.

189. Ibid., pp. 122-125.

190. F. D. Goodman, Where the Spirits Ride the Wind (Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, IN, 1990).

191. Green & Green, (1989).

192. M. Chia, Iron Shirt Chi Kung I (Healing Tao Books, Hunting ton, NY, 1986).

193. P. Dong and A. H. Esser, Chi Gong: The Ancient Chinese Way to Health (Paragon House, New York, 1990).

194. E. D. Mitchell, Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1974).

195. H. Palmer, The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others in Your Life (Harper & Row, San Francisco, CA, 1988).

196. R. Wilhelm, (translation by C. F. Baynes), The I Ching or Book of Changes (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1950).

197. R. Metzner, Maps of Consciousness (Collier Books, New York, 1971), pp. 14-29; 54-81.

198. Ibid., pp. 106-140.

Scroll to Top