The Third Millennium Blog

Third Millennium Thought

Reality in Three Paradigms

To reply with an email, use:


We know that pure science or deterministic science is typified by formulas such as  the laws of motion. It is based on  a certain type of causality. What about behavioral science, biology and the humanities? Are they science? Do they have a different type of causation? How does it affect our philosophy? Every time I see an online discussion of “if determinism is strict and exclusive” then  “do we have any free will?. The following discussion leads to nothing but confusion. There is no excuse for this and a lot of harm. The distinctions may be the most important issue in terms of a humanistic philosophy and the ultimate existential questions such as “Do we have free will?” and “Why do we exist and how can anything exist?”


I am not being overly ambitious in addressing this question. There are clear answers based on logic, science and mathematics. There are boundaries to strict, exclusive determinism – I call this The First Paradigm.  Of course, there are many proven, physical phenomena and laws that are strictly deterministic. It is just that they are not exclusive.

There is clear, mathematical, physical, and inductive evidence that there is an expanded view – an additional paradigm – based on mixed causality. I call this combination The Second Paradigm. I define the second paradigm as including both 1. deterministic phenomena and 2. emergence/self-organized phenomena – both 1. and 2. These two causalities  usually work together for a combined resultant. This is the proven, valid view based on logic, science and mathematics.

The lack of clarity on this distinction is a major gap in education.

I also address a third paradigm. The failure of the first two in terms of our complete reality sets up another frame. To many people this paradigm is the most important.

The First Paradigm:

Strict Determinism as the only science and causality

Strict, hard determinism has been posed as the only paradigm.  From Wikipedia: In the history of science, Laplace’s conjecture was the first published articulation of  exclusive, strict determinism – by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814. According to strict determinism, if someone – a super intelligence – in his example: “La Place’s demon” captures all information –  knows the precise location and momentum of every atom, energy state, or sub-particle in the universe, and their past  values, then the future is trapped, causatively bounded – ie. – rigidly, exactly predictable. In the case of an outcome caused by deterministic causality, this is correct. Laplace and others were absorbing and extrapolating this universal principle from a  large wave of advances in Classical Mechanics in the 17th and 18th century –  that could, for instance, predict the future movements of all the heavenly bodies indefinitely into the future –  limited only by the knowledge and accuracy of the starting state – of all parameters. The expansion of proven scientific laws just kept coming most notably by Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion and Newton’s Laws of Motion .

If strict determinism is the final causality and the future is determined to every finest detail. The universe and all of us as components are a frozen, clockwork machine. Any human decision making, and free will are false illusions.  The most important values: love, family, hope religion, ideology, are false. It fundamentally effects the foundation of other belief systems – especially religion, the dignity of man, morality, culture, ideology and our political systems. In this view , it is a final, un-editable movie reel. It philosophically forces us  to the logical, but nihilistic conclusion – what does anything matter? This is the poison that kills the human spirit and mocks all morality, and self sacrifice to ideals bigger than ourselves.

The first Paradigm is Exclusive, Strict Determinism

First the Deductive Logic of Determinism has to be defined as separate from      —     the logic of Emergence that is dependent on Inductive Logic.

Deductive Logic vs Inductive Logic

1 Deductive Logic

Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic – Science based on formulas and deductive logic (Physics, Astronomy, Electronics, etc) these have strictly defined and measurable parameters (mass, time, velocity) and formulas that always work precisely with proper input and within certain limits. These sciences are supported by valid, deductive logic.

Deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain or sound conclusion. Here is an example. The Accumulated Distance objects in gravity falls per unit time.  D=1/2 G x T squared.

Here are the characteristics of deterministic phenomena:

D, G, and T are completely defined. This result of the formula is always true and exact. If there was an instance within the defined constraints were it was not true,  then we would question not only that instance but any this instance of the law of gravity. Deductive Logic demands all or nothing. This is strict determinism.

  • Strictly defined and shared elements – time, mass, distance, energy etc.
  • After initial observation formulas are deduced and tested.
  • There is concurrence experienced by anyone who test under the stated conditions. The test is no longer necessary.
  • Anyone can use this for other values of G and in combinations of G forces such as in a moon shot calculation.

The Second Paradigm is Strict Determinism – and – Emergence/Self Organization  – BOTH

Scientific findings have proven the limits of strict, exclusive determinism.  The good news is that a Second Paradigm that also includes both strict determinism and – emergence/self- organization is ratified as the scientific, valid view. This is a science-based view that is more comprehensive and it explains the world we know.

2. Inductive Logic

By contrast, the causality resulting from emergent and self-organization agency is supported by inductive logic. We need to understand the difference between  these logical approaches.

Inductive Logic advances sciences seeking knowledge by applying analysis starting with observation. (So is deterministic phenomenon but, the  difference is that determinitic phenomenom like any study, may start with obsevation but is expanded upon and validated by deductive logic using common, shared measurables.) Inductive reasoning constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. Here – we use statistics, measurement, correlation, curve-fit and analysis, and, where possible, many of the same tools as pure science. The new mathematics of emergence is also used. This is most obvious in the behavioral and life sciences: Psychology, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.). The huge difference is there are no exactly defined variables and no exact, deduced  formulas. In order to use quantitative analysis, measurables are proposed and evaluated as validated later. These differences are noted and valid as a criticism of evolution as a proven theory by Dr. David Berlinsky on U-Tube and his many books and articles.

Evolution is supported by inductive reasoning. It is not supported by the Deductive proofs provided by strict definition of measurables and formulas. Evolution will never be proven by the standards of deductive logic because it is not the product of determinism. An acceptable level of ratification seems to depend on an aggregate of scientific observation and concurrence. If evolution was not true, why do embryos travel its path? Why are there remnants of structures with no current use. Why is Australia stuck with the inferior marsupial model? This has to be balanced with challenges such as the mathematical problems in protein folding and many other baffling complexities.  At this time, there may not be acceptable proof to many people. I believe in evolution because of the preponderance of proofs and the lack of no better explanation.

The certitude and concurrence are often not as obvious but when it is right, the truth is that the causality is from emergence and complexity – and not from sole determinism. It is also true that deterministic processes can not be directly contradicted. That would be magic, not science of any sort.

The revolution of the mathematic validity of emergent causality and self-organization came about with the increase in computing power. For brevity, I will just use the term “emergence”.

I always anticipated that exclusive determinism could not explain all  causative reality. Even in Physics 101 (1960) I wondered how a reach of wind over the ocean for 100 miles could cause the emergence of a wave system with 3 measures of periodicity: Height = 30  ft, time – every 30 sec, distance 200 ft. apart. But, all the deterministic factors are on the molecular level. Each molecule is an independent agent pushed downward by gravity but sideway forces are random-like in every direction. A structure on the order of 10 to the 30th appears. Where did it come from? How was that outcome determined? When I saw and  grabbed the book Chaos (1987 by James Glieck, I was primed for a revelation. This limitation of strict, deterministic causality gives us an image of a picture and the limitation sets up a frame for another picture.

The Second Paradigm is Determinism  – co-existent with – emergence and self organization 

Emergence, Self-Organization

Complexity Theory: the theory that processes having a large number of seemingly independent agents can spontaneously order themselves into a coherent system or structure or even entirely new platforms. (see Platforms below). The starting, deterministic causality may be on the molecular level and the emergence of a structure may be on an immense level – 100’s of miles. A dripping faucet may drip deterministically in an exact period. Driven by a higher input there emerges a periodic fluctuation in timing and, at a higher boundary, a random patterm.  Some forms of emergence are always present like the thermodynamic structures in weather patterns. Some are a one in a octillion long shot when some mix of organic proteins evolved as living. Improvements in functionality emerged both gradually  – over billions of years and this was punctuated by sudden, quantum jumps into a fully coded replication process – RNA DNA, multi-cellular. Life is a new platform with a whole set of new rules and additional, changing, improving functionality.

Examples of structures: whirligig, tornado, hurricane, ocean wave system, DNA, life, consciousness.

I am having a problem explaining the relationship of Emergence and Self-Organization to the surprising – without exaggeration -astounding  – discoveries of the mathematical foundations of the mechanism of emergence – the logistics map, the Mandelbrot set. Observations in physical systems followed. So I prompted Chat GPT because its basis is a broad consensus of latest research. The bolded portions for emphasis was made by me. 

Chat GPT entry:

I am writing a blog to explain the that there are 3 ways (paradigms) that explain causality. The first paradigm is exclusive, strict determinism. The second paradigm is determinism along with emergence – self organization. The third paradigm is what is left when we the first two do not explain everything. That is “Why does anything exist”. I will finish that later. Please clarify and continue at the end of this submission under emergence (below at the end of this submission). Explain how the theory of emergence is mathematically based after computer advances allowed exploration of the logistics map and the Mandelbrot set. Explain how scientist also supported this by science. This was a shocking and totally unexpected outcome and the mathematics and science supports observation of many real life examples of emergence leading from weather up to life itself.

Where do we see emergence that is not deterministic by using deductive logic processes or standards.

Chat GPT answer:

In the study of causality, there are three paradigms that offer different explanations: exclusive, strict determinism; determinism along with emergence and self-organization; and a third paradigm that we will discuss later. Let’s dive deeper into the second paradigm, which incorporates both determinism and emergence.

Determinism along with emergence suggests that while there may be deterministic rules governing the behavior of individual components within a system, there can also be emergent phenomena that arise from the interactions between these components. Emergence refers to the appearance of new properties or behaviors at higher levels of organization that cannot be explained solely by understanding the properties of individual components.

To understand how the theory of emergence is mathematically based, we can look at two key mathematical discoveries: the logistics map and the Mandelbrot set. These discoveries were made possible through advances in computer technology, which allowed scientists to explore complex mathematical systems in greater detail.

The logistics map is a mathematical function that models population growth based on certain parameters. When the values of these parameters are within a specific range, the population exhibits stable, predictable behavior. However, as the parameters are adjusted slightly, the system undergoes a phase transition, leading to the emergence of chaotic behavior. This transition is a clear example of emergent phenomena arising from a deterministic system.

Similarly, the Mandelbrot set is a fractal set that arises from the iteration of a simple mathematical formula. As the iterations progress, intricate and complex patterns emerge, revealing the inherent beauty and complexity within a seemingly straightforward system. The Mandelbrot set showcases the concept of emergence in a visually stunning way, illustrating how simple rules can give rise to rich and intricate structures.

In addition to these mathematical examples, scientists have also observed and supported the notion of emergence through various scientific studies. For instance, in the field of complex systems, researchers have found that collective behaviors can emerge from the interactions of individual agents, such as the flocking behavior of birds or the synchronization of firefly flashing patterns.

In biology, emergence is evident in phenomena like self-organization in biological systems, where complex structures and patterns arise from the interactions of simple components. Examples include the formation of ant colonies, the development of neural networks in the brain, and the emergence of life itself from simple organic molecules.

Overall, the mathematical foundations provided by the exploration of systems like the logistics map and the Mandelbrot set, combined with scientific observations across various disciplines, support the concept of emergence. (my bold) This paradigm recognizes that while deterministic rules may govern the behavior of individual components, emergent phenomena can lead to complex, unpredictable, and novel behaviors at higher levels of organization. Understanding emergence is crucial for comprehending the intricacies of natural systems and the dynamic interplay between deterministic processes and emergent properties.

End of first question

My follow-up Chat-GPT question:

The Mandelbrot set seems to be deterministic because a computer generated set with specific starting parameters, if repeated, will generate the exact same output. It is said that this shows it is both emergent and deterministic.  Comment on the limitation of a computer simulation vs real life. There almost always many artifacts in real life that will variegate output such a thermal factors and other background artifacts. In real life, with complex parameters, many on a continuum and when artifacts are always present – under these circumstances repeated submissions are not deterministic. These artifacts are not marginal in a system where starting factors, though infinitesimal, will multiply variance in output. In fact some systems of emergence such as evolution thrive on computational causality with a little artifact effects mixed in. 

Chat GPT answer:

You bring up an important point regarding the limitations of computer simulations compared to real-life systems. While the Mandelbrot set can exhibit deterministic and emergent behavior in a computer simulation with specific starting parameters, it is important to acknowledge the distinctions between simulations and real-world phenomena.

Computer simulations provide a controlled environment where specific parameters can be precisely defined and repeated, leading to consistent outputs. In this context, the deterministic and emergent nature of the Mandelbrot set can be observed. However, in real-life systems, numerous factors come into play that can introduce variations and artifacts, making it challenging to achieve perfect determinism.

Real-life systems are often subject to external influences and environmental factors that can introduce randomness or uncertainties. Factors such as thermal effects, background artifacts, and the presence of other interacting components can lead to variations in the observed outputs. These variations, though potentially small or subtle, can accumulate over time and result in different outcomes or trajectories.

In complex systems, especially those involving emergent phenomena, the presence of artifacts and uncertainties becomes even more significant. While deterministic rules and computational causality may be prevalent, the influence of artifacts can add a layer of unpredictability and variability to the system’s behavior. This interplay between deterministic processes and random or uncertain factors can give rise to novel and unexpected emergent properties.

One example is the process of evolution, where computational causality plays a significant role in shaping the genetic variations and adaptations of organisms. However, the presence of mutations, environmental factors, and other stochastic elements introduces variability and allows for the emergence of diverse traits and species. The interplay between deterministic genetic mechanisms and random factors contributes to the richness and adaptability of evolutionary processes.

In summary, while computer simulations can provide valuable insights into deterministic and emergent behaviors within controlled settings, real-life systems often exhibit greater complexity and variability due to the presence of artifacts and uncertainties. Understanding and accounting for these factors is crucial when studying emergence and causality in natural systems.

end of Chat GPT.

First we should all note this conclusion that is revolutionary and valid. The La place conjecture: that we live in a fixed, clockwork universe is proven invalid. Yet, it is still being discussed seriously to this day!

interactions of individual components give rise to emergent properties that are not predictable from the properties of the components alone.”

exhibit more complex behaviors that cannot be predicted from their inputs.”

In the follow up question, note:

My intuition is ratified – that computed emergence, as revealed by the same Mandelbrot set output – is never deterministic in real life. My conclusion is that exclusive determinism in its real life expression is very rare or never present in an absolute sense.

I have not referred to Quantum Mechanics because I do not have a background in it sufficient to cite it. At a high level, I have to say that anything I have seen on this subject as far as my understanding goes,  is supportive of non-determinism. I never saw any support in this arena for exclusive, strict  determinism.

The fact that the First and/or Second Paradigms can not explain why anything exists  sets up another “frame”.

The Third Paradigm

The universe is proposed/defined as everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It may even include time itself.

If we consider the first paradigm as a picture, the inability of the first paradigm to explain all causality creates an empty frame.

The addition of the causality of emergence and self organization fills out the picture of the second paradigm.

The inability of either the first or second paradigm to explain the biggest question – why does anything – the Universe –  exist – sets the “frame” for the Third Paradigm. What do we put in this picture.?

The attempt to explain why anything exists is a complete failure.

What is the one very big thing that neither of these can even begin to explain?

Oh- the Universe. Its existence, Its causality.

There is nothing in the second paradigm that can help because it is not emergent. A Universe emergent …??? wait -from what resources, process or supported by what logic? Any precursor is just an additional something we forgot to add to our definition of the universe. So put  it in. Now, our first use of the word Universe was wrong. Put it back in and we are back to square one.

I watched a segment of the TV Curiosity series that offered to show how they can explain the existence of the universe without a prior cause – without God. Of course, they did not mention God, (unfashionable) the Law of Conservation of Energy or The First Law of Thermodynamics.

At the risk of being perceived as not open minded, I immediately braced for SHAZAM ! I started my timer. This magic word does not answer to any analysis or any type of logic or causality. It is how Captain Marvel exploded into his superhero form. A cheap form of Superman’s high gravity evolution story. He just says the word – SHAZAM -. That’s it.

Also, at the set up, as I have seen in similar attempts before, they quickly liquidated the inconvenient existence of time. This is an attempt to foil the obvious, (unavoidable?) question: “what came before?”  They flat-out stated that in this original state – there was no time! How sublime – no minimal tickso no change – no next moment –so no trigger for next moment – alright it is a strain for me to conceive but I will go with it.  This elimination foils any inquisitive mind to wonder the obvious, annoying  repeating question –  “what came before?”

Oh no they can’t say what I think is coming. Yep – – – “AND THEN”   and then?   did you just say “and then” = SHAZAM! “and then” means in the next or later moment in time. You insisted there is no time in your frozen state, not mine. That is what you specified to avoid any “before” questions . Did you think we forgot?  Is this “and then” a teeny tiny tick of no consequence. Well, actually your final claim, if true, would be the biggest tick ever. It is cheaper than SHAZAM and that was ridiculous.

They even have another word that can excuse anything  – “singularity” as if the use of a word, in itself,  is logic. This eliminates all previous science, logic  and causality.  You cannot and should not deny this paradox and the biggest exception of all. You can not answer the question  – “Why this singular exception” by calling it a “singularity”. A repeat of the essence of the question and a label or identity; it is not logic.

And kwhat about: No time? An inconceivable amount of condensed energy in the timeless state waiting to release our Universe of energy:

Kinetic Energy K.E.=1/2×m×v2 –       v   See v (velocity – displacement per unit time) needs time.

Potential Energy P.E.=m×g×h          See g is acceleration and needs time – twice.

No time = no energy.

It occurs to me that all this is quite unworthy of scientists. It almost seems like they started with a conclusion and worked (desperately?) backwards. I feel I am challenging someone’s religion. The irony is that many of them think they are too intelligent to consider religion.

I will not sum up this presentation. It would bring out an unseemly sarcasm and I strictly avoid that.

What is in the Picture for the Third Paradigm?

Since all the most basic foundational laws of the Universe have no causality or logic for the existence of the Universe, it is logical and true that there is something more.

What other sources are causality-like and could be operative? As a start, I have to give myself some hints, working on instinct. Just as the deductive logic used within the first paradigm is inadequate to explain emergence in the second paradigm – the logic of the first two  paradigms does not work well in dealing with the question raised in the third paradigm, At the start, we  are limited to to comparison using our experience within our Universe. The operative principle would have to include all the information, processes, consciousness and implied intent.

The initial state of the Universe is pregnant with astonishing  possibilities. Within our universe, the  seeming miracles of the heights and levels of functionality comes from  emergence and self organization. This is raised higher by platforms such as life and consciousness. First negatively, by the limits of determinism, and then by a sublime  and  generative  properties that permeates all material creation. It is so much more than a default from the negative case.

In the book The Prime Number Conspiracy there is a reading about mathematical trends  in the frontiers of mathematics, An article  – In Mysterious Pattern, Math and Nature Converge – on page 37.  Various test and analysis of number sequences are expected to increase in randomness but, inexplicably, a pattern emerges in many unrelated areas . Groups of occurrences tend to bunch unexpectedly. this observation, proposed as a principle is called Universality and it appears “when systems that are very complex, consisting of many parts that strongly interact with each other to create a spectrum. ” This is a surprising pattern that appears in many disparate environments – this is why it is called Universality – “Something”. Yes I know this is vague and I do not understand where it comes from. But, it is consistent with the ability of complex system to defy the tendency toward randomness at some point and self-organize.

This is why chaos sets up an inventor’s workbench that gives us structures (galaxies, planets) and platforms (life) that increase functionality and further possibilities.

The categories of three areas of inference that occur to me are information, a generative property and intent. I did not want to use the term pregnant so I used a thesaurus and found “generative”. Sounds right. My use of generative in not just a one-time output at one level, but includes an innate escalation from base to higher and higher levels of new platforms. The output of these platforms unfold higher levels of processes that  generate new processes that create new environments and go from the physical to consciousness and beyond. The deterministic material universe, astronomic bodies, life, cells, multi-cells, an oxygenated planet,  constant re-design to fully populate all ecological niches and domains, sea – land – air, social behavior, consciousness, high culture, art, artifacts, industry, religious culture, philosophy, ethics, humanism, democracy. Lets call this ascendance.

  Information Generative Intent
First Paradigm Position, state, complete detail. Maximum information. At another level- physical laws that provide reductionism as deduced. A Foundation that cannot be contradicted. This is the bare stage. (As in a theater) Future states are dictated by deterministic causality and physical laws. This is a foundation that provides a bare stage for the Second Paradigm. The possible  “workings” of the design are preordained – innate.
Second Paradigm Maximum information at the chaos level, some reduction in structures. Other – Emergent causality – can change outcome in non-linear, unpredictable fashion. We observe a new order that is reductive in information. Even without prior platforms, self-organization makes a U-turn away from randomness and creates a more organized, dynamic state. Without contradicting determinism, emergence can generate structures at all orders of magnitude, with  minimized energy use to reach equilibrium. At another level – life, other levels, intelligence, culture, etc. The generative property is continuous. Evolution can expand functionality to exploit ecological niches. At another level – coded processes – the DNA system etc. can become – functionally – a biological inventor. While there is no conscious foresight, the designed and changing purpose of the system is yet a higher level of generating processes and forms. The progress and potential of generation are increased. Ascendance ( admittedly with some detours )as described above. Given the bare theater stage, the epic play emerges on a generative, verdant planet with further emergence of all the players who write their own script.
Third Paradigm The Third Paradigm is actually the first in chronological order and the causality of the other two.

As an input into my insight, I cannot image a causality prior to the first two that does not have all the base information If it were dumb to all that, how does it create  a vessel and processes for that information?



As an input into to my insight, I cannot image a causality above the level of the first two that does not have all the powers of the first two – to cause generation. Could it be at a lower level? Blind or helpless. If it that was so, does it generate a generative universe while limited to inferior powers? Man has, it seems, compulsively sought the answer to a power beyond the immediate world. Man has always assumed that there was an intent to create a world with us as a target. Consider that most people were right about free will when so many agnostics and atheist believed in exclusive determinism. The ascendance we see is not explainable by the first or second paradigm. They are blind and must follow a plan that was innate. There is every evidence of a plan of ascendance, especially for humanity. We can only address this unavoidable insight by reference back to the third paradigm that had that intent at the beginning.




I see an ascendance in the history of man. I do have faith in man’s vision of a shared, common sense of justice and good, especially when it is based on natural law and this sense is made even more insightful by a progression of movements such as later religions in various forms, the renaissance, humanism. I see an elevated structure rising past early empires that believed the strong should exploit the weak and their gods expected this of warrior cultures. I see a clear progression when I think of “All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.” This view placed individuals with all different beliefs in a social contract to put individual rights over government and to limit government. Universal, unalienable set the stage to work out differences. Can anyone say that this progression has not emerged from  a religious view across mankind as created?  I feel that to progress I have to dig deeper to come to grip with God’s plan for us, individually and as a people.

Additional Topics:


The mechanisms developed by emergence have a higher level of design: Once a planform emerges – there is often another, new range, processes and menu of causality available. Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth:  RNA,  DNA ( a code set!), first cells, multi-cell simple organisms, plants, animals, memory, association, decision, culture, religion, philosophy, political systems.  Each of these platforms is a construct with new causality. Often they are step-like and each step increases possibilities of new functions.  The elements affecting causality do not have distinct definition or measurable units – mass, displacement, velocity.  We can use measurables by making them up and hoping for a good correlation. The  exact, predictive  outcomes can not be explained by the principles of deductive logic. A system of deductive logic for future prediction can not be verified.

Consider, more closely,  what it means to say life is a platform that has it own rules – “Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth:  RNA,  DNA ( a code set!)” –  Our DNA/RNA has a code set of four proteins and most do not correspond to the resultant output proteins and other chemicals structures and process control – some of which are expressed in puberty and beyond 12 yrs later. They are a coded formula and have many processes controllers. As a programmer I see how profound and intelligence-like this is. As a systems analyst and programmer, I know a system when I see it. I now see evolution as a system. I know, it uses randomness, but so does a casino and yet there is a system with higher level rules” the house always wins.” Randomness is exploited within bounds. Recent experiments show a gene pool of organisms keeps continuously improving adaptation and optimization to exploit its environment and it is not an asymptote that somewhat levels but keeps improving. – A system. The intrinsic properties of this system is at a way higher level of abstraction then it’s component deterministic causality. Sometimes the changes are marginal. Other times they are revolutionary. A primitive algae oxygenated the entire earth. Life conquered multi-cell complexity, and developed nerve control and eventually consciousness within deterministic limits.

Given the natures of determinism and emergence there is no chance to deny the existence of free will. PS. we use it every day.

Memory to Consciousness

Since the basis of emergence is a negative,  determinism has no solution to go forward  – chaos is a negative to determinism – chaos is an opportunity for emergence. Determinism, while not contradicted, does not continue with a deductively logical foundation for emergence. In order to progress as scientifically as possible you typically have to start in the middle. Inductive logic starts with observation – simply of what we see. This is how I  came to offer a theory oF Dreams  and a theory of hypnotism – – (Other entries in this blog – Why We Dream and What is Hypnotism). Then you use inductive logic applying all the scientific and mathematical tools you can, to describe source causality and resultant causality. As an example: As a physics student, when I was immersed in  determinism, I thought that no one would ever be able to scientifically define consciousness nor its causative source. I was both right – you can not use deterministic logic – and wrong – use deductive logic and start in the middle.

  • Start with the fact that the first life forms do exist. – Emergence.
  • Primitive life forms, in order to increase in capability needed to store information – memory.
  • Memory enables association.
  • Association links past input, to outcome.
  • A mechanism to change DNA in the direction of better outcome even if it is as crude as discovery by constant changes. This tendency is a fact that is now being studied and measured.
  • Association is needed for survival: to avoid or approach.
  • Reaction behavior is changed
  • Success of new reaction patterns reinforces.
  • For any animal, some level of association needs to understand a mental construct such as the physical ability, behavior and, later the personality of a predator.
  • For social animals. there is a need for a level of association to develop a complex mental construct of each of our social group’s individual peers.
  • The construct of each peer needs  our internal model of their uniqueness, generally, or how they react in any situation in order to progress in our relationship or optimize their pecking order or to interact safely or maximize access to food, sex etc.
  • We need to maximize our relationship to them, – to manage how they see us – manipulate?
  • At a higher level of using a construct such as the recognition of a unique personality –  in our planning, we can include an internal model of ourselves.  We see the uniqueness and pattern of ourselves – a self aware and self referential level of consciousness.

Once we had the precursor of the ability to recognize the mind model of our primary relationship we can manage our image and planning by having a construct of ourselves. At this point we can examine our consciousness. Consciousness includes the central command of all the brain’s resources both automatic but, uniquely directed – problem solving and at the highest level – improving image and self improvement.

We are not always on an escalator of progress. Is this the down-side of free will? 

I am not a Pollyanna, blind to the latest trend in the last few decades, There is a definite movement to deconstruct religion and to reverse the American liberal ideals. I call the present liberals “Contemporary, Establishment, Pseudo-liberals”. I am not and have never understood peoples selling out themselves to one political party or ideology right or left. The west has been captured by a basket of complexes centered around elites that  control wealth distribution, corporations, political fundraising, media and captured governments and even academia, they all have new and more tools to undo past progress. The mainstream press is gone. The Template is in the book “1984” and the Chinese social scores. In the US all departments and agencies including “Justice?” are both tools of power groups and gone rogue, controlling uneven justice and illegal levels of control. An example of the reversal of the founding fathers vision: In all the charter laws the CIA has no legal role in domestic politics. It is simply and always  illegal. Now along with the Deep State, it is in a partnership, primarily,  with one political party and determining policy while illegally tracking (there are server farms that can be measured in acres.) and abusing power by exchanging both mutual gain and negative pressure at any opportunity.  As an older American with a long history, I can only hope that this too shall pass.

To reply with an email, use:





Proposal for Voting Systems Designed to Prevent Fraud

To reply with an email, use:

The reports of the characteristics of some voting machines and software and security are astonishing to me from my knowledge of being a programmer and systems analyst for forty years. I have experience on systems that process applications that are far less critical to the future of the US than federal voting.

I will propose some ordinary and possibly minimum standards and features of a mail-in voting system intended to be integral with a professional level of protections. The other details would be left to the state legislatures within the legal boundaries of the federal constitution. The only purpose of this list of criteria is to fulfill the stated, shared intention of the outcome of a valid, proper election process without helping or enabling cheating.

Here is a summary of characteristics of a Mail-In Vote Processing System designed to minimize fraud (cheating). I will add details and discussion later.


  • Unique Supervision and User Id’s Assigned to screened and registered individuals – never shared.
  • Id’s have levels of  permissions – System Id, Master ID, Auditor, Legal Liaison, Site Director, Site Shift Supervisor, Report access, Counter, Party A Observer , Party B Observer. etc. These delimit who is using access and transactions and the Party affiliation or other role and what can be allowed. Paired, linked monitor displays that are six feet separate are available to party observers and supervisors confined to a defined set of functions and views. Mandatory sign in for pairing workers and observers.
  • What is logged – basically everything. All actions and transactions are logged including history of changes, changes that are reversed, deletions – where allowed. The deletions are functional but the historical data is preserved – before and after. Nothing is really deleted. No working access to logs.
  • The log includes, ID, permission level,  Date, Time, Transaction Ident, history notes, etc. Limited mass transactions that effect more than one vote unless they are pre-defined batch level and the history log keeps the before and after state down to vote detail.
  • Any system that does not have the above features as a minimum is designed to enable fraud.


  • Since Mail-ins, both requested and voter-list mailout,  if returned, are tendered with Outer envelope – name, address, etc and another, inserted inner vote envelope with vote- choice information only. The two envelopes and its paper are separated permanently to protect identification of who voted for each election choice. Each paper should have a unique ID number one for the demographics paper and a different one for the vote paper.
  • The matching access between the two papers and their ID’s would be maintained – encrypted in an Auditor data base and not be available at the working level. Then  Names – address, demographics can also be encrypted to be a unique number so duplicates can be identified but name detail can not be read only seen as different information. Eg; a name and address  could be uniquely encrypted to 1234779123 and that combination of name and address will always come out to that number – this  can be searched for any repetition in the system that is a duplicate candidate  to be flagged. Similar combination but not exact combinations can be identifies as similar.
  • Low level AI and statistical audit – If fifty-three batches all had the same percentage for a candidate to four significant digits, that would be flagged.
  •  Other statistical test would be able to detect and flag generated data as opposed to individual votes – person by unrelated person.
  • Jovan Pulitzer is the expert who has the most patents on QR Code and other scan technology. He has proven that he can scan 100’s of thousands of ballots in a day and tell if the vote was never folded. These votes were never mailed in an envelope. They were printed separately only for voter fraud. The valid ballots have clear horizontal marks that show they were folded. These properties could be enhance to show the history of folding and other handling.
  • No internet access
  • Micro marks to prevent outside sources of ballots
  • Drop box locations covered by photographic record

To reply with an email, use:


Why We Dream

To reply with an email, use:

The evolution of man’s dreaming reaches way back into the evolutionary mammalian past. Researchers accept evidence that dogs have dreams. Any explanation of the evolutionary, initial ratification and benefit must have, at base, a simple justification. So why did this remarkable facility evolve? Let us imagine how it helped the earliest humans.

Disclaimer – When I first formulated this theory, I fell into the self-centered trap of “if this theory is true then other conjectures must be false”. On reflection, I realized this is a completely, arbitrary A OR B trap/falacy as opposed to A AND B. I think my theory is very basic in terms of early development and evolutionary ratification of survival benefit. It can even be applied to other mammals like dogs. When I later thought about other dream effects/motifs like broad, non-specific  anxiety, I have to admit it does not directly fit my model presented below of specific danger-avoidance and attraction to better opportunity. I should know enough to understand that the Evolutionary System ratifies on the basis of the sum total of all outcomes that are supportive.

Dreams and nightmares as a necessary repetition mechanism to establish deep association for avoidance of danger.

This is my explanation of the initial, basic, and continuing, mechanism. I see an explanation that is the as evolutionary ratification . I think the easiest explanation can be seen in a scenario:

.A carefree juvenile is being warned to stay away from the high grass but like any youngster the communication may be clear but the urgency is not there. It does not compete with his short attention span, and immersion in play. The focus of juveniles at play is very narrow. Initially, he does not even see the proximity of the high grass.

He hears a muffled grunt. He smells a meaty smell. He looks up and sees high grass very close. His parents have been acting concerned and motioning and verbalizing the young ones to stay closer. He notices the adults stiffen and sniff the air. Strange, escalating verbalizations come from them and he can see the whites of their eyes. They begin to look like children that he has seen when frightened.  Normally his group does not go near high grass. He wonders what all this means. He does not have an immediate, automatic reaction so he is frozen in place.

Suddenly everyone is screaming wildly. He has never seen every adult in the extreme of complete panic – this is terrifying.  A monstrous animal leaps from the tall grass and seizes another child of the group who screams piteously. – Blood and panic. His mother runs to him and grabs him, almost dislocating his shoulder as she yanks him and runs away. He is frozen and traumatized.

Rhetorical question: Will this juvenile dream about this that night and on subsequent nights? Of course – he will have many, many nightmares. These nightmares are very common in young people. They are also almost inevitable after episodes of extreme stress at any age.  Will not all these associations be cooked in at a low level in his consciousness?

Why constant dreams/nightmares? Memory, learning and deep association can only be effected by direct and intense repetition. The research I see now, is emphatic on the role of repetition. This mechanism is necessary down to the biological/chemical processes at the synaptic level. The most effective system of association and priorities is dependent on repetition. It has been explained to me that it is like a system of game trails where the most trod path is dominant and there are many lesser branches. The alternative would be real-world, sporadic repetition of near-death experiences until the person is dead or more alert. This is not the best survival path. How do we get the repetition? Dreaming.

By the repetition in dreams, all these important associations and reactions are intensified. The next time he is carefree (maybe never to the same degree as before) and absorbed in the immediate, but smells that meaty smell, or sees the adults get still, or sees that look, or he hears those peculiar noises from them, or gets too close to the high grass, or hears that grunt, or adult alarm cries- will not his attention be automatically riveted and Adrenalin flow . This is a fight or flight reaction?  Won’t he start running towards the adults and safety? Is this not a survival trait? The trigger that acts past the state of immediate absorption is a monitor – the hidden observer. This would be the main ratification and driver of the unique dream state that is, otherwise, a drain on energy resources. I think it is the main reason for dreaming to evolve going way back to other mammals that dream. This does not exclude other theories. 

Most times the conscious mind (left-dominant) must be rooted in the expected and absorbed in the immediate, whether it is food gathering and especially in play. The hidden observer can compare with past associations and trigger a mental tap on the shoulder.

Dreaming sets up the associations after the remains of the day are relived and re-hashed. Things that the left brain in the Usual State of Consciousness is willing to forget or deny are associated and relived with new intensity and re-tuned with the glandular responses. The chemical process of deepening synaptic paths continues. An ordinary memory string can be triggered by a connection starting point like a picture, a poem or a song. The above memory links are more like alarm triggers. 

We could consider Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome as a more extreme and sometimes excessive effect of this mechanism. I think many therapist know that these patterns evolved to deal with short term, immediate threats and reactionary patterns resulting from juvenile input are dysfunctional in later life.  I think that hypnotist therapist are using part of the dream mechanism to reverse these effects and I think they know or sense this. 

The Hidden Observer

The question of the Hilgard’s Hidden Observer in relation to my dream theory has been raised by an expert hypnotherapist. My reference in this write-up, logically, seems to be the same mechanism in a different setting. I have not read much about his theory but one point is that  it basically says that the hypnotic subject, in trance, is not completely dominated and unware past suggested bounds even when commanded to sleep or can not remember. There are experimental results that say there is a hidden observer function operative in the subject that monitors, records and sometimes intercedes in some parts of there reaction or overrides. 

I will relate Hilgard’s Hidden Observer  to the dream mechanism: Experience, dreams, association, an attention trigger by a hidden observer. The economy of evolution, brain functions in human are allowed to consume a large portion of our energy budget. Evolution would not allow such a basic function to develop and improve at this cost for no reason or in preparation for hypnotic sessions late in our high culture evolution. Without this we could just rest at night. To say nothing of the astounding and sophisticated reversal – the awake reality that continuously perceives – – compared to  dreaming  – internal perception becomes reality to the dream observer. This has always astounded me and always will. I am a conceptual person.

It occurs to me that, in addition to setting up this monitor/alarm function, – it is also known that we need brain activity at night to support long term memory. This latter would be the precursor to dreams in evolution and continue


This made me think at a deeper level about this function/ability. Chronologically as a total system:

First we have daily experience and this function would have to monitor and retain (input) extracted content related to danger (negative)  or opportunity (food, sex) – with its own priority .

Second comes the Dream Director in sleep/dreaming that will impose needed evaluation of importance, driving repetition to deepen association. Our dreams, even hated nightmares, will associate environmental clues to danger night after night. repetition is physiologically necessary to deepen association and fast access. This is a high cost in the economy of energy use. There are many other negatives/costs.

Third – In the future – near or far – we can be absorbed, as described above, in food gathering, socialization or play. This is not a good state to monitor and be aware of clues to danger(major) or missed opportunity (minor). 

Fourth the facility of this hidden observer in the future will monitor past our absorption and give us “a tap on the shoulder” to get ready for fight or flight when the associated trigger perception is detected, consciously or subliminal . This is the part that relates to Hilgard’s Hidden Observer.

There is no reason to exclude this facility in the hypnotic trance state.     

I have received all of these pieces from others in articles. I just put them together in a good guess. I fail to see the harm and thank you for your indulgence.

To reply with an email, use:

What is Hypnosis

To reply with an email, use:

I have had a theory to explain what hypnosis is for many years. The explanation is overly structured for the purpose of analysis. It does explain things I knew about hypnosis and it has explained or predicted other things – additional, unplanned outputs.

When I was first taught about hypnosis by a teacher/hypnotist, he described the behavior of people responding to experimenters and stage hypnotists. I also saw hypnotist shows. I had the shock of immediate recognition. When I have seen people hypnotized and read of many examples I was struck by what a willing dupe they are and the similarity to my memory and questioning as a dreamer.

I remember my dreams and moments of questioning inconsistencies. I habitually analyze everything. In order for the dream to continue past obvious inconsistencies such as  – the dead-end by my house is now ocean front – in the middle of Queens, NY – miles from the ocean. The doubt is immediately suppressed, glossed over, as in Star Wars: “These are not the droids you are looking for” the suggestion appears that “there has been a lot of rain lately” – and I buy it!

The hypnotized in a session or show are similarly compelled to muddle through a proposed or implied scenario and they ignore an audience that may be laughing at them sometimes mockingly and not supportively. The relationship to the hypnotists is dominantly important and certainly is unique – no other person present has this directive power. As a start, I recognized the dreaming dupe as the same dupe in the hypnotic subject.

I started posting this theory to HypnosisOnline in the Forum – “Hypnosis Theory”. I proposed at that time (2005) that this will only be scientifically verified when brain function mapping provided by dynamic PET/CT scans clarify specific-purpose functional areas in dreaming and hypnosis. Now – January 2017 

Bing searches find hits on both dreaming and hypnosis identifying the same areas. “Reduced self-monitoring in dreams may be related to the deactivation of brain regions such as posterior cingulate cortex, inferior parietal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.”

– I have received concurrence. You can see the response from Gil Boyne (died 2010) a pre-eminent American Hypno-therapist and teacher in many seminars.

I then had to identify the key parameters that would identify differences in the Usual State of Consciousness (USC) vs Dreaming vs Hypnosis. The emergent view of dreaming concurs with my experience and the writings of others on dream and hypnosis experiences.

For the 3 states that are input:

  1. Awake or the Usual State of Consciousness (USC)
  2. Dreaming
  3. Hypnosis

This is where I am going: here are the permutations:

State Physiological State Consciousness


USC Awake USC Consciousness USC-Control
Dreaming Asleep Dream Observer Dream Director
Hypnosis Awake Dream Observer Hypnotist as Dream Director

Here are the three parameters necessary to differentiate the three states: USC, Dreaming and Hypnosis:

 Physiological State:

What is the comparison of the USC (Usual State of Consciousness) to Dreaming? The first parameter must be physiological state (awake or asleep). The USC and Hypnotism are physiologically awake and dreaming occurs while we are physiologically asleep.


What are the similarities in consciousness in these three states? Consciousness is self aware experience of our identity, our awareness of self and our perceived command of mental resources especially decisions. It is a subjective sense of our span of internal control as opposed to the external Not-I of all other reality. Any other perception beside our body and our mind is perceived as the Not-I. Consciousness is an overall coordinating function that brings together many internal inputs and outputs many mental resource elements and functions. e.g. I will try to remember. I will try to manipulate another person. I will overcome fear of an external factor.  How am I perceived by others. etc

What differentiates the USC from Dreaming? The high-level answer is we are cut off from the physical world and are immersed in a Dream World. In the dream world there is an obvious  parallelism to our awake world. In dreaming there is a different but familiar experience of the internal I and a familiar sense of all other dream reality (place, people, time, mood, etc.) as the familiar Not-I.

In the dream state the Not-I, of course, is technically us but analyzed by perception we perceive a separate I and a Not-I. This is, by perception. It feels the same as when we are awake – in dreaming it is an illusion, of course.

How much access to critical thinking?

The dream world has its own logic. I can open the side of a fish tank like a door and the water stays but the fish may drift out. Gravity mechanics are so weak that I sometimes question 40 ft jumps and have the option of becoming lucid (realizing and embracing that you are dreaming).  In order for the dream world to persist with all the illogic and shifting reality the Dream Observer must be a dupe with limited access to critical judgement.

When we dream, we do not control the monster chasing us. It is a Not-I element along with many other Not-I elements. The mood, the time-frame, the theme, external events, surprises. The Dream consciousness interacts with many other person-entities. Those other entities – dream people – interact with each other as I watch. These entities and a whole world are all generated and designed by a Not-I element! This is utterly spectacular and should not be glossed over because it happens every night. By this definition, the dream state Not-I elements have to be separated to define the dream sense of I.  I call the dream sense of I the Dream Observer as do others (Stephen Labarge). (I call the   Not-I elements the Dream Director – more detail below.)

The Dream Observer, as I have so far described it, sounds wholly passive, but; it is really a participant like an overwhelmed improvisational actor swept along by external direction, setting and expectation but still a partner in determining the story line. For this reason I include in the Dream Observer the concept of this dominated but participating improv-actor and a contributor to the story. Dominated, but with a second level of inhibition stops. Some dreams have a media form of stream of consciousness and others have a more pointed message and/or impressive insight and/or a story. Some people do not remember dreams or only remember a stream of consciousness. We are behaviorally variegated by genetics just as we are physically variegated.

Consciousness – Hypnotic State and Dream State 

As I stated in my overview above the hypnotized in a session or show are similarly compelled to muddle through a proposed or implied scenario and they ignore an audience that may be laughing at them, sometimes mockingly and not supportively. I saw a show in which the hypnotist’s scenario involved telling people they were having babies and they complied in a cartoonish fashion as best they could under the circumstances. Yes – some of them could have been faking. For this discussion, the only important thing is if some of them were not. This and many other descriptions of hypnotized persons compels me to recognize them as the same Dream Observer that I am very familiar with.  Especially when I was younger – I remembered all of several dreams through the night in detail and because I analyze compulsively I remember discrepancies and being forced to ignore them. Sometimes I become lucid because the reach is too far. This locks in the sense of “What a dupe!”. This is the basis of my recognition of the hypnotic subject as the Dream Observer.

Control – Dream Director

In dreaming – I call the Not-I Control element the Dream Director. I am not talking about a light switch on/off mechanism but a relative shift in priority and dominance. When I am the dreaming, I have a lot less control and access to critical judgment. Another center of control has shifted to a higher level of dominance compared to the USC. I have perceived this shift some times as I became lucid when analyzing events such as a long jump a block long. I remember everything experienced in the shift. The metaphor of a film director conducting an improv lesson is right on because we are given an entire world, people, mood, story line, surprises. Think of an overpowering director using improv to teach actors who are overwhelmed and eager to follow any direction without any critical thinking. This is close.

The Dream Observer Consciousness also accepts the illogical dream world as a matter of course. Compared to the dream state, in the USC I have a relatively much higher level access to critical judgement and I have the choice to persist in using it. This control element is intrinsic to the USC, so lets call the USC control element simply “USC-Control“.

The Dream Not-I – The Dream Director (DD) – What are the characteristics of the dream Not-I? The not-I determines that we have a nightmare when I do not want to. It creates other people entities and monsters in our dreams that are not-I. Why am I dreaming about my basement that is changed in incongruous ways. Why have I gone back in time? Where did the theme, feeling and mood come from? Why do I agree to false memories? What compels me to go down the basement when there is a foreboding sense and I don’t want to. It tweaks the story line by turning the stairs into various fun house stairs when we are fleeing from some threatening presence and I do not want this to happen. To me, all of this is clearly Not-I. The forceful introduction into the dream is a significant, other center of control. What is the  more dominant control element in dreaming? I call this dream control element the Dream Director. In this view of dreaming, the control element is not absolute but relatively more to the Dream Director. I am only taking about the default when we add up all the not-I. I am not saying that the Dream Director is another person with all the functions of a person, but; there is some coordination especially in a message dream as opposed to a stream-of-consciousness dream. The former is rare.

In dreaming there is a shift in the control element to the “Dream Director” and it is the relative higher control element in the dream state. Relatively, the degree of this control, is not the same as in the USC. In the USC the Dream Director is probably a part of the the hidden observer facility that can connect with past associations and emotional triggers – the instinct that may give us a tap on the shoulder when we are awake. It will feed inputs into the next nights dreaming after sifting through the remains of the day and assigning its own importance. Associations are deepened according to the Dream Directors priorities and this is a survival trait. See my write up on Why We Dream attached.

Where does hypnotism that is somewhat dominating come from? There is an economy in evolution that does not develop extra body part or extra behavior wasting scarce resources. I am not talking about a person referred to as being “hypnotized as they read a book”. Nor am I denying these partial states. I am talking about those instances of a dominating state in which, for instance, a stage hypnotist (or experimenter) can tell a person that mathematics is funny and a person that is usually too inhibited and has no innate acting ability will play the role with conviction. More significantly they will ignore derisive laughter of everyone else in the audience. The hypnotic subject ignores the significance of a large audience laughing at him as directed. He overcomes previous lifetime patterns of sensitivity and inhibition. He is compelled to go along unless a lower level of inhibition is triggered or he finds a way to resist such as sleeping, coming out or ab-reacting. This, to me, is a distinct state from the Usual State of Consciousness. A completely honest and sober person who is directed by the hypnotist, or knowledge of what is expected, will confabulate a story of satanic abuse (so convincingly that the FBI investigated for all the murdered sacrificed babies /other evidence/participants and nothing came of the investigation) or past lives or alien abduction. These effects are spectacular and needs to be explained. The expectation, hint or leads from the hypnotist are accepted as part of the direction as well as the subjects cultural information about hypnosis. The relationship to the hypnotists is dominantly important and certainly is unique – no other person present has this directive power.

My theory is simply this: The hypnotized person, without changing physiological state, gives up their USC Consciousness sense of self to the Dream Observer consciousness and allows the control element to shift from USC-control to the control element of the hypnotist acting in the role of the Dream Director. One obvious induction method is relaxation, suggestion and related techniques that “bore” the left brain into giving up control just as we do every night! As we fall asleep, before we go into a later prolonged dream state. We can fall into immediate reverie that is dream-like. I do not have an explanation for other induction methods but they must result in the giving up of left brain control element, “I”, of the USC. In dreaming we switch control to the right brain control function of the Dream Director – “Hypnotist as Dream Director“. That is why its unique messages are often in the visual form of a verbal pun. The right brain is normally verbally challenged when it is driving the point.

Here are the permutations:

State Physiological State Consciousness

Control shift

USC Awake USC Consciousness USC-Control
Dreaming Asleep Dream Observer Dream Director
Hypnosis Awake Dream Observer Hypnotist as Dream Director

-Other outputs not anticipated until I extended combinations

State Awake Consciousness Control Shift
Lucid Dreaming Asleep shift to more USC Consciousness USC-Control 
Corridor Dream Asleep Dream Observer Dream Director not active
Transcendental Meditation Awake Dream Observer Prior Intention/meditation
Fugue Awake? Dream Observer Dream Director

This theory also explains why honest persons who are hypnotized will tell convincing stories of satanic abuse, past lives or alien abduction wholly according to the specialty of the hypnotist. The same type of thing happens every night. The dream observer is compelled to go along with the theme and direction. It explains the dangers of false memories. I have supported dream absurdities with false memories many times and this is a lingering effect when I am waking.

Note the other outputs that I did not anticipate when I related the three elements to Dreaming, USC and Hypnosis. They emerged and helped to give me the feeling that this theory clicks.

If we become Lucid, become aware, that we are dreaming and decide to take control, we shift toward USC-Consciousness and realize we can take control but if we decide to dismiss the dream world we wake up. If we decide to stay in the dream world then we decide what to shift and change. I have done this many times but not regularly. As we become Lucid, we shift from the passive, submissive Dream Observer to a state approaching USC-Control. When we are lucid, we can change the not-I elements, the mood, the entire dream world. We can choose to continue to interact with other dream entities (our dream people created by the not-I Dream Director) or choose to interact differently or dismiss them and our surroundings or change our surroundings. The Dream Director as control element shifts down inversely as our USC-control increases. I have experienced this many times as do thousands of others. Many people do not even remember their dreams. We are behaviorally variable.

Dreaming and hypnosis share a shift in access to critical judgment, inhibition suppressed to a lower level, amnesia, false memories, resistance, lucidity, time-shift, ability to tune out external stimulus (but hypnosis is not physiological sleep). Why do honest people confabulate both when they are dreaming and when they are hypnotized? This is why the the hypnotized person is the worst experimental subject imaginable. The hypnotized subject will remember a valid reality better than in the USC but if there is no reality matching expectation then the hypnotized subject or dreamer must confabulate a false memory. He is being directed to either remember or to conform by confabulating.

Deconstructionist point out that there are many partial effects and shared elements. This is true. Why does the sharing and mixing of mental functions in other states invalidate hypnosis as a separate state? Partial hypnosis effects or long term effects from therapists (another route to the same transaction?) does not invalidate hypnosis any more than all the partial or shared effects of sleep in rest, momentary reverie etc. invalidate the state of sleep. If we insisted that we address sleep as all or nothing (it can be deconstructed) and we addressed partial effects such a momentary reverie, automatic driving a car to establish a continuum then the state of sleep could be denied with as much logic as deconstructionist use to deny hypnosis as a distinct state. Both have partial elements that may be present in continuums and present in various combinations and degrees.

Let me put it more positively. There are certain states that have been ratified by behavioral evolution: the usual state of consciousness – Awake, and Dreaming (see Why We Dream in this blog). There are other states that are combinations of behavioral functions – that is portions of these mechanisms and combinations. Lucid dreaming, Fugue and sleep walking are recombination of behavioral functions that seem to be in the wrong physiological state and are probably not ratified to support survival by evolution. Hypnotism is another recombination but I do not know if hypnosis is ratified.

As an Analyst, I constructed the first table for 3 states with the 3 factors necessary to differentiate them:

The table of additional outputs is an unanticipated output of the first analysis. Consider the symmetry and recombination in the process of becoming a lucid dreamer compared to my suggestion about hypnosis. The fact that these factors yield some insight into other states is an indication of concurrence.

In changing from dreaming to Lucid Dreaming we shift our Dream Observer Consciousness from the dominated Dream Observer to the I of the Usual State of Consciousness and Control from the Dream Director to USC-Control while not changing our physiological state.

In changing from the USC – awake to Hypnotism we shift our consciousness from the I of the Usual State of Consciousness to the Dream Observer Consciousness and the Control Element from USC-Control to the the Hypnotist as Dream Director Control while not changing our physiological state.

Can we see these patterns?

These shifts and Fugue and Sleep walking and Transcendental Mediation show that such recombinations exist usual or unusual, evolution-ratified or emergent.

To reply with an email, use: