JOHN C. LILLY, M. D.

Programming and Metaprogramming in THE HUMAN BIOCOMPUTER

[Image]

All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today are
programmed biocomputers. None of us can escape our own nature as
programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our programs, nothing
more, nothing less.

Despite the great varieties of programs available, most of us have a
limited set of programs. Some of these are built in. In the simpler forms
of life the programs were mostly built in from genetic codes to fully
formed adultly reproducing organisms. The patterns of function, of
actionreaction were determined by necessities of survival, of adaptation to
slow environmental changes and of passing on the code to descendants.

Eventually the cerebral cortex appeared as an expanding new highlevel
computer controlling the structurally lower levels of the nervous system,
the lower builtin programs. For the first time learning and its faster
adaptation to a rapidly changing environment began to appear. Further, as
this new cortex expanded over several millions of years, a critical size
cortex was reached. At this level of structure, a new capability emerged:
learning to learn.

-John C. Lilly. M.D.

Also by John C. Lilly, M.D.

THE MIND OF THE DOLPHIN

MAN AND THE DOLPHIN

THE CENTER OF THE CYCLONE

JOHN C. LILLY M . D. is a graduate of the California I Institute of
Technology and received his Doctorate in Medicine from the University of
Pennsylvania in 1942. He has worked extensively in various research fields
of science, including biophysics, neurophysiology, electronics, and
neuroanatomy. Dr. Lilly has done many years of study and research on
solitude, isolation, and confinement and is a qualified psychoanalyst. He
spent twelve years working on research on dolphinhuman relationships
including communications and two years at Esalen Institute, Big Sur,
California, as a group leader, resident, and associate in residence.
Recently he spent eight months in Arica, Chile, investigating and
participating in the Arica Training Group of Oscar Ichazo, the Master of a
modern esoteric school in the mystical tradition.

PROGRAMMING AND

METAPROGAMMING

IN THE HUMAN

BIOCOMPUTER

THEORY AND EXPERIMENTS

JOHN C . LILLY, M.D.

THE JULIAN PRESS, INC., PUBLISHERS

New York

A11 rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part
in any form.

Copyright (31967, i968 by John C. Lilly, M.D.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 7379777

Reissued in revised format, 1972, by

The Julian Press, Inc., Publishers

150 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10011

Based on a series of Seminars given at the Department of Psychiatry,
Schools of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, University of California at
Los Angeles, University of Minnesota; at the Medical Seminar, Edgewood
Arsenal; and at the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, Jewish
Theological Seminary, New York, in 1966.

Manufactured in the United States of America Design & Composition by Freda
Browne, New York

Foreword to Second Edition

This work has a curious history. It was written as a final summary report
to a government agency (National Institute of Mental Health) concerning
five years of my life work. (The agency paid my salary for the five years.)

It was conceived from a space rarer these days than it was then: the laws
suspending scientific interest, research, involvement and decisions about
dlysergic acid diethyl amide tartate were passed just as this particular
work was completed; the researchers were inadequately consulted (put down,
in fact). The legislators composed laws in an atmosphere of desperation.
The national negative program on LSD was launched; LSD was the big scare,
on a par with War, Pestilence, and Famine as the destroyer of young brains,
minds and fetuses.

In this atmosphere (19661967) Programming and Metaprogramming in The Human
Biocomputer was written. The work and its notes are dated from 1964 to
1966. The conception was formed in 1949, when I was first exposed to
computer design ideas by Britton Chance. I coupled these ideas back to my
own software through the atmosphere of my neurophysiological research on
cerebral cortex. It was more fully elaborated in the tank isolation
solitude and confinement work at NIMH from 1953 to 1958, run in parallel
with the neurophysiological research on the rewarding and punishing systems
in the brain. The dolphin research was similarly born in the tank, with
brain electrode results as parents in the further conceptions.

While I was writing this work, l was a bit too fearful to express candidly
in writing the direct experience, uninterpreted. I felt that a group of
thirty persons' salaries, a large research budget, a whole Institute's life
depended on me and what I wrote. If I wrote the data up straight, I would
have rocked the boats of several lives (colleagues and family) beyond my
own stabilizer effectiveness threshold, I hypothesized.

Despite my precautionary attitude, the circulation in 1967 of this work
contributed to the withdrawal of research funds in 1968 from the research
program on dolphins by one government agency. I heard several negative
stories regarding my brain and mind, altered by LSD. At this point I closed
the Institute and went to the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center to
resume LSD research under government auspices. I introduced the ideas in
work to the MPRC researchers and l left for the Esalen Institute in 1969.

At Esalen my involvement in direct human guttogut communication and lack of
involvement in administrative responsibility brought my courage to the
sticking place. Meanwhile, Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Truck Catalog
(Menlo Park, Calif.) reviewed the work in the Whole Earth Catalog from a
mimeographed copy I had given W. W. Harmon of Stanford for his Sufic
purposes. Stewart wrote me asking for copies to sell. l had 300 printed
photooffset from the typed copy. He sold them in a few weeks and asked
permission to reprint on newsprint an enlarged version at a lower price.
Skeptical about salability, I agreed. Book People, Berkeley, arranged the
reprinting. Several thousand copies were sold.

I had written the report in such a way that its basic messages were hidden
behind a heavy long introduction designed to stop the usual reader.
Apparently once word got out, this device no longer stalled the interested
readers. Somehow the basic messages were important enough to enough readers
so that the work acquired an unexpected viability. Thus it seems
appropriate to reprint it in full.

On several different occasions, I have been asked to rewrite this work. One
such start at rewrite ended up as another book. (The Center of the Cyclone,
The Julian Press, Inc., New York, 1972.) Another start is evolving into my
book number five (Simulations of God: A Science of Belief). It seems as if
this older work is a seminating source for other works and solidly resists
revision. To me it is a thing separate from me, a record from a past space,
a doorway into new spaces through which I passed and cannot return.

J. C. L.

February 7, 1972

Los Angeles, California

n Preface to Second Edition

All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today are
programmed biocomputers. No one of us can escape our own nature as
programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our programs, nothing
more, nothing less.

Despite the great varieties of programs available, most of us have a
limited set of programs. Some of these are builtin. The structure of our
nervous system reflects its origins in simpler forms of organisms from
sessile protozoans, sponges, corals through sea worms, reptiles and
protomammals to primates to apes to early anthropoids to humanoids to man.
In the simpler basic forms, the programs were mostly builtin: from genetic
codes to fullyformed organisms adultly reproducing, the patterns of
function of actionreaction were determined by necessities of survival, of
adaptation to slow environmental changes, of passing on the code to
descendants.

As the size and complexity of the nervous system and its bodily carrier
increased, new levels of programmability appeared, not tied to immediate
survival and eventual reproduction. The builtin programs survived as a
basic underlying context for the new levels, excitable and inhibitable, by
the overlying control systems. Eventually, the cerebral cortex appeared as
an expand-

*Quoted in entirety from John C. Lilly, Simulations of God: A Science of

Belief, in preparation, 1972.ing new highlevel computer controlling the
structurally lower levels of the nervous system, the lower builtin
programs. For the first time learning and its faster adaptation to a
rapidly changing environment began to appear. Further, as this new cortex
expanded over several millions of years, a critical size of cortex was
reached. At this new level of structure, a new capability emerged: learning
to learn.

When one learns to learn, one is making models, using symbols, analogizing,
making metaphors, in short, inventing and using language, mathematics, art,
politics, business, etc. At the critical brain (cortex) size, languages and
its consequences appear.

To avoid the necessity of repeating learning to learn, symbols, metaphors,
models each time, I symbolize the underlying idea in these operations as
metaprogramming. Metaprogramming appears at a critical cortical size-the
cerebral computer must have a large enough number of interconnected
circuits of sufficient quality for the operations of metaprogramming to
exist in that biocomputer.

Essentially, metaprogramming is an operation in which a central control
system controls hundreds of thousands of programs operating in parallel
simultaneously. This operation in 1972 is not yet done in manmade
computers-metaprogramming is done outside the big solidstate computers by
the human programmers, or more properly, the human metaprogrammers. All
choices and assignments of what the solidstate computers do, how they
operate, what goes into them are still human biocomputer choices.
Eventually, we may construct a metaprogramming computer, and turn these
choices over to it.

When I said we may be our programs, nothing more, nothing less, I meant the
substrate, the basic substratum under all else, of our metaprograms is our
programs. All we are as humans is what is builtin and what has been
acquired, and what we make of both of these. So we are one more result of
the program substrate-the selfmetaprogrammer.

As out of several hundreds of thousands of the substrate programs comes an
adaptable changing set of thousands of metaprograms, so out of the
metaprograms as substrate comes something else-the controller, the
steersman, the programmer in the biocomputer, the selfmetaprogrammer. In a
wellorganized biocomputer, there is at least one such critical control
metaprogram labeled I for acting on other metaprograms and labeled me when
acted upon by other metaprograms. I say at least one advisedly. Most of us
have several controllers, selves, selfmetaprograms which divide control
among them, either in time parallel or in time series in sequences of
control. As I will give in detail later, one path for selfdevelopment is to
centralize control of one's biocomputer in one selfmetaprogrammer, making
the others into conscious executives subordinate to the single
administrator, the single superconscient selfmetaprogrammer. With
appropriate methods, this centralizing of control, the elementary
unification operation, is a realizable state for many, if not all
biocomputers.

Beyond and above in the control hierarchy, the position of this single
administrative selfmetaprogrammer and his staff, there may be other
controls and controllers, which, for convenience, I call supraself
metaprograms. These are many or one depending on current states of
consciousness in the single selfmetaprogrammer. These may be personified as
if entities, treated as if a network for information transfer, or realized
as if self traveling in the Universe to strange lands or dimensions or
spaces. If one does a further unification operation on these supraself
metaprograms, one may arrive at a concept labeled God, the Creator, the
Starmaker, or whatever. At times we are tempted to pull together apparently
independent supraself sources as if one. I am not sure that we are quite
ready to do this supraself unification operation and have the result
correspond fully to an objective reality.

Certain states of consciousness result from and cause operation of this
apparent unification phenomenon. We are still general purpose computers who
can program any conceivable model of the universe inside our own structure,
reduce the single selfmetaprogrammer to a micro size, and program him to
travel through his own model as if real (level 6, Satori +6: Lilly, 1972).
This property is useful when one steps outside it and sees it for what it
is-an immensely satisfying realization of the programmatic power of one's
own biocomputer. To overvalue or to negate such experiences is not a
necessary operation. To realize that one has this property is an important
addition to one's selfmetaprogrammatic list of probables.

Once one has control over modelling the universe inside one's self, and is
able to vary the parameters satisfactorily, one's self may reflect this
ability by changing appropriately to match the new property.

The quality of one's model of the universe is measured by how well it
matches the real universe. There is no guarantee that one's current model
does match the reality, no matter how certain one feels about the high
quality of the match. Feelings of awe, reverence, sacredness and certainty
are also adaptable metaprograms, attachable to any model, not just the best
fitting one.

Modern science knows this: we know that merely because a culture generated
a cosmology of a certain kind and worshipped with it, was no guarantee of
goodness of fit with the real universe. Insofar as they are testable, we
now proceed to test (rather than to worship) models of the universe.
Feelings such as awe and reverence are recognized as biocomputer energy
sourcesxii

rather than as determinants of truth, i.e., of the goodness of fit of
models vs. realities. A pervasive feeling of certainty is recognized as a
property of a state of consciousness, a special space, which may be
indicative or suggestive but is no longer considered as a final judgement
of a true fitting. Even as one can travel inside one's models inside one's
head, so can one travel outside or be the outside of one's model of the
universe, still inside one's head (see Lilly 1972 level or state +3, Satori
+3). In this metaprogram it is as if one joins the creators, unites with
God, etc. Here one can so attenuate the self that it may disappear.

One can conceive of other supraself metaprograms farther out than these,
such as are given in Olaf Stapledon's The Starmaker (Dover, New York,
1937). Here the self joins other selves, touring the reaches of past and
future time and of space, everywhere. The planetwide consciousness joins
into solar systems consciousness into galaxywide consciousness.
Intergalactic sharing of consciousness fused into the mind of the universe
finally faces its creator, the Starmaker. The universe's mind realizes that
its creator knows its imperfections and will tear it down to start over,
creating a more perfect universe.

Such uses of one's own biocomputer as the above can teach one profound
truths about one's self, one's capabilities. The resulting states of being,
of consciousness, teach one the basic truth about one's own equipment as
follows:

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or
becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and
experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the
mind, there are no limits. (Lilly, 1972).

In the province of the mind is the region of one's models, of the alone
self, of memory, of the metaprograms. What of the region which includes
one's body, other's bodies? Here there are definite limits.xiii

In the network of bodies, one's own connected with others for bodily
survivalprocreationcreation, there is another kind of information:

In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true,
either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found
experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be
transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits

But, once again, the bodies of the network housing the minds, the ground on
which they rest, the planet's surface, impose definite limits. These limits
are to be found experientially and experimentally, agreed upon by special
minds, and communicated to the network. The results are called consensus
science.

Thus, so far, we have information without limits in one's mind and with
agreedupon limits (possibly unnecessary) in a network of minds. We also
have information within definite limits (to be found) with one body and in
a network of bodies on a planet.

With this formulation, our scientific problem can be stated very succinctly
as follows:

Given a single body and a single mind physically isolated and confined in a
completely physicallycontrolled environment in true solitude, by our
present sciences can we satisfactorily account for all inputs and all
outputs to and from this mind- biocomputer (i.e., can we truly isolate and
confine it?)? Given the properties of the softwaremind of this biocomputer
outlined above, is it probable that we can find, discover, or invent
inputsoutputs not yet in our consensus science? Does this center of
consciousness receivetransmit information by at present unknown modes of
communication? Does this center of consciousness stay in the isolated
confined biocomputer?XIV

In this book I try to show you where I am in this search and research. In
previous books I have dealt with personal experiences. Here I deal with
theory and methods, metaprograms and programs.

February, 1972 Los Angeles, Calif.

T. L. C.

Preface to First Edition

This work is the result of several years of personal effort to try to
understand the various paradoxes of the mind and the brain and their
relationships. It is felt that the basic premises presented in this work
may help resolve some of the philosophical and theoretical difficulties
which arise when one uses other viewpoints and other basic beliefs.

Some of the major philosophical puzzles are concerned with existence of
self, with the relation of the self to the brain, the self to the mind, and
self to other minds, the existence or nonexistence of an immortal part of
the self, and the creation of and the belief in various powerful phantasies
in these areas of thought.

In Man there is a basic need for imagining wishfulfillments. Man's wishful
thinking becomes interwoven among his best science and even his best
philosophy. For the intellectual and the emotional advancement of each of
us we need certain kinds of ideals. We also need ways of thinking which
look as straight at the inner realities as at the
physicalchemicalbiological outer realities. We need truly objective
philosophical analysis inside ourselves as well as outside ourselves. This
work is a summary of a current position in progress to try to attain
objectivity and impartiality with respect to the innermost realities.

One might well ask where is such theory applicable? Once mastered, it may
be directly applied in selfanalysis. If one remembers that one's self is a
feedbackcause with other human beings, one can start at this personal end
of the system and

xv

xvi

achieve beginnings of interhuman analysis by analyzing one's self first. If
successful, one may see one's self operating in improved fashions with
other people, as judged by one's self and, much later, as judged by others.
The reflections of one's intellectual and emotional growth later may begin
to be distributed and are then seen operating in one's interhuman
transactions- with one's wife, children, relatives, colleagues, and
professional and business contacts.

The persons who can understand and absorb this kind of theory need
understand over a broad intellectual and emotional front. Each one needs
understanding and training in depth in multiple fields of human endeavor.
Those persons who probably can understand it best are the general
scientists. * Among those in this group to whom I have presented the
theory, there was immediate understanding and an immediate grasping of the
basic fundamentals and of the consequence of the theory.

A second group who have no difficulty with the computer aspects but who may
have difficulty with the subjective aspects is that large group of young
people who are becoming immersed more and more in computers, their use and
programming. A few of these may have the necessary biological and
psychoanalytic background to understand this viewpoint. Additional training
may be given to these few in selfanalysis itself.

Several members of a third group may find it useful with further study, the
classically trained psychoanalytic scientists.

*A general scientist (as defined for purposes of this discussion) is a
person trained in the scientific method and trained in watching his own
mind operate and correcting his scientific as well as philosophical and
pragmatic errors. In a sense he is a scientist who is willing to study more
than just one narrow specialty in an attempt to grasp as much knowledge as
he can under the circumstances from other fields than his own. He has a
grasp of symbolic logic and of mathematics which he can apply to problems

other than his own scientific specialty.

Xvii

The psychoanalytic group may have difficulties in that very few are trained
in the general purpose types of thinking involved in general purpose
computers.

There are difficulties in the way of a multidisciplinary group, as a group,
to use this theory. It seems necessary that each individual absorb the
necessary kinds of thinking and kinds of motivations involved in each of
the fields represented. Members of such groups can motivate one another to
do individual learning in these areas and can help one another learn in
these various areas. It is up to each responsible individual to absorb
enough to gain understanding on the levels presented.

As with most insights into the innermost realities, it is felt that many of
the advantages of this viewpoint cannot be seen directly until this way of
thinking is absorbed into one's mind. The thinking machinery itself is at
stake here. Once absorbed and understood I have found it possible to see
that the properties and the operations of one's mind in many different
states can be accounted for somewhat more satisfactorily. With the
resulting increased control over conscious thinking and preconscious
computations, with the newly enhanced respect for one's fixed unconscious
(as if builtin) programs, the integration of one's self with the deeper
inner realities becomes more satisfactory.

The theory is phrased in definite statements. However, it is not intended
that the reader take this version as definitive, final, completed, or
closed. Each of these definite statements is to be accepted only as a
working hypothesis as currently presented by the author. My aim is not to
make a new final philosophy, a new religion, or a new rigid way of
approaching man's intellectual life. My aim is to increase the flexibility,
the power, and the objectivity of our currently limited mind and its
knowledge of itself. We have come a long way from the lowly primate to our
present level. (However, we have a long way to go to realize the

xviii

best obtainable from ourselves.) One has only to look at the inadequacies
of Man's treatment of Man, and see how far we must go if we are to survive
as a progressing species with better control of our battling animalistic
superstitious levels.

It is expected that this theory will be useful in understanding and in
programming not only one's self but other minds as well. Enhancement of the
very human depths of communication with other minds may be approached. The
current limits and the attainable limits for education, for reprogramming,
for therapy and for cooperative efforts of all sorts between men, may be
aided in the terms here presented. This is at least a hope of the author.
Only time and use of this kind of thinking can test out the further working
hypothesis.

One fact which must be appreciated for applying this theory is the
essential individual uniqueness of each of our minds, of each of our
brains. It is no easy work to analyze either one's self or someone else.
This theory is not, cannot be, a miracle key to a given human mind. It is
devilishly hard work digging up enough of the basic facts and enough of the
basic programs and metaprograms controlling each mind from within to change
its poor operations into better ones. This theory can help one to sort out
and arrange stored information and facts into more effective patterns for
change. But the basic investigation of self or of other selves is not easy
or fast. Our builtin prejudices, biases, repressions and denials fight
against understanding. Our Unconscious automatically controls our behavior.
Eventually we may be able to progress farther. It may take several
generations of those willing to work on these problems.

I have a question about the wisdom of publishing too much of me, myself. I
hesitate to publish in this small work certain personal observations in
depth and in detail. If the society in which we live were more ideal, I
might so publish. (Possibly in such an ideal society there might be no need
for such work.) I do not know the answer, nor will I espouse the cause of
thosewho feel they do know either the yes or the no answer. Frankly, I am
an explorer in this area. My ambition is to be free to explore, not to
exploit. I share what I experience because that is my profession-to search,
to find, to discuss, and to write within Science what I find. Let others
use what I may be privileged to find in their own professions, businesses,
and/or pursuits. I have found that as soon as I go commercial, go
political, or any other motivational endeavor, I lose what I personally
prize most-my objectivity, my dispassionate appraisal, my freedom to
explore the mind within my own particular limits. To make money, to cure
someone, to rule, to be elected, to grant money, to be a specialist in one
science are all necessary and grand human enterprises needing persons of
high intellectual and dedicated maturity. I do not seem to be of those
(maybe I do or did not choose to be). In the United States of America in
1966, to insist on the explorer's role in the region of Man's innermost
mind is to insist on being intellectually unconventional and to espouse a
region of endeavor of research difficult to support. Grants for scientific
research tend to be awarded by specialists to specialists; this is true in
medical sciences as well as others. This current work cuts through too many
specialties for that kind of support. I hope someday that approaches such
as this one can be supported on their own merit.

Respect for the Unknown is hard to come by. Support for a science devoted
to the Innermost Unknowns is needed.

METATHEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In general there are two opposing and different schools of thought on the
basic origins of systems of thought or systems of mathematics. In a
simplified way these two extreme positions can be summarized as follows:

1. In the first position one makes the metatheoretical assumption that a
given system of thinking is based upon irre-xx

ducible postulates- the basic beliefs of the systems. All consequences and
all manipulations of the thinking machine are then merely elaborations of,
combinations of, these assumptions operating upon data derived from the
mind and/or from the external world. This is called the formalistic school.
This school assumes that one can, with sufficiently sophisticated methods,
find those postulates which are motivating and directing a given mind in
its operations. A further metatheoretical assumption is that once one finds
this set of postulates that then one can account for all of the operations
of that mind. (Whitehead and Russell, 1927; Carnap, 194246; Tarski, 1946.)

2. The opposing school at the opposite end of a spectrum of schools, as it
were, makes the metatheoretical assumption that thinking systems arise from
intuitive, essentially unknowable, substrates of mental operations
(Hilbert, 1950). This school states that new kinds of thinking are created
from unknown sources. Further, one is not able to arrive at all of the
basic assumptions on which systems of thinking operate. Many of the
assumptions from this point of view must be forever hidden from the
thinker. Thus in this view the origins of thinking are wide open. With this
metatheoretical assumption one can then conceive of the existence in the
future of presently inconceivable systems of thought.

3. There is an intermediate position between these two extremes in which
one assumes the existence of both kinds and that each of these two extremes
has something to offer. Thus one can select kinds of thinking which are
subject to formalistic analysis and formalistic synthesis based upon basic
beliefs. But this does not include all thinking. Some kinds continue to be
based in unknown areas, sources, and methods. Metatheoretical selection
isXXI

being done by selection of the formal kind of thinking from a large
universe of other possibilities. This position does not state that the
origins of the basic beliefs are completely specifiable. However, once some
related basic beliefs are found to exist, a limited system of rules of
combination of the basic beliefs giving internally consistent logical
results can be devised for limited use of that system. This organization
into a limited integral system of thinking and the selection of those basic
beliefs which naturally fit into such systems of thinking, is a way of
dividing off this territory.

Among many other metatheoretical ways of looking at one's own thinking
machine and its activities is one which considers the unknown origins of
basic beliefs and finding those whose origins are unknown. The whole
problem of origin and the whole problem of how one constructs basic beliefs
is at stake here.

If one takes a naturally occurring, thinking mind and obtains a
sufficiently large sample of its thinking, one can have a metatheoretical
faith that one can then find the basic beliefs and their origins. I am not
too sure that such metatheoretical faith in one's ability to adequately
observe, adequately record, and adequately analyze mental events and
construct them into logical explanations is warranted. With certain areas
of thinking one can do this, with certain kinds of minds one can do this,
but are not these the minds which have been organized along the known
metatheoretical pathways? Are not these the minds which believe implicitly
in metatheoretical terms in a basic set of beliefs and operate with them in
an obvious direct logical fashion?

May it not be better to conceive of minds and of criteria of excellence for
general purpose minds in which one plugs in, as it were, metatheoretical
positions which do not have only this area of applied formalism. In certain
areas of thinking, of course, it is necessary to have a set of basic
beliefs including

XXII

those of the rules of various kinds of games that one must play in the
external physical reality and in the social reality.* One can play these at
different levels of abstraction with more or less excellence at playing,
with or without dedication, etc. Interlock with external reality has its
own requirements, not just those of the mind itself. In this paper external
reality is not the area of major emphasis as can be seen in other portions
of the paper. The interest of the author is more in the thinking machine
itself, unencumbered. During those times when it is unencumbered by the
necessities of interlock with other computers and/or with an external
reality, its noninterlock structure can be studied. A given mind seen in
pure culture by itself in profound physical isolation and in solitude is
the raw material for our investigation (Lilly, 1956).

Thus our major interests are in those metatheoretical positions which
remain as open as possible to reasonable explanation and reasonable models
of the thinking processes of the origins of beliefs, of the origins of
self, the organization of self with respect to the rest of the mind, and
the kinds of permissible transformations of self which are reversible,
flexible, and introduce new and more effective ways of thinking.

Is one of the sum and substance of one's experience, of one's genetics,
genic inheritance, of one's modeling of other humans and of other animals
and of plants, or is one something in addition to this? As we chip away at
this major question of existence of self, as men have chipped away at this
question over the millennia, we find that this kind of question and the
attempt to answer it have led to new understandings, new mathematics, new
sciences, new points of view and new human activities. If one attempts to
conceive of one's self as having gone through another kind of evolution
other than that of the

*Von Neumann & Morgenstern.

xxiii

human, if one attempts to conceive of himself having lived in an
environment different from the social one that we have been exposed to, or
if one attempts to imagine having evolved as an organism with the same (or
greater) degree of intelligence in the sea or on a planet nearer the sun or
farther from the sun, one realizes the essentially prejudiced nature of
one's self. Let one carefully consider, for example, the genic mutations
leading to different human form, structure, function and mental set. One
metatheoretical position is that all such mutations in their proper
combination exposed to the proper environment (of which there must be
millions of possibilities) can survive and progress. In other words, even
those mutations which are lethal now, may have survival value under special
new and different conditions.

If there is any truth in this statement then we should be doing a whole set
of experiments on the adaptability and the seeking of the proper
environment, proper peculiar diets, proper relation of sleepwakefulness,
light to dark, amount of various kinds of radiation, amount of noise,
amount of motion, and so forth for mutants at each stage in their life
cycle. In other words, we should experiment with all of the vast parameters
in which we have evolved and their variations in order to seek optimal
survival values of these for the embryo, fetuses and children who do not
survive under our peculiarly narrow range of values of these parameters. To
change lethals to optimals seems possible and even probable with
imaginative and thorough research.

Our genetic code with all its possible variations is a general purpose
construction hit for a vast set of organisms, only a few examples of which
we see in the adult human population in all races around the world. This
molecular construction kit for organisms (through the exigencies of
matings, of early embryonic development and growth, of the conditions
imposed by mother, her diet and physical and social surroundings) gives

xxiv

rise to organisms which test experimentally the conditions imposed upon
them and test how well the particular combination and particular values in
their genic code are combined to form an integral complete organism for
coping with that particular environment and those particular organisms
found in that environment (including bacteria and viruses).

One can conceive of an infinity of other environments populated with other
viruses, bacteria, and complex organisms in which Man as such could not
survive in his present form. One could also conceive of our genetic code
(as given) generating organisms who could and would survive and progress
under those new conditions.

Until we have thoroughly explored this genetic code, until we can specify
the organism and the conditions under which it can reach maturity, and
become an integral individual, we will not have the data necessary for
specifying all of the characteristics of the human computer which are
brought to the adult from the spermegg combination.

We have not tested our own range of adaptability (as integral adults) to
all possible environments. Scientifically we have little experience with
the extreme; we know something of the extremes of temperature, of air and
of water in which we can survive. We know something of the radiation limits
within which we can survive. We know something of the oxygen concentrations
in the air that we breathe, we know something of the light levels within
which we can function. We know a little of the sound levels in which we can
function, and so forth. We are beginning to see how the environment
interlocks with our computer and changes its functioning. We are beginning
to see how certain kinds of experiences with these conditions set up rules
which we call physical science within our own minds. We are beginning to
see how, if we change the external conditions, in a limited way within a
limited piece of apparatus, that these rules must be changed in order to
understand how we can model these changed conditions and the way that
atoms, molecules,

xxv

radiation and space behave, in our own minds. This century has seen vast
advances in our modeling of radiation, material particles of matter, space,
stars, galaxies, solid materials, liquids, and our small modifications of
all of these. This century, however, has not seen a similar gain in our
understanding of the operations of our own minds, of the essential origins
of thinking, and of those conditions under which we can elect to create new
thinking machines within our minds.

In this century we have begun to appreciate some of the powerful and
special organizations of matter which are our essential organisms. The
advances in the last fifty years in biochemistry, in genetics, and in
biophysics and molecular biology are the beginnings of a new control of
these distributions of matter within ourselves.

Schrodinger* said that the chromosome (which contains the linear genetic
code) to a physicist is a linear twodimensional solid; along its length it
has a great strength and yet it is a flexible chain which can move and
which can be split down the middle during mitosis. These carriers of the
orders for our ultimate structure as an integral adult, their essential
immortality in being passed from one individual to the next in creating the
next individual in line, should not be neglected in any theory of the
operation of our mind. It may be that our basic beliefs, the unique ones of
each one of us, can be found by careful correlations between our
essentially unique genic maps and our thinking limits. It may be that the
kinds and levels of thinking of which each of us is capable is essentially
determined by the genes which are contained in each of us. It may be that
each of our private languages is genically determined. Even if this is
true, that there is genic determinism in regard to our thinking machines,
we are not yet at the point at which we can specify the levels of
abstraction and the cognitional and theoretical entities which are
genically controlled.

* Schrodinger (1945).

xxvi

If we can free ourselves from the effects on our thinking machine of
storage of material from the external world, if we can free ourselves up
from the effects of storage of metaprograms which direct our thinking,
programs devised by others and fed to us during our learning years, we may
be able to see the outline and the essential variables which are genically
determined. This is an immensely difficult area for research. It will
require the services of many talented individuals considering their own
thinking processes, combined with a detailed knowledge of their genic
structure and their genic predecessors.

Of course in this discussion we are entering into difficulties brought
about by the phenotypegenotype differences. These will have to be taken
into account as will all of the other mechanisms so laboriously worked out
and discovered in the science of genetics. But these rules of genetics must
not be limiting in the metatheory; they must enter as part of the knowledge
of these talented individuals and at the correct level of abstraction for
seeking the patterns of thinking which are genically controlled.

This genic determinism of thinking can turn out to be a willo-thewisp. It
may be that in the subsequent development of the computer it has become so
general purpose that the original genetic factors and the genes are no
longer of importance. Even as one can construct a very very large computer
of solid state parts or of vacuum tube parts or of biological parts, it
makes little difference as long as the total size, the excellence of the
connections and the kinds of connections are such that one can obtain a
general purpose net result from the particular machine. So may we possibly
cancel out genic differences. So may each one of us, as it were, attain the
same kinds of learning and the same kind of thinking machine little
modified by genic differences.

I do not wish to take sides on these issues. I merely wish to say that if
one is to take an impartial and dispassionate view, one cannot afford to
espouse deeply any fixed pattern of thinking with regard to these matters.
I would prefer to see talented individuals with large mental capabilities
investigating their ownXXVII

minds to the very depths. I want to aid these individuals in their
communication of the results to others, with similar yet different talents.
I believe that by using certain methods and means, some of which are
presented in this work, that truly talented and dedicated individuals can
forge, find, and devise new ways of looking at our minds, which are truly
scientific, intellectually economical, and interactively creative.
Consider, for example, the case of the fictitious individual created by the
group of mathematicians masquerading under the name of Dr. Nicholas
Bourbaki

This group of mathematicians in order to create a mathematics or sets of
mathematics beyond the capacity of any one individual, held meetings three
times a year and exchanged ideas, then went off and worked separately. The
resulting papers were published under a pseudonym because the products of
this work were felt to be a group result beyond any one individual's
contribution.

Whether or not this group was greater than or lesser than a single human
mind, operating in isolation on similar materials, will not be known for
some time. It may be that the human computer interlock achieved among these
mathematicians created a new entity greater than any one of them in regard
to modes of thinking, complexity of thinking, and creative new ideas.
Certain kinds of things that Man does of necessity require tremendous
amounts of cooperation among very large numbers of individuals. Such
accomplishments are beyond any one individual and are a product only of the
group effort. This is true, for example, in building the Empire State
Building, a subway system, a railroad system, an airline, a large
industrial factory, etc. In each of these cases there is a rearrangement of
external realities, a setting up of a communication network between many
individuals and a dedication of each of these individuals to the purposes
of the organization of which they are a part. This is probably the greatest
accomplishment of our industrial, military, educational and religious
efforts in this century. Man's

xxviii

effective interlock with other men can accomplish certain kinds of things
beyond any individual.

However, in certain areas, gifted, talented, intelligent individuals seem
to function almost autonomously as solitudinous computers giving rise to
new findings. This is seen in the case of the mathematical geniuses raised
in isolation. One is almost afraid to educate such people for fear that
they will lose their general purpose nature and their ability to make
original creative contributions. Somehow or other they have escaped
interlock into Man's ever more pervasive social organizations and their
demands. As in the case of the creative physicist Moseley, who was drafted
and killed in World War 1, such talent can be thrown away by the operations
of the necessity of interlock in our society.

There is a point of view in the modern world and there are divisions among
intellectuals which are wasting our use of talent and genius. There are
antithetical philosophies which cause diversive intellectual activities. It
may be that such conflict is necessary for the intellectual advancement of
each individual. It may also be completely superfluous and nonsensical. C.
P. Snow has pointed out in his writings (especially those about the two
cultures) that one kind of social dichotomy about which I speak. The value
systems of each intellectual reflect his prejudices, his biases, his
blindnesses, as well as his areas of competence. It seems to be a very
foolish maneuver to take that which one knows, that in which one is
excellent and raise it above the general intellectual level of all other
intellectuals. One technique of raising what one and one's most intimate
colleagues know above the surrounding intellectual terrain is to literally
dig an intellectual moat around one's field of activity. To dig this moat
one demeans and denigrates areas of knowledge and individuals in those
fields surrounding one's own field. This kind of activity seems to be
almost builtin in our structure as biological organisms.

T.C.L

St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1967

Contents

Foreword to Second Edition, v

Preface to Second Edition, viii

Preface to First Edition, xv

Introduction, 1

  1. Use of ProjectionDisplay Techniques in Deep SelfAnalysis with Lysergic
     Acid Diethylamide (LSD25), 18 Corporeal Face, 23

Blank Screen, 23 Zero Level External Reality, 25 Definition of Evasion of
Analysis of Metaprograms, Inner Cognition Space, 29 Practical
Considerations, 35 Definition of a General Purpose SelfMetaprogram,38

2. Summary of Experiments in SelfMetaprogramming with LSD25, 41 Experiments
on Basic Metaprograms of Existence, 43 Metaprogrammatic Results of Belief
Experiments, 48

3. Personal Metaprogrammatic Language An Example of Its Properties, 53

4. Metaprogramming in the Presence of a Fixed Neurological Program
(Migraine): Example of Perception and Belief Interactions, 62

5. Note on the Potentially Lethal Aspects of Certain Unconscious,
Protohuman, Survival Programs, 67

6. Choice of Attending Persons During LSD25 State Used for SelfAnalysis, 6
9

xxlx

xxx

7. Behavioral, NonIsolation Replay of Protohuman Programs:

The Problem of Repetitive Unconscious Replay, 71

8. Basic Effects of LSD25 on the Biocomputer: Noise as the

Basic Energy for Projection Techniques, 76

Growth Hypothesis, 79

9. Summary of Basic Theory and Results for Metaprogramming

the Positive States with LSD25, 82

10. Coalitions, Interlock and Responsibility, 84

11. Participant Interlock, Coalitions with Individuals of

Another Species, 91

Retreats from Interlock, 94

Metaprograms for Interspecies Interlock, 95

Observations with TursiopsHuman Interlock: Mimicry as

Evidence of Interlock, 96

12. Summary of Logic Used in this Paper: Truth, Falsity,

Probability, Metaprograms and Their Bounds, loo

13. Hardware, Software Relationships in the Human

Biocomputer, 104

14. Problems, 107

15. Metaprogramming the Body Image, 109

16. Brain Models, 113

17. Excerpts from The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 122

Summary, 126

Acknowledgments, 128

Glossary, 130

Major Metaprograms, 131

Key to Categories in References and Bibliography, 135

References, 136

Categorized Bibliography, 145

Abstract, 158

List of Figures

Figure 1 74

2 115

3 118

4 118

5 118

6 119

7 119

8 120

9 120

10 121

11 121

12 121

List of Tables

Table 1 113

2 113

3 114

4 115

5 116

6 116

7 116

8 117

9 117

10 117

Introduction

"The general (purpose) computer is. . .a machine in which the operator can
prescribe, for any internal state of the machine and for any given
condition affecting it, what state it shall go to next. . .All behaviors
are at the operator's disposal. A program . . .with the machine forms a
mechanism that will show (any thinkable) behavior. This generalization has
largely solved the main problem of the brain so far as its objective
behavior is concerned; the nature of its subjective aspects may be left to
the next generation, if only to reassure them that there are still major
scientific worlds left to conquer." (W. Ross Ashby, "What Is Mind?" in
Theories of the Mind, Macmillan, New York, 1962.)

The relations of the activities of the brain to the subjective life in the
mind have long been an arguable puzzle. In this century some advances in
the reciprocal fields of study of each aspect of the question apparently
can begin to clear up some of the dilemmas. This is a report of a theory
and its use which is

2

intended to attempt to link operationally, the

(a) mental subjective aspects,

(b) neuronal circuit activities,

(c) biochemistry, and

(d) observable behavioral variables.

The sources of information used by the author are mainly

(1) the results and syntheses of his own experiments on the CNS* and the
behavior of animals,

(2) the experiences and results of experiments in profound physical
isolation on himself,

(3) his own psychoanalytic work on himself and others,

(4) his studies and experience with the design, construction, operation and
programming of electronic solid state digital storedprogram computers,

(5) studies of analogue computers for the analysis and conversion of voice
frequency spectra for man and for dolphin and the online computation of
multiple continuous data sources,

(6) studies and experiments in neuropsychopharmacology,

(7) research on and with communication with humans, with dolphins, and with
both,

(8) study of certain literature in biology (B), logic (L),
neuropsychopharmacology (N), brain and mind models (M), communication (T),
psychoanalysis (P), computers (C), psychology (O), psychiatry (I), and
hypnosis (H) (see References and Bibliography).

The introduction of openminded, multiplelevel, continuously developing,
online, operational, dynamic, economical, expanding, structuralfunctional,
field-jumping, fieldignoring theory is needed. The applications of this
theory extend from the atomicmolecularmembranescell levels, though cell
aggregational levels, total behavior and mentalcognitive levels of the
single organism of large brain size, and to dyadic and larger groups of
such individuals.

* Central Nervous System

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS (Table 2, Figs. 4 & 5)

The basic assumptions are as follows:

1. The human brain is assumed to be an immense biocomputer, several
thousands of times larger than any constructed by Man from nonbiological
components by 1965.

The numbers of neurons in the human brain are variously estimated at 13
billions (1.3 times ten to the tenth) with approximately five times that
many glial cells. This computer operates continuously throughout all of its
parts and does literally millions of computations in parallel
simultaneously. It has approximately two million visual inputs and one
hundred thousand acoustic inputs. It is hard to compare the operations of
such a magnificent computer to any artificial ones existing today because
of its very advanced and sophisticated construction.

2. Certain properties of this computer are known, others are yet to be
found. One of these properties obviously is a very large memory storage.
Another is control over hundreds of thousands of outputs in a coordinated
and programmed fashion. Other examples are the storage and evocation of all
those complex behaviors and perceptions known as speech, hearing and
language. Some of the more unusual properties of this computer are given
further along in this paper.

3. Certain programs are builtin, within the difficultto-modify parts of the
(macro and micro) structure of the brain itself. At the lowest possible
level such programs which are builtin are those of feeding, eating, sex,
avoidance and approach programs, certain kinds of fears, pains, etc.

4. Programs vary in their permanence, some are apparently evanescent and
erasable, others operate without apparent

change for tens of years. Among the evanescent and erasable programs one
might categorize the ability to use visual projection in the service of
one's own thinking. One finds this ability with a very high incidence among
children and a very low incidence among adults. An example of a program
operating without change for tens of years one can show handwriting, over a
long series of years, to maintain its own unique patterns.

5. Programs are acquirable throughout life. Apparently no matter how old a
person is, there is still a possibility of acquiring new habits. The
difficulties of acquisition may increase with age, however, it is not too
sure that this is correct. The problem may not be with acquiring programs
so much as a decrease in the motivation for acquiring programs.

6. The young newly growing computer acquires programs as its structure
expands some of these take on the appearance of builtin permanence. An
example of such acquisition of programs in a child is in the pronunciation
of words. Once it agrees with those of the parents the pronunciation is
very difficult to change later, i.e., there is really no great motivation
for the child to change a particular pronunciation when it is satisfactory
to those who listen.

7. Some of the programs of the young growing computer are in the inherited
genetic code; how these become active and to what extent is known only in a
few biochemical-behavioral cases, at variance with the expectable and usual
patterns of development. The socalled Mongoloid phenomenon is inherited and
develops at definite times in the individual's life. There are several
other interesting clinical entities which appear to be genetically
determined. To elicit the full potential of the young growing computer
requires special environments to avoid negative antigrowth kinds of
programs being inserted in the young computer early.

8. The inherited genetic programs place the upper and the lower bounds on
the total real performance and on the potential performance of the computer
at each instant of its life span. Once again we are assuming that the best
environment is presented to the young organism at each part of its life
span. It is not meant to imply that such an environment currently is being
achieved. This basic assumption seems highly probable but would be very
difficult to test.

9. The major problems of the research which are of interest to the author
center on the erasability, modifiability, and creatability of programs. In
other words, I am interested in the processes of finding metaprograms (and
methods and substances) which control, change, and create the basic
metaprograms of the human computer. It is not known whether one can really
erase any program. Conflicting schools of thought go from the extremes that
one stores everything within the computer and never erases it to only the
important aspects and functions are stored in the computer and hence, there
is no problem of erasing. Modifications of already existing programs can be
done with more or less success. The creation of new programs is a difficult
assignment. How can one recognize a new program once it is created? This
new program may merely be a variation on already stored programs.

10. To date some of the metaprograms are unsatisfactory (educational
methods for the very young, for example). It is doubtful if any metaprogram
is fully satisfactory to the inquiring mind. Some are assumed to be
provisionally

satisfactory for current heuristic reasons. To keep an open mind and at the
same time a firm enough belief in certain essential metaprograms is not
easy; in a sense we are all victims of the previous metaprograms which have
been laid down by other humans long before us.

11. The human computer has general purpose properties within its limits.
The definition of general purpose implies the ability to attack problems
that differ not only in quantitative degree of complexity but also that
differ qualitatively in the levels of abstraction in the content dealt
with. One can shift rapidly one's mind and its attention from one area of
human activity to another with very little delay in the reprogramming of
one's self to the new activity. The broader the front of such reprogramming
the more general purpose the computer is. The ability to move from the
interhuman business world to the laboratory world of the scientist would be
an example of a fairly general purpose computer.

12. The human computer has stored program properties. A stored program is a
set of instructions which are placed in the memory storage system of the
computer and which control the computer when orders are given for that
program to be activated. The activator can either be another system within
the same computer, or someone, or some situation outside the computer.

13. The human computer, within limits yet to be defined, has
"selfprogramming" properties, and other personsprogramming properties. This
assumption follows naturally from the previous one but brings in the
systems within the mind which operate at one level of abstraction above
that of programming. As is shown in Fig. 1, one literally has to talk about
selfmetaprogramming as well as selfprogramming. This does not imply that
the whole computer can bethought of as the self. Only small portions of the
systems operating at a given instant are taken up by the selfmetaprograms.
In other words there has to be room for the huge store of programs
themselves, of already builtin circuitry for instinctual processes, etc.
All of these exist in addition to others leaving only a portion of the
circuitry available for the selfmetaprograms. The next section emphasizes
this aspect.

14. This computer has selfmetaprogramming properties, with limits
determinable and to be determined. (Note selfmetaprogramming is done
consciously in metacommand language. The resulting programming then starts
and continues below the threshold of awareness.) Similarly, each computer
has a certain level of ability in metaprogramming othersnotself.

15. The older classifications of fields of human endeavor and of science
are redefinable with this view of the human brain and the human mind. For
example, the term suggestibility has often been used in a limited context
of programming and of being programmed by someone outside. Hypnotic
phenomena are seen when a given computer allows itself to be more or less
completely programmed by another one. Metaprogramming is considered a more
inclusive term than suggestibility. Metaprogramming considers sources,
inputs, outputs, and central processes rather than just the end result of
the process (see Fig. 1). Suggestibility names only the property of
receiving orders and carrying them out rather than considering the sources,
inputs, outputs, and central processes (ref. H. Bernheim, Clark Hull).

16. The mind is defined as the sum total of all the programs and the
metaprograms of a given human computer, whether or not they are immediately
elicitable, detectable, and8

visibly operational to the self or to others. (Thus, in alternative
terminology, the mind includes unconscious and instinctual programs.) This
definition and basic assumption has various heuristic advantages over the
older terminologies and concepts. The mind-brain dichotomy is no longer
necessary with this new set of definitions. The mind is the sum of the
programs and metaprograms, i.e., the software of the human computer.

17. The brain is defined as the visible palpable living set of structures
to be included in the human computer; the computer's real boundaries in the
body are yet to be fully described (biochemical and endocrinological
feedback from target organs, for example). The boundary of the brain, of
course, may be considered as the limits of the extensions of the central
nervous system into the periphery. One would include here also the
so-called autonomic nervous system as well as the CNS.

18. There is in certain fields of human thinking and endeavor, a necessity
to have a third entity, sometimes including, sometimes not needing the
brain-mind-computer; commonly this entity is defined as existing by
theologians and other persons interested in religion. Whether the term
"spirit" or "soul" or other is used is immaterial in this framework. Such
terms inevitably come up in the discussion of the ultimate meanings of
existence, the origins of the brainmind computers, the termination or the
destinations of self after bodily death, and the existence or non-existence
of minds greater than ours, within or outside of braincomputers. This
extra-brain-mind-computer entity can be included in this theory if and when
needed. (I agree that such assumptions may be needed to give overall
meaning to the whole of Man. Religion is an area for experimental9

science. Work starts in this area with the basic assumptions of William
James, the great psychologist. The definitions in this area of this theory
may be expanded in the future. Some compound term like
"brain-mind-spirit-computer may be developed at that time.) There is still
the problem of the existence theorem to be satisfied in regard to this
third entity. There are some persons who assume it exists; there are others
who assume it does not exist.

19. Certain chemical substances have programmatic and/or metaprogrammatic
effects, i.e., they change the operations of the computer, some at the
programmatic level and some at the metaprogrammatic level. Some substances
which are of interest at the metaprogrammatic level are those that allow
reprogramming, and those that allow and facilitate modifications of the
metaprograms. (The old terms for these substances are loaded with
diagnostic, therapeutic, medical, moral, ethical, and legal connotations.)
To be scientifically useful the social connotations are removed. Such terms
as "psychopharmacologically active drugs," "psychotomimetics, "
"tranquilizers, " "narcotics, " "drugs, " "anaesthetics," "analgesics,"
etc. are used in a new theory without the therapeutic, diagnostic, moral,
ethical, and legal connotations; all of this area should be subjected to
careful reevaluation with the new view in mind. Applications of good theory
to the social levels may help to unravel this area of controversy.

For example, the term "reprogramming substances" may be appropriate for
compounds like lysergic acid diethylamide. For substances like ethyl
alcohol the term "metaprogram-attenuating substances" may be useful.
Similarly the theory proposed may be useful in other areas in the classical
fields of psychopharmacology, neurophysiology, biochemistry, and
psychology, among others. Some of the

10

detailed operations of the brain itself can be operationally organized to
show how programs are carried out by excitationinhibitiondisinhibition
patterns among and in neural masses and sheets (for example7 the reticular
activating-inhibiting system, the rewardpunishment systems7 the
cerebralcortical conditionable systems7 etc.). (Tables 3107 Figs. 8 and 9)

20. It is not intended that I be dogmatic in the new definitions of this
version of the theory.

Speed in the recording of the ideas is preferred to perfection of the
concepts and deriving the ultimate in internal consistency. As the theory
grows7 so may grow its accuracy and applicability. It is intended that the
theory remains as openminded as possible without sacrificing specificity in
hazy generality. The language chosen is as close to basic English as
possible.

As the theory develops, a proper kind of symbolism may be developed to
succinctly summarize the points and allow manipulations of the logic to
elucidate elaborations of the argument in various cases.

It is known that the common "machinelanguage" of mammalian brains is not
yet discovered. The selfmetaprogram language is some individual variation
of the basic native language in each specific human case. All of the levels
and each level expressed in the selfmetaprogram language for
selfprogramming cover very large segments of the total operation of the
computer, rather than details of its local operations. Certain concepts of
the operation of computers, once effectively introduced into a given
mindbraincomputer, change its metaprograms rapidly. Language now takes on a
new precision and power in the programming process.

21. Certain kinds of subjective experience reveal some aspects11

of the operations of the computer to the self. Changes in the states of
consciousness are helpful in delineating certain aspects of the bounds and
the limits of these operations. Inspection of areas of stored data and
programs not normally available is made possible by special techniques.
Special aspects and areas of stored programs can be visualized, felt,
heard, lived through or replayed, or otherwise elicited from memory storage
by means of special techniques and special instructions. The evocation can
be confined to one or any number of sensory modes, with or without motor
replay simultaneously.

22. After and even during evocation from storage, within certain limits,
desired attenuations, corrections, additions, and new creations with
certain halflives can be made. These can be done with (fixed but as yet not
determinable) halflives in conscious awareness, and can subsequently be
weakened or modified or replaced, to a certain extent to be determined
individually. An unmodifiable halflife can turn up for certain kinds of
programs subjected to antithetical metaprograms, i.e., orders to weaken,
modify or replace a program act as antithetical metaprograms to already
existing programs or metaprograms.

23. New areas of conscious awareness can be developed, beyond the current
conscious comprehension of the self. With courage, fortitude, and
perseverance the previously experienced boundaries can be crossed into new
territories of subjective awareness and experience. New knowledge, new
problems, new puzzles are found in the innermost explorations. Some of
these areas may seem to transcend the operations of the mindbraincomputer
itself. In these areas there may be a need for the metacomputer mappings;
but first the evasions constructed by the computer itself must be found,
recognized, and reprogrammed. New knowledge12

often turns out to be merely old and hidden knowledge after mature
contemplative analysis.

24. Some kinds of material evoked from storage seem to have the property of
passing back in time beyond the beginning of this brain to previous brains
at their same stage of development; there seems to be a passing of specific
information from past organisms through the genetic code to the present
organism; but, again, this idea may be a convenient evasion, avoiding
deeper analysis of self. One cannot make this assumption that storage in
memory goes back beyond the spermegg combination or even to the spermegg
combination until a wishful phantasy constructed to avoid analyzing one's
self ruthlessly and objectively is eliminated.

25. Apparently not all programs are revisable. The reasons seem various;
some are held by feedback established with other mindbraincomputers in the
lifeinvolvement necessary for procreation, financial survival, and practice
of business or profession. Other nonrevisable programs are those written in
emergencies in the early growth years of the computer. The programs dealing
with survivals of the young self sometimes seem to have been written in a
hurry in desperate attempts to survive; these seem most intransigent.

26. Priority lists of programs can function as metaprograms. Certain
programs have more value than others. By making such lists the individual
can find desired revision points for rewriting important metaprograms. In
other words it is important to determine what is important in one's own
life.

27. The basic bodily and mental function programs and their various forms
dealt with in verbalvocal modes (words, speech, etc.) have been described
in great detail in the psychoanalytic literature. Evasion, denial, and
repression13

are varieties of metaprograms dealing with the priority list of programs.
Metaprograms to hide (repress) certain kinds of storage material are
commonly found in certain persons. Such analyses are confined to the
verbalvocalacoustic modes. Encounters with other persons in the real world
are much more powerful in terms of modifications of programs than either
psychoanalysis or selfanalysis. For example learning through sexual
intercourse cannot be given through the verbalvocal mode

28. The detailed view of certain kinds of nonspeech, nonverbal learning
programs, i.e., some of the methods of introducing such programs and parts
thereof, are exemplified in the work of I. P. Pavlov and of B. F. Skinner.
Some of these results are the teaching and the learning of a simple code or
language, a code with nonverbal elements (nonvocalized and nonacoustic)
with autonomic components (Gordon Pask, 1966). Other motor outputs than the
phonation apparatus are used.

29. The rewardpunishment dichotomy or spectrum is critically important
within the human computer's operations. (Figs. 2, 68, 1012 and Tables 37)

The fact of various CNS circuits existing as reward and as "punishment"
systems when stimulated by artificial or by natural inputs must be taken
into account (Lilly, J. C., 1957, 1958, 1959). The powerful emotional
underpinnings of "movement toward" and "movement away" must be included, as
well as the acquisition of code symbols for these processes. Such symbols
tend to set up the priority hierarchies of basic operational programs in
microformat (nonverbal) and in macroformat (verbal). Too often,
"accidental" juxtaposition seems to key off improper hierarchical relations
at the outset, with resulting priorities set by "first occurrence"
spontaneous configurations, un-planned and unprepared. With a new view and
a new approach, with planned "spontaneities" graded by order of occurrence,
proper program priorities could be set at the beginning of the computer's
life history. The maintenance of general purpose properties from the early
human years to adulthood is a worthwhile metaprogram.

The positive (pleasure producing) and negative (pain or fear producing)
aspects of the programs and metaprograms strike at the very roots of
motivational energies for the computer. One aspect of Iysergic acid
diethylamide is that it can give an overall positive motivational aspect to
the individual in the LSD25 state. This may facilitate program
modifications, but it also can facilitate seeking pleasure as a goal of
itself.

30. Various special uses of the human computer entail a principle of the
competing use of the limited amount of total available apparatus. To hold
and to display the accepted view of reality in all its detail and at the
same time to program another state of consciousness is difficult; there
just isn't enough human brain circuitry to do both jobs in detail
perfectly. Therefore special conditions give the best use of the whole
computer for exploring, displaying, and fully experiencing new states of
consciousness; physical isolation (only with special limited stimulation
patterns, if any) (Lilly, 1956) gives the fullest and most complete
experiences of the internal explorations. One such extreme condition is
profound physical isolation (isothermicity, zerolevel visible quanta, sonic
levels below threshold, minimum gravitationalresisting unit area forces,
minimum internal stimulation intensity, minimum respiration stimulus level,
etc.). This condition can give some additional new states of consciousness
the "necessary lowlevel evenness of context" in which to develop. These
results are facilitated15

by minimizing the necessities for computing the present demands of the
physical reality and its calculable present consequences (physical reality
programs).

Using this principle of the competitive use of portions of the available
brain it is important to understand why, for example, a large amount of
hallucinating would not be permissible in our present society. If a person
is actively projecting visual images in three dimensions from his stored
programs, he may not have enough of his brain functioning in ordinary modes
to take care of him with regard to say, gravity, automobiles, and similar
hazards. He may become so involved in the projection in the visual field
that the inputs from reality itself have to be sacrificed and their quality
reduced. It is apparently this danger which teaches us to inhibit
hallucinations (i.e., visual projection displays) in the very young
children.

31. The principle of the competitive use of available computer structure
has a corollary: the larger the computer is, the larger the total number of
metaprograms and of programs storable, and the larger the space which can
be used for one or more of the currently active programs simultaneously
operating. The larger the number of actuable elements in the brain the
greater the abilities to simultaneously deal with the current reality
program and to reinvoke a past storedreality program. The quality of the
details of the reinvoked program and the quality of the operations in the
current physical reality are a direct function of the computer's absolute
functional size, all other values being equal.

There may be brains which are large enough to simultaneously project from
storage into the visual field and also to function adequately in the
outside environment. At least conceptually this is a possibility. This
partition of the16

programs among various modes of operation of course are included in our
definition of the general purpose nature of this particular computer.

32. The "consciousness program" itself is expandable and contractible
within the computer's structure within certain limits. In coma, this
program is very nearly inoperative; in ordinary states of awareness it
needs a fair fraction of the machinery to function. In expanded states of
consciousness the fraction of the total computer devoted to its operation
expands to a large value. If the consciousness is sensorially expanded
maximally, there is little structure left for motoric initiation of complex
interaction and vice versa. If motor initiation is expanded, the sensorial
creations are reduced in scope. If neither sensorial nor motor activities
are expanded, more room is available for cognition and/or feeling, etc.

33. The steady state values of the fractions of the total computer each
devoted to a separate program at a given instant add up to the total value
of one. The value of a given fraction can fluctuate with time. The places
used in the computer also change.

34. In general there are delineable major systems of metaprograms and of
programs competing for the available circuitry. The methods of categorizing
these competing programs depend on the observer's metaprograms. One system
divides the competitors into visual, acoustic, proprioceptive, emotive,
inhibitory, excitory, disinhibitory, motor, reflexive, learned, appetitive,
pleasurable, and painful. This system is used in neurophysiology and
comparative physiology.

35. Another system of classification divides the competing metaprograms and
programs into oral, anal, genital, defensive, sublimated, conscious,
unconscious, libidinal, aggress-17

ive, repressive, substitutive, resistive, tactical, strategic, successful,
unsuccessful, passive, feminine, active, masculine, pleasure, pain,
regressive, progressive, fixated, ego, id, superego, ego ideal. This is the
system of classification employed by psychoanalysis.

36. Another system divides the competitors into animal, humanistic, moral,
ethical, financial, social, altruistic, professional, free, wealthy, poor,
progressive, conservative, liberal, religious, powerful, weak, political,
medical, legal, economical, national, local, engineering, scientific,
mathematical, educational, humanistic, childlike, adolescent, mature, wise,
foolish, superficial, deep, profound, thorough, etc. This is a
classification which is employed in general by humanitarians and
intellectuals.

37. The classifications of metaprograms and/or of programs by the above
methods illustrate some useful principles to be included. There is probably
a set of better schemes than any of the above ones. Such new
systematizations are needed; the principles in this theory may be useful in
setting them up at each and every level of functioning of the computer.

1. Use of ProjectionDisplay Techniques in Deep SelfAnalysis with Lysergic
Acid Diethylamide (LSD25)

The use of the psychedelic agents (such as LSD25) in the human subject
shows certain properties of these substances in changing the computer's
operations in certain ways. Some of these changes are mentioned above in
passing; a summary of those found in the LSD state empirically are as
follows:

1. The selfmetaprogram can make instructions to create special states of
the computer; many of these special states have been described in the
literature on hypnosis.

2. These instructions are carried out with relatively short delays
(minutes). The delays of course will vary with the complexity of the task
which is being programmed into the computer. It also is a previous history
of this same kind of programming: the more often it has been done the
easier it is to do again and the less time it takes.

3. Only taboo or forbidden programs are not fully constructed: there are
peculiar gaps which give away the fact that there are forbidden areas.
Within realizable limits most other programs can be produced.

4. When one first does enter into the storage systems the way the material
is held in the dynamic storage is entirely strange to one's conscious self

19

5. Production of displays of data patterns, of instructions, or storage
contents, or of current problems can be realized through such instructions.
[A "display" is any visual (or acoustic, or tactile, etc.) plotting of a
set of discriminative variables in any number of dimensions of the
currently available materials.] The motivational sign and intensity can be
varied in any of these displays under special orders.

6. More or less complete replays of past experiences important in current
computations can be programmed from storage; the calendar objective time of
original occurrence seems a not too important aspect of the filing system;
the level of maturation of the computer at the time of original occurrence
is of greater import.

7. Stored or filed occurrences, filed instructions, filed programs vary in
the amount and specificity of positive and/or negative affectfeelingemotion
attached to each. If too negative (evil, harmful, fearful) an emotional
charge is attached, replay can allow readjustment toward the positive end
of the motivationfeelingemotion spectrum. With the LSD25 state the negative
or the positive charge can be changed to neutral or to its opposite by
special instructions. However, since most people wish to avoid the negative
and encourage the positive once they obtain control over programming they
tend to put a positive charge even on programs and metaprograms and the
processes of creating them. (A chemical change may take place in signal
storage (Fig. 1) as the sign of the motivational process shifts from
negative to positive.)

The following description gives examples of the successful uses of and the
results with the freedom to program new instructions during the LSD state.
It is to be emphasized for those who have not seen the phenomena within
themselves that this kind of20

manipulation and control of one's own programs and its rather dramatic
presentation to one's self is apparently not achievable outside of the use
of LSD25. This amount of control can be said to resemble other ways of
achieving control and visual projection but in actual intensity I know of
no other way to achieve it. Hypnosis is a possible exception.

In some cases during the eight or so possible hours of the special states
of consciousness achievable with the help of LSD25, the use of visually
projected images to aid in seeing the nature of one's own defensive,
evasive, and idealization mechanisms can be realized. By means of a mirror
for the careful inspection of the body in the external reality (the whole
body or the face alone) it is possible to induce a special state of
consciousness (or a special program or metaprogram in the use of perception
circuitry) in which remembered or unconsciously stored images of self or of
others appear on or in place of the body image. Such stored images can be
selected within certain limits, manipulated within other limits, or allowed
to occur in a freeassociation context, appearing as parallels of the
current thoughtstream. The orders to self for the appearance of these
phenomena may resemble the posthypnotic suggestion instructions given
during autohypnosis, the metaprogrammatic instructions to a very large
computer for a certain type of display program with special content to be
displayed, and the orders to a large organization to produce a play with
many actors operating in one place in space, one after the other, each with
an assigned role not necessarily specified in detail. For periods of 30 or
so minutes of objective time such projections can be maintained and worked
with in the selfanalysis context; at the end of this timeinterval some
fatigue is noted with subsequent stopping of the display. Reevocation can
be achieved by a period of rest from this and similar tasks for a period of
15 minutes objective time. Several such periods can be evoked during a
single session.

Areas of unconsciously operating taboos, denials and inhibi-21

tions are revealed (in negative, as it were) by the absence of appearance
of the consciously desired and ordered projections in certain areas. Areas
of unconscious elaboration show as projections of great detail and
completeness even though no real remembered reality could possibly
correspond to the projection. Screen memories (Bertram Lewin, et al.) show
in great profusion. As the buried material behind the screen is uncovered,
the screen memory disappears.

An apparent defensive maneuver is the flickering images phenomena; the new
images come at such a rapid rate (2 or 3 per objective second) like a
slowed flickering movie that one cannot inspect any one image long enough
to recognize its significance. Another alleged evasion is the melting, or
mosaic, or distortion maneuver in which images flow in whole or
plastically, or are broken up into parts like a mosaic, or parts are
interchanged among several stored images at different levels. The melting,
mosaic or distortion of course can be programmed, of itself, under direct
orders. It is only considered an evasion when it is not under the control
of the self.

The current affect and its modulation by conscious wishing is immediately
shown on the facial expression of the projection despite a lack of change
in the objective face itself (proprioceptively, photographically, etc.,
detected). The projected face and the real face fit together in three
dimensions. It is almost as if the perception systems were using the real
face and recomputing it to give a different appearance, i.e., if the real
face is held neutral then the projected face will manipulate the apparent
features of the real face with accurate showing of anger, joy, sexual
desire, hatred, jealousy, pleasure, pain, fear, psychic mutilation of ego,
adoration of self, and several other such emotions. These have been studied
by their mirrorprojections.

Conflicts can be projected in several ways: the images switch rapidly back
and forth between the two conflicting categories, emotions, orders,
persons, ideals, or other. Alternatively, parts

(disparate parts) of the internalized argument are projected side by side,
giving a peculiar stereoscopic depthinconflict appearance to the display.
Profound fatigue shows by showing aged or diseased splotchy images.

The negative operations which prevent certain contents reaching access to
the display mechanism can be shown to exist by using alternate
"acceptabletotheegoideal" routes to the display program and its projection.
For example, material which cannot be projected onto one's own mirrored
image, sometimes can be projected onto a color picture of someone else. In
some cases the other person in the picture is most suitably and acceptably
of the opposite sex (face alone, full body clothed, or unclothed) for the
full use of the display of the desired material.

In the proper circumstances a properly selected real person can also serve
as the external reality threedimensional screen onto which material can be
projected. This latter "screen" is not a passive one and may say or do
something on its own which either changes the projection or invokes a new
program (such as the demanding external reality program) which may abolish
the whole phenomenon of projection in the visual display itself. When one
sees a visual projection onto the face of another person of, say, one's
true deeper feelings, the realization may come that this happens to one all
the time below the levels of awareness without the special powers
attributable to this substance; i.e., there is an already prepared
unconscious "display" (which is here allowed access to the visual mechanism
by the special conditions) which normally operates in the external reality
program with other persons unconsciously or preconsciously. This firsttime
finding can have therapeutic benefits in the consequent selfanalysis of
one's human relations.23

CORPOREAL FACE

One interesting kind of a projection onto the image of one's own whole body
(or onto the real body of another) is the phenomenon of the selfcreation of
the corporeal face. In this phenomenon, one sees a face of a "monstrous
being" whose projected features are made up on the following real body
parts: the real shoulders become the "top of head," mammal areolae become
"oculi" (with female, proptosis), navel to "nares," pubes to "mouth," and
with male, penis to "lingua." This face, though quite vacuous of itself,
can be made quite frightening, sad or happy with proper programming. Once
seen, it is easily programmed even with extreme body position changes.
Analysis shows, in a particular case, that this face is in storage from
very young childhood and was generated/resulted from phantasies about
bodies, male and female, threatening/seductive. This projection is useful
as a tracer of certain kinds of fears.

THE BLANK SCREEN

The external reality screens for the projection of the display program in
the LSD state thus can be arranged in a set with various dimensions
relating each to the others. Among these are: the nonselfreal persons;
motion pictures of these persons in various states; still pictures of the
persons; pictures of self from the past, motion and still, three
dimensional and flat; the here-andnow threedimensional color image of one's
face and/or body in a mirror; and finally, the eyesopen or eyesclosed blank
unlighted or lighted projection screen.

The blank projection screen introspectively considered varies depending
upon whether the eyes are open or closed. In the dark, in the absolute
dark, one can detect differences between the eyes open and the eyes closed
blank screen. The eyes open case gives a feeling of depth out beyond the
eyes, a feeling of a

24

real visual space. In this subject the eyes closed immediately turns the
vision to a different visual space which seems more internal, more
introspective, more subjective. In the LSD25 state these differences are
attenuated in the profound isolation conditions.

The blank screen is the most difficult one to work with but is the least
"driving" of the group. The blank screen interferes least with one's
creative efforts; it takes more program circuitry to create those aspects
which can be furnished by the other screens themselves, from the perception
mechanisms directly into the projection program itself. The blank screen
does not so easily show the "forbidden transitions" except by remaining
blank, i.e., more relaxation and freedom to "free associate" with this
visual mode is required to project on a blank screen.

At times the crossmodel synesthetic projection may help with the blank
screen; excitation coming in the objective hearing mechanisms can be
converted to excite visual projection. The commonest excitation used here
is music; this wellorganized patterned input tends to "drive the content by
association." For instance, religious music can evoke religious visions
constructed in childhood from real pictures, churches and phantasies, etc.
Other inputs are voices, one's own real or recorded voice, the voice of
another person these sources can have problems similar to those with the
pictures. The high priority program we are calling the external reality
program may tend to usurp the circuitry and take over from the projection
program with pictures or voices of known and valued persons. This effect
interrupts the projection and its free association. In the long run the
external reality's content and its connections can be shown to be relevant
by continued selfanalysis, using the usual techniques of psychoanalysis.

Such interruptions depend upon the individual computer and its conflicts in
relation to the projection program versus the external reality program. If
there is guilt or fear present, the ex-25

ternal sources will attract the energy of the computer back to the external
reality. Alternatively, if the level of excitation from the person in the
external reality rises above a certain value, the whole computer will be
turned to that particular person and his/her vocal output and his/her
behaviors.

Purely random noise may avoid these difficulties; it may be a proper
acoustically lighted blank screen for crossmodel excitation of the visual
projections. Initial experiments with inphase and nonphase noise in the two
ears show some new programming possibilities. One pitfall, here, however,
is to avoid the initial problem of the programming by the random processes
of the noise itself. This tends to result in chaotic programming, i.e.,
randomness itself can build up to a large intensity within the
metaprogramming systems. With adjustment of the acoustic intensity of the
two nonphase related noises these effects can be attenuated and the noisily
lighted visual screen used for proper projection purposes. Only preliminary
experiments have been done in this region as yet.

ZERO LEVEL EXTERNAL REALITY

When sufficient progress with the external reality projection screens of
the various kinds (visual, acoustic to visual synesthetic, body image, and
others), the elimination or at least maximal attenuation of all modes of
stimulation from the external reality allows deeper direct penetration into
the unconscious. The rationale here is that more circuitry in one's huge
computer is freed up from the external excitation programs and hence more
can be devoted to the internal cognitive reality and its analysis. The
projection "program" is still used, but in a somewhat different way.

In the maximally attenuated environment (92 to 95F. isothermal skin,
saltwater suspension, zero light levels, nearzero26

sound levels, without clothes, without wall or floor contacts, in solitude
in remote isolation, for several hours), the addition of LSD25 allows one
to see that all the previous experiences with "outside screens" are
evasions of deeper penetration of self (and hence are screens in the sense
of "blocking the view behind," as well as "receiving the projected
images").

DEFINITION OF EVASION OF ANALYSIS OF METAPROGRAMS

In using the term evasion it is meant to imply a similar concept to
defensive maneuvers or defenses of the psychoanalytic literature. However,
in addition to the content of these concepts, evasion is defined as any
program or metaprogram entered upon to avoid, to hide, or to distort a
deeper program or metaprogram which is too seductive or too threatening or
too chaotic for the selfprogrammer at that particular time.

At the beginning in the profound isolation situation many people experience
a fear which is an almost disembodied fear with no referents in the
external reality. With experience this fear can be shown to be a fear of
one's own inner unknowns. After a thorough exploration of the various
evasive metaprograms, it can be shown that the only thing to fear in this
area is fear itself, in overwhelming amounts. With sufficient training it
can be shown that one can convert the motivational sign of the experienced
emotion from negative to positive. As to whether or not one must go through
some of the negative emoting in order to experience enough of the punishing
aspects to avoid them is a moot point. A great deal of selfdiscipline is
required in this instance to pursue the negatively tinged programs and
metaprograms stored in memory. At times one can detect an almost hedonistic
withdrawal from further consideration of unpleasant events and memories.
These evasions into pleasure are also evasions of further selfanalysis. As
one clears up more and more27

areas of unpleasant programs and metaprograms, the increasing amounts of
pleasurable programming and metaprogramming and their control can become a
very seductive evasion of one's ideal of selfanalysis.

It is at this point that too frequent exposure to these conditions must be
avoided. Long periods of interlock with the external reality must then be
done. Sometimes this may necessitate months of outside work to integrate
one's findings with the real world as one has chosen to live in it.

The easily evoked pleasure of the LSD25 state may become for some persons a
major goal. To make sure that one does not get seduced by this induced
state of pleasure it is wise to avoid further experiments for several weeks
or several months, and reassert the natural accesses to pleasure in one's
external reality. The external reality struggle to obtain pleasure from the
environment has rules of its own which must be met realistically and with
intelligence and balance. Here it is obvious that discipline in the
selfmetaprogrammer is absolutely essential. Further progress in
selfanalysis cannot be made without selfdiscipline.

With this caution let us return to the profound isolation situation. In the
zero level external reality situation the use of any external reality
screen can be defined as a defensive maneuver to avoid visualizing or
experiencing what one fears most in the deeper levels of one's computer,
i.e., in the unconscious. The uses of the screens are necessary and useful
steps on the way in and are useful steps to return to for confirmation at
later times of the findings. An apparently paradoxical situation thus
exists in the profound physical isolation situation. One is pursuing
selfanalysis and accesses to the keys to pleasure within one's self and
keys to lessening the pain and fear in one's self. However, once one has
unlocked the pleasure and attenuated the pain one must use the resulting
released energies and attach them somehow to the external reality programs
and the ideals (supraself-metaprograms) which one has set up. One does not
dissipate all

28

of this pleasure in hedonistic and narcissistic gratification. One of the
pitfalls of LSD25 experiences is exactly this: one has the power now to
stay in an expanded state of pleasure, as it were, for several hours. This
can become quite seductive and one can become quite lazy and return to this
state at every opportunity. However this is not selfanalysis, this state is
the ecstasy, or bliss, or transcendent state sought by the religious
proponents of the use of LSD25 for religious purposes.

These findings are very similar if not identical to those found in
classical psychoanalysis. Once repressions and denials are released during
the analysis, the access of pleasurable activity increases rapidly. The
same temptations exist to become a pleasureseeking organism; however, this
tendency too must be analyzed in the classical situation.

When one compares the classical analytical situation to the solitudinous
selfanalysis situation one must be quite aware of what has been sacrificed
in each case. The advantage of the external analyst being present listening
to one producing the material is that one avoids some of the pitfalls of
solitude in that some of the above evasions can be pointed out rapidly
before one became too involved in them. On the other hand the
interpretations of the analyst can be a distraction from pursuing in depth
certain aspects of one's own selfanalysis. Even solitudinous selfanalysis
using LSD25 should be referred back to an external analyst at times when
large amounts of powerfully acting unconscious programs have been
unearthed. Some programs tend to be acted out after profound solitude and
isolation experiences, as well as they do during classical analysis. This
is one of the risks and the gambles of this technique. This is why one is
cautioned to use subjects who have become sophisticated with regard to
psychoanalysis itself.

During one's classical psychoanalysis one begins to modify one's computer
and the selfprogrammer to include many aspects of the methods of
computation that one's analyst uses. One29

accumulates as it were a metaprogram of selfanalysis which incorporates a
good deal of what one's analyst has to offer with regard to one's own
computer. In classical psychoanalytic terms one tends to incorporate many
aspects of one's analyst. Once one has a satisfactorily functioning
internal analyst, i.e., an analytical metaprogram for the selfmetaprogram,
one can be launched on one's own and no longer needs the external analyst
to the same degree that one did earlier. One's analysis has proceeded from
the analyst outside to the analyst inside.

An analogous situation can be seen in the profound isolation and LSD2 5
analysis. The foregoing descriptions of the external screens and external
projection methods emphasize the relationship between the computer and the
external reality. It also emphasized that the computer was using certain
parts of itself for transformations and projections of data from memory
into systems stimulated by energies coming from the external world. It was
pointed out that such projections were easier to do than when these systems
were not excited by energies coming from the outside world. The major
reason for failure to be able to project on the blank screens or to use the
apparatus unexcited by energies coming from the outside world is too great
fear of what lies underneath below the levels of awareness in the
solitudinous situation. Once a large number of these fears have been
analyzed and shown to be peculiarly childlike and childish, one can proceed
to the next stage of LSD25 and isolation combined for analysis.

INNER COGNITION SPACE

As one proceeds from outer or external projection analysis to internal
projection analysis, one moves the excitation of projection systems by
external energies to a lack of such excitation in these systems. For
example, in the profound blackness and dark-30

ness of the floatation room there is no visual stimulus coming to the eyes
or the visual systems. Similarly in the profound silence there are no
sounds coming into the acoustic apparatus, and similarly the other systems
are at a very low level of stimulation from the external world.

One might expect then that these systems would appear to be absolutely
quiet, dark and empty. This is not so. This is the area in which most
subjects begin to get into trouble. It is also the area in which
psychiatric and clinical judgments may interfere with the natural
development of the phenomena. In the absence of external excitations coming
through the natural end organs the perception systems maintain this
activity. The excitation for this activity comes from other parts of the
computer, i.e., from program storage and from internal body sources of
excitation. The selfprogrammer interprets the resultant filling of these
perceptual spaces at first as if this excitation were coming from outside.
In other words, the sources of the excitation are interpreted by the self
as if coming from the real world. For certain kinds of persons and
personalities this is a very disturbing experience in one sphere or
another; for them it is explicable only with telepathy.

We have been taught from babyhood that this kind of phenomena in a totally
conscious individual is somehow forbidden, antisocial and possibly even
psychotic.

One must analyze this metaprogram that has been implanted in one from
childhood, examine its rationality or lack of same and proceed in spite of
this kind of an interpretation of the phenomena that occur. Once one has
analyzed this as an evasion or a defensive maneuver against seeing the true
state of affairs one can allow oneself to go on and experience the deeper
set of phenomena without interfering with the natural metaprograms. After
achieving this level of freedom from anxiety, one can then go on to the
next stages. (The programming orders for these inner happenings to take
place are worked out in advance of the31

session, at first written down or spoken into a recorder. Later such orders
can be programmed without external aids.)

The following phenomenological description has been experienced by one
subject under these special conditions. One experiences an immediate
internal reality which is postulated by the self It is apparent to me that
one's own assumptions about this experience generates the whole experience.
The experienced affects, the apparent appearance of other persons, the
appearance of other beings not human, one's own past phantasies, one's own
selfanalysis, each can be programmed to happen in interaction with those
parts of one's self beyond one's conscious awareness.

The content experienced under these conditions lacks strong reality clues.
Externally real displays are not furnished; the excitation from the reality
outside does not pattern the displays. Therefore the projections which do
occur are from those systems at the next inward level from the operations
of the perception apparatus devoted to external reality.

The phenomena that ensue are described by one subject as follows: the
visualization is immersed in darkness in three dimensions at times but only
when one evades the emerging "multidimensional cognitive and conative
space." One is aware of "the silence" in the hearing sphere; this too gives
way to the new space which is developing. The body image fluctuates,
appearing and disappearing, as fear or other need builds up. As with the
"darkness and the silence" so with the presence or absence of the body
image. Progress in using these projection spaces is measured by one's
ability to neither project external reality data from storage into these
spaces nor to project into these spaces "the absence of external reality
stimuli."

One can project in the visual space living images (external reality
equivalents) or blackness (the absence of external reality images). One can
project into the acoustic spaces definite sounds, voices. etc. (as if
external reality) or one can project silence32

(the absence of sound) in the external reality. One can project the body
image also, flexing one's muscles, joints, etc. to reassure oneself the
image is functioning with real feedback or one can have a primary
perception of a lack of the body image which is the negative logical
alternative to the body image itself.

In each of these dichotomized situations one is really projecting external
reality and its equivalents (positive or negative). In order to experience
the next set of phenomena one must work through these dichotomous symbols
of the external world and realize that they are evasions of further
penetration to deeper levels.

Once one abandons the use of projection of external reality equivalents
from storage, new phenomena appear. Thought and feeling take over the
spaces formerly occupied by external reality equivalents. (In the older
terminology ego expands to fill the subjectively appreciated inner
universe.) "Infinity" similar to that in the usual real visual space is
also involved and one has the feeling that one's self extends infinitely
out in all directions. The self is still centered at one place but its
boundaries have disappeared and it moves out in all directions and extends
to fill the limits of the universe as far as one knows them. The
explanation of this phenomenon is that one has merely taken over the
perception spaces and filled them with programs, metaprograms, and
selfmetaprograms which are now modified in the inner perception as if
external reality equivalents. This transform, this special mental state, to
be appreciated must be experienced directly.

In one's ordinary experience there are dreams which have something of this
quality and which show this kind of a phenomenon.

At this level various evasions of realization of what is happening can take
place. One can "imagine" that one is traveling through the real universe
past suns, galaxies, etc. One can "imagine" that one is communicating with
other beings in these other universes.33

However, scientifically speaking, it is fairly obvious that one is not
doing any of these things and that one's basic beliefs determine what one
experiences here. Therefore we say that the ordinary perception spaces, the
ordinary projection spaces, are now filled with cognition and conation
processes. This seems to be a more reasonable point of view to take than
the oceanic feeling, the at oneness with the universe as fusing with
Universal Mind as reported in the literature by others for these phenomena.
These states (or direct perceptions of reality as they have been called)
are one's thought and feeling expanding into the circuitry in one's
computer usually occupied by perception of external reality in each and
every mode, including vision, audition, proprioception, etc.

A small digression here for purposes of clarifying problems of experiencing
these phenomena In addition to the above discussed factors about fears
preventing these phenomena from developing, one must also neutralize
various clinical psychiatric explanations and judgments about these
phenomena. If one assumes that going through these phenomena is a dangerous
procedure in that one might become enamoured of them and hence get into an
irreversible psychosis, one also can be kept from experiencing these
phenomena directly. Since the real necessary and sufficient conditions for
the induction of a psychosis are not yet understood, one should not jump to
the conclusion that these phenomena themselves are or can cause a
psychosis. This has yet to be proven to the satisfaction of everyone in the
field. It may be that professional fear is preventing our further analysis
of these phenomena. The whole issue of insight into one's own mental
processes, the whole issue of selfdiscipline and inspecting and
understanding these processes are at stake here. Those who believe that
there is a psychosis impending in all normal people (including
professionals) have definite troubles with these kinds of phenomena.
Heuristically such beliefs are untenable; such beliefs tend to weaken one's
selfdiscipline under these circum-34

stances and make one rather unfit for such experiences.

A satisfactory analysis of the clinical psychiatric judgments sphere must
take place in all trained subjects before proceeding further.

Unless one can move philosophically and scientifically far enough to see
the utility of going through these experiences there can be a rapid
withdrawal, a faulting out of self from the whole project. One is not
willing to undergo the phantasy "dangers" that one sets up ahead of time
before going through the experiences. One's fears in this sphere are
usually around the questions of whether one will maintain insight into
these processes once one has exposed one's self to LSD25.

Candidly considered one may ask may not this substance under these
conditions change my brain and mind structure irreversibly out of my
control? The proper controls on whether or not there are permanent changes
in brains have not been done on animals' nor on humans' brains. So there
definitely is a risk in this area. Is one willing to gamble on this
particular risk? It is wise to face up to these questions candidly,
honestly, and ruthlessly. One is moving into an area which is filled with
unknowns of primary importance. The issue of brain and mind injury is a
current and important issue which has not been faced by the enthusiasts for
LSD25. It is an issue constantly raised by those who are opposed to the use
of LSD25. The science of finding out whether or not there is any truth in
either side (pro or con) is lacking. The pro LSDgroup tries to do
spectacular things using it. The congroup looks askance at the enthusiasm
of the other group and claims that they have lost their insight and are
hedonistically overvaluing the effects experienced subjectively. The
contragroup tend to claim brain damage and/or mind damage; the progroup
tends to claim basic understanding of the mind, a new understanding of
mental diseases, and a new approach to the psychotherapy of recalcitrant
diseases such as alcoholism. (I leave out here the artistic, religious, and
philo-35

sophical claims.) (See Leary, Alpert and Metzner, 1964.) The turning point
between the pros and cons of the use of LSD25 hinges once more
philosophically at the edge of this cognitiveconative projection space
phenomena: does one lose one's insight and initiative by going here? This
question should be asked and answered scientifically and experimentally.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

As a pragmatic matter one should do selfanalysis in the severely attenuated
physical reality without LSD25 for several exposures before using the
substance. One must learn not only to tolerate but to like the experience
for several hours at a time. One's fears of the unreleased unconscious
programming can be attenuated and analyzed during this period.

Training sessions with LSD25 with another person must be done before it is
combined with the profound physical isolation and solitude. During this
period training by the external screens and the projections can be done
with doses of LSD25 from 100 micrograms minimum to the tolerated maximum of
that individual. During this period one must face the fears of LSD25 itself
and the fears mentioned above of damage to one's brain and one's mind by
this agent. One must also face the hedonistic, narcissistic pleasure
induction and maintenance possible with LSD25, and one must make one's own
decision about how to handle these pleasures versus those which are brought
about in the external reality.

In the profound physical isolation situation one acquires, or one has, or
one develops a confidence in one's body to function quite automatically and
to take care of itself. The whole problem of air supply, keeping one's face
above the water, the action of respiration and of heart, etc., are all
turned over to the protohuman survival programs to maintain themselves. All
tendencies on the part of a subject to control or to monitor his own
respira-36

tion or his own heart action should be discouraged. The same applies to the
gastrointestinal tract and the genitourinary tract. Insofar as can be
achieved automatic operations of these systems should be encouraged.
Gradually they will assume their proper lowlevel expression in the psychic
life of the individual subject. Confidence in their continued operation
without attention by one's self (by the selfmetaprograms) can be achieved.
These considerations are particularly important with the LSD25 as the
physical isolation and solitude begin to develop.

On the analytic side one must have analyzed and dealt with one's
unconscious death wishes. Up to a certain critical point one knows and
feels the probability of survival under conditions over which one has
control. One has already experienced internal mechanisms which may have
tried to take over and deal a death-seeking blow to one. This kind of
material must have been thoroughly analyzed with an external analyst before
one approaches experiments such as these. One's self and one's analyst must
be content that the level of control of such internal mechanisms is such
that the probability of their dealing a deathseeking blow is low enough to
risk exposure to these new conditions. This point cannot be emphasized
strongly enough. Those who are acquainted with the phenomena during
classical psychoanalysis realize that certain kinds of personalities and
certain individuals during analysis and after analysis can go through
depressive phases in which such death wishes can be acted out. The seeds of
destruction of self can be buried in the deeper metaprograms and programs
of one's own computer. Certain kinds of neuronal activities can destroy an
organism. These are the kinds of activities which one must know and be
aware of the signs and the symbols of evocation of these systems within
one's self.

Such negative phenomena are usually seen after the first session or two
with LSD25. The residual unanalyzed portion of these programs are usually
projected and acted out as a consequence of their release by this agent.
Several analytic sessions37

with an external analyst are thus necessary for maximum safety and minimum
risk in these experiments.

In the farthest and deepest state of isolation, one's basic needs and one's
assumptions about self become evident. The existence of self and one's
belief in the existence of one's self are made manifest. The positive or
negative sign of values that one places upon one's self and upon the
existence of one's self begins to show its force and strength. The problems
discussed, but generally unfaced in a religious context in the external
real world, are faced and can be lived out with a freedom unavailable since
childhood.

The problem of the dissolution of one's conscious self by death of the body
is studiable. One's evasions of this problem and of facing it can be
projected into studiable areas of one's experience. The existence theorem
for spiritual and psychic entities is also testable and the strength of
one's belief in these entities can be analyzed. Evasions of selfanalysis
and evasions of taking on certain kinds of beliefs can be tested.

In this area the denial and negation mechanisms of classical psychoanalysis
show their strength. Previous analysis can train one to recognize that when
data cannot be called up or when displays cannot be constructed or when
certain operations cannot be carried out, one can see the cause currently
existing. The set of inhibitory and repressive devices in one's computer is
hard at work. In such inhibitory and repressive states preprogrammed sets
of basic assumptions to be explored are incompletely carried out. One
quickly finds areas of the consequences of the assumed beliefs, which one
cannot enter or only enters with fear, with anger, or with love, carried
over from some other programming.38

DEFINITION OF A GENERAL PURPOSE

SELF-METAPROGRAM

The essential features and the goals sought in the selfanalysis are in the
metaprogram: make the computer general purpose. In this sense we mean that
in the general purpose nature of the computer there can be no display, no
acting, nor an ideal which is forbidden to a consciouslywilled metaprogram.
Nor is any display, acting or ideal made without being consciously
metaprogrammed. In each case of course one is up against the limits of the
unique computer which is one's own. There are certain kinds of
metaprograms, displays, acting, or ideals which are beyond the capacity of
a particular computer. However, one's imagined limits are sometimes smaller
than those which one can achieve with special work. The metaprogram of the
specific beliefs about the limits of one's self are at stake here. One's
ability to achieve certain special states of consciousness, for example,
are generally preprogrammed by basic beliefs taken on in childhood. If the
computer is to maintain its general purpose nature (which presumably was
there in childhood), one must recapture a far greater range of phenomena
than one expects that one has available. For instance, one should be able
to program in practically any area possible within human imagination, human
action or human being.

As explorations deepen, one can see the evading nature of many programs
which one previously considered basic to one's private and professional
philosophy. As one opens up the depths, it is wise not to privately or
publicly espouse as ultimate any truths one finds in the following areas:
the universe in general, beings not human, thought transference, life after
death, transmigration of souls, racial memories, species-jumpingthinking,
nonphysical action at a distance, and so forth. Such ideas may merely be a
reflection of one's needs in terms of one's own survival. Ruthless
selfanalysis as to one's needs for certain kinds39

of ideas in these areas must be explored honestly and truthfully. The
rewarding and positivelyreinforcing effects of LSD2 5 must be remembered
and emphasized; one overvalues the results of one's chemically rewarding
thinking.

Once one has done such deep analysis one later finds deeper that these
needs were generating these ideas. One's public need to proclaim them to
one's self and to others, as if they are the ultimate truth, is an
expression of one's need to believe. Insight into the fact that one is
enthused because the positive, startand-maintain, rewarding sign has been
chemically stamped on these ideas must be remembered.

An explorer operating at these depths cannot afford such childish baggage.
These are disguises of and evasions of the ultimate dissolution of self;
the maintenance of pleasure and of life are insisting on denial of death.
If one stops at these beliefs, no progress in further analysis can be made.
These beliefs are analysis dissolvers. One might call these lazy
assumptions which prevent one from pushing deeper into self and avoid
expending any great effort in this deeper direction. One of these very
powerful evasions is an hedonistic acceptance of things as they are with
conversion of most of them to a pleasant glow. Another similar evasion is
deferring discussion of such basic issues until one's life after death.

A possibly great spur to work in this area for certain kinds of persons is
the acceptance of unknowables and of the unknown itself. A powerful wish to
push into the unknown further than those ahead of one in calendar time is
helpful in terms of one's motivation at this point. Everyone has his say
about the truth in this area. Many other persons would like very much to
have one follow their metaprograms. In my own view I would prefer to be a
questing mind reporting on some interesting journeys. Insofar as I fail to
be this, 1, too, am guilty of attempting to metaprogram the reader.

In summary then one starts on the deeper journeys, inde-40

pendently, metaprogrammed properly, and relatively safe but without
evasions. After having been through some of the innermost depths of self7 a
result is that they are only one's own beliefs and their multitudes of
randomized logical consequences deep down inside one7s self. There is
nothing else but stored experience.Summary of Experiments in
SelfMetaprogramming with LSD25

In order to test the validity of some of the basic assumptions implicit in
the theory of the human computer7 a series of experiments were designed and
carried out in the LSD25 state7 in physical isolation7 and solitude. One
point of primary interest during these experiments was to find out what
level of intensity of belief in a set of assumptions could be achieved. The
assumptions tested in this set of experiments are not those of current
science: they are not in the conscious working repertory of this scientist;
nor were they consciously acceptable to him.

In this short account it is not intended to give all of the details of
either the selfmetaprogramming language that was used or the details of the
elicited phenomena. The account is purposely sparse7 condensed7 and
compressed. Abstracted from the complexity of the totality of the
experiments and their results are only those formal descriptions which may
serve as guide posts to others attempting to reproduce these or similar
experiments. It is not intended to complicate this account with the
personal aspects of the metaprogramming7 the elicited phenomena7 or
difficulties encountered. For those researchers who are interested in this
work7s reproduction in themselves7 these assumptions (or similar ones) and
these results can be translated into their own metaprogramming language and
such workers can obtain their unique results.

4142

To claim validity of details beyond myself is not my aim. There probably
are those men who are prepared well enough to attempt reproducing what has
been done here in themselves. The descriptions are given so that the
sources of the human computer theory are available to professionals.

This particular set of existence theorems is selected for experiment for a
number of reasons. There are a number of persons (Blum, 1964) who
experimented with the LSD25 state who write as if they believe implicitly
in the objective reality of causes outside themselves for certain kinds of
experiences undergone with these particular beliefs.

I do not think it wise to espouse either the existence or the nonexistence
theorem for this set of basic supraselfmetaprograms (Fig. 1). To become
impartial, dispassionate, and general purpose, objective, and openended,
one must test and adjust the level of credence in each of his sets of
beliefs. If ever Man is to be faced with real organisms with greater
wisdom7 greater intellect, greater minds than any single man has, then we
must be open, unbiased, sensitive, general purpose, and dispassionate. Our
needs for phantasies must have been analyzed and seen for what they are and
are not or we will be in even graver troubles than we are today.

Our search for mentally healthy paths to human progress in the innermost
realities depends upon progress in this area. Many men have floundered in
this area of belief: I hope this work can help to find a way through one of
our stickiest intellectual-emotional regions.

Most of these beliefs are ones which have been abandoned in the fields of
endeavor called science. Such beliefs continue to be found in the field
known as religion. Some of these beliefs are labeled in modern psychiatric
medicine and anthropology as superstitions, psychotic beliefs, etc. Other
persons present these beliefs in the writings called science fiction.

This set of basic postulates (or beliefs) is conceived and used43

to program several sessions with LSD25 plus physical isolation in solitude.
Above all these metaprograms to be experimented upon is one metaprogram of
value to this subject his overall policy is the intent to explore, to
observe, to analyze. Hence there is an important additional basic
metaprogram: analyze self to understand one 's thinking and true motives
more thoroughly. This is the conscious motivational strategy. At times this
metaprogram dominates the scene, at times others do. The resolve exists,
however, to generate a net effect with this instruction uppermost in the
computer hierarchy.

EXPERIMENTS ON BASIC METAPROGRAMS

OF EXISTENCE

Preliminary to the experiments in changing basic beliefs, many experiments
with the profound physical isolation and solitude situation were carried
out over a period of several years. These experiences were followed by
combining the LSD25 state and the physical isolation state in a second
period of several years. The minimum time between experiments was thirty
days, the maximum time several months. [Tables 1, 7 and 8]

Basic Belief No. 1

Basic Belief No. 1 was made possible by the early isolation results Assume
that the subject's body and brain can operate comfortably isolated without
him paying any attention to it. This belief expresses the faith that one
has in one's experience in the isolation situation, that one can
consciously ignore the necessities of breathing and other bodily functions,
and that they will take care of themselves automatically without detailed
attention on the part of one's self. This result allowed existence
metaprograms to be made in relative safety.

Successful leaving of the body and parking it in isolation for periods of
twenty minutes to two hours were successful in sixteen44

different experiments. This success, in turn, allowed other basic beliefs
to be experimented upon. The basic belief that one could leave the body and
explore new universes was successfully programmed in the first eight
different experiments lasting from five minutes to forty minutes; the later
eight experiments were on the cognitional multidimensional space without
the leaving the body metaprogram (see previous section on Projection for
the cognition space phenomenon).

Basic Belief No. 2

The subject sought beings other than himself, not human, in whom he existed
and who control him and other human beings. Thus the subject found whole
new universes containing great varieties of beings, some greater than
himself, some equal to himself, and some lesser than himself.

Those greater than himself were a set which was so huge in spacetime as to
make the subject feel as a mere mote in their sunbeam, a single microflash
of energy in their time scale, my fortyfive years are but an instant in
their lifetime, a single thought in their vast computer, a mere particle in
their assemblages of living cognitive units. He felt he was in the absolute
unconscious of these beings. He experienced many more sets all so much
greater than himself that they were almost inconceivable in their
complexity, size and time scales.

Those beings which were close to the subject in complexity-sizetime were
dichotomized into the evil ones and the good ones. The evil ones (subject
said) were busy with purposes so foreign to his own that he had many
nearmisses and almost fatal accidents in encounters with them; they were
almost totally unaware of his existence and hence almost wiped him out,
apparently without knowing it. The subject says that the good ones thought
good thoughts to him, through him, and to one another. They were at least
conceivably human and humane. He interpreted them as alien yet friendly.
They were not so alien as to be45

completely removed from human beings in regard to their

purposes and activities.

Some of these beings (the subject reported) are programming us in the long
term. They nurture us. They experiment on us. They control the probability
of our discovering and exploiting new science. He reports that discoveries
such as nuclear energy, LSD25, RNADNA, etc., are under probability control
by these beings. Further, humans are tested by some of these beings and
cared for by others. Some of them have programs which include our survival
and progress. Others have programs which include oppositions to these good
programs and include our ultimate demise as a species. Thus the subject
interpreted the evil ones as willing to sacrifice us in their experiments;
hence they are alien and removed from us. The subject reported with this
set of beliefs that only limited choices are still available to us as a
species. We are an ant colony in their laboratory.

Basic Belief No. 3

The subject assumed the existence of beings in whom humans exist and who
directly control humans. This is a tighter control program than the
previous one and assumes continuous day and night, second to second,
control, as if each human being were a cell in a larger organism. Such
beings insist upon activities in each human being totally under the control
of the organism of which each human being is a part. In this state there is
no free will and no freedom for an individual. This supraselfmetaprogram
was entered twice by the subject; each time he had to leave it; for him it
was too anxietyprovoking. In the first case he became a part of a vast
computer in which he was one element. In the second case he was a thought
in a much larger mind: being modified rapidly, flexibly and plastically.

All of the above experiments were done looking upward in Fig 1 from the
selfprogrammer to the supraselfmetaprograms. A converse set of experiments
was done in which the selfmeta-46

programmer looked downward towards the metaprograms, the programs and the
lower levels of Fig. 1.

Basic Belief No. 4

One set of basic beliefs can be subsumed under the directions seek those
beings whom we control and who exist in us. With this program the subject
found old models in himself (old programs, old metaprograms, implanted by
others, implanted by self, injected by parents, by teachers, etc.). He
found that these were disparate and separate autonomous beings in himself.
He described them as a noisy group. His incorporated parents, his siblings,
his own offspring, his teachers, his wife seemed to be a disorganized crowd
within him, each running and arguing a program with him and in him. While
he watched, battles took place between these models during the experiment.
He settled many disparate and nonintegrated points between these beings and
gradually incorporated more of them into the selfmetaprogram.

After many weeks of selfanalysis outside the experimental milieu (and some
help with his former analyst), it was seen that these beings within the
self were also those other beings outside self of the other experiments.
The subject described the projected asifoutside beings to be cognitional
carnivores attempting to eat up his selfmetaprogram and wrest control from
him. As the various levels of metaprograms became straightened out in the
subject, he was able to categorize and begin to control the various levels
as they were presented during these experiments. As his apparently
unconscious needs for credence in these beliefs were attenuated with
analytic work, his freedom to move from one set of basic beliefs to another
was increased and the anxiety associated with this kind of movement
gradually disappeared.

A basic overall metaprogram was finally generated: For his own intellectual
satisfaction the subject found that he best assume that all of the
phenomena that took place existed only in his own brain and in his own
mind. Other assumptions about the47

existence of these beings had become subjects suitable for research rather
than subjects for blind (unconscious, conscious) belief for this person.

Basic Belief No. 5

Experiments also were done upon movements of self forward and back in
spacetime. The results showed that when attempting to go forward into the
future the subject began to realize his own goals for that future, and
imagine wishful thinking solutions to current problems. When he put in the
metaprogram for going back into his own childhood, real and phantasy
memories were evoked and integrated. When he pushed back through to the in
utero situation, he found an early nightmare which was reinvoked and
solved. Relying on his scientific knowledge, he pushed the program back
through previous generations, prehuman primates, carnivores, fish and
protozoa. He experienced a sperm-egg explosion on the way through this past
reinvocation of imaginary experience.

The last set of experiments (see Use of Projection section) was made
possible by the results of the previous set. Progress in controlling the
projection metaprogram resulted from the other universes experiments.
Finally the subject understood and had become familiar with his need for
phantasied other universes. Analytic work allowed him to bypass this need
and penetrate into the cognitional multidimensional projection spaces.
Experiments in programming in this innermost space showed results quite
satisfying to a high degree of credence in the belief that all experiments
in the series showed inner happenings without needing the participation of
outer causes. The need for the constant use of outer causes was found to be
a projected outward metaprogram to avoid taking personal responsibility for
portions of the contents of his own mind. His dislike for certain kinds of
his own nonsensical programs caused him to project them and thus avoid
admitting they were his.48

In summation, the subjectively apparent results of the experiments were to
straighten out a good deal of the "nonsense" in this subject's computer.
Through these experiments he was able to examine some wardedoff beliefs and
defensive structures accumulated throughout his life. The net result was a
feeling of greater integration of self and a feeling of positive affect for
the current structure of himself, combined with an improved skepticism of
the validity of subjective judging of events in self.

Some objective testing of these essentially subjective judgments have been
initiated through cooperation with other persons. Such objective testing is
very difficult; this area needs a great deal of future research work. We
need better investigative techniques, combining subjective and behavioral
(verbal) techniques. The major feeling that one has after such experiences
and experiments is that the fluidity and plasticity of one's computer has
certain limits to it, and that those limits have been enlarged somewhat by
the experiments. How long such enlargement lasts and to what extent are
still not known of course. A certain amount of continued critical
skepticism about and in the selfmetaprogram (and in its felt changes) is
very necessary for a scientist exploring these areas.

METAPROGRAMMATIC RESULTS OF

BELIEF EXPERIMENTS

The metatheoretical consideration of these experiments and the results are
as follows: One suprametaprogrammatic assumption about these experiments is
the formalistic view of the origins of mathematics and of thinking. As was
said in the preface, at one extreme of the organization of human thinking
is the formal logical basic assumption set of metatheories. These
experiments were done with this view in mind and the results were
interpreted from this point of view.

Obviously this point of view does not test the "objective"49

validity of the experiences. It merely assumes that, if one plugs the
proper beliefs into the metaprogrammatic levels of the computer that, the
computer will then construct (from the myriads of elements in memory) those
possible experiences that fit this particular set of rules. Those programs
will be run off and those displays made, which are appropriate to the basic
assumptions and their stored programming.

Another way of looking at the results and at the metaprogramming is that we
start out with a basic set of beliefs, believe them to be "objectively"
valid (not just "formally" valid) and do the experiments and interpret them
with this point of view. If one proceeds along these lines, one can quickly
reach the end of one's ability to interpret the results. One finds that one
cannot grasp conceptually the phenomena that ensue. With this metatheory,
this type of experience is not just the computer operating in isolation,
confinement and solitude on preprogrammed material being elicited from
memory, but is really in communication with other beings, and the influence
on one 's self by them is real.

Thus in this case one is assuming the existence theorem in regard to the
basic assumptions, i.e., there is objective validity to them quite outside
of self and one's making the assumptions. This epistemological position can
also be investigated by these methods. This is somewhat the position that
was taken by Aldous Huxley and by various other groups. For example,
pursuit of certain nonWestern philosophies as the Ultimate Truth was
generated by these persons.

One cannot take sides on these two widely diverse epistemological bases. On
the one hand we have the basic assumptions of the modern scientists and on
the other hand the basic assumptions of those interested in the religious
aspect of existence. If one is to remain philosophic and objective in this
field, one must dispassionately survey both of these extreme
metatheoretical positions.

50

One basic lesson learned from these experiments is that, in general, one's
preferences for various kinds of metatheoretical positions are dictated by
considerations other than one's ideals of impartiality, objectivity, and a
dispassionate view. The metatheoretical position held by scientists in
general is espoused for purposes of defining the truth, for purposes of
understanding in their particular compartment of science, for acceptance
among other scientists and for each one's own internal security operations
with respect to his own unconscious programs. It is to be expected that
anxiety is engendered in some scientists by making the above assumptions as
if true (even temporarily) in an experimental framework. One can easily be
panicked by the invasion of the selfmetaprograms by automatic existence
programs from below the level of one's awareness, programs which may strike
at the existence of self, at the control of self, at the origins of self,
at the destinations of self, and of the relations of self to a known
external reality.

Possibly one of the safest positions to take with regard to all of these
phenomena is that given in this paper, i.e., the formalistic view in which
one makes the assumption that the computer itself generates all of the
phenomena experienced. This is an acceptable assumption of modern science.
This is the socalled common sense assumption. This is the assumption
acceptable to one's colleagues in science.

Such considerations, of course, do not touch upon nor prove the validity or
invalidity of the assumptions nor of the results of the experiments. In
order to leave this theory openended and to allow for the presence of the
unknown, it is necessary to take the ontological and epistemological
position that one cannot know as a result of this kind of solitudinous
experiment whether or not the phenomena are explicable only by
nonbiocomputer interventions or only by happenings within the computer
itself, or both.

I wish to emphasize that there is a necessity not to espouse51

a truth because it is safe. Being driven to a set of assumptions because
one is afraid of another set and their consequences is the most passionate
and nonobjective kind of philosophy. Too many intellectuals and scientists
(almost unconsciously) use basic assumptions as defenses against their
fears of other assumptions and their consequences. Until we can train
ourselves to be dispassionate and accept both the assumptions and the
results of making them without arrogance, without pride, without misplaced
enthusiasm, without fear, without panic, without anger, hence without
emotional involvement in the results or in the theories, we cannot advance
this inner science of Man very far.

Those who wish to embrace the truth of an alternative set of assumptions as
an escape from the basic assumptions of modern science are equally at
fault. Those who must find a communication with other beings in this kind
of experiment will apparently find it. One must be aware that there are (as
in the child) needs within one's self for finding certain kinds of
phenomena and espousing them as the ultimate truth. Such childlike needs
dictate their own metaprograms.

I am not agreeing with any extreme group in interpreting these results. It
is convenient for me to assume, as of this time, that these phenomena all
occurred within the biocomputer. I tend to assume that ESP cannot have
played a role. At the moment this is the position which I find to be most
tenable in a logical sense. I do not wish to be dogmatic about this. I wish
to indicate that this is where I stand as of the writing describing this
particular stage of the work. I await demonstrations of the validity of
alternative existence theorems.

If ever good, hardnosed, common sense, unequivocal evidence for the
existence of currently unaccepted assumptions is presented by those who
have thoroughly attenuated their childish needs for particular beliefs, I
hope I am prepared to examine it dispassionately and thoroughly. The
pitfalls of group interlock are quite as insidious as the pitfalls of one's
own phantasizing.

52

Group acceptance of undemonstrated existence theorems and of seductive
beliefs adds no more validity to the theorems and to the beliefs than one's
own phantasizing can add. Anaclitic group behavior is no better than
solitudinous phantasies of the truth. Where agreedupon truth can exist in
the science of the innermost realities is not and cannot yet be settled.
Beginnings have been made by many men, satisfying proofs by one.

3.Personal Metaprogrammatic Language:

An Example of Its Properties

Among all of the languages possessed by one's self some are used to control
the metaprogrammatic level in Fig. 1. The self-metaprogrammer exerts
control through the personal metaprogrammatic language. This is the
language which controls the computer itself, how it operates, and how it
computes as an integral whole. Each human computer has a unique private
control language in its unique stored programs, stored metaprograms, and
stored selfmetaprograms. This language is not all shared in the usual
public domain of the language acquired in childhood.

In this particular instance one can visualize in Fig. 1 certain levels in
and at which the experiments were done in detail. This control language and
control of the biocomputer itself can be changed as new understanding of
control allows new control. This language has aspects which are nonverbal,
nonvocal and can be more emotional and/or mathematical than they are
linguistic. Here we are expressing some "linguistic" aspects and some of
the '>nathematical" nonverbal experiences. We are limited in this public
expression to the consensus nonprivate language.

The experiments were designed along the lines of finding solutions to
certain personal problems within the biocomputer. These Problems are the
basic ones of the Presence of antithetical and

53

54

contradictory metaprograms. In Fig. 1 some of these paradoxical and
agonistic problems appear at the supraselfmetaprogram level and some at the
metaprogram level. One such experiment was on a spontaneous occurrence of a
phrase (during the LSD25 state) which took on elements of humor and the
aspect as if a great discovery. The private metaprogrammatic control
instruction is the key is no key.

In the external reality, stimulus for this statement was a number of keys
which the subject had been carrying around for several years. He suddenly
became aware that he had in his life many locks. Thus it was necessary for
him to carry many keys. At times these keys were felt as a physical and a
mental burden which slowed the efficient operation of his life. These were
aspects of the phrase key which were real keys, real locks on real doors to
real rooms, real houses, real offices, etc. At that particular moment this
seemed to be the epitome of modern civilization: to have doors, to have
locks on those doors, and have privileged persons who possessed the keys to
open those doors.

The subject next moved from the meanings in the external reality
metaprogram to another level in which he internalized this picture of the
door, the room, the lock, the key. He visualized his own antithetical
metaprograms as existing in rooms separated by doors which had locks on
them. He was searching for the keys to open the doors.

As these inner rooms (categories, problems, antitheses) became embodied in
the locked door imaginedprojected metaphor the subject began to walk
through metaprogrammatic storage looking for a key to open the next door
into the further recesses of the rooms. As he moved he began to see that
the doors were defined as doors by his own computer; locks were defined as
locks; and that keys were defined as necessary to open the locks.

In a moment of insight, he saw that the defined boundaries (the doors, the
walls, ceilings, the floors, and the locks themselves and their keys) were
a convenient metaprogram dividing up his

55

knowledge and his control mechanisms into compartments in an artificial
personal fashion.

He explored many rooms with many different kinds of knowledge in the rooms.
The walls slowly began to dissolve, some of them melted and flowed away;
other rooms were revealed as solid and the doors with secure locks rather
numerous; some keys were missing.

Most of the hypothesized building inside his own mind, however, now became
open spaces with information freely available without the former walls
between arbitrary rooms of categories. Those rooms, locks, and keys that
were left were quite basic to the development of this individual's
selfmetaprogram.

Some of these rooms were created in childhood in response to situations
over which the selfmetaprogrammer had no control. These rooms housed ideas
and systems of thinking which to this particular subject evoked intense
fear or intense anger as he approached with the intent of opening the
doors. The locks did not respond to frontal assaults. These rooms turned
out to be very difficult to define out of existence in order to have their
contents interact with the rest of the metaprogrammatic level.

The subject underwent a frantic and frightened search for the keys to the
locks of these strongrooms. He became alternately fearful and angry. He
made several assaults on walls, doors, ceilings and floors of these closed
rooms without much success.

He went away from these rooms into other universes and other spaces and
left the computer to work out solutions below his levels of awareness.

Later with higher motivational energy the subject returned to the problem
of the lock, the doors and the rooms somewhat refreshed by the experiences
in the other realms.

Mathematical transformations were next tried in the approach to the locked
rooms. The concept of the key fitting into the lock and the necessity of
finding the key were abandoned and the rooms were approached as topological
puzzles. In the multi-

56

dimensional cognitional and visual space the rooms were now manipulated
without the necessity of the key in the lock.

Using the transitional concept that the lock is a hole in the door through
which one can exert an effort for a topological transformation, one could
turn the room into another topological form other than a closed box. The
room in effect was turned inside out through the hole, through the lock
leaving the contents outside and the room now a collapsed balloon placed
farther from the selfmetaprogrammer. Room after room was thus defined as
turned inside out with the contents spewed forth for use by the
selfmetaprogrammer. Once this control key worked, it continued
automatically to its own limits.

With this sort of an "intellectual crutch," as it were, entire new areas of
basic beliefs were entered upon. Most of the rooms which before had
appeared as strong rooms with big powerful walls, doors, and locks now
ended up as empty balloons. The greatly defended contents of the rooms in
many cases turned out to be relatively trivial programs and episodes from
childhood which had been overgeneralized and overvalued by this particular
human computer. The devaluation of the general purpose properties of the
human biocomputer was one such room. In childhood the many episodes which
led to the selfmetaprogrammer not remaining general purpose but becoming
more and more limited and specialized were entered upon. Several layers of
the supraselfmetaprograms laid down in childhood were opened up.

The mathematical operation which took place in the computer was the
movement of energies and masses of data from the supraselfmetaprogram down
to the selfmetaprogrammatic level and below. At the same time there was the
knowledge that programmatic materials had been moved from the
supraselfposition to the underselfcontrolled position at the programmatic
level. These operations were all filed in metaprogram storage under the
title "The key is no key."

57

It was noticed that the necessity for locks and for keys in the real world
had to be dealt with. There was an interval of time in which the subject
was quite willing to throw all of his keys away and keep all of the real
doors of his life unlocked. That was tried briefly and resulted in a theft.
This immediately brought home the obvious fact that the external reality
programs cannot be controlled by the selfmetaprogram. There are other human
biocomputers and a real external reality which has unpredictable properties
not under the control of the selfmetaprogrammer. Therefore there must
remain in the supraselfmetaprogram certain rules for conduct of the human
computer in the external reality. There must remain a certain modicum of
real supraself control and respect for the external reality's part of the
supraselfmetaprogram .

As it was stated elsewhere (Lilly, 1956, Lilly and Shurley, 1960): the
province of the mind is the only area of science in which what one believes
to be true either is true or becomes true within limits to be determined
experimentally. This particular subject saw that the key is no key is a
private selfmetaprogramming language phrase and should not be applied to
the external reality metaprogram nor should it be applied to other human
biocomputers (at least without careful consideration of their capabilities
and their own supraselfmetaprograms). As it were similar topological
transformations under control of the self-metaprogrammer may not yet have
developed within the given other person. The kinds of phenomena expressed
by this unique private human computer (The key is no key) may be totally
inapplicable to others.

Metatheoretically considered, however, the above operation can be
reexpressed by a given individual and elaborated and differentiated along
other coordinates. For those willing to try these experiments I wish to add
a suggestion: It is necessary to explore all aspects of one's body image,
one's childish emotional regions, one's real body in various states and
with special stimuli58

in addition to those from the body itself. With such explorative training
one can do topological transformations which can result in stepwise changes
in metaprogramming and in metaprograms themselves. Bias, prejudice,
preconception and intransigence in explicit areas are seen as
supraselfmetaprograms which are inappropriate. Until there can be highly
motivated mathematical transformations within the areas of control
metaprograms, major changes are not made.

The above alltoocondensed summary of these experiments and their results
illustrates the linguistic symbolization of mathematical operations; this
operation offers a certain kind of shorthand to the human computer.
Linguistic symbols can be used for storing symbols which represent whole
areas of operations in the computer. The key is no key is a version of the
actual operations which it symbolizes. The statement is in the language of
the child as the young computer originally stored it. The actual operations
taking place in the adult symbolized by the key is no key are a complex
rendering of more advanced ideas, some of which are circuitlike, some of
which are topological transformations and some of which are in
multidimensional matrices.

A given human computer is limited in its operations by its own acquired
mathematical conceptual machinery; this is part of its
supraselfmetaprograms. Maximum control over the metaprogrammatic level by
the selfmetaprogram is achieved not by direct "one to one" orders and
instructions from the one level to the other. The control is based upon
exploration of ndimensional spaces and finding key points for
transformations, first in decisive small local regions which can result in
largescale transformations. (This modeling reminds one of Ashby's Design
for a Brain, 1954, in which a large "homeostat" stimulated in one small
region makes large adjustments throughout itself in order to compensate for
the small change.)

One key in the mind is to hunt for those discontinuities in the59

structure of the thinking which reveal a critical turnover point at which
one can exert emotional energy so as to cause a transformation in all of
that region.

The analogy of the key in the lock is part of this subject's human computer
as a child. The lock is now transformed into an ndimensional choicepoint at
which one could exert the proper amount of energy in the proper dimensions
and in proper directions in those dimensions and find a radical
transformation of all the metaprograms in that region of the computer. In a
threedimensional geometrical model of such operations (in which one
decreases the number of dimensions so that they can be visualized in visual
space) one can think of oddlyshaped rubber surfaces connected on lines, on
points and over large areas which are inflated to different amounts and
differing pressures so as to fill a very large room. These membranes are of
different colors and various regions are differently lighted and the whole
is considered to be pulsing and changing shapes but not changing contact
between surfaces, lines, or points. One can imagine one's self moving
through these complex surfaces. There are various colors lighted from
various directions. One hunts for that zone in which one can exert maximum
amount of effect in terms of the redistribution of bond energies, over
point, line, and surface areas of contact. One may also exert the maximum
effect on the differential pressures in the spaces bounded by each of the
surfaces where closed.

After sufficient study of this model one discovers that the points of
contact between the membranes are not as fixed as when first seen. What one
saw at first was a frozen instant of time extending over a long period of
time as if the model were static. Suddenly one realizes that the points of
contact are the sharing of portions of these surfaces along appropriate
lines at given instants and that these boundaries are changing constantly.
One suddenly also discovers that the colors are moving over the surfaces
and passing the boundaries. This particular model is a60

small region in a larger universe filled with such surfaces and
intersections and spaces between. One also discovers that the light sources
are within certain of these sheets shining through to others and that the
hue and intensity are varying according to some local rules.

One moves away from the model and sees that it is filling a universe; one
moves back into the model and begins to look carefully at one thin
membrane. As the structure of the membrane is revealed and the structure of
the intersection between the membrane is seen, it turns out that there is
microcircuitry within the membrane at a molecular and atomic level. there
are energies moving in prescribed paths (sometimes in a noisy fashion) in
multiple directions within the membrane. At the intersections collisions
occur (electrons, mesons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc. are moving
from one sheet to the other in both directions). Sheets that are
immediately adjacent are seen to be doing local computations at very high
speed. The intersections are now seen as micromolecularatomic switch lines,
switch surfaces, and switch points.

Thus one finds that the phrase T/7e key is no key has grown into a new
conception of a computer. This computer within itself ideally recognizes no
locks, no forbidden transitions, no areas in which data cannot be freely
moved from one zone to another. At the boundaries of the computer, however,
there are still, as it were categorical imperatives. Now the problem
becomes not the boundaries within the computer but the boundaries outside
it. By outside I do not mean only the integumentary boundaries of the real
body. I mean other sources of influence than through the bottom layer of
the external chemical physical reality (Fig. 1). To symbolize this doubt,
this skepticism, about the boundaries of the computer and the influences
that can be brought to bear upon them other than those coming through the
physicalchemical reality, a line is placed above the supraselfmetaprograms
and is labeled unknown (Fig. 1).

61

In the mind of this subject the unknown must take precedence. It is placed
above the supraselfmetaprogram because it contains some of the goals of
this particular human computer. This exploration of the inner reality
presupposes that the inner reality contains large unknowns which are worth
exploring. However, to explore them it is necessary ( 1) to recognize their
existence and (2) to prepare one's computer for the exploration. If one is
to explore the unknown one should take the minimum amount of baggage and
not load one's self down with conceptual machinery which cannot be flexibly
reoriented to accept and investigate the unknown. The next stage of
development of those who have the courage and the necessary inner apparatus
to do it, is exploration in depth of this vast inner unknown region. For
this task we need the best kind of thinking of which man is capable. We
dissolve and/or reprogram the doctrinaire and ideological approaches to
these questions.

To remain skeptical of even this formalization of this particular human
computer's approach to this region is desirable. One does not overvalue
this particular approach; one looks for alternative approaches for
exploratory purposes. Freedom from the tyranny of the supraselfmetaprograms
is sought but not to the point at which other human computers control this
particular human computer. Deep and basic interlock between selected human
computers is needed for this exploration. Conceptualization of the thinking
machine itself is needed by the best minds available for this task. In a
sense, we create the explorers in this area.

4

Metaprogramming in the Presence of a

Fixed Neurological Program (Migraine):

Example of Perception and Belief

Interactions

Specific example is given some experiments were done on reprogramming a
specific biocomputer (migraine case) in the LSD25 state .

Under certain special circumstances it has been found possible to program
certain trends in perception and project them into the visual space for
study. Among such processes are the apparent presence of other persons.
One's belief in the reality of these presences is not at stake here. Unless
one purposely intensifies the belief in the reality of these presences, one
can detect that they are not existing in the external reality. The safe
metaprogram to use is that they exist only in the mind even though they
appear to exist outside the body.

One may ask the question do these programs exist continuously below the
threshold of consciousness in the usual mental state, or are they created
de novo in or by the LSD25 state? Current psychoanalytic and psychiatric
theories state that they exist in the "unconscious" below the levels of
awareness and are evoked from that region of the computer by the LSD25
state. All we can say here is that this looks like the more likely of the
two alternatives; however, the other one should be kept in mind. Some of
these belowthresholdprograms once detected with the LSD25 state can (in
solitude without LSD25) be just detected

62

63

near threshold in a highly motivated state. Without LSD25 one can achieve
the necessary excitation of these programs to force them above threshold.

In one particular subject migraine was used as an advantageous tracer and a
spur to the selfanalysis. In this case there were asymmetries of the
spatial perception fields. The right side of the visual field was very
different from the left side. (What was seen from the right eye was
different from that seen with the left eye.) These differences reside in
color, in the persistence of afterimages, in the occurrences of scotoma
during a migraine attack, etc. (As is well known in the clinical literature
such conditions can exist easily forty years or more.) Among these
asymmetries there are spatial distortions of the visual system. In this
particular case the right eye is more sensitive, has a lower threshold for
photophobia and pain in general. The sensations and skin perceptions on the
right side of the head are less pleasant and stronger than those on the
left. The migraine attack is confined to the right side of the head.

At times correct programming can be achieved in the LSD25 state so that
these cephalic differences can be enhanced, studied, and projected. Recall
and living out of past experiences from childhood show a traumatic use of
the right side of the head. In the LSD25 state abrupt physical blows to the
right side of the head with violent shrinking away from the source, with
right eye closure falling away to the left, and brief apparent "loss of
consciousness" was experienced. This is an example of a long-term
(apparently) builtin unconscious program. This experience was not elicited
without the help of the LSD25 state nor without the help of abreactions in
classical psychoanalysis. All that can be seen of this program during the
usual daily e.r. state is the asymmetry of perception.

In the LSD25 state this autonomous program generated some presences not
real but perceived as if real. When with proper metaprogramming this effect
was raised above threshold, the

64

presences were felt and seen as shadowy creatures or persons coming in from
the right side of the visual field out of darkness. The impression is that
the spatial field of perception becomes distorted in such a way that the
presences can penetrate the distorted field.

In thinking about this effect the patient generated a theory of the
projections as if it was no projection. The patient states that these are
beings from another dimension penetrating through a hole between their and
our universes. (This attribution of causes makes no sense unless it is
believed implicitly.) Once the intensity of belief in this system is
lowered, the critical threshold for the distortion of the perceptual field
becomes obvious and the unconsciously programmed projection process becomes
detectable. The artificial beings now are no longer that, they are merely
distortions of the visual field because of some peculiar development of the
nervous system. The dramatic bringing in of external beings was shown to
have a need of its own, a relief from the solitude and isolation. Essential
loneliness gives rise to the creation of those beings within this
particular person. The necessity of projecting his own anger and fears by
the creation of these beings was found in the subsequent analysis.

After these experiences study of these phenomena without LSD25 in solitude
and isolation showed that the distorted field can be detected by relaxation
of vigilance and by free association into the edges of the perceptual
spaces using any random sequence of stimuli for the projection energy.
Without the LSD25 the beings or presences do not appear. Peculiar
distortions of the perceptual space do appear. These distortions gave the
excuse for the projection of the beings. The subject created alien
presences out of perceptually distorted noises by means of a belief
program. The complex patterns of the noise coming through the spatially
distorted and modified fields of the perceptual apparatus allowed creative
construction of figures which satisfied current needs.

65

These distortions of the field are not static. The effects (maximal to the
right) are seen as timevarying functions. Not only is there an apparent
geometrical factor fixed to the body coordinates but there is a varying set
of factors. It is the latter set that are locked in by an unconscious
program for perception and for feelings. For the evocation of these
programs in the LSD25 state the beliefs for the day metaprogram determines
the outcome. The patient says to himself the presences seen come from
outside me and my program storage. These metaprogrammatic orders then are
used in his computer to construct and modify whatever apparently comes in
to create presences and at the same time to place the presences outside the
computer itself. Thus these orders are essentially used twice: (1) For
constructing a basic belief about the external reality of the presences and
(2) for a display which demonstrates the results of computations using that
belief. The belief is used on incoming signals with uncertain or distorted
origins. Without LSD25 this patient finds it difficult if not impossible to
program such projections. He cannot use this basic belief counter to the
powerful external reality program. It may be possible for him to use this
belief without the LSD25 state in possibly other extreme conditions, such
as in the presence of white noise of large magnitude, the hypnogogic state,
the dreaming state in sleep, or during hypnotic trance.

This patient says, "With the usual high levels of daylight in the summers
or artificial light in the house, with the stimulation of me by other
persons, with the usual high sound levels of e.r., all organized in
demanding ways to call upon my purposes (integral to me), I cannot (or will
not) program 'alien presences in the e.r.' Nor will I any longer so program
'presences' into other persons, as a consequence of my detection of the
fact that I 'unconsciously programmed' presences of my own creation into
other persons."

In most cases the unconscious programming is used to project

66

one's own beliefs and "presences" into and onto other persons in the e.r.
This is the easiest route to use and the hardest to detect. The detection
is difficult because of (1) the resemblance of one human to another, (2)
the apparently meaningless "noisy" signals other persons emit in every
mode, and (3) the interlocking feedback relations between one's self and
the important persons in the e.r. or the apparent but effective e.r.
created by telephone, radio, television, motion pictures, books, etc.

Patients can thus have even evocable proof (false) of the reality (false)
of their beliefs about another person. It is almost as if one can extend
one's own braincomputer into that of another person by feedback and thus
use the other as an actor, acting ("out there") the part assigned by one's
own beliefs. Naturally, the performance is not perfect (see later
Interlock).

If the roles are accepted by the other and acted upon as new programming,
unconsciously, one cannot see these processes easily. If the other person
asserts himself and opposes the assigned roles, one has an opportunity to
examine these processes in one's self.

One can make the following selfassumptions about the above sources of
information, in solitude, in the LSD25 state (1) inside one's own head; (2)
from other beings, nonhuman; (3) from outer space intelligences; (4) from
ESP with humans.

If one assumes a transcendence program, one's computer generates it
according to one's own rules for transcendence. Programming can be assumed
as if it came from self, or other humans, and/or from other beings. Modern
scientists assume that under these conditions information comes only from
self, i.e., from storage wholly within the human computer.

5

Note on the Potentially Lethal Aspects of

Certain Unconscious, Protohuman,

Survival Programs

It was found empirically that certain aspects of some programs carry the
ability to destroy the individual biocomputer, or at least the ability to
lead the way into potentially destructive action. A metaprogram to
neutralize programs with selfdestruction in them is necessary. The use of
LSD25 in selfanalysis allows quick penetration to such buried lethality; a
definite caution is advised in such use of this technique. Until such
unconscious programs are found and thoroughly investigated, and understood
in terms of the metaprogrammatic future, personal professional supervision
(of a special type) is recommended. Such supervision should be over the
whole period of investigation and (in detail) should be before, during, and
after a session for at least several days. Some of the instinctual patterns
of behavior stirred up in the process of the session apparently must be
actedout in order to be tested, understood and filed properly in the
metaprograms for the future plans of the individual. In this phase, dangers
to self arise.

The states of the revelation of the implanted deeper programs may involve
the stages of childhood plus those presumed to have led Man (as an evolving
primate) to civilization itself, and finally those leading into Man's own
future beyond present accomplishments. Near the beginning (and sometimes
later) of the LSD25

67

68

analyses some survival programs (protohuman) may appear. These programs
include expressions of strong sexuality, gluttony, panic, anger,
overwhelming guilt, sadomasochistic actions and phantasies, and
superstitions. These are of amazing strength and power over the
selfmetaprogram. Much of this material is wordless: existing in the
emotionfeelingmotivational storage parts of the computer, it usually has
only poor representations in the modeling, clear thinking and verbal
portions. The LSD25 allows breakdown of the barriers between the
emotionalwordless systems, and the word-filled modeling systems by means of
channeled uninhibited feeling and channeled uninhibited action. (This is
one way that the unconscious is made conscious in a sometimes too rapid
fashion.) If strong enough, the modeling systems (selfmetaprogrammer) can
receive the powerful currents of emotion in full force, go along with them,
and eventually construct a vigorous operating model consonant with the
desired ideal metaprograms but also with emotional power, builtin. If not
strong enough, the selfmetaprogrammer can be temporarily overwhelmed by the
protohuman survival programs.

There is an additional caution in the use of these substances; the
selfprogrammer must be strong enough to experience these phenomena and not
make difficulttoreverse mistakes in reprogramming or difficulttocorrect
errors in new commitments in the external world. This is an area of human
activity for the most experienced and strongest personalities, with the
right training. I do not recommend the use of these methods except under
very controlled and studied conditions with as near ideal as possible
physical and social environment and as near ideal as possible help from
thoroughly trained empathic matching persons. The subject's shortterm and
longterm welfare must control all actions, all speech, and all transactions
between each pair of persons present, unconsciously and consciously.

6. Choice of Attending Persons During LSD25 State Used for SelfAnalysis

The point is underscored any action, facial appearance, word, sentence,
tone of voice, or gesture on the part of the attending person can be used
by the person in the LSD25 state in the processes of penetration,
elicitation, or reprogramming. Mistakes by the attending person here can
have a devastating power and must be scrupulously avoided. Only mature,
experienced, previouslyexposed persons should be allowed in the e.r. during
this critical time. The minimum possible number (1) of persons is best.
This one person should, ideally, have been psychoanalyzed himself and have
pursued his selfanalysis with LSD25 aid plus physical isolation and
solitude. Short of this ideal, high quality professional psychoanalytic
training is a minimum ideal requirement, or careful selection of attending
supervisors by such professionals. An exclusion test must be done on any
potential attendant or therapist; he or she should have been personally
through several LSD25 sessions with the selfanalysis metaprograms as the
leading motivating instructions, and have penetrated to and beyond his own
buried lethality and hostility. The professional selector should be
thoroughly acquainted with such a potential aide, and evaluate the stages
through which he or she has passed and achieved "permanently."

There can be special cases, less than the above ideal, but consonant with
the principles enunciated. Some spouses or lovers (or both) have special
understanding and interlocks which

69

70

allow certain kinds of deep penetrations, elicitations and reprogrammings,
but not other kinds. If one of the pair has been through LSD25 selfanalysis
training, it is possible (in special cases) to help the other member
through a session or sessions as a standby monitor and positive loveobject
in the external reality. However, there should be some form of professional
psychoanalytic control over such sessions. Such controls can vary from
being implicit and in the nature of tactical and strategic advisory
sessions to being e.r. supervisory, depending on the egostrength and on the
current stage of development of each member of the pair. Expert and
informed clinical judgment after thorough clinical study is the best
(known) instrument for such decisions.7.Behavioral, NonIsolation Replay of
Protohuman

Programs: The Problem of Repetitive

Unconscious Replay

Certain kinds of programs in the human computer, usually below the ordinary
levels of awareness, are circular. The circularity can be useful and
needed, or misused (for example, in the maintenance of disparate and
disturbing programs, L. Kubie 1939). A program in a certain patient says
"Mother has abandoned baby, run to Daddy; Daddy beats me and leaves; Mommy
comforts me and leaves; Daddy loves me and hurts me and leaves. Run to
Mommy. Mommy has my sister, loves her, abandons me: run to Daddy; Daddy
hurts. Daddy leaves. Run to Mommy. Mommy leaves. . .Mother has abandoned
baby, etc." Again and again. When the patient was a baby this was the one
important reality program; it became fixed, circular and carried into
adulthood.

Such a program operates slowly or rapidly, and continuously. In the adult
the real situation in the e.r. (external reality) cannot halt the circular
program. Usually modeling in the reality is preeminent over such
circularity. In this circular case, the e.r. is used to facilitate playback
and maintain the strength of this old model program. Any important man or
woman in the e.r. must, somehow, be made to fit into this "ancient model"
program. An external observer sees a person with such a program repeating
an unhappy pattern again and again over the years. The underlying
perpetuated baby program is unavailable for inspection, replay and breaking
of circularity by the owner as an adult.

71

72

At high doses LSD25 reduces the relative strength of the e.r. program by
enhancing the strength of other programs. (This occurs with 200 to 400
micrograms, and starts in the first hour and can continue for four or more
hours.) LSD25 can increase the strength of and activate basic models in
storage; it also allows the selfmetaprogramming orders (orders stored just
before the LSD2 5 maximum effect starts) to be carried out. Strong circular
programs if present are likely to be replayed. The selfobserver
participates in the replay, but once again is programmed as relatively weak
with respect to the replay program as he was as a baby or child at the time
of the implanting episodes in the e.r. The external observer then sees a
dramatic, repeat performance, again and again, of new replays.

Each replay is slightly different and gives the outside observer the
feeling of a circular course not quite exactly repeating each time. The
emotion expressed at first has all the desperate panic of the child;
gradually the spectrum of intense emotion can be experienced and expressed
progressively. With proper e.r., personnel, and responses from them,
progress leads the circle gradually out of negative feelings into the
regions of good feelings; the fear and other negative emotions are stripped
off the circular program; good feelings are attached to replay; the self
finally can see it operate with its new emotion and (possibly for the first
time) examine its newly charged (positive) structure as it replays; reduce
its importance on the unconscious priority list; and file it as a relic of
childhood in the (inoperative or weakly operating) "history" file.

For a time, the self then feels free, cleaned out. The strength gained can
be immense; the energy freed is double: the fight with the circular program
is temporarily gone. Not only is the energy of self no longer absorbed in
the fight but new program energy is available. For a short time, energy
taken from the old circular program and the energy formerly expended in the
fight may be available. So twice the energy of the circular program

73

can be made available for use by the selfmetaprogram in constructing new
energy relations between desired programs directed toward ideals, aims, and
goals. Adult love and sharing consonant with aspirations and reality
(outside) gain strength and gain differentiation of response and of
interlocks. Humor appears in abundance, good humor. Beauty is enhanced, the
bodily appearance becomes youthful, with increased smiles and goodnatured
puns and jokings at a deep level of understanding and perspective. The
babyish and the childish aspects of self are converted to adulthood with
great strength of character, integrity, and loving. These positive effects
can last as long as two to four weeks before reassertion of the old program
takes place.

FIGURE 1. SCHEMA OF THE LEVELS OF THE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION

OF THE HUMAN BIOCOMPUTER

[Image]

Each part of each level has feedbackcontrol relations with each part,
indicated by the connecting lines. Each level has feedbackcontrol with each
other level. For the sake of schematic simplicity, many of these feedback
connections are not shown. One example is an important connection between
Levels Vl through IX and X; some builtin, survival programs have a
representative at the Supra Self metaprogram Level as follows: "These
programs are necessary for survival; do not attenuate or excite them to
extreme values; such extremes lead to noncomputed actions, penalties,
illness, or death." After construction, such a Metaprogram is transferred
by the Selfmetaprogram to the Supraselfmetaprograms and to the
Supraspeciesmetaprograms for future control purposes.

(Note: See text and glossary for definitions of terms used.)

The boundaries between the body and the external reality are between Levels
I and 11; certain energies and materials pass this boundary in special
places (heat, light, sound, food, secretions, feces. Boundaries between
body and brain are between Levels II and III; special structures pass this
boundary (blood vessels, nerve fibers, cerebrospinal fluid). Levels IV
through Xl are in the brain circuitry and are the software of the
Biocomputer. Levels above Level X are labeled Unknown" for the following
purposes: (1) to maintain the openness of the system, (2) to motivate
future scientific research, (3) to emphasize the necessity for unknown
factors at all levels, (4) to point out the heuristic nature of this
schema, (5) to emphasize unwillingness to subscribe to any dogmatic belief
without testable reproducible data, and (6) to encourage creative
courageous imaginative investigation of unknown influences on and in human
realties, inner and outer.

75

8

Basic Effects of LSD25 on the Biocomputer:

Noise as the Basic Energy for

Projection Techniques

In the analysis of the effects of LSD25 on the human mind, a reasonable
hypothesis states that the effect of these substances on the human computer
is to introduce white noise (in the sense of randomly varying energy
containing no signals of itself) in specific systems in the computer. These
systems and the partition of the noise among them vary with concentration
of substance and with the substance used.

One can thus "explain" the apparent speedup of subjective time; the
enhancement of colors and detail in perceptions of the real world; the
production of illusions; the freedom to make new programs; the appearance
of visual projections onto mirror images of the real face and body; the
projections and apparent depth in colored and in blackandwhite photos; the
projection of emotional expression onto other real persons; the synesthesia
of music to visual projections; the feeling of "oneness with the universe";
apparent ESP effects; communications from "beings other than humans"; the
lowered Clozeanalysis scores by outside scorers; the clinical judgment of
the outside observer of dissociation psychosis, depersonalization,
hallucination, and delusion in regard to the subject; the apparent
increased muscular strength, and the dissolution and rebuilding of programs
and metaprograms by self and by the outside therapist, etc.

The increase in white noise energy allows quick and random access to memory
and lowers the threshold to unconscious memories (expansion of
consciousness). In such noise one can

76

77

project almost anything at almost any cognitive level in almost any
allowable mode: one dramatic example is the conviction of some subjects of
hearingseeingfeeling God, when "way out." One projects one's expectations
of God onto the white noise as if the noise were signals; one bears the
voice of God in the Noise. With a bit of proper programming under the right
conditions, with the right dose, at the right time, one can program almost
anything into the noise within one's cognitive limits; the limits are only
one's own conceptual limits, including limits set by one's repressed,
inhibited, and forbidden areas of thought. The latter can be analyzed and
freed up using the energy of the white noise in the service of the ego,
i.e., a metaprogram analyze yourself can be part of the instructions to be
carried out in the LSD25 state.

The noise introduced brings a certain amount of disorder with it, even as
white noise in the physical world brings randomness. However, the LSD25
noise randomizes signals only in a limited way: not enough to destroy all
order, only enough to superimpose a small creative "jiggling" on program
materials and metaprograms and their signals. This noisy component added to
the usual signals in the circuits adds enough uncertainty to the meanings
to make new interpretations more probable. If the noise becomes too
intense, one might expect it to wipe out information and lead to
unconsciousness (at very high levels, death).

The major operative principle seems to be that the human computer operates
in such a way as to make signals out of noise and thus to create
information out of random energies where there was no signal; this is the
"projection principle"; noise is creatively used in nonnoise models. The
information "created" from the noise can be shown by careful analysis to
have been in the storage system of the computer, i.e., the operation of
projection moves information out of storage into the perception apparatus
so that it appears to originate in the chosen "outside" noisily excited
system.

78

Demonstrations of this principle are multiferous: in a single mode,
listening to a real acoustic physical white noise in profound isolation in
solitude one can hear what one wants (or fears) to hear, human voices
talking about one, or one's enemies discussing plans, etc. With LSD25 one
can use two modes: one can listen to white noise (including very low
frequencies) and see desired (or feared3 visions projected on the blank
screen of one's closed eyes. One can, in profound isolation (water
suspension, silence, darkness, isothermal skin, etc., in solitude) detect
the noise level of the mind itself and use it for cognitional projections
rather than senseorgandata projections. Instead of seeing or hearing the
projected data, one feels and thinks it. This is one basis of the mistake
by certain persons of assuming that the projected thoughts come from
outside one's own mind, i.e., oneness with the universe, the thoughts of
God in one, extraterrestrial beings sending thoughts into one, etc. Because
of the lack of sensory stimuli, and lack of normal inputs into the computer
(lack of energy in the reality program), the space in the computer usually
used for the projection of data from the senses (and hence the external
world) is available substitutively for the display of thinking and feeling.

As was stated by Von Foerster ("BioLogic," 1962):

"The occurrence of such spontaneous errors is far from an uncommon event.
Conservative estimates suggest about 1014 elementary operations per second
in a single human brain. If we can believe the recent work of Hyden (1960)
and Pauling (1961), these operations are performed on about 102 1
molecules. From stability considerations (Von Foerster, 1948) we may
estimate that per second from 109 to 1011 molecules will spontaneously
change their quantum state as a result of the tunnel effect. This suggests
that from 103 to 101% of all operations in the brain are afflicted with an
intrinsic noise

79

figure which has to be taken care of in one way OF another." And further
(same reference):

. . ."The beginning of our century saw the fallacy of our progenitors in
their trust in a fixed number of m propositions. This number constantly
grows with new discoveries which add new variables to our system of
knowledge. In this connection it may amuse you that in order just to keep
the logical strength of our wisdom from slipping, the ratio of the rate of
coalescing, k, to the rate of discovery, m, must okay the inequality (k/m)
>= k * ln 2

I have the feeling that today, with our tremendous increase in experimental
techniques, m is occasionally so large that the above inequality is not
fulfilled, and we are left with more riddles than before.

"To this frustration to reach perfect truth we, children of the second half
of the twentieth century, have added another doubt. This is the suspicion
that noise may enter the most effective coalition, flipping an established
'false' into a deceptive 'true,' or, what might be even worse, flipping an
irrelevant 'true' into an unwarranted 'false."'

GROWTH HYPOTHESIS

1. One major biological effect of LSD25 may be a selective effect on growth
patterns in the CNS. Some parts of the CNS are thought to be specifically
accelerated in their

80

local growth patterns, i.e., the systems which are selectively active
during the LSD25 state.

2. For these postulated growth effects there is an optimal concentration of
the substance in the brain. With less concentration than the optimal there
is merely an irritating stimulation of the CNS (below the levels of
awareness). At the optimal concentration (in the nontolerant state) the
phenomena of the LSD25 state occur. This is a phase of initiation of new
growth in the CNS. [This phase is a state of mind analogous to that
presumed to exist in the very young human (possibly beginning in the fetus
or embryo).]

3. If additional material is administered, prolongation of this phase can
be achieved within certain limits. With the maintenance of the optimal
concentration of substance, this phase is prolonged (hours) until tolerance
develops.

4. The phase of developed tolerance is thought to be (in addition to other
things) the phase of the completion of the fast new growth. Most of the new
biochemical and neurological connections are completed.

5. If continuous maintenance of optimal concentration for many hours (and ?
days) after this initial phase is then achieved, growth may continue
slowly.

6. The growth is not thought to be confined to the central nervous system.
The autonomic nervous system may grow also.

7. If the optimal concentration is exceeded, the substance excites a
"stress syndrome" (i.e., adrenalvascular4.l. tract, etc.). (This syndrome
is separate from the affective results of the LSD25 state which in certain
individuals can cause a stress syndrome. I am not speaking of such
individuals. I am speaking of more sophisticated observers who have
beenthrough the necessary and sufficient experiences to be able avoid a
stress syndrome in the LSD25 state.)

8. At concentrations above the optimal there can be a reversal of the
beneficial effects in the induced stress syndrome. Antigrowth factors are
stimulated. Homeostasis is thus assured in the organism. A similar
phenomenon can be seen with negative programming during the LSD25
experience. Reversal of growth may be programmed in by the selfprogrammer,
unconscious metaprograms, or by the outside therapist or other persons.

9. At concentrations above optimal the resulting stress syndrome is
programmed into the autonomic nervous system and continues (beyond the time
of the presence of the substance) to repeat itself until reprogrammed out
days or weeks later.

10. At levels above optimal, the selfmetaprogram loses energy and circuitry
to autonomous programs; the ego disappears at very high levels.

This complex series of relations shows the delicate nature of the best
state for remetaprogramming and of remetaprogramming itself. Until
sophisticated handling (of these substances, the selfmetaprogram, the
person, the setting, the preparation, etc.) can be achieved, careful
voluntary education of professional personnel should be done, and done
carefully with insight. Selection of persons for training must be
diplomatic and tactful; it is a strategy to be carried out cooperatively
without publicity. Candor and honesty at deep levels is a prime requisite.

9

Summary of Basic Theory and Results for

Metaprogramming the Positive States

with LSD-25

1. LSD25 facilitates the positive (reward, positive reinforcement) systems
in the CNS. (Tables 48, 10 and Figs. 39)

2. LSD2 5 inhibits the negative (punishment, negative reinforcement)
systems in the CNS. (Tables 49 and Fig. 9)

3. LSD25 adds noise at all levels, decreasing many thresholds in the CNS.
(Table 2 and Fig. 9)

4. The apparent strengths of programs below the usual levels of awareness
increase. (Figs. 35 and 9)

5. Programmability of metaprograms (suggestibility) increases, allowing
more programming by the selfmetaprogram and external sources
[hypersuggestibility of H. Bernheim (1888), Clark Hull (1933).] (Fig. 9)

6. The continuous positive state (positive reinforcement, reward, pleasure)
plus inhibited negative system activity causes increased positive
reinforcement of the following:

a. self

b. one's own thinking

c. thinking introduced by others

d. other persons

e. the given environment (r.r.)

83

f. any given patterned complex input (i.e., music, paintings, photos,
etc.). (Tables 9 and 10 and Fig. 9)

7. Subsequent to exposure, the effects fall off slowly over a two to
sixweeks period, during which period there is overvaluation of 6 (af).
Residual effects can be detected up to one year.

8. Repeated exposures at weekly to biweekly periods for several months
(years) maintain the above reinforcements if the above conditions, inputs
and outputs can be reproduced. There is reinforcement of the positive
reinforcements until the usual state before LSD25 becomes negative.

10

Coalitions Interlock and Responsibility

Von Foerster ("BioLogic," in Biological Prototypes and Synthetic Systems,
Plenum Press, 1962) calls attention to the increasing survival times of
increasingly large aggregates of connected matter which he defines as
coalitions. Living systems are coalitions par excellence. A protozoan is a
coalition of atoms and molecules forming membranes and submicro and micro
structures which reproduce by collecting the same kinds of atoms and
molecules from the environment to form new identical individuals. A sponge
is a primitive coalition of protozoa with enhanced survival over any one
protozoan. A man is a tightly organized coalition of cells, including some
mobile protozoa (lymphocytes, macrophages, oligodendroglia, etc.). Von
Foerster says that mammalian cells of Homo sapiens may be the most numerous
cells on earth, i.e., these cells with their multiple level coalitions have
the longest current survival time. (Table 2)

The nature of mattermatter coalitions and cellcell coalitions and
organismorganism coalitions are explored by Von Foerster. For a coalition
to exist between any two entities, the dyad is connected by a bond or bonds
which reduce the negentropy below the sum of the negentropy of each of the
two entities separated (without a linkage). In this view the two entities
when in coalition reduce the physical information available externally
below the levels of that available from the two entities each unlinked and
separated. The coalition as it exists thus appears to be something more
than the mere sum of isolated parts.

8485

However, the nature of the linkages in coalitions depends upon the level of
aggregations discussed. In a man the coalitions include those between
special atoms in spatial arrangements with others (alpha helices, etc.),
special cells in spatial patterns (liver, brain, etc.), and organism
coalition tissues such as circulatory, lymph, and autonomic nervous
systems. The bones assure a maintenance of total form of the net coalition
of a person under a one g gravitational field. The continuance of important
aspects of the individual for interorganism coalitions is based on shape
maintenance despite g forces, radiation, heat, etc.

The rules within the coalitions at each level are different in that each
level is somehow more than the sum of its separated individuals.

For coalitions to develop between individual humans, linkages of various
sorts are developed agreements are reached and thus the sources of new
information from each member are reduced. To maintain a dyadic coalition,
interlock between the two human computers is developed. Each human to human
interlock is unique; but also each interlock is a function of other current
and other past interlocks of each member and of learned traditional models.

Coalitions between humans are immense in number and have great complexity
in their operations. Each adult individual has linkages extending to
literally thousands of other individuals. The amount of time spent on
maintenance of linkages is fantastic. The demands on one's self by the
various coalitions uses up most of one's awake hours (and possibly most of
one's sleeping hours).

To clarify the discussion we must carefully distinguish between an
interhuman coalition operating here and now versus one whose past
occurrences in the external reality are modeled in the human biocomputer.
The here and now operations of the model of a past dyadic coalition can
operate in the absence of a current instance of interhuman dyadic coalition
or in its presence.

86

But the Model Operates Differently in the Two Cases

With vigorous current e.r. interlock, the human biocomputer is busy with
information exchange at all levels [verbal and nonverbal, digital and
analogic, etc., (G. Bateson)] . The model projects expectations and
predictions continuously as the interlock develops (as in McCulloch's model
of the eye, 1961). The real inputs are compared with computed outputs in
all modes.

The isolated solitudinous individual does not have a present coalition to
work on, in, or with. He projects past coalitions and makes new models by
making new coalitions, of the old ones. As such new relationships are
established in his computer he settles logical discrepancies between old
models and new ones, tends to abolish discontinuities of the logical
consequences, his basic belief structures, and, if necessary, he changes
the basic beliefs to have fewer discrepancies between the internal models.

Coalitions at all levels (from basic particles, atomicmolecular, to
cellularorganismic, to humanhuman levels) have a polar, opposite, balancing
set of forces, energies, drives, motivations. On the basic
particleatomicmolecular coalition level, this set can be called electric
charges, with wellknown coalitional rules (opposite attracts, like repels,
quantal energy jumps, tunnelling effect, etc.). On the biological level of
cells, the cellcell coalitions have multiferous possibilities (such as
meiosis, mitosis, fission, fusion, positive and negative tropisms,
ingestion, excretion, etc.). As long as a cell has its own structure, it
maintains only structural relations between molecules in itself: it is said
(Duvigneau) that each and every atom in a cell is eventually exchanged for
another new atom. The coalitions of a cell's atoms are temporary and in the
mass last a most probable time characteristic of cell and atom types (lead
in bone vs. sodium in brain, for example).

At this cellular level electric charges, on the average, establish
gradients; the gradients vary with internal reality and external reality
states; the atoms move in and move out, more or less

87

rapidly depending on cell parts (nucleus, mitochondria, ribosomes, etc.)
and functional locus (intracellular fluids vs. genic structures, etc.).

An intraorganismic cell (in the mammals for example) has coalitions with
other cells and with the organism. It has orders about its relations with
neighbors, its origins, its meiotic or mitotic future (if any), its
motility or sessility, its electrical activity, its chemical activity,
where it stays or where it travels and on the average where and when it
dies. Each cell is brought under the mass orders of all (of the organism)
by carefully regulated rules of feedback and interconnections through
chemical, physical and cellular means. The highspeed intercellular neuronal
activity system penetrates most of the organism. The intercellular fluid
flow penetrates everywhere and bridges the gap between the cell and the
blood carriers. The blood system links the basic chemistry everywhere with
transport (oxygen from outside, molecules from gut, hormones from
pituitary, etc.). At the cellular level in the organism the coalitions are
essential, the linkages myriad, and the cell is the wellfed and wellcared
for slave of the state (the organism) and is killed if he breaks the orders
for his type. Feedback is absolutely limiting here.

At the organismorganism level, the coalitions depend, somewhat like the
cellular level, on food, temperature, gravity, radiation, reproduction,
one's own structure, individuals of other species of life, individuals of
one's own species, communication intra and interspecies, use of one's own
computer (CNS plus), building and use of human artifacts (from tools to
skyscrapers to rockets to nonliving computers), and the control and the
creation of human relationships (money, credit, politics, science, books,
periodicals, television, etc.).

A single human organism can have at least the following coalitions to deal
with:

(a) Parental till their death, and continuance as internal

models

88

(b) Malefemale continuously, at all ages, especially in the

marriage coalition.

(c) Financial individual (money) income and outgo is a multiple general
purpose coalition sign. The amount of money whose flow is controlled by a
given individual is, in general, a quantitative measure of coalition
responsibility delegated to that individual by coalitions of many other
individuals. An individual can be the controller of a coalition only with
multiple consents, and hence control the flow of money into and out of that
coalition.

(d) Children: exciting demanding coalitions develop with one's offspring.
It is a challenge to renew and improve one's own coalition with each child
as the child grows and expands his/her coalition powers.

(e) Unconscious coalitions below the levels of awareness, one expects
certain kinds of conditions in one's coalitions; some wishful thinking is
expended in phantasied linkages. Contracts as written usually do not,
cannot, incorporate explicit statements of unconscious commitments/desires.
However, a contract can be misused in the service of wishful thinking-the
courts see numerous cases of this kind

The problems attendant upon breaking humanhuman coalitions can be smoothly
worked out, be somewhat energetic, or can generate much heat, smoke and
fire. The real bond energy left in the linkages usually can be dissipated
at any rate desired; the fuss and furor (external energy dissipation) seems
to be directly proportional to the energy in the bond and to the rate of
bond dissolution, i.e., directly proportioned to the time taken and energy
spent to obtain agreement on both sides of the humanhuman linkage. But the
rate control and the necessities of agreement to break the coalition must
be dispassionately and objectively evaluated. Unless one knows how to
control the results, one desires to avoid exciting protohuman survival

89

programs below the levels of awareness in either or both parties in the
coalition; these programs require continuous care and maintenance.

Some essential factors of any and all humanhuman coalitions are circular
feedback, distance rules, positive (attractive) and negative (repulsive)
motives, excitation and inhibition rules and limits, and coalition field
agreements. Each human coalition is formed in a coalition field surrounded
by other coalitions with other individuals and with institutional agents.
The connectivity of a given coalition with all other coalitions is multiple
and complex. One is born and raised in a coalition field which is dynamic
and growing; in this field the coalitions vary over a great range of
apparent durations. Some coalitions are made to last beyond a single human
lifetime; others to last a few minutes or hours or days or weeks.

The freed bond energy from a broken coalition is used to form new
coalitions, or to strengthen others. For example, a resignation is
preferable to a firing; a new pair of necessary coalitions can take the
place of the old one with overlap and without break in services; or the
duties of the old coalition are distributed over others.

The bond energies in human coalitions are of two types: attractive and
repulsive; to maintain a viable coalition these links must be excited and
inhibited by each member within certain limits of time, intensity, rate,
etc. Sometimes a coalition has aspects of two persons pulling one another
together with two ropes and, simultaneously, pushing one another apart with
two poles; the coalition requires adjustment and readjustment of the two
pushes and the two pulls involved. (The doublebind, G. Bateson)

Our concept of individual human responsibility rests on the above mappings
of multilevel coalitions at each developmental age of the human being.
Responsibility starts with a satisfactory coalition between one's self and
the demanding 1012 cells of one's own body.

90

Responsibility continues with humanhuman coalitions, with interspecies
coalitions (from immunity to bacteria, to eating plants and animals, to
interspecies communication), with concepts of self (origins, maintenance,
progress, destinations), and strong open communication of one's self with
one's innermost realities.

In this paper the multiple levels of responsibility and the necessities for
a strong autonomous character in order to pursue this research are
underscored. In order to function effectively in human society the depths
of the mind must be functioning relatively smoothly under the guidance of
the self. To develop this degree of smooth function may require strong
measures; these measures require strong educated handling.

Participant Interlock, Coalitions with

Individuals of Another Species

For approximately the last nine years the author has struggled with the
problems of devising working models of the interspecies communication
problem at a relatively high structured cognitive level. The major portion
of the total problem has been found to be the author's own species, rather
than the delphinic ones. There is apparently no currently available
adequate theory of the human portion of the communication network,
ManDolphin. The lack of such a theory has made it difficult for most
scientists to see the reality of the problems posed in the interspecies
program.

As long as the consciousunconscious basic belief exists of the preeminence
of the human brain and mind over all other earthside brains and minds,
little credence can be obtained for the proposition that a problem of
interspecies communication exists. Despite arguments based on the
complexity and size of certain nonhuman mammalian brains, little if any
general belief in the project has been instilled in the scientific
community at large. Support has been obtained for further examination and
demonstration of the large size, detailed excellence of structure, and
description of the large dolphin brain; there is no lack of interest in
this area. The faulting out comes in obtaining the operating

Chapter 11 was published in part: Lilly, J. C. 1966. "Communication with
Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (1965 IEEE Military Electronics Conf.
Washington, D. C., Sept. 1965) IEEE Spectrum 3: (3) 159160.

91

92

interest of competent working scientists in evaluation of the performance
of these large brains; interest and commitment of time and self are needed
for progress.

The current effort on the part of this author is aimed at devising a
program of encouragement for creating some models of the human end of the
interspecies system which will illustrate, elucidate, and elaborate the
basic assumptions needed to encourage interest and research effort in this
area.

Each mammalian brain functions as a computer with properties, programs, and
metaprograms partly to be defined and partly to be determined by
observation. The human computer contains at least 13 billions of active
elements, and hence is functionally and structurally larger than any
artificially built computer of the present era. This human computer has the
properties of modern artificial computers of large size plus additional
ones not yet achieved in the nonbiological machines. The human computer has
"stored program" properties. "Stored metaprograms" are also present. Among
the suggested properties are "selfprogramming" and "selfmetaprogramming."
Programming and metaprogramming language is different for each human
depending upon developmental, experiential, genetic, educational,
accidental, and selfchosen variables and elements and values. Basically the
verbal forms for programming are those of the native language of the
individual modulated by nonverbal language elements acquired in the same
epochs of the development of that individual.

Each such computer has scales of selfmeasuration and self-evaluation.
Constant and continuous computations are being done giving aim and
goaldistance estimates of external reality performances and internal
reality achievements. Comparison scales are set up between human
biocomputers for performance measures of each and of several in concert.
Each biocomputer models other biocomputers of importance to itself,
beginning immediately postpartum, with greater or lesser degrees of error.

93

The phenomenon of "computerinterlock" facilitates mutual model construction
and operation, each of the other. One biocomputer interlocks with one or
more other biocomputers above and below the level of awareness any time the
communicational distance is sufficiently small to bring the interlock
functions above threshold levels.

In the complete physical absence of other external biocomputers within the
critical interlock distance, the selfdirected and otherdirected programs
can be clearly detected, analyzed, recomputed, reprogrammed, and new
metaprograms initiated by the solitudinous biocomputer itself. In the
ascompletelyaspossibleattenuatedphysicalreality environment in solitude, a
maximum intensity, a maximum complexity and a maximum speed of
reprogramming is achievable by the self.

In the field of scientific research such a computer can function in many
different ways, from the pure austere thought processing of theory and
mathematics, to the almost random data absorption of the naturalistic
approach with newly found systems or to the coordinated interlocks with
other human biocomputers of an engineering effort.

At least two extreme major kinds of methods of data collection and analysis
exist for individual scientists the artificially created,
controlledelement, inventeddevisedsystem methods; and the
participantobserver interacting intimately experientially with naturally
given elements with nonhuman (or human) biocomputers as interacting parts
of the system. The first kind is the current basis of individual
physicalchemical research, the latter kind is one basis for individual
explorative first discovery research with largebrained (cf. human size)
organisms. Sets of human motivational and procedural postulates for the
interlock method of research with and on beings with biocomputers as large
and larger than the human biocomputers are sought. Some of the methods
sought are those of establishing long periods (months, years) of
humantoother organisms biocomputer inter-

94

lock of a quality and value sufficiently high to merit interspecies
communication efforts on both sides at an intense and dedicated,
highlystructured level.

RETREATS FROM INTERLOCK

Some human scientists faced with nonhuman species who have braincomputers
equal to or larger than their own, retreat from responsibilities of
interlock research into a set of beliefs peculiar to manual, manipulating,
bipedal, featherless, recording, dry, airvocalizing,
cooperatingintraspecies, lethalpredatory-dangerous, virtuousselfimage,
powerfulimmature, ownspecies-worshipping primates, with 1400 gram brains.

Specifically, human scientists faced with dolphins (with 1800 gram brains)
retreat into several safe cognitive areas, out of contact with the dolphins
themselves. The commonest evasion of contact is the assumption of a human a
priori knowledge of what constitutes "scientific research on dolphins,"
i.e., a limited philosophical, speciesspecific, closedconcept system.

Common causes of retreat are too great fear of the dolphin's large size, of
the sea, of going into water, of the Tropics, of cold water, etc. Another
safe retreat is into the let's see what happens if we do this or the
experimental "mucking around" region. Years can be spent on this area with
no interlock achieved; successful evasion is thus continued endlessly.

Increasingly and frequently scientists are trying the let's pretend we are
nonexistent (to the dolphins) observers and do a
peepingTomthroughunderwaterwindows on them, commonly called an "ethological
approach." This activity also evades interlock research quite successfully.

Other cognitive traffic control devices to evade the responsibilities of
close contact are appearing about as rapidly as each additional kind of
scientist enters the arena with the dolphins:

95

icthyologists, zoologists, comparative psychologists, anthropologists,
ethologists, astronomers each has had at least one representative of his
field approach dolphins. Each one thinks up good and sufficient reasons for
not continuing interlock research and not devoting his personal resources
and those of his scientific field to such farout, nonapplied, longterm,
basic research. Nonscientisttype persons also approach; most leave with
similar sophistries. A few stay. Some who stay have an exploitative gleam
in their eye: dollargleam, militaryapplicationgleam,
self-aggrandizementgleam. Some persons stay because of a sense of wonder,
awe, reverence, curiosity, and an intuitive feel of dolphins themselves.

The dolphin respecting (not dolphinloving) persons (scientists or not) are
the potential interlock group sought; dedication to dolphinhuman interlock
without evasions is a difficult new profession. The persons I know in this
class are few, as of 1965. The few need help: facilities, assistance of the
right sorts, privacy, few demands of other kinds, money, cognitive and
intellectual backup, encouragement, enlightened discussions, and, of
course, dolphins. This is currently a necessarily lonely profession.

METAPROGRAMS FOR INTERSPECIES INTERLOCK

Several authors have proposed models of human and nonhuman communication
based on purely logical, linguistic, and computer grounds. (See, for
example, Lincos, a language for cosmic intercourse, by Freudenthal.) Such
models suffer from one major defect: they lack the necessary experience in
the proposer with interlock research with a nonhuman species; the storage
banks of the theorizer are filled only with humantype interlock data. Of
course this does not mean that these models are totally inapplicable, it
merely assures a subtle pervasive anthropocentricity which may be
inappropriate.

96

Among many possible theoretical approaches is one which I call the
"participant theorist" approach. The theorist establishes an interlock with
a nonhuman computer by whatever modes are possible, programs himself with
openended hypotheses of a type thought to encourage him and to encourage
the other computer, each to communicate. The resulting interactions between
the two computers set up new programs, driven by metaprograms which say
establish communication with the other computer. The new theory develops
with the new data as each evolves in feedback with the other. Corrections
are introduced in context almost automatically by rewardpunishment
interactions in response to errors on each side of the dyad.

OBSERVATIONS WITH TURSIOPSHUMAN INTERLOCK:

MIMICRY AS EVIDENCE OF INTERLOCK

It has been found [with one nonhuman species (Tursiops truncatus) with a
brain known to be sufficiently large to motivate the human end adequately]
that a large daily commitment of hours to interlock is necessary for the
human end, the order of 16 to 20 hours of the 24. The days per week must be
at least five, and preferably six or seven. After 11 weeks of these hours,
an approximate total of 1000 hours of interlock, the communication achieved
via nonvocal and vocal channels was quite complex, and at the human end,
the theories quite new and operationally successful, from an
ordertakeorders level to several higher levels.*

With dedicated interlock the consciousunconscious reciprocal models of each
computer in the other become workable within

*Lilly, J. C. 1967; Lilly, J. C., Alice M. Miller and Henry M. Truby, 1968.
l. A. S. A. 43: 14121424.97

the limits inherent in each participant. The limits set are also
consciousunconscious, at the human end, at least.

Such interlock participation and realistic model building and rebuilding
avoid the sterile purity of the approach from the armchair. It assures
interlock in most areas, including some interlock even in those areas
forbidden to western "civilized man." The total necessities in each mode of
expression are presented irrespective of taboos, inhibitions, bad theories,
and blocks in either species. Areas to be loosened up are indicated
unequivocally by each member of the dyad to the other by powerful methods.
If communication attempts by one side are blocked in one area by the other,
in many cases search tactics are employed until an open channel is found or
until a channel is developed suitable to each end.

Early in the interlock, mutual rules are established regulating the muscle
power and force to be used, and areas considered dangerous, the
"absolutely" forbidden areas, the first channels to be considered, the
limitations on the use of each channel, who is to have the initiative under
what conditions, the contingencies surrounding feeding and eating, around
sexual activities, arriving and leaving, sleeping, urination and
defecation, the introduction of additional members of either species, and
the use of props and evasions. The initial phase consumes most of this
initial 1000 hours of interlock.

The consciousnessunconsciousness aspect of the initial period of interlock
is an important consideration: if too much hostility-fear is present
unconsciously the interlock becomes ritualistic and evasive. If the human
end has too much unconscious energy involved in unconscious circuits of
dependence on humans of the motherchildfather variety, fearhostility may
rupture the interlock suddenly. If powerful means of clearing out the
unconscious excessbaggage circuits are used, one sees a sudden access to
interlock of a depth and energy previously lacking in that human. A sudden
willingness to participate at all levels

98

effectively is generated and used as the computer is cleared of of
unreasonable circular feedback programs below the level of awareness. This
is at the human end of the system.

At the otherspecies end of the system, the selection of individuals for
interlock is more hit or miss. We catch dolphins in the wild; we don't know
how they select (if they do select) the group for us to catch. There seems
to be some selection going on: most of the individuals we have worked with
have none of our unconscioushostility, unconsciousfear programs in their
computers; at least not in the hands of our people in the Institute. *
Rarely are very old ones caught.

It may be that dolphins in general cannot afford waste of the unconscious
circuitry for such useless programs as
hostilityfear-tointelligentotherindividuals. The conditions for their
survival in the wild require the utmost in fast and unequivocal cooperation
and interlock with one another. The exigencies of airbreathing, of sharks,
of storms, of bacterial diseases, of viral illnesses, of man's
depredations, and of other factors require exuberance and wholehearted
participation (intraspecies) from each and every individual. Failure to
interlock because of fear, hostility or other inner preoccupations leads to
quick death and nonpropagation of that type of computer.

Dolphins, correctly approached, seek interlock with those humans who are
secure enough to openly seek them (at all levels) in the sea water.

With dolphins there are possible and probable interlock channels for
humans. Anatomical differences limit the channels, as do human social
taboos. Given a human with minimal inhibitions, the necessary sensitivity,
skills in the water, courage, dedication, correct programming, and the
necessary surrounds and support, there are many channels:
soundproductionhearing; muscular actiontactilepressurereception;
presenceactionseeing; sexual

*Communication Research Institute, Miami, Florida and St. Thomas, U. S.
Virgin Islands.99

channels; feedingeating; and such metachannel problems as initiative in
use, crosschannel relations simultaneously with intrachannel control of
signals, kinds of signals which can and cannot be decoded into information
at each end, etc.

One channel we have disciplined ourselves and the dolphins to pursue is the
airborne vocal and hearing one.* In this channel we have found a clue to
progress in the other channels if one is to be convincing in regard to
showing a program and metaprogram wish to communicate, one mimics the other
end's signals even though (temporarily) the signals make no sense, and one
insists on having one's own signals mimicked on the same basis. This leads
to mimicry of our swimming patterns by the dolphins, for example, when we
have mimicked theirs.

Mimicry seems to be one program for demonstrations of the present state of
the model of the dolphin in us and of us in the dolphin. The adequacy of
the functioning of the human in the mandolphin interlock is measured by the
feedback represented by mimicry. The mechanism is similar if not identical
to that of a human child mimicking adult use of words (silently or vocally)
not yet in the child's "storage" and "use" programs.

Plea for Further Research

In summary, a plea is made for the development of a theory of the
communicator, human type, faced with a nonhuman communicator with a brain
and presumed mind of a high quality. The theory should include openended,
nonspeciesspecific, general purpose, selfprogramming, mutual respect,
voluntary dedication, participant theorist kinds of basic assumptions.
Beyond these assumptions are those of the proper selection of participants,
support, interest in the scientific community, and cooperation on an
operating contributing level by openminded professionals.

*OP. cit. I.A.S.A. 43 14121424.

12

Summary of Logic Used in this Paper:

Truth, Falsity, Probability, Metaprograms and Their Bounds

For the sake of clarity the following presentation of the logic employed in
this paper is given.

It is quite apparent that there is at least a fourvalue logic employed.
There are the usual 'true' and 'false' values; in addition there is another
pair which in a shorthand way can be called 'as if true' and 'as if false.'
Each of these four values can be applied to the external reality and to the
internal reality of the human biocomputer.

The notation employed is as follows for the external reality applications,
'true' and 'false' are rewritten without quotes. 'As if true' and 'as if
false' are written with an asterisk ahead of the true and ahead of the
false (*true, *false). For the internal realities situation, i.e., the
occurrence of these values in the software of the human biocomputer, double
quotation marks are placed around "true," "false," "as if true" and "as if
false," ("*true" and "*false").

Externally checkable, observable reality, i.e., with external proof, uses
the value system: true, false, *true and *false. In the internal reality,
i.e., in the area of internal judgment, internal belief, in the
selfmetaprogrammer, the values are symbolized with quotation marks, "true"
and "false" "*true" "*false."

In the internal reality case, for each of these values, there is a
metaprogram which can be stated as follows: "define as true

100

101

(or false) a given metaprogram." (In the main body of the paper this is a
basic belief for survival, for example.) A less intense metaprogram is
"defined as if true a given metaprogram or defined as if false a given
metaprogram." In the experiments on basic beliefs, "if defined as "true"
then the metaprogram is "true" within limits to be determined," and "if
defined "*true" then "true" within limits to be determined."

These various values may be modified with a judgment of their probability
and with the defining of the desired intensity. The probability scale is
1.0 for absolutely certain, a gradation of probability down to the value O
which is improbable and to 1 for impossible. Such values are applied to
each of the four logic categories with regard to a specific metaprogram.

Such a logic system can be seen operating in the external human reality in
coalitions of various sorts. A coalition can function 'as if an internal
judgment' in the sense that it defines certain things as "true" which are
then true within limits to be determined. The usual structure of human law
seems to share this property. The concept of consensus wisdom (Galbraith)
includes this logic system.

There are certain metaprograms and programs which have an imperative,
externallyproven truthfalsity relationship which cannot be manipulated
within the human biocomputer without danger to its existence. These
metaprograms and programs can be considered as imperatives from some parts
of the program level of the human biocomputer which must function as
supraselfmetaprograms (i.e., there must be recognition of the "built-in,"
"necessary for survival nature" of these programs).

Some of these true programs are yet to be determined in biological science.
The following have been determined: the necessity of obtaining food in
response to hunger, the necessity of sexual activities and pleasure,
adequate responses to pain and fear (such as freeze, flee, or fight).

102

Programs designed for survival of the body in a gravitational field take up
a large fraction of the apparatus and of the time and energy of the human
computer. The physiological limits of stimulation of the special senses
must be closely maintained, i.e., not too high or too low levels of light,
sound, and so forth. External temperatures and internal temperatures must
be regulated within certain limits. Illnesses introduce new programs,
including those illnesses which are the result of selfmetaprogramming.

Direct physical injury with physical trauma to the body have their own
imperatives. The intake of certain gases into the respiratory system must
be regulated very cautiously. Among these are oxygen, carbon dioxide, water
vapor, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, xenon, krypton, nitrous oxide, and so
forth. There are programs regulating the amount of liquid surrounding the
body (for example, to avoid drowning), the amount of solids piled on top of
the body (to avoid crushing), the total pressures of gases around the body
(neither too much nor too little), the level of radiation, the level of
elementary particles from outer space, or from artificial sources.

The various kinds of viruses, bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa, and so
forth, must be carefully regulated by proper programming.

Interactions of the human computer with other mammals and with
supramammalian species must be programmed in an anticipatory way.

There must be regulation of information, the kind of information and the
amounts from anywhere and from anyone for the best functioning of the human
computer. There are such phenomena as "informationoverload" and
"informationdeprivation." There are multiple programs for the regulation of
the individual with respect to the society surrounding him, which have
their own imperatives.

In summary, there are metaprograms which must be assumed

103

to be true in the sense of external reality and external proof. Each of
these metaprograms has its own definition of that which is true or false.
The 'as if true' and 'as if false' categories can only be applied to these
metaprograms in temporary hypothetical consideration of their content but
not in their performance in the real computer and in the real world. During
the LSD25 state certain of these programs must be considered as true
(externally true and provable) in order to survive during the LSD25 state.
These matters are examined in more detail in other parts of this work.

13

Hardware, Software Relationships in the

Human Biocomputer *

Make the following simplifying assumptions in order to investigate some of
the complex relationships between the metaprograms, programs and the
neuronal activity in the central nervous system

1. Assume an array of approximately 10^10neurons connected in the
particular ways they are in the central nervous system.

2. Assume that the particular critical events in each neuron is the firing
of an impulse into its axon.

3. Assume a method of control of this firing from outside the CNS.

4. Assume a method of pickup of the impulse discharged which can be
transmitted to the outside of the CNS.

5. Assume that each impulse of each neuron in the 10^10 array is recorded
in a highspeed computer outside the CNS.

6. Storage of the time of occurrence of each impulse is stored as a
separate datum.

*Levels IVXI, Fig. 1.

104

1O5

7. Assume that for every second there are 10^14 such impulses stored from
the total CNS.

8. Assume that this external computer can, in a subsequent time period over
10^10 channels, reproduce the time pattern of impulses stored, in the same
time pattern in which they came into storage.

9. Test this hypothesis by a behavioral technique.

10. During a time in which the organism containing the biocomputer is doing
some complex behavior such as speaking a sentence and writing a sentence at
the same time, record completely the external behavior [color 3D motion
pictures, multiple channel tape (microphones, etc.)] .

11. Store all of the neuronal signs of activity during the time of
production of speech and of the writing.

12. In a subsequent time period, play back or call up from storage the
patterns which were stored in the same sequence and put them out from the
computer over 10^10 channels into the CNS.

13. Record the subsequent behavior and compare this record with the
previous external record of the behavior when the sentence was being
produced.

14. The present theory states that behavior of the organism during the time
of reproduction of the pattern will be very closely identical with the
original occurrence of the behavior.

If the original hypothesis is correct, the two patterns of behavior as seen
by camera, sound recorders, and so forth, will be identical. If something
else is operating in the computer than control by neural impulses, the two
behaviors will have differences, depending on the extent of the control. It
may be that

106

longer time patterns are needed in order to control all of the feedbacks
(with, say, the endocrine and biochemical systems) which have longer time
constants than the proposed experiment. There may have to be
preconditioning periods which are also stored, before the two behavior
sequences can be made identical.

With this model, we can ask many basic questions: for example, what is the
physical set of events which gives rise to phenomena in the area of the
phoneme, in the area of semantic levels of abstraction, in the areas of
metaprogramming outside, and the use of language for programming?

With this technique, evaluation of drug effects on the central nervous
system can have meaningful results in terms of the critical physical events
taking place in the CNS. Analyses can be made of the kinds of programming
and metaprogramming that take place in separate systems of the brain such
as the neocortex, the meso, paleo, and archeocortices versus the
subcortical systems such as the thalmus, the hypothalmus, mesencephalon,
etc. A systems analysis is then possible of the limbic system, the
positively reinforcing and negatively reinforcing systems, the control of
the pituitary, and the feedback control by the contents of the blood of the
various parts of the CNS. Evaluation of the feedback relationships between
all of these systems can then be specified in a quantitative way.

This formulation objectifies the subjective in a way in which experiments
can be designed, not only to store the objective aspects of subjective
events, but also to reproduce the subjective events from store. It permits
quantitative analysis of the physical aspects of the subjective events
outside of the CNS which originally created them.

It also permits of experiments in which a given CNS can control most (if
not all) of the functions of a second CNS. The corresponding parts of the
second CNS as compared to the first can be found and an evaluation made of
the differences in thresholds, in area distributions of thresholds and in
analogous areas between the two CNS's.

A more detailed proposal is given in the following Chapter 14.14.Problems

Human Biocomputer: Biophysical Analysis and Control of Brain

ActivityProgram Levels (Figs. 29 & Tables 310)

Program Level )

> relations

Brain Activity Level )

(1.0) Hypothesize a double connection to every CNS neuron

of the 10^10 array of neurons.

a. The first connection picks up the firing sign (action potential) of each
neuron.

b. The second connection furnishes an electrical pulse (10^5 sec. duration)
which fires each neuron, no matter its threshold for firing.

(2.0) Hypothesize a method of storing signs of (la) as they

occur, in the storage of a huge computer, each sign stored by time and
place of occurrence, over a time of 1/2 hour (1800 sec., 1.8 x 10^9 micro
sec.).

(2.1) Record total behavior of organism over a time of 1/2

hour.

(3.0) At any time later, all stored signs are put out through

connections (1b) in original sequence.

(3.1) Record resulting behavior of organism for the 1/2 hr.

Of replay.

107108

(4.0) Questions:

I. Does 3.1 record , , or 2.1 record?

II. Does subjective life during 3.0 , , or 2.0 interval? (See IX below.)

III. Is there memory of 2.0 during 3.0? Afterwards?

IV. Are 3.0 and 2.0 remembered as two time periods and event sequences?

V. Does psychophysical testing with objective records during 3.0 give
identical results to same tests (using same time course) during 2.0? (Word
test programmed on tapes with step distortions below the threshold for step
detection, etc.)

VI. Other than (la) need we store anything else? What about (a) membrane
potential of each cell? (b) variations of M.P. over dendritic tree? (c)
local concentrations of serotonin, norepinephrine, etc.? (d) previous
history of firings for how long before chosen 1/2hour period? (e) blood
levels of critical substances? (f) glial activities and concentration of
substances?

VII. Other than 1b need we control anything else? (See VI list of factors.)

VIII. Are 1a and 1b enough to specify and control, or does molecular signal
storage introduce a measure of control independent of neuron firing?

IX. Does such detailed control of neuron firing give control of (a) program
level and (b) metaprogram level, or is there another set of controlling
variables and parameters?

X. Does this proposed system give control of (a) selfmetaprogram and (b)
supraselfmetaprogram levels? Does this system function as an absolute
supraselfmetaprogram?15. Metaprogramming the Body Image

Some of the most deeply entrenched and earliest acquired metaprograms are
those of the personal body image of the human biocomputer. Among the
programs of importance here are those of posture, walking stance, sitting
patterns, lying down patterns and body posture during sleep. This
metaprogramming interdigitates with that for acquired muscular skills of
every sort, including writing, running, skiing, sports such as tennis,
swimming, and so forth. These metaprograms also interdigitate with those of
the use of the body during highly emotional states such as angry outbursts,
sexual activities (both alone and with a partner), fright and flight
patterns, and so forth.

The selfmetaprogram feeds back on itself through the external body image
seen in a mirror and through proprioceptive and postural feedbacks.

To investigate the proprioceptive and muscle tension aspects of the body
image requires deep probing of programs combined with attempts to push
every joint of the body beyond the limitations set by the current
selfmetaprogram. During such maneuvers to increase the range of motion at
specific joints, one quickly discovers the joint capsules and muscles
themselves have assumed anatomical limits which attenuate the range of
possible motion at these joints. This is particularly true of the spinal
joints and the pelvic joints (with the spine and with the femur). Similar
considerations apply to the rib cage and the thoracic spine, the cirvical
spine, as well as, the limb joints. By daily repeated regimes of
reprogramming of the muscles and the

109

110

joints, it is possible to begin to modify these entrenched programs.

During the primary state of LSD* it is possible to program in positive
system activity during such exercises. Under these conditions the net
effect of such stretchings and muscle exercises can be a positive system
excitation and reinforcement of the new patterns. During the LSD state it
has been noticed that the activities of the negative systems are attenuated
and thus allow a greater range of muscle and joint stretching than without
the LSD. It has also been noticed that it is possible to contract the
desired muscles more fully in this state than during the usual state.
Caution must be observed, however, because it is now possible to contract
muscles to the point where muscles, joint capsules, ligaments, and tendons
can be strained leaving residual, unpleasant local pains after the LSD
primary state is ended.

During such exercises in the LSD state, it is possible to detect (by
looking at the body image in a mirror during such exercises) the
supraselfmetaprograms for the body image, both the positive and the
negative ones. One can see the negative metaprogram, for example, as the
projection of an aged and crippled body assumed to be too old to be capable
of changing the body image. A positive projected metaprogram for example is
that of an athletic young figure.

Certain kinds of negative attenuation and zeroingout metaprograms are
connected with pelvic movements. If there is a supraselfmetaprogram
directed against the movements of sexual intercourse, these are reflected
in body posture and in the range of use of the pelvis in other activities.
Such metaprograms can be detected in the projected images (placed upon the
mirror image of the body itself) by watching the posture of the projected

*Experiments with dextroamphetamine in doses from 40200 mgs show similar
positively reinforcing pleasurable use of muscles, joints, posture-changes,
etc., and inhibition of negatively reinforcing painful effects for several
hours.111

image and the range of programmable functional movements of the pelvis. The
imagined dangers of sexual mating can be seen by the failure of this set of
images to go through the full ranges of such motions. Reprogramming such
antimetaprograms requires the real body to go through the "forbidden"
movements in order to investigate the antimetaprograms. In general this
requires more or less extreme exaggeration of the real body rnovements in
order to break through the inhibitory aspects of the undesired metaprogram.
Each individual will vary from others in the essential details, even as
their rnetaprograms vary. A certain willingness to experience that which is
feared most is absolutely essential as a basic metaprogram in order to
achieve the new programming.

Cautions, once again, are in order here to avoid the
narcissistic-selfworshippingevasion of reprogramming in this area. The new
areas of experience opened up can be rather seductive of themselves,
because of the enhanced positive system activity during the LSD state. The
necessity for regression and regrowth from times at which the natural
developments were stopped can lead to further sticking of the
metaprogramming at an earlier age on hedonistic grounds. Additional
supraselfmetaprograms insisting on a natural evolution of the
selfmetaprogram towards a desired set of ideal metaprograms is necessary
here to assure progress.

In older persons with welldeveloped characters these dangers are not as
pressing as they are in younger subjects. However, the selfmetaprograms
involving the body image are also more entrenched in the older persons.
More energy and dedication to the task at hand are needed in the older
persons.

In those in whom obesity has become a problem, it is necessary to reduce
the body weight to a more ideal level while these exercises in
remetaprogramming of the body image are being carried out. In other words,
it is necessary to carry out those real dietary and exercise instructions
which lead to a real externally better body in the sense of physical
health. Such a regime can reduce the probability of the onset of the
typical

112

diseases of old age, and with increasing health and activity, the
remetaprogramming becomes more rewarding.

One metaprogram which has been worked out in great detail which may be of
help to some persons is the set of exercises and dietary rules commonly
called Yoga. These exercises assure new areas of stretching and new areas
of breathing exercises which can enhance the physiologic functions of lungs
and gut tract, as well as somatic musculature, joints, bones, and posture.
In many ways these exercises assure adequate massage of the heart and blood
vessels in such a way as to increase their activity along healthy lines. It
may be that one can reduce the probability of a coronary attack, angina
pectoris, and similar problems of the aged. Obviously other organs are also
participating including liver, kidneys, spleen, and so forth.

In obesity the panniculus adiposus, the large fat store in the omentum and
in the mesentery, severely limit functions of all of the viscera and limit
the amount of stimulation that can be given these organs through such
exercise. Such large fat reservoirs also require very large amounts of
circulation of their own and hence require an increase in blood pressure to
force that circulation.

Thus the external changes in the body image arereflected in internal
changes throughout the body, in a selfreinforcing manner.16

Brain Models

TABLE 1

VIEWS OF ORGANISM: MODELS

1. Physicalchemical to quantum mechanical

2. Physiological (structure and function)

3. Modern psychological (behavior)

4. Classical psychological (psyche)

5. Evolutionary (origins of life and species)

6. Social, anthropological (prehistorical, historical, current)

7. Nonhuman intelligences

8. Religious, mystical (suprahuman entities)

TABLE 2

VIEWS OF ORGANISM: MODELS

1. Physicalchemical: series of millisecond to microsecond frozen
micropictures of patterns of neuronal activity, biochemical reserves,
physicalchemical flows, energy-forcematerial exchange with outside
sourcessinks; repeatability, reliability, signal/noise relations.

2. Physiological: partial integratedovertime pictures of physical patterns:
net results over seconds to days to years. Organism vs. environment
generation of actions, signals.

3. Modern psychological: selection of certain aspects of

113

114

physical physiological data and models which show properties of
modifiability, CNS model making, model comparison, storage, learning,
memory, physchophysical .

4. Classical psychological: mental, subjective, inside view,
psychoanalytic, solipsistic, egocentered, personal models.

5. Evolutionary: gradual formation of basic physicalchemical units into
organic particles, cells, organisms; formation of genetic codes and
cytoplasmic orders; increasing sizes of cellular aggregations; formation of
species; changes to new species; evolution of CNS; evolution of man from
anthropoids; origins of speech.

6. Social, anthropological

7.

[Image]

TABLE 3

[Image]

KINDS OF "STIMULI"

1. Physical specifications: endorgans: kind and amount, timing, patterning
of energy

2. Physiological specifications: neuronal: threshold values, patterns of
neuron excitation (kind, place, impulses/ second)

3. Central nervous system specification: number of excited neurons, where,
what impulse frequencies; buildup of central state in what systems, its
kind.115

TABLE 4

KINDS OF "RESPONSES"

1. Patterned musculoskeletal: (A) Starting a feedback pattern with
apparatus or with another organism (B) Stopping a feedback pattern

2. Patterned CNSbiochemical states generating musculoskeletal responses:
(A) Neutral (B) Net rewarding (C) Net punishing (D) Net ambivalent

FIGURE 2

116

TABLE 5

KINDS OF CENTRAL STATES

( O ) Sleeping

( 1 ) Neutral

( 2 ) Activated

( 3 ) Inhibited

  1. ( 4 ) Rewarding

( 5 ) Punishing

( 6 ) Disinhibited

  1. ( 7 ) Integrative

( 8 ) Ambivalent

TABLE 6

PLACES IN CNS FOR "CENTRAL STATES

  1. Sleep system
  2. Afferent projection systems
  3. Efferent projection systems
  4. Primary activation systems
  5. Primary inhibition systems
  6. Reward systems
  7. Punishment systems
  8. Integration systems
  9. Pattern storage systems
 10. Programming systems

TABLE 7

FEEDBACK "CAUSES " IN CENTRAL STATES

1. Patterns of immediate results of outside stimuli (strength, place,
timing).

2. Patterns of immediate results of responses.

3. Stored integrated consequences patterns.

4. Continuous current cortical integration of selected past stored patterns
and current results of outside stimuli and responses.

5. Cellular biochemical states of storagedepletion of specific substances
in specific sites reserves available in body.

6. Specific CNS biochemical states locally.

  1. Builtin programs

TABLE 8

INTERLOCK: EXTERNAL REALITY PROGRAM Systems

1. Afferent

2. Efferent

3. Reticular modulating _

4. Positive system phasing

5. Negative system phasing

6. Cortical storage and programming

7. Builtin programs

TABLE 9

NARCISSISTIC STATES through electrical stimulation of the brain, drugs,
programming, and isolation: basic factors are:

1. Prolonged hyperactivie (+) systems.

2. Hypoactivity () systems.

3. Attenuation of external stimuli, responses, transactions.

TABLE 10

"CONVULSIONS" OF ORGASMLIKE TYPE If convulsion (behaviorally seen) includes
prolonged hyperactivity of (+) systems, convulsions act as positive
reinforcement with increased seeking and repetitions of ways of repeating
the experience. (Dostoyevsky, Bickford, Sem-Jacobsen, Lilly).

118

[Image]

FIGURE 6

A LARGE FRACTION OF THE BRAIN HAS

STIMULABLE ELEMENTS WHICH GIVE CONDITIONABLE

RESPONSES TO LOCAL ELECTRICAL STIMULATION

AT LOW LEVELS

1. NeocortexProjection systems (visual, acoustic, sensorimotor)-present,
now

2. PaleoArcheocortexfixed, old patterns

3. Striatemixed projection, positivenegative

4. Hypothalamusseptum and mesencephalon positive and negativepresent

FIGURE 7

MOTIVATIONAL HIERARCHY OF CNS INSTRUCTIONS

(BRADY)

Most (+)

Lat. Hypothalamus

Ant. Med. Forebrain Bundle

Orbitofrontal Cortex

Amyagdala (cf. Powell et al.)

Least (+)

Entorhinal Cortex

Neutral (0)

Septal Area

Negative ()

Fornix

120

FIGURE 8

Positive (+) & Negative (-) Systems:

Short vs. Long Train Effects

Positive

Neocortexlong

Hippocampuslong

Amygdalalong

Caudate Nshort

Lat. Hypothalamic Nshort

Med. Forebrain Bundleshort

Interpeduncular Nshort

Negative

Neocortexlong

Amygdalalong

Intralaminar Thal. Nshort

Med. Hypothalamic Nshort

Central Grayshort

[Image]

121

FIGURE 1O

Single Zones in "Motor" Cortex

(Threshold Current, at 30 ma Second Train Durations)

*(Noncortical). Muscle response (to 1 pulse)

*"Move ". Muscle response (to train)

*"Stop ". Negative reinforcement threshold ("conditioned avoidance ")

*"Start ". Positive reinforcement threshold ("selfstimulation")

*"Alerting". Conditional stimulus ("detection")

FIGURE 11

Subcortical Nuclei "Positive" Zone

(Threshold Current (Short Trains))

*"Stop". (Spread to negative zone) muscle movements

*"Taming" "Gentling". Autonomic responses

* "Start ". Positive reinforcement "Self-stimulation"

*"Alerting". Conditional stimulus threshold

FIGURE 12

Single Zone in "Negative" Subcortical Nuclei

(Threshold Current (Ramp Schedule))

*"Escape" "Anger". Builtin somatic muscle patterns released

*"Fear". Autonomic responses

*"Stop". Negative reinforcement threshold ("conditioned avoidance")

*"Alerting". Conditional stimulus threshold

17

Excerpts from "The Idiot" by Fvodor Dostoyevsky *

Examples of Extremely Active PositiveSystem State:

Subjective Report, Special Type of Epileptic Seizure.

Dostoyevsky in a letter to Nikolai Strakhov.

"For a few moments before the fit", he wrote to the

critic Nikolai Strakhov, "I experience a feeling of happiness such as it is
quite impossible to imagine in a normal state and which other people have
no idea of. I feel entirely in harmony with myself and the whole world, and
this feeling is so strong and so delightful that for a few seconds of such
bliss one would gladly give up ten years of one's life, if not one's whole
life."

Prince Leo Nikolayevich Myshkin:

"He was thinking, incidentally, that there was a moment or two in his
epileptic condition almost before the fit itself (if it occurred during his
waking hours) when suddenly amid the sadness, spiritual darkness and
depression, his brain seemed to catch

pp. 8 and 258. Translated by David Magarshack. Penguin Books Ltd.,
Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1960.

122123

fire at brief moments, and with an extraordinary momentum his vital forces
were strained to the utmost all at once. His sensation of being alive and
his awareness increased tenfold at those moments which flashed by like
lightning. His mind and heart were flooded by a dazzling light. All his
agitation, all his doubts and worries, seemed composed in a twinkling,
culminating in a great calm, full of serene and harmonious joy and hope,
full of understanding and the knowledge of the final cause. But those
moments, those flashes of intuition, were merely the presentiment of the
last second (never more than a second) which preceded the actual fit. This
second was, of course, unendurable. Reflecting about that moment
afterwards, when he was well again, he often said to himself that all those
gleams and flashes of the highest awareness and, hence, also of 'the
highest mode of existence', were nothing but a disease, a departure from
the normal condition, and, if so, it was not at all the highest mode of
existence, but, on the contrary, must be considered to be the lowest. And
yet he arrived at last at the paradoxical conclusion: 'What does it matter
that it is an abnormal tension, if the result, if the moment of sensation,
remembered and analyzed in a state of health, turns out to be harmony and
beauty brought to their highest point of perfection, and gives a feeling,
undivined and undreamt of till then, of completeness, proportion,
reconciliation, and an ecstatic and prayerful fusion in the highest
synthesis of life?' These vague expressions seemed to him very
comprehensible, though rather weak. But that it really was 'beauty and
prayer', that it really was 'the highest synthesis of life', he could not

124

doubt, nor even admit the possibility of doubt. For it was not abnormal and
fantastic visions he saw at that moment7 as under the influence of hashish,
opium7 or spirits7 which debased the reason and distorted the mind. He
could reason sanely about it when the attack was over and he was well
again. Those moments were merely an intense heightening of awareness-if
this condition had to be expressed in one word-of awareness and at the same
time of the most direct sensation of one7s own existence to the most
intense degree. If in that second-that is to say7 at the last conscious
moment before the fit -he had time to say to himself7 consciously and
clearly7 'Yes7 I could give my whole life for this moment,' then this
moment by itself was, of course7 worth the whole of life. However7 he did
not insist on the dialectical part of his argument: stupor7 spiritual
darkness7 idiocy stood before him as the plain consequence of those
'highest moments7. Seriously, of course, he would not have argued the
point. There was, no doubt, some flaw in his argument-that is, in his
appraisal of that minute-but the reality of the sensation somewhat troubled
him all the same. What indeed was he to make of this reality? For the very
thing had happened. He had had time to say to himself at the particular
second that7 for the infinite happiness he had felt in it7 it might well be
worth the whole of his life. 'At that moment77 he once told Rogozhin in
Moscow during their meetings there7 'at that moment the extraordinary
saying that there shall be time no longer becomes7 somehow, comprehensible
to me. I suppose,7 he added, smiling, 'this is the very second in which
there was not time enough for the water from

125

the pitcher of the epileptic Mahomet to spill7 while he had plenty of time
in that very second to behold all the dwellings of Allah.77

Summary

Some general ideas from extrapolation and reworking of modern general
purpose computer theory are used to explain and to control some of the
subjective aspects of the operations of the human brain. An addition (for
the peculiarly human brain) to the theory of the generalpurpose computers
is the concept of the selfmetaprogram or the internal programmer present in
the 10^10 neurons assembly known as the human brain. The self-metaprograms
operate between the huge storage and the huge external reality.
Selfprogramming properties (in addition to stored program properties) are
essential to understanding mental operations and resulting external general
purpose behaviors such as speech and language. Stored programs and
metaprograms are characteristic of the human.

The selforganizing aspects of computer programming and programs are now
conceptually reasonable and realizable in modern nonbiological computers.
The human brain, a superbiocomputer, as it were, is a parallel processor-a
realizable artificial machine with this structure has not yet been built.
The actions of certain substances on the brain are explicable by this
theory: examination of stored programs and reprogramming are opened by
LSD25 (possibly by the introduction of small amounts of programmatic
randomness, noise). In the child, automatic metaprogram implantation (or
externally forced metaprogramming), persisting as metaprograms below the
levels of

126127

awareness in the adult, can be controlling for the later adult programs,
adult thinking, and adult behavior. Energy can be taken from some of these
automatic metaprograms and transferred to the selfmetaprogram with special
techniques and special central states, chemically evoked. Some automatic
unperceived programs are essential to biological nurture, survival, etc.
Examples of methods, of investigations and of results in self-analysis and
selfmetaprogramming are given.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful for a National Institute of Mental Health Career
Award (of the National Institute of Mental Health, N.l.H., Bethesda, Md.
19621967) which gave the time and impetus necessary for the conception and
the writing of this work. The National Institute of Mental Health also
furnished the wherewithal for some of the experiments during the term of
the author's service (19531958) in the U. S. Public Health Service
Commissioned Officers Corps, jointly at the National Institute of Mental
Health and at the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness
at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. In addition, at various
times, portions of the work were supported in part by grants from the Air
Force Officer of Scientific Research, the National Science Foundation, the
National Aeronautics and Space Agency, the National Institute of
Neurological Diseases and Blindness, N.l.H., and G. Unger Vetlesen
Foundation, and the Michael Tors Foundation. For this support the author
expresses his gratitude.

The author wishes to express his appreciation to the Institute of the
Philadelphia Association of Psychoanalysis and the Baltimore Institute for
the opportunity to take his psychoanalytic research preparation and
training analysis (19491956). In particular, he is indebted to Dr. Robert
Waelder and the faculties of that period, including Drs. Gerald Pierson
(dean), Henry Katz, George Sprague, Eli Marcowitz, Amanda Stoughton, Jenny
WaelderHall, Anderson and Lewis Hill. Dr. Lawrence Kubie has been most
helpful with his metatheoretical reformulations of

128

129

psychoanalytic theory. Dr. Douglas Bond's insistance on the combined
neurological and psychoanalytic training gave confidence when needed.

Over the years the necessity and inspiration for the pursuit of the logic
and languages of artificial computers as related to the brain were learned
from Warren McCulloch. An opportunity to pursue this area of research in
depth was arranged by Dr. Walter Rosenblith in 1962. To the LINC group at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (now at Washington University, St.
Louis) the author wishes to express appreciation for coursework, patient
teaching and help with a LINC computer during its development phases-in
particular Dr. Wesley Clark, Mary Allen Wilkes Clark, B. G. Farley, and Dr.
Thomas T. Sandel contributed much needed time.

In many ways discussions of the materials of this work with Drs. Fred G.
Worden, Charles Savage, Joel Elkes, Seymour Kety, Willis Harman, and Sidney
Cohen have aided in its formulation, and have indicated the desirability of
its publication.

I am grateful to my colleagues (past and present) in the Communication
Research Institute for many invigorating discussions, including Gregory
Bateson, Drs. Peter J. Morgane and Henry M. Truby.

Glossary

1. Communication: the process of the exchange of information between two or
more minds

la. Communication: the process of exchange of information between
metaprogramming entities within two or more computers.

2. Information: the calculated mental results of the reception of signals
from another mind and the computed composed context of the next reply to be
formed into transmissible signals.

2a. Information: the data received, computed, and stored resulting from the
reception of signals by a metaprogramming entity from another computer and
the computed data in the ready state in the same entity for transmission to
another computer through a similar set of signals.

3. Mind: the entity comprising all of the (at least potentially)
selfdetectable processes in a brain which are at such a level of program
complexity as to be detected and at least potentially describable in
programming language; the selfmetaprograms within the brain.

3a. Mind: a form of metaprogram in the software set of a very large
biocomputer which organizes metaprograms for the purposes of
selfprogramming and of communication.

3b. Mind: the computerbraindetectable portion of a supraphysical entity
tied to the physicalbiological apparatus

130

131

the remainder of this entity is in the soulspiritGod region and is
detectable only under special conditions.

4. Program: a set of internally consistent instructions for the computation
of signals, the formation of information, the storage of both, the
preparation of messages, the logical processes to be used, the selection
processes, and the storage addresses all occurring within a biocomputer, a
brain.

5. Metaprogram a set of instructions, descriptions, and means of control of
sets of programs.

6. Selfmetaprogram: a special metaprogram which involves the
selfprogramming aspects of the computer, which creates new programs,
revises old programs, and reorganizes programs and metaprograms. This
entity works only directly on the metaprograms, not the programs
themselves; metaprograms work on each program and the detailed instructions
therein. Alternative names are set of selfmetaprograms,
"selfmetaprogramming entity," or the selfmetaprogrammer.

MAJOR METAPROGRAMS

1. External Reality Metaprogram

This metaprogram operates programs with interlock with the
outsidebodysystems. These systems include all of external reality; human
beings are a defined part of the external reality.

This metaprogram seems to be absent only in special states and even then
possibly is only relatively attenuated, not completely absent. The states
in which it is attenuated include sleep, coma, trance, anaesthesia, etc.

The above states cause centrally conditioned reductions of the stimulation
arriving from the external reality. It is also possible to attenuate the
external reality stimuli themselves.

132

In the profound physical isolation, external reality excitation of the CNS
is attenuated to minimum possible levels in all modes. If in profound
physical isolation, one adds a metaprogrammatically active substance to the
brain (such as LSD25), further attenuation of the external reality stimuli
can be achieved and the ego (selfmetaprogram) is more fully activated. If
in profound physical isolation one adds sleep, trance, or anaesthesia
(light levels), these give external reality cutoff and cessation of e.r.
(external reality) excitation of the central nervous system (and of the
"mind").

The external reality metaprogram is increased in its intensity in high
excitation states; interlock with the external reality can be increased by
these means.

2. Selfmetaprograms

These metaprograms include all of those entities which are usually defined
as ego, consciousness, self, and so forth.

The interlock of the selfmetaprograms with the external reality
metaprograms can be attenuated by special techniques including sleep, LSD25
plus isolation, anaesthesia, etc.

The apparent strength of these metaprograms can be enhanced in certain
cased by LSD25 plus dextroamphetamine, psychic energizers, etc.

3. Storage Metaprograms

These metaprograms have two aspects: there is the active storage process in
which the inputs from e.r. and from self are connected to storage: there is
the active output process in which the self is connected directly to
storage. To achieve these connections there are the search metaprograms.
The nature of these programs varies depending upon special conditions. It
varies in free association states, hypnogogic states, dreaming states, etc.
LSD25 and similar agents allow a special state in which the
selfmetaprograms can directly consciously explore much of the storage
itself. In this particular state the selfmetaprograms and

133

the searchmetaprograms operate coextensively in such a way as to reveal the
innermost files of the storage directly to self.

4. Autonomic (Nervous System) Programs

The autonomic nervous system has builtin properties which are definitely
programmatic rather than metaprogrammatic. The relationships between these
and the selfmetaprogram are second order. These autonomic programs do not
exist directly in selfmetaprograms. These programs include the programs for
the gastrointestinal tract, for sex, for anger, for fright, etc. These
programs can be modified by the selfmetaprogram; once started their
detailed carryingout is automatic.

5. Body Maintenance Programs

These are programs which cut across the lines of the previous ones and
include such consciousunconscious programs as the needs and the carrying
out of sleep, exercise, correct food, environmental temperature
regulations, clothing, etc. The realities of the body maintenance in the
external reality are included in these programs.

6. FamilyLoveReproductionChildren Program

This is also an aspect of the external reality metaprogram and here is
separated out as one of the basic programs within that one.

Depending upon the individual computer there can be many more programs;
some may be devised as above, others cut across the above boundaries. Such
divisions, in the last analysis, are artificial and reflect the tendency of
a human to think and act disintegrated into categories rather than as an
integrated smoothly operating holistic computer.

7. Survival Metaprograms

Survival Priorities are used in case of threat to structural and/ or
functional integrity of the entities named the order is that of relative
importance in the sense that the one below in the list

134

will be sacrificed, abandoned, penalized, or changed in order to save,
maintain, integrate, or educate the one above in the series.

A threat is defined as internal (mental) information (which when above
threshold) anticipates and predicts immediate or delayed destruction,
mutilation, confinement, abandonment, damnation, ostracism, solution
(lysis) of continuity, compromised integrity, moral encroachment, severe
ethical insult, voluntary seduction, unconscious entrancement, slavery,
etc.

In nonthreatening educative processes the listing is more flexible any
entity may, for a time, be placed at the head of the new list. This
survival priorities list may remain intact in this order in the depths
below awareness. It is evoked in states of fatigue which begin to generate
information above the threat threshold .

O. The Soulspirit this concept includes life after mortal death,
reincarnation, the immortal entity, that which is Godgiven, none of which
is in current Science. This is currently considered by some persons as the
most valuable of all the available entities. Depending on the needs of the
definer, this entity may be educable, may have higher ethical strivings
than current ones, may store information of certain kinds, may develop
skills in certain areas, may carry these capabilities within it to the next
state after the current mortal physical reality is left, etc.

1. Egomind Entity: one's mind and mental self are valued above the body
(and in those with the above religious belief, below the soul).

2. Body it is obvious that one values one's body less than one's mental
self; however, at times one can be forced to act as if the list did not
have this order but the opposite. Sometimes the mind shuts down, leaving
the body to its survival battle alone.

3. Lover starting with the prototypic father and mother models and moving
to wife or husband models.

4. Child: one's own child.

5. Siblings.

6. Parents.

7. Valued friends.

8. Humans in general.

KEY TO CATEGORIES INFEFERENCES AND

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B study of certain literature in biology

C computers

H hypnosis

I psychiatry

L logic

M brain and mind models

N neuropsychopharmacology

O psychology

P psychoanalysis

T communication

135

References

(See also the Categorized Bibliography, page 145)

Category Page

U N 3 Bradley, P. B. and J. Elkes. 1953. "The Effect of

Amphetamine and DLysergic Acid Diethylamide

(LSD25) on the Electrical Activity of the Brain of

the Conscious Cat." j. Physiol. (London) 120:

13 p.

M* 3 Ashby, W. Ross. 1952. Design forBrain. John Wiley. l M 119 Brady,
joseph V. 1960. "Temporal and Emotional

60 New York. 260 p. | Effects Related to Intracranial Electrical Self

M 3 . 1962. "What is Mind? Objective and Sub | Stimulation." Chapter 3 in
Electrical Studies of tbe

jective Aspects in Cybernetics." Chapter in Theories | Unanestbetized
Brain. Estelle R. Ramey and Des

of the Mind. Jordan M. Scher (ed.). The Free Press l mond S. O'Doherty, Ed.
pp. 5277.

Of Greece, New York and Macmillan: New York, O 3 Bruner, Jerome S.,
Jacqueline J. Goodnow and

London. pp. 305313. GeorgeA.Austin. 1956.AStudyofTbinking.John

O 3 Bartlett, Sir Fredric. 1858. Tbinking. "An Experi Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York; Chapman & Hall,

mental and Social Study." Basic Books, Inc., Pub Ltd., London. 330 p.

Iishers, New York. 203 p. L xx Carnap, Rudolf. 1942. Introduction to
Semantics.

I & M 3 Bateson, Gregory, Don D. jackson, Jay Haley, and 3 Harvard Univ.
Press, Cambridge, Mass. 256 p.

84 JohnWeakland. 1956. "TowardaTheoryofSchizo l L xx . 1943. Formalization
of Logic. Harvard

phrenia." BehavioralSci.l: 251264. University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 159
p.

H 3 Bernheim, H. 1888. Hypnosis and Suggestion in Psy L xx . 1945.
"Foundations of Logic and Math

9 cbotherapy. "A Treatise on the Nature and Uses of 3 ematics." Vol. l No.
3 Int'l. Encyclopedia of

75 Hypnotism." Translated from the 2nd revised ed. Unified Science. Vols. I
& 11: Foundations of the

by C. A. Herter. 1964.University Books, New Hyde | Unity of Science. Univ.
of Chicago Press, Chicago,

Park, N. Y. 428 p. 111.

L 3 Birkhoff, Garrett and Saunders MacLane. 1948. A L xx . 1947. Meaning
and Necessity. A Study in

Survey of Modern Algebra. The Macmillan Co., SemanticsandModalLogic. Univ
of Chicago Press,

New York. 450 p. Chicaco, 111. 210 p.

B 3 Blakeman, J., Alice Lee and Karl Pearson. 1902. "A T 3 Cherry, Colin.
1957. On Human Communication. A

91 Study of the Biometric Constants of English Brain Review, A Survey, andA
Crit*ism. TheTechnology

- Weights and Their Relationships to External Press of M.l.T. and john
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New

Physical Measurement." Biometrica 4: 408467. York: Chapman & Hall, Ltd.,
London. 333 p.

N 3 Blum, Richard and Associates. 1964. Utopiates. "The L 3 Churchman, C.
West, Russell L. Ackoff and E. Leon

41 Use and Users of LSD25." Atherton Press, New ard Arnoff. 1957.
Introduction to Operations Re

York. 303 p. searsb. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, Lon

L xxvii Bourbaki, Nicholas. (pseud.) 1957. Scientific Ameri don. 645 p.

3 can. May. p.88. H 3 Clark, John Howard (U.K.) 1967. "The Structure of

N 3 Bradley, P. B., C. Elkes and J. Elkes. 1953. "On Some Hypnotic
Procedure." 5th International Congress

Effects of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD25) in on Cybernetics. 1115 Sept.
1967. Namur, Brux

Normal Volunteers." J. Physiol. (London). 121: elles, Belgium.

50 p. M 117 Clements, Betty G., John W. Bossard and Reginald G.

Bickford. 1957. "Auras of Pain and Pleasure (sound

,t motion picture of recording of seizures in two

See key to categories, page 135.

patients.)" EEG and Clin. Neurophysiol. 9. Abst.

136 1 12:571

138 139

Category Page Category Page

N 3 Cohen, Sidney. 1965. The Beyond Within. "The LSD James Strachey, Anna
Freud (eds.). Vols. IXXII

Story." Atheneum, New York. 268 p. (18811936). London, Hogarth Press and
the Insti

M 3 Colby, Kenneth Mark. 1955. Energy and Structure in tute of
Psychoanalysis.

Psycboanalysis. The Ronald Press Co., New York. N 3 Freud, Sigmund. 1885.
"Uber die Allgemeinurikung

154 p. des cocains" (on general effect of cocain). (Lect.

B 3 Dobzansky, Theororius. 1955. Evolution, Genetics 5 Mar. 1885) Med.
Chirug. Centrabbl. 1885 7 Aug.

and Man. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York; 20: 374376 & comm. Abs. Auth.
Inhals wiss arb.

Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London. 398 p. 10.

P 3 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. 1960. The Idiot. Translated by N 3 . 1885.
"Beitrag zur Kenntniss der cocain

117 I). Magarshack. Penguin Books Ltd., Harmonds wirkung" (a contribution
to the knowledge of

worth, Middlesex, England. cocaine). Wiener Med. Wochen. 35 (5): cols. 129

B 119 Duvigneau. See Standard Biochemistry Text. 133 Abs. Auth. Inhals wiss
arb. 10.

N 3 Elkes,Joel~. 1961."PsychotropicDrugs.Observations N 3 . 1887. Bemerkung
uber cocamaucht und

on Current Views and l uture Problems" in Lectures cocamfurcht mit
Bezichung auf einen Vortag W.

on ExperimentalPsychiatry. Univ. PittsburghPress. W. Hammonds (comments on
cocaine addiction

pp. 65114. and cocaine fear with ref. to a lecture by W. W. H.)

1 3 Ellces, Joel. 1963. "Subjective and Objective Observa Wiener Med.
Wochen. 37 (28): cols. 929932 Abs.

tion in Psychiatry." The Harvey Lectures. Ser. 57. Auth. Inhals arb. 17.

Academic Press. pp. 6392. N 3 . 1885. "Gutactan uber das Parke cocam

N 3 Elkes, C., J. Elkes, and W. MayerGross. 1955. "Hal (report on Parke's
cocaine) in Gutt Uber die ver

lucinogenic Drugs." Lancet 268 719. schiedenen cocamPraparati und deren
Wirkung"

N 3 Elkes, Joel. 1957. "Effects of Psychosomimetic Drugs (on cocaine &
effects). Wiener Med. Wochen. 26

in Animals and Man." Chapter in Neuropharma (32) 1036.

cology. H. A. Abramson (ed.). New York. pp. 205 L, C 3 Freudenthal, Hans.
1960. LINCOS, Design of a Lan

95. 94 guageforCosmiclntercourse. L.E.J. Brouwer, E.W.

B, N 3 Elkes, J. 1958. "Drug Effects in Relation to Receptor Beth, A.
Heyting (eds.). NorthHolland Publishing

Specificity Within the Brain: Some Evidence and Co., Amsterdam. 224 p.

Provisional Formulation" in Neurological Basis of T 3 Galbraith, ). K.
1958. Tbe Affluent Society. Hough

Behavior. Ciba Foundation Symposium. Little, 98 ton, Mifflin, Boston.

Brown & Col, Boston. pp. 302336. H 3 Gill, Merton M. and Margaret Brenman.
1961. Hyp

B, N 3 . 1960. "Drugs Influencing Affect and Be 18 nosis and Related
States. Psychoanalytic Studies

havior: Possible Neural Correlates in Relation to in Regression.
International Universities Press, Inc.,

Mode of Action." Chapter V in The Physiology of New York. 405 p.

Emotions. A. Simon, C. C. Herbert and R. Strause B 3 Handbook of
Physiology. 1959. Section 1: Neuro

(eds.). Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, physiology Vol. 1. John
Field, H. W. Magoun and

lll. pp. 95150. Victor E. Hall (eds.). Am. Physiol. Soc. Waverly

C 3 Feigenbaum, Edward A. and Julian Feldman (eds.). Press, Inc.,
Baltimore, Md. 1779 pp.

1963. Computers and Thought. Mc(GrawHill Book B 3 Handbook of Physiology.
1960. Section 1 Neuro

Co., Inc., New York, San Francisco, Toronto, physiology. Vol. 11. John
Field, H. W. Magoun and

London. 535 p. Victor E. Hall (eds.). Am. Physiol. Soc. Waverly

O 3 Freud, Sigmund. 1966. The Standard Edition of the Press, Inc.
Baltimore, Md. 7811440 pp.

Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud.

140 141

Category Page Category Page

B 3 Handbook of Pbysiology. 1960. Section I Neuro Concept of a Repetition
Compulsion." Int. J. Psa.

physiology. Vol. 111. John Field, H. W. Magoun 20: 390402.

and Victor E. Hall (eds.). Am. Physiol. Soc. Waverly P 3 Kubie, Lawrence.
1950. Practical and Theoretical As

Press, Inc. Baltimore, Md. 14411966 pp. pects of Psycboanalysis.
International Universities

B 3 Handbook of Pbysiology. 1964. Section 4: Adapta Press, Inc., New York.
252 p.

tion to tbe Environment. D. B. Dill, E. F. Adolph H 3 Lasker, Eric G. 1967.
"Computerized Induction of

and C. G. Wilber (eds.). Am. Physiol. Soc. Waverly Hypnosis." 5th
International Congress on Cyber

Press, Inc., Baltimore, Md. 1056 p. netics. 1115 Sept. 1967. Namur,
Bruxelles, Bel

B, M 3 "Homeostatic Mechanisms." 1958. Report of Sympos gium.

ium June 1214, 1957. Brookhaven Symposia in N, O 3 Leary, Timothy and
Richard Alpert. 1963. "The

Biology No. 10: 1209 BNL 474 (C25). Office Politics of
ConsciousnessExpansion. The Harvard

Technical Services, Dept. Commerce, Washington, Review 1: 4354 p.

D. C. 270 p. N 3 Leary, Timothy, George Litwin, and Ralph Metzner

L xx Hilbert, David and W. Ackerman. 1950. Principles of 34 (eds.). 1963.
"The Subjective Aftereffects of Psy

3 Matbematical Logic. Robert E. Luce (ed.). Chelsea chedelic Experiences: A
Summary of Four Recent

Publishing Co., New York. 172 p. Studies." The Psychedelic Review 1: 1826.

O 3 Hilgard, Ernest R. 1956. Theories of Learning. Apple N 3 Leary,
Timothy, Ralph Metzner, and Richard Alpert.

tonCenturyCrofts, Inc., New York. 563 p. 35 1964. Tbe Psycbedelic
Experience: A Manual Based

H 3 Hull, Clark L. 1933. Hypnosis and Suggestibility. "An on tbe Tibetan
Book of tbe Dead. University Books,

9 Experimental Approach." The Century Psychology New Hyde Park, N. Y.

75 Series. R. M. Elliott (ed.). D. AppletonCentury B, M 86 Lettvin, J. Y.,
H. R. Maturana, W. S. McCulloch, and

Co., Inc., New York, London. 416 p. W. H. Pitts. 1959. "What the Frog's Eye
Tells the

M 3 "Human Decisions in Complex Systems." 1961. Con Frog's Brain." Proc.
I.R.E. 47 (II): 19401959.

ference Chairman and Conference Editor Warren O, L 3 Lewin, Kurt. 1936.
Principles of Topological Psycbol

W. McCulloch. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 89: 715896. ogy. McGrawHill Book Co.,
Inc., New York and

L, O 3 Huxley, Aldous. 1952. Heaven and Hell. Harper & London. 231 p.

49 Brothers, New York. 103 p. P 3 Lewin, Bertram. 1950. Tbe Psycboanalysis
of Elation.

L, O 3 . 1954. Doors to Perception. Harper & 21 W. W. Norton, New York.

49 Bros., New York L 3 Lewis, Clarence Irving and Cooper, Harold Langford.

M 3 Hyden, H. 1960. "The Neuron" in The Cell. Vol. 4: 1. 1932. Symbolic
Logic. The Century Philosophy

80 Academic Press, New York. 305 p. Series, S. P. Lambrecht (ed.). The
Century Co.,

O, N, T. 3 James, William. 1929. Tbe Varieties of Religious Ex New York and
London. 506 p.

M 9 perience: "A Study in Human Nature." Longmans, T, P xxii Lilly, John C.
1956. "Mental Effects of Reduction of

Green & Co., New York, London, Bombay and Cal 4 Ordinary Levels of Physical
Stimuli on Intact,

cutta. 526 p. 17 Healthy Persons." In Psychiat. Res. Report 5.

O 3 . 1950. The Principles of Psychology. Vols. 60 American Psychiatric
Assn., Washington, D. C.

9 1 & 11. I)over Publications, Inc., New York. pp. 128.

M, B 3 Jeffress, Lloyd A. (ed.). 1951. Cerebral Mechanisms 13 . 1957. "Stop
and Start Systems" in Neuro

in Behavior. The Hixon Symposium. .lohn Wiley pharmacology. Transactions of
the FourthConfer

& Sons, Inc., New York: Chapman & Hall, Ltd., ence, Josiah Macy, Jr.
Foundation. Princeton, N. 3.

London. 311 p.

P 3 Kubie, Lawrence. 1939 "A Critical Analysis of the | pp. 153179.

142 143

Category Page Category Page

13 Lilly, John C. 1958. "Some Considerations Regarding M 3 Pask, Gordon.
1966. "A Cybernetic Model for Some

Basic Mechanisms of Positive and Negative Types 14 Types of Learning."
Bionics Symposium 35 May,

of Motivations." Am. J. Psychiat. 115: 498504. 1966. Dayton, Ohio. WADD
Tech. Rept.

13 . 1958."RewardingandPunishingSystems B 3
Pauling,Linus.1961."AMolecularTheoryofGeneral

in the Brain" in The Central Nervous System and 80 Anesthesia." Science 134
1522.

Bebavior. Transactions of the First Conference, O 3 Pavlov,l.P.1957.
Experimental Psychology and Other

Josiah Macy, jr. I oundation. Princeton, N. J. O 3 Piaget, Sean 1956. The
Orzgins of Intellggence in Chil

13 . 1959. "Stop and Start Effects" in The dren. Translated by
MargaretCook.lnternational

Central NervousSystem and Behavior. Transactions Universities Press, Inc.,
New York. 419 p.

Of the Second Conference, Josiah Macy, Jr. Foun L, T 3 Polya, G. 1954.
Patterns of Plaustblelnference. Vol. ll

dation and National Science Foundation. Princeton, of Mathematgcs and
Plauszble Reasonmg. Princeton

~. l pp ff Z . . > Univ. Press, Princeton, New jersey. 190 p.

T, P 3 Lilly; John C. and j. T. Shurley. 1961. "Experiments M 119 Powell,
Ervin W, Jane Haggart, Elsie Goodfellow and

29 in Solitude, in Maximum Achievable Physical Iso Wllliam T. Nlemer. 1957.
"Hypothalamic Selzures

59 lation with Water Suspension, of Intact Healthy from Stimulation of
Rhinencephalon and an Iso

Persons." Symposium, USAF Aerospace Medical cortex m Cat." Neurol. 7:
689696.

Center, San Antonio, Texas, 1960. InPsychophys P, O 3 Rappaport, David.
1951. Organization and Pathology

iological Aspects of Space Flight. Columbia Univ. of Thought. Selected
Sources. Translation and com

Press, New York. pp. 38247. mentary by D. Rappaport. Columbia Univ. Press,

B, T 3 Lilly,JohnC.1963."CriticalBrainSizeandLanguage." NewYork. 785 p.

93 PerspectivesinBiol.&Med.6: 246255. B 3 Rensch, Bernard. 1960.
EvolutionAbovetheSpecies

O, M, T 64 - . 1967. Mind of the Dolphin: A Nonhuman Level. Columbia Univ.
Press, Morningside Heights,

Intelligence. Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York. 419 p.

N. Y. 331 p. T 3 Rioch, David Mck. and Edwin A. Weinstein (eds.).

M, L 3 McCulloch, Warren S. 1965. Embodiments of Mind. Disorders of
Communication. Proc. Assoc. for Res.

102 The M.l.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. 402 p. m Ner. and Mental Dis. Dec.
78, 1962. New York,

T, L 3 Miller, George A.1951. Language and Communication. New York. Vol.
XLII. The Williams & Wilkins Co.,

McGrawHill Book Co., Inc., New York. 298 p. Baltimore. 519 p.

C, T 3 Muses, C. A. (ed.). 1962. Aspects of the Theory of M 3 Rosenblith,
Walter A. (Ed.). 1961. Sensory Communi

Artificial Intelligence. Proc. 1st Int'l. Symp. On cation. Symposium on
Principles of Sensory Com

Biosimulation, Locarno. 1960. Plenum Press, New munication. (Endicott House
1959). M.l.T. Press

York. 283 p. and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 844 p.

M, C 3 Pask, Gordon. 1962. "The Simulation of Learning and B xxv
Schrodinger, Erwin. 1945. What is Life? The Physical

DecisionMaking Behavior." Chapter Vlll in Aspects 3 Aspects of the Living
Cell. Univ. Press, Cambridge,

of the Theory of Artificial Intelligence. C. A. England: Macmillan, New
York.

Muses (ed.). The Proc. 1st Int'l. Symp. On Bio M 117 SemJacobsen, C. W.
1968. "DepthElectrographic

simulation, Locarno. 1960. Plenum Press, New Stimulation of the Human Brain
and Behavior."

York. pp. 165210. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, lllinois. 200 p.

M 3 . 1964. "A Discussion of Artificial Intelli 15 Skinner, B. F. 1957.
Verbal Behavior. Appleton, New

15 gence and SelfOrganization" in Advances in Com o

, ~O xxviii Snow, C. P. 1959. The Two Culturesand theScientific

puters. rranz. L. Alt ana morrls KUDmorr. Vol. v.

Academic Press, New York, London. pp. 109226. 3 Revolutzon
CambndgeUnlv.Press, New York.58 p.

144 145

Category Page Categorized

L xx Tarski, Alfred. 1946. Introduction to Logic and to Biblio,graphyF B,M*

3 the Metbodology of Deductive Sciences. Oxford Adrian, Edgar I). 1947. The
Physical Background of Perception.

Univ. Press, New York. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.

M, L 3 Von Foerster, Heinz. 1948. Das Gedachtnis. Deuticke, Ashby, W. R.
1945. "The Physical Origin of Adaptation by Trial

81 Vienna. 21 p. and Error." J. Gen. Psych. 32 1325.

M, L 3 . 1962. "BioLogic" in Biological Proto Ashby, W. Ross 1952. Design
for a Brain. John Wiley 8~ Sons, Inc.,

79 types and Synthetic Systems. Eugene E. Bernard New York.

84 and Morley R. ICare (eds.). Vol. 1, Plenum Press, Ashby, W. Ross 1962.
"The SelfReproducing System" in Aspects

New York. pp. 119. of the Theory of Artificial Intelligence. C. A.

M, L, B 3 Von Foerster, Heinz and George W. Zopf, Jr. (eds.). Muses (ed.).
(Proc. 1st. Int'l. Symp. on Bio

1962. Principles of SelfOrganization. Transactions simulation. Locarno,
1960). Plenum Press, New

of Univ. lll. Symposium on SelfOrganization, Rob York. pp. 918.

ert Allerton Park, june 89, 1961. International Ashby, W. Ross 1962. "What
is Mind? Objective and Subjective

Tracts in Computer Science and Technology and Aspects in Cybernetics."
Chapter in Theories of

their Applications. Vol. 9. A Pergamon Press Book. the Mind. J. M. Scher
(ed.). The Free Press of

The Macmillan Co., New York. 541 p. Greece, New York and Macmillan: New
York,

L, T xxii Von Neumann, John and Oskar Morgenstern. 1944. London. 305313 pp.

3 The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Bonin, Gerhardt Von 1950.
Essay on the Cerebral Cortex. C. C. Thomas,

Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J. 625 p. Springfield, lll.

C,M 3 Von Neumann, John. 1958. The Computerand the Brady, josephV.
1960."TemporalandEmotionalEffectsRelatedto

Brain. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn. Intracranial Electrical
SelfStimulation." Chapter

P 3 Waelder, Robert. 1960. Basic Theory of Psychoanal 3 in Electrical
Studies of the Unanesthetized

ysis. International Univ. Press, New York. 273 p. Brain. Estelle R. Ramey
and Desmond S.

C 3 Wegener, Peter (ed.). 1964. Introduction to System O'Doherty, Ed. pp.
5277.

Programming. Proceedings of a symposium held at Chance, Britton, 1964.
"Cyclic and Oscillatory Responses of Meta

the London School of Economics 1962. Academic A. Ghosh bolic Pathways
Involving Chemical Feedback

Press, London and New York. 316 p. J. J. Higgins and Their Computer
Representations." Ann.

L xx Whitehead, Alfred North and Bertrand Russell. 1925 P. J. Maitra N. Y.
Acad. Sci. 115 (Z): 10101024.

3 1927. Principia Mathematica. 3 Vols. 2nd ed. Clements, Betty G., 1957.
"Auras of Pain and Pleasure (sound motion

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass. John W. Bossard and picture of
recording of seizures in two patients)".

T 3 Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1959. Language, Thought and Reginal G. Bickford
EEG and Clin. Neurophysiol. 9. Abst. 12:571.

Reality. Selected Writings. John B. Carroll (ed.). Eccles, G. C. 1953. The
Neurophysiological Basis of Mind. Clar

Technology Press, M.l.T. and John Wiley & Sons, endon Press, Oxford. 191 p.

Inc., New York and London. 278 p. Evans, C. R. 1964. "Dreaming: an Analogy
from Computers."

M 3 Wooldridge, Dean E. 1963. The Machinery of the E. A. Newman New
Scientist 24: 577579.

Brain. McGrawHill Book Co., Inc., New York, San Fair, Charles M. 1963. The
Physical Foundations of the Psyche.

Francisco, Toronto, London. 252 p. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown,
Conn.

Freud, Sigmund 1953. On Apbasia, a Critical Study. Int'l. Univ.

Press, New York.

See key to categories, page 135.

146 147

Categorized Categorized

BibliograPby B, M Bibliography B, M

Head, Sir Henry 1963. Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech. Pask,
(Gordon 1966. "A Cybernetic Model for Some Types of

Vols.l and lL HafnerPublishingCo., New York. Learning." Bionics Symposium
35, 1966. Day

Hess, Walter R. 1954. Diencephalon, Automatic and Extrapyram ton, Ohio.
WADD Tech. Rept.

idal Functions. (Grune & Stratton, New York. Penfield, Wilder 1950. The
Cerebral Cortex of Man; A ClinicalStudy

Jaekson, J. Hughlings 1958. Selected Writings. James Taylor (ed.). Basic
Theodore Rasmussen of Localization of Function. Maemlllan, New

Books, New York. York. 248 p.

Kappers, C. U. Ariens 1960. The Comparative Anatomy of the Nervous
Penfield, Wilder 1959. Speech and BrainMechanisms. Prineeton

G. Carl Huber System of l'ertebrates, Including Man. Vols. I, Lamar Roberts
Universitv Press, Prineeton, N. J. 286 p.

Elizabeth Caroline 11,111. Hafner Publishing Co., New York. Pitts, Walter
1947. "How We linow Umversals The Pereeption

Crosby Warren S. MeCulloeh of Auditory and Visual Forms." Bull. of Math.

Lettvin, J. Y. 1959. "What the l;rog's Eye Tells the Frog's Brain."
Biophys. 9: 127147.

H. R. Maturana Proe. I.R.E. 47 (11): 19401959. Powell, Ervin W., 1957.
"Hypothalamic Seizures from Stimulation

W. S. MeCulloch jane llaggart, of Rhinencephalon and an Isocortex in Cat."

W. H Pitts Elsie Goodfellow, Neurol. 7 689696.

Macliay, Donald M. 1962. "Theoretical Models of Space Perception" in
William T. Niemer

Aspects of tbe Tbeory of Arti)icial Intelligence. Ramey, Estell R. 1960.
Electrical Studies on tbe Unanesthetized

C. A. Muses (ed.). (Proc. 1st Int'l. Symp. on DesmondS.O'Doherty
Brain.P.B.Hoeber,lnc.,NewYork. 423 p.

Biosimulation. Locarno 1960.) Plenum Press, (eds.)

New York. pp. 83 102. Rensch, Bernard 1960. Evolution A bove the Species
Level. Columbia

MeCulloch, Warren S. 1943. "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Imminent
University Press, New York. 419 p.

W. Pitts in Nervous Activity." Bull. Math. Biophys. 5 Rosenblith, Walter A.
1961. Sensory Communication. Symposium on

115133. (ed.) PrineiplesofSensoryCommunieation. (Endieott

MeCulloch, Warren S. 1945. "A Heterarchy of Values Determinea by the House,
1959). M.l.T. Press and Wiley & Sons,

Topology of Nervous Nets." Bull. Math. Bio Inc., New York. 844 p.

phys. 7 8993. Scher, Jordon M. 1962. Theories of the Mind. Free Press of
Glencoe,

1952. Finality and Form. American Lectures Series (ed .) New York. 748 p.

No. 11. C. C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. 63 p. Schmitt, Francis O.
1962. Macromolecular Specificity and Biological

1965. Embodiments of Mind. The M.l.T. Press, (ed.) Memory. The M.l.T.
Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Cambridge, Mass. p. 402. 119 p.

Newman, E. A. 1965. "Human l)ream Processes as Analogous to Schrodinger,
Erwin 1945. What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the

C. R. Evans Computer Programme Clearance." Nat. (Lon Living Cell. Univ.
Press, Cambridge, England;

don) 206 (4983) 534. Macmillan, New York. 91 p.

Pask, Gordon 1962. "The Simulation of Learning and Decision Scheer, Daniel
E. 1961. Electrical Stimulation of the Brain: An

Making Behavior" in Aspects of tbe Tbeory of (ed.) Interdisciplinary Survey
of Neurobehavioral In

Artificial Intelligence. C. A. Muses (ed.). (Proc. tegrative Systems. Univ.
of Texas Press (for the

1st Int'l. Symposium on Biosimulation, Locarno Hogg Foundation for Mental
Health).Austin,

1960.) Plenum Press, New York. pp. 165210. Texas.

1964. "A Discussion of Artificial Intelligence and SemJacobsen,C. W. 1968.
"DepthElectrographie Stimulation of the

Self()rganization" in Advances in Computers. Human Brain and Behavior."
Charles C. Thomas,

Franz L. Alt and Morris Rubinoff (eds.). Vol. 5 Springfield, Illlnois. 200
p.

Aeademie Press, New York, London. pp. 109 Sherrington, Sir 1920. The
Integrative Action of the Nervous Sys

226. Charles Scott tem. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn.

149

148

. d Categorized

Biblxograpby B, M Bibliograpla L

Von Foerster, Heinz 1962. "BioLogic" in Biological Prototypes and Tarski,
Alfred 1946 IntrdUctin tsLig es 2nd Ed. Revised8

Synthetic Systems. Eugene E. Bernard and translated by Olaf Helmer. Oxford
Univ. Press,

Morley R. Kare (eds.). Vol. 1. Plenum Press, New York. 239 p.

New York. pp. 112. Von Neuman, John Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.
Prince

1962. "Circuitry of Clues to Platonic Ideation" OskarMorgenstern ton Univ.
Press. Princeton, New Jersey. 625 p.

in Aspects of the Tbeory of Artificial Intelli Whitehead, Alfred Principia
Matbematica. 2nd Ed. 3 Vol. 192527.

gence. C. A. Muses (ed.). (Proc. 1st Int'l. Symp. North Vol. 1, to 1956.
Cambridge Univ. Press. Cam

on Biosimulation. Locarno 1960). Plenum Press, Bertrand Russell bridge,
Mass.

New York. pp. 4381. Wiener, Norbert 1948. Cybernetics; or Control and
Communication

Von Neumann, John 1958. Tbe Computer and the Brain. Yale Univ. in the
Animal and the Macbine. Wiley & Sons.

Press, New Haven, Conn. 82 p. New York. 194 p.

Birkhoff, Garrett 1948. A Survey of Modern Algebra. Macmillan. Abramson, H.
E. 1954. Conference on Neuropbarmacology. Trans

Saunders MacLane New York. 472 p. (ed.) actions. JosiahMacy,Jr. Foundation.
NewYork.

Boole, George 1948. Tbe Matbematical Analysis of Logic; Being Bradley, P,
B. 1953. "The Effect of Amphetamine and Dlysergic

an Essay Towards a Calculus of Deductive Rea ). Elkes Acid Diethylamide
(LSD25) on the Electrical

soning. Philosophical Library. New York. 82 p. Activity of the Brain of the
Conscious Cat."

Carnap, Rudolf 1942. lntroductxon to Semantics. Harvard Univ. J. Physiol.
120: 13. London.

Press. Cambridge, Mass. 256 p. Bradley, P. B. 1953. "On Some Effects of
Lysergic Acid Diethyl

1943. Formalization of Logic. Harvard Univ. Press, C. Elkes amide (LSD25)
in Normal Volunteers." J.

Cambridge,Mass. 159p. ). Elkes Physiol.(London). 121:50.

1945. Foundations of Logic and Matbematics. Eccles, J. C. 1953. Tbe
Neuropbysiological Basis of Mind.

Vol. I., No. 3, Int'l. Encycl. of Unified Science, Clarendon Press. Oxford,
England.

Vols. I & 11: Foundations of the Unity of Sci Eiduson, Samuel 1964.
Biosbemistry and Bebavior. Van Nostrand,

ence. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 111. Edward Geller Princeton, New
jersey. 554 p.

1947. Meaning and Necessity, A Study in Semantics Arthur Yuwiller

and Modal Logic. Univ. of Chicago Press, Bernice Eiduson

Chicago, 111. 210 p. Elkes, C. 1955. "Haliucinogenic Drugs." Lancet 268:
719.

Culbertson, james T. 1958. Matbematics and Logic for Digital Devices. j.
Elkes

Van Nostrand. Princeton, New Jersey. 224 p. W. MayerGross

Hilbert, David 1950. Principles of Matbematical Logic. Robert E. Evarts,
Edward V. 1955. "Some Effects of Lysergic Acid Diethylamid

W. Ackerman Luce(ed.).ChelseaPublishing. NewYork. 172 p. W. Landau et al.
and Bufotenine on Electrical Activity in the

Lewis, Clarencelrving 1932. Symbolic Logic. The Century Co. New York Cat's
Visual System." Am. J. Physiol.182: 594

Cooper H. Langford and London. 598 pp.

Nyquist, Harry 1933. Tbeory of Feedback Systems. U. S. Patent Evarts,
Edward V. 1956.~Brain EffectsofLSDinAnimals" inLysergic

Harry S. Black No. 1,894,322. Milburn, New Jersey. Acid Diethylamide and
Mescaline in Experi

Shannon,C. E. 1949. Tbe Matbematical Tbeory of Communica mentalPsycbiatry.
Grune&Stratton,NewYork,

tion, p. 21. Univ. lll. Press, Urbana, lll. London. p.55

1964. Tbe Matbematical Tbeory of Communica 1956. "Some Effects of
Bufotenine and Lysergic

W. Weaver tion. Univ. of 111. Press, Urbana, lll. 125 p. Acid l)iethylamide
on the Monkey." Arch. Neu

rol. & Psvchiat. 75 49.

150 151

Categorized Categorived

Bibliogratby N Bibliography T

Kety, Seymour S. 1960. "A Biologist Examines the Mind and Be I & 11:
Foundations of the Unity of Science,

havior." Science 132: 18611870. Univ. of Chicago Press. Chicago, 111.

ICillam, Eva K. 1959. "The Action of Pharmacologic Agents on Pierce, John
R. 1961. Symbols, Signals and Noise: The Nature and

H. Gangloff Evoked Cortical Activity." In Biological Psychi Process of
Communication. Harper. New York.

B. Konigsmark atry. ). H. Masserman (ed.). Grune & Stratton Poincare, Henri
1952. Science and Hypothesis. Dover Publications.

K. F. lEillam New York. New York. 244 p.

Killam, 19. J. 1958. "Drug Action on Pathways Involving the Whorf, Benjamin
L. 1956. Language, Thougbt and Reality: Selected

E. K. Killam Reticuiar Formation" in Reticular Formation of Writings.
Cambridge Technology Press of M.l.T.,

the Brain. H. H. Jasper et al. (eds.). Little, Cambridge, Mass. 278 p.

Brown, Boston, Mass. p.111. Wiener, Norbert 1948. Cybernetics: orControl
and Communication

Konorski, Jerzy 1948. Conditioned Reflexes and Neuron Organiza in the
Animal and the Machine. Wiley & Sons.

tion. Univ. Press. Cambridge, England. 267 p. New York. 194 p.

Magoun, Horace 1958. The Waking Brain. C. C. Thomas, Publisher Woodger,
Joseph H. 1952. Biology and Language: An Introduction to

Springfield, Illinois. 138 p. the Methodology of the Biological Sciences,

Marrazzi, A. S. 1955. "The Possible Role of Inhibition at Adren
IncludingMedicine. CambridgeUniv. Press. Eng

E. R. Hart ergic Synapses in the Mechanism of Hallucino land. 364 p.

genic and Related Drug Actions." ). Nerv. &

Ment. Dis. 122: 453. P

Uhr,LeonardMerrick 1960. Drugs and Behavior. Wiley & Sons. New
Brenner,Charles 1955.AnElementaryTextbookofPsychoanalysis.

James G. Miller York. 676 p. Int'l. Univ. Press. New York. 219 p.

(Eds.). Colby, Kenneth M. 1955. Energy and Structure in Psychoanalysis.

Unger, Sanford M. 1963. "Mescaline, LSD, Psilocybin and Personality Ronald
Press. New York. 154 p.

Change, a Review." Psychiat. 26: 111125. I)ostoyevsky, Fyodor 1960. The
Idiot Translated by D. Magarshack.

Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, Middle

T sex, England.

Cherry, Colin 1957. On Human Communication: A Review, A Erikson, Erik H.
1964. Insight and Responsibility. 2nd Ed. W. W.

Survey, and A Criticism. Cambridge Technology Norton. New York. 445 p.

PressofM.l.T.Cambridge,Mass. 333 p. Fenichel,Otto 1945. Tbe Psychoanalytic
Theory of Neurosis.

Chomsky, Noam 1957. SyntacticStructures. Mouton. 'sGravenhage. W. W.
Norton. New York. 2nd Vol.

116 p. Ferenczi, Sandor 1926. Further Contributions to the Theory and

Freudenthal, Hans 1960. Lincos, Design of a Language for Cosmic Technique
of Psychoanalysis. L. & Virginia

Intercourse. NorthHolland Publishing Co., Am Woolf at the Hogarth Press and
the Inst. of

sterdam. Psychoanalysis. London. 473 p.

MaclEay,I)onaldM. 1956. "Towards an InformationFlow Model of Freud,Anna
1946. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence.

Human Behavior." Brit. ]. of Psychol. XLVII Translated by C. Baines. Int'l.
Univ. Press. New

(1): 3043 York. 196 p.

Miller, C;eorge A. 1951. Languageand Communication. McGrawHill. Freud,
Sigmund 1936. TheProblem of Anxiety. Translated by H. A.

New York. 298 p. Bunker. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly Press and

Morris, Charles W. 1945. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Vol. l, W. W.
Norton. New York. 165 p.

No. 2, Int'l. Encycl. of Unified Science, Vols. 1959. Collected Papers.
Basic Books. New York.

Groddeck, 1950. The Book of the It. Funk & Wagnalls. New

Georg Walther York.

152 153

Categorized Categorized

Bibliograplv p Bibliography O

ICubie, LawrenceS 1950* Practical and Tbeoretical Aspects of Psycho
Grinker, Roy R. 1956. Toward a Unified Theory of Human Be

analysis. Int'l. Univ. Press, New York. Revised Helen MacGill Hughes
havior. Basic Books. New York. 375 p.

1960. Praeger Paperbacks. New York. 258 p. (eds.).

Lewin,Bertram. 1950.ThePsychoanalysisofElation.W.W.Norton. Hebb, D. O.
1949. The Organization of Behavior: A Neuro

New York. psychological Theory. Wiley & Sons. New York.

Rapaport, David 1960. Structure of Psychoanalytic Theory. Int'l. 335 p.

Univ. Press. New York. Hilgard, Ernest R. 1956. Theories of Learning.
AppletonCentury

Spitz, Rene A. 1965. The First Year of Life. Int'l. Univ. Press, Crofts.
New York.

New York. Hooker, Davenport 1952. The Prenatal Origin of Behavior. Univ. of

Waelder, Robert 1960. Basic Theory of Psychoanalysis. Int'l. Univ.
KansasPress, Lawrence, Kansas. 143 p.

Press, New York. 273 p. Hull, Clark L. 193 3. Hypnosis and Suggestibility,
An Experimental

1962."Psychoanalysis,ScientificMethod andPhilo Approach. AppletonCentury.
New York and

sophy." J. Am. Psychoanalytic Assn. X: 617637. London. 416 p.

Farley, B. G. 1954. "Simulation of SelfOrganizing Systems by James, William
1929. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A

W. A. Clark DigitalComputer." IRE Trans. PGI 14: 7884. StudyinHumanNature.
Longmans, Green;New

1960. "Activity in Networks of Neuronlike Ele York London, Bombay Calcutta.

ments." 4th London Symposium on Informa 1950. The Principles of Psychology.
Dover Publica

tion Theory. tions. New York. 2 Vols. in 1.

Braun, Edward L. 1963. Digital Computer Design Logic, Circuitry Kluver,
Heinrich 1966. Mescaline and Mechanism of Hallucinations.

and Synthesis. Academic Press. New York and Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago, lll.

London. Lewin, Kurt 1936. Principles of Topological Psychology.

Gabor, D. 1961. "A Universal Nonlinear Filter Predictor and McGrawHill. New
York London.

W. Wilby Simulator Which Optimizes Itself by a Learning Luria, Alexandr R.
1961. The Role of Speech in the Regulation of

R. Woodcock Process." Proc. Inst. Elec. Engrs. 108: Part B. Normal and
Abnormal Behavior. Pergamon

Hawkins, J. K. 1961. "SelfOrganizing Systems- A Review and Press. New York.
100 p.

Commentary." Proc. IRE Jan.: 3148. Pavlov, l.P. 1957. F,xperimental
Psychology and OtherEssays.

Uttley, A. M. 1956. "Conditional Probability Machines and Con Philosophical
Library. New York.

ditioned Reflexes" in Automata Studies. Prince Piaget, jean (19321952)
1959. The Language and Thought of

tonUniv.Press,Princeton,NewJersey.pp.253 the Child. Translated by Marjorie
Gabain. 3rd

275. E. Rev. Harcourt Brace, New York; Kegan Paul,

Wiener, N. 1948. "Time, Communication, and the Nervous Trench, Trubner,
London; Humanities, New

System." Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 50 (4) 197. York. 251 p.

1954. The Construction of Reality in the Child.

O Basic Books. New York.

Bartlett, Sir Frederic 1958. Thinking: An Experimental and Social Study.
195 31956. The Origin of lntelligence in the Child.

C Basic Books. New York. 203 p. Routledge & Paul. London, 1956 Int'l. Univ.

Boring, Edwin G. 1953. "A History of Introspection." Psychol. Bull. Press,
New York. 425 p.

50: 169189. 1962. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Children.

Bruner, Jerome S. 1947. "Value and Need as Organizing Factors in W. W.
Norton. New York.

C. C. Goodman Perception." J. Abn. Soc. Psychol. 42. Skinner, B. F. 1957.
Verbal Behavior. Appleton. New York.

Bruner,JeromeS. 1956. A Study of Thinking. Wiley & Sons. New
Stevens,StanleyS. 1951. Handbook of Experimental Psychology.

Goodnow, Jacqueline York. 330 p. (ed.) Wiley & Sons. New York.

J

Austin, George A.

154 155

Categorized Categorized

Bibliograpby o lSibliograpby I

Vygotskii, Lev S. 1962. Thougbt and Language. Ed. and translated Pahnke,
Walter N. 1967. "The Contribution of the Psychology of

by E. Haufmann and (;. Vakar. M.l.T. Press, Religion to the Therapeutic Use
of the Psyche

Cambridge, Mass. 168 p. delic Substances." Chapt. 7 in The Use of LSD

25 in Psychotherapy and Alcoholism. H. A.

I Abramson (ed.) pp. 629649. The BobbsMerrill

Abramson, H. A. 1955. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD25): III. Co., Inc.,
Indianapolis, New Y ork, Kansas City.

As An Adjunct to Psychotherapy with Elimina Kuesch, Jurgen 1951.
Comminication, The Social Matrix of Psy

tion of Fear of llomosexuality." J. Psychol. 39: Gregory Bateson chiatry.
Norton. New York. 314 p.

127. Sandison, R. A. 1954. "The Therapeutic Value of Lysergic Acid

Abramson, H. A. 1967. I he Use of LSDZ5 in Psychotherapy and A. M. Spencer
Diethylamide in Mental Illness." J . Mentl. Sci.

(ed.) Alcoholism. rhe BobbsMerrill Co., Inc., Indi J. I). Whitelaw 100:
491507.

anapolis, New York, ICansas City. 697 p. Sandison, R. A. 1955. "LSI)
Treatment for Psychoneurosis. Lyser

1939. Association for Research in Nervous and gic Acid Diethylamide for
Release of Repres

Mental Disease. rhe Interrelationship of Mind sion." Nurs. Mirror (London)
100: 1529.

and Body. (Assoc. Proc. 1938). Williams & Savage, Charles 1956. "The LSO
Psychosis as a Transaction Be

Wilkins. Baltimore, Maryland. 381 p. tweenthePsychiatristandPatient" In
Lysergic

1952. Association for Research in Nervous and Acid Diethylamide and
Mescaline in Experi

Mental l)isease. Patterns of Organization in the mental Psychiatry. L.
Cholden (ed.). Grune &

Central Nervous System. (Assoc. Proc. 1950). Stratton, New York. p.35

Williams & Wilkins. Baltimore, Maryland. 581 p. Sherwood, J. N. 1962. "The
Psychedelic Experience-a New Con

1954. Association for Research in Nervous and M. J. Stolaroff cept in
Psychotherapy." J. Neuropsychiat. 3:

Mental Disease. Genetics and the Inheritance of W. W. Harmon 370375

Integrated Neurological and Psychiatric Patterns. Szaz, Thomas S. 1961. The
Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of

(Assoc. Proc. 1953). Williams & Wilkins, Balti a Theory of Personal
Conduct. HoeberHarper.

more, Maryland. 425 p. New York. 337 p.

Cohen, Sidney 1965. The Beyond Within: The LSD Story. Ath Unger, Sanford M.
1964. "LSD and Psychotherapy: a Bibliography of

eneum, New York. the English Language Literature." The Psyche

Dobshansky, 1955. Evolution, Genetics and Man. Wiley & Sons. delic Review I
(4): 442449.

Theodosius ( New York. 398 p.

Elkes, Joel 1963. Subjective and Objective Observations in H

Psychiatry. (The Harvey Lectures, Series 57.) Bernheim, H. 1888. Hypnosis
and Suggestion in Psychotherapy.

Academic Press. New York. "A Treatise on the Nature and Uses of Hyp

Holzinger, R. 1964. "Analytic and Integrative Therapy with the notism."
Translated from the 2nd revised ed. by

LSI)25." J. Existential Psychiat. 4 225236. C. A. Herter.1964. University
Books, New Hyde

Kubie, Lawrence 1945. "The Therapeutic Role of Drugs in the Proc Park, N.
Y. 428 p.

ess of Repression, I)issociation and Synthesis." Clark, John Howard 1967.
"The Structure of Hypnotic Procedure." 5th

PsychosomaticMed. 7: 147151. International Congress on Cybernetics. 1115

Leuner, H. 1962. Die Experimentelle Psychose. Springer Ver Sept. 1967.
Namur, Bruxelles, Belgium.

Iag. Berlin. Hull, Clark L. 1933. Hypnosis and Suggestibility. "An Experi

Ling, r. M. 1963. Lysergic Acid (LSD25) and Ritalin in the mental
Approach." The Century Psychology

J. Buckman TreatmentofNeurosis.LambardePress.London. Series, R. M. Elliott
(ed.). l). AppletonCentury

Co., Inc., New York, London. 416 p.

156

Categorized

BiblioraPbv H

Gill, Merton M.

Margaret Brenma4

I :~cker F.ric C..

Lilly, j. C.

Lilly, J. C.

J. T. Shurley

1961. Hypnosis and Related States. Psychoanalytic Studies in Regression.
International Universities Press, Inc. New York. 405 p.

1967. "Computerized Induction of Hypnosis." 5th International Congress on
Cybernetics. 1115 Sept. 1967. Namur, Bruxelles, Belgium.

A UTHOR 'S PAPERS

1956. "Mental Effects of Reduction of Ordinary Levels of Physical Stimuli
on Intact, Healthy Persons." In Psychiat. Res. Report 5. American
Psychiatric Assn. Washington, D. C. 19 pp.

1958. "Some Considerations Regarding Basic Mechanisms of Positive and
Ngative Types of Motivations." Am. J. Psychiat. 115: 498504.

1957. "Stop and Start Systems" in Neuropbarmacology. Transactions of the
Fourth Conference, Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. Princeton, N. J. pp.
153179.

1958. "Rewarding and Punishing Systems in the Brain" in The Central Nervous
System and Behavior. Transactions of the First Conference, Josiah Macy Jr.
Foundation. Princeton, N. J. p. 247.

1959. "Stop and Start Effects" in The Central Neroous System and Behavior.
Transactions of the Second Conference, J osiah Macy J r. Foundation and
National Science Foundation. Princeton, N. J. pp. 56112.

1962. "The Effect of Sensory Deprivation on Consciousness" inMan's
Dependence on tbe Earthly Atmosphere. K. E. Schaefer (ed.). Proceedings 1st
Int'l. Symp. on Submarine and Space Medicine. New London, Conn. 1958.
Macmillan Co. New York. pp. 9395.

1961. "Experiments in Solitude, in Maximum Achievable Physical Isolation
with Water Suspension, of Intact Healthy Persons." (Symposium, USAF
Aerospace Medical Center, San An

Categorrsed

Bibliogrape

Lilly, J. C.

Lilly,3. C.

Alice M. Miller

157

A UTHOR 'S PAPERS

tonio, Texas, 1960, inPsychopbysiological Aspects of Space Flight. Columbia
Univ. Press. New York. pp. 238247.

1961. "The Biological Versus Psychoanalytic Dichotomy." Bull. of Phila.
Assoc. for Psychoanal. 11: 116119.

1963. "Critical Brain Size and Language." Perspectives in Biol. & Med. 6:
246255.

1965. "Vocal Mimicry in Tursiops: Ability to Match Numbers and Durations of
Human Vocal Bursts." Science 147: 300301.

1966. "Communication with Extraterrestfial Intelligence." (1965 IEEE
Military Electronics Conf. Washington, D. C. Sept. 1965.) IEEE Spectrum 3
(3): 159160.

1967. Tbe Mind of tbe Dolpbin: A Nonbuman Intelligence. Doubleday &
Company, Inc. Garden City, New York. 331 p.

1968. "Reprogramming the Sonic Output of the Dolphin: Sonic BurstCount
Matching." JASA

4? 14121424.

Abstract

Programming and Metaprogramming in The Human Biocomputer (Effects of
Psychedelic Substances)

The basic assumptions on which we operate are as follows. Each mammalian
brain functions as a computer, with properties, programs, and metaprograms
partly to be defined and partly to be determined by observation. The human
computer contains at least 13 billion active elements and hence is
functionally and structurally larger than any artificially built computer
of the present era. This human computer has the properties of modern
artificial computers of large size, plus additional ones not yet achieved
in the nonbiological machines. This human computer has storedprogram
properties, and storedmetaprogram properties as well. Among other known
properties are selfprogramming and selfmetaprogramming. Programming codes
and metaprogramming language are different for each human, depending upon
the developmental, experimental, genetic, educational, accidental and
selfchosen, variables, elements and values. Basically, the verbal forms are
those of the native language of the individual, modulated by nonverbal
language elements acquired in the same epochs of his development.

Each such computer has scales of selfmeasuration and selfevaluation.
Constant and continuous computations are being done, giving aim and goal
distance estimates of external reality performances and internal reality
achievements.

Comparison scales are now set up between human computers for performance
measures of each and of several in concert. Each computer models other
computers of importance to itself, beginning immediately post partum, with
greater or lesser degrees of error.

The phenomemon computer interlock facilities model instruction and
operation. One computer interlocks with one or more other computers above
and below the level of awareness any time the communicational distance is
sufficiently small to bring the interlock functions above threshold level.

158

159

In the complete physical absence of other external computers within the
critical interlock distance, the selfdirected and otherdirected programs
can be clearly detected, analyzed, recomputed, and reprogrammed, and new
metaprograms initiated by the solitudinous computer itself. In this
physical reality (which is as completely attenuated as possible environment
with solitude), maximum intensity, maximum complexity, and maximum speed of
reprogramming are achievable by the self.

In the field of scientific research, such a computer can function in many
different ways-from the pure, austere thought processes of theory and
mathematics to the almost random data absorption of the naturalistic
approach with newlyfound systems, or to the coordinated interlock with
other human computers of an engineering effort.

At least two extreme major techniques of datacollection analysis exist for
individual scientists ( 1 ) artificially created, controlledelement,
invented, devisedsystem methods; and (2) methods involving the
participant-observer, who interacts intimately and experientially with
naturally given elements, with nonhuman or human computers as parts of the
system.

The former is the current basis of individual physicalchemical research;
the latter is one basis for individual explorative, firstdiscovery research
of organisms having brains larger than those of humans.

Sets of human motivational procedural postulates for the interlock research
method on nonhuman beings, with computers as large as and larger than the
human computers, are sought. Some of these methods involve the
establishment of long periods-perhaps months or years-of human to other
organism computer interlock. It is hoped that this interlock will be of a
quality and value sufficiently high to permit interspecies communication
efforts on both sides on an intense, highly structured level.

The chemical agent Iysergic acid diethylamide (LSD25) has been shown by
many investigators to cause large changes in the modes of functioning of
the human biocomputer. The dosage to obtain various effects ranges from 25
to 1000 micrograms per subject per session. The detectable primary effects
have a time course, a latency of 2040 minutes, from time of administration
and endure for 4 to 12 hours for single or divided doses, with a peak
effect at 2 to 3 hours. At the same dose level, such effects cannot be
repeated for 72 to 144 hours. Detectable secondary and tertiary effects
have a longer time course. With sufficiently sensitive testing techniques,
secondary effects with halflife of 1 week to 6 weeks have been described.
Tertiary effects can be detected for 1 to 2 years.

The descriptions in the literature of the primary effects vary
considerably. The frameworks of these descriptions show a great variety of
phenomenological, philosophical, medical, psychiatric, psychological,
social and religious conceptualizations. Published mechanisms and models of
the

160

phenomena are found to be unsatisfactory. Published experiments resulting
from the use of these models are also not satisfactory.

As a result of this dissatisfaction with published materials, a new model
was constructed the human biocomputer. Interactive experiments were
designed to test this model with LSD25 sessions. The subject was
preprogrammed with the general concepts of the model over several months
before the first session, and with specific programs to be tested 12 hours
to one hour before each session. During separate sessions (100400
micrograms dose range), programming was done (a) by self, (b) written
instructions, (c) taped instructions, (d) environmental control and (e) one
other person. Results were dictated during some sessions or transcribed
immediately after each session; followup analyses were similarly recorded
for periods up to several months.

Modifications of the model were made as the necessity arose during the
longterm analyses, and introduced in each later session as specific
instructions. The model is one that continues to evolve in as general
purpose and openended a way as is possible for this investigator.

This account gives a report of the current state of this model of the human
biocomputer, some of the properties found, the programming and
metaprogramming done, the concepts evolved, the special isolationsolitude
environment, and special metaprogramming techniques developed.

Communication Research Institute

Scientific Report No. CR10167
