The Method Garbage-in Garbage-out

The more clearly, completely and intently you formulate a question and di-

rect it to the unconscious, the more quickly and effectively the unconscious

can come up with an answer to it. A sloppy question would generate a half-

baked solution: garbage-in garbage-out. Errors in formulating the question

or in the information supplied will generate solutions tainted with these

errors. This gives us an interesting insight into the nature of unconscious

processing — it works like a quantum supercomputer using a different type

of logic. It does not in itself have any content, but it links up with content

(even non-local content) when required to solve a problem.

The intuitive mind is frequently associated with a universal mind in

metaphysical and religious literature. Our local (discriminating) mind can-

not fathom the processes that go on in the universal mind-brain. To avoid a

cognitive overload, it treats it as a black box. Is this unconscious processing

going on in the universal mind-brain? This question will be explored in a

later chapter, including to what extent scientists believe that the universe, as

a whole, operates as a supercomputer.

Ramanujan

Srinivasa Ramanujan was born in India, near Madras, in 1887. By the age

of 10, it became clear that Ramanujan was not like the other children. As a

child, he had already derived Euler’s identity between trigonometric func-

tions and exponentials. After receiving little formal education, he worked

as a junior clerk in the Port Trust of Madras. He then mailed some of the

results to his ‘dreams’ to three well-known mathematicians, hoping for

contact with other mathematical minds. One was received by the brilliant

Cambridge mathematician, Godfrey Hardy. The letter contained 120 theo-

rems totally unknown to Western mathematicians. On reading the letter,

Hardy was stunned. He came to the conclusion that it could only be written

by a mathematician of the highest class. In terms of mathematical skills,

Hardy later rated Ramanujan even higher than David Hilbert, universally

recognised as one of the greatest Western mathematician of the nineteenth

century.

Unfortunately, neither Hardy nor Ramanujan were interested in the

thinking process by which Ramanujan discovered these incredible theo-

rems, especially when these theorems came pouring out of his ‘dreams’ with

such frequency. Hardy noted, ‘It seemed ridiculous to worry him about how

he had found this or that known theorem, when he was showing me half a

dozen new ones almost every day.’ Ramanujan used to say that the goddess

of Namakkal inspired him with the formulae in dreams. He kept a note pad

next to his bed to write down the formulae that he claimed were revealed to

him in dreams. On the spot, Ramanujan could recite complex theorems in

arithmetic that would require a computer to prove. Working in total isola-

tion from the main currents of his field, he was able to rederive 100 years’

worth of Western mathematics on his own. Jonathan Borwein says, ‘He had

such a feel for things that they just flowed out of his brain.’5

We know that the left brain is active for most of the day and when we

go to sleep, activity shifts to the right brain. In dreams, right brain activity

is evident.

One interesting aspect of Ramanujan’s powers is that he often took

hours or even months to labouriously verify and prove what he often re-

ceived in an instant, and that sometimes his insight turned out to be wrong!

Ideas arrived at by intuition, just as ideas derived from deliberate conscious

thinking, can contain errors.

Dream Solutions

We know that the right brain takes over when we are in a dream state. The

ideas generated in dreams can therefore be attributed largely to the right

brain. Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, dreamt

of a planetary system as a model for atoms, which led to the ‘Bohr model’ of

atomic structure and a Nobel Prize. The laboratory procedure for producing

insulin on a mass basis was discovered in a dream by Sir Frederick Banting.

Otto Loewi dreamt the design of an experiment; went to the laboratory

later and performed the experiment and generated the results of the the-

ory of chemical transmission of nervous impulse which won him the 1936

Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. The most popular song in history

‘Yesterday’ was received by Beatle Paul McCartney in a dream — chords and

melody.

The ‘Unconscious’ Idea Generator

The great Russian composer, Tchaikovsky, says that the germ of a future

composition comes to him suddenly and unexpectedly. He says, ‘I forget

everything and behave like a mad man; everything within starts pulsing

and quivering; one thought follows another.’ He describes this as a magic

process which occurs to him when he is in a ‘somnambulistic state.’ Brahms

told one biographer that when the inspirations for his most famous compo-

sitions came to him ‘they are clothed in the right forms, harmonies, and or-

chestration. Measure by measure the finished product is revealed to him.’

Richard Strauss, the composer, also says that when the ideas flowed

in him, ‘the entire musical, measure by measure’ followed. It seemed to

him that he ‘was dictated to by two wholly different Omnipotent Entities

...and was conscious of being aided by more than an earthly Power.’ Puccini

described in similar terms. He says that the music of the opera, Madame

Butterfly, was ‘dictated’ to him by God. He says, ‘I was merely instrumental

in putting it on paper and communicating it to the public.’

This echoes the view that normal people with intact brains have ex-

periences which make them feel as if they had more than one mind or one

person in their bodies — like split-brain patients. George Elliot told J W

Cross that in all of what she considered her best writings, something that

was ‘not herself’ took possession of her, and that she felt her own personal-

ity to be ‘merely the instrument through which this spirit, as it were, was

acting. The German poet Goethe reported that he wrote his first novel,

Werther, ‘almost unconsciously, like a somnambulist,’ and was amazed

when he realised what he had done.

‘Inner listening’ is the term that is often used when the creative ideas

output from what seems to be another person. In many of the experiences

the communication even seems to come in the form of an audible voice.

The left brain often views the right brain which is delivering the solu-

tions as another mind or person — which is not far from the truth — as evi-

denced in experiences of split-brain patients. The illusion of a unitary self is

caused by the fact that, for most of the day, we normally only hear the vocal

left brain talking. When the right brain intervenes, using the left brain’s

speech centres, we attribute the messages to ‘another person.’

Brain Drain

Truman Stafford could calculate in his head in 60 seconds a multiplication

sum whose answer consisted of 36 figures, when only 10 years old. However,

when he went on to a professional career in mathematics, he lost this men-

tal gift. Similarly, Richard Whately, a nineteenth century Archbishop of

Dublin, although being a calculating genius in early childhood lost the abil-

ity after undertaking formal education. Why is this so? David Kaiser offers

a clue.

Kaiser noted that novel skills, such as music, which are processed ini-

tially in the right brain, migrate over (after extensive practice) to the left

brain. This has been noted in lesion and EEG studies 4 Over-practicing

skills enables an individual to learn how to model exterior rules (of the right

brain) in the more confidently controlled domain of interior rules (of the left

brain). However, when the skills do migrate to the left brain, the creativity

and the computational power diminishes, perhaps because direct access to

the universal mind (via the intuitive right brain) diminishes significantly.

The ‘Unconscious’ Calculator

Enid Blyton, the novelist, says that she receives directions from what she

terms her ‘undermind’ that ‘the story must be 40,000 words long’ and sure

enough, the book ends almost to the word. The unconscious appears to

possess mind-boggling computational power. There are many cases in his-

tory to illustrate this. As an example, let’s look at Zerah Colburn.

Zerah Colburn was born in 1804, the son of a farmer of Vermont, USA.

When only six, not yet able to read or write, the young Zerah began giving

public demonstrations of his mathematical skills. One of the most spec-

tacular feats related to the number 4,294,967,297, which until shortly before

his time was thought to be prime by mathematicians. Leonhard Euler, one

of the greatest mathematicians in history, labouriously calculated on paper

that it was divisible by 641. When Colburn, ignorant of all this, was given

the same problem he swiftly arrived at 641 ‘by the mere operation of his

mind.’ The really significant feature about Colburn is that he was totally

unable to explain how he had reached his conclusion. Having never had for-

mal education, he was entirely ignorant of elementary mathematical rules,

and could not even perform the simplest multiplication and division sums

on paper. Everything was done in his head, where he literally saw the com-

putation form up clearly and effortlessly before him. 3

The Unconscious Problem Solver

William James asks: ‘Why do we spend years straining after a certain sci-

entific or practical problem, but all in vain — thought refusing to evolve

the solution we desire? And why, some day, walking in the street with our

attention miles away from the quest, does the answer saunter into our

minds as carelessly as if it had never been called for — suggested possibly

by the flowers on the bonnet of the lady in front of us, or possibly by noth-

ing that we can discover? If reason can give us relief then, why did she not

do so sooner?

Henri Poincare, when talking about the creative process, says, ‘Often

when one works at a hard question, nothing good is accomplished at the

first attack. Then one takes a long rest and sits down anew to the work.

During the first half-hour, as before, nothing is found, and then all of a

sudden the decisive idea presents itself to the mind.’ This sequence of events

is not only evident in scientific quests — similar descriptions are found in

religious quests — for example, as described by (Saint) Theresa of Avila or

(Saint) John of the Cross. In religion, it may be described as ‘insight’; in sci-

entific circles it may be described as creativity.

Renowned physicist, Helmholtz, admitted that often his ideas ar-

rived suddenly, without any effort on his part, while taking easy walks over

wooded hills in sunny weather. Physicist Lord Kelvin reported receiving

inspiration in similar ways. He sometimes had to devise explanations for

deductions that came to him in a flash of intuition. Gauss described how a

solution came to him for an arithmetical theorem that he had spent years

trying to prove — like a sudden flash of lightning the riddle happened to be

solved. Henri Poincare, the famous mathematician, says that the appear-

ances of sudden illuminations are obvious indications of a long course of

previous unconscious work. Before and after, there had to be controlled

conscious work, but in between was some mysterious process. In a letter

to a French scientific journal in 1886, referring to an arithmetic theorem,

the proof of which eluded him for years, Gauss writes, ‘Two days ago, I suc-

ceeded, not on account of my painful efforts, but by the grace of God. Like

a sudden flash of lightning, the riddle happened to be solved.’2

The Intelligent, Intuitive ‘Unconscious’

Ian Wilson says that it is a well-attested fact that a remarkable number of

the world’s distinguished scientists and mathematicians have made their

inventive discoveries or solved some scientific problems in mental states

that do not seem to have been normal, verbalizing consciousness (nor-

mally associated with the dominant left brain). Dr Jonas Salk, the virolo-

gist who discovered the first vaccine against poliomyelitis says, ‘It is always

with excitement that I wake up in the morning wondering what my intui-

tion will toss up to me, like gifts from the sea. I work with it and rely on

it. It’s my partner.’

In fact, Webster’s dictionary defines intuition as ‘quick and ready in-

sight; immediate apprehension or cognition or the power or faculty of at-

taining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and

inference.’ [Emphasis added.]

Dual Process Models

Whether we describe it as right vs. left brain, discriminating vs. intuitive
mind or thinking/analytical/rational vs. intuitive mind; we are talking about
dual-process models. Dual process models of human thinking are becoming
more widely accepted in contemporary mainstream psychology. Here is a
summary of differences between intuitive and analytical thinking.13

Unconscious Intuitive Thinking

*Fast and effortless 

*Process is unintentional and is automatically cued. This evidences an absence of personal ‘will.’ 
*Process is generally inaccessible,only results show up consciously. 
*Pattern matching, thought is metaphorical, holistic.  
*Common to all mammals.
*Context dependent.
*Platform dependent — i.e.inclusive to the brain and body that houses it.

Conscious Analytical Thinking

*Slow and effortful.
*Process is intentional and is consciously controlled — an exercise of ‘free will.’
*Entire process can be controlled and viewed in consciousness.
*Symbol manipulation, thought is truth preserving, analytical.
*Unique to humans over age 2 and perhaps some language-trained apes.
*Context independent.
*Platform independent — processes can be transmitted to other rule following organisms or machines. In other words, experiences can be easily communicated to others. The information is ‘portable.’

Psychologists say that the intuitive aspect of thinking appears to be
evolutionarily older and more established than the analytical aspect. Many
mammals demonstrate experience-based emotionally-related judgments,
but few if any demonstrate analytical reasoning like humans.14 In addition,
human infants clearly develop their ability to make experience-based emo-
tionally-related judgments well before they develop analytical abilities.15
In evolutionary terms analytical thinking appears to be still in a rel-
atively embryonic stage of development compared to intuitive thinking.
Intuitive learning, then, may be the default style of human learning.16 While
the words used in the dual process models imply that intuitive thinking is
unconscious, as compared with the conscious, this may not be completely
accurate. According to Guidano, it might be more accurate to refer to intui-
tive thinking processes as ‘superconscious...because they govern conscious
processes without appearing in them.

‘Good’ and ‘Bad’

LeDoux showed that mammalian brains are arranged so that incoming sen-
sory information collected at the thalamus goes through the lower brain
structure in the limbic system, called the amygdala, first before reaching the
neocortex — long considered the seat of conscious, cognitive reasoning. The
amygdala, which is strongly associated with emotion, renders initial good/
bad, approach/avoid responses and triggers an autonomic response when it
perceives a threat. This initial response, however, can be overridden by the
neocortex’s cognitive processing.
Antonio Damasio believes that the human brain seems to have evolved
to favor quick, intuitive judgment first, followed only afterwards by slower,
cognitive, conscious processing. There are, in fact, two amygdalae in your
brain, one inside the left brain and the other inside the right brain. Each
brain hemisphere, therefore, has its own amygdala switch.
For the adult mind it is generally very difficult to suspend the discrimi-
nating activity of consciousness, and to be just aware; meditation may pro-
vide a condition in which this pre-conscious awareness can be recovered,
Dehning says.

Effect of the Discriminating Mind on the One

Dehning argues that because of discrimination, reality is split into oppo-
sites. Matte-Blanco views the mind as a dynamic discriminator and classi-
fier. Every second the human mind is classifying things into categories. The
ordinary ‘logical’ thinking activity is constantly dealing with combinations
of triads: it recognises and makes propositions to itself about one thing, an-
other thing, and the relation between those two things. Most of these rela-
tions are asymmetrical, for instance: ‘Simon is the father of David,’ or ‘A is
part of B’; the converse order of such relations is not identical to it i.e. it is
‘non-commutative.’

This discriminating consciousness is a typical human phenomenon. ‘I do
not know how and why it came into being,’ says Dehning. ‘But I am con-
vinced that it deeply influences our being-in-the-world. Our discriminating
consciousness automatically compels us to discriminate and classify these
perceptions. “Friend or foe?” — This is the question to which our discrimi-
nating consciousness unremittingly tries to find an answer. Whenever we
try to listen to a piece of music, to contemplate a landscape or a work of art,
some “discriminating” question pops up and disturbs our general impres-
sion. There is a human need to try to retrieve some form of direct contact
with indivisible reality, beyond the dividing categories of discriminating
consciousness.’
Thus our asymmetric discriminating consciousness divides indivis-
ible reality. By its splitting action, discriminating consciousness fragments
reality. This crumbling cascades in a never-ending process (of symmetry
breaking). Consequently the subject is left with an ever-growing number of
things. What was originally one and indivisible falls apart into a plethora
of elements that extrapolates infinitely. By establishing relations between
different elements in our minds, we try to cement the countless cracks in
indivisible reality that our discriminating consciousness caused.
According to Blanco, relations do exist in the indivisible reality, but
these ‘relations’ are different from the asymmetric relations we are familiar
with. We cannot represent them: in order to do so we would have to asym-
metrise them, to make them fit into our well-known discriminating — and
reductive — schemes. To some extent then, indivisible reality is like a living
body — remove a part of it and the part dies.

 

Ps : If You Liked This Post , Press LIKE , TWEET OR +1 To Support Us .. Thank You 

The One

According to Blanco, in symmetric logic the part and the whole are inter-
changeable; classes are dissolved into increasingly larger wholes, until we
arrive at ‘indivisible reality’: here the infinity of things is in a mysterious way
reduced to one single thing.8
This can be understood when we reflect on a particle and its entangled
anti-correlated particle. In quantum physics, we know that when the parti-
cle is disturbed in a certain way, its anti-correlated particle instantaneously
changes in a converse way — even if it was on the other side of the galaxy.
It is as if the particle and its anti-correlated particle were a single entity even
though they may be a galaxy or light years apart. This implies that space-
time is an illusion.
The (Mahayanist) Lankavatara Sutra claims that the intuitive mind
partakes of the ‘universal mind’ — which is often described in the Sutra as a
‘perfect unity’ — also implying an absence of spacetime.9
Neuroscientists, Eugene d’Aquili and Andrew Newberg, from the
University of Pennsylvania, have asserted that there is a final mystical ex-
perience common to humanity that they call the experience of absolute
unitary being.

Experiencing Superspace in Our Minds

In supersymmetry theory (in modern physics) there are two sets of four
dimensions. One set is commutative and the other set non-commutative.
The two sets of dimensions, when combined, constitute what is called ‘su-
perspace.’ According to physicists, it is very hard to visualise this geometri-
cally because we have no direct conscious experience of non-commutative
geometry. However, considering that the unconscious (according to Blanco)
uses a combination of symmetric commutative logic and asymmetric non-
commutative logic, we should not be surprised if superspace is experienced
as part of our deeper unconscious and in dreams.

Logic of the Unconscious

Symmetric logic basically equates an attribute or property with its contrary
or anti-property; in other words Yin = Yang. If there are two events, A and B,
symmetric logic allows you to say that if A is before B, then B is before A. The
order of the events is not important in symmetric logic. The operation of
the logic would therefore be described as ‘commutative.’ For example, in the
arithmetic operation of addition, 1 + 2 = 2 + 1. In other words, the operation
of addition is commutative. On the other hand, ‘1 — 2’ is not equal to ‘2 — 1.’
The operation of subtraction is not commutative — the order is important.