Simulations Of God:
The Science Of Belief

INTRODUCTION

The origins of these writings are quite inexplicable. Somehow the substance of what is written assumes its particular forms without my participation as anything else than a scribe, a reporter recording what comes in from unknown sources, through unknown channels, into the mind. At times I am astonished at what appears--it seems not of me nor of mine.

It may be that like Joan Grant's in Many Lifetimes (1) my present incarnation is writing from memories of previous incarnations. If so, unlike Grant, I do not consciously participate as such a reincarnation. If previous states of being are operative within me, they are below my current levels of awareness, although I have consciously participated in previous lives in nonordinary states of consciousness.

Alternatively, this writing may come, as in the life of Eileen Garrett, the noted medium, from entities not currently of this physical bodily reality. There may be forces that control my writing beyond my consciously operating self in this state of consciousness. In other states, I have perceived and communicated with "guides" not of this consensus reality (ordinary reality).

It may be that by unknown means some terrestrial, extraterrestrial network of communication (not in our current science, but soon to be) feeds in the information below my levels of awareness. In special states of consciousness I have seen this process taking place.

It is possible also that by at present unknown means all this writing is created in my own biocomputer, by an "organ of thought" known as "imagination," below my levels of awareness. In certain states of consciousness this process seems real.

It is to be noticed that in each of the four explanations above, a different belief system seems to be operating. It may be that there is a belief system that can underlie all four explanations: all four may be "true." In turn, all four explanations may be "false." If you feel-think that any or all are "false," why do you? Because your currently operating programming systems, called in this book "belief systems," determine your judgment: either "true" ("real") or "false" ("illusory").

These belief systems are usually iceberg-like: about ninety percent of them lies below our usual levels of perception. In specifically programmed states of consciousness it is possible to become more fully aware of these belief systems and some of their operations.

For purposes of understanding, we differentiate a second pair of logic values in addition to "true" and "false" (see The Human Biocomputer 2). These are the "as if" values: "as if true" and "as if false." This is the pair used when we describe or model or represent or simulate a system.

If I assume (for purposes of discussion, or other purposes) something to be "true" or "false" (whether or not it is either), then the assumed value is either "as if true" or "as if false." It can be shown that these values are used in everyday life. They may be used, for example, when discussing alternative courses of future action. We have not yet entered the region of the future action in the external world; therefore we cannot yet say whether a given course and its consequences are "true" or "false." We can simulate the alternatives and run our model of the desired action-consequences "as if true" and check out the operations for their "as if" values, "as if true/false."

In the above presentation of four alternative explanations for the origins of these writings, I used this system of simulating four belief systems. By entering into each belief system "as if true," and after entry constructing a "reality" which is believed as "true," one "realizes" the simulation-belief system. In leaving the belief system, one records what happened as "true" and later restores the "as if true/false" values of the ssimulation (see Epilogue, The Center of the Cyclone 3).

In addition to using this simulation mode in choosing among alternative courses of action and their consequences, we use it in other everyday areas. For example, while the composition of fiction or its reading are in process, we use "as if true/false." In the post-composing (or post-reading) period we examine the simulatioos for their "real" value: Have we created or learned anything exciting, new, useful, or profound by the "simulated experience"? (In this sense, a simulation, a model, a set of programs, can be thought of as a script or scenario for use by oneself or by others.)

In this book we are thus examining those simulations, those scenarios, those myths, those models of inner and outer reality which lie at the base of our thinking-feeling-doing. We choose those simulations that classically are considered "the most important" by certain large groups of humans. A great many of the total group of important simulations are "simulations of God." For our purposes these "God" simulations are those simulations that are most important to an individual, a group, a nation, a world. The wellsprings of deep motivations are in the individual, the group, the nation or the world.

Recently, John A. Wheeler, the "black hole" physicist, said, "The most important source of energy is the human being and what he believes. I can't think of anything more important than people's views of how man fits into the scheme of the universe." (4)

My own metabelief system (beliefs about belief systems) agrees essentially with Wheeler's. In this book we are presenting the beginnings of an appraisal of Man as the Animal That Simulates Reaity and Believes his Smulation. Out of this work we hope a "true/as if true" science of belief will emerge.

Please remember that this whole work is a simulation, even as you are to me and I am to you.

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

Despite the great varieties of programs available, most of us have a Imited set of programs. Some of these are built in. The structure of our nervous system reflects its origins in simpler forms of organisms, from sessile protozoans, sponges, and corals through sea worms, reptiles and protomammals to primates to early anthropoids to humanoids to man. In the simpler basic forms the programs were mostly built in: from genetic codes to fully formed organisms adultly reproducing, the patterns of function of action-reaction were determned by necessities of survival, of adaptation to slow environmental chnnges' of passing on the codes to descendants.

As the size and complexity of the nervous system and its bodily carrier increased, there appeared new levels of programmability, not tied to immediate survival and eventual reproduction. The built-in 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 expanding new high-level computer controlling the structurally lower levels of the nervous system, the lower built-in programs. For the first time learning, with its faster adaptation to a rapidly changing environment, began to appear. Futher, as this new cortex expanded over several millions of years, a crtical 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, creating metaphors, in short, inventing and using language, mathematics, art, politics, business, etc. And at the critical bain (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 tbse operations as "metaprogramming." Metaprogramming appears at the critical cortical size: the cerebral computer must have a large enough nunber of interconnected circuits of sufficient quality for the operations of metaprogramming to exist in this biocomputer.

Essentiany, metaprogramming is an operation in which a central control system controls hundreds of thousands of programs that simultaneously operate in paralleL In 1974 this operation is not yet performed within man-made computers; metaprogramming is done outside the big solid-state computers by the human programmers or, more properly, the human metaprogrammers. All choices and assignments of what the solid-state 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 that the basic substrate, the substrate under all else, of our metaprograms is our system of programs. All we are as humans is what is built in and what has been acquired--and what we make of both of these. So we are one more result of the program substrate-- the self- metaprogrammer.

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 well-orgaoized 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, self-metaprograms which divide control among them in sequences of control either parallel in time or in series. One approach to self deuelopment is the centralizing of control of one's biocomputer in his self-metaprogrammer, making the others into conscious executives subordinate to the single administrator the single superconscient self-metaprogrammer. 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 self-metaprogrammer 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 self-metaprogrammer. 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 performs a further unification operation on these supraself metaprograms, one may arrive at a concept labeled "God," the "Creator," the "Star Maker," or whatever. At times we are tempted to pull together apparently independent supraself sources "as if" one. I am not sure we are quite ready to perform this supraself-unification operation with any expectation that the result will correspond fully to an objecfive realiy.

Certain states of consciousness result from and cause operation of this apparent unificafion phenomenon. We are still general purpose computers who can program any conceivable model of the universe inside our own structure, reduce the single self-metaprogrammer to a micro size, and program him to travel through his own model "as if' real (level 6, satori +6).(5) This ability 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. Overvaluing or negating such experiences is not a necessary operation. Realizing that one has this ability is an important addition to one's self-metaprogrammatic list of probables.

Once one has control over modeling 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 not only that there is a match but that it is a match of high quality. Feelings of awe, reverence, sacredness and certainty are also adaptable metaprograms, attachable to any model, not just the one best fitting the "reality."

Modern science knows this: we know that merely because a culture generated a cosmology of a certain kind and worshipped it, there was no guarantee of goodness of fit with the real universe. In science we now proceed to test, insofar as they are testable, our models of the universe rather than to worship them. Feelings such as awe and reverence are recognized as biocomputer energy sources rather than as determinants of truth, i.e., of the trueness of fit of models versus realities. A pervasive feeling of certainty is recognized as a property of a stab of consciousness, a special space, which may be indicative or suggestive but is no longer considered as a final judgment of a true fitting. Even as one can travel inside one's models mside one's head, so can one travel outside or be the outside of one's model of the universe, still inside one's head (level +3, satori +3).(6) 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 those given in Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker.(7) Here the self joins other selves touring the reaches of past and future time and of space everywhere. The planet-wide oonsciousness joins into solar system consciousness into galaxy-wide consciousness. Intergalactic sharing of consciousness fused into the mind of the universe finally faces its creator, the Star Maker. The universe's mind realizes that its creator knows its imperfections and will tear it down to start over, to create a more nearly perfect universe.

Uses such as the above of our own biocomputer can teach us profound truths about our self, our capabilities. The resulting states of being, of consciousness, teach us the basic truth about our own equipment as follows:

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or becomes true within certam limits to be foumd experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of mind, there are no limits.(8)

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 our body, others' bodies? Here there are definite limits.

In the network of bodies--our own connected with others' for bodily survival-procreation-creation--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 province of the network's mind, there are no limits.(8)

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 specially trained 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 agreed-upon limits (possibly unnecessary) in a network of minds. We also have information within definite limits (to be found) in 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 physically controlled environment in true solitude, with 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 them? Given the properties of the software-mind of this biocomputer outlined above, is it probable that we can find, discover, or invent inputs-outputs not yet in our consensus science? Does this center of consciousness receive-transmit information by at present unknown modes of communication? Does this center of consciousness stay in the isolated, confined biocomputer?

In this book I am trying to show you where I am in this search and research. In previous books I deak with my own personal experiences. Here I deal with theory and methods, metaprograms and programs, and the experiences of others.

- - -

In this simulation, this book, I reserve the right not to make moral or other judgments about the simulations of other persons, groups, or nations. If I apparently do make such judgments I hope the fact will be pointed out, for it is here that I might have deviated from my intent. My purpose is to present the simulations, the models, the belief structures of others as objectively and as accurately as I can. This in itself is difficult. I, even as you, and as they, speak from a platform of basic beliefs, not all of which are obvious to one's self. The iceberg of belief is mostly hidden, deep inside, in the inner reality which is the sea of the self, for only a small part shows to others, a possibly larger part to self.

If you will agree to look for and explore basic beliefs with me, I can, despite my own limits, point out ways to take off on your own search, directions to look in, and methods of integrating the new as you find it. One of the excitements (and it can be exciting!) of this chase is finding truths you felt existed but didn't feel prepared to see clearly. I can, if you wish it, help you confirm your feelings for what is true in certain areas of search and research.

I do not ask that you believe me. Quite the opposite: I value my skepticism; keep yours.(9) If you disbelieve me, watch your disbelief: it is merely another form of belief. So I do not ask you to disbelieve me either. I ask you to consider and think about what I write, make what you can yours, and let the rest go for a while. I have found that many persons can read through a book of this kind and a week, a month, a year later discover its deeper meaning for their own self. A judicious skepticism dispassionately held is a good middle ground for this task.

Together we shall enter precincts held sacred, with energy and objectivity, without being an agonist--neither protagonist nor antagonist. We shall enter the sacred realms of self, religion, science, philosophy, sex, drugs, politics, money, crime, war, family, and spiritual paths. We shall enter with no holds barred, with courage, with a sense of excitement.

- - -

The technique of solitude, isolation and confinement of the essential human being was started in 1954 at the National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland, where I was doing research on the brain. The use of suspension in a water tank, in the darkness and silence, in a 1 g. gravitational field, was developed there. During experiments with the tank I came upon the basic beliefs of religion, science, the law, politics, in short, of the basic beliefs of all human beings. The tank has been refined and simplified and made more economical over the last twenty years. Currently, I work in parallel as a team with Glenn Perry, president of the Samadhi Tank Company, Santa Monica, California. Together we have designed several different kinds of tanks--simple, safe, economical or elaborate, multipurpose, expensive. Since all my scientific work on dolphins (10) and my books on humans (11) have been derived from the work in the tank we feel that the tank is a versatile, multipurpose tool that can aid in bringing further advancement to the human species. We hope that at the hands of the younger generation this potentially universal tool will be further simplified and rendered still more economical than it is today. We hope too that some form of government regulations will be imposed concerning manufacture of the tank. Such regulations could be implemented perhaps by the Food and Drug Administration, which is beginning to impose on medical devices supervised engineering specilications and standards, regulations which have been badly needed.

We also hope that an underground will develop that will explore an entirely new region unbeknown to man. The progress of the human species depends upon unsung-heroes-to-be who will sacrifice their lives and life-styles in the exploration of the farthermost reaches of the universe as we now know it and of universes yet to be conceived.

Theoretical physics: the experimental science of belief about the universe.

Experimental physics: the science of existence.

Belief system: In a given person a belief system is that conscious/unconscious set of basic beliefs, assumptions, axioms, biases/prejudices, models, simulations which determine, at a given instant, decisions, actions, thoughts, feelings, motives and the sense of the real and the true.

A given person usually has several belief systems, which may or may not overlap, may or may not generate paradoxes, agree/ contradict, control/be controlled by one another, be arranged/ disarranged, logical/illogical, be fixed/shifting.

Simulation: The word "simulation" is, for the purposes of this book, similar if not identical to its use in computer programming A simulation of an original of something, or a model of an original of something, is a set of concepts, ideas, programs interconnected in such a way as to generate for the thinker, the reader, the programmer, the programmee, a connected whole sufficiently resembling the original something so as to be confused with, equal to, identical with the original something. The "connected whole" exists in the program spaces of the reader, the writer, the thinker, the programmer, the programmee. The "original something" can exist in the external reality, in the internal reality, or both.

One can simulate systems or already available internal systems inside his self. Models of thinking-feeling-doing are as valid as models of river drainage systems, of aircraft, of space ships, or of universes.

Deeply considered, one is one's simulations, of the internal and of the external. This may not be all one is, but for purposes of the bodily planetside trip it's a large fraction of the biocomputer's contents and control systems. One's simulations tend to control his thinking his feelings, his actions. Until one learns otherwise he is the victim, the slave, the agonist of his simulations. The simulations one makes of his self can, upon deep analysis, be shown to be largely emergency fire drill dictates from the past. In the early years the excitation of one's survival programs tends to dictate the definition of his simulations of self.

Certainty/determinacy: A belief in stability, law, order, form, patterning which is fixed or relatively changing with time over the life of the individual/species under consideration; one criterion is predictability of a pattern in the future, a pattern of behavior, thought, feeling or reaction. Certainty/determinacy can be with respect to the absolute values of the parameters of the frame of reference, or any of the derivatives of these variables with respect to time. A constant rate of change (constant first derivative) or a constant rate of change of a rate of change (constant second derivative), etc., is within the province of this concept of certainty/determinacy. "What is constant around here is change" is one of this family of certainty/detenminacy beliefs.

Uncertainty/indeterminacy: A belief in one's inability to count on, predict, prophesy the future or the future course of a pattern (as above) or its changes; the inherently random nature of submicroscopic events as in quantum mechanics; below 10-33 Cm. (l2) space itself and its topology are indeterminate; collapse at a point and re-emergence of a star or a universe are indeterminate.

Conscious/unconscious mind:: Outside of my awareness, here and now, exisit simulations, processing, and data sources. Some of these are potentially movable into awareness. Some of these are not so movable. Some of these are kept out of awareness by controI programs designed to keep them out of awareness. Certain kinds of feeling-thinking-action are subject to these control programs. These control programs control the flow of energy into channels allowed.

Should/ought and program hierarchies: If one speaks within a pure program, say, in a planning mode, then alternatives can be brought in, in the form "should be, ought to be." The "should/ought" forn assumes the existence of an alternative program instruction which is of more value than the currently operating program. The "should/ought" form usually involves a direct interlock with some basic belief system. This form also links nto an emoting-feeling activation program which says, in effect
"This is important; listen to this important message. I demand your attention."

"Should/ought" implies a hierarchy of programs, a pnority list, in which the "should/ought" items are higher in the scale than the current operating program.

A dangerous past situation usually can evoke a "should have" in order to store a "next time I will."

Bio-self: That aspect of the functioning of the biocomputer which observes-controls as a consequence of evolution on the physical material level; the lower self-metaprogrammer generated by the brain and its program space.

Superself: That aspect of Consciousness-Without-an-Object, of superspace, of essence, which connects with a biocomputer, a big-self, furnishing information from "networks" and being furnished with information by the biocomputer.

Self: That controller that can move from big-self 100 percent to 50-50 to 100 percent Superself, fusing the need programs of eacl and both; the upper and middle self- metaprogrammer.

Sic:: Solitude, isolation and confinement in the tank.

Tape loop: a loop of tape in a tape reproducer which repeats a message again and again.

1. Kelsey, Denys, and Joan Grant, Many Lifetimes, New York: Doubleday, 1967.

2. Lilly, John C., Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Blocomputer, New York: Julian Press, 1967, 1972.

3. Lilly, Jolm C., The Center of the Cyclone, New York, Toronto, London: Bantam Books, 1972, 1973.

4 Wheeler, John Archibald (Academy of Sciences), "From Mendelian Atom to the Black Hole," InttellectualDigest, Dec. 1972, p. 86.

5. Lilly, John C., The Center of the Cyclone.

6. Ib~d.

7. Stapledon, Olaf, Star Maker, Middlellex, Eng.: Penguin Books Ltd., 1972.

8. Lilly, John C., The Center of the Cyclone.

10. Lilly, John C., The Mind of the Dolphin, New York: Doubleday, 1967. Man and DolphJin, New York: Pyramid Publications 1964.

11. Lilly, John C., Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer; The Center of the Cyclone.

12. Wheeler, John Archibald, op. cit.

next-->