The Nature of God

Lorin Friesen, September 2019

(Expanded in January 2020 to include a look at biochemistry and the theory of evolution.)

(Expanded in August 2025 to include a discussion of the symmetry between human and angelic blind ‘faith’.)

The Nicene Creed makes two almost contradictory statements about the nature of God. On the one hand, God is described as three persons who are all equally God. But on the other hand, God the Father is described as more fundamental than God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. Similarly, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are described as pre-existing and not being part of creation. But on the other hand, they are also described as proceeding from God the Father in some manner. This tension appears to be describing a deep truth which can be seen at many levels of existence. And this tension provides a possible answer for many fundamental questions.

Mental symmetry suggests that God the Father expresses Teacher thought, God the Son expresses Contributor thought, and God the Spirit expresses Mercy thought. This leads to a symmetry in which God the Spirit can be viewed as the mirror-image of God the Father, while God the Son ties these two together in a symmetrical manner. But notice that symmetry is a Teacher emotion, because Teacher thought appreciates order-within-complexity, and symmetry is an example of order-within-complexity.

I know that it is standard practice in Christian circles to regard the Trinitarian God as a mystery. But the description of the Trinity in the previous paragraph is consistent with the description of God in the Bible. It is also consistent with the structure of the human mind, and Genesis 1:26-27 says that God created man in his image, and this cannot be a physical likeness because God is not physical. Finally, in Revelation 10:7, a strong angel swears that a time will come when the mystery of God is brought to an end, and this is the only time in the entire book of Revelation where the statement is backed up by an oath. I am not suggesting that it is possible for humans to come up with an exhaustive understanding of God, because God is infinite and humans are quite finite. Instead, I suggest that it is possible for humans to come up with a general Teacher theory that summarizes the essence of the character of God.

Going further, it appears that angelic existence can be viewed as the mirror-image of human existence. Humans live within the Mercy realm of physical experiences, while angels reside within an angelic realm of Teacher waves, sequences, and messages (the name ‘angel’ means messenger). God of the Son again has a symmetrical nature, appearing as the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament and as a human in the Gospels. But a mirror-image is a form of symmetry, which leads to positive Teacher emotion. Going further, God is described as dwelling with the angels, while the Holy Spirit has been given to some humans. Thus, the relationship between angels and God appears to be more fundamental than the relationship between humans and the Holy Spirit.

A similar symmetry can be seen when comparing Judaism with Christianity. Judaism focuses upon Server thought and Teacher thought, defining religion primarily as halacha—the set of Server actions that were revealed verbally using Teacher thought by God the Father to Moses. In contrast, Christianity focuses upon Perceiver thought and Mercy thought, defining religion ultimately as belief—the set of Perceiver truths that were revealed experientially using Mercy thought by God the Holy Spirit through the life Jesus. Again one sees symmetry, an expression of Teacher emotion. And one sees again that Teacher comes before Mercy: God revealed himself using Teacher thought through Judaism before he revealed himself using Mercy thought through Christianity.

Thus, one sees the Nicene Creed in action. On the one hand, there is a balance between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit interconnected by God the Son. But on the other hand, God the Father seems to be more fundamental, and the relationship with God the Father starts first.

Before we continue, I should mention that this essay will be focusing upon the relationship between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to minimize the role played by God the Son, and incarnation is discussed extensively in other essays. However, the emphasis of this essay will be upon the relationship between Teacher thought and emotion and Mercy thought and emotion.

Teacher emotion is simpler than Mercy emotion. Teacher emotion is easy to define: it is order-within-complexity. Teacher thought feels good when many items fit together in a simple manner; Teacher thought feels bad when there is an exception to the general rule. Mercy emotion, in contrast, is difficult to define. The best definition I can come up with is ‘mutually beneficial interaction’, which I suggest lies at the heart of love. But this is a complicated definition, and love is inherently complex.

For instance, a father may give many gifts to his son and the son may respond by complaining that ‘You don’t love me’. That is because the father tried to reduce love to a set of gifts. The father did not spend quality time with his son getting to know his son. In contrast, Teacher emotion can be reduced to the simple concept of order-within-complexity. This does not mean that love is incomprehensible. Love is composed of many individual acts of love. But love is more than just a few individual acts. Unlike Teacher emotion, the Mercy emotion of love cannot be reduced to a simple formula.

Moving on, something strange emerges if one attempts to talk to people about emotion. Even though Mercy emotion is complicated, everyone knows about Mercy emotion; every human knows instinctively what it means to experience pain and pleasure. Even though Mercy emotion is difficult to define, everyone knows what it is and everyone agrees that it exists. In contrast, I found that the average person is unwilling to talk about Teacher emotion or even acknowledge that it exists, despite the fact that it can be defined using three words: order-within-complexity. People will recognize many aspects of Teacher emotion, such as symmetry, elegance, beauty, harmony, simplicity, purity, order, structure, smoothness, grace, and theory, but the average person will refuse to recognize that all of these traits are characterized by a single quality which is emotional.

This refusal to recognize Teacher emotions even extends to neurologists who study Teacher emotions. One well-known researcher has published many papers on emotions and even describes the concept of order-within-complexity. However, instead of recognizing that order-within-complexity defines an emotion, he places this emotion within a framework of economics and survival of the fittest. Another researcher is famous for having discovered that a single region in the orbitofrontal cortex is activated by many different forms of beauty. But instead of explicitly defining this emotion, he ultimately uses a circular definition, defining beauty as the quality which activates this region in the orbitofrontal cortex.

This is really strange. It is as if everyone knows instinctively how to do calculus, but no one knows how to do simple math or is willing to acknowledge that simple math exists.

The relationship between Teacher emotion and Mercy emotion can also be seen with physical pain and pleasure. The child who skins his knee will instinctively run to mother for love. And if the injury is only superficial, then ‘mommy kissing it and making it better’ combined with a bandage may be sufficient. But what really happened? What is generating the Mercy pain? A disruption of Teacher order-within-complexity. The machinery of the physical body was ripped apart; the order of the physical organism was disturbed. And if the wound is more severe, then the child will have to be treated by a physician who thinks in terms of functioning biological mechanisms and order-within-complexity. But all a physician can really do is rearrange the parts of the body and help the body to fix itself. Little biological machines—tiny examples of order-within-complexity—within the body will then go to work to restore the order-within-complexity of the physical body. And if the order-within-complexity of the body as a whole fails to a sufficient extent, then a person will die. Again we see that buried within Mercy emotion lies Teacher emotion at a more fundamental level.

One sees a similar relationship in physics. All of the major forces and particles of the universe—except for gravity—can be described mathematically by what is known as the standard model. Mathematics is driven emotionally by Teacher feelings of elegance and beauty. And mathematical beauty is one of the forms of beauty that activates the region in the orbitofrontal cortex. Going further, the standard model states that particles do not really exist. Instead, it is a quantum field theory which “treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying fields, which are—in a sense—more fundamental than the basic particles”. Mercy thought deals with particles, while Teacher thought works with waves and fields. Thus, the most general theory of physics says that Mercy thought with its experiences is actually derived from Teacher thought.

However, even though the standard model theoretically describes essentially all physical existence from a Teacher perspective, it is useless for the average person, because it describes natural processes at the level of atomic and subatomic particles. Humans, in contrast, live at a much, much larger scale. And at this human scale, people can decide whether or not to be guided by Teacher thought. Saying this more clearly, atomic particles (as a group) are irrevocably subject to Teacher thought. But when one is dealing with billions upon billions of particles, then one can choose whether or not to arrange these particles in a manner that expresses Teacher order-within-complexity. (For example, 18 grams of water contains 600000000000000000000000 atoms of water. This ratio of grams to atoms is known as Avogadro’s number.)

One can see this same concept with modern technology. Technology does not violate the laws of nature. It does not change the order-within-complexity of atomic particles. Instead, it rearranges elementary particles in order to emphasize some desired property. Particles can be rearranged in many different ways. Technology uses a Teacher understanding of scientific law to guide the way that it rearrange particles. When particles are rearranged to emphasize some property, then this purifying and ordering process is an example of Teacher order-within-complexity. Going further, purified collections of particles with desired properties are then arranged into some structure or machine that carries out some function, which is another example of order-within-complexity. Thus, one sees Teacher emotions at every stage of the process.

However, what the average person notices is Mercy emotions and not Teacher emotion. For instance, people find pure gold desirable because it is shiny and does not tarnish. Therefore, gold has historically been used as jewelry or money, satisfying Mercy feelings of hedonism and wealth. Similarly, most modern gadgets are marketed by appealing to Mercy emotions.

Emergent Property

But what exactly is Mercy emotion? How can one start with Teacher emotion at every level and end up with Mercy emotion? I suggest that Mercy emotion is what is known as an emergent property. Wikipedia says that “emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own. These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole. For example, smooth forward motion emerges when a bicycle and its rider interoperate, but neither part can produce the behavior on their own.” In other words, individual elements are guided by Teacher emotion, and Mercy emotion is a shorthand way of describing how many elements interact.

For instance, how does a son know that his father loves him? One individual act of love is not enough. Instead, what is needed is many interconnected acts of love. And even when some individual act proves the love of the father, the recognition of love usually comes when this single act is placed within some larger context. In other words, Mercy love appears to be an emergent property.

In a similar manner, it does not make sense to refer to sex as ‘making love’. Love cannot be reduced to an exchange of bodily fluids. That is because love is an emergent property. Mercy feelings of love emerge out of a context of many intertwined personal interactions. Thus, it does make sense to regard sex as an expression of love, and sex becomes meaningful to the extent that it is placed within a loving relationship.

Turning now to religion, mental symmetry suggests that a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general Teacher theory applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. After all, when a theologian states that a monotheistic God created the universe by speaking it into existence and that God has revealed himself to humans through the words of a book, this is actually a double example of Teacher thought using words to construct general theories. The theologian is using words to construct a general theory of a God who uses words to construct a general theory of existence. Going further, the Christian path of justification followed by sanctification can be described as becoming mentally whole by constructing a concept of God in Teacher thought and then submitting personal identity in Mercy thought to this Teacher concept of God. And I am not just stating this in some handwaving manner. Instead, the theory of mental symmetry has been used to build a systematic theology of Christianity and this cognitive model of Christianity has been used to analyze almost half of the New Testament in the original Greek.

However, in the same way that the average person does not recognize the existence of Teacher emotion, so I have found that both the average Christian and the average theologian are quite resistant to the idea that Christianity can be based in a general Teacher theory.

However, the real question is not the existence of Teacher thought and Teacher emotion but rather the existence of Mercy thought and Mercy emotion. If one actually examines the details, all one discovers is Teacher thought with its order-within-complexity. What exactly is Mercy thought? Why does Mercy thought even exist?

This may seem like a strange question to ask, because humans live within Mercy thought and have experienced Mercy emotions since the day that they were born. But modern computers now help us to look beyond Mercy experiences to what is happening underneath. For instance, modern computer operating systems all use icons on a desktop, which one manipulates using a mouse or a touch screen. This mimics how humans manipulate objects in real life. But if one examines the surface of a computer screen, one notices that there are no objects, but merely dots of light being illuminated by computer programs. And a computer program is an example of a general Teacher theory, because many verbal instructions are being arranged in a manner that carries out some unified function, which is another example of Teacher order-within-complexity. Going the other way, why does one use a computer? One of the primary reasons is to bring order to one’s life or to carry out some task more efficiently—both examples of Teacher order-within-complexity. Thus, a computer system that starts with Teacher emotion and ends with Teacher emotion is using a GUI (graphical user interface) to create the illusion of Mercy thought.

A similar statement can be made about the simulation games that are common on personal computers and tablets. The game itself creates a picture of some landscape or some physical location, appealing to Mercy thought and Mercy emotions. But this computer generated landscape does not exist. It is being generated by computer instructions with their Teacher thought, and a person typically plays these computer games in order to reach some Teacher goal, such as building a kingdom, or solving some problem or puzzle. And yet what humans find attractive is the illusion of Mercy thought that is being created between the Teacher origins and the Teacher goal: “This is my house, this is my factory, and these are my fields. I am growing crops in the fields to use in my factory so that I can build a bigger house.” But there is no house or factory or fields. Instead there only pixels on the screen that look like houses, factories, and fields.

So why does Mercy thought exist, and is it only an illusion?

I suggest that Mercy thought makes it possible for something to exist apart from God. At the level of fundamentals, God created everything to follow Teacher order-within-complexity. And at the human and societal level, people are supposed to submit to a general framework of Teacher order-within-complexity. But in-between these two extremes of Teacher emotion lies Mercy emotion. Using an analogy, the individual threads are all composed of Teacher sequences, and the final tapestry is supposed to express Teacher emotions of beauty and wholeness. But the clumps of fabric that lie between the individual threads and the whole tapestry generate Mercy emotions. If one unraveled the tapestry then there would be no more Mercy emotions.

What I am suggesting may sound at first glance like the common idea that reality is merely a simulation, but there are some major differences. The idea of universe-as-simulation extrapolates from the examples that I have just given: If humans can use computers to simulate reality, then maybe reality itself is a simulation running on some very large computer. There are several problems with this idea. First, it doesn’t explain anything but simply moves the question back a step. If reality is a simulation running on some large computer, then is that computer also a simulation running on some even larger computer? And what about that even larger computer? Second, it still thinks in terms of Mercy thought, because it is imagining a large physical computer being run by some uber-human in some uber-world. Third, it makes personal existence meaningless, because it reduces humanity to the level of NPCs—non-player characters in a computer game which are merely there to give the illusion of social interaction. What I am suggesting is quite different. The computer programmer is God, an infinite being who uses Teacher thought. God has used his infinite thought and infinite awareness to create a humongous computer known as the universe so that something exists apart from himself. Humans are of great importance because they are capable of generating thought that is independent of the thinking of God. Looking at this from the divine perspective, God has created humanity to give pleasure to himself. But humans give pleasure to God by functioning independently in a manner that demonstrates Teacher order-within-complexity. Looking at the human perspective, humans experience the greatest Mercy pleasure when they function in a manner that is mentally whole. But mental wholeness is also an example of Teacher order-within-complexity which gives pleasure to God.

This provides a partial explanation why people are so reluctant to acknowledge Teacher thought and Teacher emotions. They are instinctively afraid that acknowledging Teacher thought will eliminate Mercy thought. Applying this to current society, if Teacher-driven professionalization continues to expand, then what place is left for Mercy feelings of personal individuality and love? And if a Teacher theory is used to explain religion, then how will one find Mercy feelings of spirituality and personal meaning? Going further, if everything can be explained by the rational Teacher theories of science, then how can one hope for miraculous Mercy experiences?

Actually, the problem is worse than that. If everything starts with Teacher thought and ends with Teacher thought and Mercy thought is only an emergent clump in the middle, then God in Teacher thought only has to pull on the threads from both ends and humanity ceases to exist.

But that is exactly what mysticism attempts to do. Mysticism says that all of the Mercy clumps of physical existence are illusion. Mysticism uses the Teacher overgeneralization to come up with a concept of God, and overgeneralization has no room for any of the details or complexities that are required to define Mercy thought with its Mercy feelings of love. And human-denying mysticism now co-exists with human-ignoring modern science. Modern science ignores subjective Mercy emotions and is driven entirely by the Teacher theories and emotions of mathematics. Mysticism then fills the subjective vacuum with a Teacher overgeneralization of cosmic oneness that ignores all Mercy feelings of individuality. And then mysticism describes personal identity being swallowed up by God as if it is something good, not realizing that this describes the end of existence. But the end of existence appears to be precisely what God is trying to avoid. Thus, mysticism pursues a relationship with God which God is doing everything in his power to avoid. But God cannot use divine power to defeat mysticism because any imposition of divine power upon humanity would simply reinforce feelings of mysticism and cause humanity to become swallowed up in divine power.

Looking at this further, the average Christian probably finds the idea of a Teacher concept of God personally unsettling. But what is the ultimate source of personal security, Mercy thought or Teacher thought? A child who is frightened will run to mother for comfort, finding safety in the Mercy feelings of clinging to mother. But what really provides safety for a child is the Teacher understanding of both mother and father. Similarly, being protected by armed guards—strong people in Mercy thought—can provide some personal safety, but the best personal safety comes from living within a system of law and order—an environment that is ruled by Teacher order-within-complexity. This does not mean that the Mercy comfort of a mother is meaningless or that the physical strength of a policeman is unnecessary. However, both of these are most effective when they exist within a general framework of Teacher-based law and order. In a similar manner, God has given his Holy Spirit to bring comfort and help to people. But the Holy Spirit can only function effectively within a Teacher-based concept of God. The history of Pentecostalism makes this clear. Whenever a pursuit of the Holy Spirit becomes divorced from the theology of God the Father, the end result is not salvation but rather chaos and personal manipulation.

So why would God create humans who cling to Mercy thought and have difficulty even acknowledging the existence of Teacher thought? Because God wants people who function independently of him—minds which believe at the core of their being that it is natural to exist independently of God, minds that look at the Mercy clumps of fabric between the Teacher threads and the Teacher tapestry and think that these Mercy clumps define reality. Religious people often wonder why God allows a secular world to exist that denies the existence of God. But God currently has no other choice. Every religious system that I have examined so far, and every theologian that I have read, believes ultimately in mysticism. Some religions and religious systems are far more mystical than other systems, but I have yet to encounter one which does not contain at its core some kernel of mysticism. Therefore, as long as religious thought and behavior are being driven by a desire to become united with God, God must allow a secular realm to exist that is driven by a desire to exist independently of God.

Sex is often regarded by religion as unholy or unclean, but sex is significant precisely because it is so different than worshiping God with Teacher thought. Sex provides an emotional reason for people to function and interact within Mercy thought independently of God. Sex is meaningful because it is a physical interaction between people at the level of Mercy experiences and Mercy emotions. This does not mean that sex should be reduced to a physical interaction that ignores God, because everything ultimately proceeds from God the Father in Teacher thought and needs to guided by God the Father in Teacher thought. Instead, sex needs to be embedded within a rich clump of interpersonal Mercy interactions, and these need to be placed within a framework of recognizing God in Teacher thought. Saying this more simply, sex becomes meaningful as it is placed within a long-term relationship that expresses the character of God. But the very existence of sex provides an alternative to the existence-destroying drive of mysticism. Thus, we see that both extremes of ‘sex as an exchange of bodily fluids’ and ‘following God by suppressing physical pleasure’ end up being personally destructive.

Moving on, humans who live within Mercy clumps of experience think that the ultimate problem is the existence of suffering and evil: “Why does God allow people to experience painful Mercy feelings?” But that cannot be the ultimate question, because Mercy thought and Mercy feelings are derived. They are not fundamental. Instead, I suggest that the ultimate question is, “How can God ensure that Mercy thought and Mercy feelings continue to exist?” I suggested in the essay on physics that this problem of existence is deeper than the problem of good and evil, but I did not fully understand why this is the case. If everything ultimately derives from the Teacher thinking of God the Father, then the problem of existence is an inescapable, fundamental problem. Somehow, the infinite, all-powerful being has to ensure that creation, including human existence, continues to exist without becoming swallowed up into his presence.

Saying this another way, the problem of good and evil cannot be the ultimate problem because Mercy feelings of pain and pleasure are derived qualities. Instead, the ultimate problem for humans is how to continue the existence of the derived quality of Mercy thought, because humans live within Mercy thought.

This ultimate problem of existence is discussed in Hebrews 6-7. 6:13-18 uses strong language to talk about God giving promises and personal guarantees. 6:19-20 then describes entering within the veil into the presence of God while having an anchor for the soul. 7:1-3 re-thinks mysticism from a different perspective, while 7:4-10 rethinks revealed law from a different perspective. 7:11-16 then talks about a better priesthood based in the indestructible life of Jesus. Thus, entering into the presence of God is described as something dangerous that requires strong guarantees, which is ultimately backed up by the indestructible personal existence of the human side of incarnation. This is discussed further in the essay on Hebrews.

This idea of Mercy thought as an entity that is derived from Teacher thought can also be seen in theoretical physics. We already saw that the idea of Mercy particles being based in Teacher fields can be seen in quantum field theory. One can see something similar in general relativity. (This is discussed in more detail in the essay on physics.) Einstein came up with both special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity says that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that light travels at the same speed for every observer, regardless of how they are moving. Special relativity is relatively simple from a Teacher mathematical perspective, but the Mercy implications are difficult to work out. General relativity is exactly the opposite. It is easy to visualize in Mercy thought: Just imagine that space and time are like a rubber fabric that is being stretched by masses which are sinking into the fabric. However, general relativity leads to complicated math in Teacher thought with numerous messy correction factors. This gives the impression that God the Father in Teacher thought created the universe with its mathematical equations and then God the Holy Spirit in Mercy thought stepped in to warp the fabric of the universe. This conclusion is backed up by the fact that the standard model with its mathematical equations can explain everything except gravity—the force that is exerted by masses upon other masses.

One can also see this same concept in symmetry breaking. Summarizing a very complicated subject, the mathematical equations of the standard model interpret the universe as a system that was initially symmetrical but unstable, like a ball perfectly balanced at the top of a hill. A universe in this perfectly symmetrical state would have very little mass. Instead, most mass emerged as the metaphorical ball rolled down the metaphorical hill, breaking the symmetry. This symmetry breaking created what is known as a Higgs field and this field makes physical existence and human life possible. Again we see God the Father starting from a position of Teacher symmetry. This symmetry is then broken by something functioning independently of God, making the physical universe with its Mercy-based human life possible.

A similar concept can also be seen in the opening verses of Genesis 1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light.” Creation starts with God the Father creating existence. But this existence is formless and void. God the Spirit then interacts with creation independently of God the Father, making it possible for God to step in as an outsider and start creating order-within-complexity.

That brings us back to the topic of the Trinity, with which we opened this essay. It appears that God has applied this same principle to himself as a person. God the Father allows an aspect of himself to function independently as God the Spirit, with God the Son tying these two aspects together. As the Nicene Creed struggles to say, God the Son and God the Spirit are not created beings. They are fully divine and share the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. But they are also dependent beings who are derived in some manner from God the Father. This too is an example of Teacher thought, because Teacher thought wants a general theory to apply without exception. Therefore, the general principle that we have described of Mercy thought being derived from Teacher thought must be a universal principle that applies to God himself.

And John 16 tells us that God the Spirit leads back to Teacher thought through God the Son: “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.”

Summarizing, God the Father creates, guided by Teacher thought. God the Spirit then modifies creation, guided by the derived quality of Mercy thought. This makes it possible for humans to exist within Mercy thought independently of God. Humans need to build a Teacher understanding of God by learning the Teacher order that is buried within creation. God the Spirit will then help humans to modify creation so that it expresses Teacher order-within-complexity at a human and global level.

Thus, even though Mercy thought is only an emergent quality and not fundamental, humans do not need to fear that God will pull on the Teacher threads from both sides and eliminate the Mercy clumps in the middle. That is because the very existence of a Trinitarian God guarantees that God will not eliminate Mercy thought.

Returning to Teacher Thought

It is important to recognize that understanding the character of God uses Teacher thought in a different manner than personally expressing the character of God. God is an infinite being. Therefore, when one uses Teacher thought to come up with a general understanding of the character of God, one looks for universal principles that occur everywhere. Science takes a similar mindset when attempting to understand the physical universe, because it looks for natural processes that reoccur everywhere within the universe. In contrast, personally expressing the character of God uses Teacher thought to shape some finite entity. The goal is not to come up with a Teacher theory of everything but rather to place many examples of Teacher order-within-complexity within a finite package.

This second form can be seen in a smartphone. A smartphone is a very small package, but this package contains an entire world of Teacher order-within-complexity. Similarly, a human is a finite being. But a human can express Teacher order-within-complexity in many different ways, as illustrated by the adjectives used at the beginning of this essay: symmetry, elegance, beauty, harmony, simplicity, purity, order, structure, smoothness, grace, and theory. Humans cannot be big like God. It is ludicrous for a human, or even a nations of humans, to pretend to be strong and powerful. A single star in a single solar system in a single galaxy is far more powerful. But it does make sense for humans to be like smartphones—in the sense of expressing many attributes of God in a small package.

This idea of Mercy thought as a derived quality also explains the nature of the spiritual realm. My hypothesis is that a spiritual realm exists populated by spiritual beings who acquire their content from humans. One sees this kind of interaction described in the New Testament. Spirits inhabit humans and give power to human mental networks. In contrast, angels are never described as inhabiting humans. Instead, angels appear, they perform some task or deliver some message, and then they leave. God the Father cannot give content directly to spirits or the spiritual realm because God has created the spiritual realm to be independent of his thinking. Therefore, the content for the spiritual realm has to come from minds who are functioning independently of God, which means that the spiritual realm must acquire its content from human minds. (Instead, what God does is create structure, hide it within some aspect of creation and then encourage created beings to discover this structure. This happens with the physical universe, and I have a gut suspicion that it also happens in the spiritual realm.)

This is the opposite of the common human perception, which is that humans connect with the spiritual realm by emptying their minds of spiritual content and that humans can acquire inside knowledge from the spiritual realm. Leviticus 19:31 forbids turning to mediums or spiritists for special knowledge, but the Bible often describes humans cooperating with angels, as well as humans being given spiritual empowering.

John 4 elaborates the relationship between God the Father, the spirit, and worshiping God. In verse 20, the Samaritan woman associates God with physical locations. Jesus points out in verse 21 that God is not connected with any physical location. In other words, God is not found in Mercy experiences, because Mercy thought is not fundamental. In verse 22, Jesus adds that worship of God starts with knowledge and that the Jews have the right knowledge of God. But this is not the final stage. Instead, a transition will eventually occur to worshiping God in spirit and truth. The focus will turn to spirit but this focus will be guided by content that was acquired through physical existence and verbal revelation. Verse 23 says that God wants this kind of worship. Verse 24 then adds that God is spirit and that one needs to worship God in spirit and truth.

Using the analogy of the GUI computer interface, one needs to recognize that the desktop which looks like an expression of Mercy thought is really Teacher thought carrying out various theories, algorithms, and processes. As a human, one needs to use a Mercy-based GUI, because God created humans live in Mercy thought. But one needs to do so with an attitude of spirit and truth: A deeper spiritual reality lies behind what appears to be physical Mercy existence. And this deeper spiritual reality needs to be approached with an attitude of truth.

The Greek word truth ‘was synonymous for reality as the opposite of illusion’, and literally means ‘what can’t be hidden’. Perceiver thought thinks in terms of truth, and Perceiver thought ultimately discovers truth by looking for connections that are repeated, facts that cannot be hidden because they reappear wherever one goes. Saying this more simply, reality is ultimately defined by what cannot be escaped. One can flee illusion but one cannot run away from reality. Reality ultimately is not what one sees but rather what one cannot run away from. This kind of reality can be brought into the spiritual realm, because it is based in connections that are found everywhere. For instance, this essay has been discussing a fundamental set of connections that appear to be repeated everywhere, which is that Teacher thought is the starting point, Teacher thought creates Mercy thought to exist independently of itself, and those who live in Mercy thought need to look to Teacher thought for fulfillment and wholeness.

Looking at this cognitively, a concept of spirit is related to Platonic forms. Perceiver thought discovers truth by studying Mercy experiences for connections that are repeated. These Perceiver facts provide the mental bricks for the structure of a Teacher theory, in which Teacher thought comes up with some general statement that brings order to the complexity of all the Perceiver bricks. This Teacher theory about Perceiver truth then creates a mental image of the simplified essence of the original Mercy experiences, and this internal image of perfection is a Platonic form. For instance, Mercy thought is filled with experiences of round objects, leading to Perceiver facts about roundness. Teacher theory then comes up with a simple theory of what it means to be round, leading to an internal Mercy image of the essence of roundness, the kind of Platonic form of a circle that is described in geometry. The Platonic form of a circle is more perfect than any real circles, but it is also based upon the experience of real, imperfect circles. Notice how the general Teacher theory requires both Perceiver truth and Mercy spirit. Perceiver thought must go beyond specific facts to universal truth, while Mercy thought must go beyond specific experiences to Platonic forms.

I suggest that the standard view of the supernatural realm is also flawed. Miracles are typically viewed as violations of the universal Teacher order of natural law. In essence, the typical person praying for a miracle goes to God and says “I know that you are a God of Teacher order, but will you make a personal exception for me in Mercy thought and step in and fix my personal problem.” And when some miracle does happen, people think that this exception to the Teacher rule proves the existence of God. But if God is pure Teacher thought and everything comes from Teacher thought, then an exception to the Teacher rule has nothing to do with God.

James 1:13-17 explains the relationship between God and Mercy thought: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.”

The distinction between temptation and testing is discussed in another essay. The purpose of temptation is to cause a person to fall. But if a person does not fall, then temptation can have positive results. James says that God does not function that way. God is not tempted by evil, which means ‘inner malice flowing out of a morally-rotten character’. In other words, God cannot think in terms of corrupt Mercy thought, because God by his very nature does not view Mercy thought as a fundamental quality. Instead, temptation comes from humans who do think in terms of Mercy thought and Mercy emotions. A rotten foundation in Mercy thought will give life to mental networks of sin, and these will eventually lead to death, which is separation. That is because Mercy thought cannot stand by itself, and when it tries to stand by itself it eventually dies. God, in contrast, is the source of every complete gift, which comes down from an unchanging Father of lights.

Returning now to the question of miracles, if Mercy thought is a derived quality that is based upon fundamental elements of Teacher thought, and if angels live within a realm of Teacher thought, then this means that the natural is actually constructed out of the bricks of the supernatural. The supernatural does not violate the natural, but simply manipulates reality at a more fundamental level than humans can using natural abilities. Thus, the real question is not whether or not God can do miracles, but rather how the supernatural realm can intervene within human physical reality without messing up human existence in Mercy thought. Using the analogy of the tapestry, how can one rearrange some of the threads without unraveling the clumps? This rearranging becomes possible to the extent that humans base their Mercy identity in a Teacher understanding of the character of God and creation. Human ideas of Mercy identity will then not become threatened by supernatural intervention.

For instance, the average consumer is scared of having someone mess with their gadgets: “Don’t change anything. It’s working. I don’t know how to fix it if you change something.” In other words, Mercy thought is happy. Therefore, don’t use Teacher thought to rearrange any of the details of Mercy thought. In contrast, a technician who understands how electronic devices work is willing to tinker, because he knows how to fix things when they stop working. Of course, all human knowledge is finite, and even the best technician can only fix some problems. But the general principle still remains.

Looking at this from another perspective, God intervened heavily when revealing the law to Moses in the wilderness, but this divine intervention did not continue at the same level of intensity. That is because unraveling the Mercy clumps of Teacher threads takes time. One can tug quite strongly for a little while. But eventually one has to quit tugging or else everything will become unraveled.

If natural existence is constructed out of the components of supernatural existence, then this implies that angels have ‘bodies’ which are more specialized than the general bodies of humans. A human body is multipurpose, and is capable of learning to perform a myriad of tasks. On one hand, Paul says in Galatians 3:28 that human distinctions of race, class, and gender are secondary: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” But on the other hand, Paul talks in Colossians 1:16 about non-human thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities. In other words, an angel is like a human professional. But unlike humans who choose to enter some profession and can take holidays from a profession, an angel would be placed within some profession by their physical ‘bodies’. This does not mean that an angel would be locked within a profession and unable to escape, but rather that an angel would have to become mentally complete by extending from some initial profession. That is why Jude 1:6 warns about angels leaving their first domain. This expansion would be possible because everything is guided by Teacher thought; professions are not isolated from one another but rather tied together by overarching Teacher principles of order-within-complexity.

This also explains why Jesus had to come to human earth to live and die. Jesus had to fully experience what it meant to live as a created being independent of God. This living in a human body within a human society was preceded by episodes of appearing partially as an angel, consistent with the idea that angelic existence contains the pieces of human existence.

Human bodies may be complete but they are also temporary. That is because the complete body is not backed up by a complete mind. Instead, unprogrammed human minds are placed within complete human bodies. Like the typical technician, humans have learned how to solve some problems of the human body, but human knowledge of underlying Teacher structure is still limited. In contrast, angels with more specialized bodies would presumably be able to deal directly with the underlying mechanisms of the human body.

If natural existence is constructed out of the components of supernatural existence, then this also means that current theories of cosmology are incomplete. That is because they are based upon the assumption that only physical reality exists. But if one wants to examine how physical reality was constructed, then one has to include angels, aliens, and the supernatural, because these provide the building blocks for physical reality. (Both angels and aliens appear to come from the same supernatural realm.) The essay on physics attempts to distinguish between what is solid within current theories of cosmology and what is based upon assumption.

In the same way that God created human bodies which function fairly completely but also autonomously, so the physical universe has been created to function fairly completely but also autonomously. Physics has discovered that atomic processes happen statistically. One can predict with mathematical certainty how a group of particles will behave but one cannot predict what an individual particle will do. In a similar matter, I suggest that there is total order-within-complexity at a general level for God in Teacher thought, but there is room for human free will at the personal level. (There may be a connection between human free will and the collapse of a wave function, because a system has to be observed in some manner for the wave function to collapse. In other words, until some human observer opens the box, Schrödinger’s cat is both dead and alive. I am not suggesting that human observation is required to collapse the wave function, because a wave function will also collapse through decoherence. But there may be some connection between human free will and wave function collapse.) This provides a solution for the question of free will versus divine sovereignty. Looking at this cognitively, humans have a free will that is real but also limited. Humans can choose but they cannot choose anything. Instead, human choice is always limited to some set of options, and it is possible to predict with great certainty how a group of humans will behave.

As usual, one sees Teacher thought at both ends and Mercy thought in the middle. Human minds were initially created with a Teacher structure that can be described by the theory of mental symmetry. And the kingdom of God with its Teacher order-within-complexity will eventually prevail over all other human institutions. But in between these two lies human free will with its Mercy emotions. A study of history indicates that human free will has the power to change the path that God takes to go from start to finish, but it is certain that the final destination will eventually be reached. The only question is how much tugging God will have to do on the Teacher threads.

Turning to the end state, 2 Peter 3:13 describes the new heaven and earth as a place where righteousness dwells. Righteousness can be defined as Server action that is guided by a Teacher understanding of God. It is currently possible to become mentally righteous and behave in a manner that is consistent with a mental concept of God in Teacher thought. Similarly, Jesus was righteous because he only did what he saw the Father doing. Technology also exhibits some righteousness, because it builds gadgets that behave in a way that is guided by a Teacher understanding of the laws of nature.

But 2 Peter is describing something more, which is a heaven and earth of righteousness. Humans currently live in a physical universe where it is possible for a while to ignore the laws of nature and be guided purely by human Mercy emotions. The underlying Teacher righteousness is there but it is not directly accessible to human awareness or human control. The human ‘earth’ would become righteous if this Mercy veil were lifted and the underlying Teacher structure became apparent. This would also lead to a unified heaven and earth, because heaven deals with the underlying Teacher structures, while the physical universe hides these Teacher structures behind Mercy experiences and Mercy emotions. This interpretation is consistent with 2 Peter 3 because the previous verses talk about the existing physical elements becoming unglued.

I have talked in previous essays about matter-over-mind being replaced by mind-over-matter. This essay has suggested that the most fundamental principle is that Mercy existence needs to be maintained apart from the Teacher nature of God. Something has to ensure that the physical matter which makes Mercy thought possible continues to exist independently of God. This role is currently provided by physical matter. The physical universe functions in a statistical manner that is independent of God, and humans reside in physical bodies within the physical universe. (It appears that God does step in occasionally and that prayer can make a difference, but the vast majority of so-called ‘acts of God’ are not acts of God but rather expressions of the statistical nature of physical reality.) The problem with this arrangement is that the statistical nature of the physical realm makes humans subject to physical disasters, while the autonomous functioning of the physical body makes humans subject to pain and physical harm. I refer to this as matter-over-mind because physical matter rules over human minds.

The alternative of mind-over-matter would become possible if human minds acquired the ability to perform the function that is currently being carried out by physical matter, which means functioning in a manner that is independent of God while having a Teacher understanding of God and behaving in a manner that is consistent with this Teacher understanding of God. The New Testament appears to describe in detail the process by which God will lead human society from current matter-over-mind to mind-over-matter, and this is described in detail in previous essays. Mind-over-matter would eliminate the problem of human suffering, because physical matter would no longer have the power to continue imposing painful experiences upon human minds. (I do not think that all pain and suffering would disappear, because pain plays the essential role of motivating a person to remove the body from harm. Instead, I think that the ability of the mind to repair the body would increase massively.) But mind-over-matter is only possible to the extent that human minds can exist independently of God while recognizing the supremacy of God.

Finally, I have suggested in previous essays that the new heavens and earth would not involve the destruction of the existing universe. (The Greek language of 2 Peter 3:10-11 is somewhat different than the English translation and is discussed in another essay.) Instead, I suggest that the physical universe would still continue to function autonomously within mind-over-matter. However, whenever human minds came into contact with matter, then minds would have supremacy over matter. Thus, human influence would (for a long while) be limited to a few galaxies while the rest of the universe would continue to function as before. The reason for this is simple. The physical universe provides the essential function of existing independently of God. It would be imperative for God to keep this function intact.

Summarizing, it is essential to regard God as a Trinity composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Existence itself depends upon maintaining this viewpoint. But it is also essential to view everything as based in the Teacher thinking of God the Father. Any other viewpoint will lead to pain, frustration, and ultimately death. And it is also essential for humans to recognize that they are responsible for maintaining Mercy emotions of personal identity, well-being, and happiness. Any system of thought which suppresses or ignores personal identity with its Mercy feelings is incomplete, and will end up motivating humans to destroy themselves.

Nicene Creed

We have referred to the Nicene Creed in general terms. More accurately, one should refer to the modified Nicene Creed of 381 AD, the final statement of faith over which both Western and Eastern Christian Churches agree. The early Christian Church struggled for many years to hammer out a definite statement of the Trinity and alternative interpretations were rejected as heretical. Therefore, whenever one is proposing an interpretation of the Trinity, it is important to run this interpretation through theological filters and see if it survives.

1) God the Son and God the Spirit are of the same substance as God the Father. The heresy of semi-Arianism asserts that God the Son has similar substance to God the Father but not identical. This essay explicitly suggests that God the Son and God the Spirit are not made of different substance than God the Father but rather of the same substance, packaged and approached in a different way.

2) God the Son and God the Spirit proceed from God the Father. The fundamental premise of this essay is that God the Father in Teacher thought is the ultimate source while God the Son in Contributor thought and God the Spirit in Mercy thought are derived in some manner from God the Father. This essay has focused upon God the Father and God the Spirit while viewing God the Son as some sort of ‘translation layer’. The role that is played by Incarnation is discussed in detail in other essays.

This proceeding from God the Father is also an ongoing process in the sense that one must continually think and act in a manner that reflects the general process of starting from Teacher thought, moving through Contributor thought to Mercy thought, existing in Mercy thought, and then expressing Mercy thought in a manner that is guided by Teacher thought.

3) God the Son and God the Spirit are not created. We have seen that God the Son and God the Spirit have to proceed from God the Father before it becomes possible even to conceive of created existence. The heresy of Arianism says that God the Father created God the Son at some point in time. In contrast, this essay suggests that a Trinitarian God is more fundamental than space/time itself; the proceeding from God the Father took place before space and time were created. Going further, the proceeding involved the infinite essence of God and not created substance. One can find many examples within space and time which are like the eternal proceeding from God the Father, but they involve created substance and not eternal essence.

4) All three persons of the Trinity are equally God. God the Son and God the Spirit may proceed from God the Father, but existence itself depends upon thinking and behaving in a way that acknowledges God the Son and God the Spirit as equally God. This is not just a theological statement but rather a general principle with major consequences. For instance, the modern technological society is showing us the repercussions of following the technical thinking of God the Son in a specialized, objective manner that suppresses the integrated understanding of God the Father and the personal emotions of God the Spirit.

5) God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are distinct persons. Looking at this cognitively, healthy existence requires holding simultaneously on to Teacher thought, Contributor thought, and Mercy thought. One cannot ignore one of these three, and one cannot allow one of these three to rule over the others. Instead, all three of these have to be maintained as independent strategies. Looking at the partial example of modern society, one must hold on to the technical thinking of God the Son and place everything under the integrated understanding of God the Father and nurture the personal experiences of God the Spirit. All three of these aspects are required and they are not the same.

6) All three persons of the Trinity are equal in status. Existence may have started with God the Father in Teacher thought, but it eventually becomes possible to view Teacher thought and Mercy thought as mirror images of one another, held together by a symmetric form of God the Son. One does not just proceed from God the Father to God the Spirit. One also returns from God the Spirit to God the Father, and both of these paths are equally important and have to go through God the Son. This kind of alternating between these two can be seen in modern research and development, in which theory and application build upon one another. And one can view angels and aliens as mirror-images of humans.

7) There is one God and not three. All three persons of the Trinity are pursuing the same goal of pursuing Mercy existence in a manner that glorifies God the Father. All three persons of the Trinity initially proceeded from the same substance of God the Father in order to make existence possible. Similarly, all three persons are driven by the same goal of preserving and nurturing existence, which can only be achieved if all three persons of the Trinity continue to pursue this same goal in an integrated manner. This is not just a theological argument but rather a fundamental requirement for personal and societal wholeness and well-being.

8) It is possible to come up with a rational theory of the nature of God. This is where the Christian Church has historically pursued a contradictory strategy. On the one hand, the doctrine of the Trinity is carefully defined using words with precise meanings, and other statements regarding the nature of God are rejected as heretical. On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity is also regarded as an incomprehensible mystery which cannot be explained using human language. Thus, the idea of a rational Trinitarian God who can be described using clearly defined words has coexisted with the concept of a mystical God of Teacher overgeneralization who transcends all language. One cannot simultaneously speak clearly and refuse to say anything definitive.

This essay suggests a different approach. Instead of viewing God as transcending all rational human thought and existence, one should view the mystical God as the primordial nature of God which precedes space and time. Thus, the goal is not for finite creatures to return to becoming reunited with the mystical God but rather for finite creatures to move forward to living within creation in a manner that reflects the ultimate Teacher nature of God.

A critical aspect of moving forward is defining the doctrine of the Trinity as a rational theory, because such a theory makes it possible to move forwards in an intelligent manner. Thinking rationally does not mean trying to fit God into a materialistic, objective, scientific theory of physical matter, because God is bigger than the physical universe. Instead, it means that one can use words with definitions to come up with a simple description of the nature of God within which it is possible to place scientific thought as well as created existence. Such a general theory makes it possible to know whether one is thinking and behaving in a way that is consistent with the nature of the Trinitarian God or following a path that violates the general plan and nature of God.

The doctrine of the Trinity is currently a verbal doctrine that is enforced by people who claim to represent the Christian God. If one preaches a different doctrine, then one will be rejected as heretical by people. In contrast, I suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is a universal principle of existence that pervades the fabric of creation. If one lives a different doctrine, then one will experience painful consequences because one is fighting the structure of existence.

Two Kind of Stress

I would like to mention several examples that have come to mind since initially writing this essay.

I recently wrote a paper mapping the theory of mental symmetry onto neurology. One of the principles that emerged was a distinction between psychological stress and physiological stress. Psychological stress involves people, emotions, dopamine, and Exhorter thought, while physiological stress involves the physical body, physical danger, noradrenaline, and Facilitator thought. Most neurological papers do not distinguish between these two kinds of stress, but paradoxical kinesia suggests that these two are not the same. The dopamine circuit is paralyzed in Parkinson’s disease, and Parkinsonian symptoms are exacerbated by psychological stress. However, when there is some physical crisis, then a paralyzed Parkinsonian patient may temporarily regain the ability to move in a normal fashion, strongly suggesting that physiological stress is temporarily enabling a movement circuit that is different than the normal dopamine circuit. This temporary regaining of physical mobility is called paradoxical kinesia.

Now let us think about this in terms of Teacher and Mercy emotion. Physiological stress threatens the functioning of the physical body. If one views the physical body as a machine, then physiological stress attacks the machine by threatening either to tear the machine apart or to destroy the functioning of some critical part of the machine. Saying this another way, physiological stress is driven by the fear that my human body will revert back to being merely a pile of decomposed physical matter. Cognitively speaking, this involves the path from primordial Teacher to human Mercy.

Psychological stress happens at the much higher level of interacting human beings. As one can see from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, physiological stress is more basic than psychological stress. Physiological needs and physical safety are the bottom two levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Love and belonging is the middle level, which lays the foundation for psychological interaction. The top two levels involve psychological stress: Esteem worries about what others think about me, while self-actualization focuses upon what I think about myself.

Using the language of this essay, human life begins by forming the structure of a physical body out of raw elements. Physiological stress results from the fear that the physical body will return back to its raw elements. Living within a human body leads to the formation of mental networks of love and belonging, making it possible to interact with other human beings at a Mercy level. This is when psychological stress emerges. I will only worry about what people think about me if my mind contains mental networks that represent those people. Similarly, I will only worry about what I think about myself if I have a self-image.

When one interacts with self and others at a Mercy level of mental networks then one has to choose how one will interact. Will one allow Teacher understanding to guide and shape social and personal MMNs, or will one interact in a tribal manner that emphasizes one’s own Mercy mental networks over those of other people and other groups? This question can be seen in Maslow’s highest level of transcendence. Quoting from Wikipedia, “In his later years, Abraham Maslow explored a further dimension of motivation, while criticizing his original vision of self-actualization. By this later theory, one finds the fullest realization in giving oneself to something beyond oneself—for example, in altruism or spirituality. He equated this with the desire to reach the infinite. ‘Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating.’” Notice that Maslow is viewing returning to Teacher thought in mystical terms as becoming reunited with primordial Teacher unity. However, he is recognizing the need to return from Mercy thought to Teacher thought.

Summarizing, physiological need addresses the requirements for continuing to function within a living human body. Psychological need emerges as one functions over time within a living human body and interacts with other living humans. The ultimate purpose for humans is to learn how to live within a physical body in a manner that expresses Teacher order and structure.

Playing the Violin

Turning now to another example, the idea of Mercy coming from Teacher components and then returning to Teacher thought at a different level can also be seen when playing a musical instrument. Similar principles would apply to using any tool in a skilled manner, but the emotional component is especially evident when playing music, and I use the example of playing violin because I am a professional violinist.

When one starts learning the violin, then one focuses upon acquiring specific skills, such as holding the violin properly, making a consistent sound with the bow, using the correct fingers to hit the right notes accurately, and so on. This is like forming the parts of the machine, because one is using Teacher thought to perfect specific functions. The basic strategy during this initial stage of learning is ‘divide and conquer’: break up playing into its individual functions and focus upon these various functions one at a time. If one continues this Teacher focus upon specific functions, then eventually one will start approaching the instrument at an intuitive Mercy level. When this happens, then one is no longer drawing a bow across a string or putting a finger down on the fingerboard. Instead, one is interacting emotionally with a Mercy mental network that represents the violin as a living creature: ‘If I treat the violin this way, then it will scream; if I treat the violin that way, then it will purr. The violin does not like to be treated this way; the violin likes to be treated that way’. I am not suggesting that the violin actually becomes alive, but rather that one starts mentally treating it as if it is alive.

Learning how to interact with a violin at the emotional level of Mercy mental networks is not trivial, but rather requires a lot of practicing and perfecting of skills. Using the language of this essay, Mercy feelings emerge over time as one deals extensively with clumps of Teacher functions. When one becomes capable of interacting with a violin (or any kind of tool) at the level of MMNs, then Teacher thought and Teacher emotion will re-emerge at a higher level, leading to questions such as ‘What message will I convey when playing my violin at an intuitive level? What sort of musical phrasing will I use? What kind of tone will I produce? What type of pieces will I play?’ Speaking from personal experience, I am finding that my violin playing has recently started to break through to this level of conveying an emotional message, and both I and my listeners are finding ourselves almost shocked at how good my playing has become.

Natural Law versus Personal Opinion

One can also see this distinction when comparing natural law with personal opinion. Natural law is based in the structure of the physical universe; it functions at a physiological level. The physical universe is governed by unchanging laws of physical cause-and-effect. Personal opinion, in contrast, functions at a psychological level. Some person or group of people will punish me if I behave in a manner that violates accepted opinions.

The postmodern mindset tends to confuse these two. That is because modern civilization has placed fences of human disapproval in front of most cliffs of natural cause-and-effect. Looking at this literally, when one walks along a path and there is a cliff nearby, then there will usually be a fence in front of the cliff with a sign saying ‘do not cross the fence’. The fence is there to prevent people from falling off the cliff and experiencing the resulting physical pain or death that results. These fences do prevent people from falling off physical cliffs, but they will also ensure that the average person encounters fences and not cliffs, leading to the implicit conclusion that cliffs do not exist. The generation that erected the fences will will believe in cliffs, but the next generation will only encounter fences.

Similarly, if one drives a car too fast, then one will experience harmful physical consequences, such as getting into an accident or sliding off the road. Speed limits are posted in order to prevent these physical effects. Thus, the average driver encounters speed limits imposed by people rather than harmful consequences imposed by the laws of nature. Again, this will lead implicitly—in the next generation—to the conclusion that only personal opinion exists, because that is what the average person continually encounters. A similar principle applies to most of the ‘physical cliffs’ of reality. The average person encounters, not the ‘cliff’, but rather the ‘fence’ that has been placed by civilization in front of the ‘cliff’.

But notice that cliffs and fences are functioning at a different level. Cliffs that are enforced by natural law have always been present. In contrast, people have to reach a certain level of societal organization before they start building official paths, erecting official fences, and creating official systems of legal disapproval to enforce these paths and fences. In a similar manner, the natural feedback from a cliff attacks the integrity of the physical body; it threatens to take a functioning body back to the level of primordial elements. In contrast, disapproval functions at the much higher level of personal interaction.

For instance, the most common punishment for crossing a fence is a fine. Money is an organized way of dispensing societal approval and disapproval. Another common punishment is to forbid a person from entering this area or possibly imprison a person. This replaces one form of fence with another.

If people experience only fences, then they will conclude that only fences exist and not cliffs, and they will view fences as artificial barriers that have been erected by people in authority to restrict the behavior of people. This will lead to a natural desire to ignore fences, resulting in the typical postmodern mindset which views all laws as artificially constructed fences. Eventually, people will ignore fences. And when people start ignoring fences, then they will start falling off cliffs. This means that fences will lose their effectiveness if there are too many fences.

One possible solution is to increase the punishment associated with crossing a fence: ‘Fining people is not enough. People who cross fences need to be physically punished.’ But what was the original purpose of the fence? It was erected in order to prevent people from experiencing painful physical consequences. Physically punishing people for crossing fences makes fences redundant, because it replaces the physical consequence of falling off the cliff with the physical consequence of being physically punished by people. The choice is then between one set of physical consequences and another.

The solution is to distinguish internally between cliffs and fences—between natural law and approval. This kind of mindset walks up to the fence, sees the cliff behind the fence, and is thankful that the fence exists to protect the average person from the cliff.

A similar relationship exists even when dealing with entirely artificial constructs such as language. Language assigns arbitrary meanings to arbitrary sounds. This becomes obvious when one listens to a foreign language, because it sounds like random gibberish. Abstract thought is based upon the ability to use language to communicate concepts between people. One can argue over whether language is required for abstract thought, but one can definitely conclude that abstract thought would become extremely crippled if language did not exist.

Language is an emergent property. It becomes possible to the extent that many people assign consistent meanings to sounds and agree upon these meanings. In other words, dictionaries enable abstract thought, because dictionaries make it possible for many people to assign the same meanings to similar sounds, and abstract thought emerges to the extent that many people can communicate their ideas with one another. Again, I am not suggesting that dictionaries are required for abstract thought, but without official dictionaries, effective communication becomes limited to the local region, because each town will develop its own dialect of language. And when one can only communicate effectively with people within the local village, then one will not develop extensive abstract thought.

Postmodern thought observes that people are assigning arbitrary meanings to words and concludes that language is an artificial construct based in approval. For instance, ‘Why do America and Britain control the English language? This is an example of white colonial hegemony. Other countries should have the right to define their own versions of English.’ This mindset confuses approval with natural law. It is true that countries such as America and Britain are using their economic and social status to impose meanings upon words. But there is also a cliff of natural law that is hiding behind this fence of linguistic approval. Language only becomes possible to the extent that many people assign the same meanings to the same sounds. And language is required to develop abstract thought. That is a natural law of the mind. Destroying language limits a person’s ability to use abstract thought, and modern science and technology require the use of extensive abstract thought.

A similar principle applies to the current post-truth mindset. Language is only possible to the extent that words have meanings. A deconstructionist mindset views truth and honesty as artifacts of a bygone morality that used to be imposed upon the people by sources of morality which have now become discredited. But here too, a cliff lies behind the fence. If enough people abandon truth and honesty, then all that is left is fake news and propaganda. Communication becomes impossible, and when communication becomes impossible, then abstract thought ceases to function, and when abstract thought stops functioning, then science and technology can no longer work, and when that happens, all that is left is brute force. One has then collapsed back to the physiological level of attempting to stay alive in a dangerous world.

Turning now to a totally different example, I suggested earlier that aliens and angels function at a more primordial level. I recently listened to a talk on the Internet which stated precisely this. The suggestion was that aliens appear to have the ability to adjust the functioning of the physical universe at an atomic level. More specifically, the claim was that ‘they’ can adjust the size of Planck’s constant. I will not try to speculate exactly what this means or if this is an accurate statement. What matters is the general implication, which is that ‘they’ can adjust the functioning of the physical universe at a more fundamental level than humans. For instance, a human can temporarily and locally counteract the law of gravity by using physical force to lift some object. However, this physical force is being exerted at the human scale. In contrast, an alien would temporarily and locally counteract the law of gravity by using angelic power at a much more fundamental level, possibly at the atomic scale. Again, the details do not concern us. What matters is that alien power effectively turns natural law into a form of language.

Humans cannot change how the natural world functions. All they can do is rearrange physical matter in order to get the natural world to function in some desired manner. If aliens can adjust the functioning of the natural world at a more fundamental level, then the physical natural law that is experienced by humans becomes malleable. Notice that I said ‘experienced by humans’. Humans experience natural law at the scale of billions upon billions of atoms functioning together. Quantum mechanics has discovered that a totally different form of natural law exists at the scale of individual atoms. If aliens can manipulate matter at the level of individual atoms, then this would lead to behavior that would appear to violate natural law at the human scale of zillions of atoms. One can tell that this would be the case because scientists are starting to gain the ability to use technology to manipulate matter at the atomic level, and some of the properties that emerge are quite bizarre.

Using the analogy of language, humans until now have been forced to treat the book of natural law as a fixed tome whose words and sentences cannot be altered. However, humans are now acquiring the ability to manipulate this book at the level of individual letters, and it appears that aliens have a natural ability to manipulate the book of natural law at the level of individual letters. This means that alien power threatens humanity at an existential level, because they can adjust the very building blocks of human existence—the very letters out of which the book of physical nature is written.

I am not suggesting that aliens can alter the laws of nature throughout the universe. Instead, researchers of alien interaction talk about a zone of influence in which alien power temporarily overrides physical natural law in some limited physical area. As far as humans are concerned, this type of localized, temporary influence is sufficient to question the stability of natural law, because humans are finite creatures who live within physical bodies that occupy specific locations at specific times. Using the analogy of a book, one does not need to have the power to affect all of the letters of an entire book to call book knowledge into question. Instead, it is sufficient to be able to influence the specific letters of the book that a person is currently reading.

Postmodern questioning concludes that if the letters that I am currently reading in a book can be changed by people, then this means that there is no such thing as book knowledge. This type of mindset would find alien encounters devastating. The solution is to choose to maintain an internal structure of humanity, similar to the way that one chooses to accept the definitions of some official language—even though one knows that languages and official meanings are artificial constructs.

We are back to the original concept, which is that human existence is an emergent property. Human existence with its Mercy experiences and Mercy emotions does not ultimately exist, because one can use primordial Teacher power to unravel the substance of human existence. Instead, one must choose to preserve human existence.

This human existence is ultimately based in the belief that God himself is a Trinity, and God the Holy Spirit guarantees the continued existence of creation and humanity. But this divine guarantee only applies to the average human to the extent that a human constructs an internal concept of the Holy Spirit which is capable of becoming internally empowered by the real Holy Spirit.

One final point. 2 Peter 3 says that “the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat”. This talks about a future unraveling of physical existence, because the verb translated destroyed actually means to ‘release (unbind) so something no longer holds together’. This warning is preceded by a strange statement: “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts”. The word mocker come from a verb that combines ‘in the realm of’ with ‘to play as a child’. Going further, the word lust means ‘passion built on strong feelings’, while the word own means ‘uniquely one’s own, peculiar to the individual’. Putting this together, future humans will be treating human existence as a childish game. Instead of choosing to corporately build a society, they will be guided by personal feelings.

At a societal level, this describes current postmodern society, which has become detached from physical consequences to the extent that everything is regarded as a childish game. And postmodern society views truth as an expression of personal feelings: ‘You have your truth and I have my truth’. The end result is that the elemental fabric of human society is starting to become unraveled. 2 Peter 3 seems to be predicting that a similar kind of unraveling will happen in the future to physical matter.

2 Peter 3 also describes the solution: “Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness.” (As before, the verb ‘destroyed’ actually means to cease to hold together.) In other words, one must choose to preserve moral human society; one must choose to hold on internally to what it means to be human.

The Holy Spirit and Miracles (2025)

This is an expansion of a section written in a later essay. It has been added to this essay as the most appropriate location. Mental symmetry suggests that a concept of the Holy Spirit is related to Plato’s concept of the Form of the Good. Plato said that the Form of the Good integrates all other Platonic forms. A Platonic Form is an imaginary idealized image that forms within Mercy thought as a result of Teacher understanding. That is because Teacher theories describe the simplified essence of situations or contexts. Going further, an integrated Teacher understanding will have the indirect result of tying together Platonic forms within Mercy thought, leading to a Form of the Good. The Form of the Good is a mental concept of God, because it is a universal image that extends beyond specific experiences. But it is also a derived concept of God that emerges within Mercy thought as a result of an integrated concept of God in Teacher thought. Stated theologically, the Holy Spirit is God but the Holy Spirit is also the third person of the Trinity.

Before continuing, I should point out that this section will focus upon the interaction between God the Father and God the Spirit. God the Son is discussed extensively in other essays but will not be mentioned here. This does not mean that one can jump directly from God the Father to God the Spirit in some sort of mystical fashion as promoted by Orthodox Christianity. Instead, interaction between God the Father and God the Spirit is still being implicitly guided by the rational content of God the Son. Saying this another way, the standard Protestant Christian assertion that ‘Jesus does everything’ is actually an overgeneralization that violates the spirit of how Incarnation functions. Instead, we will attempt to be consistent with the character of Incarnation by adding some technical details.

Holy means to be different or separate. A concept of God the Spirit can become holy in two primary ways. Suppose that one studies the Bible as the source of absolute truth. This will lead to the concept of a Holy Spirit, but this internal concept of divine perfection will have nothing to do with normal human life because it comes from studying a book that is regarded as special and different from normal life. The result will be the mental concept of a heaven of divine perfection that is totally unrelated to normal earth, and following the Holy Spirit will be interpreted as turning one’s back upon the thinking and experiences of normal life in order to be motivated fully by this imaginary heavenly reality of biblical truth. Being anti-intellectual and anti-tradition will be regarded as a prerequisite for following the Holy Spirit, as illustrated by Pentecostalism.

Now suppose that one studies the Bible as an accurate description of universal truth. This will also lead to the concept of a Holy Spirit, but this internal concept of divine perfection will be viewed as an idealization of existing normal human life because it comes from studying universal principles that apply to normal life. Following the Holy Spirit will then be interpreted as focusing upon the essentials of mental and societal wholeness without getting distracted by details and non-essentials. Instead of suppressing tradition and denying rational thought, one will attempt to learn from tradition and integrate rational thought.

Looking at this conflict from a historical perspective, suppose that the Bible is viewed as the source of absolute truth. On the one hand, the Bible contains accurate principles of cognitive development. Thus, following biblical principles will develop a mind that is capable of understanding the natural world and building a better society. But blind faith and absolute truth can only survive as long as the source of truth is regarded as far more important than personal identity. However, both gaining rational understanding about the world in Teacher thought as well as achieving personal success in Mercy thought will raise the emotional status of personal identity relative to the source of absolute truth. Therefore, those who apply biblical principles will naturally be driven to belittle and reject biblical principles. This typically happens over several generations.

The end result is a struggle between two concepts of God: On the one side is the God who created the Teacher order of the physical universe while on the other side is a God of the gaps who intervenes to create supernatural exceptions to the laws of Nature. The concept of a God of miracles naturally emerges from viewing the Bible as the source of absolute truth, because the Bible contains many stories about God intervening supernaturally in human society through miracles. Following the Holy Spirit will then be equated with living within experiences that express a God of the gaps. Focusing in Mercy thought upon following a Holy Spirit of miracles and supernatural gifts makes it possible to sidestep the inherent Teacher contradiction of following a God of the gaps. However, following a Holy Spirit of miracles in this manner will naturally corrode common sense as well as the ability to study the Bible rationally. Stated in the language that was used earlier in this essay, one is moving from God the Father in Teacher thought to God the Spirit in Mercy thought in a way that cannot return back to God the Father in Teacher thought.

A more common and less mentally corrosive approach is to follow a God of synchronicity. One still views the God of the Bible as different than the God of Nature. However, the God of the Bible is no longer viewed as someone who violates natural law but rather as someone who arranges random events in a manner that reflects Teacher order. For instance, instead of praying for God to supernaturally heal some person, the prayer will be that God will guide the hands of the surgeon or protect the patient from complications. Praying for synchronicity preserves common sense and rational thought, and it also views the God of the Bible as a God of Teacher order, avoiding the inherent contradiction of a God who violates Teacher order. However, it also leads to the concept of a Christian God who is only capable of making the best of the existing situation. Going further, a God of synchronicity does not tend to lead to the concept of a Holy Spirit who functions independently of God the Father. Stated another way, one is moving from God the Father in Teacher thought in the direction of God the Spirit in Mercy thought while remaining connected with God the Father.

Treating the Bible as an accurate description of universal cognitive truth leads to a different concept of miracles. Biblical stories of miracles are not viewed as exceptions to natural law but rather as expressions of the Teacher order of deeper cognitive principles. They may violate natural law, but they make cognitive, symbolic, and spiritual sense, and they fit within the larger Teacher order of leading people and societies to greater mental and societal wholeness. More generally, miracles are then viewed as the work of God the Holy Spirit who functions independently of God the Father. However, consistent with Plato’s idea of a Form of the Good, the Holy Spirit is also viewed as the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, who does not speak of himself but rather leads into all Truth, as described in John 14-16. Saying this cognitively, the Holy Spirit is based upon Platonic forms of ideal perfection that come from Teacher understanding, and the Holy Spirit behaves in a manner that leads to greater Teacher order, simplicity, and perfection. But the Holy Spirit can take paths that temporarily violate the laws of Nature, guided by fundamental principles of how mental networks function. However, these paths will be taken in a way that minimizes any obvious violations of the laws of Nature. Stated another way, one is moving from God the Father in Teacher thought to God the Spirit in Mercy thought, and the Teacher-loving character of the Holy Spirit guarantees that one will return back to God the Father in Teacher thought.

A similar kind of behavior can be seen in physics with virtual particles. Virtual particles only exist temporarily and there is no direct evidence of their existence. However, they can be described mathematically and they can also temporarily violate the laws of physics. Modern physics interprets forces as the interaction of virtual particles.

Looking at this more carefully, a concept of God the Father is based in Teacher thought which thinks in terms of general processes and sequences. These general processes can be performed in many different specific Server ways and result in many different Mercy goals, but the general sequence must always be followed in a righteous manner. A concept of God the Holy Spirit, in contrast, is based in Mercy thought which thinks in terms of objects, people, and events. What matters to God the Father is the path that is taken and not necessarily the end of points of the path. Thus, it is possible for humans to pray to God the Father to follow Server paths of cognitive development and righteousness that lead through Mercy locations that are less painful. Generally speaking, following a more pleasant path requires being a cooperative student within God’s school of character development with the most unpleasant paths being reserved for uncooperative students who refuse to learn their lessons. This principle is illustrated by God’s leading of the Jewish people through human history. In contrast, what matters to God the Spirit is the end points and not necessarily the path that is taken. God the Spirit wants people to go from their current state to a better state that is characterized by greater Teacher order and wholeness. Saying this another way, God the Father functions in a wave-like manner while God the Spirit functions in a particle-like manner. A virtual particle illustrates the behavior of the Holy Spirit, which can temporarily violate the Teacher order of God the Father in order to reach a state of greater Teacher order.

Virtual particles cannot be directly observed. Saying this another way, the temporary violations of Teacher order are covered from Teacher thought. A similar kind of cognitive covering occurs with justification from sin that is also based in a cognitive distinction between Teacher and Mercy thought. Mercy thought views Server sequences as being composed of individual steps that one takes sequentially through time. Teacher thought, in contrast, views the same Server sequences as fundamental building blocks for thought outside of time. (This distinction can also be seen between the mathematical laws of nature which function outside of time and the physical expressions of natural law which function within the arrow of time.)

The Christian doctrine of justification by faith can be interpreted cognitively using the school analogy. Suppose that a student enrolls in school. From a Teacher perspective, the student has moved from the domain of being uneducated to the domain of being educated. The student who has just enrolled is still ignorant, but is now viewed by Teacher thought as belonging to the Server sequence of being educated, because Teacher thought views Server sequences as fundamental building blocks that function outside of time. However, the student views this same Server sequence from a Mercy perspective as a step-by-step process of taking and passing one class after another within time.

Similarly, Teacher thought views a miracle of the Holy Spirit as a person whose character embodies Teacher order behaving in a way that leads to greater Teacher order. The cognitive covering comes from the fact that Teacher thought thinks in terms of generalities and overlooks the precise manner in which this greater Teacher order is reached. However, a human being living within specific Mercy experiences notices that the path to a state of greater Teacher order temporarily violates the laws of Nature and concludes that a miracle has happened. Notice that this kind of covering requires God the Father to remain at the level of generalities. Using the school analogy, God the Father thinks in terms of classes and curriculum, allowing teachers to follow a path of education that temporarily deviates from the curriculum as well as deal with the messy realm of classroom management.

This type of thinking is only possible if one recognizes that universal Teacher laws have to be embodied in some manner. This is similar to the requirement for righteousness. Righteousness is defined as performing Server actions that are emotionally guided by the TMN of a concept of God. This obviously requires the concept of a God who behaves. A God who is static or a God who transcends human activity is incapable of guiding human behavior in a righteous manner. Similarly, a God of Teacher order can only view personal character as a covering for miracles if the Teacher order of God is embodied in some manner within that personal character.

The general principle is that creation can only continue to exist independently of God the Father in Teacher thought if God creates independent beings in Mercy thought who then choose to behave in a manner that reflects the Teacher order of God the Father. This principle was described at the beginning of this essay. As mentioned earlier, the fundamental problem with mysticism is that it attempts to return back to the primal state of God the Father before creation rather than move forward to the righteous state of reflecting the character of God the Father. A similar principle can be seen protein folding which will be discussed in the next section of this essay.

Stated simply, miracles may temporarily violate the laws of nature, but miracles from the Holy Spirit reinforce the universal law of existence which as far as I can tell is the most fundamental law of creation. A miracle is an example of God the Holy Spirit functioning in a manner that is independent of God the Father, but a miracle from God the Holy Spirit will not be random but rather will preserve and extend the Teacher order of God the Father.

Mental symmetry defines righteousness as behavior that is emotionally guided by the TMN of a concept of God. One becomes righteous by following the TMN of a concept of God rather than following MMNs of societal approval, personal gain, or culture. God the Father wants people who are righteous. Working with the Holy Spirit requires going a step beyond righteousness to the level of being itself. This happens when no reason remains to continue behaving in a righteous manner but one still chooses to follow Teacher understanding because that is how things work and that is who one is. The Bible describes this as agape love. Agape love functions at the Mercy level of personal existence, but is guided by Teacher order and wholeness. One thinks and behaves in a certain matter because one loves goodness and wholeness. A person who loves at this level is capable of being empowered by the Holy Spirit to perform miracles without being mentally corrupted, because MMNs of being will ensure that TMNs of righteousness are always restored even if they are temporarily violated. Such a person is guided by the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

A Trinitarian concept of God begins asymmetrically but becomes symmetrical. On the one hand, a concept of the Holy Spirit emerges within Mercy thought as a result of a meta-theory in Teacher thought. This is asymmetrical with Teacher thought coming before Mercy thought. But on the other hand, the concept of the Holy Spirit that emerges functions in a way that is symmetrical to a concept of God the Father in Teacher thought. Teacher thought loves symmetries because they exhibit extensive order-within-complexity. This struggle between asymmetry and symmetry is seen in the Nicene Creed which states that God the Spirit proceeds from God the Father but God the Spirit is also fully God. What happens cognitively is that a concept of God the Father develops first, this leads to a concept of God the Holy Spirit, and it then becomes increasingly apparent that these two function in a symmetrical manner.

Recognizing the symmetry between God the Father and God the Spirit has two major emotional effects: First, instead of viewing miracles merely as something that the Holy Spirit does which secretly and temporarily violates universal Teacher laws, miracles can be viewed as behavior that is related by symmetry to the ordered behavior of God the Father through a sort of ‘mirror-image’ order. Second, the combination of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit creates the mental concept of a larger integrated God of which God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are members. This changes God the Father from being the source and legislator of everything in Teacher thought to being a ‘fellow citizen’ of the Trinity. This is extremely significant, because it solves the apostle problem. Posed briefly, how does a legislator enjoy the fruit of his or her legislation? The answer is that others have to apply the legislation and then the legislator has to enter into this application as a fellow citizen. God the Father as the ‘legislator’ of creation faces this problem at its most basic level. Viewing God the Holy Spirit as the mirror image of God the Father makes it possible for God the Father to enjoy creation.

I am not suggesting that some other God emerges apart from the Trinitarian God. Instead, I think what happens is that created beings form a mental concept of a symmetrical God, they act as if God is symmetrical, and this corporate action by created beings makes it possible for the real Trinitarian God to interact with creation in a symmetrical manner rather than as God the Father being the legislator/creator who imposes order upon creation. Consistent with this idea, the book of Hebrews appears to describe a transition where God turns over the functioning of the universe to created beings. (Because created beings are finite, this delegated authority would only apply to the inhabited region of the universe.)

All of these cognitive ‘covering’ mechanisms for miracles that have been described are necessary because constructing an adequate mental concept of a Trinitarian God is a lifelong process. The professional teacher analogy describes a cognitive mechanism that is incomplete but can also function at the beginning of this process. Divine symmetry is a more effective cognitive mechanism but it also takes much longer to construct.

This look at the Holy Spirit has focused upon the emotional interaction between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and has not discussed the role played by Incarnation. Using the school analogy, incarnation handles all the technical details of translating general school curriculum into specific class plans. The interaction between Christ and God the Father has been analyzed elsewhere as an interaction between abstract technical thought and a Teacher meta-theory. And the interaction between Jesus and individual humans has been analyzed as an interaction between concrete technical thought and Mercy identity. The general assumption in those discussions is that Teacher thought deals with universality and Mercy thought with specifics. A concept of the Holy Spirit, in contrast, is a concept of universality within Mercy thought. Instead of viewing humans as specific collections of experiences in Mercy thought, humans become treated as individuals with specific names in Teacher thought, a concept that is mentioned several times in the Bible. This type of inverse relationship between humans as specific names in Teacher thought functioning within some general Mercy environment does not emerge naturally with humans but rather requires technical skills and professional specializations. In contrast, angels appear to function normally as specific names within Teacher thought. We will now look at the relationship between angels, miracles, and the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarian Symmetry (2025)

There is a deep symmetry between humans developing a better concept of God the Father and aliens/angels developing a better concept of God the Spirit. This symmetry became apparent to me after writing the previous section. In order to discuss this further, we have to look briefly at what mental symmetry says about aliens and angels.

My general premise is that angels and aliens have the same kind of minds as humans but live within mirror-image bodies in a mirror-image world. This similarity of mind is supported by the repeated references to humans communicating telepathically with aliens. Communication is only possible with another intelligent being in areas where there is an overlap of content. For instance, if I point to my stomach and then my mouth, then someone who speaks a different language will understand what I am saying because we share the common content of living in physical bodies that need to be fed with food. Similarly, if humans and aliens can communicate telepathically, then this implies a deep commonality between the minds of humans and the minds of aliens.

The human mind is symmetrical, as is the human brain, but the interaction between the human mind (and brain) and the physical world is not symmetrical. Mercy thought and Server thought are regarded as concrete because Mercy thought senses emotional experiences from the environment while Server thought can perform physical actions to change the environment. Teacher thought and Perceiver thought, in contrast, are abstract in the human mind because Teacher thought is only capable of vibrating the air by generating speech and Perceiver thought can only passively organize the concrete realm of Mercy experiences into objects, facts, and connections.

Mental symmetry explains angels as beings with the same minds as humans that live in ‘bodies’ where abstract and concrete are exchanged. Saying this more clearly, angels live within a realm of Teacher words and messages (the word angel means messenger) and appear to have the ability to use Perceiver thought to impose facts and patterns upon their environment. Thus, what humans regard as abstract thought is ‘concrete thought’ for angels and aliens. In contrast, it appears that angels and aliens do not have a natural ability to physically impose Server sequences upon their environment. Instead, Server thought functions passively by noticing repeated sequences in the ‘environment’. And stories about angels and aliens consistently describe them communicating with humans through visions within Mercy thought as well as being able to enter and leave the human realm of Mercy experiences. Thus, what humans regarded as concrete thought is ‘abstract thought’ for angels and aliens.

What has been said so far has been mentioned previously and is not new. What is new is my realization that there is a symmetry between the human shift from absolute truth to universal truth and an angelic/alien shift from absolute sequences to universal sequences. This shift relates directly to what has just been said about miracles and the Holy Spirit. Our discussion will focus upon the Bible because it is with the Bible that these shifts are happening.

Human absolute truth believes that the Bible is ‘true’ because Mercy feelings of reverence for the source of the Bible overwhelm Perceiver thought into knowing that the Bible is ‘true’. Mental symmetry has been used to reformulate the biblical truth of Christianity into a universal cognitive theory of mental and spiritual wholeness: If one assumes that the goal is for all seven cognitive modules to function together in harmony, then the doctrines and beliefs of Christianity and the Bible emerge as a byproduct. This is not an overgeneralization but rather is supported by extensive cognitive analysis. It is now possible to formulate a comprehensive version of Christianity solely from a cognitive perspective guided by the theory of mental symmetry. This cognitive reformulation of Christianity is not just consistent with biblical content, but is actually more consistent with the Bible in two ways: First, mental symmetry can be used to explain many biblical passages and doctrines which current theologians regard as mystery. Second, a mindset of absolute truth has caused Christian theologians to repeatedly twist Christian doctrine to be slightly inconsistent with what the Bible actually says. Saying this more clearly, Christian theologies will interpret the Bible from a perspective of religious self-denial even when this is not supported by the biblical text. Reinterpreting the Bible from a cognitive perspective makes it possible to free biblical theology from this slight cognitive-driven twisting. This is not an overgeneralization but rather a conclusion that has been reached after analyzing two-thirds of the New Testament in the original Greek text. What is being stated in this paragraph is not new but has been mentioned several times before.

What is new is the recognition that angels/aliens may be going through a mirror-image transition also guided by mental symmetry and the Bible. Mental symmetry suggests that many (and possibly all) biblical books can be interpreted prophetically as detailed prophecies of history. For instance, this type of cognitive-prophetic analysis has been applied in detail to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the books of Acts and Revelation, and the epistles of 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and James, and at a less detailed level to 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 John, and 1 and 2 Peter. In each case, one notices that there is a correspondence between the Server sequence of words in the biblical book and the Server sequence of events in Western history. This is not an overgeneralization but rather is backed up by thousands of pages of analysis that has been posted to the mental symmetry website. While my analysis has focused upon the Christian New Testament, I have looked at enough of the Jewish Old Testament to conclude that similar prophetic Server sequences definitely exist in the Pentateuch and probably in the rest of the Old Testament. I have also read enough of Jewish literature to conclude that Jewish thinkers have become blinded from discovering these Server sequences because of Jewish culture, Jewish tribalism, Jewish Kabbalah, and Jewish fence laws.

Notice that this cognitive-prophetic of the Bible is not viewing the Bible as a source of absolute ‘truth’ for humans in Perceiver thought but rather as a source of absolute ‘sequence’ for angels in Server thought. In fact, apart from a few friends, I have had no feedback on this cognitive-prophetic analysis, even though I have written an academic paper, posted an entry several times on Quora, and my prophetic analysis is at least 20 times as detailed as anything else that has been written on biblical prophecy. I have chosen to respond to this lack of human feedback by believing that angels are the intended audience of my analysis, because angels are presumably being guided by biblical absolute ‘sequences’ to manipulate the social sequences of human history. Notice that I am referring here to angels and not aliens, because angels presumably follow the Server sequences of the biblical text while aliens presumably do not. Going further, what emerges from analyzing several biblical books is a landscape or tapestry of interwoven Server sequences in which different segments of human history are being guided from a different perspective—a sort of landscape for angels. The common thread in this tapestry is guiding human society along a path towards personal and social wholeness.

Human absolute truth is ultimately based in Mercy respect for the source of Perceiver ‘truth’. By symmetry, angelic absolute ‘sequence’ would ultimately be based in Teacher respect for the source of Server sequences. But when angels base their absolute Server ‘sequences’ upon Teacher feelings of respect for God, this means that they are ultimately building upon what humans regard as mysticism, because mysticism believes that the Teacher overgeneralization of cosmic oneness transcends the content of physical and personal existence. Looking further at this symmetry, human theologians claim to use rational thought to analyze the content of the Bible, but if one probes far enough one always find that a transition is made from using rational thought to analyze the Bible to using Mercy emotions to mesmerize Perceiver thought into believing the Bible. Thus, Perceiver thought is functioning at the periphery while being overwhelmed at the emotional core. A similar inconsistency would characterize the angelic mind. When dealing with human history, angels would use rational thought to analyze the Server sequences of the Bible and use them to guide the Server sequences of history in an intelligent manner. But, when dealing with core issues of God and heavenly worship, angels would flip from using rational Server thought to having Server thought overwhelmed by the Teacher emotions of interacting with the primal energy of God. A similar split would exist at an even more fundamental level with primal beings, who presumably interact directly with the primal Teacher energy of God and designed the Server sequences of biological DNA (DNA is discussed later in this essay and the hypothesis that primal beings designed DNA is examined in another essay.). Aliens also appear to suffer from a similar split of interacting with humans in a clinical manner while interacting with the Teacher energy of God in a mystical manner. (That is explored in yet another essay.)

That brings us to the material just presented on the Holy Spirit. If humans are to escape absolute biblical ‘truth’, then Mercy reverence for the source of the Bible needs to be replaced by a universal Teacher theory of the Bible. Using religious language, this means constructing a rational concept of God in Teacher thought. Similarly, if angels are to escape absolute biblical ‘sequence’, then Teacher reverence for the source of the Bible needs to be replaced by a rational concept of the Holy Spirit in Mercy thought.

But we just saw that a rational concept of the Holy Spirit interprets a miracle as a supernatural activity that takes a person from one Mercy state to another Mercy state with greater Teacher order. Instead of following some natural Server path to get from the first state to the second state, the miracle is ‘teleporting’ from the Perceiver facts of the first state to the Perceiver facts of the second state, similar to the way that an electron can tunnel through a barrier without having to move across the barrier. Using a religious example, a human who was in the state of ‘being sick’ is miraculously moved to the state of ‘being healed’. Being healed describes a physical body that has greater Teacher order-within-complexity than being sick.

What was missing from that description is how one makes such a transition. Standard Christianity says God steps in and performs a miracle that violates the laws of physics. That describes the mindset of a God of the gaps. It is also a Teacher overgeneralization that sounds pious but says nothing. But such a miraculous transition actually describes normal ‘concrete’ behavior for an angel or alien. Angels naturally use Perceiver power to change functioning from one state to another state with greater Teacher order. This is the mirror image of humans using Server actions to move from one state to another state that Mercy thought finds more pleasurable. This changes praying for a miracle from asking God to violate the universal rules of Teacher thought to asking angels to perform behavior that they consider normal, guided by the inherent goodness of the Holy Spirit. Using an example from physics, instead of viewing quantum tunneling as some article magically jumping from one side of a barrier to the other, one views quantum tunneling as a particle turning into a wave, vibrating across the barrier, and then turning back into a particle on the other side of the barrier.

This means that getting healed requires attracting the attention of angels or aliens who have expertise in ‘healing’. Humans do something similar when they respond to some medical problem by searching for a medical specialist who has the appropriate medical expertise.

Now let us suppose that some group of angels decide to heal humans. Saying this another way, suppose that there is a legitimate charismatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit that is accompanied by legitimate healings. Maintaining an angelic mindset of absolute ‘sequence’ then becomes the limiting factor for angels. One can understand how this works by looking at the limitations of human absolute ‘truth’. A human will only believe that the Bible is the source of absolute ‘truth’ as long as Mercy feelings of respect for the source of the Bible are much greater than Mercy feelings associated with personal identity. Stated simply, the Christian believer must feel that I am nothing compared to the apostles, Jesus, and God. But applying the message of the Bible will lead to personal transformation—even if biblical principles are followed blindly through blind faith, and this personal transformation will lead to personal success that will increase the emotional status of personal identity, which will corrode the mindset of absolute truth. This is like building in the Arctic on a foundation of permafrost. The permafrost remains solid only as long as the ground remains frozen. Similarly, blind faith in absolute truth remains solid only as long as Perceiver thought remains frozen by Mercy reverence. However, buildings need to be warmed, which means that building upon permafrost will warm up the permafrost beneath the building, causing the frozen foundation for the building to melt, causing the building to collapse into the permafrost.

Now let us look at the angelic analog of absolute ‘sequence’. An angel will only ‘know’ that the Bible is the source of absolute ‘sequence’ for human (and angelic) history as long as Teacher feelings of worship for God in Teacher thought are much greater than any Teacher feelings of personal order-within-complexity. Stated simply, the angel must feel that his personal abilities to create Teacher order-within-complexity are nothing compared to the Teacher order-within-complexity of God, Incarnation, and the Bible. Using religious language, the angel must view himself (or herself) as a minister who moves swiftly to carry out the will of God. But being a minister of God’s plan will teach an angel personal expertise, waking up Server thought in the angel from being mesmerized by the Teacher energy of God. The thinking angel will go beyond focusing upon the historical Server sequences of human society prophesied in the Bible to focusing upon personal Server sequences of individual functioning, such as the functioning of the mind, or the functioning of the human body. However, if the angel focuses upon personal healing rather than the societal healing of biblical prophetic sequences, then this will cause the angelic mindset of absolute ‘sequence’ to start crumbling. Stated simply, the angel will feel tempted to become a fallen angel who ‘leaves his first estate’; the angel will be tempted to behave like an alien. The solution is for an angel to replace the mindset of absolute ‘sequence’ in the Bible with a mindset of universal sequence based in cognitive mechanisms.

Looking first at the human transition, reformulating the Perceiver truth of the Bible from a cognitive perspective does not diminish respect for the Bible but rather leads to greater respect for the Bible as the universal applicability of its message becomes more apparent. Similarly, reformulating the Server sequences of the Bible from a cognitive perspective does not diminish respect for biblical sequence but rather leads to greater respect for the Bible as the universal nature of its prophetic sequences becomes apparent. This makes it possible for an angel to move from blindly following a Server sequence of prophecy written in the Bible to intelligently following a Server sequence of cognitive development accurately described by the Bible.

Perceiver thought in the human mind gains confidence as similar patterns and connections are seen in different contexts. Similarly, Server thought in the angelic mind would gain confidence as similar analogies and sequences are noticed in different contexts. For a human, using Perceiver thought intelligently threatens a mindset of blind faith in biblical ‘truth’. Thus, the Bible-believing Christian is naturally suspicious of higher learning. In contrast, using Perceiver thought intelligently enhances biblical understanding that is guided by cognitive principles. Using Perceiver thought in more contexts becomes something that builds intelligent faith rather than something that corrodes blind ‘faith’. Intelligent human faith is capable of studying secular topics without ‘falling from faith’. Similarly, for an angel, using Server thought intelligently threatens a mindset of blind service to biblical ‘sequence’. Thus, the Bible-following angel would be naturally suspicious of intelligent obedience. In contrast, using Server thought intelligently would enhance biblical service that is guided by cognitive principles. Using Server thought in more contexts, such as seeing analogies between carrying out God’s historical plan and healing humans, or seeing similarities between the various cycles of history, would enhance angelic biblical service that is guided by cognitive principles. Intelligent biblical service would allow angels to heal humans (and interact with humans in other personal ways) without fearing that this would cause them to fall from grace.

Going further, humans will turn their back upon science and technology if it becomes apparent that using rational thought to pursue Teacher understanding leads to bad personal results in Mercy thought. For instance, modernism in the 1950s thought that science and technology would help people in Mercy thought. Postmodernism observes that science and technology have harmed people in Mercy thought, and postmodernism is now abandoning scientific thought in order to satisfy personal Mercy feelings with nonscientific, non-Christian forms of ‘alternate knowing’. Mental symmetry points out that the problem is not with the Teacher-based rational thinking of science and technology, but rather with an objective viewpoint that refuses to apply this rational thinking to subjective Mercy experiences. The problem is not that science and technology use rational Teacher understanding, but rather that scientists and technologists are not applying this rational thinking to their personal Mercy identities.

Looking at the angelic analog, angels would turn their back upon following the Holy Spirit rationally if it became apparent that this was leading to bad ‘personal’ results for angels and angelic society in Teacher thought. This has happened with the charismatic renewal. Irrational Pentecostalism was followed by the more rational charismatic renewal, which turned into the current third-wave that is guided primarily by psychological principles. The end result has been a collapse of respect for the Teacher order-within-complexity of the Bible, theology, God, and even human society. What is emerging now is a renewal of ancient church rituals and liturgies as exemplified by the Orthodox Christian Church. Mental symmetry suggests that the problem is not with the human-based psychology and organization of modern churches. Instead the problem is a mystical viewpoint that refuses to apply this rational thinking to the character of God in Teacher thought. The problem is not that the third-wave church uses rational psychology, but rather that these cognitive principles are not being applied to Christian doctrine in Teacher thought. Angels live in Teacher order and find Teacher chaos painful. They require messages that express Teacher order just as humans require Mercy experiences that are pleasurable rather than painful. Thus, symmetry suggests that angels will only participate in a charismatic renewal as long as this renewal continues to emphasize Teacher order. And if angels stop participating, then this means that the miracles will stop. Thus, if one wants help from angels to continue, then it is imperative to view following the Holy Spirit as an expression of Teacher order and not as a violation of divine Teacher order.

I am sure that there is more to this discussion, but I am just starting to work out the various implications.

Protein Formation (2020)

The rest of this essay was added in 2020. The next sections may be a slight oversimplification because I am not an expert in biochemistry. Instead, I got most of these ideas from a biochemistry textbook called Biochemistry by Berg, Tymoczko, and Stryer (I have the fifth Edition). The rest of this essay will be quoting extensively from this textbook. I have not given the page numbers for these quotes but one can find the original source by googling a fragment of the quote. It is possible that I have made some mistakes. However, I do have a working knowledge of chemistry, so I think that I have managed to avoid making any egregious errors. I am quoting from this textbook and this Edition because I found a copy at a garage sale and it seems to be a standard text. Presumably one could find similar quotes in other biochemistry textbooks.

The principle of Teacher to Mercy back to Teacher described in this essay is the guiding principle of biology. The path from Teacher to Mercy can be seen in the formation of proteins. Each human cell contains about one billion proteins, and proteins carry out almost all functions in cells. A protein takes the form of a three-dimensional structure, and acts as a building block of biological activity. But a protein is not fundamentally a three-dimensional structure. Instead, a protein is a linear sequence of amino acids. This linear sequence then folds in upon itself to form a three-dimensional structure. The function of a protein emerges as the chain of individual amino acids acquire their three-dimensional shape. Using the language of this essay, a protein is a Teacher string, and the Mercy function of a protein is an emergent property that emerges when the Teacher string forms into a Mercy clump.

This needs to be repeated. Mercy thought thinks naturally in terms of living entities. But all (or almost all) biological activity is actually generated by proteins that are composed of Teacher strings that have clumped into Mercy objects. There is no such thing as inherent biological activity in Mercy thought. Instead, all (almost all?) biological activity is an emergent property resulting from Teacher sequences of amino acids that have folded in upon themselves to form what the mind interprets as Mercy-based biological activity. This reflects precisely the relationship between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit being described in this essay.

When a protein experiences excessive stress, then it will unfold and lose its three-dimensional structure. This is known as denaturation. For instance, denaturation occurs when a cell is heated beyond about 50°C. This happens to proteins when cooking food. When the proteins of a cell are denatured, then cell function will be disrupted and the cell will eventually die. Protein denaturation also occurs when cells die.

Denaturation is the biological analog to mysticism, because the derived Mercy structure of a protein is returning back to its primordial Teacher essence. Looking at this further, proteins increase their activity when heated. But if they are heated too much, then they start to denature and protein activity ceases. Similarly, one can find spiritual and emotional energy through episodes of mystical worship. But mysticism only works if it does not really work. If it were possible for humans to achieve the supposedly desired goal of becoming totally unified with God, then a human soul would become denatured and lose its identity in the primordial Teacher energy of God. (I am not saying that denaturation is mysticism. Instead, I am observing that the physical process of denaturation is like the mental process of pursuing mysticism. This is significant because it means that there is a deep cognitive similarity between the human mind and the human body.)

The construction of proteins, lipids, and polysaccharides depends upon the information stored in DNA. Lipids primarily form cell walls, while polysaccharides are long chains that provide structure and energy. A DNA molecule is a very long ladder-like chain in which the rungs provide genetic information. For instance, chromosome 1, which is the largest human chromosome, is a twisted ladder of genetic information that has approximately 220,000,000 rungs. If stretched out into a straight line, it would be 85 mm long.

Using computer language, each rung contains two bits of information. That is because DNA uses four nucleotides, which are referred to as A, T, C, and G. Biological life is based upon twenty amino acids. All proteins in all species, from bacteria to human, are composed of the same twenty amino acids. Each amino acid is denoted by three rungs of the DNA sequence. In other words, DNA uses a three letter code to represent each amino acid. This is known as the genetic code, and each three letter sequence is known as a codon. (There are also two other amino acids that occur rarely. And researchers have just started to become capable of modifying DNA to construct artificial amino acids that are not found in nature. But almost all natural life uses only twenty amino acids almost all of the time.)

Summarizing, a DNA molecule is a long string of information that is divided into three-rung codons. Each codon represents one of twenty amino acids. A protein is a string of amino acids that is constructed by reading and interpreting the appropriate sequence from a section of DNA. For instance, one small section of the DNA sequence of the HIV-1 virus is GGG|TTC|GGA|GCA|GGA|AGC… This leads to the corresponding amino acid sequence of Gly-Phe-Leu-Gly-Ala-Ala-Gly-Ser. The average human protein is composed of a sequence of about five hundred amino acids.

The specific amino acids and the order in which they occur will determine how a protein folds in on itself in order to form a three-dimensional structure. (The final shape of a protein may also depend to some extent upon the external influences from the immediate environment.) This transition from linear sequence of amino acids to functioning three-dimensional shape occurs in four stages. The primary structure is the sequence of amino acids, which has just been discussed. Atomic forces of attraction and repulsion between the various amino acids will then cause the secondary structure to emerge. There are two main forms of secondary structure. The first is the alpha helix, in which the chain of amino acids coil into a long spiral. The second is the beta sheet, in which the chain of amino acids runs back and forth in order to form a sheet, somewhat like the threads of a fabric.

Something similar happens when the mind uses words to form a general theory. A verbal theory is composed of a sequence of words, such as the sequence of words in this essay. Teacher words are composed of letters, and words are combined to form sentences and paragraphs. Similarly, a protein is composed of a sequence of amino acids. Amino acids are described using the codons of three letter DNA sequences, and amino acids are combined to form the sentences and paragraphs of a functioning protein.

When one constructs a general theory, one uses Server thought and Perceiver thought to organize a string of Teacher words into the ‘three dimensional structure’ of a general theory. A Teacher theory may emphasize Server sequences, leading to theories that are like alpha helixes in the sense that they are long and sparse. A Teacher theory may also emphasize Perceiver facts, leading to theories that are like beta sheets in the sense that they are short and bushy. Saying this more clearly, Server thought adds length to a theory by describing chains of events and steps of action. A Server theory is like a recipe with a sequence of steps to follow. In contrast, Perceiver thought adds breadth to a theory by showing how one sequence is similar to another. For instance, this paragraph is describing how the process of protein formation is similar to the process of constructing a Teacher theory. A good general theory has both Server length and Perceiver breadth.

The tertiary structure of a protein is provided indirectly by water. 70% of the human body is water. Most biological activity occurs within this aqueous environment, which means that cellular folding occurs within water. Some amino acids are hydrophobic; they are repelled from water. Other amino acids are hydrophilic; they are attracted to water. Amino acids that are hydrophobic will tend to form a clump in the middle in order to avoid the surrounding water while amino acids that are hydrophilic will be drawn to the surface by the attraction of the water. When some parts of a protein string are trying to avoid water while other parts are being attracted by water, then this will cause a three-dimensional form to emerge. Using the language of this essay, the Teacher string will form a Mercy clump.

Something similar happens in the mind. Liquid represents Mercy experiences, and water is the form of liquid that is most commonly encountered. This symbolism of liquid representing Mercy experiences has been used throughout these essays and is one of the basic symbols used when interpreting Scripture. It is also a cognitively natural symbol. That is because Mercy thought becomes naturally filled with disconnected emotional experiences that ‘slosh to and fro’. These acquire mental stability as Perceiver thought searches the ‘water’ of Mercy experiences for solid connections. For instance, we talk metaphorically about being ‘in over our head’ or ‘swept off our feet’. We also talk about ‘holding on to what is solid’ or ‘finding the ground dissolve from under us’.

The ‘water’ of Mercy experiences naturally shapes Teacher theories through forces of attraction and repulsion. The end result is that theories naturally divide into objective and subjective aspects. For instance, Perceiver thought finds it difficult to determine facts in the presence of strong Mercy emotions. This leads naturally to objective thought, in which Perceiver thought tries to protect itself from being emotionally overwhelmed by avoiding the ‘water’ of emotional Mercy experiences. But Perceiver (and Server) thought can also be used to categorize emotional experiences, leading to the formation of subjective thought, in which mental networks with their implicit Perceiver connections and Server sequences are attracted to the ‘water’ of emotional Mercy experiences. The former leads to the physical sciences, while the latter leads to the social sciences. Summarizing, tertiary structure comes from an outside force exerted by the environment in which the protein is being folded—or the theory is being constructed, and this tertiary structure is the result of some aspects of the protein (or theory) being repelled by the environment and other aspects being attracted to the environment.

Using the language of this essay, a transition has just been made from Teacher thought to Mercy thought, from primordial Teacher string to Mercy emotion. Mercy thought has now emerged as an entity that is independent of Teacher thought.

The final level of quaternary structure functions spatially. Sections of the sequence of amino acids have folded up to form various spatial forms. These forms can now be assembled like lego blocks to form the final spatial structure. Similarly, once Mercy experiences form within the mind as an independent entities, it then becomes possible to use Perceiver thought to combine these independent entities into the general structure of an object.

Human medicine functions at the tertiary and quaternary levels. Medicine assumes that a physical body is composed of living tissue, and the bottom line for medicine is to ensure that living tissue does not die but rather remains alive throughout a medical procedure. Saying this another way, medicine must prevent proteins from becoming denatured, which means never regressing to the primary and secondary stages. Surgery functions at the quaternary spatial stage, in which one cuts living tissue apart or stitches it together The assumption is that if a physician properly reassembles clumps of living matter, then this will allow the body to heal itself. In other words, performing quaternary-like intervention will assist the tertiary functioning. (A surgeon may be cutting apart and stitching together millions of proteins, but a surgeon is still performing the kind of intervention that happens during the quaternary stage.) Summarizing, surgery is an example of human activity that begins by assuming the existence of Mercy thought. But Mercy thought is not a basic entity, proven by the fact that not all operations are successful. Patients may die.

And surgery is also a choice. One can choose to act like a soldier who kills people by disassembling living bodies into dead chunks of tissue, or one can choose to act like a surgon who attempts to save people by reassembling chunks of dying tissue. A soldier is driven primarily by Mercy feelings of ‘us’ versus ‘them’; a physician is driven primarily by a Teacher desire to restore the order-within-complexity of a living body.

A similar statement can be said about using drugs to treat medical conditions. Here too the assumption is that one is dealing with living tissue, because a drug functions by modifying the behavior of proteins, but proteins will only behave if they remain within their folded state.

Righteousness

Before we continue, we need to look briefly at the concept of righteousness. Thomas Kuhn pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between the thinking of philosophy and the thinking of science. Quoting from his famous book, “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of this book. Exemplars will therefore require more attention than the other sorts of components of the disciplinary matrix. Philosophers of science have not ordinarily discussed the problems encountered by a student in laboratories or in science texts, for these are thought to supply only practice in the application of what the student already knows. He cannot, it is said, solve problems at all unless he has first learned the theory and some rules for applying it. Scientific knowledge is embedded in theory and rules; problems are supplied to gain facility in their application. I have tried to argue, however, that this localization of the cognitive content of science is wrong. After the student has done many problems, he may gain only added facility by solving more. But at the start and for some time after, doing problems is learning consequential things about nature. In the absence of such exemplars, the laws and theories he has previously learned would have little empirical content.”

In other words, the philosopher thinks that one can use words in Teacher thought to construct rational theories in Teacher thought and then add Server actions as an afterthought. In contrast, science is based in exemplars. An exemplar is a combination of Teacher words and Server actions. One learns about the Teacher words of science by performing the Server actions of solving problems. Similarly, the Teacher words of science describe the Server actions of Nature; they describe how the natural world behaves. When one is learning about science, one cannot separate words from actions. Thus, one must speak of exemplars rather than theories. An exemplar is a specific action that illustrates a general theory. For example, suppose that one learns how to calculate the path that a ball takes when it is thrown through the air. One is also learning how to solve all similar problems, because the same steps can be used to calculate the path of any object traveling through the air.

One can also see this distinction when comparing books with computer programs. A book is composed of static words. These words may describe a general theory, but they sit there and do not do anything. In contrast, a computer program is composed of words that do, because a computer will interpret the words of a computer program as a sequence of steps to perform.

This same distinction can be seen in biochemistry. DNA contains the message of life. It is like a book of life. But this message is translated into a sequence of amino acids, and this string of amino acids folds into a shape that performs some function. In other words, the words of DNA act.

Righteousness describes the quality of translating Teacher understanding into Server actions. One does not just talk, one also walks the talk. (Using the language of mental networks, a general Teacher theory of ‘how things work’ turns into a TMN and this exerts emotional pressure to perform Server actions that are consistent with the structure of the TMN. Saying this another way, righteousness is an emotional drive to behave in a manner that is consistent with the character of God.) For humans, righteousness is an option, because one can follow a path of philosophy and assume that Teacher understanding can be divorced from Server application. This same assumption pervades a lot of theology, because theologians tend to think that one can discuss abstract theological concepts in a purely verbal manner without having to apply these concepts in some manner. Using religious language, humans become righteous by choosing to follow a concept of God in Teacher thought rather than being motivated by concepts of people in Mercy thought. This is described by Jesus in the beginning of Matthew 6.

Biological life is inherently righteous because the words of DNA are automatically applied through the actions of proteins. Similarly, angelic beings would also be inherently righteous because they would inhabit ‘bodies’ that automatically made a transition from the primordial Teacher nature of God to some angelic Server sequence.

Evolution and Protein Folding

Let us turn now to the theory of evolution. This is appropriate because evolution is used as the integrating theory for biochemistry. One can determine the domain of a theory by observing what happens if one violates or rejects this theory. For instance, if one rejects the law of gravity, then it is only a matter of time before one steps off a cliff and plunges to one’s death. Thus, the law of gravity is a law of physics that is enforced by natural cause-and-effect. The four stages of protein folding that we have just examined describe fundamental principles of life. If one violates these principles, then one will end up with denatured proteins and dead bodies. The theory of evolution is unusual, because one can reject it for one’s entire lifetime without experiencing any negative physical consequences. Nevertheless, the theory of evolution is vigorously proclaimed and defended in academic circles. One concludes that the theory of evolution meets a psychological need. Thus, it is appropriate to analyze the theory of evolution from a cognitive perspective.

We have seen that there is a cognitive analog to the four stages of protein folding. We have also seen that medicine functions at the cognitive equivalent of the tertiary and quaternary stages of protein folding. Using cognitive language, medicine starts by assuming the existence of emotional experiences in Mercy thought and then uses Perceiver thought to modify or rearrange Mercy mental networks. (Remember that the mind represents living beings as MMNs—collections of emotional experiences within Mercy thought.)

The theory of evolution was also initially formulated at a Mercy level. Physical differences, such as the shape of beaks on finches, the size of horses, or the color of moths were compared and then explained in terms of environmental effects. In other words, the quaternary stage in which living matter is physically and spatially modified was explained using the tertiary stage of influence being exerted by the environment. The theory of evolution did not include the primary and secondary stages because Darwin had no knowledge of these initial stages. Instead, for Darwin, the cell was a black box.

Biochemistry has now learned that a living cell is not just a black box. Instead, it is composed primarily of proteins, and a protein is actually a linear string of amino acids, whose sequence is determined by a string of information stored in the DNA. Thus, the theory of evolution now talks about DNA evolving in order to produce life. But there is still a fundamental disconnect between the theory of evolution and what the theory of evolution is trying to explain. Evolution now attempts to explain the primary stage involving Teacher strings as well as the secondary stage of using Server sequences and Perceiver connections to organize these Teacher sequences. But the starting point for the theory of evolution is the primordial soup, a hypothetical bath of liquid in which life supposedly initially emerged. But what cognitively is a primordial soup? It is a Mercy environment composed of disconnected Mercy experiences. It is the cognitive (and literal?) equivalent of the tertiary stage in which protein folding is being affected by some liquid environment—and liquid symbolizes the world of Mercy experiences. Thus, evolution is attempting to explain a process that begins with Teacher thought by using a process that starts with Mercy thought, even though the data that are being explained make it clear that Teacher thought is ultimately the starting point and not Mercy thought. Thus, the theory of evolution is fundamentally confused at a cognitive level, which is a serious defect when one is constructing a theory to meet a psychological need.

Going further, the theory of evolution uses physical mechanisms to explain cognitive development. For instance, the cognitive science of religion (CSR) uses the myth of the fleeing native. Looking at this in more detail, CSR uses the cognitive mechanism of a hyperactive agency detection device to explain religious impulses. In simple terms, if one hears a noise in the middle of the night, the mind will jump to the conclusion that some burglar is present. Similarly, if one encounters some unexplained event, then the mind will naturally jump to the conclusion that some supernatural intelligent agent is responsible. This is a valid cognitive mechanism, which mental symmetry explains using the concept of mental networks.

The problem arises when one uses the theory of evolution to explain the origin of this cognitive mechanism. CSR suggests that proto-humans living in the jungle who had a working agency detection device heard noises in the middle of the night, jumped mentally to the conclusion that some predator was close by, ran to physical safety, and thus survived to pass on their genes. The problem with this explanation is that it operates purely at the tertiary level of environmental pressure. It does not explain how the agency detection device functions cognitively, nor how it came into being in the first place. Instead, it explains how a protohuman who already possessed a working agency detection device would have survived to pass this on to the next generation. Saying this another way, this attempts to explain cognitive mechanisms in a manner that ignores cognition. Saying this more carefully, cognition is like the primary and secondary stages of protein folding, in which primordial pieces of information are being organized and folded in order to generate Mercy ‘gut feelings’, such as those exhibited by an agency detection device, but the theory of evolution starts at the tertiary stage of environmental pressure and does not go back to more primordial stages.

My professional training is in engineering. As an engineer, I find these kinds of tertiary explanations, in which one assumes that some functioning mechanism already exists, to be painfully inadequate, because the job of an engineer is to design and construct these mechanisms. When shown some mechanism, the immediate impulse of an engineer is to ask “How does this work? How would one build this?” The typical academic does not recognize at a gut level the need to ask such primary and secondary questions, because academia functions within a pre-existing physical environment that was designed by engineers, constructed by skilled tradesmen, and is maintained by technicians.

Looking at this more generally, I have suggested that the theory of evolution meets a psychological need. But what psychological need does evolution meet? One can answer this question by looking at what the theory of evolution rejects. Evolution rejects the concept of a God of magic. Religion has traditionally viewed the origin of the universe as an all-powerful and all-knowing God mysteriously and magically stepping in to create life and the physical universe through some incomprehensible process. This is an example of Teacher overgeneralization, in which one proposes a universal theory in Teacher thought by making a sweeping statement that ignores all the details. The theory of evolution replaces this incomprehensible mystery with known physical mechanisms, suggesting that it is possible to explain the origins of life using existing biological mechanisms, without having to appeal to some transcendent and mysterious God. Similarly, biochemistry uses known principles of chemistry to explain the seemingly mysterious mechanisms of biological life. Saying this more simply, evolution attempts to replace magical thinking and Teacher overgeneralization with a rationally constructed general Teacher theory.

But the theory of evolution does not really accomplish this task, because it proposes a theory that ignores the primary and secondary stages of protein folding. We have seen that what happens during the primary and secondary stages of protein folding is like what happens in the mind when constructing a rational general theory; one starts with strings of intelligible speech in Teacher thought and then uses Perceiver facts and Server sequences to organize these words into a theoretical structure. Thus, even though evolution claims to do such rational theorizing, it is fundamentally a theory that ignores rational theorizing.

Summarizing, the theory of evolution starts with the tertiary stage of a primordial soup and then extends from there to the quaternary stage of assembling the elements of life in order to generate advanced lifeforms. Evolution is accepted as a theory primarily because it claims to use all four stages when it is thinking—it claims to go beyond ‘some living supernatural being magically created the universe’ to ‘the tertiary stage of life emerging and the quaternary stage of life increasing in complexity can be explained using a rational Teacher theory’. But constructing a rational Teacher theory means functioning mentally at the primary and secondary stages of protein folding. And according to evolution, protein formation is related to rational thought, because evolution claims that external tertiary and quaternary mechanisms are ultimately capable of explaining all human activity and all human thought. But how can a theory that emphasizes the tertiary and quaternary stages claim to explain thinking that uses all four stages? Similarly, how can a theory that describes only the tertiary and quaternary stages claim to explain biological processes that use all four stages? How can a theory even claim to be a theory if it ignores the primary and secondary stages of thought that are involved in constructing a theory?

Instead, evolution replaces the primary and secondary stages with the mechanism of random mutations. In other words, evolution says that life developed primarily as a result of mistakes in DNA replication. But DNA replication is extremely accurate. The biochemistry textbook that I read said that a DNA transcription error occurs once in about 500 million transcriptions. Thus, not only does the theory of evolution ignore the primary and secondary stages of protein folding, but it bases its ‘rational’ explanations primarily in events that happen extremely rarely. And the vast majority of random mutations are harmful. When one builds a rational theory upon events that are utterly improbable and almost always head in the wrong direction when they do happen, then one has returned cognitively to the realm of magic and mystery. One has merely reformulated a more scientifically acceptable form of miracle—and the theory of evolution was initially formulated to avoid having to appeal to miracles.

The alternative is to come up with a theory of life that explicitly includes the primary and secondary stages of protein unfolding. One can do this by postulating the existence of angels and aliens: primordial Teacher-based forms of life who inhabit realms that are more primordial and Teacher-based. This leads to the general hypothesis that God is a primordial Teacher being who initially created more elementary lifeforms in Teacher thought, and that these elementary lifeforms then assisted him in the task of designing Mercy-based physical life and humanity. (This hypothesis is expanded in another essay.) It is curious that most alien myths suggest that alien beings have manipulated human DNA. And Job 38:7 quotes God as telling Job that “the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy” when the “foundation of the earth” was laid. (The passage on Nephilim in Genesis 6 would then be interpreted as rogue angels manipulating human DNA. I know that the Nephilim are often mentioned on strange UFO websites, and there may be something to those comments. However, this essay will attempt to pursue this hypothesis in a more rigorous manner.)

I should emphasize that what I am suggesting is quite different than the idea that laminin provides evidence of Christianity because it is shaped like a cross and helps to hold cells together. First, the laminin argument is based upon physical shape, and we have already seen that physical shape is not the starting point. Second, the laminin argument is based upon some obscure detail of biochemistry, consistent with the concept of a God-of-the-gaps who intervenes to overturn laws of nature in obscure ways. Instead, I am connecting a concept of God with the primary process of generating human life—generality being connected with generality. And this connection is cognitively appropriate because DNA contains the sequences of information that generate life, Teacher thought is the part of the mind that works with sequences of information, and a concept of God emerges when a general theory in Teacher thought applies to mental networks of life in Mercy thought.

Evolutionary research uses probability to compare the amino acid sequence of one protein with that of another in order to determine how closely related they are. This type of comparative research is useful. But how should it be interpreted? I suggest that it does not make sense to use probability to evaluate the details of a theory that is fundamentally based upon utter improbability. That is like putting together a carefully business plan outlining how I will use the money that I hope to win by buying a lottery ticket. Instead, I suggest that it makes more sense to view protein similarities as design choices made by Teacher-based alien/angelic designers. This alternative interpretation is consistent with examples such as globin proteins, where proteins that have very similar three-dimensional shapes and functions are constructed out of amino acids chains that are quite dissimilar. This type of substitution occurs often in engineering, where some part is replaced by an equivalent part that has the same function but is constructed in a different manner. But it is difficult to see how gradual evolutionary changes could lead away from a desired function and then back to that same function. That is because evolution is a form of local optimization, and it is very difficult for local optimization to find a solution that is on the other side of some hill. Consistent with this suggestion, an extensive analysis of gene databases shows that common design fits the evidence better than common ancestry.

Going further, one primary assumption of the theory of evolution is that only the physical universe exists. But modern physics now postulates that most of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, even though there is zero direct physical evidence for the existence of either dark matter or dark energy. Thus, it is possible that so-called dark matter and energy are actually physical influences being exerted by supernatural aspects of the universe. I do not know exactly what this means. Instead, I am pointing out that it does not make sense for the theory of evolution to proclaim with such vigor that only physical matter and energy exist while at the same time physics is proclaiming with equal vigor that there is far more to existence than physical matter and energy. These two statements cannot be simultaneously correct. And when one examines fundamental contradictions inherent in the theory of evolution, one finds that it may be possible to resolve these contradictions by postulating that there is more to existence than just physical matter and energy. I have tried to pursue this topic further in the essay on physics.

Evolutionary biology has done a lot of research comparing the genetic sequences of various proteins within different forms of life. This is useful and interesting work. But how should this work be interpreted? It is typically interpreted as evidence for the process of evolution. In other words, it is interpreted using time within the physical universe. But Teacher strings and Teacher theories are evaluated by abstract thought, which functions outside of time and extends beyond the concrete experiences of the physical universe.

Looking at this further, one of the basic principles of physics is that concrete thought involves an arrow of time while abstract thought does not. In other words, physical existence is determined by cause-and-effect, in which cause precedes effect. For instance, one drops an object and then it hits the ground. But when one translates these concrete experiences into the abstract language of mathematics, then there is no longer an arrow of time. One can start with a cause and use math to calculate the effect, or one can start with the effect and use math to calculate the cause. Similarly, stories of alien encounters suggest that aliens function within a Teacher realm that is in some manner outside of normal physical time, and Christian doctrine also states that God exists outside of time. Summarizing, when one postulates that more primordial Teacher-based beings have assisted in the development of physical life, then the question of time becomes malleable. That is because the process is ultimately being driven by beings who function in some manner outside of time. Instead of functioning within time, they appear to function within structure and generality. It seems that they view the passage of ‘time’ as performing the steps that are involved in constructing a general theory. I do not know exactly what this means, because I am a human being locked by my physical body within the arrow of time. But one can conclude that an adequate theory about the origins of life cannot be dogmatic when it comes to matters of time and duration. One should not mock an opposing theory of origins simply because it talks about different lengths of time.

Time?

One can go further with this idea. One major problem with the theory of evolution is that partial traits are worse than no traits at all. For instance, one classic objection regards the evolution of the eye. An eye contains many interacting parts which all have to be in place before the eye becomes fully functional. However, the theory of evolution demands that the various parts of the eye emerged gradually, one mutation at a time. A similar problem arises with protein folding. The shape that a protein takes when it folds is largely determined by the sequence of amino acids, but also partially dependent upon the environment. (There are proteins known as chaperones which help to ensure that proteins fold correctly.) This leads to a chicken-and-eggs sort of problem. Correct protein folding requires the right environment, but the right environment will only emerge if proteins are already folding correctly. A similar statement could be made about the entire process of protein fabrication, because proteins will only be constructed if a system exists to construct proteins, but the system to construct proteins is itself constructed out of proteins. Looking at this in more detail, most biological reactions occur far too slowly to support life. Therefore, enzymes are need to speed up natural processes, often by a factor of a million or more. However, the function of an enzyme is determined by its three-dimensional shape, and an enzyme is a protein that acquires its shape through the process of protein folding.

One concludes that any development of life would have to occur over a very short period of time because many elements would have to be put into place almost simultaneously. There is a version of the theory of evolution known as punctuated equilibrium that heads in this direction, which suggests that most evolutionary change happened in short bursts that were interspersed by long periods of stability. The problem with punctuated equilibrium is that it explicitly changes the theory of evolution from being based in normal natural processes to being based in a violation of natural processes, because it suggests that the normal stability of natural processes is occasionally interrupted by short bursts of evolutionary change. One may as well go one step further and state explicitly that God is occasionally intervening in some magical fashion to override natural law.

However, our look at protein folding provides a possible alternative. We have seen that there is a deep correspondence between the four stages of protein folding and human thought. We have also seen that humans naturally assume that existence starts at the tertiary stage of Mercy interaction. That is because humans live in physical bodies that start at this tertiary stage of Mercy interaction; humans grow up assuming that Mercy thought is the ultimate starting point. My general hypothesis is that humans and aliens have the same kinds of minds. If this is true, then it is reasonable to hypothesize that there is also a deep correspondence between the four stages of protein folding and alien thought. And I have just suggested that aliens focus mentally upon the primary and secondary stages because they have primordial ‘bodies’ that naturally function at a Teacher level within these first two stages.

During the secondary stage, a long string of amino acids folds in on itself and becomes a compact structure, which then starts to be affected by the environment in the tertiary stage. There is a deep correspondence between concrete thought and the human physical body. If there is also a correspondence between abstract thought and alien ‘bodies’, then this leads to the suggestion that alien ‘time’ can fold in on itself when a transition is made from alien Teacher ‘existence’ to human Mercy existence. Saying this more clearly, it may have taken many steps of ‘time’ for aliens (and angels) to assist God in designing the various details of physical life. But when this got translated into physical existence, then the alien ‘time’ folded in on itself, resulting in very little physical time on the physical earth. Something like this had to have happened, because partially developed physical traits are not viable.

I am not suggesting that aliens/angels went back in time whenever a protein folded back upon itself, because that equates protein folding with alien ‘time’. The analogies present in the universe do not appear to function in that manner. For instance, surgery is like the quaternary stage of protein folding, because in both cases proteins are being spatially rearranged. But a surgeon is doing this spatial rearranging with billions of proteins at a time, while the quaternary stage reassembles individual proteins. Similarly, I suggest that moving from alien/angelic development of life to the physical appearance of life was like what one sees happening during protein folding. This kind of similarity is quite common in physics, because the same mathematical equations can often be used to describe physical processes that appear on the surface to be totally different. When one process is like another process, then this increases Teacher feelings of order-within-complexity.

I will finish this section by quoting a paragraph from the end of the article on physics. (This paragraph refers to two forms of symbolism that are developed in the essay on physics.) Relativity provides a possible way of reconciling a young earth with an old universe. Special relativity says that time slows down when an object approaches the speed of light. Symbolically, this means behaving in a manner that more closely reflects the righteousness of God. General relativity says that time slows down when an object is within a strong gravitational field. Symbolically, if gravity reflects the attraction of MMNs, then a strong gravitational field would be associated with the presence of God the Spirit. Creating intelligent life upon the earth would have required a significant local presence of both of God the Father and God the Spirit. This extensive, localized, divine presence might have caused extreme dilation of time on earth, while time would have passed far more quickly elsewhere in the universe. There is no way of proving if this is the case, but it is curious that altered time is a common theme in fairy folklore, which presumably describes a much milder form of supernatural intervention within human reality.

Looking more generally at the Big Bang theory, the evolution of stars and planets makes mathematical sense and is physically reasonable. However, when one applies the concept of evolution to life, then one ends up with a surfeit of insurmountable problems. Evidence suggests that the physical universe developed slowly over a long period of time. But evidence also demands that physical life emerged very abruptly. The idea of extreme time dilation limited to the physical earth provides a possible way of reconciling these two conflicting demands.

Evolution and Physiological versus Psychological Stress

We have looked at the cognitive relationship between the theory of evolution and protein folding. One can also examine the theory of evolution in terms of the distinction made earlier between physiological stress and psychological stress. This kind of examination is appropriate because physiological and psychological stress are experienced by the mind, and the theory of evolution meets a psychological need.

Physiological stress is mediated by Facilitator thought. When a person encounters a physical crisis, then Facilitator thought takes over in order to preserve the integrity of the physical body. In contrast, when a person encounters a psychological crisis, then Exhorter thought takes over in order to successfully navigate the emotional realm of mental networks. In terms of the four stages of protein folding, a physical crisis threatens to tear apart a living organism so that it reverts back to the non-functioning, denatured stage of existing as disconnected and unfolded Teacher strings. In contrast, a psychological crisis can only emerge when living organisms interact as living organisms. Cognitively speaking, a psychological crisis is a byproduct of functioning mental networks, and the mind uses mental networks to represent living organisms. Going further, Facilitator thought uses random experimentation to come up with changes, while Exhorter thought is guided by the emotions that are contained within mental networks.

With this in mind, let us look at the theory of evolution. The primary mechanism suggested by evolution is random change. Going the other way, evolution vigorously rejects teleological thinking—the idea that development is heading in the direction of some goal. Using cognitive language, evolution emphasizes Facilitator thought while rejecting Exhorter thought. Facilitator thought becomes dominant in a physical crisis. Similarly, evolution regards existence as a struggle for survival in which only the fittest survive. Saying this another way, evolution says that physiological stress is the primary driving force for the development of life. But physiological stress by its very nature is not a forward-looking process. Instead, it is a backward-looking process in which one attempts as a living organism to resist being torn apart in some manner. Consistent with this, evolutionary dogma acknowledges that it is permissible to look back and observe how human life has developed, but it forbids looking forward and suggesting that life is heading in some direction towards some goal. Thus, one sees cognitively that the theory of evolution is an expression of Facilitator thought.

Exhorter thought, in contrast, is driven by goals. Saying this another way, the Exhorter person naturally emphasizes hope. Exhorter thought gets its goals from the emotions that are present in Mercy mental networks (MMN) and Teacher mental networks (TMN). As I have mentioned several times, the mind uses MMNs to represent living beings, and a concept of God emerges when a general theory that applies to personal identity turns into a TMN. (A theory will naturally turn into a TMN if it continues to be used.) Evolution officially rejects the idea that the universe and life were created by an intelligent, Teacher-like, divine being. Evolution also emphasizes that the individual is irrelevant. It is the species that is progressing, while individuals in a species are condemned to a struggle of tooth and nail, as well as being cursed by having to cope with incomplete traits that have only partially emerged as a result of random genetic mutations. Using cognitive language, the theory of evolution officially rejects the MMNs and TMNs which provide the emotional content that makes Exhorter drive and psychological stress possible.

Evolution claims to be a theory of evolution—a theory of the development of life. But how can evolution be a theory of progress when it officially denies the very existence of the cognitive mechanisms that are responsible for driving progress? How can it be a theory that describes the emergence of life when it only discusses mechanisms that attempt to prevent the dissolution of life?

Going further, even though the theory of evolution officially rejects TMNs, MMNs, and any teleological thinking that might emerge as a result of mental networks, evolution is implicitly driven by TMNs and MMNs. On the Teacher side, evolutionary theorists continually talk about Nature, and Nature is always portrayed as some sort of divine, superhuman being. In addition, evolutionary theorists repeatedly talk about Nature ‘designing’ some attribute, acting as if Nature is a personal being who is attempting to bring greater Teacher order to living organisms. When challenged, evolutionary theorists will deny that they are viewing Nature as a god, but one then observes these same theorists inevitably returning to the use of language which treats Nature as a god.

For instance, consider the following sentence taken from the biochemistry textbook that I have been reading: “Chess and enzymes have in common the use of strategy, consciously thought out in the game of chess and selected by evolution for the action of an enzyme.” Notice how evolution is being described as a chess grandmaster who applied this high-level thinking at some distant time in the past. Or from the same textbook, “An elegant solution to the problem of fuel transport evolved early and has been tailored to meet the needs of different organisms and even different tissues.” Here, evolution is coming up with elegant, tailored solutions. Or “We see here an example of a successful biochemical solution to the problem of phosphorylation being employed many times in the course of evolution.” Here, evolution is applying successful solutions over many lifetimes. Or “The synthesis of tryptophan poses a challenge. Indole, a hydrophobic molecule, readily traverses membranes and would be lost from the cell. If it were allowed to die fuse away from the enzyme. This problem is solved in an ingenious way.’ Here, evolution is solving problems in an ingenious manner. Or “The evolution of the cascade provided many more regulatory sites and made possible finer tuning of the flow of nitrogen in the cell” Evolution is now performing fine tuning. And the following sentences seem almost religious in their worship of evolution: “That molecules and motives of metabolism are common to all forms of life testifies to their common origin, and to the retention of functioning modules through billions of years of evolution. Our understanding of metabolism, like that of other biological processes, is enriched by inquiry into how these beautifully integrated patterns of reactions came into being.”

Looking at this from a different perspective, one of the basic principles of randomness is that one cannot find any patterns. If one can find patterns in a sequence of random numbers, then that sequence is not truly random. The biochemistry textbook repeatedly points out general patterns that are observed when comparing the biochemistry of different living organisms. These are interesting and worthy insights, but the very fact that one is discussing patterns indicates that one is no longer dealing with random processes. Something or someone is guiding the process. For instance, “We see here another example of a reoccurring theme in biochemistry: many biosynthetic reactions are made irreversible by the hydrolysis of inorganic pyrophosphate.” Or “Fatty acid synthesis is not simply a reversal of the degradative pathway. Rather it consists of a new set of reactions, again exemplifying the principle that synthetic and degradative pathways are almost always distinct.” “Membranes are structurally and functionally asymmetric. The outer and inner surfaces of all known biological membranes have different components and different enzymatic activities.” “This quality control system reveals an important principle: carbohydrates carry information.” And the final quote explicitly ascribes a pattern to the supposedly random solutions of evolution: “Thus, convergent evolution has generated carbonic anhydrases that rely on coordinated zinc ions at least three times. In each case, the catalytic activity appears to be associated with zinc-bound water molecules.”

I am not questioning any of the statements, but rather pointing out that random processes do not lead to patterns. If patterns exist, then one is not dealing with a random process. Instead, something or someone is guiding the development in a certain direction. For instance, consider the following sentence: “An error frequency of about 10^-4 per amino acid was selected in the course of evolution to accurately produce proteins consisting of as many as 1000 amino acids while maintaining a remarkable rapid rate for protein synthesis.” So, a random process is selecting to function at a certain level of randomness guided by a need to avoid randomness. Huh?

Looking at this more generally, I notice that every time that the biochemistry textbook describes some unusual trait, it always attempts to come up with a rational explanation for this trait, and it always seems to succeed. For instance, “The role of the poly (A) tail is still no firmly established despite much effort. However, evidence that it enhances translation efficiency and the stability of mRNA is accumulating.” Random processes have no rational explanation because they are random. Again, one sees that evolution is being treated implicitly as an intelligent superhuman agent. One may officially state that evolution functions randomly, but one is acting as if evolution is intelligent, and actions speak louder than words.

On the Mercy side, evolutionary theory insists that the individual is merely a byproduct of environmental pressure and the development of the species. However, the theory of evolution meets a psychological need, and psychology describes what is happening within the minds of individual people. Thus, the theory of evolution attempts to meet an internal, personal, psychological need by ignoring the internal, personal realm of psychology. Going further, rejecting the theory of evolution does not lead to harmful physical consequences, but it will often lead to significant psychological rejection; a person who questions or rejects the theory of evolution will usually be regarded within academia as psychologically deficient. Evolutionary theory is often extended to attempt to explain psychology, but one is still using a theory that officially rejects TMNs, MMNs, and psychological need to explain the emotional realm of mental networks and personal desires. One sees this inherent contradiction in the cognitive science of religion, which uses the theory of evolution to explain the function of the agency detection device. But the agency detection device is an expression of Mercy mental networks. Thus, one is using a theory which rejects the concept of mental networks to explain the function of mental networks.

The solution is to stop double-talking about God and individuals. Instead, one needs to officially recognize that when one is referring to Nature, one is talking about a concept of God, and when one is talking about the development of life, one is talking about individual humans living individual lives with personal feelings and personal goals. Saying this as simply as possible, it is absurd to talk about the human species developing over the eons while insisting that I as a human individual will cease to exist in a few decades. That is like shuffling chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Who cares about how the chairs are arranged if the entire ship is about to go down? What is the point of promoting a theory if I, the person who is promoting this theory, will soon cease to exist?

Notice that we have returned to the topic of denaturing, but now at a more personal, psychological level. What happens to me when the proteins in my physical body denature? Do I cease to exist? Or is there a more primordial form of life that involves a primordial God in Teacher thought and primordial Teacher-based beings? Going further, is it possible for me as a living human being to connect psychologically with these more primordial forms of life in order to ask them to use their primordial abilities to extend and/or reconstruct the proteins of my physical life, as well as provide both of us with an environment in which a fuller and more complete form of life is possible? This is the question that is currently consuming my mind.

Orthogonality and Evolution

The biochemistry textbook that I have been reading does provide some evidence for the theory of evolution. The rest of this essay will look at what the textbook says about evolution.

There is a concept in mathematics known as orthogonality. A problem is orthogonal if it can be broken up into separate pieces that do not depend upon one another. Orthogonality turns a complicated problem into a series of simpler problems. For instance, determining the path of some projectile that is thrown through the air may seem like a complicated problem, but this path can be divided into two orthogonal components, one in the vertical direction, and one along the horizontal direction that the projectile is traveling. The force of gravity only functions in the vertical direction, while Newton’s first law means that the velocity in the horizontal direction will not change. Thus, one can break this problem up into two simpler independent problems: The first problem involves throwing something straight up into the air, while the second problem involves rolling something along a horizontal, frictional surface. Summarizing, one can tackle many problems by dividing and conquering, but this is only possible when a problem can be broken up into orthogonal components.

The concept of orthogonality also appears in biochemistry. Quoting from Wikipedia, “An orthogonal interaction occurs when there are two pairs of substances and each substance can interact with their respective partner, but does not interact with either substance of the other pair.” The evidence that is given by the biochemistry textbook for evolution assumes orthogonality. For instance, “Many of the building blocks found in biology are unusually easy to synthesize and… significant amounts could have accumulated through the action of nonbiological processes.” If the presence of distinct building blocks provides evidence for evolution, then one is assuming orthogonality—one is assuming that the process of evolution can be subdivided into distinct stages involving independent building blocks. The text goes on to point out that there are problems with this suggestion: “There are many uncertainties. For instance, ribose is just one of many structures formed under prebiotic conditions. In addition, ribose is rather unstable under possible prebiotic conditions.” However, the text concludes that “Despite these uncertainties, an assortment of prebiotic molecules did arise in some fashion, and from this assortment, those with properties favorable for the processes that we now associate with life began to interact and form more complicated compounds.” Notice the logical leap. Many of the building blocks of life can form easily. We are not sure how these building blocks can be combined to form life. But we know that evolution must have occurred because life exists. In other words, we assume orthogonality, but the assumption of orthogonality does not seem to hold. But life exists, therefore the assumption of orthogonality must be valid.

This assumption of orthogonality is described more explicitly when attempting to explain the process of protein folding: “Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker, asked how long it would take a monkey poking randomly at a typewriter to reproduce Hamlet’s remark to Polonius, ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’… suppose that we preserve each correct character and allow the monkey to retype only the wrong ones. In this case, only a few thousand keystrokes, on average would be needed. The crucial difference between these cases is that the first employs a completely random search, whereas, in the second, partly correct intermediates are retained. The essence of protein folding is the retention of partly correct intermediates.” Thus, the complicated problem of protein folding is being broken up into distinct, orthogonal components. The theory of evolution is not explicitly mentioned in this quote, but it is being implicitly referenced, because The Blind Watchmaker is a well-known book that champions the theory of evolution. This method of retaining partly correct intermediates is used in protein folding, and later passages in the textbook describe how this happens. The general principle is that protein folding happens within a context, and this context guides the process of protein folding to ensure that it continues heading along the right path. In other words, one can subdivide the process of protein folding into orthogonal steps only because the folding is happening within an environment where there is extensive interaction and orthogonality does not apply. One can see this also in the example of monkeys typing out ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’. The hypothetical monkeys are not typing in isolation. Instead, some intelligent external entity is stepping in to stop them from typing further when they type a correct letter.

Looking briefly at the meme of monkeys typing Hamlet, “In 2003, lecturers and students with the University of Plymouth’s Institute of Digital Arts and Technology (i-DAT) finagled a £2,000 (roughly $3,665 today) grant from the school’s Arts Council to place a single computer and keyboard in the Sulawesi crested macaques enclosure at the Paignton Zoo. After a month of monkeying around with the computer, Gum, Heather, Mistletoe, Elmo, Holly and Rowan (the macaques) had produced five pages of nonsense text, but otherwise seemed to limit their screen time to urinating and/or defecating on the computer until such time as it stopped working.” Notice that the experiment failed at the more basic level of existence because the computer eventually failed to exist.

Similarly, at a cognitive level this example is not being presented in an isolated, orthogonal manner. Instead, two intelligent entities are being brought in to drive the point home. First, Richard Dawkins, a guru of evolution, is being quoted. Second, Shakespeare, an icon of English literature, is being quoted. And these entities are intervening in an intelligent manner because they are using words with meanings to intervene when the monkeys start to type words that have meanings. The example would be far less effective if it said that “John Doe, in his book sdIeeiH, asked how long it would take for monkeys to type out ‘aiwu heNm drgiuh’. At least, we think that is what the book says, but we are not certain because it contains so many random letters.”

The Facilitator person is naturally drawn to orthogonal thinking. That is because Facilitator thought adjusts and mixes in the light of fixed reference points. Thus, when faced with some complex situation, a Facilitator researcher will naturally apply a similar kind of thinking in which all parameters are kept fixed while each individual parameter is adjusted one at a time. This is an effective way of thinking, but it also implicitly assumes orthogonality, because it assumes that it is possible to adjust only one parameter without affecting the other parameters. The problem is that biological systems often give the illusion of orthogonality. That is because the operation of many enzymes can be regulated by the presence or absence of specific molecules. But there is no direct connection of cause-and-effect between the specific molecule and the operation of the corresponding enzyme. Instead, a complicated circuit of interacting elements is causing the specific molecule to act as a switch that regulates the operation of the enzyme. The result is an illusion of orthogonality.

For instance, one can see a similar principle at work in an audio amplifier: I speak into some microphone and the audio amplifier amplifies my voice, making it possible for many people to hear what I am saying. There is no direct connection between my words and the sound that is coming from the audio speakers. Instead, my voice is being transformed into an electrical signal, this signal is modulating the gain of an amplifier circuit, and this circuit is sending current through a set of electrical speakers. This complicated circuit is giving the illusion of orthogonality. Facilitator thinking, which keeps all parameters fixed while adjusting one parameter at a time, will quickly discover that the sound coming out of the speakers is almost identical to the sound coming out of my mouth. This may lead to the faulty conclusion that my voice and the sound coming out of the speaker can be regarded as isolated entities which are separate and orthogonal from the rest of the circuit. But the entire audio circuit is required to produce this illusion of orthogonality. Similarly, when one reads through a biochemistry textbook, one finds entire ‘audio circuits’ being described. But when the same textbook talks about evolution, it then acts as if orthogonality is possible, implicitly being fooled by the illusion of orthogonality.

Maintaining an illusion of orthogonality is appropriate when operating some circuit. For instance, it is important when using an audio amplifier to recognize that my voice is directly related to the sound that is coming out of a set of speakers. Similarly, most medical drugs modulate biological circuits, leading to illusions of orthogonality. It is proper for medical doctors to prescribe drugs based upon such illusions of orthogonality. But it is not proper to be fooled by illusions of orthogonality when one is trying to describe how the biological circuits were initially designed and constructed.

Moving on, the textbook suggests that evolution requires the three attributes of reproduction, variation, and selective pressure. First, “molecules that can replicate will continue to be represented in the population. Even if the lifetime of each individual molecule remain short.” But molecules do not replicate. If I leave a book sitting on the table, it will not spontaneously replicate itself and turn into two books. Instead, replication is an emergent property that becomes possible when many complicated biochemical molecules interact in a precise manner. In other words, replication violates orthogonality. One cannot take the process of biological replication and subdivide it into orthogonal steps, because subdividing a biological entity will prevent it from replicating. But saying that ‘molecules replicate’ gives the impression that the processes of replication are orthogonal—if biological life replicates, then one can also make the simpler statement that molecules replicate.

The second attribute is variation: “The replicating systems must undergo changes. After all, if the system always replicates perfectly, the replicating molecule will always be the same as the parent molecule. Evolution cannot occur.” Notice again the reference to a ‘replicating molecule’. Molecules do not replicate. Notice also that the second attribute is the opposite of the first. This meeads through a biochemistry textbook, one finds entire ‘audio circuits’ being described. But when the same textbook talks about evolution, it then acts as if orthogonality is possible, implicitly being fooled by the illusion of orthogonality.

Maintaining an illusion of orthogonality is appropriate when operating some circuit. For instance, it is important when using an audio amplifier to recognize that my voice is directly related to the sound that is coming out of a set of speakers. Similarly, most medical drugs modulate biological circuits, leading to illusions of orthogonality. It is proper for medical doctors to prescribe drugs based upon such illusions of orthogonality. But it is not proper to be fooled by illusions of orthogonality when one is trying to describe how the biological circuits were initially designed and constructed.

Moving on, the textbook suggests that evolution requires the three attributes of reproduction, variation, and selective pressure. First, “molecules that can replicate will continue to be represented in the population. Even if the lifetime of each individual molecule remain short.” But molecules do not replicate. If I leave a book sitting on the table, it will not spontaneously replicate itself and turn into two books. Instead, replication is an emergent property that becomes possible when many complicated biochemical molecules interact in a precise manner. In other words, replication violates orthogonality. One cannot take the process of biological replication and subdivide it into orthogonal steps, because subdividing a biological entity will prevent it from replicating. But saying that ‘molecules replicate’ gives the impression that the processes of replication are orthogonal—if biological life replicates, then one can also make the simpler statement that molecules replicate.

The second attribute is variation: “The replicating systems must undergo changes. After all, if the system always replicates perfectly, the replicating molecule will always be the same as the parent molecule. Evolution cannot occur.” Notice again the reference to a ‘replicating molecule’. Molecules do not replicate. Notice also that the second attribute is the opposite of the first. This means that there must be two opposite mechanisms functioning simultaneously in the same dimension. One mechanism leads to identical copies, while the other mechanism causes copies not to be identical. When two different mechanisms are functioning simultaneously, then one is no longer dealing with orthogonality; one is dealing with interacting components and can no longer subdivide the problem into independent components.

However, one does find this same kind of juxtaposition within the mind of Facilitator person. On the one hand, the Facilitator person will naturally defend the status quo, ensuring that anything new that is done is a replication of existing behavior. But on the other hand, the Facilitator person loses motivation when nothing changes and everything remains identical. Thus, when the typical Facilitator person is put in charge of some organization, then there will be continual small changes but no radical reforms. There will be reproduction with variation.

The second attribute is variation: “The replicating systems must undergo changes. After all, if the system always replicates perfectly, the replicating molecule will always be the same as the parent molecule. Evolution cannot occur.” Notice again the reference to a ‘replicating molecule’. Molecules do not replicate. Notice also that the second attribute is the opposite of the first. This means that there must be two opposite mechanisms functioning simultaneously in the same dimension. One mechanism leads to identical copies, while the other mechanism causes copies not to be identical. When two different mechanisms are functioning simultaneously, then one is no longer dealing with orthogonality; one is dealing with interacting components and can no longer subdivide the problem into independent components.

However, one does find this same kind of juxtaposition within the mind of Facilitator person. On the one hand, the Facilitator person will naturally defend the status quo, ensuring that anything new that is done is a replication of existing behavior. But on the other hand, the Facilitator person loses motivation when nothing changes and everything remains identical. Thus, when the typical Facilitator person is put in charge of some organization, then there will be continual small changes but no radical reforms. There will be reproduction with variation.

This Facilitator combination of reproduction with variation is the result of interacting mental forces that cease to function when subdivided into orthogonal components. Facilitator thought thinks naturally in terms of adjustment and evolutionary change. But Facilitator thought adjusts in the light of fixed reference points that do not change. These fixed references are not provided by Facilitator thought, but rather come from solid facts in Perceiver thought and unchanging sequences in Server thought. Going further, Facilitator thought actually acts as the facilitator of a functioning mind, a functioning mind is driven by Exhorter urges, and Exhorter thought becomes bored when there are no changes. Therefore, Facilitator thought has to feed subconscious Exhorter thought with continual variations in order to keep his mind running. Summarizing, Facilitator evolving functions within a mental context of Perceiver and Server stability and Exhorter drive. It is not cognitively possible to view Facilitator thought as an orthogonal component that is capable of functioning independently in an isolated matter.

The third attribute is competition: “Replicating molecules compete with one another for available resources, such as chemical precursors, and the competition allows the process of evolution by natural selection to occur… the same principles hold true for modern organisms. Organisms reproduce, show variation among individual organisms, and compete for resources; those variants with a selective advantage will reproduce more successfully. The changes leading to variation still take place at the molecular level, but the selective advantage is manifest at the organismal level.” This kind of competition does happen at a molecular level, as shown by the concept of chemical equilibrium. And competition also happens at the organismal level; living organisms do compete with one another. But one is assuming orthogonality when one says that variation at the molecular level leads to selective advantage at the organismal level. One is assuming that the complicated process of living organisms competing with one another can be broken down into simple steps involving molecules competing with one another. But biological life is an emergent property. Biological entities can only compete with one another if many complicated molecules are arranged in a very precise manner. One can often see changes at the molecular level when living organisms are competing. But these molecular changes are happening within an environment within which many carefully arranged macro-molecules are interacting.

However, one does see this kind of competition within Facilitator thought. Facilitator thought functions at the edge of the mind, balancing between internal processing and external sensory input. The subconscious mind of the typical Facilitator person is composed of many mental networks competing for attention. And Facilitator thought is bombarded by sensory input, which is also competing for attention. Facilitator thought then chooses between these various clamoring voices in order to make the best of the existing situation. At a cognitive level, Facilitator thought decides which mental networks will be allowed to reproduce and which ones will be suppressed. Similarly, Facilitator persons also decide at a social level which voices of society will be allowed to reproduce and which ones will be censored. Notice that this competition happens within an environment. Facilitator thought can only select between competing voices if competing voices exist. For instance, when some vocal opponent of a Facilitator person dies, then the Facilitator person often feels that his world is getting smaller. The Facilitator person may have disagreed with this opponent, but the opponent still provided a competing voice that made it possible for Facilitator thought to exist.

Evolutionary Principles and the Laws of Newton

Turning now to a different perspective, there is an interesting parallel between the three principles mentioned and Newton’s three laws of motion. Newton’s first law states that an object will naturally continue to move at the same velocity. This is similar to the principle of replication, which says that an organism will naturally replicate itself so that offspring behave in the same manner. Newton’s second law says that F = ma. In other words, an object will accelerate in some direction if acted upon by some outside force. This is similar to the principle of variation, which states that the replication of some organism can be altered. Newton’s third law says that each force will lead to an equal and opposite opposing force. This is similar to the principle of competition, which says that any organism that attempts to develop in some direction will meet an opposing force from competing organisms.

Newton’s three laws of motion apply to molecules and also to living organisms—if these organisms are treated as collections of lifeless molecules. For instance, a lifeless body and a screaming astronaut will both travel through space in the same manner. Thus, it is scientifically reasonable to propose that something like three laws of motion also applies to living organisms. But the objects of physics are quite different than living organisms. Objects are composed of atoms which do not spontaneously disintegrate. According to evolution, it is possible for rocks to remain fundamentally unchanged for billions of years. Thus, it makes sense to talk about objects continuing to behave in the same manner because one is dealing with objects that continue to exist. Biological entities, in contrast, are composed of intricate molecules, and most of these molecules disintegrate after short periods of time. Thus, it does not make sense to talk about living objects continuing to behave in a consistent manner because one is dealing with objects that do not naturally continue to exist. Instead, existence is an emergent property; biological entities have to replicate and reproduce in order to continue existing. Newton’s three laws can be used in an orthogonal manner: one can subdivide an object into component parts and calculate the movement of these independent parts in isolation. However, one cannot subdivide a living organism into molecules and talk about the replication of molecules. Summarizing, the biological equivalent to Newton’s first law is not natural, but rather has to be artificially maintained by complicated mechanisms of replication and reproduction.

The textbook refers to this problem but describes it using confused language: “Individual molecules of biological polymers such as ribonucleic acid are degraded by hydrolysis reactions and other processes. However, molecules that can replicate will continue to be represented in the population even if the lifetime of each individual molecule remain short.” Notice how the text implicitly assumes orthogonality by using the two words ‘molecule’ and ‘molecules’: An individual molecule has a short lifetime, but molecules can replicate. This implies that replication becomes possible if one moves from one molecule to many molecules. But that is not the case. The rest of the textbook makes it clear that replication only becomes possible if many of the right kind of molecules are arranged in the right manner. In other words, replication is an emergent property, but it does not emerge automatically when going from singular to plural.

Newton’s second law says that an object will change its behavior when acted upon by some outside force. The biological equivalent is that a living organism will experience variation if some external force intervenes. We saw this in the example of the typing monkeys. Some external force intervenes when a monkey types the correct key in order to change the behavior of the monkey. Evolution says that this external force is provided by mutations. Quoting from the textbook, “Earlier, we considered how variation is required for evolution. We can see that such variations in living systems are changes that alter the meaning of the genetic message. These variations are called mutations.” A mutation is a random change, and I mentioned earlier that Facilitator thought naturally tends to make random changes.

However, physics distinguishes between force and net force. An object sitting on a table is continually being subjected to various forces, but there is no net result because these forces are all acting in random directions. (This is known as Brownian motion.) Instead, an object will only change its behavior if it is subject to a net force that pushes in some specific direction. Similarly, a cognitive distinction needs to be made between change and progress. The Facilitator person will naturally make continuous change, but when Facilitator thought takes control of a mind or society then there will be very little progress. Instead, progress happens when Exhorter thought takes control of the mind and pushes people in a specific direction. Again, one sees an assumption of orthogonality. The principle of variation implies that a major development can be subdivided into many independent little steps. But that is not the way that either the universe or the mind function. Little physical steps that are independent of one another will naturally be random. There may be Brownian motion, but there will be zero net force. There will be variation, but not change. Similarly, the small random changes that are made in the mind by Facilitator thought do not add up to change. Instead, they will naturally be constrained by the mental networks that drive Exhorter thought, leading to behavior that is like a moth around a flame—there is endless movement, but this movement is all around the flame.

Newton’s third law says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is similar to the principle of competition. But a different principle emerges when one looks at the bigger picture. One consistently finds that there will only be a ‘survival of the fittest’ if competition occurs within a larger framework of cooperation. For instance, consider an object sitting on a table. Newton’s third law says that the downward force that the object exerts upon the table is counterbalanced by an equal and opposite upward force that the table exerts upon the object. But both of these forces are occurring within the larger context of a solid room within which objects and tables can be placed and moved. If the object and the table were transplanted into empty space, then any force between them would cause them to move apart, bringing an end to any further interaction, which would make it meaningless to talk about them competing with one another.

Similarly, economic competition happens within the general context of an economy that is held together by government laws that make it possible for individuals and companies to interact with one another. Without this framework of economic law and interaction, it would not even make sense to talk about the fittest company surviving—because the economy as a whole would collapse. Likewise, modern technology is based upon the assumption that the fittest way to use physical matter is to construct machines out of parts that cooperate to produce some combined function. Similarly, biological life at every level can only exist through extended cooperation: A protein emerges when amino acids cooperate; cells contain many cooperating proteins; a body requires cells that cooperate; ecosystems require living organisms that cooperate. The very concept of ‘fitness’ implies that one is functioning cooperatively within some environment.

Looking at this cognitively, competition naturally becomes the driving force in a mind is driven by MMNs of culture and personal identity. Saying this bluntly, unbridled competition is a symptom of tribalism. Civilization emerges when individuals cooperate together, when MMNs that drive personal competition are placed within a Teacher structure of law and cooperation. Modern humanity has learned that competition within cooperation is more fit for survival than pure competition.

Evolution contradicts this in two ways. First, evolution asserts that competition between living organisms will drive these organisms to ever greater Teacher order. But that is not how things work. Pure competition between living organisms will lead to death, chaos, and the destruction of existing Teacher order. Pure competition does not lead to greater Teacher order. Instead, it leads to war, and war destroys Teacher order. Second, evolution claims to be a general theory. But the basic premise of a general theory is that one can place many seemingly competitive specific Mercy situations within the unifying framework of a Teacher understanding, and one constructs a theory because one assumes that a mind which is guided by a general theory is more fit than a mind that is not. Evolution reverses this relationship and claims that one can build an integrated Teacher understanding by starting with competing entities in Mercy thought. This is like saying that war leads to greater understanding. Many breakthroughs in understanding have been made during wartime. But such progress only continues as long as the glue of cooperation that is holding a society together continues to hold. The larger process is that war leads to propaganda and hatred, and propaganda and hatred destroy understanding.

Notice that we have returned to the relationship between Teacher and Mercy thought with which this essay began. Humans will naturally view Mercy thought as fundamental, but this type of thinking leads to results that are not fit. Mercy thought and personal identity will only survive and flourish if they are placed within a general framework of Teacher understanding. One can gain a temporary advantage by placing MMNs of tribe and identity above TMNs of civilization and cooperation. But the ultimate result will be to unravel the threads from which human society and identity are formed, leading to death and destruction for everyone.

World War I provides a prime example, because it was heavily guided by a mindset based in the tribal thinking of nationalism which was amplified by evolutionary concepts of survival through competition. Quoting from the historian Lawrence Sondhaus, “The great powers of Europe, emerging non-European powers, peripheral states, Dominions, and colonies all shared the common denominator of having their pre-World War I behavior shaped by the nationalism that had emerged a century earlier in the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars. During the nineteenth century, the benign cultural nationalism of the Romantic era evolved into a racial nationalism further sharpened and defined by Darwinism, after Charles Darwin’s fateful decision to use the imagery and language of war to articulate natural and biological concepts in his Origin of Species, (1859), and Descent of Man (1871). Thereafter, basic Darwinian concepts such as the survival of the fittest and the struggle for existence provided a ‘scientific’ underpinning for aggressive ideologies and, in a general sense, ‘scientific’ racial nationalism supported national unity in the cause of national greatness. Such thinking infected Europe’s intellectuals, from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other. Darwinism affected France less than the other great powers, but even there, Émile Zola, hero of the French left, in 1891 declared that ‘war is life itself! Nothing exists in nature or is born, grows up or multiplies other than through combat. It is necessary to eat or be eaten that the world may live. Only warrior nations have prospered; a nation dies from the time that it disarms.’ Indeed, what some scholars have labeled as ‘militarism’ and attempted to generalize in social, economic, or political terms originated in the decades before 1914 as a distinct manifestation of Darwinian racial nationalism” (pp. 28-29).

Irreducible Complexity?

We have looked at orthogonality and have seen that biological mechanisms are too interrelated to function in isolation. One could provide examples of this from almost every page of a biochemistry textbook, but I would like to mention two examples. The first example comes from the pathway by which RNA is formed. RNA provides the basis for the information that defines life, because RNA leads to DNA which stores the sequences from which all proteins are formed. The following quote describes the production of a precursor to RNA: “Orotidylate is then decarboxylated to form uridylate (UMP), a major pyramidine nucleotide that is a precursor to RNA. This reaction is catalyzed by orotidylate decarboxylase. This enzyme is one of the most proficient enzymes known. In its absence, decarboxylation is extremely slow and is estimated to take place once every 78 million years; with the enzyme present, it takes place approximately once per second, a rate enhancement of 10¹⁷-fold.” This leads to a chicken-and-egg problem. The production of RNA contains a step that naturally occurs once every 78 million years. This step can be sped up with an enzyme, but in order to produce this enzyme, one first needs RNA.

The second example involves the mechanism that translates the genetic code in the RNA into a chain of amino acids. It is insanely complex: “Protein synthesis takes place on ribosomes—enormous complexes containing three large RNA molecules and more than 50 proteins. One of the great triumphs in biochemistry in recent years has been the determination of the structure of the ribosome so that its function can be examined in atomic detail… The basics of protein synthesis are the same across all kingdoms of life, attesting to the fact the protein-synthesis system arose very early in evolution.” Summarizing, biological entities come into existence by translating genetic code from DNA into a sequence of amino acids. This translation mechanism is exceedingly complex. It emerged early in the process of evolution. Researchers are proud to have deciphered the mechanism. But how did this complicated translation mechanism emerge in the first place if a translation mechanism is needed to produce translation mechanisms?

This second example illustrates that a little explanation is not enough. It turns out that the RNA appears to be doing most of the translation work: “For many years, ribosomal proteins were presumed to orchestrate protein synthesis and ribosomal RNAs were presumed to serve primarily as structural scaffolding. The current view is almost the reverse… The almost inescapable conclusion is that the ribosome initially consisted only of RNA and that the proteins were added later to fine-tune its functional properties. This conclusion has the pleasing consequence of dodging a ‘chicken and egg’ question – namely, how can complex proteins be synthesized if complex proteins are required for protein synthesis?”

It is true that one has managed to simplify the problem. (One could also interpret this as angelic designers perfecting their craft in stages.) But this simplification is not enough. One has only managed to transform an utterly impossible task into one that is merely impossible. And this supposed ‘fine-tuning’ carries with it its own complexity. One cannot just jam together twenty different amino acid generators. Instead, one must ensure that similar amino acids are not confused with one another. The textbook explains: “Let us consider the challenge faced by threonyl-tRNA synthetase. Threonine is particularly similar to two other amino acids—namely, valine and serine… How can the threonyl-tRNA synthetase avoid coupling these incorrect amino acids to threonyl-tRNA?” More generally, “Most aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases contain editing sites in addition to acylation sites. These complementary pairs of sites function as a double sieve to ensure very high fidelity.”

And this ‘pleasing consequence’ is merely a hypothetical solution. Quoting from Wikipedia, “The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. The term also refers to the hypothesis that posits the existence of this stage.”

Summarizing, life only becomes possible if many biological mechanisms come together and function as an integrated unit. This is essentially another version of the argument of irreducible complexity, which says that life is too complicated to have evolved spontaneously. I know that the argument of irreducible complexity has supposedly been debunked, but as an engineer who is somewhat familiar with computer systems and computer programming, I have to protest—strongly. Reading a textbook on biochemistry blows my mind, not just once, but again and again, because page after page describes one complex interacting circuit after another. Each of these circuits considered in isolation is mind-blowing in its elegance and complexity. But life is composed of a plethora of mind-blowing circuits that function in harmony with one another, which then work together to form an ecosystem. I know how hard it is to get a simple system to work, but biochemistry is composed of many layers of interacting, complex systems. I also know that engineers will go to great lengths to eliminate any possible errors of information from systems of communication. Thus, suggesting that a complex system could have emerged by chance through errors of information appears to my engineering mind to be crazy: One is saying that incredible order-within-complexity can be achieved by embracing the enemy of order. And the textbook actually links random evolution with engineering when discussing molecular motors: “From an engineering perspective, there are many ways to change the polarity of a motor. How is polarity changed in this case?” The answer is given two paragraphs later: “We see once again the economical refinement of a protein by evolution – in this case, subtle adjustments are produced in opposite mechanical result in the activity of the protein assembly.”

Thomas Kuhn says that the scientist who acquires a paradigm cannot go back to existing without a paradigm. Using cognitive language, a scientist is guided in Teacher thought by the TMN of a rational understanding. Thus, the scientific mind has a gut-level revulsion against the religious believer who asserts that one should abandon rational thought and just blindly believe that God created everything in some supernatural fashion. That is because the religious believer who is following blind faith is expecting a scientist to shut down rational Teacher thought. My engineering-trained mind responds in a similar manner when some supposedly rational scientist describes in mind-blowing detail the mechanisms of the physical body and then asserts that these mechanisms arose through chance. Such an assertion triggers a gut-level revulsion within my mind, because the detailed descriptions are activating my rational engineering thinking processes, while the evolutionary statements are telling my rational engineering mind to shut down. Such a cognitive disconnect causes me to gag. Going further, in the same way that scientists often resort to sarcasm and ridicule when discussing fundamentalist faith, so it takes great effort for me not to descend to sarcasm and ridicule when discussing the theory of evolution in this essay.

I am not suggesting that all engineers question the theory of evolution. (However, the inverse does appear to be true. A creationist with an advanced degree is likely to be an engineer. And these linked articles make it clear that one is dealing with gut-level reactions because they are both dripping with ridicule and sarcasm. Both of these articles also suggest that engineers are going beyond their area of expertise when talking about evolution. However, an engineer is trained to design and construct complicated systems, and evolution is a theory about the design and construction of the complicated systems of biological life.) I suggest that one major reason why only some engineers question the theory of evolution is because engineering limits its rational design thinking to the objective realm. In contrast, I developed the theory of mental symmetry by extending the rational thinking that I learned in engineering to the subjective realm of the mind and personal identity, and I have discovered—repeatedly—that it is possible to apply rational thinking to the subjective realm. Going further, my rational analysis of the mind has also been accompanied by a deep personal desire to reach greater mental wholeness, accompanied by a deep fear of getting trapped in self-deception. Thus, when clever people with PhD’s tell me that I should stop applying engineering thinking to the subjective realm of life, and they insist that the development of life was not being driven by any goal—while at the same time treating evolution and/or Nature as divine beings, then my entire being screams out “You are Insane!!” That is because these statements utterly violate my life work—work for which I have paid a high price in areas such as doubt, despair, loneliness, career, wealth, acceptance, belittling, injustice, and betrayal (and I can back up each of these adjectives with specific incidents).

I am not suggesting that biochemists are insane. Instead, I am suggesting something more subtle, which is that they are locally rational. As was mentioned earlier, evolution is consistently portrayed in the biochemistry textbook as an intelligent agent. And when evolution is examined in more detail, then what is discussed is similarities in the DNA of various organisms as well as similarities in the shapes of various proteins. This describes rational thought at the level of details. But if one steps back and tries to put the pieces together then one ends up with a deep cognitive disconnect. I have found over the years that using technical thought within some specialization will lead to a form of thinking that can be described as locally rational. Technical thinking applies careful logic within some limited context guided by the mental network of some paradigm or bottom line. However, when technical thought steps outside of its limited specialization, then careful logic will be replaced by emotional response driven by the underlying mental network. This kind of local rationality can also be seen in the theory of evolution.

We have seen that there is an extensive connection between the theory of evolution and Facilitator thought. The modern theory of evolution was first popularized in mid-19th century Britain. 19th-century Britain was going through an Industrial Revolution—the First Industrial Revolution that had ever occurred. The Industrial Revolution applied technical thought to society in major new ways. Thus, one can go further than saying that there is a relationship between the theory of evolution and Facilitator thought. Instead, one can say that there is a relationship between the theory of evolution and Facilitator thought that has been trained to think in a technical manner. One of the main features of technical thought is that it optimizes. A Facilitator person with a technically trained mind will find that when conscious thought is used to make random changes, then this is followed by the subconscious mind performing optimization. This will lead the technically trained Facilitator person to assume that random changes always lead to optimization—leading naturally to the theory of evolution. But this assumption is based in the wiring and programming of the mind of the Facilitator person, and not in facts of reality.

Summarizing, one sees again that the theory of the evolution functions primarily at a psychological level and not at the level of physical evidence. Looking at this in more detail, almost every time that mutations are mentioned in a factual manner in the biochemistry textbook, the results are detrimental. For instance, “We will consider several genetic errors of amino acid degradation that lead to brain damage and mental retardation unless remedial action is initiated soon after birth.” “Mutations in the other three essential proteins of the system can likewise lead to von Gierke disease.” “Cancer, a set of diseases characterized by uncontrolled or inappropriate cell growth, is strongly associated with defects in signal transduction proteins.” “Since the discovery of Src, many other mutated protein kinases have been identified as oncogenes.” And “People with elevated serum levels of homocysteine or the disulfide-linked dimer homocystine have an unusually high risk for coronary heart disease and arterial sclerosis. The most common genetic cause of high homocysteine levels is a mutation within the gene encoding cystathionine β-synthase.”

Evolution supposedly comes from mutations in DNA. But the replication of DNA goes to great lengths to eliminate any possible mutations: “DNA replication must be highly accurate… The free energies associated with base pairing within the double helix suggest that approximately one in 10⁴ bases incorporated will be incorrect. Yet, DNA replication has an error rate estimated to be one per 10¹⁰. As we shall see, additional mechanisms allow proofreading of the newly formed double helix.” And errors in DNA replication must be avoided because they lead to cancer: “After replication, ultraviolet light, and a range of chemical species can damage DNA in a variety of ways. All organisms have enzymes for detecting and repairing harmful DNA modifications. Agents that introduce chemical lesions into DNA are key factors in the development of cancer, as are defects in the repair systems that correct these lesions.”

The chapter on DNA replication emphasizes that “The maintenance of the integrity of the genetic message is key to life. Consequently, all cells possess mechanisms to repair damaged DNA. Three types of repair pathways are direct repair, base excision repair, and nucleotide-excision repair.” The chapter adds that “Cancers are caused by mutations in genes associated with growth control. Defects in DNA-repair systems are expected to increase the overall frequency of mutations and, hence, the likelihood of a cancer-causing mutation.” Going further, “Some genetic diseases are caused by the presence of DNA sequences that are inherently prone to errors in the course of replication.” More generally, “Many human cancers are caused by exposure to chemicals. These chemical carcinogens usually cause mutations, which suggest that damage to DNA is a fundamental event in the origin of mutations and cancer.”

But compare that with the chapter on evolution where it says that “We can now examine the mechanisms of evolution. Earlier, we considered how variation is required for evolution. We can now see that such variations in living systems are changes that alter the meaning of the genetic message. These variations are called mutations. A mutation can be as simple as a change in a single nucleotide (called a point mutation), such that a sequence of bases that encoded a particular amino acid may now encode another. Mutation can also be the insertion or deletion of several nucleotides.” So which of these two statements is true? Is ‘the maintenance of the integrity of the genetic message the key to life’ or are mutations of the genetic message the key to life?

This contradiction is encapsulated in the following quote: “Some RNA molecules can splice themselves in the absence of protein. This landmark discovery by Thomas Cesh and Sidney Altman revealed that RNA molecules can serve as catalysts and greatly influenced our view of molecular evolution. RNA splicing is not merely a curiosity. Approximately 15% of all genetic diseases are caused by mutations that affect RNA splicing.” Notice the juxtaposition of hypothetical and real. RNA can edit itself, which leads to new hypothetical ideas of how RNA may have evolved through mutations, but in reality these mutations lead to genetic diseases.

Saying this more generally, the mutations that cause cancer are all real mutations that occur in real life and happen to real people. The mutations that supposedly caused new mechanisms to emerge through the process of evolution are all hypothetical mutations which may have some occurred at some unspecified point in the past. The ‘evidence’ for these hypothetical mutations comes from the presence of similar amino acid sequences or similar structures. But as the familiar adage states, correlation does not imply causation. The chapter on DNA replication ignores this fundamental principle. However, it is pointed out at the end of the chapter on catalytic RNA: “It is important to note that similarities do not establish ancestry. The similarities between group II introns and mRNA splicing may be a result of convergent evolution. Perhaps there are only a limited number of ways to carry out efficient, specific intron excision. The determination of whether the similarities stem from ancestry or from chemistry will require expanding our understanding of RNA biochemistry.” Exactly.

A similar inherent contradiction can be seen when comparing DNA with the meaning of DNA. On the one hand, evolution hypothesizes that life developed through mutations in DNA. But on the other hand, exactly the same DNA code is used almost without exception by all of life: “The genetic code is nearly but not absolutely universal”. And this almost-universal DNA code has not evolved: “Why has the code remained nearly invariant through billions of years of evolution, from bacteria to human beings? A mutation that altered the reading of mRNA would change the amino acid sequence of most, if not all, proteins synthesized by that particular organism. Many of these changes would undoubtedly be deleterious, and so there would be strong selection against a mutation with such pervasive consequences.” This is an accurate assessment. But how can one state that the genetic words of DNA have mutated to generate life while insisting that the meanings of these words could not have mutated because that would have eliminated life? Random mutations cannot distinguish between words and their meanings. When a human language evolves, then both the words of that language and their meanings will mutate. If the evidence indicates that the meanings of genetic words are essentially universal and have not changed since the beginning of life, then how can one assert that precisely the opposite has happened to the words themselves? That is an inherent contradiction.

Randomness within some Context

Looking at this more carefully, the mind will adopt a strategy of pursuing random options when goal-oriented behavior fails, and pursuing random options is coordinated by Facilitator thought. (This transition has been described in neurological papers. Note that noradrenaline is associated with Facilitator thought. See my neurology paper for more details.) But this randomness is being coordinated by a living organism that does not function randomly, it is happening within some specific context, and it chooses between defined routines. For instance, think of a trapped rat attempting to squirm, claw, and bite its way out of a trap. It makes sense to suggest that something similar is happening at the biochemical level. Stated more generally, I suggest that real examples of beneficial mutation fall into this category: An organism is choosing to change some specific words or sentences within some specific context in a random manner in the hope of finding a solution. Thus, some words of the DNA may be altered, but the meaning of these words will not be touched.

This kind of limited randomness within a fixed framework can be seen in olfactory neurons: “What is the relation between OR (odorant receptor) gene expression and the individual neuron. Interestingly, each olfactory neuron expresses only a single OR gene, among hundreds available. Apparently, the precise OR gene expressed is determined largely at random.” But this local randomness is combined with precise, consistent mapping: “The processes from neurons that express the same OR gene were found to be connected to the same location in the olfactory bulb. Moreover, this pattern of neuronal connection was found to be identical in all mice examined. Thus, neurons that express specific ORs are linked with specific sites in the brain. This property creates a spatial map of odorant-responsive neuronal activity within the olfactory bulb.”

Limited randomness within a fixed framework can also be seen in the movement of bacteria: “The bacteria swim in one direction for some length of time (typically about a second), tumble briefly, and then set off in a new direction.” Looking at this in more detail, “A bacterium sets off in a random direction and, if the concentration of the chemoattractant has increased after the bacterium has been swimming for a brief period of time, the likelihood of tumbling decreases and the bacterium continues in roughly the same direction. If the concentration has decreased, the tumbling frequency increases and the bacterium tests other random directions. The success of this mechanism once again reveals the power of evolutionary problem solving – many possible solutions are tried at random, and those that are beneficial are selected and exploited.” This kind of movement is an example of randomness followed by selection. It is similar to the way that Facilitator thought often makes random choices and then observes the results. But notice that these random choices are being applied by the functional machinery of a complex flagellar motor that is composed of as many as 40 distinct proteins. Similarly, Facilitator thought acts as the observer and coordinator of the rest of the mind. When Facilitator thought makes random choices, these are actually being applied by the other six cognitive modules of the mind that are implementing these choices in an intelligent manner.

Looking at this in more detail, one can see on the diagram of symmetry that an arrow leads from Contributor to Facilitator. Contributor thought harnesses the rest of the mind to perform optimization. (This is an aspect of technical thought.) Facilitator thought balances the various parts of the mind and Facilitator thought balances sensory input. This balancing is all done from a distance without seeing the details. The Facilitator person observes that when conscious thought is used to pursue some random choice within the mind, then this is followed naturally by mental optimization. The Facilitator person then concludes that it is reasonable to suggest that the external world functions in the same manner. But this is a faulty assumption based upon the incomplete conscious awareness of the Facilitator person. Facilitator thought is mixing and balancing, but the optimization is being carried out by a functioning, subconscious system that optimizes.

I have stated that almost all of the real examples of mutation mentioned in the textbook lead to negative results. The one major exception to this principle is the immune system. The immune system does evolve, and this evolution is driven by random changes. Quoting from the textbook, “The remarkable ability of the immune system to adapt to an essentially limitless set of potential pathogens requires a powerful system for transforming the immune cells and molecules present in our systems in response to the presence of pathogens. This adaptive system operates through the principles of evolution, including reproduction with variation followed by selection of the most well suited members of a population.”

However, these evolutionary changes are limited to specific subregions within the genes that express antibodies. Thus, one sees limited randomness within a fixed framework. Describing this in technical detail, “A comparison of the amino acid sequences of different IgG antibodies from human beings or mice shows that the carboxyl-terminal half of the L chains and the carboxyl-terminal three-quarters of the H chains are very similar in all of the antibodies. Importantly, the amino-terminal domain of each chain is more variable, including three stretches of approximately 7 to 12 amino acids within each chain that are hypervariable.” These hypervariable sections within T cells form loops that can be altered to attach to different kinds of invading cells.

One of the arguments mentioned in the Wikipedia article on irreducible complexity is that one can use computers to simulate the evolution of various mechanisms. And many AI programs are developed through a kind of evolution. But all of these computer simulations of evolution are being run upon computers that do not evolve. Computer programs that simulate the random errors of mutations are being run on computers that have been designed very carefully to avoid any random errors of mutations. Again, one sees limited evolution within some fixed framework.

Going further, machine learning is guided by some collection of training data. What an AI programs predicts is continually being compared with what the program should predict, and any mismatch between these two is being minimized. A similar statement can be made about Facilitator thought, because Facilitator adjusting always happens within the context of fixed reference points that do not change. And in the same way that an AI program is only as good as the data upon which it has been trained, so Facilitator thought is only as good as the mental content with which subconscious thought within the Facilitator person has been trained. (This is not an overstatement, because the personality and cognitive abilities of a Facilitator person vary widely depending upon the training of that Facilitator person.)

And in the same way that the evolutionary algorithms used by AI are initially trained with some data set, so the T cells of the immune system that attack foreign invaders are initially trained with the data set of existing body cells, so that they will attack only foreign cells and not attack the body itself—before being released to the rest of the body. “Examination of the development pathways leading to the production of mature cytotoxic and helper T cells reveals the selection mechanisms that are crucial for distinguishing self from nonself. The selection criteria are quite stringent; approximately 98% of the thymocytes, the precursors of T cells, die before completion of the maturation process.”

Looking at this more generally, a previous section of this essay looked at the distinction between physiological crisis and psychological crisis. We saw there that Facilitator thought becomes dominant in a physiological crisis that threatens the integrity of the physical body. We are seeing in our discussion of evolution that there are extensive parallels between the theory of evolution and the thinking of the Facilitator person. We see here another parallel. The primary purpose of the immune system with its evolutionary adjustments is to respond to crises that threaten the integrity and functioning of the cells of the physical body. This describes a physiological crisis at the cellular level. Thus, one sees evolution at work when a functioning physical body is attempting to preserve its existence—when life is trying to stop going backwards from life to non-life. But this is quite different than suggesting that evolution can lead in the forward direction from simple molecules to advanced life.

Turning now to this psychological level, when a theory is promoted that is based in hypothetical mechanisms which directly contradict what is observed in reality, then one conclude that this theory meets a psychological need. This suggestion was made earlier. However, if one is already meeting a psychological need by coming up with a theory that contradicts reality, then why not meet this psychological need by coming up with a theory that goes beyond reality? If one is already piling up hypothetical statements, them why not pile them up in a coherent manner? In other words, when one looks at the details, one concludes that suggesting that primordial angels took a role in designing life is actually less bizarre and more coherent than suggesting that life evolved. This does require believing in a Teacher-based angelic realm populated by angelic beings, but at least one is not talking out of both sides of one’s mouth and stating that mutations are simultaneously a major cause of death and the source of all life. After all, if all living organisms share the same genetic language, then this indicates that one should look to Teacher thought—the realm of language—for the starting point of life. This reinterprets evolutionary research as reverse engineering. One is attempting to uncover the paths and decisions of development that were followed by the original designers.

Saying this at a gut level, the idea that angels played a role in the creation of life may initially appear to the typical scientist to be gag-level idiocy. But if one stops vomiting for a little while and looks at the details, one concludes that it is actually less gag-inducing than the alternative of evolution.

Orthogonality of Function

Pointing out irreducible complexity may be accurate, but it is also insufficient, because this shuts down rational Teacher thought. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, a scientist who is driven by a paradigm cannot return to the pre-scientific state of not having a paradigm. Instead, a scientist will only let go of an existing paradigm if given a better paradigm. Going further, it appears that technical thought requires some form of orthogonality. Technical thought assumes that it is possible to break up a complex problem into a series of simple steps. And modern society is driven by scientific, technical thought. (Notice that I said modern society and not postmodern society.)

Thankfully, a form of orthogonality does exist within biological mechanisms, which is orthogonality of function. Thus, I suggest that a distinction needs to be made between orthogonality of life and orthogonality of function. One can understand this distinction by looking at the example of a gasoline car engine. An engine needs spark plugs, pistons, fuel, crankshaft, wiring, seals, an engine block, and numerous other parts to function. One can construct engines that are fairly simple, but a working engine requires a minimum number of interacting parts to function. Thus, there is no orthogonality of life. However, there is orthogonality of function; it is possible to subdivide an engine into specific parts with specific functions. For instance, a spark plug provides an electrical spark, wiring conducts electricity, a crankshaft converts back-and-forth motion into rotary motion, and so on. Similarly, biological life can be subdivided into many different components that carry out orthogonal functions—most proteins perform primarily one function without performing any other functions.

For instance, this distinction between orthogonality of life and orthogonality of function can be seen in mitochondria. Quoting from the textbook, “Mitochondria are semiautonomous organelles that live in an endosymbiotic relationship with the host cell. These organelles contain their own DNA, which encodes a variety of different proteins and RNAs… However, mitochondria also contain many proteins encoded by nuclear DNA. Cells that contain mitochondria depend on these organelles for oxidative phosphorylation and the mitochondria in turn depend on the cells for their very existence.” In other words, mitochondria are mini-cells with their own DNA that exist within regular cells. But mitochondria and regular cells cannot exist by themselves; they require each other to continue existing. Thus, there is no orthogonality of life.

This leads to an evolutionary dilemma: “How did this intimate symbiotic relation come to exist? An endosymbiotic event is thought to have occurred whereby a free living organism capable of oxidative phosphorylation was engulfed by another cell… Note that transient engulfment of prokaryotic cells by larger cells is not uncommon in the microbial world. In regard to mitochondria, such a transient relation became permanent as the bacterial cell lost DNA, making it incapable of independent living, and the host cell became dependent on the ATP generated by its tenant.” Notice the insistence upon orthogonality of life. Supposedly, two different kinds of cells which were each capable of living independently of the other came together in some event and then lost the ability to exist independently, but instead became dependent upon one another. When one appeals to some single event within a span of a few billion years and this single event ends up impacting all multi-cellular life in a lasting manner, then one is actually describing a form of divine intervention, because only universal beings could generate events that would have universal and lasting consequences.

However, it is possible to talk about functional orthogonality, because the mitochondria carry out what is known as the citric acid cycle, the biological process that generates ATP with the help of oxygen. We saw earlier that ATP acts as the currency of energy for biological activity. If a cell has mitochondria, then the citric acid cycle happens within the mitichondria and not outside the mitochondria. (Only primitive single-celled organisms lack mitochondria.) That is a functional distinction.

A similar distinction can be seen in the citric acid cycle itself. One module creates a difference in proton density between the inside and the outside of the inner walls of the mitochondria. Another module (ATP synthase) uses this difference in pH to drive the production of ATP. Thus, there is no orthogonality of life, because the aerobic production of ATP requires at least the combination of a container, a mechanism to pump protons out of the container, and a motor to produce ATP driven by the proton differential between the inside and the outside of the container. However, there is orthogonality of function, because one can separate the module that creates the proton differential from the module that uses this proton differential to produce ATP. And the word ‘motor’ is not an exaggeration, because ATP synthase is literally a molecular motor that rotates. A central rotating core is surrounded by three fixed subunits that actually produce the ATP. As the center rotates, the three subunits flex in shape between a closed shape that forces the various parts of an ATP molecule together, to an open shape that releases the assembled ATP molecule. This is genius level clever, especially when one considers that the motor is actually constructed out of several strings of amino acids that have folded in upon themselves to form the various parts of a motor. Obviously, there is no orthogonality of life, because this mechanism will only function if all of the parts come together, but there is orthogonality of function, because the mechanism can be divided into a central part that rotates and three similar parts that flex.

This distinction between orthogonality of life and orthogonality of function can be clearly seen in the following short quote: “The mechanism of a pyruvate dehydrogenase reaction is wonderfully complex, more so than is suggested by its relatively simple stoichiometry.” Notice how a complicated biological mechanism is carrying out a fairly simple function. One sees this again and again, with very complicated proteins or networks of proteins carrying out functions that can be summarized by simple chemical equations. The mechanism is complex, but the overall function is simple.

The orthogonality of function extends further. Many enzymes perform their functions by carrying out a series of steps, but this sequence of steps always returns back to the starting point; it is always a round-trip; the mechanism always resets itself at the end. This means that one can treat each enzyme as an isolated unit that carries out some repetitive Server sequence; one can assume orthogonality of function. Not only does an enzyme perform a specific function that can be described in simple terms, but it continues to perform the same specific function over time.

Going further, when biological regions are physically separated from one another, then the result is not independent pockets of life but rather orthogonality of function. Quoting from the textbook, “The metabolic patterns of eukaryotic cells are markedly affected by the presence of compartments. The fates of certain molecules depend on whether they are in the cytosol or in mitochondria, and so their flow across the inner mitochondrial membrane is often regulated. For example, fatty acids are transported into mitochondria for degradation only when energy is required, whereas fatty acids in the cytosol are esterified or exported.” Notice how physical boundaries between one pocket of life and another are being used to enforce orthogonality of function.

This distinction between orthogonality of life and orthogonality of function relates directly to the general hypothesis of primordial aliens/angels assisting God in creating life. It is unreasonable to suggest that the fragments of life came together within physical matter through some process of evolution. That is because life ceases to be life when it is fragmented. And suggesting in some hand-waving manner that life could still remain life even when it was fragmented is not an adequate solution. However, it appears that angels/aliens naturally think and function at the level of Server sequences and specific functions. An angel with the appropriate Server-like ‘body’ could use ‘physical movement’ to arrange atoms to perform some specific Server function. What would appear to humans as writing a computer program would appear to primordial angels as ‘physical movement’. Because there is orthogonality of function, each biological function could have been ‘programmed’ by a different angel or groups of angels within the angelic realm. These various biological functions would then have been assembled and placed within human space-time within a very short period of physical time.

Why do I suggest that God the Father worked through primordial angels rather than creating directly? The cognitive reason is that orthogonality of function makes it possible to subdivide the development of life into simpler stages that are compatible with technical thought. But orthogonality of function can only be used to explain the origins of life if biological physical life was preceded by more primordial angelic life forms that carried out simple Server sequences. The theological reason is that God the Father is trying to create a system of life that functions independently of himself. That is the premise of this essay. And when the starting point is Teacher thought, then the first stage is to separate Teacher thought into distinct Server steps, which means creating primordial Server entities. God the Father probably did most of the thinking at the beginning. But over time, the primordial Server entities would have gained the ability to perform Server sequences on their own, making it possible for God to increasingly delegate aspects of the design work.

Going further, my general hypothesis is that angels, aliens, and humans all have the same kinds of minds. We are finding that there are extensive parallels between the development and construction of biological life, and stages of cognitive development within the mind. This would be extremely useful for angels, because it would mean that the lessons that were learned at an almost instinctual level when developing biological life could be translated into principles of mental life. A primordial angel could become mentally whole by building upon lessons that were learned in ‘childhood’.

This brings to mind 1 Peter 1:12: “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.” This passage is talking about the prophets preaching a message which they did not understand, but which would be understood by future generations. This gospel is being described as coming from heaven through the Holy Spirit. Using the language of this essay, the message starts in Teacher thought and expresses itself through Mercy thought. The verse concludes by saying that angels long to look into such a message.

This is not a trivial point, because the same principle applies to any human with a specialized skill. Stated succinctly, how can a human with a specialized skill become mentally whole? The answer is that principles of mental wholeness can be applied in many different similar ways. Thus, for instance, a car mechanic, a college professor, a mother, a student, a farmer, or a high-tech worker can all learn the same general principles of mental wholeness by responding in the right manner to specific situations within their specific occupation.

Signs of a Good Programmer

If human life was developed by angelic programmers, then one should find evidence of intelligent programmers at work. Notice that I said programmers and not humans. One is not dealing here with humans who have learned how to program computers. Instead, one is dealing with primordial beings who instinctively acted like computer programmers and who may not even have been consciously aware initially that they were creating the functions of life. Examining DNA and protein structure provides a possible clue as to the methodology that was used by such primordial beings.

And the chapter on DNA and RNA replication makes it clear that one really is dealing with programmers. Information from the DNA is copied in a systematic manner, with short sections of the coiled DNA straightened out, the information copied, and then the DNA recoiled. The start of each sequence of information is indicated by specific patterns of information occurring about 10 letters and 35 letters before the start of a sequence, and the end of each sequence is also indicated by stop patterns. Something similar is done when sending information on the Internet, because each IP packet is composed of a header and payload. The header indicates that information is about to follow and the payload contains the information. One is not dealing here with an analogy. A DNA sequence is not like a packet of information. Instead, a DNA sequence is a packet of information. Thus, one can state with certainty that one is dealing with intelligent programmers; one is dealing with beings who instinctively think in terms of messages. In other words, one is dealing with angels, because the word angel means ‘messenger’.

If SETI researchers scanning the skies for alien life encountered such packets of information, they would conclude with 100% certainty that they were being generated by an intelligent alien species. However, when biochemists find that biological life is controlled by packets of information, they insist that no intelligence lies behind these intelligent signals but rather that their ultimate source is random. (SETI researchers may be willing to scan the physical skies for physical alien life, but they shy away from talking to UFO researchers. And many UFO researchers are willing to talk about physical aliens coming from physical planets but they shy away from the idea of inter-dimensional spiritual beings. However, those who get enmeshed in this topic talk about high strangeness, the kind of high strangeness that one would expect from primordial beings who are able to manipulate core elements of human life and existence.)

One of the signs of a good programmer is to protect against possible error conditions. The aerobic production of ATP involves turning oxygen into water. This process releases a lot of energy and it is essential that no destructive intermediary byproducts (such as hydrogen peroxide) are released into the cell environment. The protein complex known as cytochrome C oxidase does this by clinging tightly to the intermediary products and only releasing the final molecule of water. This protein complex is actually composed of 14 protein subunits. In mammals, 11 of these come from cell DNA, while three come from mitochondria DNA. Again, one sees that there is no orthogonality of life, because major medical conditions emerge when one of these subunits malfunction. However, one does see the signs of a good programmer, because a good programmer will focus attention upon ensuring that nothing can go wrong when critical code is being executed. And turning oxygen into water is an example of executing critical biological code.

Another enzyme literally puts a lid on intermediate byproducts to prevent them from emerging. Quoting from the textbook, “TIM suppresses an undesired side reaction, decomposition of the enediol intermediate into methyl glyoxal and orthophosphate. In solution, this physiologically useless reaction is 100 times as fast as isomerization. Hence, TIM must prevent the enediol from leaving the enzyme. This labile intermediate is trapped in the active site by the movement of a loop of 10 residues. This loop serves as a lid on the active site, shutting it when the enediol is present and reopening it when isomerization is completed. We see here a striking example, not only of catalytic perfection, but also the acceleration of a desirable reaction so that it takes place much faster than an undesirable alternative reaction.”

A similar strategy can be seen in another aspect of the citric acid cycle. Quoting from the textbook, “Because this reaction initiates the cycle, it is very important that side reactions be minimized… Citrate synthase exhibits sequential, ordered kinetics: oxaloacetate binds first, followed by acetyl CoA. The reason for the ordered binding is that oxaloacetate induces a major structural rearrangement, leading to the creation of a binding site for acetyl CoA. The open form of the enzyme observed in the absence of ligands is converted into a closed form by the binding of oxaloacetate.” Translated into English, the first molecule causes the protein to change shape, preventing the byproduct from emerging. This altered shape attracts the second molecule, which leads to the formation of the final product, which then causes the enzyme to return to its initial shape and release the final product.” That is an elegant solution. Saying this more clearly, a good design incorporates safety as an inherent part of the process, rather than tacking on extra elements to protect a process is inherently unsafe.

However, a good programmer will tack on additional error-checking components when dealing with critical functions. For instance, the translation of DNA (actually RNA) into a sequence of amino acids is probably the most critical function. “If an incorrect base is incorporated, the enzyme stalls, and the pause provides additional time for the strand to migrate to the exonuclease site. There is a cost to this editing function, however: DNA polymerase I removes approximately 1 correct nucleotide in 20 by hydrolysis. Although the removal of correct nucleotides is slightly wasteful energetically, proofreading increases the accuracy of replication by a factor of approximately 1000.”

And a good programmer will add error-checking when dealing with ambiguous situations. For instance, biochemists have wondered why RNA uses uracil while DNA uses thymine (U instead of T). They have come to the conclusion that an undesired mutation can be detected with T which would not be apparent with U: “The methyl group on thymine is a tag that distinguishes thiamine from deaminated cytosine. If thymine were not used in DNA, uracil correctly in place would be indistinguishable from uracil formed by deamination. The defect would persist unnoticed… This mutation is prevented by a repair system that searches for uracil and leaves thymine alone. Thymine is used instead of uracil in DNA to enhance the fidelity of the genetic message. In contrast, RNA is not repaired, and so uracil is used in RNA because it is a less expensive building block.”

A good programmer will also come up with fast ways of eliminating dangerous conditions. We saw earlier that the process of using oxygen to produce ATP generates dangerous byproducts. These byproducts are limited by preventing any intermediate products from escaping. But some dangerous byproducts will still be generated. One enzyme known as superoxide dismutase converts any dangerous oxygen radicals into less dangerous hydrogen peroxide, while another enzyme known as catalase turns hydrogen peroxide into water. Both of these enzymes are extremely efficient. Catalase can convert millions of hydrogen peroxide molecules into water and oxygen every second. Catalase is found in almost all living organisms exposed to oxygen. This illustrates another programming strategy, which is that one of the first things that one must do as a programmer is make it possible for a program to recover quickly from errors.

The efficiency also illustrates another common programming practice, which is to focus one’s attention on increasing the efficiency of routines that run often. A modern programmer will typically program in some high-level language, and the resulting computer code may not be that efficient. Therefore, the programmer will determine which parts of the program run most often and then focus attention upon improving the efficiency of those aspects of the program. One sees this, for instance, in the efficiency of catalase, because it performs an essential and ubiquitous function.

A similar efficiency can be seen in cytochrome C oxidase. It performs a critical common function because it generates the proton differential that drives the production of ATP. Quoting from the biochemistry textbook, “Remarkably, cytochrome C oxidase evolved to pump four additional protons from the matrix to the cytoplasmic side of the membrane in the course of each reaction cycle for a total of eight protons removed from the matrix. The details of how these protons are transported through the proton is still under study.” Thus, the biological designers managed to double the efficiency that one would expect from a simple reaction so that eight protons are moved every cycle. This doubling of efficiency is so clever that biochemistry researchers still do not understand exactly how it works. (But these same biochemistry researchers are still confident that this very clever mechanism evolved by chance.)

Another sign of good programming is to perform a number of checks before carrying out some critical function. For instance, one can see this in the citric acid cycle. Quoting from the textbook, “As expected of an enzyme at a critical branch point in metabolism, the activity of the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex is stringently controlled by several means.”

A good programmer uses passwords to protect access to critical information. Similarly, “Transcription factors and other proteins that bind to regulatory sites on DNA can be regarded as passwords that cooperatively open multiple locks, given RNA polymerase access to specific genes.”

A good programmer will store critical information using a format that is capable of detecting and repairing errors. This can be seen in DNA, because one side of the DNA ladder is the mirror-image of the other. This makes it possible to copy DNA, but it also helps to detect and fix errors through what is known as nucleotide excision repair. If one strand of the DNA is mis-formed at some point, then this mis-formed region can be cut out and replaced by the mirror image of the intact other side. This repair requires the cooperation of three enzymes: one to detect the problem, one to remove the bad area, and one to patch the region with a good strand.

A good programmer will use feedback to regulate processes. For instance, “The rate of the citric acid cycle is precisely adjusted to meet an animal cells need for ATP… The rate of the cycle is reduced when the cell has a high level of ATP.”

A good programmer will offload expensive processes that are secondary. For instance, most computers have a separate processor to handle the video. That is because generating pictures takes a lot of processing time which could be spent doing more critical things. The process of generating pictures can be separated from normal computing and handed off to a separate co-processor. In a similar fashion, “Most microorganisms such as E. coli can synthesize the entire basic set of 20 amino acids, whereas human beings cannot make nine of them. The amino acids that must be supplied in the diet are called essential amino acids, whereas the others are termed nonessential amino acids… The nonessential amino acids are synthesized by quite simple reactions, whereas the pathways for the formation of the essential amino acids are quite complex.” Notice how the human body hands off the production of complicated amino acids to other organisms, which means that humans must acquire these essential amino acids from their food.

A good programmer will add error-correcting to processes that are prone to error while avoiding this extra effort with processes that are good enough. This can be seen in the complex of proteins that translate genetic code into a sequence of amino acids: “Proofreading has been selected in evolution only when fidelity must be enhanced beyond what can be obtained through an initial binding interaction.”

A good programmer will reuse existing modules if possible rather than rewriting everything from scratch. For instance, “The iron-sulfur cluster in aconitase is somewhat unstable, so one or more iron atoms dissociate under conditions of low iron availability in the cell. Remarkably, the sensitivity to iron level was exploited in the evolution of a mechanism for regulating gene expression in response to iron levels.” In other words, the fact that one protein tends to misfire when iron levels are low is being used to monitor iron levels by another circuit. That is clever programming. Programming in a haphazard evolutionary manner, in contrast, leads naturally to inelegant spaghetti code.

Putting two ideas together, a good programmer will optimize critical functions and then reuse these optimized modules to perform similar functions. This can be seen in proteins that transport glucose from one cell to another. Quoting from the textbook, “Members of this family transport sugars in organisms as diverse as E. coli, Trypansoma brucei (a parasitic protozoa on that causes sleeping sickness), and human beings. An elegant solution to the problem of fuel transport evolved early and has been tailored to meet the needs of different organisms and even different tissues.” Evolution leads to spaghetti code and is incapable of tailoring elegant solutions. Clever programmers, in contrast, do write elegant code and will tailor this code to meet various needs.

When a biochemistry textbook points out all of these clever features and then attributes them to the work of evolution, then this implicitly turns evolution into a superhuman godlike figure. If this is the case, then why not be honest and admit that one is continually ascribing divine attributes to the hand of evolution? Biochemical researchers think that they are very clever for having deciphered so many of these biological mechanisms. If that is the case, then shouldn’t one apply the same kind of thinking when looking at the initial design of these biological mechanisms? That is because coming up with a design in the first place is significantly harder than deciphering a design that already exists. Engineering is harder than reverse engineering.

Finally, remember that all of these proteins are actually strings of amino acids encoded by DNA which have folded to form three-dimensional structures. Thus, all of this genetic programming is happening from a starting point of sequences of information in Teacher thought. Therefore, it makes sense to hypothesize that the existence of angelic programmers also had its starting point in the primordial words of God in Teacher thought. Saying this another way, it does not make sense to suggest that ‘In the beginning was the primordial soup’. But it does make sense to suggest that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men” (John 1:1-4). Notice how the starting point is the Word of God in Teacher thought and that all life comes into being through this starting point.

Saying this more generally, I have gone through about 40% of the New Testament at a word-by-word level looking at the original Greek text. (About 1500 pages of Biblical analysis have been posted on the mental symmetry website.) I can now state with considerable certainty that the Bible is not an irrational, fundamentalist, book of myths. Instead, it is a very carefully crafted text written by an extremely intelligent being.

Returning to Teacher at a Higher Level

We began this essay by pointing out the following general sequence: One starts with Teacher thought, one applies Teacher thought until something new emerges within Mercy thought, and then one returns back to Teacher thought at a different level by expressing what has emerged in Mercy thought in a manner that leads to Teacher feelings of order. We saw this sequence in the four stages of protein folding: The starting point is a sequence of Teacher words in the DNA. The primary stage translates these Teacher words into a Server sequence of amino acids. The secondary stage forms the string of amino acids into Server-like coils and Perceiver-like sheets. This causes something new to emerge during the tertiary stage, as the folding protein interacts with its environment of water in a Mercy-like fashion. The quaternary stage then returns back to Teacher thought at a different level, by arranging proteins and protein fragments into structures that exhibit Teacher order-within-complexity.

A similar returning to Teacher thought can be seen in the control of gene expression. Quoting from the textbook, “Gene expression is the combined process of the transcription of a gene into mRNA, the processing of that mRNA, and its translation into protein.” The control of gene expression determines which DNA will be translated into proteins and which DNA will be ignored. In other words, control of gene expression returns to the Teacher words of DNA at a different level. One is no longer changing the words themselves, but rather adjusting which words will be expressed.

Biology distinguishes between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. A prokaryote is a single-celled organism that lacks internal divisions. In contrast, eukaryotes have cells with internal divisions, which include the nucleus and mitochondria. All plants and animals are eukaryotes. Control of gene expression occurs differently in prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and this distinction corresponds cognitively to two different manners in which one can regulate the expression of Teacher understanding.

We will look first at how prokaryotes translate DNA into a sequence of amino acids. Some section of the DNA is transcribed into a short string of RNA and this RNA is then translated into a sequence of amino acids. These two steps follow directly one after another in prokaryotes. As soon as some string of RNA starts to form as a result of transcribing DNA, a ribosome will latch on to this emerging string and start translating it into a sequence of amino acids. Using the language of righteousness, words are translated directly to actions without any intervening steps.

This type of thinking happens when following a recipe or obeying instructions. One hears some words, one interprets these words as a set of instructions, and then one immediately applies these instructions without any intervening steps. For instance, ‘1) Preheat the oven to 350°F. 2) Melt ¼ cup of butter. 3) Place two cups of flour in a bowl. 4) Stir the melted butter into the flour, and so on.’ When performing such a recipe, one does not have to read the entire recipe before starting. Instead, one reads a step, interprets this step as a set of instructions, performs the instructions, and moves on to the next step. (I live in Canada where most measurements are metric. But recipes are still described using imperial units.)

This process is more complicated in eukaryotes. Quoting from the textbook, “In eukaryotes, transcription and translation take place in different cellular compartments: transcription takes place in the membrane-bounded nucleus, whereas translation takes place outside the nucleus in the cytoplasm. In prokaryotes, the processes are closely coupled. Indeed, the translation of bacterial mRNA begins while the transcript is still being synthesized.” And “In eukaryotes, mRNA precursors are processed and spliced in the nucleus before being transported to the cytosol for translation into protein.”

Translating this into cognitive language, a distinction is being made between words in abstract thought and actions in concrete thought. Words are stored in the nucleus, while words are applied in the cytoplasm. In addition, Teacher words are not translated directly into instructions in the nucleus; they are not regarded as commands to be followed like the steps of the recipe. Instead, Server thought is used to rearrange these words, and the mRNA instructions that emerge from the nucleus are a rearranged and spliced version of the original DNA words. In fact, “Recent estimates suggest that the RNA products of 30% of human genes are alternatively spliced.” The cognitive analog is that intelligent understanding uses abstract thought to analyze Teacher words before translating these words into instructions.

Thus, a distinction needs to be made between obeying orders and righteousness. Obeying orders is like a prokaryote because words are translated directly into instructions with a minimum of intervening thought. In contrast, righteousness is guided by Teacher theories rather than Teacher instructions. Teacher words are viewed as descriptions of general theories which need to be comprehended and interpreted before being translated into instructions. This leads to a distinction between abstract thought and concrete thought—between the nucleus and the cytosol. One hears the words, one interprets the words as a description of general understanding, and one uses rational abstract thought to translate these general words into more specific instructions. One then makes a transition from the abstract realm of words to the specific realm of application. As the textbook explains, “The spatial and temporal separation of transcription and translation enables eukaryotes to regulate gene expression in much more intricate ways, contributing to the richness of eukaryotic form and function.”

A distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes can also be seen in the control of gene expression. In prokaryotes, the DNA instructions (or genes) for related proteins tend to be organized into operons, which can be viewed as recipes composed of a series of instructions. The recipe of some operon will be promoted or suppressed by repressor or activator proteins that clamp directly onto the DNA. One could visualize this as modifying a recipe by either crossing out some of the instructions or else highlighting certain instructions. What matters cognitively is that instructions are being modified directly at the level of Teacher words. Certain Teacher words are being censored, while other words are being highlighted. Again, one sees a direct connection between words and application. This again means there is no distinction between abstract and concrete thought—no wall between the nucleus and the cytosol. Words lead directly to actions, words are organized into recipes that describe sequences of actions, and recipes are modified by emphasizing and de-emphasizing words.

This method of control does exist to some extent in eukaryotes. But the primary method that is used by eukaryotes is totally different and far more subtle. The textbook explains that “Gene regulation is significantly more complex in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes for a number of reasons. First, the genome being regulated is significantly larger… It would be very difficult for a DNA-binding protein to recognize a unique site in this vast array of DNA sequences. Consequently, more elaborate mechanisms are required to achieve specificity. Another source of complexity in eukaryotic gene regulation is the many different cell types present in this eukaryotes. Liver and pancreatic cells, for example, differ dramatically in the genes that are highly expressed. Moreover, eukaryotic genes are not generally organized into operons. Instead, genes that encode proteins for steps within a given pathway are often spread widely across the genome. Finally, transcription and translation are uncoupled in eukaryotes, eliminating some potential gene regulatory mechanisms.”

This quote mentions several factors which need to be analyzed. First, one can only go directly from words to actions when one has a limited set of words. For instance, recipes are usually given to beginners who have a minimum of understanding. Similarly, specific orders are given to soldiers who lack experience. When enough orders have been given, then it is no longer possible to search through the entire list of orders to find the specific command that applies to one’s current situation. Instead, one has to approach instructions in a more general manner. Second, when orders and actions multiply, then specialization is required. It is not possible for a single finite person to become capable of carrying out all orders. Instead, different kinds of people emerge that are trained to obey different categories of orders. Finally, when specialists emerge, then it is no longer possible to think in terms of following recipes, because the specialist who is carrying out some set of orders knows more about the subject than the officer who is giving the orders. In fact, a specialist may have to pull instructions together from many different unrelated areas in order to come up with a final sequence of actions to perform. Cognitively speaking, one has made a transition from following recipes and obeying orders to intelligent application. One is given a general command, one uses abstract thought to understand this command, and then one uses specialized knowledge to apply this command in an intelligent manner.

The method of gene regulation that is used by eukaryotes is an indirect one that goes through Mercy before returning back to Teacher, consistent with the general theme of this essay. Strings of DNA no longer exist by themselves. Instead, DNA is wrapped around proteins known as histones. The textbook explains how this works: “Eukaryotic DNA is tightly bound to basic proteins called histones; the combination is called chromatin. DNA wraps around an octamer of core histones to form a nucleosome, blocking access to many potential DNA binding sites. Changes in chromatin structure play a major role in regulating gene expression.” Summarizing, the long string of DNA is wrapped up. This saves space by turning the Teacher string of DNA into the clump of a Mercy object. But this clumping also buries some of the DNA information, preventing that information from being applied. Histones attach to the DNA through long tails. Adjusting the shape and ‘stickiness’ of these tails alters the wrapping of the DNA, causing different DNA to be exposed and thus translated into actions. Stated simply, changing the Mercy shape of a clump of Teacher words will determine which Teacher words are applied through actions.

This same mechanism appears to be responsible for cell differentiation. Wikipedia explains that “since each cell, regardless of cell type, possesses the same genome, determination of cell type must occur at the level of gene expression… as it turns out, epigenetic processes play a crucial role in regulating the decision to adopt a stem, progenitor, or mature cell fate.” A related article adds that “there are several layers of regulation of gene expression. One way that genes are regulated is through the remodeling of chromatin. Chromatin is the complex of DNA and the histone proteins with which it associates. If the way that DNA is wrapped around the histones changes, gene expression can change as well.” Summarizing, if the same DNA is wrapped around histones in a different manner, then this will cause a completely different set of genes to be exposed and thus translated into proteins. The result will be cell differentiation, because the function of a specific cell will depend upon the subset of DNA that is exposed. (It is difficult to conceive how such an integrated form of control could have emerged through specific random mutations.)

I faced a similar theoretical dilemma in the initial stages of developing the theory of mental symmetry. This dilemma emerged as a result of mapping cognitive styles on to brain regions. (This mapping was done in a crude matter back in the 1980s and it is now possible to map the seven cognitive styles of mental symmetry onto neurology in a detailed manner using the latest neurology.) Such a mapping faces one with a dilemma. On the one hand, everyone has the same kind of brain. But on the other hand, people can be divided into cognitive styles. How can people with similar brains have different cognitive styles? A similar dilemma emerges in biochemistry as a result of mapping DNA onto cell function. On the one hand, all cells in an organism have the same DNA. But on the other hand, cells can be divided into different categories, such as liver cells, brain cells, skin cells, and so on. How can cells with the same DNA have different functions?

A similar solution arises in both cases. Cognitive style appears to reflect differences in consciousness. A person’s cognitive style reflects the subsection of the brain in which a person is conscious, while the other aspects of the brain appear to function subconsciously. Consciousness implies awareness; it describes the aspect of thinking that is exposed to awareness. Similarly, cell differentiation appears to reflect differences in the ‘consciousness’ of DNA. Cell type appears to be determined by the subsection of DNA to which a specific cell is aware—the part of the DNA that is exposed.

I am not suggesting that cells are conscious, though evidence suggests that cognitive style is the result of some non-physical soul/mind interacting with the mind and body, and this interaction seems to be happening ultimately at a cellular level. However, it is striking that one discovers a similar fundamental dilemma in both biochemistry and cognitive thought and that the solution to this dilemma is also similar. Such fundamental similarities provide evidence that a universal being in Teacher thought ultimately lies behind both biochemistry and human thought.