This is one of my most elegant theories and it potentially ties up a lot of loose ends. I can imagine scientists in 100 years saying, “We think the universe might be a hologram!” They already did this recently when they said, “We think the universe might be a fractal!” — seemingly oblivious to the fact that the Buddha and countless other mystics had already been saying that for 3,000 years.
Holograms are truly fascinating. You can store three dimensions of information (a 3D image) on a two-dimensional surface. The “extra dimension” comes from an interference pattern between two lasers: a stable “reference beam” and another beam which illuminates the objects to be recorded. This interference pattern is recorded onto a 2D surface. If you’ve seen a hologram, you will know you can walk around it and you will literally be able to see the objects in the image from different perspectives as you walk around it. You are seeing a literal 3D object on a 2D surface. When viewing holograms under the right conditions with top-end technology, using lasers to illuminate the image for viewing (rather than the low-res piece of shit on your bank card), the object you see is visually indistinguishable from its true 3D counterpart. Check out this cool mouse hologram:
The most amazing thing about holograms is that, if you smash them up, each tiny piece contains the whole image of the object. However, in the piece you look at, you will only be able to see the object from the perspective of that piece. So, if you had a square hologram, say a sheet of plastic 10×10 cm, and broke off the bottom-left corner, you would only be able to see the 3D object from the perspective of the bottom-left. You can read more about that here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/holog.html#c4
The first part of my theory concerns human memory. Memory is currently modelled with the brain as a kind of hard disk drive, storing memories as files. If a memory is accessed, an output is sent to the body. This is a computer model, which happens a lot when humans attempt to analyse themselves. This is because it’s the left brain doing the analysis, and the left brain builds machines (and in fact its whole representation of the universe) out of parts. The left brain invented computers, and computers are in fact just extremely fast left brains.
I will speculate in another article some reasons for why humans are so left-brain dominant. The most palatable reason for most people is probably that we learn to talk extremely early, and thus begin thinking in words very early in our lives. The verbal system — which basically breaks the world down into little parts called words — is mainly a left-brain system. The education system then basically has us reinforcing that way of thinking for the next 18 or so years. All maths problems for example are left-brain linear functions. The end result is that an “educated man” is essentially a hyped-up left brain, and that worldview dominates his way of thinking and, usually, his life.
A natural result of the left-brain modality is to model the human body as a machine, and when it comes to the brain, memory and so forth, computer models are very common both in science and amongst the lay population.
I do not believe in the computer model of human memory whatsoever. I do not envisage the brain as a “hard disk drive” which “stores” your memories. This also means that any fantasy concerning mapping a human mind onto a computer for indefinite storage (and perhaps “transferring it to another body”) is total hogwash.
I believe that memories are stored holographically across the entire body. An experience creates an “imprint” — a complete, multi-dimensional rendering of that experience — across the entire body, including muscles, fascia, neurons — everything. Now, the best way to get at the full 3D recreation of that memory is to be in the same mental/physical state (and in this context there is actually no difference between those words — form is experience here in the material world) you were in when the memory was formed. An example is that when you are depressed, all your other “depressed” memories come bubbling up to the surface. When you’re happy and high-self-esteem, memories of your achievements are similarly readily available. When practising a musical instrument, there is usually a “click” moment when you suddenly start remembering how to play, as you enter that “awareness state”.
Left-Brain Strokes and Sudden Expletives
In either one of his seminars available on YouTube, or in his book The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (I forget which), Iain McGilchrist describes the tale (paraphrased) of the man who had had a left-brain stroke, severely limiting his ability to speak. At times the man would become so frustrated with his inability to say the word he wanted, he would spontaneously blurt out, “Why can’t I fucking say [word]!” — and he would be able to say the word while under that duress.
Now I will explain what I think is going on here via my holographic memory theory. The memory of the word is spread across the entire body as a hologram. When you smash a hologram, each piece contains the complete object. The left-brain piece of the hologram is no longer there due to the stroke — there is a huge missing segment of the hologram. In normal speech, with a working left brain, you can get at the word because you are so used to thinking in the left-brain modality that you automatically approach the word from the perspective of the left brain. You are used to seeing the word by looking through that perspective. With that perspective now gone, you cannot see the word and therefore cannot say it.
However, by switching perspective to the right brain — via emotion, a major part of the right brain’s “perspective” — the word is now visible again. He can now say the word. All that happened is he switched perspective to a piece of the hologram that had not been destroyed, so he could see the object (the word) again.
So, a major theme in my holographic memory theory is that you can get to memories from different “systems” provided you approach the memory in the way that system “likes”. (I realize I’ve used “systems”, conjuring machine parts again, but that’s one of the major drawbacks of communicating in words — you necessarily have to use the worldview of words even while attempting to attack and undermine that worldview.)
Singing for the Brain
When my stepfather (who sadly died just after Christmas) developed Parkinson’s disease, he unfortunately acquired the kind which induces aggressive dementia. He joined the local Alzheimer’s club as their symptoms are far more similar to the kind of dementia he was experiencing.
One of the main therapies given to dementia patients is called singing for the brain. By singing regularly, some brain function is restored and even some memories begin to resurface.
Singing is also a main therapy for left-brain stroke victims in order to help them relearn how to speak, and is highly effective.
Music is a global process (involving the entire brain) but it is certainly favoured by the right brain. We can see a clear example of this in babies, who are born extremely right-brain dominant, and whose communication (“baby-speak”) more closely resembles song than it does words. Baby-speak is all about tonality (and therefore context via tonality), since the baby has no reference table yet of what words mean in a conceptual sense. A theory put forward strongly by McGilchrist is that speech began life as song. In the animal kingdom, all audio communication is done seemingly via differently pitched tones and rhythms — music — and this is certainly a right-brain, context and emotion–based system.
In humans, just as we see baby and parent “sing” to one another before the baby begins to make the (perhaps all too rapid?) transition to left-brain actual words, we have seen societies over the centuries shift from right-brain to left-brain primacy. Ernst Haeckel’s idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (ontology being the origination and development of an organism, phylogeny being the development of groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations)) is known as recapitulation theory and is, of course, an observation about the fractal nature of the universe.
In cases of left-brain stroke, we can come back to my idea of a hologram with a huge piece cut out, representing the damaged left brain. However, by engaging the right brain’s preferred modality (music, emotion and context), both words and memories can begin to be seen again via switching to this different perspective. The memory of the word was never “in” the left brain — the perspective of the left brain was just the one most used and most readily able to construct complex strings of words into communicable, detailed descriptions of the world around us.
The Holographic Universe
The universe itself can be seen as a giant hologram. It’s all the same “thing”, but will look very different depending upon through which perspective it is viewed. If you are angry, for example, you are looking through the “angry” corner of the hologram, and you will see a universe filled with hostile targets. If you’re a snake, you’ll experience a snaky universe. 🙂
We can therefore model the universe as being a “whole” with an infinite number of perspectives through which it can be viewed. Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary called these different perspectives “reality tunnels”.
The experience of the universe you are getting at any one time is product of what can loosely be termed your “awareness state”. I could have said “physical state”, “mental state” or “emotional state” to make it more relatable to the human experience (e.g. refer back to my anger example), but the truth is that there is so, so, so much more beyond the mundane. Want to do astral projection? Get into the awareness state that lets you look at the hologram through that angle. Want to visit Hell, or Heaven, or any number of human-created holographic perspectives? Simply find the awareness state that lets you view the hologram from that perspective. Want to review your past lives? Look through your past life perspective lens.
The awareness state you are in cuts off a piece of the universal hologram, letting you view the “whole” from just that perspective. Drugs such as LSD allow all sorts of pieces of the hologram to be cut off and looked through, often ones inaccessible within the regular human experience. Meditation, particularly the samatha jhanas, allow highly customizable snippets of pure pleasure to be cut from the universal hologram and have existence experienced through.
Anybody can plainly see that there is no such intrinsic tendency for variation to decrease in a population. Mendel showed that this is because when paternal genes and maternal genes are combined in a child, it is not like blending paints, it is more like shuffling and reshuffling cards in a pack. Nowadays, we know that genes are lengths of DNA code, not physically separate like cards, but the principle remains valid. Genes don’t blend; they shuffle. You could say they are shuffled badly, with groups of cards sticking together for several generations of shuffling before change happens to split them.
Source: ‘The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution’ by Richard Dawkins, p.29.
Genes are not like paints. You don’t add red and white to get pink. It is not a useful analogy to compare paints with genes. The Neanderthal genome is mixed with Cro-Magnon components about as well as oil mixes with water. They are often at war for development of the resulting person. They settle out and sort themselves apart naturally because they are often biologically incompatible.
Genes don’t do what people think they do. They don’t work the way they think they work. They are more like holograms than you would be willing to believe.
They don’t blend like paints. They don’t mix necessarily when crossed. As plant growers will tell you, they often seem to be quite stubborn about their inherent nature to the point where you can never say for certain you have hybridised anything perfectly. Given their own lead, they tend to revert back to what they really are. A thing seems to insist on being that thing, almost as if its original record is the most important to it. This blows a mile wide hole in neo-darwinist evolutionary ideas.
If any of my ideas is really difficult to accept it is the notion that after the Neanderthal people were mass genocided, cannibalised, taken as war captives and gang-raped for thousands of years and the children made into chattel slaves … that the essential Neanderthal nature remains largely untouched. Given half a chance and the right climate, I believe that the current “hybrids” would simply revert back to Neanderthals. Without the constant beatdown of Sapiens and Melonheads and their boots to their throats, the Neanderthal would just wander off, form smaller extremely successful tribes of xenophobic elitists and once again dominate the planet through sheer attrition.
This is going to be one of my most speculative (read: keyboard-jockey) parts of this post. Any of its acceptance depends heavily on having an understanding of and at least an open mind towards Edenism (also known as New Anthropology), which I have written a little bit about on this blog before, for example, here: Venlafaxine, Phenibut and Choline for Cyclothymia (“Bipolar Lite”), and which I will be writing a lot more about shortly. For the crash course, read Koanic’s How to read faces.
On a night out in Nottingham a few months ago, I had just finished withdrawing some money from a cash point when an attractive young lady decided to start talking to me. I instantly identified her as Neanderthal, and as Neanderthals were a matriarchal society, women approaching men and doing the “legwork” of the courtship process is completely normal — in fact, I must say I met most of my female companions this way, not because I am particularly good-looking, but because I am particularly Neanderthal-looking — and these were practically all Neanderthal women.
I made six “cold-reads” about her which all turned out to be true. First, I told her her second toe was longer than her first. This is called Morton’s toe and is, in my model, the number one Neanderthal identifier. (The Statue of Liberty has Morton’s toe, because only a Neanderthal would be obsessive and creative enough to create such an immense work of art, and of course he would model the feet on the nearest ones he had available to him: his own.)
“OCD or bipolar?”
“Your ring finger is long compared to your index finger — I’m assuming you’re bisexual?”
“You have reddish hair now [Neanderthals had red hair], but you were born blonde, right?”
“I assume you have myopia and are wearing contacts right now?”
I’ve just described some of the strongest, most prevalent Neanderthal traits. I’ll do a full listing soon.
She was on her way home and we were heading to the next club anyway. She asked how she can find out more about this stuff, so I put the web address of this blog into her phone. If you’re reading, hi! 🙂
Now, here is the question we have to answer. How can a girl of, say, 3.4% Neanderthal DNA, produce what I consider to be a moderate-fidelity Neanderthal hominid with very predictable, clustered traits?
Bringing this back to our hologram model, we could say that, looked at from certain perspectives (the 3.4% broken off the whole DNA hologram), we are seeing a complete Neanderthal. Those perspectives, the “awareness states”, could be physical, behavioural, mental, emotional and so forth.
“Junk DNA” is a term coined in the 1960s, and is now referred to more often as “noncoding DNA”.
In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism’s DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional non-coding RNA molecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs). Other functions of noncoding DNA include the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, scaffold attachment regions, origins of DNA replication, centromeres and telomeres.
The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. For example, over 98% of the human genome is noncoding, while 20% of a typical prokaryote genome is noncoding. When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function for the organism, as theoretically predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has often been referred to as “junk DNA”, a term that has elicited strong responses over the years.
When scientists say things like “98% of human DNA doesn’t do anything” and write it off as “junk DNA”, you know there’s a hole in the theorem or they’ve fudged their maths. (Judging by the above Wikipedia article, scientists have come a long way since then — but at some point “98% junk DNA” was accepted as fact, and it is this attitude I wish to draw your attention to.)
They did the same thing with dark matter/energy:
According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total mass–energy content of the universe.
They fudged the maths then called the remainder “dark matter/energy”, rather than admitting the model probably wasn’t quite right to begin with. “Dark matter” became a “thing”, the same way black holes became a “thing”, despite neither having ever been observed.
Modern science is largely a left-brain affair. The left brain works via categorization. Everything has to be a “something”, so everything gets a name. It also slavishly follows its own internal logic, and has no concept of itself being wrong (requiring a “right-brain revolution” in order to course-correct). Thus, if the left brain’s internal logic produces an answer, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to common sense, that answer is right according to the left brain — and the implications of that answer each get a name (“junk DNA”, “dark matter/energy”). The left brain cannot stand question marks (since they are “no-category”, which is not part of the left brain’s schema) and it will not tolerate them in its models. A pointless concept or narrative will instead arise to fill the gap (also known as confabulation).
I’ll bring this back to holograms for my final, keyboard-jockeyist statement of all. I don’t believe 98% of human DNA is junk. It might be a kind of “screen”, like you would shine a projector onto. If the light happens to shine through the 3.4% of the hologram that is Neanderthal DNA, a Neanderthal image might be projected onto the “junk DNA”, which then kicks in via epigenetics and transcription to construct a moderate-fidelity Neanderthal. This could also help explain genetic throwbacks.
Super, super, super keyboard-jockey, I know. But it’s just an idea and, according to TED, ideas are worth spreading — unless they happen to challenge orthodox science or discuss psychedelic drugs and altered states of consciousness.