Thought Control:
Mental Influences.

Robert A. Herrmann Ph.D.
30 OCT 2007. Last Revision 28 JAN 2016

From the Introduction

When I explicitly think and when I read, I do so in words or images. I "hear" a mental voice. It does not have the same characteristics as the sounds I hear via my audio senses, sounds that emanate from sources physically external to my brain. It has a quality that does not change. The qualities it has seem to match my own voice. The mental images are considerable different from those that I perceive via my visual sense. I mentally "talk" to myself. I make the assumption that all individuals, under normal circumstances, have these same experiences.

"Self;" (1). the identity, character, or essential quantities or any person (or thing). (2). the identity, personality, individuality, etc. of a given person; one's own person as distinct from all others.

Human beings are "aware" of themselves. They study the differences between members of their own species as well as how the members relate to other species. Human beings are "self-aware."

It is established that the self is certainly not identical with memory. (Eccles and Robinson, (1984, p. 41))

It is readily agreed that our behavior and memories, and in fact the whole content of our inner conscious life, are dependent upon the accumulated experiences of our lives, but no matter how extreme the change at some particular decision point produced by the exigencies of circumstances, one would still be the same self able to trace back one's continuity in memory to the earliest remembrances at the age one year or so, the same self in a quite other guise.

[M]atteristic solutions fail to account for our experienced uniqueness. (Eccles and Robinson, (1984, p. 43))

The above quotations come from John Eccles, a Nobel Laurent world authority in the electro-chemical behavior of our brain. He won this prize for identify such electro-chemical activity. Of course, there are many that attempt to discount his views based only upon a non-scientific philosophic stance and nothing else. Such attempts should be rejected.

You are studying for test. You have never taken a test in this new material before. Suddenly your mental voice states, "I can't lean this stuff. I'm going to fail. Why should I continue wasting my time." You stop preparing and have a snack. Then suddenly your mental voice states, "Well, maybe I can pass the test if I just worked a little harder." So, you go back to studying. On the other hand, the second thought may not occur. You don't continue in your preparation and, as you predicted, you fail the test.

I have no doubt that this very simple example, but under different circumstances, has been repeated trillions and trillions of times over thousands and thousands of years. The words you mentally perceive are not random nonsense. They have clear meanings. But, what initiated them, how are they chosen with a specific intention, a mental intention that is not stated or imaged. Notice there are two but oppose "intentions" involved. What initiates prior electro-chemical actions so that these mental statements are formed in a comprehensible way and the intention is satisfied? Many will simply claim that, although it has not as yet been discovered, how all the occurs is physical. Notice, however, that they occur suddenly. What suddenly chooses the words you mentally state? Even if you have had prior experiences that correspond to the statements, what is it, what is the "something" that electro-chemically initiates these thoughts? If you describe the something, one might ask, "Mustn't there be another something that initiates this something?" Such a continued mental process will yield a "logical regress." This is the continued application of the "something that initiates the something" that does not yield a "final" something. It appears to be the "mental intention" that is revealed by the statements that may be the most difficult to "explain" physically.

Is there mental activity that indicates that the choice of such mental words or images is neither initiated by prior knowledge nor by prior memories of words that have the appropriate meanings to express your ideas?

In 1979, I get an "idea." But, there appears to be no words, in any dictionary, that adequately describes the idea. I try one, then another and nothing I try suffices. They do not suffice since, some how or other, I know they do not match the idea. There are no images or diagrams that suffice. It appears to be a totally new idea never presented to the scientific world. So, I need to event new words for the idea. But, obviously they remain inadequate to express the idea in a completely satisfactory manner. Others who believe they clearly understand this new notion, when questioned, show that this is not the case. For many years this continues. Then, in 1995, a electronic device, the DVD, is invented and it allows for others to have a more complete understanding of my idea. It does not completely demonstrate all the features however, but it helps. I am sure others have had the same experience.

Since there were no words, no images, no diagrams that adequately presented this idea, how was it mentally formed? Where in my brain is this "thing," this idea located? Of what is it composed? I got an "idea" that is not completely expressible in any form physical or mental. How is the "idea" expressed within my brain? Where is it? What electro-chemical combinations form an "idea" that is not so related to prior knowledge, words, images, etc? Am I the only scientist who experiences such difficulties?

One feature of linguistic expression is rarely considered in depth. We can all recognize that when we are attempting to express subtle thoughts, particularly those that are novel and as yet unclear, we may tentatively try now this, now that verbal expression. In fact this is precisely what is done in writing this section. In attempting to convey some experience it is difficult to give satisfactory verbal expression to one's thoughts. One searches for the right words and syntactic arrangement so that one can have hope that one's thoughts may achieve a clear expression to listeners or readers. (Eccles and Robinson, (1984, p. 117))

Have you ever said, "I don't want to think about that anymore." Does your brain, your mind, follow your orders? Do you start thinking about it again? Yes. So, why doesn't your brain obey your orders?

We often mentally argue back-and-forth. "I guess it's okay if I do it. It won't really hurt anyone else. Then maybe it will. I'm not sure how it'll affect the kids. But, I guess they'll get all of my life insurance. After that I'm sure their mother will take care of them. How can I do this so that there is no way it can't be classified as an accident?" After another White Russian, "Oh! sure that's easy. No one will even guess it wasn't an accident. I'll be done with this miscible life." Are these thoughts self-generated somehow or other? Or is it even slightly possible that there is another source? By-the-way, these thought were once my thoughts. This is a true rendering of the facts.

You might ask, "Who or what answered my question?" I had never contemplated such actions before. I had no such experiences. Am I arguing merely within myself, or could there be other entities that influence the selection of the words I mentally "hear" or the images I might mentally "see"?

Your brain is charged with continually preserving your life. It will take from one place, your skin for example, to preserve life sustaining processes. It fights diseases. It repairs injury and does a lot more. But, does this contradict some thoughts? As a continued example, people mentally argue about suicide. "I just can't take it any more. Can't they leave me alone. I see no future for me. I'm so upset. - Well, there's one way I can have peace and quiet and I know there are peaceful ways to do it." Although there are many aspects to suicide such as it being a type of compulsion or a direct result of faulty brain chemistry, I, at present, only consider the concept when it is associated with such mental arguments. The arguments for murdering oneself often rely upon the notion that the future will be the same as the past, which is not the case. Yet, the mental arguments are strong enough that individuals reject their exceptionally strong impulse for self preservation.

Have you ever thought about your thinking? Why do we think so much about occurrences that upset us, occurrences over which we have totally no control? I am fortunate. Since I was a child, I have been forced to think before I speak, to form the words mentally slightly before I speak them. It is then that I repeat what my mind first states. From this requirement, I have spent considerable time in examining how I think.

Although there have been attempts to explain physically how such mental impressions occur, none that I have investigated are satisfactory from a physical-science viewpoint. This does not invalidate the view that somehow or other, such "thoughts" are self-generated. On the other hand, there might be causes that are classified as non-physical and these produce such mental results. In Herrmann (2006), I discuss application of the mathematical results in to the Eccles and Robinson (1984) and Popper notion that there are immaterial aspects of human thought, aspects that indirectly relate to such mentally obtained results. They claim that there is no reasonable explanation for how our thoughts behave, under certain specific circumstances, except to assume that they are being influenced by a immaterial medium.

Evidence indicates that this Eccles and Robinson conclusion should be somewhat generalized to other mental thought patterns, such as described above. That is, that a much larger category of thoughts can be influenced by immaterial exterior sources.
As presented in the complete article of the same title, there is an analogue model that yields a process that produces the mental results described above in this introduced. This shows that such a generalization is a scientific rational one. In this case, an "analogue model" is a mathematically based theory that rationally represents behavior and properties, where the actual objects used may be different from those presented in the model.

In general, the term "model" means a "representation" or "to represent" via various devices. Any evidence that supports this new model, at present, is only indirect. What I present may be controversial for it definitely contradicts many world-views that are driven by unverified assumptions. Scientifically, eliminating any of the speculative aspects requires a preponderance of evidence, which, if unbiased observation is used, does exist for this viable scientific alternative. Since the evidence is indirect in character, then individuals can choice other alternative explanations. I am confident that this model does not detract from my other scientific offerings.

(Prior to the technical portion of the main article, I present a description of a sequence of historical events that, for me, now imply how, relative to the GGU-model, the Adversary has subtly influenced the thinking of many. These influences have attempted to minimized the higher-intelligence aspects of all of my General Intelligent Design research findings so that my findings continue to be known by only a miniscule number of individuals. I present this portion of the complete article next.)

An historical example of subtle Adversary influences.

Stating in 1979, I began to construct the GGU-model and the General Intelligent Design (GID) Model interpretation. Relative to creationary science, in 1982, I published my preliminary results in an article in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. In 1983, I established the scientifically rationality of the creationary notion that a universe can suddenly appear in a mature and functional form via the notion of in-transit photon information. This was the prevailing model for the Institute for Creation Research. In 1984, I began publishing a series of articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly detailing the than used GGU-model processes and, in particular, their higher-intelligence interpretation. That is, that it is rational to state that the processes all display signatures that our universe is designed and produced by an infinitely powerful higher-intelligence and that everything that exists is indirect evidence for this rational prediction.

Then in 1990, William Dembski, as an application of statistical decision theory, published his ideas on Restricted Intelligent Design (RID), a mode of intelligent design that neither corresponds to that of a higher-intelligence nor is relative to all physical-systems and physical entities. Indeed, it applies to but a miniscule number of these. His theory allows for considerable discussion both pro-and-con. Indeed, as Dembski mentions, his intelligent design can correspond to that produced by an highly "evolved" race of aliens. When ID (intelligent design) is mentioned in the popular media and presented to the world by the Discovery Institute, it is RID that is presented and GID is never mentioned or considered.

GID as been painted with the same brush as RID although GID methods are not related to the RID methods and, further, GID has been totally ignored by all but an extremely small minority. Its findings are almost total unknown throughout the world since it is confused with RID. Is the development of RID and its continual applications a product of subtle Adversary influences, influences that will bring not only radicular upon the entire subject of ID but will also eliminate GID as a viable alternative? My original in-transit information model is an example of application of the Rapid-Formation Model (RFM) that can reproduce any known cosmology over a miniscule physical time period and not alter the original Genesis 1 Earth and it local environment. Hence, the creationary science movement can accept such cosmologies as the standard "Big Bang" and alterations and these do not contradict a strict Genesis 1 interpretation.

In 1994, Humphreys published his "white-hole cosmology." This and others yet to come use the presently known physical laws and allow Earth-time to essentially stop during the formation of an exterior universe. To do this, less than strict meanings for Biblical terms are necessary and these creationary cosmologies neither satisfy the pre-Fall and Eden requirements for eternal life nor Rom 1:20, where we are told that indirectly the invisible attributes of God's power and divinity are "clearly seen" "from what has been made." A GGU-model application does satisfy such requirements.

Various aspects of these weak creationary cosmologies are continually discussed and aspects of the standard atheistic cosmologies that do not fit these models are continually criticized by the vast majority of the creationary science community. These facts have allowed many to receive publication credits for their efforts while such articles that describe the detailed workings of the RFM have not been allowed to appear in any creationary science journal, except for a short letter buried at the end of one issue of the CRS Quarterly. Due to the efforts of many within the creationary science movement, the GGU-model and the GID interpretation have been successfully suppressed. Are any of these events a product of the Adversary's influences? Remember that no individual is completely immune to such influences.

Those that do not know how the Adversary actual works would probably dismiss these historical facts as not related in any manner to the Adversary's influences. However, an event occurred on 21 MAR 2014 that testifies to the actuality of these influences.

In Chapter 7 of the 2014 book Transformed by the Evidence and as originally written, I give a very brief account of my conversion and then my acceptance of a strict Genesis account as historical fact. In includes an important description for some of the GGU and GID conclusions that led to my acceptance of the Genesis account. It is this inclusion that I was hoping would help publicize GID. However, after it was accepted, editors altered what I had written. I had no knowledge as to alterations were made until I received my copies.

First, the title they gave to my chapter has no relation to the material presented. Then they removed all of my academic background. They made 8 substitutions that do not substantially alter the original ideas I present. There are 5 deletions, where one alters a historical fact not of great significant. But, there is one additional that has a vast affect upon the major portion of this chapter.

On page 68, while discussing that portion of my 1978 model that establishes the rationality of the Biblically described attributes of God, I write in the original version "For example, it is scientifically rational to state that God's intelligence, wisdom, and love are greater than any that can be displayed by any life form." Then I attribute this to an "higher intelligence." But, an editor added one word, just one word, that completely destroys the facts that I have written. The phrase "by any life form" is altered to read "by any other life form." The word "other" has been inserted. This immediately invalidates the entire GGU and GID Biblical interpretation and makes it no better the RID. It implies that the higher-intelligence to which I am referring is a life form. This is certainly a must subtle change. One can ask, how is it possible that an editor found the one word to insert that would, for the reader, completely invalidate my research findings?

For the second printing, the chapter authors were asked to check the articles for errors. I forwarded but two such and the major one was to have the word "other" removed. On 21 MAR 2014, I was informed that there will be the second printing and all errors need to be corrected by the 23rd. I was told that all authors had received a PDF copy of the second version and they should check it. However, I had not been sent such a file. I immediately mentioned this to the individual in charge. "Oh! I'm sorry. Don't known how we made such a mistake." I got my copy early the next day. I checked it and found that my corrections had not been made. The "other" was still there. The publisher was immediately informed of this and was asked to remove this insertion prior to the next printing. The correction has been made.

The evidence seems to be mounting that there are, indeed, mental influences that have and are still attempting to eliminate, in the minds of the majority of humanity, the GGU and GID models as viable scientifically based Biblical alternatives that eliminate atheistic criticisms. Remember, that the atheist is a major source of the Adversary's control over humankind, since such a control is at its most powerful when one does not accept that it exists.

It is interesting to note that these destructive results have occurred by the addition of only one word to my chapter and how, relative to Scriptures we are warned "Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar" (Prov. 30:5-6).

See for the complete article.


Eccles, J. and D. A. Robinson, The Wonder of Being Human, Our Brain and Our Mind, The Free Press, New York, 1984.

Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.