Mind Body Connections- How They Happen

In the past two chapters, I've introduced you to some of the theoretical underpinnings beneath the mechanism which connects the mind and the body. The philosophy behind this mechanism, and the physics which supports it. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy then, we're going to begin to look at how this theory plays out in real life situations. Specifically at how it affects our abilities to connect. To ourselves. To others. And to the ideas and beliefs we hear and say to ourselves and others. For instance, why is it we so often feel disconnected from each other. Do we do this to protect ourselves? Is it weakness or injury? Or are we exactly as we should be, disconnections and all? Can this inability to connect be healthy in fact? Do you know? Are you sure? Let's look together.

The Power of Having a Master Clock
The big thing I'll be introducing you to in this chapter is how external events, such as falling in love, getting high, and having sex for the first time, can become the master clocks to which our minds and bodies synchronize. And how, when this happens, these experiences can feel so good, they can seduce us into all kinds of craziness. Some of it destructively bad. And some of it world changing good.

Before we begin though, I first need to mention a few more things which point to that we do indeed have two internal clocks, a mind clock and a body clock. And yes, I've already pointed out both philosophical precedents (the ideas of the Four Philosophers) and anthropomorphic mirrors in our technologies (free wheeling and master clocks) which point to this being the case. However, the more you know, the more you can draw your own conclusions.

In addition, there is the idea that the only way to know for sure if a theory is true or not is to test it for "fractility." And for those of you for whom the meaning of this term has yet to emerge, allow me to restate it briefly.

Fractility is the essential quality of real world objects; things (body) and ideas (mind). This quality is that they are based on recognizable patterns which always repeat differently. As opposed to the essential quality of classically geometric things and ideas (like statistics), which is that they are based on recognizable patterns which always repeat identically.

For example, Einstein's E=MC2 is an incredible truth. Why? Because it is based entirely on the relationships between three fractals; energy, mass, and light. As is Ohm's law; E = IR. Again, the formula is based entirely on the relationships between three fractals; voltage, amperage, and resistance.

In both cases, the formula is a recognizable pattern with always repeats differently. Thus while there are an infinite number of different, real life possibilities which could derive from these two formulas, all these possibilities will stem from the same set of recognizable patterns.

Some may now ask, so is there a formula underlying what I've been telling you about how the mind and body connect? A formula based on the relationships between fractals? My answer? Yes, there is. M=I(T). Meaning equals Information multiplied by Time. And before I tell you what this formula defines, please first note the similarity between this formula and the previous two; they are all based entirely on the relationships between three fractals. Which means all three are recognizable patterns which always repeat differently.

What does this last formula represent? It represents the ways in which our minds and bodies manifest Information, Meaning, and Time. Here, the Information fractal is identical to Spinoza's Mind Body continuum, wherein thoughts are one end of the continuum and feelings on the other. The second continuum then, the Meaning fractal, is identical in nature to Herbart's thresholds of perception, which Herbart himself referred to as the varying "intensity" of what we perceive. Finally the third continuum is the Time fractal, a continuum which is identical in nature to Herbart's second measure of human nature, the one on which he maps out peoples' perceptions of time.

The thing that makes this formula, M=I(T), particularly meaningful though is what it reveals about human nature. You see, if you use this formula to chart how the visual intensity of the information we perceive over time changes (by making our perception of Mind / Body Information, the "X" axis, the visual intensity of this Information, the "Y" axis, and our perception of Time, the "Z" axis), you will find that underlying all of human nature, there are four, three dimensional fractal shapes. And only four. Four simple recognizable patterns which always repeat differently. Moreover, what makes these four fractal patterns so meaningful is that they are capable of describing the essence beneath all human experience, from the fractal which defines human injury to the fractal which defines learning itself.

Obviously, if this formula is true, then it represents a major step toward quantifying human nature. However, as our focus here is on fractility as a test for truth (and not on how this formula quantifies human nature), I need to now beg your indulgence and set this formula aside, so we can return to the topic at hand. That the way to know if a theory about our world is true or not is that this theory must be based entirely on the relationships within and between a group of fractals. If not, then no matter how intriguing the theory, there will always be limits to the amount of truth it can tell us, even when it holds some truth.

How then does this "truth test" play out in real life?

Basically, it's simple. When a theory is true, there is always more it can teach you about the nature of life. Including more personal stories in which this theory is in play. This, in fact, is what makes statistically based research hollow at the personal level. The amount of stories in which it still holds true end long before our searches reach the personally descriptive level. Similarly to how, when you zoom in on anything fake; a silk rose, a cultured Christmas tree, a photoshopped photograph, at some level, you'll find linear transitions. Places where you can see unnatural boundaries. There are no straight lines in nature, remember.

In effect, these unnatural boundaries define the limit to which you can zoom into a theory and still have it be real. For instance, say you are trying to describe an oak leaf to someone whom has never seen one. And say you must do this using only statistics to describe this leaf. How well do you think you would do if your goal were to impart the beauty of an oak leaf?

Let's see. "Average length; 7 inches. Average width; 5 inches. Average number of points; seven. Average color during July; medium green. And so on. All true statements at the general level. But at the up front and personal level? To see for yourself, ask yourself this. Could anyone whom had not previously seen an oak leaf recognize one, with confidence, after having only heard this data? Even if you offered reams of it? More important, could they actually know the beauty of a mid fall New England oak leaf, just from having been told these numbers?

The obvious answer? Of course not. And this is what I'm getting at when I say real world truth is fractal. Thus to know the degree to which a theory holds true in real life, you must see the fractal or fractals from which this theory derives. And if your hypothesis is about human nature? Then for this hypothesis to be true, it must always be able to teach you new and interesting things about human nature, and at the same time, have all these things derive from the same pattern of fractal relationships.

And if your theory reaches a point wherein it has no more to teach you?

Then this theory has reached the limit of it's truth. The limits of its accuracy. And the limits of its usefulness.

As such, it has failed the test for fractility. Why? Because no fractal fails this test. Not a one. There simply is not limit to what we can see in a fractal. Which is why there is no limit to the beauty you can find in oak leaves. Or the wonder in snow flakes. Or the mystery in human beings.

Now let's look at one more story. A story which meets this criteria. How? It is yet one more real world example which supports the fractal patterns that show how the mind and body are two separate, but interactive experiences.

The Second Brain
In a previous chapter, I briefly mentioned the work of Dr. Michael Gershon, a neurobiologist whose work centers around proving that we humans have two brains. In fact, Dr. Gershon literally writes these very words throughout his book. No coincidence his book is entitled, The Second Brain (1998).

What is his book about? Dr. Gershon says we literally have two physically separate brains. A brain in the head. And a brain in the bowel. Please know that when he writes this, he is not merely referring to this second brain metaphorically. Nor is he positing a medically unsupported hypothesis. Rather, he is referring to what medical doctors call, the enteric nervous system, a complex system of nerves and nerve centers in and around the gut which literally functions as a separate and distinct "brain." His words, not mine.

What makes him say this so emphatically? Because research ongoing since the early nineteenth century proves that our gut functions very differently our the limbs or other organs, especially with regard to how they connect to the brain and spinal cord. What I'm saying is, if you sever the nerves which connect any limb, or any organs other than the gut, to the brain or spinal cord, these limbs and other organs cease to function. Reflexively. In other words, to function as they normally do. However, in the case of the gut, even if you sever all the nerves which connect it to the brain and spine, it will still continue to function. Reflexively. Even to the point where it will continue to function even after being surgically removed from the body.

Why mention this? Because other than in the gut, reflexive behavior always involves signals sent either from the brain or from the spinal cord. In effect, all limbs, and all organs other than those of the enteric nervous system, are unable to make decisions for themselves. Thus, for the heart, or the bladder, or the skeletal muscles to function normally, they must receive instructions from the central nervous system.

The organs of the gut are totally different. Why? As I said, because even when you cut all the nerves which connect them to the brain or spine, they still function as if they are being given instructions. Why? Because they are. Not by the brain in the head or by the spine, but rather by the enteric nervous system itself. Which is part of why Dr. Gershon calls the gut, the "second brain."

Why makes this important? Because if indeed we do respond separately to what we feel in our guts, then knowing this separateness exists physiologically as well as psychologically adds yet one more pointer in Descartes' direction. And yes, Dr. Gershon himself seems reluctant to say this as directly as I'm saying it here. In fact, his words fall short of even admitting that this second brain is responsible for our "gut reactions." Not surprising considering his fellow doctors crucify folks who even allude to such things publicly. This said, in the opening of his book, Dr. Gershon actually hints at this very possibility when he says, "Since the enteric nervous system can function on its own, it must be considered possible that the brain in the bowel may also have its own psychoneuroses." And lest you think this statement crazy, consider this.

The neurotransmitter most associated with moods and the lack thereof is serotonin. Most current antidepressants in fact are SSRI's; serotonin re uptake inhibitors. Why mention this? Because over 95% of the body's serotonin is made and exists, not in the brain, but in the bowel. Why and what does this mean? You tell me. Is it that the bowel is the seat of emotion as I've been saying here? Makes you wonder what and where those anti depressants are working, doesn't it?

Okay. So this stuff is interesting to say the least, But why include it in a chapter on how the mind and body are what allow and disallow us to connect in the world?

In simple terms, because if we have two ways in which to perceive the world; through our thoughts and reasonings (the mind) and through our feelings and gut reactions (the body), then we have two ways in which to connect to the world. Moreover, like all coins which by design can be stood on end only with great effort, we too perceive the world with both sides only with great effort.

Like coins thrown in the air then, we all end up having a sort of built in preference for one of these two ways of sensing the world. Either we land on the mind first preference side of the coin or the body first preference side. Moreover, because we all have this one sided preference, whenever we make decisions, we make them mostly based on only the half of the data we prefer. Either what our minds have perceived, or what our bodies have perceived.

The result? We end up making mostly half baked decisions, in everything from what we eat to whom we marry. Not always. But often. Why? Because we, by nature, ignore, or do not sense in the first place, what one of our brains is trying to tell us.

Putting this into my language then, all of us end up preferring one or the other kind of perception. Either we prefer to sense life through what we think of life or we prefer to sense it through what we feel in our guts. Either way, we have a preference, wherein we value one way of sensing life at the expense of the other.

This then is where Dr. Gershon's idea that we have "two brains" comes in. Because we human beings literally have two decisions centers, we function much like corporations wherein there are two managing partners. Including that like many real world business partnerships, one of the two managing partners is usually more powerful.

Our "two brain corporations" function very similarly. Not on paper, mind you. But in real life. Thus, while on paper both brains are required to make decisions, rarely are both brains fully present and accounted for. This results in our making many bad, poor, wrong, or half baked decisions.

My point here? That the source of a lot of our problems in life is that we make decisions with only half the data. Over eating and addictions being two examples. And if you need a more normal example of how this happens, picture this. Picture yourself asking a friend if she and her husband would like to come over for dinner on Saturday night.

Now picture her saying yes.

Now picture her sheepishly calling you later to beg out, because she said yes without first asking her husband. Which made him so mad, he wouldn't go.

The decisions we make with only one brain present end up very similarly to how this "didn't ask first " marital decision ended up. In other words, when one of our brains makes a decision without first consulting the other, then whatever follows is at least half baked, and often times a mess. Not always. But often.

What do we feel when this happens to us? Usually we end up feeling confused as to why we made this decision. Or when things really go badly, we often torture ourselves, or those around us, for having made the decision which led to this disaster.

How often do these kinds of things happen in real life? Well ask yourself. How many times have you, in hind sight, remembered ignoring a gut feeling which, if listened to, would have prevented a bad decision? An intuitive voice which was telling you, you should probably pass on something? The deal which felt too good to be true and in hind sight was. Or the relationship wherein the person was saying all the right words but in hind sight, ended up being more of a self serving business deal than a friendly offer.

Or how about the salesperson who promises that what you are by buying will be just right for you. Or the unfaithful lover who assures you, yet once more, that he or she will never cheat on you again. Yeah, right.

So what makes us ignore what we know to be the dissenting opinion? The wisdom of the unequal partner in our two brains?

It's simply our nature to do this. Moreover, this is what these bad decisions all have in common. We make them because we miss seeing, or ignore, what one of our two managing partners has to say. Either we ignore or miss what our gut has to say or we override or misinterpret the logic present.

Having trouble believing this happens as often as I'm implying? Well consider this. We human beings make so many of these minds mistakes that saying we've made one has become cliche. Why? Because we normally cannot "remember" to include both partners. Nor can we learn to do this. You see, our two brains remember things very differently.

What I'm saying is, mentally remembering to "check downstairs" will never be a long term answer. Nor will remembering to "think before we speak." Why not? Because in order for us to have simultaneous access to both these intrinsically different memories, we must be able to feel them both consciously. And to feel them both consciously, we must have more than just an awareness that they both exist. Both brains must be in sync, time wise.

What this means in daily life is, we humans will always function more like two physically separate reel to reel tape recorders, both of which are "free wheeling," than like the equipment in modern television studios, all of which is synced to a "master clock."

So are we doomed, meaning, is there nothing we can do to remedy this inequity?

The answer lies in asking whether there is a functional equivalent to master clock in out lives. Is there? Yes. And understanding how this works is really a lot simpler than you might imagine. You see, it turns out that any event wherein we experience surprise can become a master clock to our minds and bodies. Anything at all. A surprise birthday party. The birth of your first child. The day you got married. Or the morning you got promoted.

All these and similar life events hold the potential to sync up our mind and body clocks. Which is why we often feel so clear and sure of ourselves right after experiencing one of these kinds of events.

Herein lies the answer to our dilemma regarding our two out of sync clocks. And what we are about to explore. Learning to find, create, and use life's master clocks. Beginning with how special life events can sometimes sync up our two brains and in doing so, get our two brains to be on the same page. Walking in lock step. Clear and focused and ready for action.

And without this sync?

Without this sync, we feel a hollowness in our inner life. Not functionally, mind you. Most of us can accomplish much good even when what we are doing feels hollow. What I'm saying is, we all have the capability to do good even when we are only "doing the right thing." Unfortunately, unless we do this good while both our brains are in gear, we take no credit for the good in what we do. After all, we were only half there when we did it.

To state this even more emphatically, the only time we human beings experience life consciously is when our two brains are synced to an external master clock. This in fact is why we can at times so desperately latch onto what we believe is an inspiring leader, only to find out later that we were taken in by their rhetoric, or by their hand shakes and smiles. Insincere politicians immediately come to mind. And sincere but crazy cult leaders. And well meaning to blinded by science medical prophets. And fear mongering kill them all power hungry generals.

This group also includes the lovers who whisper words of endearment while at the same time cheating on us. And the alcoholics who promise us yet again that this time will be different.

In all these cases and in so many more, in hind sight, we see we failed to trust either our guts or the facts. And because we never face the real problem; our out of sync clocks, we end up blaming ourselves or the world but never really change.

Here then is our real problem. We need a master clock. Moreover, we cannot create these clocks all by ourselves. We need relationships with others in order to create them. Which is why, in talk therapy, we must either connect as two openly human equals or settle for not getting better.

So how do we begin to learn to do this? The answer? Like everything posited by Emergence Personality Theory, the solution lies entirely in learning to see what cannot normally see, rather than in learning to better see what you can already see. And what is it you will find has been what you cannot see? The feeling I call, "hollowness." And the times wherein you do not feel this hollowness.

This then is what we are about to explore. The special events can cause our two brains to sync up. Including those which underlie all lasting results in talk therapy. In other words, no connection, no lasting results in therapy.

Has all this theory suddenly become more important to you? I certainly hope so. Here we go.

[click here to read the rest of Mind Body Connections - How They Happen]