Immaterial Mental Influences

Thought Control: A Rational Model for Immaterial Mental Influences. (A Report Classified as Theological Speculation)

Robert A. Herrmann Ph.D. 30 OCT 2007, Revised 9 NOV 2008

Introduction
Consider the following scenarios. You suddenly got a "thought" and say to yourself, "That's a great idea. I never thought of that before." How was this expressed "thought" generated by what many claim is merely a material brain? Then as I began preparing this article, suddenly I thought, "I'm a fool. If I publish this paper, my work will be tainted. My credibility is going to be destroyed." Then I thought "I'm going through with it no matter what transpires. And I don't want to hear any more stuff about how my integrity will suffer." So, I've ordered my brain not to make such remarks again. But, now and then, I still mentally hear similar warnings. It seems that in this and other such cases, I can't stop my own brain from "generating" thoughts that I specifically forbid. Way in such cases does my brain not obey me?
Although there have been attempts to explain physically how such mental impressions can occur, none that I have investigated is 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 that can produce such mental results. In a recent article (Herrmann, 2006), I discuss application of the mathematical results in http://arxiv/abs/math/0412562 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. For this article, a (rough) analogue model that yields a process that produces the mental results described above is introduced. 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 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. Such evidence depends upon truthful personal testimony, accurate descriptions for human behavior and consensus. In what follows, I present such testimony but only as an indication of how the model might be verified. Whether one accepts such evidence is a personal choice. However, if the conclusions presented are but partially correct, then such a choice may be influenced by other factors.
What I present here will be controversial for it will most definitely contradict many world-views that are driven by unverified assumptions. The presented conclusions need to be classified as theological conjecture. 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 sincerely hope that this speculative model does not detract from my other scientific offerings.

Evidence that Human Thoughts are Influenced by Immaterial Processes and Brief Answers to Some Theological Questions
All notions used to answer the following questions, such as specific definitions for the "immaterial," "ultralogic operators," the "UN-rules" and the like are discussed later in this article. This research assumes a set of hypotheses and mathematically models this set. When the predicted results are obtained and interpreted, there is a vast amount of indirect evidence for the acceptance of these hypotheses.
For almost 2000 years, detailed observations and personal testimonies imply that "immaterial" processes that influence aspects of human thought and corresponding behavior may, indeed, exist in objective reality. Today, as based upon scientific disclosures, my observations indicate, that it is, at least, plausible that much human behavior is being so influenced. In what follows, I utilize Paul's remarks as well as my own personal experiences. I don't contend that the presented testimony of two individuals is ample evidence. However, I'm confident that many other individuals have or can confirm these observations.
Paul states a "law" that "evil is present within" (Rom. 7:21) even when he tries to "do good" and that the "god of this world," in some manner, tries to control human behavior. He writes (underlines added) "the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not" (2 Cor. 4:4). He also states, "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Rom. 8:7). Paul sees that this "law" is warring against the law of his mind and "bringing me into captivity to the law of sin" (Rom. 7:23). Further, an individual can be "vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" (Col. 2:18). As to what is the "law of his mind," he states, "So that with the mind, I serve the law of God" (Rom. 7:25). Paul also states that indwelled Christians have the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 1:16). "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom. 12:2). In Hebrews, quoting from the Old Testament, we find that for God's laws "in their minds I will write them" (Heb. 10:16). Paul makes it very clear what type of influence he considers paramount, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" (Php. 2:5). Experience and Paul's observations clearly imply that the war between "good and evil" is within the mind of each individual. When one has knowledge of what constitutes these two categories, then mostly mental arguments lead an individual to choice one behavior over another. Paul believes, as I do, that all of humanity has the capacity to be mentally influenced by these immaterial sources.
In answering the following question, the methods used are descriptive and operational and the questions don't have some deep theological meaning that can be known only to a chosen few. The answers are rather obvious. But, they now have a more rational and "scientific" basis. The logic used is the same as that used within physical science and corresponds to classical logic, the "common sense" logic used by humankind. There are hundreds of other questions one could ask and my simple answers to these questions will tend to generate many that might be of interest. Please note that this is a preliminary report. Due a collection of rules termed the "ultranatural rules" (UN-rules), many questions relative to such mental influences may have no answers describable in a comprehensible manner, although one can rationally assume that answers exist.
Theologians must justify their existence. Consequently, I'm convinced that the simple and common sense answers I give won't be appreciated. There will be claims, I suppose, that the notions are "more complex" and my answers are naīve. I reject the notion that ordinary individuals using their common sense can't comprehend all necessary Scriptural concepts. That is, that individuals do not need special knowledge comprehended only by a chosen few. What I've added to these common sense solutions is a method that verifies that the answers have a scientifically rational bases.
In what follows, hypothesized objects are employed in an active sense in that "immaterial" entities activate processes represented by mathematical operators. This uses a behavioral notion parallel to human behavior in that humans can apply many physical processes in order to achieve specified goals.

(1) Operationally, how does God "speak" to the prophets and others in most of the Scripturally mentioned cases?
Application of the "influencing processes" rationally modeled by the pure "ultralogic" operators predicted to exist in Theorems 1 and 2 in Herrmann (2004), explains this. The Holy Spirit controls such an influencing process. This allows the influencing process to strongly affect the selection of the actual words written in the Scriptures. Of course, the words selected would be relative to the knowledge of the individual being used to transmit the information. [I note how this answer can lead to other questions. For example, how do we know that in Old and New Testament times such selections were, indeed, divinely influenced?]

(2) Why are the Scriptures so remarkably consistent although they were written over many years by many different individuals?
From 2 Timothy 3:16, the Bible is given by "inspiration of God." Literally, the Greek theo combined with pneuma. This is "God-blown" and in some translations "God-breathed." In Scriptural terms, this refers to God's Spirit (or Holy Spirit) as the actuating agent. These actions are modeled by the influencing processes. Hence, all Bible statements come from the direct application of the Spirit. Using answer (1), the words selected are all from the same source, God's Spirit, and accept for improvements in comprehension related to additional language nuances this source maintains this consistency.

(3) The Scriptures state that the Adversary (Satan)) lies and deceives humankind. How does he do this?
He and his associates are allowed to influence human thought through the rational application of the influencing process. This is significant since all that individuals can know about reality is as reality is encountered by our sensory system and corresponding internal brain imagining activities. Under a very strong influencing process one might even conclude that the Adversary or his associates can alter an individual's total perception of reality. The mental influences need not be restricted to linguistics or perceived images but can include all forms of human sensory impressions. This is because of how the "language" L is constructed.

(4) Is it rational to assume that these "immaterial" entities can influence our choices to various degrees? This is, is it possible to present a measure for the "strengths" of such influencing processes?
Yes. There are different strengths for the influencing process as they're defined in my ultraemphasis paper. How these are emphasized mentally would be part of the "UN-rules."

(5) Is it rational to assume that human choices and specific desires are used as a means to strengthen the influences that may be guiding our choice?
This is certainly possible via the "UN-rules." God forbids certain activities and encourages others. Rational analysis of the "UR-rules" indicate that it may be impossible to understand or to explain in a comprehensible language why He forbids what many today consider as rather innocuous practices. My experiences with the occult indicates why this is the case when He forbids such practices as outlined in say Deut 18:10-12. Apparently, under the "UN-rules," if you simply seek forbidden behavior, then you have opened your mind to a stronger influence by the Adversary or his associates via the ultraemphasis process. The Bible indicates and it can be rationally assumed that God allows the Adversary and his associates to exert exceptionally strong influences in some cases (Rom. 1:21-28). Of course, your behavior can be attenuated or encouraged by the society in which you dwell.
The occultist Alice Bailey, the founder of the New Age movement, specifically states that all of her writings are dictated telepathically by her control. Her contention is that the Masters will exert mental influences over selected individuals in a three-step overshadowing process. Since no such control or Masters exist in the observable physical world, then if her writings aren't self-generated, then their contents indicate that she and others that follow her written teachings are being strongly influenced by the Adversaries associates.
I point out that relative to Paul's struggle with the war between good and evil, he apparently believes that all of humankind has the capacity to be mentally influenced by such processes. Experience indicates that God does allow humankind to be influenced by His Spirit or associates, and the Adversary or associates. One can assume that there are "UN-rules" for this that, when restricted to our physical world, can be somewhat experientially deduced.

(6) As to human choices of behavior, how does the indwelled Holy Spirit influence a Christian?

One must first properly seek the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The notion of deeply seeking or desiring information can trigger the influencing process. Relative to such mental influences, my experience indicates that for the indwelled individual the Holy Spirit is the immaterial entity that can directly influence a mental choice. In such a case, there is a special connection between an individual's immaterial spirit and the Holy Spirit. Relative to the relevant "UN-rules," the Holy Spirit's influences are often stronger than any others and they do not contradict the Scriptures. Indeed, in my case and in certain circumstances, the influences can lead to various physical manifestations of a rather special type. As Paul indicates and experience dictates, indwelled individuals are not immune to the Adversaries often very clever influences via the influencing process. In particular, how the Adversary or his associates influence an individual's immediate associates. But, indwelled individuals are more prone to follow the leadings of the Holy Spirit via the rational ultraemphasis process than they would be if not so indwelled. Apparently, under "UN-rules" and experientially, it appears possible to suppress the Holy Spirit's influence.

(7) If such choices in behavior are influenced by "immaterial" means, how does this correspond to the notion of free will as Scripturally defined?

I don't have completely free choices in behavior within this physical world. That is, behavioral choices that can be actuated. Such choices are all influenced or completely restricted by physical laws, by the environment, by ones associates, by general social laws, etc. I've purposely restricted my behavior by choosing a specific life-style and world-view. There are, today, an immense number of influences attempting to direct our choices. It's often rather difficult not to succumb to some of them unless one retreats to a reclusive environment devoid of any social interaction. These influences, in general, may be either material or immaterial influences. Only complete knowledge of the "UN-rules" would allow one to differentiate exactly between these two types.
As Scripturally described, free will is not absolute but applies to specifically defined behavior. Since most "UN-rules" cannot be known in detail, for this application, the influencing processes are only relative to these behavior patterns. As mentioned, by seeking certain behaviors, individuals appear to be giving up, for a season at least, their free well in the sense that they seek to behave in certain ways distinct from other behaviors. They also tend to retain knowledge of the behaviors they have sought to exclude. It's interesting that God loves all of His created, but hates certain behavior. It is the behavior and not the individual that God detests. Except as Scripturally stated, His influences are not eliminated.
An individual can participate in defined detestable behavior and still, through circumstances, exhibit highly acceptable activities. However, seeking and participating in detestable behavior probably allows the Adversary or his associate stronger and stronger influences over ones selected actions, except under very special circumstances. These situations may be indicated by the unknown "UN-rules." In contrast, seeking and participating in God's stated acceptable behavior, which now includes being fully indwelled by the Holy Spirit, will greatly enhance God's influence over an individual's selected actions. Other free will choices that can be performed and are not related to Scripturally described behavior, if there are any, may simply be choices related to self-generated arguments.

(8) Is it possible to know when human minds have been influenced by such immaterial entities so that observed behavior can provide evidence that verifies indirectly this articles hypotheses?
This is the most difficult of these questions to answer, if there even is a satisfactory answer. As mentioned, in certain cases, I know that what I'm contemplating or writing is being influenced by the Holy Spirit due to a special physical manifestation. At present, I can determine only general possibilities that cannot be explicitly demonstrated. With respect to the defined immaterial entities, behavior can be forbidden or encouraged by God. Mental impressions related to such behavior can be caused by self-generation through remembrance or the immaterial influences. But does an individual's behavior change so that it becomes more Christ-like or Adversary-like? If individuals would truthfully state that thoughts expressed in the same manner as those illustrated are influencing their behavior or behavioral changes and it could be determined that there is no apparent physical cause for such thoughts, I would conclude that such immaterial influences should be considered for they yield indirect evidence for the existence of the hypothesized entities and the influencing processes. Of course, as Jesus indicates you might also determine various influences by observing the fruits produce by the behavioral changes.

(9) Can questions be asked and have answers, but the answers cannot be communicated in any manner to any intelligent biological entity with our universe?
The mathematical model specifically predicts that this can be the case.

Beginning Technical Aspects
In physical science, the basic physical processes are not, in general, observed (i.e. separately sensed by humans or equivalent sensory-mimicking machines). What is considered is a collection of constituents A that will comprise a physical-system or a completed and named physical-system B. Then physical processes yield an observed physical-system A' composed of the constituents or an observed alteration B' in the physical system B. This alteration is termed as an alteration in behavior (i.e. in this case, a response to the applied physical processes as compared to a previous response.) This yields two single "physical process relations" (i.e. {(A,A')} and {(B,B')}). Often various secondary unobserved physical-systems are introduced as additional hypotheses. [Note: Physical-systems are also called natural-systems throughout my writings.] Although the behavior could be static, in this case, what the physical scientist states is that "physical laws" or accepted "scientific theories" somehow or other "force" A to form into an identified physical-system A' or they "force" B to alter and yield physical behavior B'.

The physical laws or scientific theories themselves act like "black-boxes" in that somehow or other they require physical objects to behave in specific ways. Nothing in our solar system is marked with numerical values. There are no mathematical expressions or geometric figures floating in the regions between the planets. Yet, humans construct machines and can measure numerical qualities, place these measures into mathematical expressions or geometric constructions that represent physical laws and, with great accuracy, predict when the next complete solar eclipse will occur. In general, what is observed is that physical objects are inserted into a black-box where the stated rules for physical behavior are represented by the interior of the box. The observed result is the predicated physical alterations. However, only the physical alterations are observed. The mathematics, the numerical measures and like are not observed. This is why, from a purely physical stance, what "forces" objects to follow certain physical laws or theories acts like a black-box. Unless they affect the observer as well, they are not physically sensed, only the inserted objects and the results. Physical process relations model what is actually observed.
The two illustrated physical process relations are equivalent to mathematically generated relations called "behavior-signatures." The behavior-signatures are generated by the stated physical laws or accepted scientific theories. Physical processes applied to more than one A or B also yield a physical process relations and an equivalent collection of behavior-signatures that forms a logical unification equivalent to the collection of physical process relations.
In Mathematical Logic, certain mental behavior is modeled. This is done not by considering any of the physical aspects of brain chemistry, but rather by using the black-box notion. Linguistic expressions or images of all sorts are inserted. The brain works and linguistic expressions or images are the results that exit the black-box. One then investigates relations between what is inserted and the expressions or images that exit the black-box.
Some individuals who attempt to read what I write and who haven't suppressed their biases cannot comprehend the material offered for it (linguistically) contradicts their tightly held world-views. Often they claim that I have accepted hidden propositions, which I have not, or that my offerings are in gross error, which they are not. Their "mind" tells them that I'm one of those "ignorant creationists" who accepts what physical science has "shown" are false notions. It has not been shown that what I contend is false and, indeed, it can't be so characterized. Painting my work with such a broad-brush is the standard approach that often prevents further investigation. The political tactic employed is that if so-called authorities repeat a lie often enough, then many individuals accept the lie as a truth. If critics would actually consider my stated "personal" beliefs and how I have arrived at them, they might discover that they are considerably different from all other individuals who adhere to a strict interpretation of Genesis 1. More importantly, whenever possible, I have always separated my scientific work from any theological interpretation and, especially, from my own personal belief-system.
In this article, rational explanations are presented for some significant and observed mentally produced results. This is done by applying the results in Herrmann (2004, 2006) and "interpreting" them theologically. Additional mathematical definitions are introduced that model the "strength" of certain mental impressions. (This technical addition appears in ultraemphasis.) Applications of these mathematically obtained deductions yield scientifically rational answers to many questions that deal with certain modes of human behavior and such behaviors yield indirect evidence for the acceptance of the conclusions.
I've considerable experience analyzing my own mental behavior and how it is influenced by "immaterial" factors. I have no doubt that many who have not made such an in-depth analysis will disallow my findings. A medical practitioner's license might even depend upon the philosophy that all forms of human behavior must have a physical basis. The materialist must reject my conclusions as mere ravings. Further, exceptionally prideful individuals will find these explanations rather difficult to accept. As a mathematician, I am not controlled by any of the materialistic rules forced upon certain individuals. When I produce mathematics, I need only conform to the specific methods allowed by my colleagues.
Motives for rejecting the findings presented here are understandable since, prior to 1977, I would have denounced the following as complete inane "nonsense." But, I stress that this was before the momentous events that occurred to me on 7 April 1977. Since these conclusions are so intimately associated with the human brain and the notion of the "mind," for some, they represent an unwarranted intrusion into what they believe is a most closely guarded and "closed" personal and, yet, physical realm. This article's conclusions relate to behavior of individuals, behavior where a purpose is openly stated as well as behavior that has concealed intentions.
Theologically, what follows seems to be a universal law in the sense that human beings have a basic potential that is partially modeled by the following theory. The presented applications for "mixed logic-systems" requires individuals to possess specific semantic skills for the applications to have significance. In this article, these mathematical conclusions are interpreted in a direct and simple manner. Further, as applied, the necessary semantic skills are self-evident.

Specific Types of Mental Impressions
Part of my thinking apparatus, so to speak, involves the fact that I mentally "talk to myself." When I read, slowly, I usually mentally "hear" the words. I do not hear them as one would via an audio channel or impression. I can also mentally recall "images" as well. I seem to hear something that is equivalent to my own voice. I argue within my own, shall we call it, mind. Of course, materialists require that the brain must be doing all of this in a rather remarkable, yet physical, manner. I won't repeat the examples of Eccles and Robinson (1984) and others that appear to indicate that there may also be an immaterial mental aspect involved. I know, as explained in Herrmann, (2006), that this appears to be the case for me. But, this is a "personal" experience that may not be shared by others.
I often mentally argue about a personal choice I need to make prior, it is hoped, to initiating the actual behavior being mentally described. At other times, the mental expression that activates my behavior simply occurs suddenly. (Of course, there are those actions that seem to occur without any apparent and prior mental description as discussed in Eccles and Robinson (1984).) I suppose that most human beings go through the same mental exercises. Without introducing biases such as absolute materialism, my life's experiences indicate that the actual "words" and even "images" that mentally occur may not be self-generated. Can non-physical factors influence the "appearance" of those mental words or images, influences that can even select them for me? One of the more perplexing problems with this question is whether a positive answer can be "rationally" established. If it can be so established for non-physical factors, then what type of rational argument would do this? Does one need a philosophic type dialectic argument or can a more significant and absolute scientific argument prevail? Moreover, what hypotheses would the existence of such mental activities indirectly verify?
Then there is the notion as to what would constitute the "non-physical," which, for this article, I denote by the word "immaterial." In Herrmann (2006), what constitutes the "immaterial" is not defined with the exception that it is not a member of an accepted present-day list of named physical objects. For this article, a scientific model is presented that's rational in construction and application and that answers the above emphasized question positively. Consequently, the type of "immaterial" being considered requires, at the least, a working definition. [I point out, that a collection of mathematical results such as those in Herrmann (2004) can have many distinct applications.]
The following definition for the term "immaterial," with one exception, is applied to all non-physical features of this model. [As I define this notion of the immaterial, I'm confident that many will simply go no further for it will contradict their deeply held presuppositions. Indeed, if they don't suppress such assumptions, they have no hope of having any further comprehension. I wonder how they will mentally argue that they should not continue? As I discuss the mental influences that can potentially occur, I mention that, in my experience, the individuals that can be mentally influenced the easiest by some of these immaterial entities are those that believe that they can't be so influenced.]

Some might wonder, especially an atheist who just may venture into the follow territory, how an individual can accept the following seeming fantastic notions. Maybe its insanity or, then again, maybe they solve many problems that have plagued mankind especially today. More likely they come from circumstantial evidence.

The Unobserved Physical World
Within physical science there are hypothesized items termed as "virtual" objects. This means they are not perceived in any manner prior or after an observable physical event occurs. Indeed, as stated by Feynman (1985, p. 95), any such object "never really appears in the initial or final conditions of the experiment." The entire widely accepted theory called Quantum Electrodynamics is based upon the use of such "assumed" objects. They are extensively accepted as real physical objects. Then there are many other widely accepted objects that can't be detected directly. This means no sensor, human or machine, can detect their individual presence. Their presence is logically inferred only in that an accepted scientific theory predicts that gross matter, which can be sensed, interacts with the hypothesized objects in a specific manner. Although there is no direct evidence for their existence, such objects are classified as "real" physical or material objects by most who investigate fundamental physical behavior.
In Quantum Field Theory, there are hypothesized objects called "quantum fields." This theory postulates mathematically characterized physical processes that "create" elementary physical and, hence, material particles. Henley and Thirring in their book, "Elementary Quantum Field Theory" (McGraw Hill, NY, 1962) state:
The most fascinating application of our rules are, however, not to any material substance but to immaterial fields, the excitations of which appear to us as elementary particles (p. 154).
Elementary particles are considered, by many, as primitive physical objects in that one accepts that they can't be decomposed into more fundamental objects. This assumption is the bases of a philosophy of science called "reductionism." In order to differentiate a quantum field from the object it "creates," such quantum fields were termed, in 1962, as "immaterial" in character. Indeed, the probabilistic "excitation" of quantum fields, whatever they are, is claimed to produce elementary particles. Of course, no quantum field can be detected directly. The only thing that can be detected is the behavior of the produced elementary particles as they impinge upon gross matter. Technically, such fields would be primitives. I point out that there also exists the notion of "field particles." However, there still remain advocates that claim that such particles are but a convenient fiction for local interactions. [I mention that for the GGU-model (i.e. the General Grand Unification Model) there is a predicted ultimate primitive object that comprises the assumed primitive particles and particle-physics theories are but analogue models for behavior.]
The particle-physics objects described in the last two paragraphs encompass the "hypnotized" yet undetectable "things" that comprise some of the vast and lucrative areas of today's scientific investigations. Obviously, there's a problem in terminology. In one theory, the term "immaterial" is employed for assumed real objects. Yet, everything that's assumed to exist physically within our universe is termed by most secularists as "material." What one actually has are two lists of terms that identify assumed but not directly detectable physical objects. One list is entitled "material objects" and another nonempty list is termed "immaterial objects."

****Using hypothesized objects and processes, which are characterized by mathematical notions, observable behavior is mathematically predicted. The method used to predict includes a combination of the mathematics with an interpretation and human logical discourse using the same modes of logic as used within the mathematics itself. In this context, "interpretation" means that the abstract mathematical terms or characteristics are replaced by corresponding terms taken from a list of physical or other discipline terms.**** [These are the same general methods used in quantum physics and cosmology.]
It's rather obvious that what one accepts as virtual or other undetectable physical objects is a matter of choice relative to training and their use by members of the particle-physics community. However, such objects need not correspond to reality for there are other theories, which few know about, that don't employ many of them and that predict the same results using the same **** philosophy of science. More importantly for what follows is that the **** philosophy can also be applied to theological notions and to what is defined in theology as not directly detectable "immaterial" stuff. This makes the following scientific in character, and it can't be rejected by claiming otherwise.

This Article's Immaterial
The Scriptural term "spirit" has diverse meanings. "Immaterial" as used in the remaining portions of this article refers only to one aspect of the term "spirit." Immaterial or spirit means "stuff" distinct from any object within any secular list of physical objects. [Note: It's necessary that I use a few of the technical terms related to the GGU-model. Their use should not significantly affect your comprehension.] The notion of the immaterial as used here is distinct from the defined objects used throughout the GGU-model ultranatural world. The ultranatural world is comprised of any mathematical representation for physical world entities as well as others that form a not directly detectable background universe or substratum. The operators used represent "physical-like" processes. Due to how the mathematics is employed, technically, as operators, physical processes are members of the set of all ultranatural processes. Operators within the ultranatural world represent physical-like processes in the same manner that physical process relations are represented in the physical world except that the physical-like processes are not members of the set of all physical processes. [If the context so indicates, the adjective physical-like is often omitted.] The GGU-model can be "truncated," by choice, leaving only the unified physical laws and accepted physical theories.
Throughout the complete GGU-model, many physical-like objects are used to create and sustain the development of a universe. Truncating the model slightly [say by not considering any slightly detailed ultranatural laws] allows for the GGU-model objects to perform their activities automatically, as they would under the notion of pure chance and probabilistic behavior. On the other hand, on a "higher level" than this truncated ultranatural world [not part of the physical or background universes], one can conceive of another type of object, composed of unknowable constituents, that created and controls all such ultranatural processes and, hence, all physical behavior by a method that can best be comprehended or modeled as a continual "mental" control. This entity is a Spirit object, God, and has many other Biblical characteristics.
Associated with this one Spirit are other created spirit beings, His angles, and the Adversary and his fallen angles, that are not, in general, part of the ultranatural world. Hence, they're not part of the physical world as well. [Physical manifestations for these immaterial entities are not being considered.] These named spirit objects and one yet to be discussed comprise this present article's definition of the immaterial.
According to Genesis, the originally created human beings "heard" very directly from God and communed with Him. But, there was also an allowed communication with another spirit being, the Adversary [dia'bolos from the Greek] (the fallen angle, Old Testament Satan). A choice was made to "hear" more about human behavior within the physical world, behavior that God had to later forbid specifically. In this interpretation, God has given humankind its desires and He allows the Adversary and his associates to influence immaterially human mental activity. That is, God has allowed other spirits to influence the choices we make. Thus, the existence of these immaterial spirit objects is part of the hypotheses.
An immaterial medium similar to the Eccles and Robinson (1984) immaterial medium is an immortal immaterial medium termed the human "spirit." The existence of the immortal human spirit is also hypothesized. It is further hypothesized that these immaterial objects behave, at the least, in the manner described throughout the remainder of this article. Shortly, mathematical notions are introduced, but not in detail, that utilize aspects of these hypothesized objects in order to predict human mental behavior.

The Basic Model
The mathematical results established in Theorems 1 and 2 of Herrmann (2004) and the definitions in the file "ultraemphasis.pdf" yield the elementary answers to the above questions, among others. Previously, these results were theologically interpreted (i.e. they yield a model) and they indicate that immaterial entities can influence how human thoughts are expressed. Individuals apply physical processes based upon a collection of "standard rules." The standard rules state that a physical process applies under specific circumstances. These standard rules contain various parameters or other requirements that must be met prior to physical-process application. When these standard rules are embedded into the mathematical structure used for the GGU-model, another set of rules is predicted to exist, the "ultranatural rules" (UN-rules) that include all of the standard rules. Members of the set of predicted UN-rules that do not correspond to a standard rule differ from the original rules in that they cannot be completely decoded and, hence, cannot be completely presented using any humanly comprehensible sensory information. Most of these UN-rules cannot even be partially described. For this reason, it can be rationally assumed that there are, at the least, actual UN-rules that govern application of the processes here discussed as they're modeled by the pure "ultralogics" generated by "mixed logic-systems."
Under the basic assumption that what is mentally heard is produced by physical brain functions, then, for each individual, what is mentally heard is based upon the semantic knowledge stored. For this application of Theorems 1 and 2, it's assumed that the words and images, as mentally expressed, have meaning for an individual. All such words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. as well as images are represented by objects in a language L. Indeed, members of L can model all human sensory information. When L is encoded and embedded into a special mathematical structure, an additional representative "nonstandard language" *L is predicted to exist mathematically. The actual members of the embedded L form a set L of abstract mathematical objects. Abstract mathematical objects can usually be interpreted in many different ways. These objects are interpreted as the embedded members of L and each member of L can be decoded to obtain its corresponding member in L. This is not the case with members in *L that are not members of L (Notation: members in *L - L.) Under extensive analysis, portions of these objects might be decoded, but not the entire object in *L - L. There is a vast array of members from *L - L that cannot even be partial decoded. We do know, however, that the set *L behaves in many ways exactly like a representative informative language. The set of all UN-rules is contained in *L.
Relations between members of L can represent the black-box generated physical processes that yield the mental words one hears or images mentally perceived. You insert a statement like "How can I do that?" Then the mental voice states "Move the chair next to the small table and put the telephone book on it." I need not consider how this answer is physically obtained, only that it is the result. This creates a process relation just like those that occur for known physical laws. From the mathematical model point of view, the v = "How can I do that?" and the w = "Move the chair next to the small table and put the telephone book on it" are single objects called (mathematical) "words". All such processes, where a mental statement or image leads directly to a related expression or image, can be expressed in this manner. Of course, w and v are assumed to be some sort of actual physical entities within the brain that are perceived in this manner.
However, what if, for a certain w, an immaterial source determines its mental occurrence. For this to occur for this model and a particular v, an addition "immaterial" object is inserted into the black-box. Such immaterial objects can be considered as virtual or non-detectable as done in quantum physics. Such an input can be represented by members of *L - L. For this article, I denote some members of *L - L by |, ||, |||, ||||, |||||, etc. These are used to "represent" various required "immaterial" inputs that, along with a v, yield a specific mentally perceived w. Thus, if you mentally have a v, then to obtain a particular w one of the immaterial entities uses an "interface" type of process requiring, at the least, one ||| input. This produces physical brain reactions. The physical products, the w type expressions, of this process are determined by nonstandard elements such as |||. The actual modeling process shows that the mental "appearance" of such a w is caused, in part, by the presence of |||, where the ||| represents a virtual-like object connecting the v with a w. This process, as modeled by a specific ultralogic, is called an influencing process.
Of course, there may be other z, which correspond to the v from which one can select, that are self-generated and no ||| is used. Although the ||| has no semantic meaning for us, it does have "meaning" for an immaterial intelligence. Consequently, in this immaterial case, the w is not self-generated. Generally, mankind can't have direct knowledge that the influencing process is being applied, although under certain circumstances, there are individuals that do have physical manifestations that such an influencing process is occurring. Of course, there are other w that one might perceive and that are generated by other influencing processes initiated by other immaterial sources. It is rather significant that Theorem 2 in Herrmann (2004) shows that the influencing process can occur without there being a v type of "triggering" statement.
Although I'm following the **** philosophy of science, many will conclude that what I wrote in the last few paragraphs is without merit. It's, however, a fact that this construction does have some significance since Theorems 1 and 2 (Herrmann, 2004) establish that certain collections of objects that include various ||| are equivalent to a corresponding pure ultralogic operator, one of the operators used within the GGU-model. Such influencing processes resemble logically predicted mathematical operators that are interpreted in a physical-like sense as is done in quantum physics via the mathematical "operator" notion. That is, the addition of various ||| yields mathematical objects that behave like processes - the influencing processes - where the influences may be "rationally" attributed to one or more of the defined immaterial sources.
Notice that it's rational to assume that there are UN-rules that determine when and to whom such influencing processes are applied. Assuming that every individual has the potential to be so mentally influenced, those that are influenced would need to satisfy certain UN-rule requirements. Although, in general, most members of the UN-rules cannot be expressed in complete detail, observation can lead to experientially deduced restrictions of these rules to our physical world. That is, a standard collection of "rules" that describe and predict human behavior. The mechanism used to influence our thoughts is via the predicted, not hypothesized, nonstandard language and the application of either of the predicted pure ultralogic operators discussed in Theorem 1 and 2 in Herrmann (2004). The model is very general in character and further research may yield other useful predictions. The existence of these influencing processes, as modeled by such pure ultralogics, is also hypothesized. However, this hypothesis is not just fantastic ramblings for there is a vast amount of evidence that indirectly verifies that something like these rationally obtained influencing processes exist.
This article is a "preliminary report" and as such will undergo considerable alterations in the future by myself or other authorized individuals. This will most certainly be the case with many of the above answers. Finally, the influencing process discussed here can be redesigned so as to physically explain the concept some may still accept called subliminal perception.

References
Eccles, J. and D. A. Robinson, The Wonder of Being Human, Our Brain and Our Mind, The Free Press, New York, 1984.
Feynman, R., QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985.
Herrmann, R. A. The rationality of hypnotized immaterial mental processes, C. R. S. Quarterly, 43(2006):127-129
Herrmann, R. A. Nonstandard consequence operators generated by mixed logic-systems, (2004) http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0412562