“How to Become a God: Psychoneurology”

[How to become a God] 1 Gratitude We wish to express our deepest gratitude to Mr Gevork Orbelyan for his invaluable contributions, unwavering support, and assistance in the development of the VITAMODO project, particularly in areas related to psilocybin. His dedication and enthusiasm continue to inspire us to pursue new achievements, opening ever-greater opportunities for ongoing progress. We are equally delighted to congratulate Mr Orbelyan and extend our heartfelt thanks for his gracious acceptance of the role of Ambassador for the project in North America. We wish to extend our profound gratitude to Ms Marina Morgan for her invitation, unwavering support, and substantial contribution to the development of the VITAMODO project. From the very outset, Ms Morgan displayed exceptional initiative, undertaking the majority of the organisational and preparatory tasks, while consistently demonstrating perseverance, a deep sense of responsibility, and an unwavering commitment to duty. It was her determination, meticulous attention to detail, and readiness to assist with any arising queries that inspired us to explore new ideas and embrace bold solutions. Through Ms Morgan’s diligence, this book was not only brought to completion on schedule, but also imbued with deeper meaning and structure, reflecting the full importance and scope of the project. We sincerely appreciate every moment Ms Morgan devoted to enhancing VITAMODO and trust that her contribution will serve as an exemplar for all who participate in and support the project. Her persistence and enthusiasm have provided the driving force that enabled us to realise our vision and opened new avenues for future growth and development. 2 Being God For many, this phrase sounds like a religious dogma, a sermon, or a slogan. Yet let us pause for a moment, set aside our customary dogmas, and immerse ourselves in a deeper concept. What if we strip away the religious overtones and regard it as a metaphor for a maximally expanded, healthy, and lucid state of consciousness? What if “being God” is not about holding power over others, but rather about having power over oneself—over one’s perception of the world?

Divinity as a Metaphor In most cultures, the idea of divinity is intertwined with a higher intellect, harmony, and perfect order. However, if viewed through the prism of psychoneurology, “divinity” is nothing other than a state of inner freedom—the capacity to perceive the world without distortions imposed by fear, ritual, or paranoia. Enlightenment is not a mythical pinnacle reserved for the chosen few. It is a process. When the mind ceases to wrestle with its inner demons and the psyche is freed from tension, one begins to see the world in a clear, pristine state, just as it truly is. Altered states of consciousness are often mistaken for something mystical or inaccessible. Yet these states are a natural part of life—those moments when you sense that “everything is in its place,” when the mind falls silent, and reality itself becomes calm and comprehensible.

Divinity Without Dogmas When we speak of “being God,” we are not referring to religion, but rather to freedom—the freedom to see the world not through a glass clouded by fear and rituals, but directly. Consider how a person experiencing paranoia might see a red cloth as a shield against evil or devise a ritual to “form a contract” with a higher power. That is not freedom; it is servitude imposed by a troubled mind. A genuine “divine experience” is not a ritual. It is a state in which rituals become unnecessary. To be God means to accept oneself and the world without conditions. It means witnessing the beauty of a sunset, the smile of a child, or the touching gaze of a puppy without trying to assign hidden significance to them.

Power over Consciousness Psychiatry shows that a person bereft of emotional empathy often seeks contrived mechanisms of control—rituals, compulsive actions, or pacts with non-existent forces. What happens, however, when one reaches a state of harmony? Such a person ceases to be enslaved by fear; instead, they gain an inner stillness. Power over oneself does not demand struggle. It is the state in which one no longer “fights” to survive in an imagined vortex of fear. One realises that to avoid drowning, it suffices to stop flailing and allow the body to float.

Being God as Mental Health Your psyche is your inner world. If it is healthy, you have no need for red cloths on your windows, nightly rituals, or a draining sense of guilt. You see the world clearly, as it truly is. You understand that happiness is not a dogma, but rather a natural condition that nature has instilled in us. Being God means being alive, authentic, and free.

Four Specific Rules to Keep Your Brain Functional Below are four specific rules to ensure your brain continues to function effectively.

Rule Number One: What You Need to Know Think of the brain as a computer, and neurons as its processor. The processor and neurons interact via electricity, just like in any computer. This electricity is generated by the neurons using chemistry, akin to batteries. While computers may rely on lithium batteries, the brain has an entire complex—glucose, neurotransmitters, and numerous other substances. You need only grasp one crucial fact: these substances must be produced for the “computer” (the brain) to operate properly. The computer constructs our reality. And once we understand why and how it does this, the core principle is clear. The brain, at its best—its peak performance—can only function that way for about two hours. It consumes an immense amount of energy. The subconscious—whatever it is that regulates us—comes into play because, in a sense, “we” are not fully here: our presence here may be akin to a “holographic” or other form of reality. Regardless, it takes a great deal of energy to sustain it. Therefore, the body tries to keep the brain switched off as much as possible to conserve energy. This is why there is a “two-hour rule.” Critically, your brain can function as a fully “human” brain—engaging both the limbic system and the neocortex—only for these two hours. Beyond that, you may find yourself operating more like a reptile (sleeping, eating, mating, and so on) or locked in fight-or-flight mode—the limbic or emotional brain. The neocortex, I repeat, works fully for just two hours. A person can only be truly “human” for those two hours in a 24-hour span, and only when properly rested and prepared. It is imperative to grasp this.

The Pareto Principle (20/80) You must also understand the Pareto Principle: 20% and 80%. In essence, 20% of your efforts yield 80% of your results, while 80% of your effort might only yield 10–15% of the result. In psychiatry, this concept is crucial because those two hours represent precisely the 20% of your time that accounts for the vast majority of your achievements. When the brain is performing optimally, it can distinguish what truly matters from what does not. Your attention narrows so effectively that you can quickly “sort” your priorities, distinguishing the essential tasks from the minor ones. Consequently, you produce results. Once you have internalised these three points, observe what people typically do—and why misfortunes occur. People enter life’s “ring” like boxers. (Not long ago, tragically, a boxer lost his life during a match.) In the same manner, people step into critical tasks—going to work, engaging socially, resolving life’s urgent problems—while not in their prime state of mind, not within that two-hour window of top performance. Instead, they enter in their lowest-energy state and attempt to solve problems with their reptilian or limbic (the “monkey”) brain. Essentially, they merely react. The result is not just diminished; it can be thoroughly negative. People speak of motivation, burnout, planning… “You have to plan!” Indeed, when scheduling your diary or planner, you must ensure that you preserve those two hours at least. The brain tires, becomes increasingly suggestible, and grows weaker. When a person is fatigued, intoxicated, or in a toxic state, they are far more susceptible to manipulation. Any manipulator—or even a simple sound—can disrupt them, throw them off balance. If a person is tired and their mind is teeming with “parasites,” external triggers will engage the limbic brain, constantly generating threat responses. The more fatigued you are, the stronger those responses. Older individuals with weakened brains can be especially sensitive to various noises. We had a lawyer who once shot and killed someone in a cinema simply because that person’s popcorn-chewing sound infuriated him. He lost control, entered a reactive state, and could not endure it. People fail to realise how readily they can be “delivered up” to such extremes. They are not permitted to accumulate energy, nor are they taught to activate their truly human brain. You can only switch on that human brain if you have rested, slept well, educated yourself, and are in an environment free from immediate threats (where no lion is chasing you, no cataclysm is at hand). This planning is crucial because at least once a week you must place yourself in an environment that feels safe, allowing you to deliberate on the truly important matters. I watch people experience daily crises—a loan is overdue, a spouse leaves, they lose their job, and so on. This drains their brains instantly, and the stress triggers the limbic or “monkey” brain at a low energy level. They struggle helplessly, like fish out of water, trying to resolve the problem that torments them. But it is impossible to solve anything when the limbic system is in control. The more people flail, the worse the outcome. This is precisely why many crimes are solved “hot on the trail”: the person remains in that reactive mode and is thus easily manipulated.

Recognising the Reactive State My principal message is that you must learn to discern when you are in a reactive state. Once it sets in, under no circumstances should you attempt to resolve significant problems—or even dwell on them mentally. You should instead go to the forest for a walk, catch up on sleep, and take vitamins. If these measures fail, see a professional—whether a family doctor or a psychiatrist—anything to stop the cyclical rumination and allow yourself to regain normal sleep. How do you know the “monkey” brain is taking over? It reveals itself in thoughts that race uncontrollably. You are entirely consumed by the situation, your mind spinning in circles, exhausting your nervous system, and plunging you further into reactivity. This leads to disrupted sleep, intensifying your distress to the point where you can no longer slow down your thoughts, thus triggering that classic “heading into the abyss” response. My aim is for you to refrain from making any decisions or even dwelling on them if you have not had proper rest, time alone, and a chance to reach a state in which you can separate yourself from your thoughts (i.e., “My brain belongs to me, but I am not my brain; my thoughts are mine, but I am not my thoughts.”). When the reactivity subsides—your pulse drops to around 60, your blood pressure returns to normal, and your breathing becomes steady—you can observe your thoughts, sift through them, and analyse them. At that point, your brain is edging towards an alpha-rhythm state, capable of deeper judgment. In a reactive state, the brain functions like a “quantum computer,” building everything upon associations that unleash wave after wave of dread and terror. You become governed by the limbic system, where no genuine solutions exist—only horror scenarios. The brain downloads these from your internal “internet.” If it plunges further, paranoia and other psychiatric conditions may emerge, necessitating electroconvulsive therapy or medication to pull you out of a psychotic episode. My duty here is to illustrate that the brain fabricates a “terrifying reality” if you remain in that simian mode. A person could reside in paradise, yet the brain might spawn the notion, “An angel might arrive right now and assault me,” simply because that is the programme. People do not recognise that the brain creates reality and that we truly exist in a virtual environment. Everything depends on which part of the brain is engaged. Hence, you must discern this state, seek rest, replenish your energy, and if required, employ medications so that the neocortex takes over. At that juncture, the brain will “download” more favourable, melodramatic scenarios. When the limbic, “monkey” brain is running on dopamine, noradrenaline, and adrenaline, it races along at a pace akin to an extreme caffeine rush, and you cannot halt it because its chemistry dictates what reality it downloads. People ask why everything can be fine one moment and then abruptly descend into complete chaos. Meanwhile, there are others who say, “I do not fuss about anything; everything is marvellous.” It is not purely a matter of one’s personal choices; it hinges on which region of the brain is constructing your reality. It is crucial to switch to the neocortex, the Homo sapiens region, which activates endomorphins—your body’s natural opioids, its own “heroin.” I discuss this so meticulously because evolution advances towards enjoyment, the refined appreciation of life. The strongest narcotic is heroin, but I am describing the body’s internal version. Evolution moves toward contentment, pleasure, and epicurean delight. The more mature an individual becomes, the greater their capacity to recognise and install a balanced, wholesome reality—enabling them to be in the right place, at the right time, among the right people. It is merely the “film” their brain is projecting. Therefore, it is less essential to plan external events meticulously than it is to ensure your brain stays on the endorphin-based, neocortex programme. Then you can live, act, and savour these life nuances. Yet remember, we will all stumble eventually. Even if you learn to engage the neocortex—akin to mastering the art of cycling—you will still fall now and again. Sooner or later, all of us will face our mortality. However, you need to recognise the moment of your “fall” and learn how to rise from it. Everyone should maintain their own algorithm: once you detect the reactive state, go for a walk, get moving, hydrate, sleep well, meet supportive people, and visit places that switch on your endorphin system. I keep a personal note in my phone: “Andris, the reactive programme has kicked in—do not dwell on anything. It is not the situation itself; it is simply that your brain is downloading horrors unrelated to reality. You must do steps one, two, three…” I realised this when offering consultations in intensive care. Patients with fractured vertebrae had to re-learn how to stand, and I realised that I, too, needed a strategy for “standing up” from the simian brain. First, I must recognise it; then, I must move, sleep, and engage in activities that energise me. This is my “roly-poly doll” programme. Additional details—regarding specific medications or disorders—are addressed in other discussions. My core objective here is to emphasise that you must not exhaust yourself. The more you deplete your energy, the more easily you can be shifted into your monkey brain. Plan your rest. Understand that your brain only truly functions for about two hours. During those two hours, focus on the tasks that meaningfully affect your life. Then the 20/80 principle and the rest will work in your favour. And for goodness’ sake, do not step into the “ring” if you are not fully awake; you will be “knocked out” or violated in some way. Observe how many people seem to have everything going for them, yet they climb onto the “bicycle” while still half-asleep, not in their optimal state, and are forever crashing—hurting themselves and perpetually downloading fear-based scenarios. They live in that projected fear reality and soon appear at the doctor’s office with a brain that is all “tangled up.” It becomes difficult to extricate them. This explanation is for friends who have already emerged from that state via medication, so they may comprehend it properly and allocate their energies wisely. Use these ideas: recognise your condition, stand back up, and download a positive, endorphin-rich—even “heroin-like,” but natural—internal reality. That is where we live. All the best! List of References: Andreev, A. G. Psychology of Higher States of Consciousness. Moscow, 2015. Buzan, Tony. Superbrain: Develop Your Thinking, Memory, and Creative Abilities. Moscow, 2017. Grof, Stanislav. Psychology of the Future: Lessons of Modern Consciousness. St. Petersburg, 2012. Gurdjieff, George. In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching. Moscow, 2005. Davidson, R. J., and Begley, S. Emotional Intelligence of the Brain. Moscow, 2013. Dispenza, Joe. The Power of the Subconscious, or How to Change Your Life in 4 Weeks. Moscow, 2018. Kazinik, M. Music as a Tool of Consciousness. St. Petersburg, 2019. Carlson, R. Don’t Worry About the Small Stuff. Moscow, 2016. Wilber, Ken. A Brief History of Everything. Moscow, 2008. Lazarev, S. N. Diagnosis of Karma. Moscow, 1997. Levi, Vladimir. The Art of Being Oneself. Moscow, 2006. McKay, M., Davis, M., and Fanning, P. Mind in Balance: Mindful Management of Emotions. Moscow, 2015. Maslow, Abraham. The Psychology of Being. Moscow, 2009. Mendelevich, V. D. Foundations of Psychotherapy and Psychocorrection. Kazan, 2017. Mironov, A. B. The Brain and Consciousness: The Neurophysiology of Mindfulness. Moscow, 2014. Murakami, Haruki. What I Talk About When I Talk About Running. Moscow, 2011. Naumova, T. Mindfulness as a Path to Inner Balance. St. Petersburg, 2021. Pavlov, I. P. On Higher Nervous Activity. Moscow, 1950. Penman, Danny, and Williams, Mark. Mindfulness: How to Find Harmony in Our Crazy World. Moscow, 2014. Popov, V. The Neuropsychology of Modern Humanity. Kazan, 2020. Ramachandran, V. S. The Tell-Tale Brain: What Makes Us Human. Moscow, 2016. Rubinstein, S. L. Fundamentals of General Psychology. Moscow, 2003. Selye, Hans. Stress Without Distress. Moscow, 2007. Singer, M. Mind and Meditation. Moscow, 2018. Tikhomirov, O. K. The Psychology of Thinking. Moscow, 1984. Freud, Sigmund. Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. St. Petersburg, 1990. Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Moscow, 2016. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Moscow, 2013. Tolle, Eckhart. The Power of Now. Moscow, 2015. Jung, Carl Gustav. Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Moscow, 1991. Bandura, A. Social-Cognitive Theory of Personality. Moscow, 2006. Benson, H. The Relaxation Response. St. Petersburg, 2012. Berne, Eric. Games People Play. Moscow, 2010. James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. Moscow, 2005. Cannon, Dolores. The Three Waves of Volunteers and the New Earth. Moscow, 2017. Dossey, Larry. The Power of Prayer. Moscow, 2018. Inglehart, Ronald. Cultural Evolution. Moscow, 2015. Clarkson, P. Therapeutic Relationships. St. Petersburg, 2006. Lawrence, E. The Psychology of Crowds. Moscow, 2018. McNamara, R. The Biology of Religious Experience. Moscow, 2011. Marx, Karl. Economics and the Psychology of Labour. Moscow, 1997. Miller, A. The Drama of the Gifted Child. St. Petersburg, 2014. Montaigne, Michel de. Essays. Moscow, 2019. Murashov, I. A. Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence. Moscow, 2020. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Moscow, 2003. Novikov, A. V. The Psychology of Consciousness Transformation. Moscow, 2016. Ornstein, R. The Psychology of Consciousness. Moscow, 1998. Petranovskaya, L. V. The Secret Support: Attachment in a Child’s Life. Moscow, 2015. Petrova, O. Transformational Psychology. St. Petersburg, 2020. Prokhorov, V. I. The Brain and Reality. Moscow, 2019. 3 Let me explain how the hologram came about Let me explain how the hologram came about and why it is actually a brilliant thing. Look, the story goes something like this: there was the idea that we wanted to capture not just a flat image, but the entire “volume” of an object—the depth, the texture, all these phases and amplitudes of light. Back in the day, people used to take photographs, but they lacked that 3D effect, right? Everything was flat. However, our brain perceives “volume” and is accustomed to parallax: you shift your head and the viewing angle changes. Holography tackled precisely this problem. Now, who got this whole thing going? There was a physicist named Dennis Gabor. In the 1940s, he wanted to enhance the electron microscope so that it could see details more clearly. And he thought, “What if we could reconstruct the wavefront?” He conducted experiments using ordinary lamps—there were no lasers back then. But it did not work out perfectly for him, because there was no coherent light source. Still, he laid the core idea: how waves interfere and how one could record and then recover the phase. Later, around the 1960s, some clever folks invented the laser, which was a breakthrough—there emerged a narrow, coherent beam of light, all of a single colour. At that point, holography suddenly received a massive boost. The Soviet physicist Denisyuk in Leningrad worked on one approach; Leith and Upatnieks in America worked on another. Everyone was striving to achieve a “three-dimensional image” in visible light. And so it began. Those famous holograms started appearing, where you see objects as though in 3D, but in reality it is just a plate. Where do we use it now? Well, you know: stickers on cards, banknotes with holographic security elements so they cannot be forged easily. Also in advertising, art objects, and museums. And there is a really cool area called digital holography. A computer can do all the calculations: it can generate the wavefront and then “print” the hologram without resorting to the classic photographic plate. Now, let me explain the principle in simple terms. Look, we take a laser beam and split it into two. One beam goes to the object: it illuminates the object, and the reflected light carries information about that object. The other beam is purely a reference beam—indeed, it is called the “reference.” These two beams meet on the photographic plate and interfere with each other. In other words, they produce an interference pattern on the film (or another medium)—a grid of stripes. The spacing is on the order of fractions of a micron, incredibly small. After development—boom!—the material retains an “encoded” distribution of phases and amplitudes. It is not just “brighter or darker,” but rather the entire wave structure is recorded. When we wish to “demonstrate” the hologram, we again take a laser and illuminate the same film at roughly the same angle. The light then passes through (or is reflected by) these fine stripes and reconstructs the original wavefront. Our eye captures that wavefront and thinks, “Ah! There is a real object here!” Yet in fact, the object is gone; there is just that plate storing the entire pattern. If you look from different angles, the image shifts slightly, as it would in real life. So we end up with this 3D picture that can be viewed without any special glasses. I always say: it is not 3D glasses, not an anaglyph or anything of that sort, but genuine parallax, real depth, plus that “wow” factor. Why is this so interesting? Firstly, you have volume, depth, and detail all in a single recording. Secondly, it is harder to counterfeit because you need to replicate those precise interference fringes. Thirdly, the resolution is on the order of fractions of a micrometre, which makes it possible to capture extremely fine details. And finally, nowadays everything is shifting to “digital”: instead of the classic process of developing a photographic plate, you can digitise, process, and even “synthesise” a hologram on a computer. What comes next? Well, research is ongoing into holographic displays, so that one day you might watch “television” in a truly live, three-dimensional volume. But for now, mass production of such devices is quite challenging because one needs a huge number of pixels, along with substantial computing power. However, in the field of medicine there are holographic microscopes that are fantastic: they can observe cells in 3D without any dyes, and they perform various forms of surface topography. In short, the principle is that we record not simply an image, but the entire wave: both intensity and phase. Once the laser was invented, that was it—the era of holography began. What Dennis Gabor initially could not achieve perfectly was only because his lamp was inadequate. Yet he later received the Nobel Prize, because he laid down the entire theory. So that is the story: a hologram is a kind of quantum trick with waves that retain the form of the object and then display it “in another place and time.” Personally, I think it is an impressive example of how physics intertwines with the “magic of perception.” So now you know: a hologram is not merely a “rainbow sticker,” but the genuine reconstruction of the wavefront by means of interference. The point is that all the wave “details” get recorded on that film, not just the brightness. And when we “illuminate” it again, we obtain a complete 3D representation—and our brain perceives it as if the object truly were there. That is it, my friends. That is the short story of why we have holograms and how they work. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. I like to say it is an example of how reality sometimes becomes “virtual,” while the virtual is quite real!

Now, let me explain why I call the brain ‘holographic’ and how holograms fit into this. Usually we think of a hologram as something involving lasers, interference of light waves, and 3D images. But if we examine the principle itself, it turns out that in the nervous system there is a similar mechanism for processing information. And in my opinion, that is astounding. Let us begin with the classical understanding of holography. A hologram is a way to “package” waves (light waves) so that one can not merely photograph an object, but preserve all the information about its shape, volume, and every detail. The key word is interference. In other words, it is not a simplistic “image,” but the result of the addition and correlation of waves. Meanwhile, the brain also deals with waves, but these are electrical and chemical waves. Neurons exchange impulses at synapses, forming patterns. If we dig a bit deeper, we see that the brain generates intricate temporal structures akin to “interference” patterns. Why does this resemble a hologram? Because there is no straightforward “photographic” representation: we do not store crisp “snapshots” of all stimuli. The brain processes a colossal flow of incoming information, reduces it to certain correlations, and encodes those correlations in distributed form across neuronal networks. No single point is responsible for a given image; rather, entire ensembles are. This is analogous to a hologram: the entire image is “smeared” across the surface of the film, yet under the proper illumination, you can recover the complete three-dimensional object. Scientists refer to this as the “neural holographic process.” The essence is that images (or patterns) are restored when these distributed representations are brought into an active state—like a filter or a screen through which the incoming information passes. In holography, this is analogous to “instant cross-correlation”: you take the encoded pattern, shine a reference signal through it, and the desired image “appears” at the output. In the brain, something similar can happen at various levels: in peripheral areas (receptors, sensory pathways) or in more central regions (the cortex, subcortical structures). Everywhere, there are these “residual phenomena,” “buffer memories,” which either fade away or, conversely, interact with the new stream of impulses. It is precisely cortical columns, or groups of cells, that can produce complex interactions—because they receive signals from various parts of the system. I always say: do not think that this is some sort of mystical sorcery or “magical fields.” No, it is straightforward physics (and biophysics) of distributed processes, where inhibitory neurons, horizontal connections, and local ensembles all mesh together to create interference-like effects. Essentially, the input flow (light, sound, tactile stimuli) correlates with what is already “firing” (or has fired) in the brain, and the outcome is the “restoration” of a certain image, idea, or sensation. Indeed, experimental data support this: when a monkey looks at a particular shape yet also intends to perform a specific behavioural act (say, press a lever to receive a reward), the cortical activation pattern depends not only on the visual stimulus but also on the reinforcement, the context, and the emotional state. The brain has “summed” several waves, and the net result is unique—like using multiple reference beams in a hologram. That is why we say the brain operates “holographically”: it uses wave-like (electrochemical) structures, superimposing them so that we end up with a new configuration encoding a distinct “image” of the situation. Important note: we do not mean that “split” light waves literally fly about within the brain. We are saying that the principles of interaction, correlation, and distributed data storage resemble what in physics is termed “holography.” All of this emerges because of synapses, inhibitory and excitatory processes, and spatiotemporal patterns. The “holographic hypothesis” itself states that the brain, like a holographic plate, does not store the “picture” as a whole in one place but distributes the information across numerous neuronal ensembles. If at some moment those ensembles become activated by a corresponding input stimulus, they “remember” (or “restore”) the needed image. It is analogous to shining a laser beam onto a hologram—the three-dimensional image appears. Likewise, in the cerebral cortex or other levels of the central nervous system, the input “intersects” with the current excitation field, and we obtain the result: perception, action, the solution to a problem. It is precisely because of this that the brain is simultaneously flexible and extremely rapid. We can respond to changes, try out possibilities, and at the same time store vast amounts of information without having a rigid “folder” in one specific location. Everything is distributed and correlated. That is how it works. The holographic principle in the nervous system demonstrates how the brain combines adaptability (we can alter ourselves to suit new conditions) with stability (we possess memory, patterns). This mechanism makes it possible to analyse, store, and utilise information effectively, despite the seemingly chaotic organisation. Synapses, columnar structures, and interactions are, to put it very simply, like “interference fringes,” except that these are biological, neurophysiological in nature. So, my friends, when we speak of “neural holography,” we mean that the brain operates through these distributed codes, and images “emerge” when the appropriate waves coincide—the incoming signals and those already “inscribed” in the network. It is not magic, but it certainly appears almost magical, does it not? And examples with cortical columns and inhibitory convergence of impulses are akin to the same optical filters—except within our living “computer.” Thus, we see that the brain is indeed “holographic” in its organisational principle: there is no “artificial” centre, but rather correlations that unite at the right moment to yield a “picture,” an “idea,” or a “movement.” Hence the entire neural process can be viewed in terms of interference analogies that, in my view, perfectly explain the marvels of our perception and behaviour. That, roughly speaking, is how I would describe this neural holographic principle—so that you understand how it works from within.

List of References: Gabor, D. (1948). “A New Concept of Image Formation.” Nature. Denisyuk, Yu. N. (1962). “Three-Dimensional Holography in Visible Light.” Optics and Spectroscopy. Leith, E. N., & Upatnieks, J. (1964). “Holographic Imagery Using Lasers.” Journal of the Optical Society of America. Kulik, S. P. (1986). The Physics of Holography. Moscow. Prince, M. (2009). Fundamentals of Optical Holography. Cambridge. Penrose, R. (2006). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Science of Consciousness. Moscow. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Moscow. Pshenko, E. N. (2015). Modern Holography Technologies. Kiev. Sharonov, V. (2003). The History of Lasers and Their Applications. St. Petersburg. Gleizer, L. G. (1976). Optical Information Processing. Moscow. Carlson, N. R. (2014). Physiology of Behavior. St. Petersburg. Eccles, J. C., & Popper, K. R. (1980). The Self and Its Brain. Moscow. Kandel, E. R. (2015). Principles of Neuroscience. Moscow. Petrov, V. A. (1992). Neurophysiology of Perception. Moscow. Pribram, K. H. (1980). Languages of the Brain. Moscow. Becker, R. O., & Selden, G. (1987). The Body Electric. Moscow. Heidelberg Manifesto: The Future of Holography. (2017). Geneva. Ton, J. (2008). “Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness.” PLoS Biology. Fries, P. (2005). “Brain Rhythms and Neuronal Synchronization.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Freeman, W. J. (2010). “How the Brain Creates Perception.” Moscow Cognitive Journal. Wirth, K. (2012). Holography: History, Theory, and Applications. New York. Land, E. H. (1977). “Retinal Color Processing Theory.” Scientific American. Popov, A. I. (2014). Digital Holography and Its Applications. Moscow. Wilson, R. A., & Keely, F. (2011). Neuroscience and Philosophy. Moscow. Jung, C. G. (2015). Psychological Types. Moscow. Milner, B. (2000). “Memory Mechanisms in the Human Brain.” Trends in Neurosciences. Schrödinger, E. (1987). What Is Life from the Physical Point of View? Moscow. Sargent, M. (2004). Introduction to Optics and Lasers. Cambridge. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Nudge: The Architecture of Choice. Moscow. Wiener, N. (1983). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Moscow. 4 Why the Neocortex Is Crucial for Our “More Advanced” Reality Look, friends, when we speak of the “cerebral cortex,” this is that “grey matter” we often associate with thinking. Yet if we delve deeper, it turns out that the most evolutionarily advanced part of the cortex is the neocortex (or “new cortex”). It is set apart by its layers and special horizontal and vertical connections, which enable the brain to build a more complex “deterministic” reality. To grasp why this is necessary, imagine that we have basic structures (the limbic brain, the reptilian brain) responsible for simpler reactions: “fight, flee, sleep, or eat.” They are certainly vital for survival, but you will not extract particularly sophisticated productivity (in the sense of analysis, creativity, planning) from them. The neocortex, however, is what distinguishes us humans in evolutionary terms: it comprises multiple layers of neurons that do more than merely “sum” incoming signals. They generate finer patterns, can filter information, and forge complex connections among ideas. I always put it this way: if you look at a cortical slice under the microscope, you will see entire “columns” of nerve cells extending inwards. These columns are not merely pillars but rather unique mini-complexes that also interact horizontally. This bestows immense possibilities for correlations and associations in constructing complex concepts. Essentially, the neocortex is the “upper storey” of our brain, powering thought, speech, and conscious decisions. Why is this connected to ‘reality’? Because by using the neocortex, the brain gives us a more “deterministic” picture of the world, meaning one with clearer cause-and-effect relationships and the capacity to forecast. We can not only react to threats, but we can also plan responses, see what a certain action might lead to. Ultimately, this “advanced reality” is what gives us scope for far greater achievement: from technology to social interaction—everything stems from the neocortex’s more organised functioning. And of course, the better a person’s cortical circuits are developed, the more “advanced” that person’s functioning will be. That is, they become more productive; they can plan, set goals, find solutions, and then accomplish them. Now, let us link this to some of my favourite examples: if you are tired, if your brain has not rested, then the neocortex may “collapse” in favour of primitive centres. You lose that determinism and begin to act emotionally or mechanically. But when you are in good shape, the neocortex gets to work: you write brilliant papers, find a way out of dead ends, create the new. So, see, the neocortex is not merely “one brain region,” but, if you will, the “centre of creative management.” It is where ideas are born, and it can gather details from different corners of memory, link them into a logical chain, and generate solutions that apparently go beyond simple reflexes. Essentially, it is the engine of our “higher self,” granting us an evolutionary advantage. Moreover, it is important to recognise that none of this is magical; these are very particular structural features. Those six layers of grey matter (whereas reptiles, for example, have a much simpler cortex), the presence of entire associative areas, and interactions with subcortical nuclei. As a result, the brain can more flexibly model reality, make predictions, and thus achieve superior real-world productivity. We invent technologies, build cities, and conduct complex social lives thanks to this “superstructure,” the neocortex. Hence the conclusion: the more refined the neocortex, the subtler our “deterministic reality.” We can calculate possibilities, combine facts, and create something new. And this directly affects our quality of life and our capacity to attain our goals. Therefore, treasure your cortex—let it rest and train it—this is the key to a richer, more meaningful, and, if you like, more “evolutionarily advanced” life. List of References: Alexander, E. A Neurosurgeon's Journey Beyond the Brain. Moscow, 2016. Andreev, A. Psychology of Higher Cognitive Processes. Saint Petersburg, 2012. Anokhin, P. K. Functional System. Moscow, 1980. Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Moscow, 1977. Buzan, Tony. Use Your Brain. Moscow, 2015. Wasserman, L. The Brain: How It Works. Moscow, 2017. Vernon, D. Mindfulness and the Brain. Moscow, 2020. Wertheimer, M. Productive Thinking. Moscow, 2013. Wiener, N. Cybernetics and the Brain. Moscow, 1983. Greenfield, S. The Brain: How It Creates Our Reality. Saint Petersburg, 2014. Grof, S. The Cosmic Game. Moscow, 2008. Davidson, R., & Begley, S. The Emotional Life of Your Brain. Moscow, 2011. James, W. The Principles of Psychology. Moscow, 2003. Dispenza, Joe. The Power of the Subconscious Mind. Moscow, 2019. Dolnik, V. The Wayward Child of the Biosphere. Moscow, 1994. Carlson, N. R. Physiology of Behavior. Saint Petersburg, 2015. Kandel, E. The Art of Memory. Moscow, 2018. Wilber, Ken. A Brief History of Everything. Moscow, 2009. Levy, V. The Unconventional Child. Moscow, 2003. Luria, A. R. The Small Book About a Big Memory. Moscow, 1980. Maslow, A. Hierarchy of Needs. Moscow, 2006. Meldraums, P. Neuroscience and Consciousness. Riga, 2016. Miller, G. A. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. Moscow, 2007. Montgomery, H. The Evolution of the Brain and Behavior. Moscow, 2012. Neyman, D. Brain Training: From Myths to Scientific Facts. Moscow, 2020. Norman, D. A. The Design of Everyday Things. Moscow, 2015. Pavlov, I. P. Twenty Years of Experience in Higher Nervous Activity. Saint Petersburg, 1932. Penrose, R. The Emperor's New Mind. Moscow, 1994. Popov, A. I. Neurobiology and Future Technologies. Kazan, 2018. Pribram, K. The Brain and Behavior. Moscow, 1980. Protopopov, V. A. Stress and Adaptation. Moscow, 2007. Ramachandran, V. S. Phantoms in the Brain. Moscow, 2014. Ray, J. The Human Brain: Evolution and Potential. London, 2019. Rubinstein, S. L. Foundations of General Psychology. Moscow, 2003. Sapolsky, R. Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Moscow, 2011. Seligman, M. Learned Optimism and Helplessness. Moscow, 2013. Selye, Hans. Stress Without Distress. Moscow, 2007. Singer, W. The Brain and Social Interaction. Saint Petersburg, 2018. Solso, R. Cognitive Psychology. Moscow, 2006. Stanishevskaya, T. The Brain and Artificial Intelligence Technologies. Moscow, 2021. Tolman, E. C. Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. Moscow, 1932. Watson, D. The Psychology of Emotional Intelligence. Moscow, 2017. Haley, J. The Psychology of Decision Making. Moscow, 2010. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Moscow, 1969. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow. Moscow, 2009. Eccles, J. The Evolution of the Brain. London, 1979. Edelman, G. Neural Darwinism. Moscow, 2015. Epstein, S. Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory. New York, 1996 5 On How Neurons Operate “Like a Quantum Computer” and Why Tubules Can Function as “Qubits” Look, friends, I have already mentioned that the brain is not merely a collection of little neurons that “simply conduct impulses.” If you go deeper, things get far more intricate. And there is this idea: in our neurons—more precisely, in their axons and dendrites—there are structures called “microtubules” (I also call them “tubules”). If one adopts a bold hypothesis (and yes, it is still a hypothesis but a very interesting one), these tubules could function in a way analogous to quantum computing, much like “qubits” in a quantum computer. Sounds fantastical, of course, but let us explore why this is even up for discussion. The first thing to understand is that a quantum computer operates using superposition and wave interference. In a classical “binary” computer, you have either 0 or 1, whereas in a quantum computer, you have a superposition of 0 and 1 simultaneously (the qubit). And if there are structures in the brain capable of supporting wave-like (oscillatory) processes that can either reinforce or cancel one another out, then theoretically, they could store and process information in a manner similar to quantum systems. Let us then look at the axons and dendrites, inside which these microtubules—tubules—are found. These tubules inside the neuron, if examined up close, are organised in a three-dimensional network, particularly if we consider assemblies of neurons (not just one isolated neuron but hundreds or thousands interconnected via specialised contacts). Tubules form a sort of skeleton along which substances are transported, and at the same time, according to certain theories, they can support quasi-cooperative wave processes. So if there are conditions within the tubules for “wave” interference (and they do contain water, proteins, various channels), it is entirely possible that these oscillatory modes superimpose on each other, creating patterns that ultimately encode cognitive information. Why is this reminiscent of a ‘qubit’? Imagine that a microtubule could exist in “two” (or more) states of superposition—some oscillatory modes that have not yet “chosen” their concrete “answer” (0 or 1). When a wave from another tubule “arrives” in contact (through mechanisms not yet fully understood, but which we might guess—perhaps a unifying wave within a single neuron or even several neurons linked together), interference occurs, and the “superposition” collapses into a definite result. In other words, the brain could, in principle, extract the necessary solution from a vast array of probabilities. It sounds odd, but that is more or less how quantum computing works. In essence, the ‘3D’ aspect here is that neurons form genuine “spatial” assemblies—not merely a flat grid, but a three-dimensional tangle of axons and dendrites. And if each branch (dendritic branch), each section of the axon, complete with its tubules, is capable of sustaining a wave-like mode, then collectively we get an enormous number of overlapping “waves.” That is the “quantum” multidimensionality for you. A mechanism of “consonant wave interference” (to put it plainly—where two waves either amplify or cancel each other) may be the very tool by which the brain “selects” the right solution or the right piece of memory. It is as though each second a giant database is searched, not in a sequential manner but through wave “superposition.” I always emphasise: this is, of course, a daring theory; not all colleagues welcome it wholeheartedly. But there is logic to it. After all, the standard models involving only electrical impulses (action potentials) do not account for the full complexity of instantaneous associations—when, with a mere snap of the fingers, the brain calls up precisely the right image or idea. But if we suppose that wave processes within microtubules can instantly “combine” and yield an interference result, this strongly resembles the principle of quantum computation. In that scenario, the brain takes a given problem (stimulus), passes it through this “qubit” tubule network, and out comes the “answer”—a thought, a solution, or a memory. Why precisely tubules? First, they are present in enormous numbers in every neuron (and indeed in many cells), providing a genuine physical basis for intracellular wave processes. Secondly, their small size and probable synchronisation (through proteins, water, synaptic rhythms) theoretically permit coherent oscillations—exactly what is needed for quantum effects. Thirdly, if we assume “superposition of states” at the level of tubules, plus the three-dimensional organisation of brain assemblies, we are faced with an immense expanse for parallel processing. Not “neuron by neuron,” but a vast wave-based superimposition from which emerges the required “picture,” whether that is a memory, an idea, or an emotion. So, to rephrase, axons and dendrites are the “wires” of the neuron, but inside them there are innumerable microtubules, a kind of “sub-wiring” capable of operating in a quantum mode. And since all neurons are also connected by synapses that modulate streams of excitation/inhibition, we get a wave network in which associations arise like interference patterns. In this way, the brain can “pull out” the right combinations (the superposition) and collapse them into a specific thought or image (the result). That is how we achieve “instant access” to the necessary information, which so often astonishes us with its speed. It does sound quite “sci-fi,” but take note of how many intricate brain phenomena remain unexplained by purely classical methods. The hypothesis that tubules function as “qubits” may be bold, but it offers a direction for how the brain might perform something akin to quantum computation. As I like to say: when people ask how the brain can, in a fraction of a second, sift through a huge range of options—perhaps it is not sifting through them in sequence but deploying superposition and wave “flashes” to form a solution. That, in brief, is the “quantum” theory of neural assemblies and microtubules. Modern science is still debating whether these quantum effects are indeed real or not, yet the approach itself helps us see the brain not as a crude machine running digitised “currents,” but rather as a subtle system of wave interactions where information is stored in a distributed manner. In the domain of cognitive functioning, that is precisely where the idea arises: waves overlap, waves extinguish each other, and finally a new pattern emerges, which becomes the “solution.” We literally extract the needed meaning from a sea of possibilities, employing the mechanism of resonant wave interference. So keep in mind: microtubules—tubules, three-dimensional neuronal assemblies, quantum (or near-quantum) interference—and voilà, “the right” information can pop out as the result of extraordinarily complex wave superimposition. Of course, to prove all this fully, we would need experiments, physical measurements, and evidence of coherence. But as a conceptual framework, I find it extremely elegant and highly explanatory of certain phenomena involving ultra-rapid association, insight, and “eureka” moments in the brain. And when we say, “Oh, the brain is a quantum computer!” perhaps it is not just a metaphor but a real phenomenon concealed deep within our neuronal tubules. List of References: Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. "Orchestrated Reduction of Objective State". Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1996. Freeman, W. "How the Brain Makes the Mind". Moscow, 2008. Greenfield, Susan. "The Mysteries of Consciousness". Saint Petersburg, 2013. Penrose, R. "Shadows of the Mind". Moscow, 1994. Pribram, K. H. "The Brain and Behavior". Moscow, 1980. Singh, A. "Quantum Phenomena in Biological Systems". Nature Reviews Physics, 2020. Kandel, E. R. "Principles of Neuroscience". Moscow, 2015. Davidson, R. "Emotions and the Brain". Moscow, 2013. Eccles, J. C. "How the Self Controls Its Brain". Moscow, 1989. Ramachandran, V. S. "Phantoms in the Brain". Moscow, 2016. Popov, V. A. "Cognitive Models of the Brain". Kazan, 2015. Tononi, G. "Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness". PLoS Biology, 2008. Gabor, D. "Theory of Coherence and Information". Nature, 1946. Luria, A. R. "The Brain and the Psyche". Moscow, 1973. Haley, M. "Microtubules and Intracellular Transport". Cell, 1995. Seligman, M. "The Psychology of Optimism". Moscow, 2013. Norman, D. "The Design of Everyday Things". Moscow, 2015. Maslow, A. "Motivation and Personality". Moscow, 2008. Schrödinger, E. "What Is Life". Moscow, 1944. Jung, C. "Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious". Moscow, 1991. Miller, G. "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two". Psychological Review, 1956. Grossberg, S. "Adaptive Resonance Theories". Neural Networks, 1988. Dispenza, Joe. "Brain Development". Moscow, 2017. Csikszentmihalyi, M. "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience". Moscow, 2004. Sapolsky, R. "Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers". Moscow, 2011. Bohm, D. "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Moscow, 1980. Feynman, R. "Quantum Mechanics". Moscow, 1965. Bernstein, N. A. "On the Construction of Movements". Moscow, 1947. Kaznacheev, V. P. "Coherent Processes in Biosystems". Novosibirsk, 1995. Levy, V. "The Art of Being Yourself". Moscow, 2010. Clark, A. "The Predictive Brain". Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2013. Weissman, M. "The Role of Microtubules in Cell Division". Nature Cell Biology, 2004. Holland, J. "Emergent Behavior". Complexity, 1998. Barden, B. "Quantum Dots and Their Biological Applications". Nature Biotechnology, 2000. Anokhin, P. K. "Functional System". Moscow, 1980. Jezel, M. "Neural Networks and Memory". Annual Review of Neuroscience, 1999. Glazer, L. "Optical Information Processing". Moscow, 1976. Buzan, Tony. "Super Brain". Moscow, 2016. Fox, R. "Quantum Systems and Consciousness". Neuroscience Letters, 2019. Solso, R. "Cognitive Psychology". Moscow, 2006. Eccles, J. "The Evolution of the Brain". Moscow, 1984. Tegmark, M. "Quantum Computing and the Brain". Physical Review E, 2000. Gregory, R. L. "Eye and Brain". Moscow, 2003. Rosenfeld, A. "Functions of Neural Networks". Moscow, 1998. Penrose, R., & Hameroff, S. "Consciousness and Quantum Effects". Physics of Life Reviews, 2014. Dolnik, V. "The Wayward Child of the Biosphere". Moscow, 1994. Baxter, R. "Water and Quantum Processes in Biology". Journal of Molecular Biology, 2015. Popov, A. I. "Neurophysiology of Higher Nervous Activity". Kazan, 2018. Hawking, S. "A Brief History of Time". Moscow, 2001. 6 On Macroevolution, Quantum Transitions, and the Formation of a New Reality Look, friends, when we say “evolution,” many people immediately picture Darwin and his famous examples with finch beaks. Yes, that is also evolution—but on a smaller scale, which we will refer to here as microevolution. However, there is another phenomenon: a radical “leap” in structure, when a completely new, more complex system suddenly appears. This is what we call macroevolution (or an emergent transition). Let’s try to outline this entire process step by step in as much detail as possible, so no gaps remain.