Re-Program; Can Your Reasonable Intention Change the Numbers?


The foundation theme for this blog is:

“The balance between rational analysis and intuition create True Reason. One cannot exist or be fully accurate without the other.”-Me

We need to correct the current scientific bias that favors rational analysis over intuition which is why science is currently in a misogynistic black hole (no pun intended). There is a need for both women and men balanced in both their intuitive and rational mind working in the sciences.

Some analogies could be the balance of female/male principle and the balance of right and left brain hemispheres in each individual that takes us beyond the current evolutionary condition. Maybe an individual is dominant in one or the other but a truly reasonable person is balanced in both. I suppose this alone is a new notion and it is my theory. I didn’t read it anywhere. To me, it is logical.

My question is; “Can reasonable, personal intention change the numbers?”

Quantum mechanics says that it can. A thing can change it’s form and vibration if not it’s essential essence. For instance, the number two is always the number two, but it may look and feel different than it ever did before due to evolutionary adaptation.

1920px-Circles_packed_in_square_2.svg

500px-delboeuf_illusion

Rupert Sheldrake suggests, “Things have habits, they are not fixed by natural laws. Men make laws, nature doesn’t. The cosmos now seems more like a developing organism than an eternal machine. In this context, habits may be more natural than immutable laws.

Say you follow your GPS and get to the right place you programmed into your GPS but once you get there, you see that it’s completely changed its form and feel. It’s so different that you question whether you are in the right place and check your instruments. It is indeed the right place but it’s not the SAME place. Nothing and no one stays the same even though the address is the same.

A person may be the same height and look generally the same but if they have gone through a spiritually and emotionally life-changing event they may seem like a completely different person when you meet them again. This is unusual but it does happen.

It is entertaining to me to observe that after a woman loses weight most people treat her completely different as though she’s a different person just because she’s smaller. She’s not a different person, she’s a different size! I’ve talked to women friends who were quite large and then shrank and they are disgusted at how nice people are to them all of a sudden, as though their very character changed and they are now of more value and no longer some type of criminal because they are no longer large. This type of size bias is very indicative of the superficial values embedded in our materialistic, media-driven culture that rides on the objectification and over-sexualization of women. The assumption is, a smaller woman is more desirable sexually or more skilled sexually. None of that is true at all obviously. Studies have been done showing that doctors are size biased as well toward patients and make assumptions about health that don’t hold up in studies.

In answer to my question, yes the numbers can change but the sums cannot. How that looks is another matter. 2 + 2= 4 is always true and is very comforting but the way that looks in form is completely variable and sometimes you won’t think it’s math at all. That’s where physics can be of help.

The next idea I’ll be looking at is my theory that there are introspective controls possible in axiology that minimize ambiguity and variance so that something, someone, or some relationship can be studied and stabilized. I’ll be coming up with axioms to demonstrate it in relation to Time Science.

Peace out.

Re-Program; The Erroneous Line Drawn Between Science and Spirituality


Remember this Philosophy Tree I posted a few posts ago? I love this thing. So let’s go back to the axiom at the top upon which all institutions of higher learning, all over the world, base their system of learning and degree-granting powers; Philosophy.

The major branches of philosophy

 

All subjects are philosophical. One of the great tenets of philosophy, established by the Greeks, is debate and discussion. It’s pretty anti-social to say, “I’m right, it’s been proven, no more discussion. Go sit down and be quiet.” As objective as a physical scientist attempts to be with their scientific method, coming under the heading “Philosophy of Science”, they are subjective humans and can never be fully free from bias. It’s proven by their emotional outburst of anger if someone wants to have a discussion with them after they make absolute statements and need everyone to agree with them because the philosophy of science is “the truth”. “Playing well with others” learned in kindergarten is a good character attribute to have. I’m not saying I’m an expert at it being a high IQ woman, but I always start out being civil and it devolves from there.

Gender bias is rampant in any STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and math) discussion where a woman needs to have a say. It’s amazingly irrational, sort of proving my point above. I think it’s a good idea to qualify your work and be tolerant of dissent or a different perspective, otherwise, no matter how right you are, you lack integrity because you don’t care how you emotionally affect others.

So, look at that empty white space under “Philosophy of Religion” which comes from Ontology and Metaphysics”?  Go over to the left and the Philosophy of Science branch is loaded.  That is interesting, isn’t it?  Hardcore Newtonian Materialists would say, “That’s because we have hard evidence.” Yes, in your pants, which we women are happy for! but not when we have to earn money in the public workplace and you STILL have hard evidence. I would say it’s because we live in a patriarchal society controlled by money and power in the hands of men in academic institutions who routinely denigrate the scientific method of females in psychology and religion which is spirituality.  They are sciences too!

Now, look at “Philosophy of Mind”.  It sort of waves the right hand over to “Philosophy of Psychology” saying, “Well, there’s this!” with a glass of wine in the left hand having a party with “Philosophy of Religion”.  That’s sort of where we find ourselves in the year 2017.

We don’t have any boxes under Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Religion because we don’t have any money to do the experiments. There has been plenty of documentation and proof verifying that the study of Mind, Religion (Theology), Psychology and Parapsychology are worthwhile endeavors, but you can’t see the material manifestation of feelings, thoughts, dreams, and intuitions as easily as you can see a ball rolling down a hill for a physics experiment.  Well, at the very least, our field is much more complicated.  What can possibly be more complicated than studying how Mind manifests as feelings and physical being?

What is really changing now is proof from the quantum physicists that thoughts, feelings, and intuitions DO manifest in the body, literally, and cause illness or wellness, depending on how you align them. Everyone intuitively knows this. We don’t feel we need a double-blind study particularly, just some common sense.

Re-Program; Humans Weren’t Designed to be Rational and We’re Better Thinkers for it.


Science and Intuition

Trust your instincts

“Despite the growing reliance on “big data” to game out every decision, it’s clear to anyone with a glimmer of self-awareness that humans are incapable of constantly rational thought. We simply don’t have the time or capacity to calculate the statistical probabilities and potential risks that come with every choice.

But even if we were able to live life according to such detailed calculations, doing so would put us at a massive disadvantage. This is because we live in a world of deep uncertainty, in which neat logic simply isn’t a good guide. It’s well-established that data-based decisions don’t inoculate against irrationality or prejudice, but even if it was possible to create a perfectly rational decision-making system based on all past experience, this wouldn’t be a foolproof guide to the future.”-Olivia Goldhill

Check out this chart.

Every Single Cognitive Bias

It reminds me of Sheldon on “The Big Bang Theory”.  It kind of paints a picture of autism and OCD behavior, which I’m not judging. The fact that Sheldon skews in favor of cold, hard science and numbs human emotion or social sensitivity is rare. I understand having lived with two different autistic partners.  To me, the brilliance is attractive in some way.  I’m not sure why yet.  Maybe I’m on the spectrum as ADHD? My son thinks so but no one else does.

In the 1970s, two psychologists proved, once and for all, that humans are not rational creatures. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky discovered “cognitive biases,” showing that humans systematically make choices that defy clear logic.  I believe this is a visual interpretation of the original chart.  It is worth looking at and makes the point that we are by and largely subjective, emotional creatures.  It’s a beautiful thing…to me.

Here is the full article that goes with the “Cognitive Bias Chart”;

Humans weren’t designed to be rational and we’re better thinkers for it.

“Unconvinced? There’s an excellent real-world example of this: The financial crisis. Experts created sophisticated models and were confident that the events of the 2007 crisis were statistically impossible. Gerd Gigerenzer, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany, who studies decision-making in real-world settings, says there is a major flaw in any system that attempts to be overly rational in our highly uncertain world.”

“If you fine-tune on the past with an optimization model, and the future is not like the past, then that can be a big failure, as illustrated in the last financial crisis,” he explains. “In a world where you can calculate the risks, the rational way is to rely on statistics and probability theory. But in a world of uncertainty, not everything is known—the future may be different from the past—then statistics by itself cannot provide you with the best answer anymore.”

“We need hot-headed, emotional decisions

Though calling someone hot-headed or overly emotional is generally a critique of their thinking process, emotions are in fact essential to decision-making. There’s even research to show that those who suffer brain damage in the part of the organ governing emotions often struggle to make decisions. They can weigh up the pros and cons, but can’t come down on one side.”

After reading the whole article, I am in favor of using both my intuition and my rational processes.  Humans have always done that and it’s not a neat 50/50 percent of the time one way or the other.  Everyone is different.  I support the use of the scientific method when it’s appropriate.  It’s not always appropriate!  Yet our patriarchal culture with the male scientists on top uses it to hit us all over the head with a two-by-four to make sure we know that they are in charge, to such an extent that very qualified women in STEM, (Science, technology, engineering, and math), flee the university setting because of extreme gender bias. They’ve done studies. I’m correct.

The males are not in charge of their controlling attitudes in science. It’s not going to last. And many times, they’ve been wrong. Many scientists will agree that it is quite desirable to also employ the intuition, especially if leads us away from militarism.  And there are millions of humane men that are very anti-militaristic.

I’m not going to get into the gender disparity on this issue at the moment, but suffice to say, I believe all of our work, females, and males will benefit from using and having respect for both. But intuition has been derided and disregarded in favor of the Philosophy of Science category and it needs to stop. The Science of Philosophy of the Mind and Psychology needs to be taken into account also.  That is also science.

 

Re-Program; The Role of Intuition in the Scientific Method


The Role of Intuition in the Scientific Method

I’ve published an interesting booklet that you can buy on my website by clicking on the far right tab. It’s not very long and I’ve included a nice glossary of physics terms for the novice (like me). I read a lot of physics and love it but I am not a physicist. I wish I was but I came to it kind of late. Dr. Smith is an advocate for acknowledging intuition after working on the Manhattan Project. That would kick believing in rationality alone right out of anyone. Nothing like two atomic bombs killing millions to ruin your ideals about humanity.

 

 

The major branches of philosophy

 

This is a “tree” that shows where intuition fits, historically, into the sciences and how the sciences are actually offspring or children of philosophy.

All intellectual disciplines start with Philosophy.  Ph.D. behind a person’s name means Doctor of Philosophy no matter what field their major is.  Its namesake is Philo of Alexandria who was a Hellenistic Jew who wanted to create harmony, maybe in a contrived fashion?, between Judaism and Greek Philosophy.

  1. Logic-the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought.  Here is where formal, informal, symbolic, and mathematical logic fits.
  2. Epistemology-the study of knowledge itself, which to me sounds like gazing at your navel.  Religionists, agnostics, and atheists exist on this spectrum. Here is where all the branches of religion fit.
  3. Metaphysics-the study of the nature of things. This one is my favorite, of course, being holistic. Branches are cosmology and ontology. Here is where all of the natural sciences fit under cosmology. The life sciences, physical science, physics, astronomy, chemistry, earth.  If these are subdivided, they are fields.
  4. Axiology is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics, philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. Ethics and Aesthetics are it’s two main branches.  On the chart, the box that says Ethics could say Axiology.  Here is where all law science, art, and aesthetics fit. 

Intuition comes under ontology and metaphysics, then down to the philosophy of mind, then down to the philosophy of psychology.  You’ll see it sits right on the shelf with the philosophy of science equally. It then goes down that track and merges under the philosophy of science track with the science of psychology.  Psychology is a SCIENCE that comes from the philosophy of mind.  So, let’s have some respect here.  It’s not in a mushy bog.  It has to get through the rigors of the scientific method as well.

You’ll notice the five categories under the philosophy of science. There is a biased preponderance on this category, I believe due to Newtonian materialism. That is shifting now. The field of quantum physics is impressing on all the science categories now and shaking them up. In addition, that one field is also impacting the philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, AND the parent field of Metaphysics. So give the quantum physicists all the ribbing you want. Those folks are on the leading edge. More power to them.