Sometimes facts speak for themselves. Who or what is going to speak for you?
Why is this important?
The following is based on what I consider my most significant discovery ever, from 1992. The most peculiar thing about it is that it has never caught on in 30 years, although lots of “academics” became world-famous for a lot less. Is it because it could enable even people with mediocre intellectual abilities to think clearly and to make clear decisions? Is it because “academics” just don’t have it in them? Let you be the judge.
Clearing up your thoughts
I would like to challenge you and ask you to point out which of the following strategies is groundbreaking to the point that all future arguments can be tackled with it, while you can clear up your thinking without leaving any space for misunderstanding.
***
How is it possible to “understand” anything, if there is always insufficient information? The human mind uses static models for ever-evolving events, which resembles a two-dimensional being trying to understand a three-dimensional one.
Here, I am describing a few strategies that should be used commonly, although there is no sign of such a feat.
1. I usually triangulate from the source of support for an activity/idea/whatever, the outcome, and the beneficiary of the outcome. The party receiving such support is not always irrelevant, either; most of the time, those emulations of a human being are called “scientists.”
2. All I can try to do is reconstruct the whole puzzle from extremely few pieces, but that’s not very different from human cognition in general. It helps to be able to use both sides of the brain and employ deduction along with induction; sometimes they meet in the middle, although never completely overlap.
3. Induction from pieces and deduction from a hypothetical whole picture are necessary, but only about five percent of humanity can think deductively (the two major representative groups have been the Japanese and Hungarians, but I’m not sure about Hungarians anymore) and most people’s working memory cannot handle more than seven plus/minus two elements at a time on average that also include the cognitive calculations/transformations involved. Familiarity and practice can help, and the numbers can hugely increase, assuming someone has the mental capacity; all it takes is to develop and switch between layers of cognitive models in a hierarchy, and keep the rest of them in mind. As deductive thinking is possible only if you are able and/or willing to modify your hypothetical cognitive model, it doesn’t fit people who adhere to their beliefs to the point of being unable/unwilling to modify/replace them. All “knowledge” is based on initial premises that must be accepted without reservation. There is a word for that: faith. You have several interconnected cognitive models at various levels of complexity and exploit the ones that you need for the time being in order to solve a problem. You experience life itself in your overall one that you must keep changing in order to adapt to new situations from time to time.
4. Identify the problem, decide what to expect from the solution, see who profits from the solution, and find out who has the power to implement it. If your expectations are incompatible with other people’s, you are on your own, which happens all the time. An example of this method is described in detail in one of my previous articles:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-is-challenging-again
If you don’t have the power to implement the solution you need, you are wasting your time, unless you identify and are able to influence the parties that can be made responsible, because they are the ones wielding the power, so only they can change things.
5. Truth judgments can be based on one of four cognitive sources. To phrase it mundanely, these are the abilities/faculties/factors people employ, when they want to determine if something is true or false:
a. the senses (empirical),
b. logic,
c. emotions and/or intuitions, and
d. existential needs*.
These sources become more and more convincing for the thinker as (s)he goes higher up on the list. Empirical input has the least convincing power (Plato, as opposed to Aristotle, was right; even today, at court, eye-witness accounts are usually the shakiest elements of the prosecution’s “evidence”), and existential is the strongest, while every step up overwrites truth judgments below their levels, and the outcome is non-negotiable.
In order to stay consistent in a truth judgment, one must use source(s) from the matching level for solving problems. In an ideal situation, problem-solving might result in the same conclusion at all four levels, but using all four hardly ever happens, because some of them simply don’t apply (it makes no difference how you feel about two plus two, the result is always four, although your feelings can easily affect the result you prefer).
6. Cognition applies several layers in a hierarchical arrangement, using both serial and parallel links between concepts and truth judgments. In the meanwhile, thinking itself constitutes an open system, but the person can perceive and process it only as a closed one. In additions to that, the brain utilizes only the applicable parts for solving problems, so there is no way to generalize from the way someone solves a problem and every single example of cognition is a singular event even in the same person’s cognitive processes. This is the way graphene-based quantum nano-computers work, whose speed was 12 thousand times higher than silicone-based PCs already in 2012. This happens within a self-improving algorithm as a dynamic and multiple recursively-recursive patterns that can mutate anytime at all and seemingly random levels, while only a few select paths are activated among trillions of cells that build up its modules, so even the best computers in the world will never be able to completely compute the way the world or even the way a human being works (that’s something for human dignity as opposed to the globalist technocrats’ projection), because the element of unpredictability cannot be computed even after the computer learns to adapt to changing premises. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Godel’s theorem preside, and it’s impossible to tell where the flaw is in the mind’s cognitive system, although the only thing that is certain is that system is always flawed. The problem is that the process it is endeavoring to process, which is the world itself, also seems to carry the same type of being in flux without ever coming to completion. The globalists’ function-based definitions cannot enter the system.
The eugenicists know only half of this: they want to dumb down humans and turn the world into a boring and stupid computer game that has no room for goodness and beauty, only for conformity and functionality. They can surely turn people into morons (on which department, they seem to have reached a remarkable level of success), but they will never be able to make the world outside human affiliations any dumber than it already is. However, if anyone finds it comforting, the dumb world is still infinitely smarter than the technocrats who are playing God, until they won’t.
* I have assigned a special definition of the term: someone considers something an existential need, if the person wouldn’t like to live with or to live without it. It doesn’t matter, if the need is real or not, because the person’s truth judgments, nonetheless, depend on it. Real existential needs are not a matter of choice (the need to eat, sleep, etc.). The existential needs I refer to exist only in the person’s cognition.
Ironically, I consider these thoughts as my most original and most important contribution to the cesspool of human thought. :)
Intuition. The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.