DID EINSTEIN REVEAL THE FORMULA OF HIS GENIUS – OR DID HE TAKE HIS SECRET TO THE GRAVE? HINT, HINT ~ EINSTEIN CLEARLY DECLARED THAT: “INTUITION IS EVERYTHING”…

——————————————————————————————

logoEXTRA!    EXTRA!    EXTRA!

SPECIAL REPORT EDITION

Giving Teens and Young Adults Informative Insight for their Brains and their Futures

THE COGNITIVE TIMES

———————————————————————————————

DID EINSTEIN REVEAL THE FORMULA OF HIS GENIUS – OR DID HE TAKE HIS

SECRET TO THE GRAVE? HINT, HINT ~ EINSTEIN CLEARLY DECLARED THAT:

INTUITION IS EVERYTHING”…

Which is how Einstein understood why things that seem separate or disconnected, are in fact connected – and connectivity is essentially, the most fundamental trait of Intuition. This is how Einstein was able to decipher and devise the grand General and Special Theories of Relativity. These theories opened up the worlds of Quantum Mechanics, which paved the way for String Theory and the more distinct fields of Astro-Biology & Particle-Physics. And by the definitions of e = mc2, all of these fields are interconnected. What’s most telling about these connections, is that our own unrequited inquiries into these fields of knowledge makes them relative and essential to the development of our own human brains and unequivocally, our human Intuitions – which should help us connect everything we know, in addition to expediting what we still crave knowing about the universe and our purpose in it.

So, are we connecting, or intuiting everything we need to know, so as to emulate the genius of Einstein, because according to Einstein, we ought to all be using our intuitions for everything, since “intuition is everything”. Let’s explore and connect some factors about developing genius mindsets that, at least, imitate the intuitive genius of Einstein. Each of us possesses an intuition, and unique abilities endowed by the genius of Nature and the partnership of its universal source of knowledge.

But first, it’s time to clear up a few distasteful narratives. Let’s be anything but opaque here. Einstein never said ‘consciousness is everything’, or that ‘arithmetic is everything’, he stated that, “intuition is everything”. Any scientific experts will humbly admit that there is little consensus among them to settle any descriptive agreement regarding “consciousness”, and for all their ramblings about Einstein’s intuitive genius, they rarely encourage open forums to discuss “intuition”. With all due respect to Nobel Prize laureates, such as Eugene Wigmore, who pondered on and on about Schrödinger’s cat and the traits of consciousness in determining the condition of the cat, in conjunction with the deliberate act of observation; for all the endless books and airy fairy discussions about “consciousness”, exactly what has “consciousness” done to resolve coherency in any information systems or solve any world problems? None! However, in all fairness, the one thing that consciousness does perform for us is its absence under the influence of anesthesia.

Well, that having been said, it’s connectivity time, i.e., defining the authentic traits of intuition:

Intuition is everything”. Children learn language intuitively; they never do it “consciously”. We use language for everything. Intuition is the universe’s naturally free internet service, interconnecting everything, and connecting us to every dimension of knowledge and information – if only we’d all become connected to our own genuine intuitions. Early intuitive language development is a necessary requirement for cognitive development. For instance, you should be able to learn another (bunch of) language(s) intuitively at a later stage in life because you’d originally learned a language intuitively during the foundational stages of cognition. But had you missed the opportunity to learn any speech and language skills intuitively at a very young age, you would be unable to learn language proficiently in the latter stages of life, including your “mother tongue”. One of the other most practical traits of intuition is the ability of transferring, and/or transposing information from one system of knowledge to another. Bottom line is, language is used for everything so everything you learn ought to be cohesively interconnected.

So, can we now begin to see how important it is to establish a theory of relativity between intuition, cognition, and language, which altogether, formulate the basic connecting computations for achieving “intuitive genius”? Benjamin Franklin – another genius – proposed the concept “become a jack of all trades and a master of one”. Unfortunately, a great many people are unaware of this original statement because we unconsciously follow the contorted pop trend non-genius version of describing someone as a ‘jack of all trades and a master of none’. Okay, enough digression.

What kind of mind is needed to define whether the following anecdote is idiocy or conspiracy? If intuition is everything, as Einstein declared, why do we keep disregarding this guidance if we are so bent on emulating his brilliant genius? Computer Scientists are confidently determined to make computers more intuitive. By the way, it is noteworthy to acknowledge that if computer scientists want to develop more intuitive computers, then they need to start working with the traits of intuition rather than fooling themselves into believing that intuitive-A.I. for computers can be coded on the traits and features of memory. Intuition is far superior to memory and even bypasses the mechanics of memory, just as we do for our general everyday language skills. For all of their exquisite coding efforts, they still need to become proficient in Intuition 101. Still waiting to see that happen!

Every field of knowledge is equally interchangeable with “Math”. Everything is built upon the fundamental principles of mathematics, or the language of the universe as defined by Physics – and these basic mathematical laws are what interconnect everything. That simply means that the mechanics of intuition are hiding in plain sight – everywhere. This should also mean that Physicists ought to discuss intuition more than they dabble with Arithmetic. But such is the literal meaning of cognitive dissonance and counter-intuitive thought processing that defines the limited range, or percentage of mind-brain potential that we’ve staggered around upon for thousands of years. It certainly defines how, unbeknownst to most folks, “Arithmetic” has never been a synonym for “Math”. “Everything” has never been all about the Arithmetic, but everything is all about the Math.

The variables required for equating human genius include the explicit connections between Language, Cognition, Intuition, The Fundamental Principles of Math, and Natural Science. All of these functions must be cultivated in accordance with the human brain’s hard wired capacity for Compassion, Optimism, Creativity and Decision-making – these are the properties that generate and incorporate intuitive genius and full human brain potential. A little margin note is in order here ~ let’s remove one concerning factor: ‘Evil Geniuses’ need never apply, meaning that true human genius can only be built on the elements of compassion and optimism. The human brain has never been equally hard-wired for good and evil, this is an historical falsehood. It also means that we can depart from the wasteful time consuming effort of trying to artificially affix morality and ethics into the ambiguous properties of “consciousness” – which as mentioned, is only worthy as when it’s absent under anesthesia.

So, here is the disconnecting tale wherein either idiocy, or conspiracy has been misguiding the process and progress of human intuitive intelligence – but it is a fate that can still be recovered, especially during the cross-roads of human civilization and globalization that we are currently engaged in.

More than a half century after Einstein’s final residency in Princeton, and after having adamantly proclaimed that “Intuition is Everything”, how is it that none of the grand universities on the planet, including Princeton itself, has missed conceiving of an MBA, or Ph.d program offering a credentialed degree in Intuitive Intelligence and how it is relative to everything. It seems so surreally discombobulating.

Going back about 20 years, a national early education board was at the height of mandating that all Early Educators must omit the specific negations no, not, don’t, can’t and shouldn’t for all teaching techniques, guidance skills and all functions of young children’s cognitive development. This issue was neglected by most Early Educators, and this widespread non-compliance, forced the board to discontinue issuing the mandate and its significance. Meanwhile, for all Neuro-science had uncovered about how the young human brain was unable to process, or hypothesize the literal inversion of a devalued verb by a negation, especially considering that verbs are the main part of speech in any language, the mandate’s significance still died without a tear shed. Notwithstanding that death, never did a single memorial arise in a published form, by an accredited MBA or Ph.d candidate documenting the connections between language, cognition and intuition. And what, with our relentless pursuits about the retentions and losses of “memory”? The point is that it is unnecessary to consciously remember everything. Intuition gives us the ability to recollect anything we’d ever need to know, because with intuition, everything we’d ever learned would be connected somehow, and transferable within our human neuro-nets – if only we’d been intuitively developed, yet we continually miss propagating the genius of intuition.

To date, only one set of books and resources addresses these connections, and to date, they have also remained unchallenged. They are unchallenged because the professional world still misunderstands the intuitive connections between Cognition, Language, Relationships, Emotions, Reasoning, Common Sense, Critical Thinking, Logical Hypothesizing, Doing the Math, and the whole authentic development of our human brains. If we want to really solve problems and innovate, we need Intuition!

That is the tale; the unrecognized, or unrecognized and unrequited depiction of our birthright and destiny to master intuitive intelligence. We are all either part of the problem, or part of the solution – part of the conspiracy, or part of the idiocy. Teens however, are in neither of these categories. As teens are navigating the final trimester of their intuitive-cognitive development, they have the opportunity to substantially alter the progress of human history by acquiring and practicing the interconnecting traits and mechanics of intuition that can still unleash their own genius – and everyone has an intuition. Only Cognitivology® is offering the means and information for that task. So, stay tuned and stay connected. Signing off for now, C. Woolf, principle author of Cognitivology® resources.

WHAT MAKES A PHYSICIST’S JOB AND A PRESCHOOL TEACHER’S JOB MORE ALIKE THAN ANY OTHER TWO PROFESSIONS?

————————————————————————————————————
EXTRA! EXTRA! EXTRA!
SPECIAL REPORT HIGH SCHOOL EDITION
Giving Teens Informative Insight for their Brains and their Futures
THE COGNITIVE TIMES!
————————————————————————————————————
WHAT MAKES A PHYSICIST’S JOB AND A PRESCHOOL TEACHER’S JOB MORE ALIKE THAN ANY OTHER TWO PROFESSIONS?

Does this title sound like the beginning of a tricky little riddle, perhaps with an uncanny and intriguing answer that is stranger than fiction?

The truest measure of a society’s success is equivalent to the education it provides for its nation’s children, because children are the future of every society. Having said that, should the standard quality of a nation’s whole education system be defined by its version of preschool, specifically, the 3 – 5 year old stage of preschool brain development? We universally accept the wisdom, that the early years are the “foundation for everything in life”, but are we doing all we can to implement its significance and effectiveness?

“Educational reform” has all the necessary appearances of emphasizing how we ought to reformulate the K-12 years of education. But this approach is so wildly incoherent, and analogous to believing that a half-baked cake can still be mixed with an ingredient that was missed during the original mixing process. Yet, in America, this is how we mix and re-mix strategies to aid our ailing education system. The debates and tactics rage on and on, without ever identifying what should be the most obvious solution.

In most western industrialized societies, we believe “a,b,c & 1,2,3” to be the fundamentals of education. It is a staunch belief, and staunch beliefs often dismiss us from doing some very needed critical thinking – the very thing our nation’s young adults are missing the chance to get a firm grip on.  In parallel fashion, a,b,c & 1,2,3 are the basic parameters that recent, current and upcoming generations of young adults were cultivated upon when “nursery school” became the fashion. What does that have to do with anything? Well technically speaking it means that we’ve cheated our nation’s children out of receiving a true education.

“Education” and “Brain Development” ought to be completely synonymous in every sense, they should be homogenous, they should be pasteurized together … you get the picture. We are discovering way too much about brain development for these two processes to continue masquerading as separate entities. So what do we do to synthesize and amalgamate them? First, we define the connecting roots for both of these traits, and then we actually connect them – at their root.

Seeking knowledge and seeking out the origins of knowledge are essential to the properties and elements of human brain development – that’s why we do it. Natural Science and Physics are our greatest venues for discovering the roots of knowledge. These fields define the laws, energy and matter of the universe, and are therefore the building blocks for every field of knowledge, including the elements that construct every star, moon, planet and living thing.

Now to state what should be the obvious, these natural laws existed long before we discovered ways of collecting and recording their properties with formal Literacy, or “a,b,c’s” and Numeracy, or “1,2,3’s”. The first stories of humanity and early observations of our world and universe were handed down by word of mouth and pictures – but you already knew that. By the same token, the human brain existed long before alphabets and numbers were discovered.  It is at least rumored that the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe, and that it even is a representation, or microcosm of the universe. It seems fitting then, or parallel that our brains’ greatest potential require the same basic elements of knowledge that the universe has required for its structure and development. But we are using far less of our brains’ potentials than we are naturally destined to use, and the peculiar tendency common to that condition is an inadvertent belief that we are exempt from these elemental processes.

It’s time to get back to basics and realize what those elements are. Why is the field of Physics put on such a pedestal? Because it is a field that best answers some of the fundamental and key questions about the universe, which is the source of our existence. These key elements are known in Physics as the “Language of the Universe”, they are one and the same as the fundamental Principles of Mathematics.  These fundamental math principles are the description and definition for everything in the universe, including us. Math is everything, and everything is fundamentally mathematical, and whatever you do in life, Math really is your very best friend, even if you dislike Arithmetic. Yes, it’s time we understood the difference.

So, to get back to our riddle, that is, to settle the meaning of this article’s title; “Why are Physicists and Preschool Teachers’ job more alike than any other two professions”? It is very simple. Physicists uncover the Fundamental Principles of Math – or basic laws of the universe, and Preschool Teachers (are supposed) to provide and administer the basics of knowledge – the Fundamental Principles of Math – to every young child. The question is; are Preschool Teachers being trained to do their jobs, and are they allowed to do what their genuine job descriptions actually entail? Sounds like both jobs are equally significant, but maybe it also explains why Physicists win Nobel Prizes, while Preschool Teachers are never even given that consideration.

The bottom line is, as long as we refuse to surrender the belief that a,b,c & 1,2,3 constitute the basics of formal education, we are inadvertently engaging in a futile battle against the fundamental laws and mechanics of universal knowledge. However, if we insist on upholding a,b,c & 1,2,3 as the cornerstones of learning, then they must, at least, be administered by all of the Fundamental Principles of Mathematics, and this is where we falter.

Until we cognitively reconcile with the basic knowledge properties of the universe, as defined by the Fundamental Principles of Math, we can propose and promote every kind of remedial method for reforming our K-12 years of formal schooling. Even when, and if K-12 become, homogenized with genuine brain development, it will eventually point us toward refurbishing the roots of early education, that is specifically, preschool brain development. Whether we choose to imitate the Chinese school standards, or strike a pose with the Finnish system of education, one thing is for sure, and that is that both of these countries must have a more exquisite understanding of the concept that “preschool is the foundation for everything in life”. If “math is everything” and if “preschool is the foundation for everything” – and everything means everything – then preschool is the solution for fixing everything within a nation and its societal progress.

Early Education is officially and formally described as “cognitive development”. What most folks are unaware of is that this term is merely the formal title of “math” for preschoolers. Everything is math and preschoolers are learning the basics of everything. This is all the scientific and Neuro-scientific proof we need to emphasize preschool as the strategy for reforming everything in America – especially our education system.

Of course, there’s one more important ‘P’ in this pod, and it’s “Parenting”. It has everything to do with brain development, because that’s what parenting actually is. When this tripod of Parenting, Preschool teaching, and a Physicist’s job work together in unison for human progress, then the cornerstones for intelligent, compassionate and optimistic societies can be established and built – in conjunction with the authentic traits of intuitive intelligence – ultimately fulfilling the purpose and full potential of humankind. The brain is the answer to human harmony.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, read the Cognitivology® blog at www.cognitivology.wordpress.com
Also visit our website to explore Cognitivology® books at: http://www.ccthedots.com
ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU WANT – WE’LL GIVE THE COGNITIVELY CORRECT
AND INTUITIVELY CORRECT ANSWERS FULL BRAIN POTENTIAL – It is your destiny!

“TO BE” or “NOT TO BE” – “TO NEGATE”, or “NOT TO NEGATE” – “TO CHOOSE GOODNESS” or “TO NOT CHOOSE GOODNESS” ~ That is the REAL Question with a very real ANSWER

“TO BE” is the leading, most prominent verb in any and every language – and verbs are the most leading and important part of speech in a sentence in any language, and as such, there are “no” substitutes for a verb (whereas there are substitutes for nouns, adjectives and adverbs).
“To be” also reflects the most important and most fundamental question in life – – translated in Shakespearean terms as “to be or not to be”, or in plain laymen’s terms as “what is the meaning of our existence / what is the purpose of life” ???
Normally I write entirely without the negations “no, not, don’t, can’t and shouldn’t”. Today for this specific blog I have chosen to make an exception. WHY? Partly to highlight the the human brain, especially very young brains do “not” process negations (and since I write about young human brain development it would “be” most hypocritical to write with negations while emphatically describing how and why parents and teachers must use non-negated verbs when guiding and teaching young children).
On the other end of the spectrum, very old brains have already been over-processed and over-programmed by negations, subjecting the elderly to ever more confusion (and revealing the core element of cognitive degeneration, which Neuroscientists are all too comfortably happy to ignore).
The in-between stages of our cognitive life, that is the stages in between “being” very young and then very old, we spend every day commonly processing negations. It is so common and familiar to us, we just “don’t” give it any thought, we do “not” question it or believe that it has anything at all to do with the real raw full potential of the human brain. We handle negated verb processes on a daily basis and we have to use our brains for EVERYTHING we do, so it seems a perfect defense to assume that our brains do indeed process negations. Again, the brain is “not” designed to process negations, it is designed to process the raw verbal syntax of a verb that contains the most information in any given sentence, in any given language. So how are we managing this negated-verb process.
What we are really doing, that is, what our brains are helping us to do is perform the fundamentals of cognition or the fundamental mathematical principles of an equation. In order to process a negated verb, we hypothesize the inverted meaning of a negated verb, so “not to be” becomes “to be”.
Today’s exception to use negations is to highlight a couple of specific points with the hope of pointing out the fundamentals of real human brain development and how real human brain potential is generated and programmed. Computers are given the right and respect to be programmed without negations, but when it comes to properly programming young brains, we completely neglect this same principle, resulting in a downgraded version of our brains’ true potential and leaving us languishing in the perpetually purposeless question of “what is our purpose in life”. The first answer to that question is – the first purpose in our lives is to fully develop the full potential of our human brains — so that we may eventually understand the purpose of our lives in this universe when it finally slaps us upside the head with its full force of knowledge, lol.
When we are trying our best “to be” wise and philosophical and intelligent, the proposition that is most applied is the imposition that we must “make choices” in life, and the dominant theme behind “making choices” is choosing between good decisions and bad decisions, or plainly just choosing between “good” and “evil”. This is human history’s leading narrative defining the majority of philosophies and belief systems. If choosing between “good” and “evil” really defined the purpose of our existence, then there would be “no” reason to continue proposing the question of “what is the meaning of life”, or “what is the purpose of my existence”. If choosing between “good” and “evil” was the answer, then we’d have nailed it – question answered. So why are we still perpetually possessed with answering this elusive question?
The answer is unfortunately, or fortunately too simple! Either choosing between “good” and “evil” is “not” the right question, or we are “not” using our brains, which we need to do everything, in order to answer this question, or find out what the real question is.
So the final question is “TO ASK” or “TO NOT ASK” the right question, AND THEN GET THE RIGHT ANSWER. To “not” ask is to never get an answer, so we need to ask the question as to whether choosing between good and evil defines the meaning and purpose of life — and of course, we need to use our brains to ask and answer the question, which means we need to know how the brain really works.
If our first purpose in life is to fulfill the full potential use of our brains, then we need to ask if the human brain is designed to equally process good and evil – making us therefore fulfilled in exercising our purpose to choose between good and evil, or good decisions and bad decisions.
The simple rudimentary TRUTH is that our human brains are “NOT” equally hard-wired for GOOD and/or EVIL, but it is the prevailing school of thought that we make choices everyday to choose between good and bad, right and wrong, goodness and evilness. The human brain is “NOT”, I repeat “NOT” equally hard-wired for good and evil, so the good-evil choice philosophy is completely false and yet it is still driving the everyday belief systems of people everywhere in virtually everything they do.
The human brain is FULLY, and ONLY FULLY hard-wired for COMPASSION and OPTIMISM — Essentially meaning that if we continue to believe that the brain is partitioned to choose between good and evil, we can hardly expect to ever fully use our brains. In order for us to fully use our brains, we have to intentionally CHOOSE TO DELETE AND MAKE OBSOLETE the idea that human life’s grandest purpose rests on the idea of “choosing between good and evil”. To choose between good and evil is to choose the downgraded version of life and our truly authentic potential.
So what is the real answer, what is the real purpose and meaning behind MAKING CHOICES — because “making choices” is something we can never make obsolete.
The choice in life is CHOOSING between the knowledge we already have and sticking to it without question or reservation – – – OR – – – CHOOSING the option of inquiring, accessing, obtaining, exploring and acquiring new knowledge and information that makes our decisions more informative and intelligent, in other words, putting to use the full potential of our brains, which is to always seek new knowledge, to practice unlimited knowledge potential, thereby exercising the greater, grander and fuller potential of our brains, and finally moving toward understanding the purpose and meaning of our lives.
Remember – or “don’t” forget – the foremost purpose and potential of our human brains is the ability to make choices and decisions, and the real choice, consistent with the mechanics of our human brain “isn’t” to choose between good and evil, because our brains are only hard-wired for goodness. The CHOICE in life is to choose between sticking with what we already know or choosing to know more than what we already know. THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE GRANDEST OF ALL QUESTIONS – “TO BE” or “NOT TO BE”.

What Is The Definition of a Definition?

The definition of a definition can be most easily described as (1) the origin and meaning of a word, and (2) an unwritten or written agreement about the various meanings and applications of a word, including the changes that a word or definition may incur, as well as other cultural influences that transform meanings, words and definitions between one era and/or culture and another.
Words can be flexible, and they should be. However, whenever we create the definitions of a word, the question is, are we using the same criteria for creating a definition? This may seem like an imposition on the creative aspect of constructing words, but the definition for definitions ought to be tethered in the definitive properties of the roots of knowledge and information. Why should this detail be significant? Do we really need to create another forum, or add another ridiculous category to the world of philosophical debates in which some minute detail is just endlessly discussed ad nauseam and ad infinitum? Does it change anything, or add any constructive rhetoric to the core issues of humanity?
The answer is that every issue adds constructive rhetoric to the core issues of humanity if it’s constructed in accordance with real brain potential. So how does the definition of a definition affect us?
We use words to construct sentences representing the languages we speak. We use language to develop relationships and share knowledge. Like language and culture that are interchangeable, relationships and sharing knowledge are also interchangeable – which is why we bond best and most with others who share our own ideas and feelings. Nevertheless, we must consider that all knowledge and information has an origin. Everything whether artificial or natural, visible or invisible, microscopically tiny or grandly gigantic, are all forms of knowledge and information that originate from the energy, matter and properties of the universe. The human brain itself is a concentrated microcosmic rendition of the universe, and therefore, since our brain relies on language for its cognitive and intuitive development – – particularly because we learn language intuitively and language is necessary for cognitive development, meaning that “cognition” and “intuition” are also interchangeable) – – then it is important to consider that the origin for definitions of words, which in turn formulate language properties, must also be in alignment with the fundamental properties and definitions of knowledge-information-energy-matter. These properties should then be consistent with the constructive properties of how we use language to formulate the full intuitive-cognitive development of our brains.
Let’s apply an actual example to this seemingly insignificant detail. “Consciousness” is a widely discussed topic. It crosses cultural boundaries and spans centuries of human progress and development. In more modern times, such as the one we are now living in, the idea of “consciousness” has also been adopted by various fields of Science, and yet even within the scientific community, there is little agreement on an actual definition for consciousness, and it is rarely, if ever, discussed in the same conversation as “intuition”. What’s even weirder is that “consciousness” is added to so many discussions, issues and topics of human endeavor, even while Scientists themselves understand that intuition is superior to consciousness. Einstein himself after all has stated on several occasions that “intuition is everything”. He never said ‘consciousness is everything’. What’s weirder and more curious is that Scientists rarely speak of ‘consciousness’ and ‘intuition’ under the same heading or category, nor do the two words seem to arise in the same discussion.
The point is that Scientist who understand that the universe is interconnected, and that everything is a form of knowledge and information down to the smallest particle of energy and matter, the question is, where is the connecting fundamental property between the “definitions” of ‘consciousness’ and ‘intuition’. If fundamental universal knowledge is the criteria for creating sincerely authentic definitions for words and meanings, then what is the problem with scientists coming up with a properly definitive definition for consciousness?
By the same rhetoric that consciousness is undefinable even by scientific standards, it is often connected to the emerging scientific narrative of parallel universes. They go together because they are equally vague — and inconsistent with the properties of universal knowledge that are openly accessible to anyone who wants to access it all. Keep in mind that Intuition is the Universe’s Naturally free Internet Service and we all ought to be connected to it so that we can access universal knowledge. While Science and Philosophy propose – at least the minimum property of consciousness as a feature of awareness, and preferably, ethical conscientious awareness – then why is there supposed to be a barrier between becoming aware but being barred from any conscious knowledge of parallel universe’s, in which there are other versions of you and me ???
Obviously, consciousness has its limits, but the universe is filled with unlimited knowledge, and the brain is naturally designed for unlimited knowledge processing — so it makes sense that rhetoric and conventional definition for ‘consciousness’ remains undefinable, because it is so out of sync with the definitive properties of universal knowledge.
If there are other parallel universes, and if we are supposed to become more intelligent by becoming more consciously aware and/or conscientious, then information and knowledge about the other versions of you and me should be accessible. Either we need to become more intuitive to have access to these parallel selves in parallel universes, or we have reached the limits of consciousness, which is clearly limited. Intuition would at least allow us to access these other parallel and differing versions of ourselves and our particular world – or we’d find that multiple dimensions of our selves are reflections of multi-dimensional information that can be exchanged between our parallel selves, so as to improve our lives, or be more connected to the multiple interconnected dimensions of the universe that we should be connected to. Consciousness is a closed system of information – that’s why it is undefinable. It’s best definition is that it is a temporary and auxiliary holding system substituting our eventual emergence into a full spectrum of intuitive intelligence capabilities. As Einstein said, “intuition is everything” and yet we should intuitively realize that everything is interconnected, especially since “intuition” is fundamentally the connection between all forms of knowledge and information. “Consciousness” has never offered that feature to us – and to our brains that require unlimited, open-ended information processing. Yes, the definition of a definition must be consistent with the fundamental properties and mechanics of intuition – the connecting feature of all knowledge and information – – and when a definition is inconsistent with the brain’s full rendition of intelligence potential, i.e., “intuition”, then it ought to be changed to suit the full development of the brain, which is a mini-microcosm of the universe, meaning that we ought to have full access to the universe’s knowledge rather than being limited or otherwise, redefining our human brains as the antithesis of a mini-microcosmic instrument capable of processing unlimited knowledge and information.

Cognitivology is the dirty, nasty business of cleaning up all the muck and misconceptions about Human Brain Potential and Intuitive Intelligence development

WHY “COMPUTATIONAL THINKING” IS SUPERIOR THAN “SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE”.

Recently, while in the library, a woman seated next to me in the computer section vehemently open fired, tattling and rattling on and on with unabashed and venomous resentment about how stupid and despicable so many people are. I listened to her quietly and patiently and myself made the stupid attempt to soothe and vindicate her ramblings with the simple revelation that we are all using a mere 10 – 20% of our brains’ potentials, so it would perhaps make sense that we may all be less insightful or intelligent than we would all hope to be.
Rather than seeming liberated or scoffing off her resentment with a chuckle or two, she abounded onto her next soapbox with ever more conviction, confidently announcing to me that what I mentioned was “an old wives tale, and that it had been scientifically proven so”. After being more than accommodating about lending her my ears, I humbly and quietly announced that “either she and/or science was grossly mistaken, and furthermore, if we were actually using all of our brains’ potential, people would hardly be as stupid as she keeps insisting they are”. I added that “cognition is a mathematical function” and therefore, she “ought to just do the math”. I was, needless to say, surprised that she actually turned silent at that point, closed down her computer in a huff and a puff and promptly left the building.
So what is the point of regaling this story? The point is that scientists can argue various points of collected scientific evidence, or proclaim that there is indeed some evidence, or none at all for any number of issues that we INSIST must be provided and established, in order to make alterations or improve the status of some situation or other. And by that standard, it certainly gives license to any number of folks (both smart and non-smart) to make up accounts of “scientific evidence” to support some belief they have or motive they are harboring.
By now, all scientists ought to understand that Quantum Mechanics, Entanglement, Superposition and String Theory play a role in the manners in which, particles, energy and matter manifest. That being said, “scientific evidence” can turn on a dime, or change in a flash. If these quantum conditions are so flexible and amenable to our influence and observations, then perhaps, as my editor professes, we all ought to be chanting, “the ice caps are stable, the ice caps are stable”, as opposed to the frightening chant of “the ice is melting, the ice is melting”. Genuine information and ideas can hardly be undone, and the leading fields of science are integral in understanding our universe and ourselves, indeed, they are just as integrally relative to the full potential of our brains as they are to computing the essential properties of EVERYTHING – AND EVERYTHING IS MATH, so let’s do the math – again.
We all know that money rules, but the rules of money are inconsistent with the genuine rules and mechanics of brain potential, and the ones with the most money get to cherry pick the “scientific evidence” for publishing and promoting their agendas – which of course would be to keep the money flowing where it already flows.
For our first computational thinking experiment, let’s ascertain whether excessive CO2 emissions are affecting our planet’s atmosphere and wreaking havoc with our weather patterns.
When the philosopher-scientist-electrician Joseph Priestley was just a kid, he’d capture insects, put them in a jar and watch as the poor bug slowly convulsed, stripped of its natural activities and abilities and died from a lack of oxygen – setting Joe P on his destiny toward exploring the nature of air (as described in Steven Johnson’s book “The Invention of Air”). Priestley was clueless as to the compositions of air, and even without knowing the difference between Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide, that is, without the scientific evidence for these elements, it was clear to him that there was a change in the air, or mini-atmosphere of the jar, that accelerated the end of the bug’s life.
If any of us were confined to similar conditions, we too would fine ourselves gasping for fresh air full of oxygen and less tainted by carbon dioxide — so who do we think we’re fooling by insisting that scientific evidence is insufficiently rigorous to conclude that an unusually high, parts per million ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen, in our atmosphere is going to be ineffectual to the abilities and activities of the atmosphere? In this age, we are intellectually astute enough to acknowledge that one of the predominant activities of our atmosphere is the production of weather. Therefore, a higher content of carbon dioxide is going to affect the weather. This is simple computational thinking that hardly needs “scientific evidence”. It could be said that only “s—-d” or non-intelligent people lacking in the fundamental skills for computational thinking and common sense would need such hardcore scientific information.
For our next piece of intuitive reasoning – or computational and critical thinking, we bring Einstein to testify – posthumously of course. Did Einstein observe a solar eclipse first and assess that light from a distant star would bend at the predicted amount of degrees around our own sun and THEN run back to his study to devise and calculate the famous “General Theory of Relativity”? The Math never lies, or in this case, the Arithmetic was completely honest and rigorous. Did the solar eclipse prove the Theory of Relativity? You bet it did. But it would have been true even if Einstein had never surmised it, and truer still, even if it had never been proven. But the most important detail here is that Einstein computed it, he intuited it without scientific evidence.
And finally, to boldly place Cognitivology alongside these geniuses, we must insist that because “everything is math”, and because “cognition” like “everything else” is a mathematical function, then our first human intelligence process of “emotional cognition” is also a mathematical function. That is to say that even though Neuroscientists are reluctant, or falling short of computing or computationally surmising a rigorous definition for “emotional cognition”, this hardly means that the definitive properties of “emotional cognition” are non-existent – – or that “emotional intelligence” is a non-cognitive process. Nothing is non-mathematical, so it is impossible for emotional intelligence to be a non-cognitive process. The problem is that Neuroscientists are approaching the possibility of defining “emotional cognition” by the same absurd proposition in which Einstein would have first observed a solar eclipse that would subsequently inspire him to calculate the ‘Theory of Relativity’.
Einstein’s calculations were precise – but if we believe we can unveil and define “emotional cognition” by the imprecise version of less than 20% activated brain potential possessed by adults, then we should at least face the rigorous scientific evidence that our computational thinking skills are severely incalculable. That is to say that we are using less than a third of a deck of cards to play poker… How ’bout we start with the original wholly supplied deck – – how ’bout we go back to the drawing board and examine the potential of young human brains holding a whole deck of blank cards to be imprinted upon, need I say, in a cognitively correct manner, rather than swiftly take 2/3 of the deck away and print a bunch of incoherent information on the remaining few cards.
Conclusively, we are all facing a challenge. As repeatedly mentioned throughout this blog and other Cognitivology publications, we use our brains for everything so we should use everything our brains are designed and destined to do – and that means starting with the “foundation for everything in life” – the early stages we affectionately propose, acknowledge and agree upon that are so significant to every person’s whole lifetime of learning, forming relationships and becoming competent in our behavior and decision-making skills. In other words, what do we have to do to become intuitively intelligent human beings?
In our latest publication (btw, which can be purchased for just .99 cents from our website http://www.ccthedots.com ), the authentic logic of computational thinking strategies are proposed. Among some of the discussions with others, we’ve been told it’s “philosophical”. We say it’s mathematical, but you can let your intuition do the talking for you.
The first pages propose a “3-point model” that has been faithfully adhered to, transcendent of the ages, cultures and belief systems. These points are at a crossroads to be challenged. These 3 points are:
— We profess that the early years of life constitute the foundation for everything in life, but this profession fails to produce a definition of “everything” and usually excludes, or actually grossly neglects the 3 – 5 year old stage of early brain development (even within the field of Neuroscience). The burden of scientific proof would at least be to prove that the early years are completely meaningless, and that humanity has been misled by this set of parameters regarding a lifetime of brain potential, as though, genuine or higher brain intelligence can be removed and separated from the early stages of brain development.
— The incessant proposal that children (and us adults) “must learn from the consequences of our actions”. If this criteria were the premier version for learning, then we ought to welcome, create and rush headlong and head-strong into situations that would reap all forms of consequential learning opportunities. We either learn from “everything” or we are avoiding learning from anything at all, much in the same way that we try to avoid consequences. The mechanics of learning are consistent. If we are failing to learn from consequences, it is probably because we are falling short of learning from all other learning opportunities. Besides, learning from consequences depends on the “aftermath” of situations, and the human brain is predominantly designed for foresight and precognitive decision-making. When we learn optimally, in accordance with the brain’s natural hard-wired design, then we can indeed learn from everything – whether beforehand, afterwards or consequentially.
— Lastly, “Reasoning” is upheld as the rhetorically supreme trait for hypothesizing and intellectualizing without extreme passion or emotion. However, the only “reason” we possess advanced computational thinking skills is because we are inherently designed with advanced compassionate-optimal “Emotioning” skills. Without the capacity to reason with compassion and optimal information processing, we would be able to justify having incompetent reasoning skills. When we reason and innovate and create with the full intuitive capacity to think, feel, act and decide with compassion and optimism, then we are free to apply our skills and devise unlimited ideas for our own lives and for that of human progress.

The question of the Ages is; what does “parenting” have to do with “brain development” and what does “brain development and what does brain development have to do with everything”?
by Carla A.M. Woolf

previously, on the Cognitivology blog:
By Carla A.M. Woolf
Cognitivology is the dirty, nasty business of cleaning up human brain development, which is far too challenging and truth-revealing for any American organizations, administrations and Neuroscientific agencies to deal with, but most especially of all, totally out of the league for our National Dept. of Education. “Education” and “Brain Development” ought to be considered synonymous, inseparable and identical commodities. It’s amazing that as enterprising, entrepreneurial Americans, we have missed cashing in on this opportunity, particularly since we love leading the world in trends and “innovation”.
But sadly, even though the world’s #1 problem is a severe lack in human brain potential (because lack of human brain development is what actually causes of all of the world’s problems), and even though we rank somewhere around #29 on the International PISA report card of Academic competency in the industrialized world, and even though all of us humans use less than 20% of our brains’ potential (and maybe it’s just 5% or 17%) – at any rate, it is very far away from 80% or 100% — AND even though we have missed hitting the real bullseye on the target of higher brain potential, advanced intelligence, and the decoding traits that can put Artificial Intelligence and Intuitive Intelligence in the fast-paced lane of success (for Computers and Humans), we remain dumbfounded ….
But supposing someone wants to really know what it takes to unleash the full potential of the human brain? Well Cognitivology’s phone might actually ring. Until then we can enjoy staying under the radar.

IS WORLD UNITY AN IMPOSSIBLE DREAM?

Is world unity really an impossible dream? Is there a mystical resolution that can address all of the world’s challenges? Recently I read an article about an adult self-help seminar. During the course of the sessions of the seminar’s rigorous routines, there were several enthusiasts and there were several skeptics. However, in the weeks following participation in this seminar event, it seems everyone, both enthusiasts and skeptics, reported favorable changes in their lives. It also turns out that the majority of the participants were mostly concerned with managing their lives’ daily events. Only one person seemed to want to change the world and wanted to make personal changes to connect to that goal.
There is a saying that goes like this: “people who are crazy enough to change the world are the ones who actually do change the world”. The doctor who wanted medical students to wash their hands after they had worked in autopsy, and before reporting to the birthing ward, was ostracized and persecuted so severely by his contemporaries in the medical field that he dropped out of medical practice – even though infant mortality rates dropped a dramatic 50% after he insisted on hand-washing.
The man that was assigned with fixing railroad schedules proposed that “time must be standardized”, but needed officials to agree on this as a routine practice across the nation. Apparently, the mayor of one town vehemently protested this proposition, saying that ‘standardizing time would be a revolution in our time, and would deeply disturb people’s traditional notions and convictions about everything’ – – Imagine that !?! Could we possibly be any more disturbed while we are just trying to manage the personal priorities of our daily lives ??? Does the average person know that without an atomically regulated clock in their computer or cell phone that neither would be capable of existing? Yeah, yeah, the algorithms and configurations of 0’s and 1’s in your computer devices are devised in conjunction with the precision of atomic time. But if you are unconcerned with the development of the whole world, all this means absolutely nothing — even though the crazy people who bothered to change and improve the world made it possible for each of us to have a computer, cell phone and HDTV.
Now, to finally get to the heart of this blog and this particular entry – is there a means of world unity that people can converge upon that will be palatable and favorable to everyone regardless of their beliefs, personal priorities and cultural convictions?
Okay, so here we go again…
What would be the one thing that people can universally and unanimously agree upon, which would and could emphatically influence a significant shift in beneficial human progress, specifically, a shift that is superior to politics, economics, philosophy & religion, or cultural agendas? — and why do these means fail to qualify for making significant changes in human progress? Well, the answer to that is simple. There is just too much discord and disagreement upon these issues.
Let’s look at an overlooked area of human development that is commonly dismissed as a means for world improvement, and even self-improvement for those who are less concerned with world improvement. Here are the universal premises that most people can most unanimously agree upon:
–CHILDREN ARE THE FUTURE
–THE PRESCHOOL/EARLY YEARS OF LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTITUTE THE FOUNDATION FOR “EVERYTHING” IN LIFE
–EVERY PARENT WANTS WHAT’S BEST FOR THEIR CHILD(REN)
–THE HUMAN BRAIN PLAYS A COMPLICIT ROLE IN “EVERYTHING” WE DO
–AS MUCH AS 90% OF THE BRAIN IS DEVELOPED BY AT LEAST AGE ‘5’
**Therefore, the only truly available platform for a united humanitarian front dedicated to significant world change would be to prioritize human child brain development as the foremost agenda and activity for advancing human progress and establishing the basic building blocks of problem-solving that lead to genuine diversity, peace and prosperity.
Yes, people have different ideas about how children ought to be raised, taught and disciplined, but this problem is easily solved when people actually learn what early brain development really consists of. The difficult part is asking people to put their beliefs aside. If people could realize that the real reason we all have so many incoherent belief systems is really because we lack an understanding about real brain development – and it is “beliefs” that have filled in these gaps. When people have the opportunity to comprehend the natural elements of brain development, then people could easily sacrifice their beliefs in favor of children’s best developmental opportunities. The brain was developed long before any belief systems developed, so unless people love their belief systems more than they love their children – which I’ve never heard anyone proclaim – then there should be zero problem resolving this problem.
If EARLY CHILDHOOD development is the FOUNDATION FOR EVERYTHING IN LIFE, then what is stopping us from USING early childhood development to FIX THE WORLD ???

PROOF OF INTUITION…

I would just love to thank a man by the name of Keeley – for putting some proof in my pudding…sorry I missed his first name. Anyway, he is a member of a group called the polyglots – – a group of people who meet and have mastered the art of learning many languages with admirable proficiency. I’ve been looking for these people even though I was unaware that they existed.
To get to the point immediately, Keeley has literally set out to prove that learning a language proficiently – or intuitively, as I would describe it – is hardly subject to the classic “critical period” for learning ANOTHER language in the early stages of life and learning. Also, there is further evidence that our abilities change very little over the years, or the course of life. In this recent article I read on the BBC News site, Keeley who was interviewed for this article, explained many factors about the challenges of learning a new language and highlighted a trait that he described as an “emotional salient” (if I remember correctly ~ I’ve been looking for the article to read it again and was unable to find it). Let it suffice to say that I think he and I would be agreeing when considering the poor efficiency “salience” of Americans when it comes to learning other languages. That is to say that too many Americans claim that they are “not good” when it comes to learning other languages. This I blame predominantly on our education system…. But I’m on THAT soapbox all the time, this issue here is how Intuition works for any skill or ability, and how we ought to be able to make Intuition work for us in any new knowledge endeavors.
There are many dynamics to Intuition, but there are some fundamentally rigorous elements about it that ought to have a substantial role in the ways we learn throughout our lives, or our lifetimes.
What Keeley is definitely correct about is that the critical period for learning another language proficiently – or intuitively – is a load of poppycock. WHY is this so ??? Because one of the most rigorous elemental mechanical factors of Intuition is the ability to transfer knowledge between skills – or from one skill to another, even completely different or diverse skills. But without any doubts, the mechanics Intuition should at least be easily transferable within a similar skills set.
The point is that (virtually) all of us have all learned at least ONE (Mother Tongue) language INTUITIVELY, therefore learning another language intuitively and proficiently, with the right language learning tools and methods, ought to be logically feasible. So yes, Keeley’s insight and assumption about learning another language proficiently during the so-called “critical period” of early learning is hogwash — and that the parameters for learning another language proficiently merely need to be put into practice.
HOWEVER, Keeley has forgotten one very important thing – – in order to learn a language, or “another” language proficiently – or intuitively – you would have still had to have learned “a” language of some sort during the “critical period” of early cognitive development, otherwise it would be difficult to learn language of any kind. In other words, as already mentioned, learning “another” language proficiently – or intuitively – comes on the heels of having learned a language intuitively during the “critical period” of learning language to begin with (as has been evidenced by Feral Children).
That is to say that cognitive functions, which are inextricably linked with language functions and intuitive intelligence would all be severely impaired, because they are fundamentally and essentially inseparable. These early intuitive critical learning period factors do need to be incorporated for other traits and features of our destined intuitive intelligence capabilities – in other words, we should be able to learn other skills intuitively and proficiently, just as it is proven capable that we can learn other languages proficiently and intuitively. Other traits, such as Common Sense, Critical Thinking, Quantum Reasoning – are also rooted in this “emotional salient” factor described by Keeley, otherwise we miss the applications of advanced intuitive intelligence, which are applicable to all skills and abilities. The literacy factors for overall intuitive intelligence do indeed depend on the “critical period” of early cognitive development – and what that means is that the features of advanced frontal lobe intuitive processing must be fundamentally included in the semantics and syntaxes of language development in the first place – in the “critical period”, meaning that however many languages we may learn, we will still only be able to bring our own limited brand of common sense and intuitive reasoning to the other languages we learn.
The good news is that – and I believe the article, and/or Keeley pointed this out, learning other languages can help us see reasoning and logic as it may be professed or described in other languages and cultures. When we can bend or flex our cultural, linguistic and cognitive emotions to embrace other concepts, then we are certainly working on our intuitions, which is our destiny, and languages, especially learning new languages can help us do that, because it is a critical factor in exercising our intuitions – and language would be our best tool for doing that, since it is the one sure thing that we originally learned intuitively without restraint or preconceived concepts. Incidentally, this is also a factor for learning new information about anything, and how we can make intuition work for us.
Notwithstanding this one overlooked factor of Keeley’s, I would love to follow this group of polyglots to Berlin, or wherever else in the world they conduct their meetings. I hope more Americans can learn the benefits of learning other languages – there’s nothing un-patriotic about learning other languages, it shows a great deal of intellectual flexibility, and our education system certainly needs an overhaul when it comes to learning foreign languages. This could even be one key element in the course of “reforming” our education system – but while we’re talking about it, so does this “reformation” include understanding the early-intuitive-cognitive-critical-period of establishing intuitive intelligence for EVERYTHING, because early learning is the Foundation for Everything in life, and we can hardly discount the fact that 90% of the brain develops during these early critical years. It makes sense then to establish the ALL the traits and features of lifetime learning during this “critical period” so that we can efficiently and intuitively learn lots and lots of things – and most of all how communicating with others IS an emotionally salient requirement for human relationships, and it is trusting communication in relationships that make the world go round in ways that we all undoubtedly desire – relationships full of peace, prosperity and potential.
Signing off ’till next time. HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE, from COGNITIVOLOGY