“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


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 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:
**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 ???


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


What are your greatest hopes and most desired expectations for you children and their personal lives — for the prospects of their futures?
Human beings share three main things in common regardless of race, beliefs, intentions, actions, culture, gender, etc. All humans crave love, we all have a brain with integrated parts destined for full development, and we all want the best for our children !!! Anyone who argues with that is certainly free to argue with that, but chances are highly likely that this being is only masquerading as human and is probably something else — maybe alien, devil, monster or robot…
Raising children, developing brains (which is what “childhood” actually is), and seeking love are hardly inseparable feats of human development. None of these three things can be done one without the other, they are intertwined in ways that have been determined by a better or higher power – whether you call it God, or Universal knowledge or Evolution or whatever. To separate these things or try to bypass them is as superficial as trying to pretend you are a rock, and if you are trying to treat them as separate issues, then yes, it might be more useful for you to pretend that you are a rock, or at least that you live under a very large one.
So, once again, what are your greatest hopes and desires for you children and for the future of the world that they’ll live in?
Is it for your children to live in peace? To be successful? To have a profound sense of character and loyalty? To have a magnanimous sense of giving? To develop a charismatic personality? To be highly intelligent? To be well-liked as well as experiencing the ease of liking others equally? To just live a comfortable and easy going lifestyle? To be artistic or musical? To be a rigorous common-sense decision-maker? To have meaningful relationships with a diverse group of people? To contribute something to society or some high level of human progress? To be a tech-genius? To be compassionate and optimistic? ??????
Your children can have it all !!! But there is only one thing that can help your children to master and achieve all these skills — simultaneously.
What brand of brain potential are we stuck on? We are stuck on hindsight and hindsight is stuck on us. Our brains are essentially, fundamentally and ultimately designed and destined for foresight, precognitive decision-making and human computational thinking. These are the supreme elements of human intelligence that can only be provided by advanced or fully developed INTUITIONS, and highly advanced INTUITION can only be fully activated and engaged by the brain’s naturally hard-wired elements of COMPASSION and OPTIMISM. Any body or any group of people engaged in any versions of “human development” contrary, or inconsistent with the brain’s authentic development is just going to lag behind.
INTUITION is the universe’s naturally free internet service and we should all be connected to it. And rather than asking the Universe what it can do for us, we ought to be asking ourselves what we can do for the universe. In other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The Universe can do its best job for us, when we are fully connected with it, and for that we need the tool of Intuition – a fully developed intuition that can access all the information the universe has to offer in order to help us with all of our unique potentials.
Recently, I had a discussion with a couple of people who insisted that this was merely my perspective, based on my personal experience. SERIOUSLY? I only thought afterwards in “hindsight” that I should have thanked them for the fantastic compliment. Had I thought of it at the moment, I would have said, “wow, thank you for believing that I am operating on a full spectrum of intuitive intelligence, I can now see why you would think that it is just my opinion and personal perspective”.
In the meanwhile, in the midst of this enlightening and fun conversation I was having, the discussion continued. I probed, so how did you learn language, that is, your mother tongue? Without getting into a long diatribe about the back and forth semantics, I will say that the words “listening” and “consciousness” entered the discussion. Once again, in hindsight, I wish I had said, “so you literally remember ‘consciously’ every word you ‘listened’ to when you were 1,2,3 years old”? I’m certain that I would have been given some other Psychological label or babble about my “opinion” and “perspective” when I’d insisted that we’d all learned our Mother Tongue “intuitively”, and that it is precisely this trait that helps us to continue utilizing and applying language, and carrying it over into every stage of our cognitive brain development. In fact it is probably the only thing that we all commonly use intuitively — except that the “codes”, or coding in our language syntaxes have dampened one of the main purposes of intuitive language development. [And for the record, the first 6 months of life that are impossible to “consciously” remember do indeed have an affect on the elements of TRUST, which influences EVERYTHING we do in life.]
Intuitive language development is the fundamental platform and precursory element for the full development of INTUITIVE INTELLIGENCE. Intuition is the highest form of intelligence for any system of knowledge, which is why computer scientists all covet cracking the code for making computers more intuitive. Maybe it is hindsight that will eventually help us to realize that while, we are trying to make COMPUTERS more INTUITIVELY intelligent, we ought to have considered seeing beyond our own noses to firstly, make OURSELVES more INTUITIVELY intelligent. But humans need to make computers, and that even includes the newest versions of computers that make other computers and machines. Yet computer science wants to rely on the elements of “memory” and ethical “consciousness” and maybe even the one sensory skill of “listening” to make computers more INTUITIVE. Yes, Computer Scientists desperately insist on using the traits of “memory” to make computers more “intuitive”, and I find this hard to “compute” and it is generally irrational in terms of “computational thinking”. It seems to me that if they want to make computers more intuitive, then they ought to be using the traits of intuition. But hey, that’s just my personal opinion based on my personal experience and perspective – right?!!?
Why has it taken me so long – in “hindsight” – to realize that when people are ill-equipped to discuss something outside of their own “insights”, which are also based on their own hindsights (as well as the typical narratives about human progress and intelligence that they have been told to believe by others) that they then reduce everything that another person expresses to a simple matter of it being the “other” person’s personal perspectives, experiences and opinions. I’ve come to realize how lame and superficial that is – once again, that when others insist that my ideas are merely my personal perspective, opinion and experience, they are never willing to equally attach this definition to the conundrum of any of their own ideas and assumptions — which time and again are so unoriginal, and have already been circulated millions of times for eons of time. So, what I say is just opinion, but what they are saying is factual? Gee, how do I get access into that secret club???? Do they believe they have invented the concept that other people’s ideas are just their experience and opinionated perspectives? By the way, I’ve been shocked at how listening to Psychology aficionados today makes me feel like I entered a time warp — they are saying, almost to a ‘t’, the exact same “stuff” that people were saying back in the 70’s. I would say it’s scary, it’s really more like embarrassing.
Computer Scientists believe that the world will be saved by technology, that is, by devising highly advanced “computational thinking” in computer intelligence and information systems – you know, to make computers more “intuitive”. Computer scientists have become the demi-gods of society, or are at least on the same level playing field as celebrities. When we humans develop our brains for computational thinking and decision-making, which is one in the same as Intuitive Intelligence and precognitive foresight, only then can humanity – and everything we create – be saved from the adversities of “hindsight” and the antitheses of compassion and optimism. We need to intuitively understand the algorithms of intuitive computational thinking performed by our own brains before we can master and perfect intuitive computational thinking in computers.
When our world of (genuine) progress in technology systems and the humanities are ready to understand that, then perhaps they will look for the venues that can help them understand the relationship between human and computer “computational thinking”, especially “intuitive-computational thinking”.
At the end of all this, I’m certain there will be a whole host of people saying that I am just trying to resolve my own personal issues or that I am being defensive or feeling rejected, or some other psycho-babble like that. But let me make an honest confession and tell people what my problem is. My socially “conscious” problem is that, like many other people, I am severely dissatisfied with the state of affairs in the world – that humanity continues to live with borders and wars and without peace and prosperity. My personal problem is that as I look back on my own life, I have made many decisions in “hindsight” rather than “foresight”, and I am severely uncomfortable and dissatisfied with being unable to use my brain’s full potential and a full spectrum of Intuitive Intelligence skills – and I “believe” that there are other people out there who might feel the same way, who know that it’s more than just a matter of “opinion” or “personal perspective” — but that it is everybody’s birthright to use the full capacity of their brains — just as they use the full capacity of their lungs’ breathing power, or their hearts’ blood pumping power, the total capacity of their stomachs to digest food, and of course, the full power of their genitals — ooh, God forbid we were only able to use 20% of those organs and be equally as satisfied with that as we are with using only 20% of our brains…


It’s so nice to find evidence that supports literature, assumptions and information we’ve strategically and rigorously professed. For that I’d like to praise a brand new article produced and written via the NIH by Arnold Kriegstein, titled “Our Brain’s Secret to Success”. It’s all about connectivity and regions of the brain that “talk to each other”. More importantly, it mentions how “the human cortex harbors a unique support system for neuron-producing factories during early brain development in outlying cellular neighborhoods that barely exist in lower animals. The researchers discovered the molecular underpinnings of this unique group of stem cells that churn out thousands of neurons and support cells where their mouse counterparts produce only 10 – 100.” The article further states that the researchers also “discovered that the secret to this prolific output seems to lie in these cells ability to carry with them their own self-renewing ‘niches’, support systems that enable them to thrive in far flung circuit suburbs.” [of the brain].
Of course, the article uses this evidence and information to support conventional definitions of success and the characteristics that support humanity’s ongoing narratives, attitudes and activities about what defines higher thinking, as well as higher behavior aptitudes. Additionally, the article is concerned with addressing certain conditions relative only to humans, and this new evidence offers hope wherein these conditions are non-existent in rodents (such as schizophrenia, and/or certain diseases unique to humans).
Furthermore, this new information defines an addition to the list of “brain parts”. This in particular is significant, but altogether it supports the Cognitivology ideas about Intuition as the main power source of connectivity, and how intuition is the highest function of intelligence for any skill, ability, species, or entity of the universe. But the most far reaching implications are the ones that support the idea that intuition, and communication-connectivity between various parts of the mind-brain are imperative to the early stages of brain development, with a specific reference to intuitive-cognitive development at the preschool stage – since, Preschoolers are in fact, the best intuitive learners, and thus, for all of us, sets the stage for the “niches” of lifetime learning, and using the connectivity values of intuition to do just that.
Our definitions for EVERYTHING must transform to become consistent with our pursuits to achieve higher brain development and indeed, TOTAL BRAIN POTENTIAL. In other words, definitions do make a difference, because fundamental definitions help us to decipher the meanings and purposes of information that yield extra and even infinite opportunities to develop and innovate new ideas. For instance, the traditional definition of a “second” – consistent with solar standards for measuring time – was probably something like ‘a sixtieth (1/60) of a minute’. Whereas, the new definition of a “second” is now something like ‘9.19+ billion oscillations of an undisturbed cesium atom’. This is because we’ve gone from solar time to atomic time, and also because our days are getting longer. It makes sense to mark time atomically rather than by the sun, because location matters in measuring time and the earth moves (and is slowing down), while the sun stays relatively in its same place.
By the same token, the definitions for BRAIN POTENTIAL must change. We are still operating on the notion that higher brain potential mainly involves memory, or higher education leading to success and happiness, profound belief systems, meditating, etc. But all of these things and how we use them still depend on how our early brains were fostered to develop and how those “niches” were encouraged and enhanced for communication-connectivity throughout all parts of the brain, which ought to operate as an integral system of information. These aforementioned characteristics may appear to be the means for gaining higher brain potential, but they are merely the results of higher brain potential that were planted during the preschool stage of intuitive-cognitive development.
Conclusively (and more detailed in the following blog entry) is the new definition for the highest orders of brain potential and the connectivity parameters needed for the highest operating power of human intelligence and behavior. So the new definition for TOTAL BRAIN POTENTIAL IS: a + b = c
(a) The brain plays a role in EVERYTHING we do in life.
(b) The PRESCHOOL BRAIN is the foundation for EVERYTHING we do in life.
Therefore (c) The PRESCHOOL BRAIN is the manual for TOTAL BRAIN POTENTIAL and EVERYTHING we are capable of doing in life as we function on a full capacity of interconnecting brain activity.
Even though the evidence has followed the assumptions we’ve put together, well – better a bit late than never, after all, even for Ptolemy and Copernicus and Galileo and Newton, whose assumptions about the universe came before rigorous evidence, or that some of our best technology was science-fiction before it was realistic, it seems to be the more common course in the events of progress. Thanks NIH and Dr. Kriegstein & associates.