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.