Friday, June 26, 2015

Dubious Medical Anomalies

Monday, April 27, 2015 1:21:24 PM

Dubious Medical Anomalies

Occasionally i’ll come across a description of an medical anomaly that doesn’t sound quite right.

A ‘Recent’ Medical Discovery concerns Tetrochromacists.

This is supposedly a Genetic Condition in which The person, who is invariably a female, for genetic reasons, that has an ‘extra’ color cone or rod or whatever in her eyes, that allows her to see ‘more’ colors. ‘These’ ‘More’ colors, We are led to believe, are colors ‘outside’ The Rainbow that ordinary humans & myles can see.

The problem with this is that when you find one of these Tretrochomacists & test her, she can’t really see any additional colors that an ordinary ‘Color Interested Professional’ can see.

That is; Lettuce us allow that there are three groups of Color Seers that in The ‘Healthy’ Spectrum, & any number of additional Color Seers that are in The UnHealthy Spectrum, such as those that are conventionally color blind or color deficiently sighted.

So that leaves all The people with healthy rods & cones in their eyes that can see The Entire Rainbow & a goodly range of greys, browns, whites & blacks.

The Problem is that many ( most ) of these good color seers are color-deaf. That is; They don’t really, or can’t ‘identify’ colors in fine gradations, or distinguish ( verbally ) different shades & tints, or blends of blues, greens, yellows or reds, oranges & yellows— Or understand that there are several colors that are clearly discernible in The Violet, Magenta & Purple Ranges.

These people, When Tested, will perform abominably when asked if two colors are The same or different.

They may, if properly ‘prompted’ or ‘encouraged’ finally acknowledge that two given colors are different, but only after hours or days or frustration, weeping & screaming.

Alternatively; There are Color-Interested-Professionals that take pride in their Pigment Vocabulary & can identify thousands of colors before resorting to ‘Chocolately-Chartreuse’, ‘Musk-Crimson’ or ‘Tangerine-Clitoris’.

When you place these ordinary eye-balls in competition with The Tetrachromancists, they do just as well at identifying laboratory prepared color swatches that are ostensibly outside The Rainbow Spectrum.

Plus; The TetraChromanciests will invariably describe their additional colors in terms of ordinary colors, as opposed to creating names for ‘new’ colors that aren’t any of The ‘usual’ colors. Even if they aren’t very imaginative, i would expect them to refer to their odd colors that transcend The ordinary human spectrum, as super-blues or Not-reds or weird-yellows. ( ? )

Concetta Antico describes a night sky as bursts with Sapphire & Violet, & pink rose in tinged with gold & azure; a stone pathway is a rainbow or oranges, yellows, greens, blues & pale reds.

This sounds much more consistent with The Stendhal Syndrome which is a Physical Disorientation, Confusion with Hallucinations when the victim is exposed to an environment that overwhelms them with an artificiality that they interpret as More Real than Reality. Such as in an Art Museum or Pristine Natural Landscape.

Or Synesthesia; in which a person sees sounds, hears flavors & so on.

Ideasthesia is when a person associates a particular color with a letter or number or a sound with a food.

- - -

Another of these is where a person can’t form new memories. There was one of these on 60_minutes several years ago, & when Morley Shaffer asked him what it was like to have this condition, The patient became very agitated & started shouting at Morley; To The tune of ‘What do you Think it’s like!’ — Where i would think that he would or should have experienced that question for The First Time & Considered The Novelty of it, regardless of how often he actually has to deal with it, or having had this condition.

Again; It turns out that when you carefully examine these kinds of conditions, The patient has The functionality that they are supposed to be lacking, but their inability to access it is ‘psychosomatic’ or some such ! ( ? ) Which doesn’t mean they’re ‘faking’ it, it’s just that there are ‘Subconscious’ ‘blocks’ that are preventing them from experiencing things that their ‘Id’ or ‘SuperConsciousness’ doesn’t want them experience for all The Wrong Reasons.

Villains and Introduction

Friday, April 17, 2015 7:08:30 AM


a few weeks ago i was watching _Warehouse 13_ & suddenly realized that after watching 3 or 4 seasons of this tv program, i was sick of it.

This recently happened again with _The Mentalist_ which i’ve gotten sick of for The same reason that i’ve gotten sick of _Burn Notice_.

_Six Feet Under_ was a slightly different case.  with Six Feet Under; The problem was perhaps exactly The Opposite. The Second Season had a completely different ‘feel’ than The First Season. It had changed from a fun Romp to A Soap Opera.

These other programs, mentioned above, became intolerable because they were always The Same Episode, over & over again. The Formula never Deviated from one ‘week’ to The next.

Along with The Far More Intolerable Phenomena of Building up to an Intractable Season Finale, that is resolved in a very improbable & callously illogical manner in The first or first & part of The Second Episode of The Next Season; Then Immediately Returning to their Usual Template.

One of The things i really liked about Star Trek, The Original Series; Was that each Episode was Written by Different Writers & Directed by Different Directors.

Nowadays; Series’ such as The Mentalist or Warehouse 13 are always written by one Writer, or a small group of writers, or ‘re-written’ & ‘Adapted’ by a Single Writer or A Small Group of Writers that Tailor another Writer’s Idea to ‘Fit’ their Temperament ( ? )

Then They are all Directed by The Same Director or a Small group of Directors.

Nowadays; These Series will invariably have a ‘Myth Arc’ which disallows any episode from deviating ( by much ) from this ‘Bigger’ Story Line.

With _The Mentalist_; This Myth Arc concerns The ‘Super Criminal’ Red John; that The AntiHero; Patrick Jane & The California Bureau of Investigation, along with a Series of minor criminals, play out a Punch & Judy Melodrama each week whose structure is as predictable as an episode of _House_ or The Comix Strip _Cathy_.

- - Main Theme : Villains - -

What i find very annoying about these programs & others;

Is that these Super Villains are so Mediocre. ( ! )

What had Red John done ?

He’s killed 5 or 6 people, in an ostensibly horrific manner, but Jack The Ripper ( circa 1888 ) pretty much wrote The comix book on ‘Horrific’ Murders, since Roman Spectator Sports, Anything Since then is Tepid in Comparison.

Red John is ostensibly clever, thwarting Patrick Jane & The CBI, along with The FBI & The Local News Media from Discovering his identity & agenda.

It seems to me though that once it’s been made clear The Red John is at all Clever, They Spoil Every New Opportunity that they have to Capture him, by Rushing in & Killing everyone that may lead them to more information about him.

When your Heros are dumber than The dumb villains, what fun is that ?

Harry Potter’s Voldemort is supposed to be a Super Villain as well, but what real mischief has he gotten into ? Simple murders are common now, & always have been.

What do i expect from a Super Villain ?

James Holmes ( How Crazy ? )

Friday, May 29, 2015 7:16:52 AM

James E. Holmes

James Eagan Holmes      Aurora CO / July 20th ’12

12_k / 58(±)_w

Veronica Moser-Sullivan      6_yo / Youngest Victim of James E. Holmes
Gordon Cowdon 51_yo / Oldest Victim of James E. Holmes
Jessica Ghawi     Victim of James E. Holmes /
   Second Mass Shooting Event that she was involved with ( ! )

Alex Sullivan      Victim of James E. Holmes
Micayla Medek   Victim of James E. Holmes
John Larimer Victim of James E. Holmes
Rebecca Wingo   Victim of James E. Holmes
Matthew McQuinn   Victim of James E. Holmes
Jesse Childress    Victim of James E. Holmes
Alexander Boik  Victim of James E. Holmes
Alexander Teves Victim of James E. Holmes
Jonathan Blunk   Victim of James E. Holmes

i’m troubled ( ? ) in an academic sort of way, by The Prosecutors in this case attempting to argue that James was ‘Sane’ at The Time of The Aurora Theatre Murders.

i was also very annoyed that The News Readers at that time kept referring to his ‘Red’ or ( Orange ) hair has ‘Shocking!’ ( ? )

Which was Not The color of The Joker’s Hair ( who he identified with ( apparently ) which was Green - So what does that mean ? It doesn’t seem to me that it would be all that difficult to find Green Hair Dye ( ? )


Consider your Typical Pick-Pocket for example. i think most people consider pocket picking an art form which requires a period of Training, an Apprenticeship, & finally; Journeyman Status.

These people are egregious criminals, as few things are more emotionally devastating than losing your most personal items, which are usually kept in your wallet or purse.

Such that there is a ‘Dichotomy’ of High Skill vs Monstrous Pure Psychopathic Behaviour.

The Point Being that there are certainly many pick-pockets that ‘only’ pick-pockets, & engage in NO Other Criminal Behaviour, except perhaps, for inconsequential Misdemeanors. And why don’t they; Because they ‘Believe’ it would be Wrong to Rape Little Girls, Push Old Women Down Flights of Stairs, Embezzle Retirement Funds from a Neighborhood Furniture Company or Drown Ugly Kittens.

So there is A Problem when we Judge A Person’s ‘Sanity’ by Which Acts they ’Know’ are Acceptable & UnAcceptable.

The Simple Rule that applies is :

No One Ever Does Anything That They Believe is Wrong.

Any Given ( Law Abiding ( More or Less ) or Not ) Person may be ‘Aware’ that -You- Think Masturbating on Public Transportation is Deeply Wrong, But i don’t share your Delusion.

What really separates A Sane Person from An Insane Person, As Measured by their Behaviour ? Can you simply ask or assert that ’They knew what they were doing.’ or that ‘They knew it was wrong’, & by that, they are tacitly implying that when they say that ‘they knew’ - means: that they were ‘aware’ that The Orthodoxy had established laws against such & such behaviour.

But Did The ‘Perpetrator’ ‘Believe’ ‘Themselves’ that it was ‘Wrong’ ?

Who knows.

The Bigger ‘Problem’ is that The Prosecutor seems to be saying The James Holmes got up one morning, & after carefully considering all The pro’s & con’s, profit’s & cost’s, best interests for himself & his community vs troubles & irritating changes to their life plans for others; He weighed it all out & decided to go to over to The Aurora Theatre & kill & wound a bunch of people, & that Now; Everyone agrees it was an entirely ‘reasonable’ decision.

It’s just that since we were able to capture him, we’re in a position to disallow The Values that he assigned to The Variables in his Argument.

James was thinking entirely rationally, but his logic was conditionally flawed.

It that how Sanity is Determined ?

To Review my position :

James thought that what he was doing was OK, he wouldn’t have killed all those people if he ‘believed’ it was wrong.

Nature shows us that while a given species doesn’t routinely kill its own members, it’s Not unheard of.

Civilization is largely defined by creating rules & laws that defy our essential human nature.

Most People ’Think’ or ‘Reason’ very poorly. Even The Smartest People often believe things that are later shown to be very wrong.

The ‘Smartest’ people are generally ‘Recognized’ as being ‘Smart’ because they are able to provide convincing arguments that The Crazy Things that they Believe are True.

It is alternatively The Case that Smart People often ‘convince’ The Damp Masses that they know what their talking about, because they are ‘Scientists’ or ‘Physicists’ or ‘Astronomers’ & these people are always Right about Everything.

If this were true; All Smart People would agree about everything.

If Sanity isn’t merely thinking ‘Clearly’, Which No One Does, What is Sanity ?

Wild Disorienting Confusion ?

Yes. But.

There are plenty of ‘Mad Scientists’ that are able to ‘Get things Done’ which is definitive Proof that they don’t suffer from Wild Disorientation & Confusion. ( they are just a little mixed up about a few fine, subtle points, or as in The Case of The Nazi Regime, they simply made a few dubious Assumptions about The culpability of The Jews as being what ailed Germany after WWI. )

 While i don’t want to believe that James Holmes was ‘Really’ Thinking Rationally; & that he was Genuinely ‘Insane’,

i must confess that i think all anti-social behaviour is The result of =Socially Defined Insanity= - - Which means that while all of these people ( with few exceptions, due to disease or injuries ) are merely acting like ‘Real People’. Criminals in General are exercising ‘Human Nature’ just as reliably as anyone  else.

Why are bad people bad then ?

Assuming ( Falsely ) that there is ‘Free Will’ & that we have The ability to ‘Shape’ our Social Communities - -

Bad People are Bad because it ‘Seems to Them’ ( implementing ordinary bad Thinking ) that they are making The ‘Best’ Choices for their ‘Self Interests’.

Once a person has gotten into an Anti-Social Mindset by The Time they’re 11 years old, Flipping them is very difficult. Even if they are ‘Rehabilitated’ into ‘Being Good Citizens’, They will merely be ‘Behaving’, which means that they are always looking for an opportunity for more mischief, if they can get away with it.

So anyways.

James Holmes.

He’s Crazy.

Probably due to disease or injury.

He will always be Broken.

What i find ‘Fascinating’ is that Society says that killing people is Bad, & that people that ‘Murder’ people are ‘Bad’ —

So that Society says that killing Bad People is OK, which clearly infers that killing people is Not Bad.

This proves that thinking itself is highly ‘suspect’.

Everyone thinks crazy thoughts, does crazy things, makes up crazy arguments that insist that crazy things are true, & since everyone is crazy, they believe These crazy arguments, which i would define as crazy, as; Not making a lick of Sense.


James Holmes.

Freedom, Hospital, Prison, Solitary Confinement or Execution ?

They’re all Equal.

Historically; They are all Equal.

In Application; They are all Equal.

Its perfectly alright for Police Officers to kill people for The Craziest of Reasons, Why can’t James Holmes follow those same rules ( ? )

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Another Muddled Exposition of The PaAaSaF Argument

A Concise ( Reduction ) of Elemental Arguments

For The PaAaSaF Argument 


Introduction :

                   This introduction should perhaps be at The End of The Summation, But i was thinking;
Why Not just get it out of The Way — ( !!! )

The The PaAaSaF Argument suggests that Humanbeans are Incapable of True Thinking along with The Corollary Idea that Logic is Bunk. That is; Even if there Existed This Think called ‘Thinking’; It is also Impossible, Based on The Simple Observation that Using Its Anti-Thesis; Jiggery Pokery, or Joke ‘Logic’, You can Create Arguments that are Indistinguishable from ‘Real’ Logical Arguments— That Can Create Irrefutable Arguments to Prove Anything.

The Anti-Thesis of That; Is that Real Logic or Real Thinking should only be able to Prove True Things. Real Thinking should only Allow ‘Thinkers’ to ‘Believe’ True Things.

i would be willing to ‘Allow’ that in A Functional Pragmatic World; These Thinking Entities would be able, or allowed to ‘Act’ on ‘Assertions’ with very low Fractional Truth Values; But— The Thinkers would never Delude themselves into ‘Believing’ that these Assertions were ‘True’, & The Thinkers would most Definitely have a Very Thorough Understanding of The Very High Criterion for ‘Believing’ that Something is ’True’ & Elevating that Belief to ‘Knowing’ that Thing ( ? ) !

In Short :

To Believe something; You have to firstly ‘Believe’ it, & Also Have very Good Reasons for Believing it.

To Know Something; You firstly have to Believe it; Have good reasons for Believing it, & It must also be True.

How you ‘Know’ that something is Really True is The Big Trick !

- -


Thinking is Distinguished from Non-Thinking by This Single Criteria That The Functionality of Thinking Allows The Thinker to Take Reliable Observations of Reality & Extend those Impressions to Additionally Reliably ’True’ Thoughts.

There are many kinds of Non-Thinking; But we are only concerned at this time with this one kind of Non-Thinking that Humanimal Brains Perform. This Particular Kind of Humanimal Non-Thinking was Tinkered together by Darwinian Evolution, A Reasonably Intelligent Creator or Transcendental Angels, with or without The Supervision of Gawd— To Create a Highly Functional & Reliable, Emotionally Driven Hammer that would provide Each Biological Robot with a Good Survivability Potential & A Much Greater Survivability Potential for Their Genome in A Chaotic Environment that is Really Too Complex & Unpredictable for Any Thinking Device to Equal The Survivability Prospectives of A ‘Reactionary’ Device.

And this is Why; Although Machines; Computers or Mechanical Cogitators may be able to Express Genuine Thinking; Humanimals Can Not. Even by Attempting to Simulate Real Thinking; Our Brains will simply Rebel Against It ( !!! ) The Human Brain will Not Allow Thinking to Take Place in Our Neural Networks.

- -

Failures of Thinking :

The Most Readily Available Technique for Solid Symbolic Thinking is Propositional Logic, which may be Extended in its Functionality to Real World Antecedents with The Inclusion of Fractional Propositional Logical Operators. These allow The Antecedents & Succedents to take on Fractional Truth Valued from 0 1, Instead of The Usual Propositional Logical Approach of Only Allowing Statements to Be Either Entirely True or Entirely False.

Nothing in The Real World is Entirely True or Entirely False. Even Nearly All Mathematical Declarations have a measure of Variability !  Only Rigourously Defined Expressions for Use in Locally Restricted Arguments are Exactly what you claim them to be ( !!! )

#                 name          f.p.logic


1                 Null            0

2                 Not Or        1-(Max(p,q))

3                 Just Because                                                     Min(p,(1-q))

4                 Not q          1-q

5                 I Said So     Min((1-p),q)

6                 Not p          1-p

7                 Not Equal / XOr                                               ABS(p-q)

8                 Not And      1-(Min(p,q))

9                 And            Min(p,q)

10               Equal / Not XOr                                               1-(ABS(p-q))

11               p                 p

12               Because      Max(p,(1-q))

13               q                 q

14               If Then       Max((1-p),q)

15               Or               Max(p,q)

16               Tautology   1

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

These Operators have Never been Used in Any Way to Apply them to Any Real World Sentences or Analyze Any Real World Problem.

There is a Another Kind of Propositional Logic called : Boolean Logic which is supposedly used in Computer CPUs to do Their Thinking; But These CPUs are actually built on Layers & Combinations of Not-ANDs to create a very wide spectrum of Specific Computer Functions; Such as ADD ( Which is Used for All Arithmatic Functions ! ) & moving Data Around. This is also Not-Thinking.

Another Kind of Symbolic Logic allows for all sorts of Clever Inclusionary Set Functions; But this has Never been Applied to Real World Problems or Analysis Either.

- - -

The Most Salient Problem though with Attempting to Convert Any Structural Approach to Logical Analysis is that you must Initially Provide a Truth Value to all of your Initial Premises, Statements & Axioms. How would you do that ?

                   How ‘Sure’ are you that there are Elephants in Africa ?

                   Are their Unicorns in The Caves on Mars ? There isn’t really any Data at all for this One Way or The Other; Yet many Humans would be more than passively eager to set this probability at 0% & feel that this is The ‘Scientific’ Response ( !!! )

                   Who Murdered JFK ? Does Oswald deserve a 40% Probability ?

                   How certain are you that Neil Armstrong Walked on The Moon ? 100% Sure ?

                   How Much does a loaf of Bread Cost ?

                   Was The Man you Grew Up Really your Father ?

                   Under The Most Favorable Circumstances; With The Simplest of Constructive Arguments; The Best Imaginable Result will be A Tiny Probability that your ‘Conclusion’ is Pretty Much True.

                   So that without all Structural Nonsense; This is what our Humanimal Brains do, on The Fly, Instantly providing us with ‘Best Guess’ Solutions to Survival Strategies.

                   Which seems to work, often enough.


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o



tpa                                                                The PaAaSaF Argument ( The Passive Argument )

PaAaSaF                                            People are About as Smart as Fish

thinking                                             Rational Judgment that Leads to Truthful Knowledge

logic                                                            A Methodology of Producing Reliable Proofs

Proof                                                            The Demonstration of an Assertion’s Truth Value

Deduction                                          The Assumption of Validity in Observed Instances, that Adhere to A General Law or Principle

Induction                                            The Production of A General Principle from Collected Facts

Jiggery Pokery / A System of Alternative Propositional Logical Operations which produce The Effect of Allowing An Argument to -Prove Anything- .

Creativity                                           Creating a Novel Idea— & Recognizing it as Such. A Simple Computer Program can Generate an Endless Stream of Original Ideas by simply combining Ordinary, Common Ideas in a Variety of Ways. The ‘Imaginative’ Step, which pushes us to Give Human’s The Credit for Doing Something Remarkable; Is so Take these Crazy Ideas & Recognize The Ones that are Useful or Applicable in Some Way. A 7 Sided Box is a much worse idea than a 6 Sided Box, which can easily be Stacked, but a 4 Sided Box is even Better, because they are even more easily Stacked & Easier to Produce.


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

What is Thinking ?


                   The Promise of Thinking is that it allows a Sentient, Cogitative Entity to Juggle A Variety of Empirical Observations, Imaginative Thoughts & Logical Associations & Operations around in a Conscious Environment & Produce A Synthesis of Novel & True Statements, With The Emphasis being on Their Accuracy & Truth Value.

- - -

Can a Machine Think without FreeWill ?

If People are Lacking The Attribute of FreeWill; Can They Think ?

If Thinking is A Mechanical Process that Machines Can Participate in; What prevents A Human from Performing this Task ?

- - -

What Truly Distinguishes Genuine Thinking from Faux-Simulated Thinking Is :

                   Thinking Accepts Indecision.

                   Thinking insists on believing True Things.

                   Faux-Thinking is more concerned with Acting, tacitly assuming that inaction is more disastrous than Acting Inappropriately.

                   Faux-Thinking accepts that Survivability through Darwinian Evolution must try Random, Careless Actions that completely disregard any consideration for Truth.

- - -

i was just this moment watching a TV Bit on Making Legos, The Toy Bricks, & This Machine was turning out a Dozen or so at a time from an Injection Process, Entirely Perfect in One Go.

That is; They were Stamped, Injected & Dropped into a Bin, Entirely Finished, Ready for Packaging.

Lego Bricks, & M&Ms are i think, About as Perfect as Perfection can Be.

These Two ( & many other Examples ) would seem to lend a Very Convincing Argument that Serious & Compelling Thinking went into these Processes ( !!! ) If only Human Technological Applications were extended to Everything on This Level of Perfection !


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

What is Not Thinking ?


                   The Most Obvious Examples of Not Thinking are The Holding of Beliefs for which The Instinctual Mind has No Good Reason for Believing such Things—

                   Or Alternatively;  The Instinctual Mind’s Possession of Complex Behaviours which allow The Entity to Participate in Reliable & Dependable Survival Actions which Nurture their Ability to Produce Large Quantities of Progeny.

                   Habitual, Routine & Imitative Behaviours.

                   Instinctual Behaviours. People are thought to have very few of these, but we have our share; & it may well be that we have even more than are recognized, but have softer edges that we can tweak or bend to adapt to novel situations; more flexible than birds making nests & more directed & purposeful than ants chaotically digging out a colony.


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Best Arguments for Thinking


                   Engineering : The Production of Buildings, Automobiles, Appliances, Furniture, Power-Networks, Electrical Dams, Computers, Pharmaceuticals, Surgical Procedures, Art, Music, Literature, Scientific Research, Mathematics; et. al.

- -

                   Clever Behaviours : People are consistently engaging in all sorts of very clever, very complex behaviours.


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Best Arguments for The Assertion that Thinking is An Illusion


                   Allegedly Smart People often Believe Very Stupid Things.

- -

                   Engineering : Devices are Created from A Long & Progressive History of Tinkering / Pharmaceuticals are Introduced into Commercial Markets after prolonged experiments on thousands of animals to ‘find’ an Active Agent in Collected Plant Substances or Laboratory ‘Inventions’. / Art, Music & Literature are all Subjective Cultural Contrivances. /

- -

                   Taboos : Taboos are a Judicial Codification of Law, Behaviour & Cultural Expectations, which are specifically designed to be as Non-Sensical as Possible; Since their Intention is to Very Severely Punish Anyone that Breaks ‘The Rules’. Their Functionality is to hold a given Society together by ‘Easily’ Identifying anyone that doesn’t understand ‘The Rules’.

- -

                   The Judiciary : It is very curious that after ( conservatively ) 6000 years of ‘Civilization’; The Judiciaries in The Most Technologically Advanced Societies are still struggling to produce a unified & uniform, or consistent hierarchy of Ethics & Morality which may then be reliably translated into a codification of law which is predictable & adherent to The Corollary of An Agreeable Ideal of Fundimental Human Rights. ( which are entirely arbitrary )

- -

                   Logic is Bunk : This Asserts that The Foundations of Logical Reasoning are indistinguishable from a Well Constructed & Emotional Benign Argument using The Principles of Joke or Riddle Logic. ( Jiggery Pokery ) / The very -fact- that many well established & serious historical arguments for a wide variety of scientific, mathematical, philosophical & ethical principles have been exposed as having been assembled using The Operations inclusive to Joke or Riddle Logic— Demonstrate that for ‘Any’ Given Contemporary Argument, The Certainty of Its Logical ‘Promise’ for Truth is highly dubious & suspect. Thus; The Functionality of ‘Logic’ as A Truth Prover, is Compromised. e.g.; Logic is Bunk.

- -

                   Paradoxes : Paradoxes are a Logical or Philosophical, or Linguistic, or even Optical Demonstration that ‘Something is Wrong’ with our Ability to Discern A Statement’s Truth Value or Separate The Statement from a Context of Confusion & Ambiguity. Very often; These Paradoxes are ‘Left to Stand’ as A Confirmation of Logical Interminability; But Paradoxes are actually Failures of Sound Reasoning, And more importantly; Our Ability to Discover or Determine ‘How’ The Paradox is ‘Wrong’.

- -

                   Scientific Principles : Ideally— The Theory of Science or Scientific Methods, are intended to make a thorough & accurate appraisement of The World Around Us, So that we might use this information for Technological & Medical Advancements. / But What Science is usually obsessed with, is ‘Explaining’ Things. Even if A Given Phenomena is entirely inexplicable, Pragmatic Scientists feel compelled to proffer an Explanation of it, Even if this requires ‘Filling in The Gaps’ with nonsensical assumptions which they elevate to ‘Fundimental Axioms’. / Or Alternatively; They Simply ‘Label’ Things & Insist that this is Sufficient as an Explanation.

- -

                   Bubbles : Tulip Mania in Holland. / The Dot.Com Bubble in The 1990s / The Everlasting Art Grift / AmWay /

- -

                   Clever Behaviours : While people seemingly engage in all sorts of clever behaviours, so do animals, so do very dumb animals, & if any further analysis were performed— We might note that The very dumbest animals seem to routinely engage in The very cleverest behaviours, while mammals, that are supposed to be The Smartest Animals with The Biggest Brains, typically engage in The most mundane grazing, or laying about all day, or swinging through trees or howling at The Moon.

                                      As for people’s clever behaviour, very much of it is obviously habitual, routine or imitative. It is only very rarely, & only with a very tiny subset of The Damp Masses that create clever ideas or perform something novel & what we might assume is creative. So then The Question becomes; What is Being Creative ?

- -

                   Given that Thinking is A Mechanical ( Progressive ) Process that Machines can Participate in; What prevents Humans from Thinking ? / The Human Brain is prevented from Thinking in This Mechanical Sense, Because it’s been specifically designed to operate on an Alternative Premise that is much more based on An Emotional Perception-Reaction Set of Behaviours. Human Behaviour only seems complex & imitative of Mechanical Thinking because of its chaotic complexity & other Tricks.

- -