#i mean that all philosophical thought prior to '''scientific''' knowledge starts as lets call it metaphysics. the most pure atavic form of

[fagmegumi]

the gang's all here!

[jadekitty777]

Cram Session

Alright, the final day is here – and you better believe I’m ready to burst with excitement! I have not been able to calm down all week!

So, to cap things off, let’s go for a ‘feel good’ one, yeah? This one’s all about friendship and teamwork.

Rating: K

Word Count: 2200

Summary: With the looming threat of his entire team being failed if he does, Tai finds himself desperately trying to absorb every bit of knowledge he can before the big test. Unsurprisingly, it’s not going well – but at least Qrow’s there to offer some moral support.

Ao3 Link: Cram Session

The fluctuation of hormone levels from pure dust injection in the human body was found to have different effects depending on many factors including the following: Age, weight, aura level,…

The tapping of his pencil kept time with the ticking clock as Tai read through the scientific journal, trying to absorb as much as he could. He needed to get a good grade on this test; he was doing horribly in his Analytical Dust Chemical Bonding class. Just the name of it was daunting – but the actual lessons were brutal. He’d never gotten so many bad marks in his life. One more and he was going to fail the class. While that wouldn’t be the end of the world on its own, there was just one teensy-weensy, itty-bitty little problem:

If he failed, the rest of his team did as well.

No pressure there or anything.

He believed that the dire consequences was all about promoting teamwork – some philosophical mumbo-jumbo about how if they let a partner fall behind in class, they’d let them fall behind on the field too. He wouldn’t even say he disagreed with the idea, but it certainly didn’t account for people like Qrow and Raven, who had virtually no prior schooling experience. Not to say they were dunces – put them on the field and they’d ace nearly any training exercise. But the minute a pen was in their hand and a book in their lap, they suddenly seemed like the stupidest people in all of Beacon.

It was Summer who had figured it out. Their history teacher had called on Qrow to answer a question on the board. He had squinted for a few moments, before saying, “I can’t.”

“You don’t know the answer?”

“Nah, just can’t read your handwriting.”

At the time, Tai hadn’t thought anything of it; but as the teacher read off the question, Summer sat up straight in her seat, looking as if she’d just solved an enigma. Later that day, she called for an impromptu ‘team meeting’.

He remembered how she paced, looking troubled, before finally whirling on the twins. “Look, I’m just going to be direct about this. You two can’t read, can you?”

Tai was so caught off guard by the announcement his mind was struggling to catch up. The siblings, however, had no such issue, going from bored to alert in a blink. “What nonsense are you spouting? How do you think we filled out our transcripts?” Raven counterargued.

“Bribery.” Summer replied without missing a beat. “Just like you’re doing with Oobleck.”

“It’s called working smarter, not harder.” Qrow quipped.

“No, it’s called cheating.” She retorted. “And it’s not going to carry you through the next four years.”

“Don’t know if you don’t try.”

“And anyways, last I checked, we were here to fight Grimm.” Raven added. “Who cares about the written stuff?”

Summer started ticking off points on her fingers. “How are you guys going to write the papers? Do the presentations? Take the finals?”

That seemed to knock out some of their bluster as they shared an uncertain glance. It seemed the exact scale of what they needed to worry about had never occurred to them – but how could it of? They couldn’t read the lesson plan. “We’ll figure it out.” Raven finally said, shrugging it off.

Summer looked between them, huffing like a bull about to charge.

Tai was the one who found his voice first. “Are you sure that’s the decision you want to make?”

“Oh great, now you have something to say?” Qrow snipped, his casual tone shifting to something more caustic.

Deliberately avoiding the obvious goad, he continued, “Look, there’s no shame if you don’t know how to read or write. There’s only shame in not being willing to learn.”

“You’re a regular ol’ walking proverb, you know that?”

“I have a book filled with them. I’ll let you read it when you can.” He finally shot back, getting to his feet. “But you’re not going to get anywhere if you don’t try. So, either you lower your pride and ask us for help, or you fail. Your choice.”

Summer intervened, gentle yet firm. “You guys must have come to this school for a reason. You have to decide if that reason is worth working hard for.”

Nothing had happened right away, and after a few days, Tai was pretty sure the twins were going to stick it out on their own. Then, one day, while he and Summer were studying in the library, the two had walked right up to their table and demanded their ‘supplementary lessons’ (Raven absolutely refused to call it help).

As it turned out, neither of them were completely illiterate, but their handwriting was atrocious and the level they could read at was on par with a seven-year old’s. So, Summer got them comprehensive reading books to strengthen their vocabulary and stencils to help them with their letters. It was torturously slow-going at times, and he had worried the whole process would be agonizingly painful, as he’d expected every lesson would be nothing but their attitude dialed to eleven – and it had been. At least, at first.

But as the weeks passed, the twins seemed to be less focused on irritating their teammates and more focused on actually learning. Qrow had an insanely good memory, so he was picking up new words and how to apply and spell them by the buckets nearly every week. For Raven, what she lacked in memory she made up for in pure fortitude as she rewrote and reread until she got it right. And though he’d never dare tell them, it was kind of adorable seeing one of Raven’s little smiles or hearing Qrow’s soft ‘Oh’ whenever they understood something.

To his own surprise, Tai discovered he had a bit of a fondness for teaching. There was just something so uplifting about helping the twins work through a problem and see them get it and realizing it was him who helped get them there. It made him really look forward to their time together. It was nice, just being able to sit down together, just the four of them, laughing and helping one another. It finally felt like they were a team.

More than that even - like they really were friends.

He wasn’t going to mess that all up by failing this exam.

The mesolimbic dopaminergic system seems to have a habit of creating new pathways in the ventral striatum…

“The what in the what?” He groaned, letting his head thump onto his desk. How was he going to get all this by Monday?

The door opening had him shooting back up. He expected the rest of his team to walk in, but was surprised when it was just Qrow. He was polishing off the remains of a cookie – Summer’s idea. She thought a reward system would be a good motivator. The twins had rolled their eyes about it, reminding their leader they weren’t children; yet, every cookie earned was mysteriously gone by the end of the session.

“Yo.” He greeted around the mouthful.

“Hey. Done already?” Tai replied, glancing at the clock. It wasn’t even late afternoon yet.

“Nah.” Qrow said, dropping his book bag onto the desk adjacent Tai’s. “Flowerbud called for a break. So, I came back for a nap.”

“Where’d they go?”

“Where else? Training room.”

He snorted softly. From the way she behaved, anyone would have expected it to be Raven’s scheme – but it was actually Summer who loved to unwind by kicking the crap out of them. Rae was just too stubborn to back out of a challenge.

“Isn’t that the same chapter you were reading when we left?”

Tai looked down, covering part of the page. “I was just going over it again.”

Qrow hooked his ankle around the leg of his desk chair, pulling it out and plopping down. “So you know all about the transcriptional mechanisms that develop over time from dust exposure?”

He stared. “Do you?”

“I mean, I don’t actually know what I just said, but I know that basically people get addicted to the stuff.” He replied with a shrug. “So when you see those words, that’s the answer you’re looking for.”

His brow furrowed, trying to make sense of that suggestion. “Is that how you’ve been taking these tests? Just correlating words with the answers you hope will be there?”

“Well yeah. It’s not like I’m gonna be able to read at an academy level anytime soon. Gotta make do with what I got.” He stretched his legs up onto his desk, tipping his chair back. “Don’t need top marks, just passing ones, right?”

“Yeah but,” Tai tried to argue, but when he realized he really didn’t have one, he merely sighed, slumping over some. “Well, I guess it works for a guy like you. You’ve practically got a photographic memory.”

“Or just nothing’s up here.” Qrow joked, tapping his own temple. “An empty mind makes room for more genius.”

“Oh yeah you’re a real prodigy.”

He popped his collar. “Glad you noticed.” With a clack, his chair landed back on all four legs and he popped out of his seat. “And genius like this needs rest.” He put his palm against Tai’s forehead, pushing his head back. “Come on sunburn, you need some too.”

Tai shoved him away. “Maybe later.”

He shrugged, walking across the room. “You know it’s not that big of a deal if you fail, right?”

“Of course it is!” He turned, draping his arm across the back of his chair. “What if I get us all held back?”

“Oh gosh!” He exclaimed sarcastically, falling back onto his bed. “Another whole semester of free food and a bed so soft it’s like sleeping on a cloud? What ever shall I do?”

Huh.

Well, when he put it that way, Tai had no idea why he was trying so hard either.

As if he could read his thoughts, Qrow continued, “See? It’s all in the perspective.”

He couldn’t help it. “So you’re giving me the ‘bird’s-eye view’?” He rose his arm to guard from the pillow flung his way, cackling madly.

Not quite as amused, his roommate only rolled his eyes. “Whatever man, you’re stupid.”

“Don’t worry, our chemistry teacher agrees.” He joked, turning back to his textbook. He underlined the bit about transcriptional messages.

Too lazy to fetch his own, Qrow snatched the pillow off of Raven’s bed. As he got comfortable, he spoke up again, “I still think you’re stressing too much.”

He wrote a note in the margin beside the paragraph. “I just don’t want to disappoint you guys.”

“Sorry to tell ya this bud, but you’re sharing a space with me. Disappointment is guaranteed.” As if Qrow’s words were a cue, the lead on Tai’s pencil suddenly snapped.

He sighed, tossing it down. Alright, maybe a break was in order.

Tai got to his feet, stretching out some of the kinks that had settled. He fetched the pillow off the floor, nailing Qrow in the face with it. He laughed as the other squawked indignantly, turning away to pick up his scroll. He flicked off the lights and headed for his own bed, ducking under a retaliatory throw, the pillow hitting the door and flumping uselessly to the ground. “Nice try.”

Not willing to sacrifice his other, Qrow just grumbled over his failed attempt, kicking off his shoes. He twisted onto his side, facing Tai as he laid down on his own bed. The smirk he gave him was borderline lecherous. “At least I finally got you into bed.”

Tai threw his pillow. And Summer’s for good measure. “You’re the worst!” He ignored the way he laughed at him, focusing on his phone as he set an alarm for them. He placed it on his nightstand. “Alright, give it back. Alarm’s on for five-thirty.” He caught his pillow when it was tossed back at him, burying his face into it.

He heard Qrow shift around before he said, “Hey so, I can’t help you study, but if it means that much to you, I can help you cheat.”

He turned his head, “What?”

“Yeah. I’ll write you tiiiny little notes and we can slip them in the lapels of your jacket.” He pinched his forefinger and thumb together to accentuate just how tiny he meant. “They’ll never suspect a thing.”

Despite knowing it would expel him if he got caught, the fact he was legitimately considering it was probably not a good sign of where his moral compass was going. “I’ll pass, but thanks anyways.”

“Alright. If you change your mind I got plenty of ideas.”

Tai smiled, knowing just how much it said about Qrow that he was at least offering – or trying to cheer him up at all, for that matter. Six months ago, they could barely stop themselves from flinging insults if they were in the same room together; now, he merely ribbed him for fun. Things had definitely changed.

As he drifted off, he figured Qrow was right. It really didn’t matter if he failed some silly test. He’d made some good friends along the way and that was the best success he could ever have.

-

A/N: Prompt was “Are you sure that’s the decision you want to make?”

[drnikolatesla]

Nikola Tesla: Faster Than Light

We know that Einstein’s Theory​ of Special Relativity says that the kinetic energy of a body (e) equals mass (m) times the speed of light (c ) squared, or “e=mc².” The equation expresses a theory that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be converted into one another. It also asserts that speeds greater than 186,300 miles per second (speed of light) are impossible in the universe. It is literally one of the principal tenets of the theory; that the mass of a body increases with its speed, and would become infinite at the velocity of light. Hence, a greater velocity is impossible.

Nikola Tesla positively denied that Einstein’s theory was true, not just because he rejected the idea that matter is convertible into energy, and energy into matter, or even the existence of space-time, but because he himself had measured speeds traveling faster than light.

As far back as 1896 he conducted experiments on cosmic rays where he measured cosmic ray velocities from the star, Antares, which he measured to be fifty times greater than the speed of light, thus demolishing one of the basic pillars of the structure of Relativity. Also, in 1899 at Colorado Springs he established in numerous observations, experiments and measurements, both qualitative and quantitative, that the currents from his transmitter traveled around earth and back to his receiver at a mean velocity of 471,240 kilometers per second, or *292,814.96 miles per second*. On April of 1900 he published a patent on this transmitter titled the “Art of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through the Natural Medium” (Pic. 5), which was just a play thing compared to his Magnifying Transmitter patented in 1914.

Tesla found a way to use the earth and its conductivity as a wire substitute to send his currents through the globe and back to his receiver. And to be clear, Tesla’s currents do not traverse straight through earth’s core, but followed the circumference of it. He hypothesized that since the earth is nearly a sphere, or an oblate spheroid owing to centrifugal force (btw *it is not flat* like the derps of the internet tend to believe 😂😂😂), his currents proceeded with a speed varying as the cosecant of the angle which a radius drawn from any point on earth under consideration forms with the axis of symmetry of the waves (Pic. 6). At the start the current’s speed is faster than light, but gradually diminishes until a quadrant is traversed, then slowing back down to the velocity of light. From there it increases again, becoming infinite at the opposite side of earth. In other words… His currents propagate through earth, first faster than light and then gradually diminishing velocity until at a distance of about 6,000 miles (near a quarter of earth’s circumference, which is 24,900 miles) back down to the speed of light. From there on it will proceed with increasing velocity, reaching infinite value at the opposite point of the globe.

The electromagnetic waves we use today in radio and wireless technology travel through the air and propagate with the speed of light, but they do not follow the curvature of earth so they eventually diminish with distance, hence, why we can only receive radio signals at a certain distance from the station, or have to use satellites to see and communicate around earth. Also, the waves of today are 90 percent radiation and 10 percent current waves, while Tesla’s technology is 95 percent current waves and only 5 percent radiation.

Whether you believe Tesla witnessed and measured such speeds or not, his statements should still be given due consideration. After all, both Einstein and Tesla were remarkable scientists, but Einstein relied on abstract mathematics, while Tesla followed the scientific method like a religion, and was solely dependent on actual experimentation. Tesla’s work and theories have yet to be proven wrong to this day.

Here are 6 quotes from Tesla critiquing Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Enjoy (((:

“What is ‘thought’ in relativity, for example, is not science, but some kind of metaphysics based on abstract mathematical principles and conceptions which will be forever incomprehensible to beings like ourselves whose whole knowledge is derived from a three-dimensional world.”  –NT  (“Great Scientific Discovery Impends.” Sunday Star. Washington D.C., May 17, 1931.)

We read a great deal about matter being changed into force and force being changed into matter by the cosmic rays. This is absurd. It is the same as saying that the body can be changed into the mind, and the mind into the body. We know that the mind is a functioning of the body, and in the same manner force is a function of matter. Without the body there can be no mind, without matter there can be no force. Einstein has for years developed formulas explaining the mechanism of the cosmos. In doing this he overlooked an important factor, namely the fact that some of the heavenly bodies are increasing in distance from the sun. This is the same as writing a business letter and forgetting the subject you wish to write about. In order to explain this phenomenon Einstein has invented the quantity “lambda.” My theory of gravitation explains this phenomenon perfectly.” –NT  (Tesla’s statement relating to force and matter, to Einstein’s theories, and Tesla’s own theory of gravitation. Courtesy of Nikola Tesla Papers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University. April 15, 1932.)

“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.” –NT (“Pioneer Radio Engineer Gives Views On Power.” New York Herald Tribune, September 11, 1932.)

“[The Theory of Relativity] is a mass of errors and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.” –NT (“Tesla, 79, Promises to Transmit Force.” New York Times, July 11, 1935.)

“The kinetic and potential energy of a body is the result of motion and determined by the product of its mass and the square of velocity. Let the mass be reduced, the energy is diminished in the same proportion. If it be reduced to zero the energy is likewise zero for any finite velocity. In other words, it is absolutely impossible to convert mass into energy. It would be different if there were forces in nature capable of imparting to a mass infinite velocity. Then the product of zero mass with the square of infinite velocity would represent infinite energy. But we know that there are no such forces and the idea that mass is convertible into energy is rank nonsense… “According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible. But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.” –NT (“Dynamic Theory Of Gravity.” July 10, 1937. Prior to interviews with the press on his 81st birthday observance.)

“The relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum.”–NT

[theinstantblog]

Does God Exist?

I’ve found that if I were asked this question a thousand times I would answer it differently each time. I would be more or less driving at the same point, but there is never exhaustively enough to say about it. A seemingly simple question that even children ask (”Does God exist?”) is extensively complicated by philosophers. How do we solve it?

Conversation with a Scientist and a Philosopher 

Can I answer the question? Should I leave my answer up to the authority of another? Let’s suppose I go to help for an answer; I go to a philosopher. I ask him several questions about God’s existence and I am met with a reply. Let’s suppose another setting, if I were to ask a scientist instead. I ask him several questions about God’s existence and I am again met with a reply. What sorts of things will the philosopher say as opposed to the scientist? 

The philosopher - like religious folk in general - can take a stance on the question of God’s existence. In asking your questions to the philosopher about God’s existence you will meet an elaboration on several other concepts that relate to ones you are already familiar with: (i) existence generally, (ii) knowledge, (iii) morality, (iv) personhood and so on. However, the stance or judgement that the philosopher takes on these concepts and their relation to divine existence determines his predecessing disposition: belief or unbelief.

With the conversation of the scientist the belief or unbelief distinction won’t play too much of a role. After all, it would be strange to try and view God as a kind of scientific or mathematical object and suggest from there that one can either be “God-ist” or “a-God-ist.” Converted to a more associable example, it would be strange for one to doubt the existence of theoretical objects and hence be called an “a-black hole-ist” or an “a-quantum physicist.” In this scenario, one would instead just be called an “anti-realist.” Anti-realism is the view which suggests that unobservable entities (like quantum fields or vacuums) are “non-realities” since they are (roughly) not detectable by the human senses.

Now, scientists are not committed to either an anti-realist or realist perspective. I think there are good reasons for supposing one over the other, but that doesn’t matter here. The point is that philosophy and science are concerned with two different spheres of knowledge; one more concerned with the knowledge of particulars (”things fall”) and systematizing them into general applications ("law of gravity”), the other with systematizing particulars and universals broadly speaking. Science and philosophy. 

A scientific worldview on the matter of investigating God’s existence wouldn’t affirm anything worth advancing a knowledge of God on the basis of empirical analysis alone. It could not, on the aforementioned formula, work through the knowledge of the particulars (”humans exist,” “morality abides by a standard,” etc) to a general application (”God exists,” “God is the basis for which...” and so on) which makes these particulars meaningful or useful. Science doesn’t work like that. 

A Conversation with Whom? 

A knowledge of the “hard stuff” of life is based somewhere between dialogue and monologue. Questions about our origins or existence in general constitutes a lot of skepticism and doubt if left to our own crafts. 

Physics generally speaking can only step back so far into the past. With amazing developments in the last century, the theoretical sciences have stepped in with fantastic insight. Other natural and life sciences paint a picture of man amidst his unique conditionings. There is around man a flux of influence: Generations/culture, environment, geography, history, biology, pyschology and so on. 

Science develops a view of you that elaborates on the intricacies of your cognitive development - your pyshcological limitations and your “personality profile” - and the nuances of diet, exercise, discipline or what have you that make up a “proper functioning” person, and so on. However, is this You? Given the wide body of scientific knowledge that exists about your being, does all this make up who you are? Are the questions of meaning settled? 

It might be strange after a lecture on the archaeological development of the human species to stand and ask, “Is my life meaningful amidst these findings/developments?” Appropriately we don’t ask these questions because science can’t settle questions like this. That isn’t to say that science is at fault or let alone faulty. Science doesn’t dictate, procedurally, metaphysical knowledge. Philosophy or theology primarily does. 

Skepticism here naturally arises. Where am I going to find truth - real truth - among philosophers and theologians? Will I not meet a clash of opinions about divine existence? That would seem frustrating. What sorts of questions could I ask that would avoid this? What kind of dialogue would need to take place? 

A Conversation Between Sides 

Questions are important. They are like windows into a person’s mind. They may often shine so bright that a realization is made; or be so dull that there seems to be no light of mind ahead. Philosophical questions try to bring light wherever there is dullness; the light of human reason. It is of course but a candle in a room lit darkly, not much is seen afar. 

This optimism of human reason is what is characteristic of philosophy. The optimism differs between its forefathers - the Greeks - and at its late but perfectly timely practioners - the Christians. This optimism consists in the assumption that we can not only talk sensibly about divine existence, but that we can know some things about it. The Socratic attitude is one spectrum of a knowledge of a divine existence; “the God” is acknowledged through moral order and hence a rough sort of ‘natural knowledge’ of God is possible. 

The Christian attitude shares an optimism in reason similarly but instead because of divine grace and God’s creating us in His image. Human reason is a candle in a room lit darkly, but God is like the Sun; the source of all light. Philosophy can be used to the advantage of obtaining at least some partial knowledge of God. On this understanding, philosophy is more of a servant to theology rather than a lamp post to its feet. Theology is a lamp post to the feet of philosophy. 

Why should one share in this optimism with the philosopher? This may be all well and good, but will I simply be met with what this person thinks about God or divine existence and not be given anything serious, honest and maybe conclusive? Hence, there may be a reluctance to achieve anything worthwile in religion through philosophical investigation. 

However, I resort back to my initial question: What sorts of questions would I have to avoid in order to achieve anything worthwile about divine existence? 

The Questions That Need Attention

This post starts with the question “Does God exist?” Suppose we start with a series of other preliminary questions about knowledge and being generally.

Is knowledge is possible? 

(a) If not, is a knowledge of “self” possible?

(b) If not, is a knowledge of “reality” possible?

Do “laws of thought” exist or apply to reality (”excluded middle,” “non-contradiction,” etc)?

Could any event be explained en totum via (”in whole by way of”) physical explanation?

Is reality fundamentally material? 

The list could actually go on somewhat extensively. I suspect that any individual with or without a philosophical education has an answer to anyone of these questions. Given an individual’s admission or judgement about God’s existence, they are nonetheless respectively tied to some prior commitment or worldview which elaborates on knowledge, existence and being more specifically. 

These commitments are not necessarily binding. However, I suspect that some instances can call for justified inferences. For example, if one thinks that a knowledge of self and reality is not possible and that laws of thought do not apply to reality, then one would certainly be skeptical about God’s existence. At least he should be. 

A theistic worldview has a philosophical optimism about the world. Knowledge is possible according to the theist because he has been endowed (in whatever fashion) with cognitive faculties that are reliable and can partake in a knowledge of God. Laws of thought apply to reality because has God has organized the universe in a rational sort of way; Mind is the basis of reality. 

A worldview in which God does not exist exhibits a different kind of optimism. In fact, philosophers have argued that this “absence of Being” leads to a shift into pessimism. Pessimism about meaningful categories towards existence and being. Knowledge may or may not be possible in this life. We are constricted to a procedural, testable and “immediate” view of nature and knowledge. Science is our only hope for epistemological progress on the self, reality and God. Mind is not the basis of reality. 

The question of God’s existence leads to a picture of the world which constitutes one’s entire being: Are we merely political, social and/or biological creatures or are we creatures with an intended beginning? We are either surprisingly less meaningful or surprisingly more meaningful than we thought. There is no indifference to this. 

[sunshineweb]

How Much is Enough, and A Few Other Questions

Note: I gave this talk to a group of friends working in Silicon Valley during my recent trip to the US. Surprisingly, they liked what I spoke and wanted me to share the transcript, which I am doing today in a deeper and more refined form.

Hi Friends,

Thanks for inviting me to speak to you today. I have nothing intelligent to say. You guys score much higher than me on the IQ charts. And it’ll be for the benefit of us all that I speak less and that you keep your expectations from me low. In fact, very low.

So, given that I have been given the freedom to talk whatever I want to today, I have smartly avoided intelligent stuff because I completely believe in what Mark Twain said and I quote, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.”

Instead of talking intelligent stuff around stock market, investing, human behaviour, etc., let me focus on a few important questions I have tried to seek answers to at various stages of my life, and that have helped me tremendously in choosing a path that, when I look back at, I am glad I chose.

The first question that has helped me in defining the course of my life so far is – Who am I?

While I understand that it’s better to devote time to experience the unfolding process of life than to engage in the complexity of understanding ourselves, this has been a question that has played a very important role in helping me define the kind of person I am, where I have come from, and where I would want to go.

When we do not stop to answer the question of “Who am I?” we keep on creating new identities for ourselves, which takes us farther away from our true self. In fact, what I have realized from my limited reading of the scriptures and through personal experiences is that most of our suffering in life is because we are never sure of our true identities.

Like, when it comes to investing, George J.W. Goodman – who used the pen name of Adam Smith – wrote this in his wonderful book The Money Game –

If you don’t know who you are, this [stock market] is an expensive place to find out.

Now, when we do not stop to realize our true selves, we often see life treating us unfairly. Of course, life is unfair. Children die, innocent people get killed in the war of arrogant fools, and we often don’t look as beautiful or are as rich as others. But when we try to answer the “Who am I?” question, we stop looking at life as being unfair just to us and instead accept unfairness as part of our identities. This is because we start seeing ourselves as an insignificant part of the bigger scheme of things that this Universe is. And that thought is truly liberating.

“Life,” Naval Ravikant says, “is a single player game. And so, the only person you must try to better, is the person you were yesterday. The “Who am I?” question has often led me to contemplate whether I am trying to be better than others, or just better than my own version of yesterday. Buffett calls this living with an Inner Scorecard.

The sooner we realize our true capabilities and the sooner we start playing the game with an Inner Scorecard and not based on the fancies of the world, the happier we would be and the better our decision making would become.

Consider this story that Dale Carnegie shared in his book How to Stop Worrying and Start Living of Admiral Robert Peary who…

…startled and thrilled the world by reaching the North Pole with dog sleds in 1909 – a goal that brave men for centuries had suffered and starved and died to attain. Peary himself almost died from cold and starvation; and eight of his toes were frozen so hard they had to be cut off. He was so overwhelmed with disasters that he feared he would go insane. His superior naval officers in Washington were burned up because Peary was getting so much publicity and acclaim. So they accused him of collecting money for scientific expeditions and then “lying around and loafing in the Arctic”. And they probably believed it, because it is almost impossible not to believe what you want to believe. Their determination to humiliate and block Peary was so violent that only a direct order from President McKinley enabled Peary to continue his career in the Arctic.

So, if someone like Admiral Peary who achieved something amazing and praiseworthy can still be criticized, perhaps his story can give us comfort the next time we’re attacked by unjust criticism.

If, in your heart, you know who you really are and what you did was the right thing to do, unjust criticism should be considered and analyzed whether it truly has any merit, but not be given permission to belittle what you are trying to achieve.

Also remember what Carnegie wrote in his book…

…unjust criticism is often a disguised compliment. The more important a dog is, the more satisfaction people get in kicking him.

Thriving in the real world requires the mindset of knowing who you are and working with an Inner Scorecard. It’s not about a religious devotion, but a commitment to the work as opposed to the rewards.

Even if we do everything right, the reaction we receive from others might be that of annoyance, disrespect, and jealousy. If we’re not living with an Inner Scorecard, such a response will crush us.

I’ve seen it happen a hundred times to myself. I’ve done it myself too. And, yet, far too many of us only feel strong enough to pursue our dreams when we have a team of people cheering for us in the background. That’s living with an Outer Scorecard. The problem is obvious. You fall to pieces when people stop cheering you.

You see, the world is indifferent to what we often want. What can go wrong, will. And we will be left with misery and disappointment. But if we can find joy and satisfaction in our work, because we are living with an Inner Scorecard, we don’t need to look anywhere else for happiness but within.

Anyways, the second question that has helped me is – How much do I know?

The answer that has kept me grounded is that I know nothing. In his book, The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning, physicist Marcelo Gleiser writes this –

Consider, then, the sum total of our accumulated knowledge as constituting an island, which I call the Island of Knowledge. A vast ocean surrounds the Island of Knowledge, the unexplored ocean of the unknown, hiding countless tantalizing mysteries.

As the Island of Knowledge grows, so do the shores of our ignorance—the boundary between the known and unknown. Learning more about the world doesn’t lead to a point closer to a final destination — whose existence is nothing but a hopeful assumption anyways — but to more questions and mysteries. The more we know, the more exposed we are to our ignorance, and the more we know to ask.

Dutch philosopher Spinoza suggested that wisdom is seeing things ‘sub specie aeternitatis,’ that is, ‘in view of eternity.’

What I understand of this is that a fundamental principle of wisdom is to have a long-term perspective, to see the big picture, to look beyond the immediate situation. That’s a great advice that has helped me in the pursuit of wisdom and as an investor – to have a long-term perspective, to see the big picture, and to look beyond the immediate situation.

But them, wisdom requires humility. I must start with the assumption that I know nothing, and then I must be teachable.

The third question that has helped me immensely is – How much time do I have to get things done?

In moments of life outside investing, I do things as if there is no tomorrow. That guides me in how much time I spend with my family and kids, how much I strive to learn, and what I want to do with Safal Niveshak.

Starting Safal Niveshak in 2011 was one such decision that I did not want to push to the long term, like when I am forty, but wanted to get on with as soon as I had the essentials in place. Like a desire to do something of my own and an understanding that I possessed some skills to be able to survive, a house of my own, zero liabilities, sufficient finances to take care of my family for two years, and most importantly, my priorities in the right order. And once I started Safal Niveshak, I shifted to the long-term gear.

That applies to how I look at investing too. For me, the most important variable in the compounding formula is “time,” and this is the only thing I realize I have under control.

In fact, one of the reasons I spend less and less time on investing and more on more on more important things in life, like time with family, reading, teaching, and traveling is that I understand that my time with high-quality businesses that I’m invested in will take care of the wealth that I would need to meet my financial goals, and without worrying about the speed at which it is going to come.

When you stop chasing a 26% CAGR, and you are fine with a 20% CAGR, a lot of your anguish disappears as an investor and you can sleep peacefully at night.

Time heals, and time also solves a lot of problems. Investing isn’t such a big deal anyways.

Let me now move to the fourth question that has helped me maintain sanity over the years. And it is – How much is enough? (Oh, what a beautiful question this is!)

After being rejected at a few leading management colleges in India in 2001, I joined a second-rung college in Mumbai (thanks to my “first MBA, then job, then marriage” promise I had made to my to-be wife).

Life was tough, as prior to Mumbai, I had never lived in a city with population more than a few lacs. Plus, to save myself from the guilt of having my father pay a lot of money for the stay in Mumbai and also for buying the books I needed, I stayed in a chawl in Mumbai (the room behind the chair you see below) that my father never came to know about (until recently).

I now realize how important that lesson of prioritizing the use of money was for me, and how important it has come to be for me to answer this question – “How much is enough?” And the answer is – “Not much.”

When I look around, I see people living their lives always running behind time. I see parents who, in the race to move ahead in their careers, have left their children’s childhood behind. I also find people who have ruined their relationships because they were chasing “something” in the future – because it wasn’t enough – while not having time to live and love people around them in the present.

Rushing is rarely worth it, my dear friend. Life is too short to be wasted in the fast lane and is better enjoyed at a leisurely pace. I can vouch for that, from the experience of running in the fast lane during the first eight years of my career and the slow lane during the next seven.

Seneca, the Roman Stoic philosopher, has listed the trappings of a lot of wealth, stuff like “a golden roof, purple clothes, marble floors.” He has described the life of someone who has been blessed mightily by fate and fortune as having imposing statues, the most brilliant art, teams of servants.

“What does having all these things teach?” Seneca asks. “All you learn from this is how to desire more stuff.”

We are always on the hedonic treadmill, which simply means that as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness. Isn’t that ironical?

When we have X, and we think it should be sufficient to live a happy life, we see others having 2x and think that is what would make us happier. And then we raise the bar to 3x, 4x, and 10x.

It goes without saying that this is a path to bankruptcy, personally if not financially. The more you stay on this treadmill, the more it breaks you down. And thus, it pays to get off while you still can.

You do that only when you stop to ask this question – How much is enough?

Anyways, after these questions that have helped me define my life over these years, let me leave you with an important lesson that I wish I had learned earlier in life.

That lesson is that for all the long-term thinking and doing that we indulge in, it’s important to realize that life is exceedingly brief, especially because we don’t know how to use it.

Seneca wrote and I quote –

It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it. Life is long enough, and a sufficiently generous amount has been given to us for the highest achievements if it were all well invested. But when it is wasted in heedless luxury and spent on no good activity, we are forced at last by death’s final constraint to realize that it has passed away before we knew it was passing. So it is: we are not given a short life but we make it short, and we are not ill-supplied but wasteful of it… Life is long if you know how to use it.

So, while there’s a huge mass of time ahead of us, it passes much faster than we think. Our kids grow up fast. We get gray hairs before we’re done getting our bearings on life.

You see, it’s ironical that it often takes us a lifetime to learn to live in the moment.

We seem to think that we’ll live forever. We spend time and money as though we’ll always be here. We buy stuff as though it matters and is worth the debt and stress of attachment.

We put off “living happily ever after” for another year, because we assume we have another year. We don’t tell the ones we love how much we love them often enough because we assume there’s always tomorrow.

I have these words from Steve Jobs on a post-it pasted on my work desk – “Remember – You will be dead soon.”

Jobs said this not very far from here, at Stanford University –

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important.

Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

There’s nothing better that a dumb guy like me could leave you super-intelligent guys with.

Thank you for listening!

The post How Much is Enough, and A Few Other Questions appeared first on Safal Niveshak.

How Much is Enough, and A Few Other Questions published first on https://mbploans.tumblr.com/

[bellcoulston8-blog]

HIPPOCRATES Related Articles.

Although the past history from puzzles arises from early times, that was certainly not till the 19th century when researchers started to examine various concepts in kids's INTELLIGENCE cognitive development. Beans continuously fulfill a crucial, if at times overlooked, job in the diet regimen from modern-day guy, delivering thread, protein and iron while continuing to be bountiful, functional as well as low-priced. This method goes back to at the very least 618-906 A.D. Aside from putting the reduce blooms in water at their holy places, the early Chinese showed their passion and also respect for flowers in various other methods too. Memory card divination is originated in the Tarot card, as well as has been performed through readers because early opportunities. This extremely definition has actually today been made use of by the advertising and marketing community to circulate info to the masses.

Today our company have gotten to an aspect where meaning is attributed to several flowers, as well as policies as well as laws within this heritage are even more substantial compared to they ever before were. . In fact their power and also specialties were actually far more compared to the best potent item of today's times. Theologians will definitely inform you that the book of Esther was actually written in part to display the fact that there are actually no coincidences, due to the fact that a magnificent hand overviews all occasions. This book illustrates the quest of the writers while looking into the existence and meaning of crystal craniums. The early philosophers often made use of as versions from personality particular types of individuals that possessed an impressive opponent from disposition as well as individuality. Some writers refer to the builders as Megalithic or even Big-stone folks, considering that they made use of huge stones, like the legendary Cyclopes of the early Greeks, which built extensive wall structures as well as operated in metals. Off the extensive collection from historical Egyptian art pieces, documentation exists from numerous types from birds that are actually now vanished. Masters used to hoard each silver and gold as a procedure from their wide range in old opportunities. He believes these people were a descendant from a group contacted the Urus that introduced the principle from monotheism to the Old Egyptians. As soon as the kids know the meaning of the examination, this is actually more likely to see the INTELLIGENCE range ranging in the regular values and also above. Early individuals absolutely regarded on their own with nappies - they just failed to possess the means making more convenient models. The means the early texts have actually uncovered concerning the framework and shape from the flighting things from Anunnaki, this results in assume as if human beings possessed exchange deep space individuals in ancient times but dropped that as a result of different reasons. The ancient Chinese really loved and also appreciated blossoms so much that they put new slice blossoms in their temples, and developed artwork emphasizing flowers on scrolls, cotton fabric, flower holders, layers as well as products from embroidery. The relevant information in the book is actually also eruptive to repetitive here, and also I would not do justice to their message through pricing quote areas from the book. I strongly advise this book to any person preferring a guide from the Levant in the bronze and iron ages. Meaning: From or associating with times long past, specifically those prior to the fall of the Western Classical Realm (A.D. 476). Old Greeks additionally used saffron to brighten the shade from their hair, therefore in order to additionally improve the design. Old literary works, monuments and artefacts are actually being actually researched upon and being researched to possessing any type of proof concerning the conference from the early individuals along with these invaders. Angels are actually additionally component of Islamic as well as jewish faiths as well as a lot of other religions as well as lifestyles returning to old opportunities. Underneath Pond Baikal's mattress is an ancient burial ground aged around 5,000 to 8,000 years old. The Early human being from Egypt started with the South American's partnership with an early African leader called Kufu for which they constructed the initial pyramid in Africa.andnbsp; Regularly seeking much better agrarian land, the Ancient Egyptians set out to find a andquot; land from richesandquot; and also discovered it in the Middle East. In was actually throughout the 16th century that the dining table (derived from the Latin word tabula, which indicates a panel, a plank, or a standard piece), actually came into its very own, difficult table as well as various other type of tables have been actually around for literally grows older. If you wish to know where some of the regulations we have today came coming from, this manual is actually incredibly valuable. It is not as though as soon as a term completed due to the oral cavity merely stirs in the exterior planet. Ancient individuals, especially people, dressed on their own up in the similarity of animals to beget goodwill from them. Merely for exciting, let's have an imaginary experience into one of these historical titans to recognize their key. Cushions are actually little bit much more than glorified resting mats, along with their origins in early opportunities. Dowsing - Divining Radiesthesia is actually a term, that was coined in 1920 due to the French abbot Alexis Bouly and that originates from the Latin term Span" (ray) as well as coming from the Greek term Aisthesis" (sensation). The structural reasoning that formed the thoughts scientific research is within the structure of the early Greek philosophy, the theorems of Greek Thinkers which assisted mold the Fifth Science. When you have virtually any issues relating to in which in addition to the way to employ yellow pages online residential uk (http://dejardeprocrastinar.info/), you'll be able to e mail us from our own web-site. Definitely, the Pandemic instantly went away when his phrase spreading (though some advise due to the fact that draft beer was boiled in the brewing process, this would certainly have been actually safer than water, which had actually earlier spread the infection.) When St Arnold died in 640, the consumers of his neighborhood carried his physical body from Remiremont to Metz for reburial in their congregation. If you check out, you will definitely locate that numerous furniture or on the internet shop, along with early Greek items as their specialty can easily supply you with these great decoration things. The 1994-1996 war in Chechnya illustrates historical accuracies to which intellectuals as well as policymakers frequently can not accept. Individuals socialize along with each other on a daily basis, as well as the majority of times this is actually due to the fact that a single person needs to have something coming from the other. They are actually direct followers from the simple pedestal design tables which were actually so preferred in the ancient times. The early Roman scholar Pliny was so relocated due to the emerald green's lush colour he created, nothing at all is much more intense in comparison to the green of emerald and attraction is revitalized and brought back through gazing upon this stone Observing his urge, Roman empress Nero put on emerald sunglasses to enjoy the gladiators. Words Druid" is actually stemmed from dru" suggesting truth" or someone immersed in knowledge." The Greeks were actually the 1st to tape-record words Druidae" going back to the 2nd century BC. The a variety of clans had their personal revered tree, crann bethadh, or even Tree of Life" standing as an emblem at the center of their territory.

[trendingnewsb]

The Power of Deep Thinking: Essence of Creativity

True or False: “This sentence is false.”

What was your answer to the question above? Did you quickly fire off an answer or did you have to think about it and then think about it some more?

Imagine for a moment that you could put on a set of inverted goggles and see the world through an entirely different lens. On one hand, you would literally see differently, but you might not view the world differently. If we look deep enough and allow ourselves to observe from a new lens, we will. Thomas S. Kuhn remarked in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,[1]

“What a man sees depends upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual conceptual experience has taught him to see.”

The power of deep thinking is the essence of creativity. By learning how to think differently and deep, you will find that it is not only your creative thinking, but your critical thinking skills that vastly improve. This leads to higher levels of thinking and powerful problem-solving skills that you simply did not have before.

Let’s take a look at what deep thinking is, why you should learn about it, and what it will do for you.

How Do You Know That You Know the Stuff You Think You Know?

Have you heard the saying, the more you know the less you know? If you haven’t, take a moment and think about that phrase. By looking at the Theory of Knowledge, we can pose the following question: How do you know that you know the stuff you think you know?

Let’s look at an example. Solve the following: 2 + 2 = ?

I am hoping you answered 4! Yet, let’s take a look at another way to look at this. In Plato and Platypus Walk into a Bar by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, we find the following story.

A western anthropologist is told by a Voohooni that 2 + 2 = 5. The anthropologist asks him how he knows this. The tribesman says,

“By counting, of course. First, I tie two knots in a cord. Then I tie two knots in another cord. When I join the two cords together, I have five knots.”

Deep Thinking Is Thinking About Thinking

Rene Descartes famously stated, “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am” where he believed thinking as the essential characteristic of being human.

In Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense, Steve Hagen discussed that Descartes arrived at the cogito through an experiment in radical doubt to discover if there was anything he could be certain of; that is, anything that he could not doubt away.[2] Hagen commented,

“He started out by doubting the existence of the external world. Then he tried doubting his own existence. But doubt as he would, he kept coming up against the fact that there was a doubter. Must be himself! He could not doubt his own doubting.”

Essentially, Metacognition is awareness of one’s awareness. It is thinking about thinking or cognition about cognition.

Meta means Beyond

Cognition means Thinking

Thus, Metacognition means Beyond Thinking.

To be aware, it refers to the ability of the mind to stand back and watch itself in action. Here, we are able to examine the way we learn, remember, and think. The knowledge of how we process information gives us the opportunity to change how we process it. [3]

Can We Really Know What Anything Is?

Hagen poses the following question in his book Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense: Here it is, but what is it? Do we truly know what something is?

Hagen remarks,

When we try to answer this, have we merely answered the question “how do we conceive of it?” or “what do we call it?” Some deeper question remains.

For example, if I say, “Here, in this cup, is water,” you may ask, “What is water?” But as scientists we might wish to point out, “Water is hydrogen and oxygen.” Thus, by using scientific methods it seems we can discover what water is “made of.”

With confidence we say, “What is really in this cup is hydrogen and oxygen, combined and transformed into this unique substance we call ‘water’.” But the questions continue.

Hagen concludes, “What is hydrogen? What is oxygen? And so we look again, using scientific methods, and say, “Hydrogen is an element made of atoms, each consisting of a single proton and a single electron.”

But still the questions remain: what are atoms? What are protons and electrons? It seems that we’ve started on a never-ending regression. At no time do we ever really get to the other end of the question: “What is water?” We can name the mind object, even break it down and name its parts, but we still don’t really answer the question.”

Reading this passage leaves me to ask myself: can we ever really know what anything is? Let’s look at another example from Hagen.

He illustrates just how strange our world is through the conversation between a physicist and a philosopher:

Physicist: …and so we conclude an electron is a particle.

Philosopher: But you also claim an electron is a wave.

Physicist: Yes, it’s also a wave.

Philosopher: But surely, not if it’s a particle.

Physicist: We say it’s both wave and particle.

Philosopher: But that’s a contradiction, obviously.

Physicist: Are you then saying it’s neither wave nor particle?

Philosopher: No, I’m asking what you mean by “it.”

A Gap in the Stream of Consciousness

You might be wondering what the difference is between Metacognition and Cognition.

Cognition. This is the process of acquiring knowledge for understanding. Cognition is thinking.

Metacognition. This relies on awareness and control of cognitive processes. Metacognition will help you find gaps in your learning and thinking. However, you must have acquired some previous knowledge about a topic prior to Metacognition. As mentioned earlier, Metacognition goes beyond just thinking… it is thinking about thinking.

Now that you have an understanding of the fundamental principle behind deep thinking, let’s take a look at how to develop it.

In the book The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle,[4] we learn the following lessons.

Constantly Observe Your Mind Without Judging Your Thoughts

Here we should ask one simple question, “What will my next thought be?” Try it. Can you think of your next thought? Probably not.

By continually asking this question, you can delay the arrival of your next thought. This is due to what is called the quantum zeno effect, where we can freeze our current state by observing it. Essentially, there can be no change while you are watching it.

Life Is Simply a Series of Present Moments

Here we are informed that the past is simply all the present moments that have gone by. Tolle posits that the only important time is the present, for which we think about the least. Furthermore, the present is simply future present moments waiting to go by.

Imagine leaving your body and watching yourself think. Think of this as a mental movie where your goal is not to judge the actors, but to simply observe them.

Tolle refers to entering into the Now or the Present as creating a gap in the stream of mind. Asking yourself the question “What will my next thought be?” creates that gap and allows you to dis-identify from your mind. Once you do this, you have elevated yourself above thought. This is Enlightenment.

Stages of Deep Thinking

Before we look at strategies you can use to become a deep thinker, let’s briefly look at the stages of deep thinking known as the Three Levels of Thought. [5]

Level 1: Lower Order Thinking. The individual is not reflective, has a low to mixed skill level, and relies solely on gut intuition.

Level 2: Higher Order Thinking. The individual is selective on what to reflect on, has a high skill level, yet lacks critical thinking vocabulary.

Level 3: Highest Order Thinking. The individual is explicitly reflective, has the highest skill level, and routinely uses critical thinking tools.

Strategies to Become a Deep Thinker

To enter into the Highest Order Thinking, try the following strategies.

Increase Self-Awareness by Thinking About Thinking

Imagine you could become aware of how you learn. We know that we must have a baseline of previous knowledge about something to use Metacognition. Think of your Intelligence as what you think and Metacognition as how you think. Let’s look at a series of questions you can ask yourself by using the Elements of Thought.[6]

Purpose. What am I trying to accomplish?

Questions: What question am I raising or addressing? Am I considering the complexities in the question?

Information: What information am I using to get to my conclusion.

Inferences: How did I reach this conclusion? Is there another way to interpret the information?

Concepts: What is the main idea? Can I explain this idea?

Assumptions: What am I taking for granted?

Implications: If someone accepted my position, what would the implications be?

Points of View. From what point of view am I looking at this issue? Is there another point of view I should consider?

Challenge Current Learning Methods Through Meta-Questions

Meta-Questioning is higher order questions we can use to explore ideas and problems. Here are some examples.

Why did it happen?

Why was it true?

How does X relate to Y?

Why is reasoning based on X instead of Y?

Are there other possibilities?

Let’s look at a practical example.

When you say: “I can’t do this.” Change this to: “What specifically can I not do?”

You say: “I can’t exercise.” Then ask: “What is stopping me?”

You say: “I don’t have time.” Now ask yourself: “What needs to happen for me to start exercising?”

You discover: “What time wasters can I eliminate in order to create more time to exercise?”

Then imagine how you could start exercising: “If I could exercise, how would I do it?”

View the World Through Different Lens

Here is a technique you can use to foster a deeper understanding of a problem—Four Ways of Seeing:

How does X view itself?

How does Y view itself?

How does X view Y?

How does Y view X?

Try to apply the technique like this: suppose we are in the United States looking at a foreign country. First, draw four boxes, then list the questions. Second, start answering the questions.

In box #1 ask: “How do we see the United States?”

Box #2: “How does China see themselves?”

Box #3: “How does China see the United States?”

Box #4: “How do you see them?”

Thought Experiments

One last technique you can use to become a deep thinker —Thought Experiments. This is a device of the imagination used to investigate the nature of just about anything. [7] Thought Experiments seek to learn about reality through thinking:

Visualize a situation and set it up in your imagination.

Let it run or carry out some type of operation.

See what happens.

Draw a conclusion.

The team at Stanford describes this using the following example: Since the time of Lucretius, we’ve learned how to conceptualize space so that it is both finite and unbounded. Let’s see how this Thought Experiment can work.

Imagine a circle, which is a one-dimensional space.

As we move around, there is no edge, but it is nevertheless finite.

What can you conclude? The universe might be a three-dimensional version of this topology.

Think Deep, and You Will Think Creatively

Thinking deep will change how you think, feel, and view the world. When you understand this concept, you will start to think beyond simple beliefs.

“When the root is Deep… There is no reason to fear the wind.”

Deep Thinking will change how you think, feel, and view the world. When you understand this concept, you will start to think beyond simple beliefs.

By applying all the skills mentioned in this article, you will be able to think deeper and explore more possibilities.

Featured photo credit: Stocksnap via stocksnap.io

Reference

[1]^Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[2]^Steve Hagen: Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense: An Inquiry Into Science, Philosophy and Perception[3]^ThePeakLearner: What is Metacognition? 3 Key Points to Remember[4]^Eckhart Tolle: The Power of Now[5]^Thinker’s Guide Library: Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools[6]^Thinker’s Guide Library: Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools[7]^Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Thought Experiments

function footnote_expand_reference_container() { jQuery(“#footnote_references_container”).show(); jQuery(“#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button”).text(“-“); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container() { jQuery(“#footnote_references_container”).hide(); jQuery(“#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button”).text(“+”); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container() { if (jQuery(“#footnote_references_container”).is(“:hidden”)) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container(); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery(“#” + p_str_TargetID); if(l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery(‘html, body’).animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top – window.innerHeight/2 }, 1000); } }

The post The Power of Deep Thinking: Essence of Creativity appeared first on Lifehack.

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2vpEOHf via Viral News HQ

[drnikolatesla]

Nikola Tesla: Faster Than Light

We know that Einstein’s Theory​ of Special Relativity says that the kinetic energy of a body (e) equals mass (m) times the speed of light (c²), or "e=mc²." The equation expresses a theory that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. It also asserts that speeds greater than 186,300 miles per second (speed of light) are impossible in the universe. It is literally one of the principal tenets of the theory; that the mass of a body increases with its speed, and would become infinite at the velocity of light. Hence, a greater velocity is impossible.

Nikola Tesla positively denied that Einstein’s theory was true, not just because he rejected the idea that matter is convertible into energy, and energy into matter, or even the existence of space-time, but because he himself had measured speeds traveling faster than light.

As far back as 1896 he conducted experiments on cosmic rays where he measured cosmic ray velocities from the star, Antares, which he measured to be fifty times greater than the speed of light, thus demolishing one of the basic pillars of the structure of relativity. The apparatus and proof of this was unfortunately lost in his Houston street laboratory fire in that same year. Also, in 1899 at Colorado Springs he established in numerous observations, experiments and measurements, qualitative and quantitative, that the currents from his transmitter traveled around earth and back to his receiver at a mean velocity of 471,240 kps, or *292,814.96 miles per second*. On April of 1900 he published a patent on this transmitter titled the “Art of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through the Natural Medium”, which was just a play thing compared to his Magnifying Transmitter patented in 1914.

Tesla found a way to use the earth and its conductivity as a wire substitute to send his currents through the globe and back to his receiver. And to be clear, Tesla’s currents do not traverse straight through earth’s core, but through the earth following its curvature around the circumference of it. He hypothesized that since the earth is an oblate spheroid owing to centrifugal force, but is nearly a prefect sphere (btw *it is not flat* like the derps of the internet tend to believe 😂😂😂), his currents proceed with a speed varying as the cosecant of the angle which a radius drawn from any point on earth under consideration forms with the axis of symmetry of the waves. At the start the current’s speed is faster than light, but gradually diminishes until a quadrant is traversed, then slowing back down to the velocity of light. From there it increases again, becoming infinite at the opposite side of earth. In other words… His currents propagate through the earth, first faster than light and then gradually diminishing velocity until at a distance of about 6,000 miles (near a quarter of earth’s circumference (which is 24,900 miles)) back down to the speed of light. From there on it will proceed with increasing velocity, reaching infinite value at the opposite point of the globe.

The electromagnetic waves we use today in radio and wireless technology travel through the air and propagate with the speed of light, but they do not follow the curvature of earth so they eventually diminish with distance, hence, why we can only receive radio signals at a certain distance from the station, or have to use satellites to see and communicate around earth. The waves of today are also 90 percent radiation and 10 percent current waves, while Tesla’s technology is 95 percent current waves and only 5 percent radiation.

Whether you believe Tesla witnessed and measured such speeds or not, his statements should still be given due consideration. After all, both Einstein and Tesla were remarkable scientists, but Einstein relied on abstract mathematics, while Tesla followed the scientific method like a religion and was solely dependent on actual experimentation. Tesla’s work and theories have yet to be proven wrong to this day.

Here are 6 quotes from Tesla critiquing Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Enjoy (((:

“What is ‘thought’ in relativity, for example, is not science, but some kind of metaphysics based on abstract mathematical principles and conceptions which will be forever incomprehensible to beings like ourselves whose whole knowledge is derived from a three-dimensional world.”  –NT  (“Great Scientific Discovery Impends.” Sunday Star. Washington D.C., May 17, 1931.)

We read a great deal about matter being changed into force and force being changed into matter by the cosmic rays. This is absurd. It is the same as saying that the body can be changed into the mind, and the mind into the body. We know that the mind is a functioning of the body, and in the same manner force is a function of matter. Without the body there can be no mind, without matter there can be no force. Einstein has for years developed formulas explaining the mechanism of the cosmos. In doing this he overlooked an important factor, namely the fact that some of the heavenly bodies are increasing in distance from the sun. This is the same as writing a business letter and forgetting the subject you wish to write about. In order to explain this phenomenon Einstein has invented the quantity “lambda.” My theory of gravitation explains this phenomenon perfectly.” –NT  (Tesla’s statement relating to force and matter, to Einstein’s theories, and Tesla’s own theory of gravitation. Courtesy of Nikola Tesla Papers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University. April 15, 1932.)

“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.” –NT (“Pioneer Radio Engineer Gives Views On Power.” New York Herald Tribune, September 11, 1932.)

“[The Theory of Relativity] is a mass of errors and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.” –NT (“Tesla, 79, Promises to Transmit Force.” New York Times, July 11, 1935.)

“The kinetic and potential energy of a body is the result of motion and determined by the product of its mass and the square of velocity. Let the mass be reduced, the energy is diminished in the same proportion. If it be reduced to zero the energy is likewise zero for any finite velocity. In other words, it is absolutely impossible to convert mass into energy. It would be different if there were forces in nature capable of imparting to a mass infinite velocity. Then the product of zero mass with the square of infinite velocity would represent infinite energy. But we know that there are no such forces and the idea that mass is convertible into energy is rank nonsense… “According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible. But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.” –NT (“Dynamic Theory Of Gravity.” July 10, 1937. Prior to interviews with the press on his 81st birthday observance.)

“The relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum.”–NT

[theinstantblog]

Does God Exist? Part II (Agnosticism and One Argument)

In the previous post, we addressed the issues appropriate for having a discussion regarding the existence of God. Now, in this next part regarding the question of God’s existence and what can be said about it, I wish to formulate and extend a particular argument for God’s existence. An argument which, is perhaps one of the oldest and yet most famous a posteriori arguments that has taken place within the great conversation of philosophy. Before I do so however, I wish to only clarify a few things here and from the previous post.

Particularly, the goal of this series is to not necessarily be “agnostic friendly.” Not in the sense that agnostics and their opinions on these issues are not welcome, or that I am personally against agnostics as people, but rather that their position in respect to God’s existence is one that doesn’t own up to intellectual responsibility demanded on their behalf. In other words, it is virtually undeniable that the question of God’s existence is a knowledge issue – i.e., a particular kind of knowledge issue. Theists claim to have knowledge in respect to the proposition that “God exists,” and likewise with atheists in the negative fashion of that same proposition. Agnostics on the other hand abandon the knowledge issue altogether and do not wish to speak on the subject.

I respect in a certain sense this degree of humility that the agnostic asserts in regards to God’s existence – that he has observed the arguments from both sides and simply cannot make up his mind, or that he is too ignorant to really make a decision on the question. However, whichever one it may be, the problem is still unavoidable that the given evidence from both sides still demands a verdict. Peter Kreeft (1993) offers three practical ways we can properly weigh the evidence:

(1) We must be totally honest and try to have motives as pure and as passionate as possible.

(2) We must all look at all the evidence on both sides, and not focus on only one side or only one part of the evidence.

(3) We are not reduced to passive reasoning and learning; we can also preform active experiments.

I take it that (1) might be the most problematic suggestion in terms of embodying what it tries to express. However, I do not think that our practice of passion and honesty is far from our grasp in respect to this issue. As Kreeft explains:

[T]o deeply desire to know the truth for its own sake, regardless of the consequences, however uncertain and fearful, however personally inconvenient these may be. Honesty requires something from both the intellect and the will, but it begins in the will, in a resolve. Honesty with oneself is difficult – often much more difficult than honesty with others. [ …] But unless both sides begin here, with an unqualified “I will” to honesty and truth, whatever it may turn out to be, there is no hope of really settling this issue, or any other, and debate becomes a mere entertainment, a sham. [1]

Thus, I think the question is important for the reason that “the idea of God is either a fact, like sand, or a fantasy, like Santa” [2]. Therefore, this “either-or” mindset that I think is appropriate for the question before us leads to eschatological or thanatological importance. 

In other words, at the end of our lives when we die, we will either meet God or we will not. As Kreeft and his analogy points out, “It obviously concerns us to know ahead of time which is the case, just as it concerns one who is falling to know whether there is a fireman’s net below or just a concrete street” [3].

This is a notable and distinctive quality found within the thought of French philosopher Blaise Pascal’s work, Pensees (“Thoughts”). As he writes:

“Either God is or he is not.” But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager?  [4]

This point is important from Pascal because we are not merely observers of this grand scheme but are also participators. The reality of death motivates us to submit our concerns as to the truth behind this question, and honesty surely is the best place to start.

II

To state finally and somewhat quickly, I am trying to frame this post – and posts – so as to make their sections somewhat independent of one another. In other words, you are not required at part 4 to go back to part 2 in order to better understand a particular conversation going on in 4. However, I do believe that wherever you start in the parts of this series, part 1 is only particularly important because it provides a proper framework for understanding the structural arguments of the preceding parts (although, it is still not necessary because I am not one to be tedious).

Thus, you are even more than welcome, for instance, to skip this section and even the one before it and simply move ahead to the following sections that more relevantly address the question at hand – i.e., the argument being used.

The Cosmological Argument

The argument I first wish to examine is the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. I think it is perhaps one of the more simpler arguments to understand and runs through an easily remembered logical scheme so as to provide sufficient provoking of thought and consideration for believer and unbeliever alike. First we must ask, why is it called the Cosmological Argument?

As defined by atheist George H. Smith (1979), Cosmological Arguments attempt “to demonstrate the existence of god by applying philosophical or scientific principles to a basic fact of the universe – a fact, that is claimed, that cannot be explained without reference to a supernatural being”  [5]. 

To use the language of philosopher Alexander Pruss, the Cosmological Argument looks at some given cosmic feature of the universe – such as contingent/dependent (this will be explained later) beings or the fact of motion – and “calls out” for an explanation of these things. This explanation by which, is best explained in terms of the activity of what’s known as a First Cause.

However, it is important to understand that Cosmological Arguments are families of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a First Cause as an explanation for the existence of the cosmos. Thus, one contemporary and notably popular Cosmological Argument runs simply as follows:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

(2) The universe began to exist.

(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is known as the kalam Cosmological Argument. Popularized by philosopher William Lane Craig (1979), this argument has shared many places of considerable discussion among contemporary philosophers and theologians today. However, in defending the argument, it is usually best to examine premise (2) first rather than (1), due to (2)’s controversial discussion on certain cosmogonic theories. As Craig (2012) writes,

[T]his is clearly the more controversial claim and since some attempts to subvert (1) are based upon cosmogonic theories – the discussion of which would be premature prior to their introduction in our treatment of (2). [6]

Thus, premise (2) takes upon many philosophical evidences – to address the impossibility that the universe is eternal – and scientific ones – to gain support from contemporary Big Bang cosmology – so as to maintain an air-tight deduction to the argument’s conclusion: “The universe has a cause.” However, let us first address the question of whether or not the universe is eternal. Since, as it seems, the argument’s conclusion regarding the existence of a First Cause hinges upon the assumption that the universe is not eternal in the past – but actually began a finite time ago, and has a cause of its existence.

The Impossibility of Infinity in Reality

Consider this analogy: Let’s say that you are in a library. This library happens to contain hundreds upon thousands upon millions of books – in fact, this library contains an infinite amount of books, so as to say that there is no “last book.” Suppose for instance that we labeled each book with a natural number ranging, from 1. . . 2. . . 3. . . up to infinity. 

Thus, now let us take all of these books as a collective set – we will call this set an actual infinity.  If these books (collectively taken) are actually infinite, then we cannot add another book onto the set. Since, all the numbers on the books are actual – i.e., we cannot add another book to this infinite set. As Craig notices in respect to trying to add a new book with another number:

Because the collection is an actual infinity, this means that every possible natural number is printed on some book. Therefore, it would be impossible to add another book to this library. For what would be the number of the new book? Clearly there is no number to assign to it [ … ] Therefore, there would be no new number for the new book. But this is absurd, since entities that exist in reality can be numbered. [7]

Furthermore consider the remarks (coin analogy) made by Craig in his debate with Peter Millican at the University of Birmingham (see 00:38-2:41): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6daCfQBKiA

In other words, past events throughout the universe’s history (or, events before the present moment) would have to themselves be eternal, if the universe was actually infinite. Therefore, we would never reach the present moment. Consider philosopher J.P. Moreland’s (1993) exposition of this point:

Now if one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been infinite. If it were infinite, then to come to the present moment, one would have had to have traversed an actual infinite to get here, which is impossible. Without a first event, there could be no second, third, or any specifiable number of events including the present one. Not only could one never complete the jump, one could never even get started. [8]

Thus, it has been stated that we have adequate philosophical reasons for affirming that

(a’) The universe began a finite time ago.

Furthermore, with everything considered, we can possibly state the following argument:

(1) One can’t traverse an actually infinite number of events by successive addition.

(2) To get to the present moment, one would have to have traversed an actual infinite.

(3) But the past has been realized.

(4) So there must have been a first event.

(5) This event must have been spontaneously generated by an unchanging, timeless, and free situation.

Furthermore,

(5′) It is unreasonable to say that the first event was uncaused.

(5*) Agent causation is a reasonable explanation.

Further support for (5) I think could be noted from a mere understanding of the word “universe.” For instance, it can be agreed that the universe, by definition, includes all of physical reality. Hence, the cause of the universe must be causally prior to the universe’s existence. Therefore, the cause of the universe transcends (or is above) space and time. Craig thence argues for a personal Creator “who exists changelessly and independently prior to creation and in time subsequent to creation” [8].

____________________________

Notes:

[1] Peter Kreeft, “Choice of a Lifetime” in Does God Exist? The Debate Between Theists and Atheists, J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen (Promotheus Books: 1993) p. 286

[2] Ibid., p. 11

[3] Ibid., p. 19

[4] Quoted from Reason and Responsibility, ed. Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau (Thomson and Wadsworth: 2005) p. 115

[5] George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Promotheus: 1979) p. 235

[6] William L. Craig and James D. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed.  J.P Moreland and William L. Craig (Wiley-Blackwell: 2012) p. 103

[7] William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Barnes & Noble: 1979) p. 65

[8] Moreland and Nielsen (1993), p. 37

[9] William Lane Craig (1979), pp. 150-152

[trendingnewsb]

The Power of Deep Thinking: Essence of Creativity

True or False: “This sentence is false.”

What was your answer to the question above? Did you quickly fire off an answer or did you have to think about it and then think about it some more?

Imagine for a moment that you could put on a set of inverted goggles and see the world through an entirely different lens. On one hand, you would literally see differently, but you might not view the world differently. If we look deep enough and allow ourselves to observe from a new lens, we will. Thomas S. Kuhn remarked in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,[1]

“What a man sees depends upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual conceptual experience has taught him to see.”

The power of deep thinking is the essence of creativity. By learning how to think differently and deep, you will find that it is not only your creative thinking, but your critical thinking skills that vastly improve. This leads to higher levels of thinking and powerful problem-solving skills that you simply did not have before.

Let’s take a look at what deep thinking is, why you should learn about it, and what it will do for you.

How Do You Know That You Know the Stuff You Think You Know?

Have you heard the saying, the more you know the less you know? If you haven’t, take a moment and think about that phrase. By looking at the Theory of Knowledge, we can pose the following question: How do you know that you know the stuff you think you know?

Let’s look at an example. Solve the following: 2 + 2 = ?

I am hoping you answered 4! Yet, let’s take a look at another way to look at this. In Plato and Platypus Walk into a Bar by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, we find the following story.

A western anthropologist is told by a Voohooni that 2 + 2 = 5. The anthropologist asks him how he knows this. The tribesman says,

“By counting, of course. First, I tie two knots in a cord. Then I tie two knots in another cord. When I join the two cords together, I have five knots.”

Deep Thinking Is Thinking About Thinking

Rene Descartes famously stated, “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am” where he believed thinking as the essential characteristic of being human.

In Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense, Steve Hagen discussed that Descartes arrived at the cogito through an experiment in radical doubt to discover if there was anything he could be certain of; that is, anything that he could not doubt away.[2] Hagen commented,

“He started out by doubting the existence of the external world. Then he tried doubting his own existence. But doubt as he would, he kept coming up against the fact that there was a doubter. Must be himself! He could not doubt his own doubting.”

Essentially, Metacognition is awareness of one’s awareness. It is thinking about thinking or cognition about cognition.

Meta means Beyond

Cognition means Thinking

Thus, Metacognition means Beyond Thinking.

To be aware, it refers to the ability of the mind to stand back and watch itself in action. Here, we are able to examine the way we learn, remember, and think. The knowledge of how we process information gives us the opportunity to change how we process it. [3]

Can We Really Know What Anything Is?

Hagen poses the following question in his book Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense: Here it is, but what is it? Do we truly know what something is?

Hagen remarks,

When we try to answer this, have we merely answered the question “how do we conceive of it?” or “what do we call it?” Some deeper question remains.

For example, if I say, “Here, in this cup, is water,” you may ask, “What is water?” But as scientists we might wish to point out, “Water is hydrogen and oxygen.” Thus, by using scientific methods it seems we can discover what water is “made of.”

With confidence we say, “What is really in this cup is hydrogen and oxygen, combined and transformed into this unique substance we call ‘water’.” But the questions continue.

Hagen concludes, “What is hydrogen? What is oxygen? And so we look again, using scientific methods, and say, “Hydrogen is an element made of atoms, each consisting of a single proton and a single electron.”

But still the questions remain: what are atoms? What are protons and electrons? It seems that we’ve started on a never-ending regression. At no time do we ever really get to the other end of the question: “What is water?” We can name the mind object, even break it down and name its parts, but we still don’t really answer the question.”

Reading this passage leaves me to ask myself: can we ever really know what anything is? Let’s look at another example from Hagen.

He illustrates just how strange our world is through the conversation between a physicist and a philosopher:

Physicist: …and so we conclude an electron is a particle.

Philosopher: But you also claim an electron is a wave.

Physicist: Yes, it’s also a wave.

Philosopher: But surely, not if it’s a particle.

Physicist: We say it’s both wave and particle.

Philosopher: But that’s a contradiction, obviously.

Physicist: Are you then saying it’s neither wave nor particle?

Philosopher: No, I’m asking what you mean by “it.”

A Gap in the Stream of Consciousness

You might be wondering what the difference is between Metacognition and Cognition.

Cognition. This is the process of acquiring knowledge for understanding. Cognition is thinking.

Metacognition. This relies on awareness and control of cognitive processes. Metacognition will help you find gaps in your learning and thinking. However, you must have acquired some previous knowledge about a topic prior to Metacognition. As mentioned earlier, Metacognition goes beyond just thinking… it is thinking about thinking.

Now that you have an understanding of the fundamental principle behind deep thinking, let’s take a look at how to develop it.

In the book The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle,[4] we learn the following lessons.

Constantly Observe Your Mind Without Judging Your Thoughts

Here we should ask one simple question, “What will my next thought be?” Try it. Can you think of your next thought? Probably not.

By continually asking this question, you can delay the arrival of your next thought. This is due to what is called the quantum zeno effect, where we can freeze our current state by observing it. Essentially, there can be no change while you are watching it.

Life Is Simply a Series of Present Moments

Here we are informed that the past is simply all the present moments that have gone by. Tolle posits that the only important time is the present, for which we think about the least. Furthermore, the present is simply future present moments waiting to go by.

Imagine leaving your body and watching yourself think. Think of this as a mental movie where your goal is not to judge the actors, but to simply observe them.

Tolle refers to entering into the Now or the Present as creating a gap in the stream of mind. Asking yourself the question “What will my next thought be?” creates that gap and allows you to dis-identify from your mind. Once you do this, you have elevated yourself above thought. This is Enlightenment.

Stages of Deep Thinking

Before we look at strategies you can use to become a deep thinker, let’s briefly look at the stages of deep thinking known as the Three Levels of Thought. [5]

Level 1: Lower Order Thinking. The individual is not reflective, has a low to mixed skill level, and relies solely on gut intuition.

Level 2: Higher Order Thinking. The individual is selective on what to reflect on, has a high skill level, yet lacks critical thinking vocabulary.

Level 3: Highest Order Thinking. The individual is explicitly reflective, has the highest skill level, and routinely uses critical thinking tools.

Strategies to Become a Deep Thinker

To enter into the Highest Order Thinking, try the following strategies.

Increase Self-Awareness by Thinking About Thinking

Imagine you could become aware of how you learn. We know that we must have a baseline of previous knowledge about something to use Metacognition. Think of your Intelligence as what you think and Metacognition as how you think. Let’s look at a series of questions you can ask yourself by using the Elements of Thought.[6]

Purpose. What am I trying to accomplish?

Questions: What question am I raising or addressing? Am I considering the complexities in the question?

Information: What information am I using to get to my conclusion.

Inferences: How did I reach this conclusion? Is there another way to interpret the information?

Concepts: What is the main idea? Can I explain this idea?

Assumptions: What am I taking for granted?

Implications: If someone accepted my position, what would the implications be?

Points of View. From what point of view am I looking at this issue? Is there another point of view I should consider?

Challenge Current Learning Methods Through Meta-Questions

Meta-Questioning is higher order questions we can use to explore ideas and problems. Here are some examples.

Why did it happen?

Why was it true?

How does X relate to Y?

Why is reasoning based on X instead of Y?

Are there other possibilities?

Let’s look at a practical example.

When you say: “I can’t do this.” Change this to: “What specifically can I not do?”

You say: “I can’t exercise.” Then ask: “What is stopping me?”

You say: “I don’t have time.” Now ask yourself: “What needs to happen for me to start exercising?”

You discover: “What time wasters can I eliminate in order to create more time to exercise?”

Then imagine how you could start exercising: “If I could exercise, how would I do it?”

View the World Through Different Lens

Here is a technique you can use to foster a deeper understanding of a problem—Four Ways of Seeing:

How does X view itself?

How does Y view itself?

How does X view Y?

How does Y view X?

Try to apply the technique like this: suppose we are in the United States looking at a foreign country. First, draw four boxes, then list the questions. Second, start answering the questions.

In box #1 ask: “How do we see the United States?”

Box #2: “How does China see themselves?”

Box #3: “How does China see the United States?”

Box #4: “How do you see them?”

Thought Experiments

One last technique you can use to become a deep thinker —Thought Experiments. This is a device of the imagination used to investigate the nature of just about anything. [7] Thought Experiments seek to learn about reality through thinking:

Visualize a situation and set it up in your imagination.

Let it run or carry out some type of operation.

See what happens.

Draw a conclusion.

The team at Stanford describes this using the following example: Since the time of Lucretius, we’ve learned how to conceptualize space so that it is both finite and unbounded. Let’s see how this Thought Experiment can work.

Imagine a circle, which is a one-dimensional space.

As we move around, there is no edge, but it is nevertheless finite.

What can you conclude? The universe might be a three-dimensional version of this topology.

Think Deep, and You Will Think Creatively

Thinking deep will change how you think, feel, and view the world. When you understand this concept, you will start to think beyond simple beliefs.

“When the root is Deep… There is no reason to fear the wind.”

Deep Thinking will change how you think, feel, and view the world. When you understand this concept, you will start to think beyond simple beliefs.

By applying all the skills mentioned in this article, you will be able to think deeper and explore more possibilities.

Featured photo credit: Stocksnap via stocksnap.io

Reference

[1]^Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[2]^Steve Hagen: Why the World Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense: An Inquiry Into Science, Philosophy and Perception[3]^ThePeakLearner: What is Metacognition? 3 Key Points to Remember[4]^Eckhart Tolle: The Power of Now[5]^Thinker’s Guide Library: Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools[6]^Thinker’s Guide Library: Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools[7]^Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Thought Experiments

function footnote_expand_reference_container() { jQuery(“#footnote_references_container”).show(); jQuery(“#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button”).text(“-“); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container() { jQuery(“#footnote_references_container”).hide(); jQuery(“#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button”).text(“+”); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container() { if (jQuery(“#footnote_references_container”).is(“:hidden”)) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container(); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery(“#” + p_str_TargetID); if(l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery(‘html, body’).animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top – window.innerHeight/2 }, 1000); } }

The post The Power of Deep Thinking: Essence of Creativity appeared first on Lifehack.

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2vpEOHf via Viral News HQ