Unscientific Method

This is not a scientific blog. I make observations, then try to explain them. It was when I realized science discounted the method that I used to correct my vision, so I started digging.

I like to think of it like this: if you have a ball that exists one second every hour, what would a crowd say about it? We’d have a vast majority of reports that would say that this ball did not exist at all. But we know that is not true.

So while science looks at the majority of the time, I look at that one second. The one person with autism who said eye contact gave them an electric shock. The one person that was miraculously healed from schizophrenia. The one person who says that they can change their eye color with hypnosis. While science calls them liars or unexplainable cases, I just call them interesting.

Science is like religion

First off, I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. What scientists need to remember is that the nature of their work is inductive.

For example, all of the observed oranges are orange, so we conclude that they are all orange. It’s not a terrible argument. But what if we find one that’s green? The assumption is, of course, that it’s not an orange.

Eventually, maybe someone decides to take it to the lab and test it. And they realize that it is, in fact, an orange. Now our set of oranges includes all orange oranges and this green one. Thus, the science of the color of oranges becomes that they are orange unless they are green.

I recently was debating online about the possibility of virgin birth. Of course, we have a model that explains how babies are made. Call it the birds and the bees, or whatever. But it’s impossible to actually observe every single conception. The problem is that a non-zero amount of women [0.5-1.0%] claim to having been virgin moms. Well this obviously doesn’t match the established model, so they must be liars. Right? Maybe. Chances are great that a large percentage of these women are lying. There is also the possibility that they got pregnant by sperm left on a toilet seat, or something else.

Let’s consider for a second that one in ten billion pregnancies are virgin births. Would we ever know? I don’t think so. Because the nature of science is to make this sort of inductive argument. They are great for describing most things. But if you experience something outside of our model, you must be lying.

I think we need to be careful not to use science to make false dichotomies. For instance, this is how all observed babies have been conceived. Thus, any babies claimed to be conceived other ways are impossible. It’s not terrible science, unless you have hundreds of women claiming to experience the ‘impossible.’ That’s when you check it out. That’s what science is for, to inspect truth claims. So why not test the genetic makeup of some of these children? This would make the scientific argument even stronger if they are all genetically normal.

But instead of using science, we give our opinions [based on what we know about science] to make the conclusion that all of these women are liars. The problem is that the truth does not care what your opinion is. And if that green fruit is an orange, you’d never know until you tested it.

So by believing that all of this science is true, and that anything that contradicts it is false, you may be throwing out important data. Which is not far from what science accuses religion of doing: using blind faith to ignore evidence.

Defining Anger

Anger happens when something unexpected and negative occurs.

So you do something that makes me mad. You trip me for no reason. I get mad because I didn’t expect it, or rather I expected you not to do that. We talked about expectations before, and typically, they are negative. But this is a little different.

If I think you’re a good person and you do something mean to me, that will make me mad. I thought so much of you that I didn’t think you would do that. Based on what I know about you, I wouldn’t expect you to do something like that.
You could be angry that you got hurt. Angry at the person that injured you. Angry at God. You didn’t anticipate this. So you’re mad that it happened.

You aren’t going to get mad about a promotion. Or about a surprise vacation. But if you get fired for no reason, you’re going to more than likely be angry. So those are the two qualities: negative and unexpected
If you knew it was going to happen, you could expect it, and you may fear it. But you can’t fear what you don’t take into account.  That’s where anger comes in.

Strange Seizure Triggers

With this idea in mind, I’d like to look at some unusual seizure triggers.
1. Low Blood Sugar. To me, this is the strangest of seizure triggers, because it involves something that we don’t typically even relate to the brain. To answer this question, I need to borrow from a post I wrote about diabetes about a year ago. We know that the brain’s primary source of energy is glucose. Imagine that the body’s job is to regulate this glucose. If that is true, low blood sugar would require the body to speed up processes, to fuel the brain with what sugar is left. If the body speeds up its work process to fuel the brain with remaining glucose, the optic nerve signal would increase. And we know from how transistors work, that’s no bueno.
2. Sleep Deprivation. I view sleep as a quantum cooling of the brain. Therefore, lack of sleep would result in extra electric charge. Not to mention, the transistor likely reacts throughout the day, and becomes less and less forward biased. Therefore, if sleep is a process that charges the aqueous, lack of sleep causes higher brain entropy, which increases the number of free electrons in the vitreous.
3. Alcohol. This is from a different angle. If the eye works like an NPN transistor, alcohol would affect the internal voltage source, the optic nerve. As the alcohol stresses the brain, the optic never charges the collector of the transistor more than the emitter. This could force a reverse bias mode.
4. Stress. It works basically the same as alcohol. The internal processes reverse-bias the transistor.

Essentially, all of these triggers work in the same way in regards to the collector of the transistor. Each factor would seem to increase voltage across the wrong portion of the transistor, leading to what may be a reversed bias situation, or even a laser cascade

I was thinking along these lines this morning, and had a couple of thoughts that you may find useful.

1. Right now you are as young as you’ll ever be. In the timeline of your life, you are literally as far away from your death as you will ever be. That doesn’t matter if you die tomorrow, right now is still the furthest you’ll ever be from it.
2. Everyone is as young as they will ever be. It’s not just you.  Even your grandmother. Her distance [on her life timeline] is as far away from her death at this moment as it will ever be in the rest of her life.
3. Also, right now we are all as old as we have ever been. More time is in our past than has ever been in our past before. And as we get older, we will continue to be our very oldest at every single moment.

Therefore, you have more experiences now than you’ve ever had, and you’re as young now as you’ll ever be. So make today count. You’re not getting any younger.

Soul Science: Available Now

I’m thrilled to announce the release of my latest book, Soul Science: The Application of Faith. In this book, we look at religion in a way you’ve never thought of it before. This approach produces some powerful and game-changing results. And the best part: you can read it in under an hour.

Buy now on Amazon for \$0.99.

Permission to Think: 24.7%

What degree are you waiting on before you give yourself permission to think? Who’s approval do you need before you decide that your opinion matters? Because the truth is the information is out there. It’s more accessible now than ever. You can read almost any book from an iPad on the beach.

People without degrees do incredible things all the time. I’m not saying don’t go to school. But don’t wait until you get a framed piece of paper to give yourself permission to think for yourself.

John von Neumann, one of the most ridiculously-gifted savants in history, was once asked what percent of math he knew. His answer was something like 24.7%. First thing of note, is that he came up with such a specific number. And secondly, and more importantly, is how low of a number that is. So here is a guy that some people argue is one of the smartest humans ever to walk the planet, and he knew that he only knew around 25% of mathematics. If you’ve never heard of him, look him up. He’s the most interesting guy you’ve never heard of.

My biggest takeaway is that math was his forte. He took home open problems and solved them before class the next day. But he only knew 24.7%. What percent of your field do you need to know before you decide that your opinion matters? Who needs to tell you that you have what it takes to discover something new?

Don’t wait until you graduate to start thinking for yourself. You’re completely capable of changing the world. Give yourself permission to think.

In Defense of the Indefensible

Luke P., one of the most disliked bachelors in the history of the show, was just publicly crucified for his beliefs. And they’re a lot like mine. The problem is, he just doesn’t know how to defend his positions. And he went on a show that condones a system that it completely unnatural and against what he believes.

So obviously he’s going to get angry. I’m not going to stand up for everything that the guy did. I can’t. But this last exchange was hard to watch. The dude walked out before the show was over.

He tried to stand up for himself, but he just didn’t have the firepower. He had good positions on things, but just couldn’t explain the logic behind them. And he also couldn’t show the obvious flaws in the system itself or the Bachelorette. He really didn’t think well on his feet, and I know how that feels. I can’t imagine a stage of that magnitude.

Think about it: I know what I believe. I know what everyone is going to think about what I believe. But I also don’t believe in lying. So here it goes.

It’s  painful to watch. He can’t find words and just waits for seconds to respond to seemingly simple questions. But it’s not because he doesn’t know the answer, it’s because he knows that the answer is not an agreeable one. That his position is not a popular one.

The basis of the argument that sent Luke home was that he judged Hannah for using the fantasy suites for sex. In all fairness, that is basically what they are for. But Luke thought that he and Hannah had a deeper spiritual connection. Essentially, he thought that she was a Christian, so she believed like him. And being a born again Christian, he believed in not having sex until he got married. Here’s where it all started:

That’s where things get interesting, she has sex. And Luke was thrown off by her actions in spite of her beliefs. He calls her out on it, more out of surprise than anything. She goes on some tirade about how she can do what she wants and Jesus still loves her. Eventually Luke goes home.

So, the show tonight had Luke in the crosshairs. He eventually backtracks on his position and apologizes. At the end of the show Hannah attacks the poor guy again. Eventually, the guy just up and leaves in the middle of the show. I really don’t blame him. Hannah says something at the end of her attack that I won’t forget: That’s what grace is for!

She uses Jesus as a defense for sin. That couldn’t be further from the truth. He didn’t come to give us permission to sin, he came to give us a pathway to salvation.

If you apply that line of thinking to anything, it’s practically insane. There’s no reason to do anything other that what you please at any point, because of Jesus. In that case, Jesus didn’t come to free us from sin, he came to make sin more accessible to us.

Her logic is basically that she knows that it is wrong, and she did it anyways. And Jesus still loves her. Because that is what grace is about. Yes, we are all sinners. But if we use grace as an excuse to sin, how do we become more like Christ? It’s impossible. You get stuck in a loop.

If he would’ve been better equipped to defend himself, he could’ve asked why would you do something if you belief it’s wrong? And from there, I think he would’ve learned enough about her to leave the show. Because think about it for a second, if what you believe doesn’t affect how you act, why believe anything at all?

Go now and sin no more. John 8:11

Electric Charge in an Aging Brain

• The brain has electric charge.
• The brain has a charge density.
• The brain decreases in size over time.
• Charge density increases if charge stays the same.

The charge has two sources: internal and external. But there is a limit to the amount of charge that the brain can contain. And as charge density increases the limit decreases.

Total signal= Internal + External

Sensory data input are electrical signals from the external world. There is also an internal source of electricity. But if there is a limit to the amount of charge the brain can have at any one time, and the internal source of charge increases [due to a change in volume], the brain may limit the other inputs to regulate this charge.

In the case of aging, the body may gather more signals to counter the lack of signal sensitivity. I’m sure you’ve heard that the ears and nose don’t stop growing. This is likely why. As the brain shrinks, it needs more and more molecules or vibrations to make a distinguishing identification.

Note: The eyes do not and cannot grow because they are a source of charge. Not just a signal, but also electric charge.

Sources:

Solving the Pecten: The Reverse Photoelectric Effect

We’ve shown how birds use their seventh sense to navigate, and shown how it may be why they fly into windows. One question we haven’t answered is how does it work. Any answer to this question must determine the use of the pecten, the mysterious vascular structure at the back of the avian eye.

The opposite of the photoelectric effect is X-Ray production. Just take a look at an X-Ray producing apparatus next to the eye of a bird. They look remarkably similar. Not only that, but the physics that produces X-Rays could produce the seventh sense.

The eye is the tube. The pecten is the anode target. Light would create the heat, current, and voltage.

X-rays can be generated by an X-ray tube, a vacuum tube that uses a high voltage to accelerate the electrons released by a hot cathode to a high velocity. The high velocity electrons collide with a metal target, the anode, creating the X-rays.

It’s worth noting that UV light is one step below X-Rays on energy. Meaning, if we lower the energy of the input, the output would be lower as well. And this means that the process would produce the expected wavelength of rays.

$E=pc$

$E=hf$ thus $pc=hf$

$p=\frac{hf}{c}$ and $f=\frac{1}{\lambda}$

Thus $E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}$

So if the energy goes down, what happens to $\lambda$? It increases. Frequency decreases. That’s exactly what we anticipated!

The pecten is a comb-like structure of blood vessels belonging to the choroid in the eye of a bird. It is a non-sensory, pigmented structure that projects into the vitreous body from the point where the optic nerve enters the eyeball.

How does this produce a charge? The pigment makes sense. That would absorb light. But how does this structure act as the anode? The light creates current in the eye. And the pecten structure absorbs this light, but is also affected by the current. So the pecten itself becomes charged by the field it sits in. The particles it moves to cool and nourish the eye, become charged so that as the photons enter, they scatter UV radiation back through the eye.

We’ve shown how current in the eye helps us balance, and effects photo-epilepsy, it would also orient the cells on the pecten in a polarizing fashion. The positively charged side would face the front of the eye. And that’s what the anode does in x-ray production. So the light charges the eye, polarizes the nourishing pecten, and uses the pecten as an anode to fuel the bird’s seventh sense of ultraviolet production.

Sources: