The 5th Human.com

In our world there still exists debates that exists all the way from the realm of religion to realm of science and politics. People debate saying “I am right and you are wrong”. People have specific beliefs that in most cases go unchanged unless it is confirmed absolutely. The purpose of this message is to know who might be right or wrong beforehand.

It is argued that all things are relative. While this is true to a degree, predictive speculation to a given conditional knowledge is either right or wrong and can be proven or disproved by the individual when the time comes. What is Predictive Conditional Knowledge? Conditional Knowledge is that “if this happens, then this will result.” Or it is that “if we go here, this is what we will see”. This is different from knowledge that is merely opinions and cannot be tested by the individual person.

For example, lets say if we had a cup of water and pour it into a fire, what would happen? Those that have already experienced or seen the event would more likely be correct in guessing the repeatable result. But those that have never experiment with such an idea before will be forced to guess or infer what might happen and then see if they are right later.

Therefore, lets say there are 3 cave men who have never done such an experiment before. They are asked to give their opinions of what would be the conditional knowledge of what would happen when you pour water on fire. The fire and its intensity is right there in their environment and they have a bowl of water in their hand.

The first cave man might say that the water will turn into more fire once it is poured on it.
The second cave man might say that the water will turn dirt.
The third cave man might say that the water will turn into air.

But the important thing is that each person will have an image in their mind on what they believe might happen that varies in clearness and/or accuracy and of course none of them might be right (in this case we would have to keep asking other cavemen until we find those capable of understanding, if ever, or it least if anyone is capable of being the closest).

In either case, there will be individuals that will be closest to the truth (to the predictability of a given conditional knowledge), while there will be others that are furthest from the truth. There will also be those that simply have no clue or simply guess with no form of reasoning or correct foundation.

Therefore, after each person is given their opinion, what they do is perform the experiment to see whose predictions of the conditional knowledge was correct, or closest to the truth.

It will be obvious the caveman 3 would be closest to the truth, perhaps even surprising himself of how well the image in his mind match the future reality, while the others would clearly see their mental images did not match at all.

This has happened many many times in the past. In fact, it happens all the time and is happening today. There are people that say and believe one thing about the future or past, or the way things should be or designed, while there are others who say the opposite and one is proven right and the other wrong. We cannot deny that this happens.

In the case of history, many people believed that if you got on a ship and kept going you would fall off the edge like falling off the edge of the table. But when undergoing the experiment themselves, they find out that their speculations weren’t as correct as they thought and those that said that would not happen were correct.

The bottom line is that there is a difference between those people that were right versus those people that were wrong. There has to be some difference and it is this difference that will be the key to knowing who will more likely be closer to the truth and who will more likely speaking from blindness leading the world astray.

When it comes to conditional knowledge in our present moment, if we ask all 7 billion people on the planet, “What would happen if we were able to see the past during the time when humans or life first appeared on earth? What would we see?”

Just like the cave men with the water, there will be as many different answers as there are people. In the end, when the experiment is finally able to take place, there will be those that will be closest to the truth, there will be those that are in between, and there will be those that are furthest away.

As mentioned before, the purpose of this article is to end all debates and to know who is more likely to be right and who is more likely to be wrong, without going through the long process of argument, deception, emotional statements and yelling, confusion, or waiting years to know what side to take after mistakes are already made. If we can understand the difference between those that are proven right and those that are proven wrong, then we can make progress toward that direction.

So lets get to the key. What is that difference? What is the difference between confirmed right and wrong people in the past? It seems it would be the level of awareness of the individuals. It seems it would be their level of comprehension and understanding of the world. It being the number and accuracy of connections in their brain and confirmed knowledge. It being their level of intelligence and cognition that allows them to be correct in their predictions and efficiency in their designs, as opposed to those that predict and have opinions toward specific things, leading the world astray.

Despite how intelligent one might think they are, every person at a given time thinks they are right and is usually incapable of seeing the level of comprehension of those that are above them. This is why debates never end with the mind of humans but only when there is outside scientific confirmation (and even in those cases sometimes because of the ego of humans its still does not end the debate). This is why a person thinks the other person is speaking nonsense, when he himself may be wrong because he is incapable of comprehending, or the person himself may be right and the other wrong. But in the end, there exists the possibility of one of those individuals being proven right or at least purposely closer to the truth.

The difference between Copernicus and the rest of the world during his time was that his brain was able to piece together things those that thought he was crazy could not. Albert Einstein was able to see that if you go on a ship at near light speeds time for that person would change and move slower. If you ask others to predict what would happen during that time before relativity was published, they would be wrong.

In our current would, the unknown is debated all the time. And as the past has proven, it turns out that someone proves themselves wrong and others prove themselves right. The difference between them is their brains and ability to analyze and process information accurately and broadly to not miss anything. Therefore, when it comes to debates, by simply observing the brains of the individuals, those that can see connections to a greater number of things than the other, and have more scientific knowledge to work with, we can conclude is closer to the truth than the other who is making conclusions with much less comparative understanding or facts.

The difference between some people being right, while others being wrong is their comprehensibility and understanding of reality. If we can measure this in individuals, we as a human species will proceed closer to the truth much faster. This in fact would be a survival mechanism and prevent our species from making mistakes or going down the wrong paths by listening to the wrong people.

Another way to know who has a more clear perspective of the truth is that those that see more can normally understand from the other person claiming him/her to be wrong’s perspective. This is because he/she has been there before but has progress beyond that level of complexity while the other is simply incapable of understanding what the other person is talking about until he/she, if ever, reaches that level of comprehensible complexity.

But in the case of measuring, of course, this will not be something that is to be believed first hand. It must be proven. Will it be proven to be repeatable? Will we be able to look at two people forming an opinion about something and say “Evidence shows that this person is more likely to be right.” I believe so. Scientist can now look at fingers of athletes to determine those that would be most athletic, it wouldn’t be before too long when they’ll be able to do it cognitively.

Individuals can be asked to perform specific cognitive tests and how it relates to the real world and compare the results. The common sense of individuals can be measured by psychologists, neurologist, mris, etc. by seeing the neurological or mental difference in those that were more correct and efficient in applying their mental reasoning to the real world vs those who were not. Once the scientists identify the differences or causes in the variability in the complexity, correctness, and commonsense, they would be able to know those that have a better cognitive ability to foresee, think rationality, or more importantly be right. And this does not only apply to understanding, but in creating and design things like building houses, societies, etc.

The differences exist, we just have to understand why some are right and some are wrong, which happens all the time.

Tags: absolute truth, end to all debates, measuring intelligence

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 at 12:55 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.