Normal Humans Have Multiple Separate Minds - Separatus Mentes Alogicus
Copyright© 2024 by Larry Neal Gowdy
A rough graphic illustrating that logic does not occur in-between separate minds.
A quote from the 2008 article William Sidis Myths #1: "My chosen method of learning is to input an action into a thing, and to then stand back and observe the thing's reaction. By what reaction that occurs, so will it in part portray the inward attributes and nature of the thing itself. ...what is important is whether the believer/disbeliever can describe why the belief is allegedly valid, which is a thing that I have not yet witnessed from anyone."
Separatus Mentes Alogicus Background
Everyone uses different 'regions' of their minds to process thoughts, memories, logic, and body movements. An abbreviated example of regions is given in the 2014 article Consciousness: "...mind makes use of three primary regions for mathematics; one region towards the rear-center that draws upon memorized mathematical formulas and tables (e.g. the sum of 5 times 5 is not reasoned but rather remembered, although the sum is critiqued and verified by other regions of the mind for its accuracy prior to my committing myself to the answer), a second region towards the upper-right-front that applies golden ratio durations and octaves, and the third generalized location is varied among the left and right sides depending on whether the 'math' is related to an abstract thought or to a memory of sensory perceptions. ...For purely abstract mathematical calculations that are based solely on the language of mathematics my focus is almost entirely on the second region where again the calculations and sums are performed through pressures and potentials relative to durations and angularities, with there being a relatively fixed rectangular 'surface' region but with an infinitely deep depth that is only limited by my effort to continue the dividing and multiplication of golden durations."
Some individuals' minds make use of many regions simultaneously, while some other individuals make use of fewer regions, and often sequentially. One of the very most obvious natures of the normal human mind is that there exist specific regions of the mind where little or no logic is exchanged. Each region has its own specific location depending on the individual (i.e. the above example). The three generalized regions of immediate focus are [1] knowledge, [2] beliefs, and [3] body control. The normal human is fully incapable of controlling their body to agree with their beliefs and knowledge, and, never does the normal human apply rational logic between their beliefs, knowledge, and body movement.
The above graphic is a quick (and crude) partial recreation of a hand-drawn graphic created in the early 1990s. The graphic is spartan of details, but lends a good enough idea of how some mental 'connections' within normal people only flow one-way from mind segments to the 'me' segment, with no two-way reciprocation, and with no mental 'connections' between knowledge and beliefs. The result is obvious throughout the world; normal people behave with dementia and hypocrisy.
Abbreviated from Wu Wei vs Adittapariyaya Sutta Buddhist Fire vs Confucius vs Nature's Way: ""The stupid person... is always (and justly, it would seem) characterized by a huge tolerance for absurd contradictions... The ideas do not cross-light each other, but remain relatively isolated. Hence, the most absurd contradictions are swallowed, so to speak, without arousing the protest of the critical faculty. (The Measurement of Intelligence, Lewis M. Terman)". The normal person may hold within their mind large quantities of knowledge, but the normal person is unable to rationally — nor willfully — apply the knowledge to their behavior. There is no functional 'knowledge-behavior' "critical faculty"."
An interesting related topic is Darwinian evolution. The normal human behavior of not processing inner logic is much too similar to common animals' inability to apply logic. Julian Jaynes had an interesting comment on the topic:
"...At the heart of this seminal work is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but was a learned process that emerged, through cataclysm and catastrophe, from a hallucinatory mentality only three thousand years ago and that is still developing." (Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, ©Copyright 1975, 1990)
Regardless of whether a person believes or disbelieves in evolution, and regardless of Jaynes' book not being idyllically perfect, the fact does remain: aside from the ability for spoken languages, the ability to create fire, and the ability to build dwellings of mud and sticks, the normal human does not behave much more intelligently than common animals, and, in many ways, the normal human behaves less intelligently.
Numerous questions arise: Is the normal human mind's physiology limited of conductivity between segments? Is the normal human mind a 'missing link'? Why is logic so simple for some individuals, while being all but impossible for other people? Is the normal inability to connect two concepts also caused by the absence of mental connections? Is logic only self-taught when young? Can logic be self-taught as an adult?
The Sensory Quotient and Normalcy projects verified numerous complex details about how different people think differently, but all data appears to point back to the original concept of the foundational emotion (as was written of and made public in the late 1990s, as well as being a portion of the #1 best selling ebook several years later). The first ingredients of a thing, dictate how the following ingredients will be able to behave. The origins of the foundational emotion have three plausible sources; one of which is very unlikely because it itself relies upon an originating source that does not possess the necessary ingredients, the second is active throughout life but requires additional ingredients to create, and the third's origin extends beyond the first and second. There can be no firm answers for the origins of normal behavior, but there are firm answers of how normal behavior is expressed.
The primary aim for this article is to simply illustrate that there are vast differences between different types of people, and that the differences have been recorded for over 2,500 years.
Definitions
The term schizophrenia was derived from the idea of it implying "split mind". There are many (and often conflicting) definitions of schizophrenia, but the general gist suggests that schizophrenia implies "a type of psychosis including dementia praecox, and some related forms of insanity, in which the individual loses touch with the real world, and may develop fantastic delusions." (The Winston Dictionary, College Edition, copyright© 1926-1943, P.F. Collier & Son Corporation Publishers, New York)
Since the term schizophrenia is a 'medical' term which is governed by governments, and since the definitions of schizophrenia are not adequately descriptive of what schizophrenia is supposed to imply, then the better choice is to simply ignore the term while creating a new term that is more rational. The new choice of term is separatus mentes alogicus, which implies 'separate minds no-logic'. Separatus mentes alogicus does not relate to medicine, psychology, nor to any other occupation that is taxed and licensed by governments. Therefore, separatus mentes alogicus is a suitable term for use when pointing at human behavior.
The core similarity between schizophrenia and separatus mentes alogicus is that of people who have no stable sense of Reality. Schizophrenia most points at individuals' outward behaviors, while separatus mentes alogicus most points at the reasoning for the outward behaviors.
Description of Separatus Mentes Alogicus
As the above graphic suggests, most people do not have mental connections between [1] memorized knowledge, [2] firsthand learned knowledge, [3] beliefs, [4] body language, and [5] voice tones. Bluntly, almost no one on earth is mentally able to control their body to agree with the people's beliefs and knowledge. As The World's Smartest Man on Earth, Might Be You : Part 1 states: "normal people's behaviors never reflect the people's beliefs". As is obvious and almost universal throughout the world, there is no 'cross-lighting' nor logic applied between one's knowledge, beliefs, and behavior. The outward behavior — as well as the measurable inner mental processing — describes a mentality that has separate (separatus) 'minds' (mentes) of which no active connection exists, which naturally results in no logic (alogicus) being performed between the 'minds'.
No known ideologist at any time within the history of the world was able to control their body to agree with their beliefs. Similar to dogs not being mentally able to build their own dog houses, and horses not being mentally able to make their own clothing, separatus mentes alogicus is a standard mental trait of normal humans'.
Examples of Separatus Mentes Alogicus Dementia Within Modern People
[1] People memorize their state's department of agriculture guideline that states for people to not dry soil samples within microwave ovens because the microwave alters chemical compositions. People believe the department of agriculture's guideline is true. But people still use wireless microwave devices, including cell phones. The people are mentally unable to connect their knowledge and beliefs with their own body movements.
[2] People memorize the fact that dripping drops of water can in time cut through solid rock. People believe the fact to be true. But people still use cell phones while assuming that 'small drops' of microwave 'dripping' on brain cells cannot be harmful. The people are mentally unable to connect their knowledge and beliefs with their own body movements.
[3] People memorize preachers' claims that Jesus will return within days. The people believe the preachers' words, but the people continue to go to work, go to school, and live each day no differently than yesterday. The preachers themselves continue to collect tithing and to sell books for future profit. The people are mentally unable to connect their knowledge and beliefs with their own body movements.
[4] People believe in the science that states that emotional turmoil is harmful to one's physical and mental health. But the people still cuss and behave negatively while causing themselves emotional turmoil. The people are mentally unable to connect their knowledge and beliefs with their own body movements.
[5] Many people have memorized the words that we are all going to die because of global warming. The people believe that we are all going to die because of global warming. But the people still live in large homes, consume products, and continue to cause global warming. The people are mentally unable to connect their knowledge and beliefs with their own body movements.
Examples of Separatus Mentes Alogicus Dementia Within Modern Sciencism
"The Sciencians' unquestioned worship of science has not been the sole problem. The Sciencians' mental inability to see and to rationalize interconnecting three-dimensional shapes is a portion of Sciencians' mental frailty, but the Sciencians especially cannot mentally reason three-dimensional shapes in motion." (Pathological Science March For Science Signs #7) A parallel is of the academicians who are claiming that people with hyperphantasia (themselves) are smart because they are able to visualize 3D in movement. However, the claim is false and extremely easily proven false because no known academician nor sciencian has ever been able to visualize nor to open-eye rationalize an obvious 3D that has been published countless millions of times in books. Regardless of what the academicians and sciencians claim, as always the claims are eternally false.
"Many people claim that mathematics and science are true truths, but none of the people behave in accordance with their beliefs. Look at today's cultures; all of the cultures are of violence and of harmed emotions; all of the cultures exhibit as if a split personality schizophrenia. One cultural personality believes in science, the other personality behaves against science, all while the dementia and distortion of Reality grows increasingly violent. ...And there is one of the differences between the normal person and the junzi: normal people behave with split personalities that believe in conflicting beliefs while claiming and excusing the contradictions to be paradoxes, while the junzi, the quality individual, self-critiques and behaves with one mind and one personality." (Paradox)
"Today's 'science' is schizophrenic with many inner voices, none of which agree with the other. Hobbyists and Philosophians invent sophisms that are preached by the Pulpiteers, and the Sciencians further twist the facts into fitting whatsoever the Sciencians want to believe: their religion. ...The word supernatural implies a thing that [1] is usually invisible, [2] it exists outside of natural laws, and [3] it is not subject to the laws of science's physics. The entity science is invisible, science is an imaginary mental classification that does not really exist in the real world of natural laws (science cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, nor measured), science's physics claims to accurately measure the universe using unnatural two-dimensional measurements that purposefully omit Reality itself — even the physicists themselves have believed in a binary universe which is anti-physics, anti-natural laws, and nonsensical — and all of science's theories of life, consciousness, and emotions deny even the laws of science's own physics while also claiming that the scientists supernaturally know what everyone in the world is thinking and feeling. ...To the Researcher, knowledge is the real thing that came first, but to the public, Science is the real thing that existed first. For each Researcher, there are millions of people who worship Science as a religion. ...I have recently learned that some Sciencians are actually actively hating-on all things that are positive and kind, which might be why the March for Science sign used the peace symbol as a thing that the Sciencian hated. ...Nevertheless, Sciencism has been very active the past several decades to remove all religions except one from public places: Sciencism. Sciencism had prayers and respect removed from public schools, and in place of prayer Sciencism inserted the callous disregard for others. Sciencism is a religion of hate. All of Sciencism's references to emotions — including love — are based upon hate. If Science were not a state-mandated religion, then Science would be listed as a hate group. ...Do give notice that Sciencism never hesitates to hatefully demand that other religions be kept out of science, but Sciencism hypocritically rushes to force its hateful behavior on all other religions. ...Sciencians truly do believe that they are as gods that all humans must worship, obey, and believe in, but no Sciencian has ever scored above a zero on the SQ test of cognition. The SQ test is very simple, but the test is different than IQ tests because no one can memorize answers and cheat on the SQ test. Scoring a zero on the SQ test validates that the individual has no mental potential for reasoning, nor can the individual perform the firsthand observations required by science. Sciencians are among the world's least competent, and their hate further proves their inferiority. ...No, the claims were not a mistake; the Sciencians truly do believe that their Science created the universe." (March for Science Religion #10)
Depending on which dictionary an individual wishes to believe in, and depending on which language a person wishes to be the founding root, as well as depending on one's cultural use of language, the term homo sapiens may imply 'man wise' or 'same cognition', both of which place all humans within an equal status (and stratus) of intelligence, and thus, the terms are absurd. Nevertheless, the normal public does indeed believe that all bipod mammals are 'the same', equal, and with superior cognition regardless of the fact that most humans score zero on the SQ tests of mental cognition.
In 1992 a college professor wrote in his "Consciousness" book that science knows everything about the mind except what consciousness is. In 2015, other college professors were still 'inventing-discovering' new things about the mind (like Aphantasia - Hyperphantasia). A recent notice was that another academician is beginning a new research project with the goal of learning what beauty is (it is noticeable that this website alone has many, many mentions of the natures of how beauty arises, some dating back almost twenty years: no academician ever 'discovers' anything without the thing having already been written about by someone else). Never ever does an academician nor a science believer make sense. None are in touch with Reality. All "loses touch with the real world, and may develop fantastic delusions". Everyone who believes in what the academicians claim, has also developed fantastic delusions that are out of touch with Reality.
No known USA nor European academician has ever been able to describe what 思, 愛, and 義 mean. The inability to read ancient Chinese words is an eternally permanent disqualification of any academician being capable of grasping what beauty is, nor grasping anything else about the mind. A definitive diagnoses of separatus mentes alogicus is the not knowing of what 義 means.
Always, no exceptions, do academicians and sciencians contradict everything they claim.
All science believers believe the Sciencism that claims that all mental traits are built-in at birth. The belief, all by itself, permanently proves that all sciencians are separatus mentes alogicus.
While editing this article, I came across a 1999 video of academician Lloyd Pye who began his talk by giving an interesting comparison between human and primate bone structures. His speech kept my interest until he spoke the name of Zecharia Sitchin. Ahhh rats, Pye's theories immediately failed if they had any relevance to Sitchin. (Zecharia Sitchin's Sumerian translations are as if parallel to James Legge's translations of the ancient Chinese language: both are invented fairytales.) Sure enough, Pye's talk further digressed into claims of the planet Nibiru, space aliens splicing genes, and all of the other related nonsense that arrived from Sitchin's bogus 'translations' of Sumerian texts. Some academicians have negatively responded to Pye's and Sitchin's claims, and the responses are valid, at least up to a very specific and obvious point. The point here is not focused on the academicians themselves, nor their beliefs, but rather the point of focus is that all of the academicians' claims fully omitted and contradicted a very specific and very obvious logic. If the people had had the mental ability to rationalize a terribly simple logic, then none of the false theories would have been born nor have been believed by the public. The absence of the logic is, again, evidence of separatus mentes alogicus.
Examples of Unitum Mentes Hyperlogicus
The term unitum mentes hyperlogicus implies 'united minds hyper-logic'. Generally, each manner of mental function has its own distinct 'region' of function. When the functions are not consciously connected to the other, then separatus mentes alogicus occurs. When the functions are consciously united within uniform reciprocation, the functions then become unitum mentes hyperlogicus.
A related idea from Alo and De Mutual #97: "Alo: The topic raises memories... when I was little, my father and uncle had dug a small hole in the backyard, something for the purpose of a water pipe access... while the adults were away, I played near the hole... I dropped a small toy man into the hole, and while reaching in, I paused to study the hole... that it had a contrast, of top, and bottom... the hole, if removed from and permitted to exist outside of Nature, and to then only be aware of and be measured from top to bottom, the hole then had a depth... I made many calculations... all imaginary, but still interesting to me. I was accustomed to only measuring things naturally... of curves, durations, and ratios... so, for me, it was the first time that I divided Reality into little segments... I taught myself, concepts, of flat dimensions... I then played by inventing more imaginary measurements of other things... Alo: Agreed... but similarly interesting is that when I was grown, and told some other people about how I learned of 'dimensions', the people said that I was either lying or had a mental problem... I chose to simply walk away... no usefulness in attempting to explain anything to outsiders... they apparently cannot grasp anything that requires thought... ...for our people, our minds develop with a fluid awareness of at least five so-called 'dimensions', of numerous fluid thoughts observing numerous different fluid curve-motions simultaneously... we then later learn one 'adult dimension', then a second 'adult dimension', then a third 'adult dimension'... but still we think naturally... still think with fluid curves and ratios... knowing a false 'adult dimension', does not mandate that we believe the 'adult dimension' to be real, nor mandate that we must think through use of the false measurement-dimension..."
Note: If a child is given a cell phone or any other electronic toy to play with, then the child will not be able to self-learn what is real in Reality. Many parents have permanently mentally crippled their children by not permitting the children to play with inanimate objects. The Three Character Classic book is a good example of the bad example. Comments on the book: "When young, the best and most common 'teacher' is play. Without having acquired a fullness of firsthand understanding of Nature's way — of weights, distances, speeds, depths, forces, angularities, muscle memory, and all of the other foundational necessities that are only possible through firsthand experience, which is best learned while playing — then the adult will be a dullard, unable to think, have little eye-hand coordination, not have a background knowledge of Nature, not have a background knowledge of any other rational thing, and not be capable to reason what is correct. Common modern examples include individuals graduating from technical colleges while still not able to reason the difference between an elementary open circuit and a closed circuit. Another modern example is of individuals graduating from prestigious colleges, and yet not able to pass a fifth grade literacy test."
Known Oxford University psychology department employees literally cannot pass a USA 3rd grade literacy test.
I have witnessed individuals in grocery stores become angry when finding dirt on potatoes and other root crops. The individuals did not know that root crops are roots. Some people also did not know that vegetables are grown in the ground. There is a humorous TikTok video shown on Bitchute that is titled "28-Year-Old Woman Learns You Can Eat Fruit From a Tree" (the type of video where all you can utter is WHAT!?, WHAT!?). If the video is legit, and not faked, then the cell-phone-using tattooed woman's claim that she did not know that you can eat from fruit trees may be true. There are countless other things that normal people know nothing of, which is especially true for the unfortunate younger generations who were raised with cell phones, video games, television, and climate-controlled housing.
Abbreviated from 荀子 Xunzi Book 勸學 Encourage Learning #1: "Junzi abundant learning while daily participate examine in oneself, then knowledge bright-understanding and behavior not-have mistake. Therefore not ascend high mountain, not know sky it high. Not descend deep gorge, not know earth it thick-substantial."
The above ideas point at personal firsthand involvement with one's own self-effort to self-teach and to self-learn. Most people lazily learn subconsciously, and memorize a lot of undefined words, but other people purposefully learn consciously, and self-learn what words mean. There is a difference.
When little, I pulled a step-stool up to the bathroom sink where I could see myself in the mirror. I wanted to learn how to wiggle my ears. For days I would spend several minutes in front of the mirror while attempting to wiggle my ears. After several days, I was able to slightly wiggle my left ear. In the following days, the ear muscle increased to grow to where I was able to sizably wiggle the left ear. Being sufficiently entertained, I did not bother to train the right ear to wiggle. Today I can still wiggle the left ear, but not the right ear.
The moral of the stories is that if a person wants to be able to wiggle their ears or to apply logic as an adult, then they have to self-teach oneself how while they are young. There is no 'built-in' genetic ability to wiggle one's ears, nor is there a 'built-in' ability to apply quantities of logic. The reason for why most adults cannot wiggle their ears is because the adults have not given any effort to learn. Similarly, the reason why most adults cannot apply the logic to physically behave in agreement with their beliefs, is because the adults have not given any effort to learn.
Many aphantasic and Mensa people whine 'woe is me' while claiming that their mental problems are caused by a genetic defect. The same general thing applies to separatus mentes alogicus people also: the people are just lazy, too lazy to wiggle their ears, and too lazy to think. Within this example, one of the foundational emotions of separatus mentes alogicus is an over-abundance of the chronic disease named lazyitus.
Darwinianism has the belief that species evolve within the three desires of eat, survive, and reproduce (ESR). In contrast, and measured upon man's usefulness within Nature's laws, man eats, fertilizes, and reproduces (EFR). If ESR were true, then man would strive to survive. But man is racing to destroy the planet and every living thing on the planet, including himself. Man now has sewers, which eliminate what little usefulness he had towards fertilizing the soil. The USA government purposefully killed-off the countless millions of buffalo that used to keep the soil fertilized. Modern global warming fanatics want to kill-off all cattle, the same cattle that are needed to fertilize the soil. Sciencians believe in their science, but still the sciencians contradictorily believe that chemical fertilizers are an adequate substitute for buffalo and cattle fertilizer. The normal man is mentally incapable of reasoning his own survival. The normal man is mentally incapable of behaving within the need for survival. Most people believe in science, and they believe in Darwinianism, but still the people behave in direct opposition to science and Darwinianism. If Darwinianism has any validity, and if the laws of Nature have validity, then 'civilized' man will soon disappear, and no normal human will ever understand why.
Is Separatus Mentes Alogicus Permanent?
It would seem plausible that a person could choose to think and to apply logic to their beliefs and knowledge, but the act would require personal self-effort, which is a thing that most people do not and cannot do. One of the core ingredients of self-choosing to self-think is the mental stance of caring, but the act of caring is itself all but nonexistent in normal people. Building muscles requires the self-effort of lifting heavy weights for months and years, as does building mental strength require the self-effort of analyzing heavy thoughts for months and years, which are things that normal people are much too lazy to do. (Visualize a fat cat sleeping on its back with its legs spread wide: normal people, same thing.)
Almost universally, normal people assume that 'caring' is synonymous to 'desiring'. Normal people animal-lust-desire to be intelligent, but the normal people are mentally unable to care to be intelligent. Normal people believe that following an ideology's teachings can make the people smart and/or enlightened: the act of following is founded upon desire, not upon caring. All acts of following produce the same general result: lowered herd-like intelligence.
"Most everyone wants to be smart. Most everyone wants to have a high IQ. But most all people are too lazy to exert the effort to think. People do not care about themselves, nor anyone else." (Care About Other People) The article has a sizable quantity of information about caring, but one of the original purposes for the article was to prove that normal people cannot care, of which, within the three years since the article was published, the article continues to prove that normal people really do not have the mental ability to care.
Humorously enough to cause a chuckle, normal people are so 'fat cat lazy' that they do not so much as possess the mental ability to self-exert the self-effort to think of what the word caring means. Perhaps separatus mentes alogicus may indeed be a permanent fate.
Historical Records of Logic and Caring
Condensed from 荀子 Xunzi Book 勸學 Encourage Learning #1: "Junzi him learning, enter ear, attach heart, spread four limbs, body move calm, hold-level while speak, fluid while move, alone able use be standard follow. Tiny person him learning, enter ear, come-out mouth..."
There are many, many references of caring within the ancient Chinese texts, but, no known USA nor European academician has cared to translate the words within a light that is not negative. Apparently, the academicians themselves do not know what caring means, else they would have been able to read the Chinese texts.
There is at least one article on this website that describes the method of how to care.
"Intellectual junzi not be poor-destitute exhausted-impoverished idle-lazy-careless at way." (Quick rough draft translation of Xunzi's Cultivate Life #5)
For over 2,500 years some individuals have written about the need to care, but, still, normal humans have not changed, and, apparently, they never will.
Sum
It is obvious everywhere throughout the world; normal people's behaviors never reflect the people's beliefs, and never does a normal person apply coherent logic between their knowledge and beliefs. Regardless of whether the normal human merely has an animal brain or some other under-developed 'missing link' physiology, the reality still stands; the normal person is not able, and never will be able, to apply hyperlogicus logic.
It is strongly recommended to read the entirety of the Paradox article. The topic of separatus mentes alogicus is vast and yet easily observed.
Just in case the reader did not recognize the wording within the above Xunzi Book Encourage Learning #1 quote, here is a repeat with added English punctuation and descriptions: "Junzi abundant learning, while daily participate examine(省 = 少目 small eye, see small details) in oneself, then knowledge, understanding, and behavior not-have mistake." Xunzi's words of about 2,300 years ago point at the same general things that this article points at: self-critiquing, logic, knowledge, understanding, and behavior, all of which ought to be in harmony of agreement (one mind). Some of us self-taught ourselves the same things as infants, and some of us discovered the same things as adults, but the knowledge has existed for over 2,300 years, and surely recited over a trillion times, all while the normal person never self-taught themselves, nor learned as an adult. Even when the normal person is told of the knowledge, still the normal person is unable to understand and to do what the knowledge points at.
"Born wise, him topmost, learned wise, him secondary, things that are simple and obvious, and learned, he is third, things that are simple and obvious, yet not learned, this person be lowest." (Kong, Ji Shi 9) (from Hypophantasia, Phantasia, and Hyperphantasia are Not Superior to Aphantasia)
If after more than 2,500 years, the normal person still cannot learn (which includes all known sciencians and academicians), then, perhaps, separatus mentes alogicus may indeed be a distinct and permanent nature of the human genre normalis (normal).
Related articles are in the Intelligence section.