The Logics

Unconscious Biases

The Logics

|| Logics Home || Logics Site Info ||       

In the News by Larry Neal Gowdy

Copyright©2014 - December 04, 2014





Unconscious Biases





The news media claims that some college professors claim that all humans form all biases unconsciously. The unconsciousness hypothesis is incorrect.




The Magic of Unconscious Biases


An author writes words, and then the words magically appear in books. Ta-da.

A cook buys food at a grocery store, and then the food magically appears fully cooked and served on a table. Ta-da.

The clothes in your closet, they magically appear on you each morning. Ta-da.

An electrical spark jumps between neurons, and then consciousness magically appears. Ta-da. It must be true, because that is what science claims to be true, and since science also claims that science is the one and only source of true knowledge - science being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent - then it must be true. Ta-da.

Modern education is the act of dumbing-down the mind to become incapable of reasoning, to limit one's thoughts to a tweet of 140 or less characters, to accept a ta-da effect without a cause. There are no widths of thought, nor depths, nor variances of speeds, nor intensities, and instead of a burst of countless parallel thoughts racing and competing to become the ones that are given the opportunity to be expressed with the tongue, no, oh no, no, public education demands a mere linear string of ten or less words recited from memory. IQ tests are little different.

A man is born, and then his biases magically appear. Ta-da.




Of the many books and papers that I have read on the topic of consciousness, not one of them - not one - has given so much as a vague description of the author's own consciousness or acts of processing thoughts. Of the several organizations that claim to research the topic of consciousness, no publicly known member can describe their own acts of processing thoughts. The members have no true interest in the topic, else they would invest of their own time and effort to observe their own acts of consciousness.

For a man to be deemed an expert of any field, the man must have first physically participated in the field itself. Expert violinists must actually play the violin, and expert ball players must actually lob a ball back and forth, but within the topic of consciousness it is perfectly acceptable to science for a man to claim to be an expert if he has read a book about someone else's opinions of consciousness.

If a man has not personally mastered at least two different forms of self-awareness, then the man cannot be an expert on any topic of consciousness. The mind must have contrasts to recognize that a thing exists, and if a man has no contrasts of self-awareness, then he cannot know his own mind. How many scientists of consciousness have mastered two or more forms of self-awareness? None?

There are different forms of memory, but since the scientists cannot observe their own minds, then the scientists are not so much as aware of one form of memory. The creation of a memory can arrive through different means, and all men who have observed their own minds know of the different manners of memories, but scientists claim that there can be only one manner of memory, and yet the scientists cannot so much as describe the one.

All humans make mistakes, and an individual with a mistaken opinion is not a problem because the error is the individual's own error, but when the error is forced upon society, then the error becomes a great harm for all living beings. Science has countless errors, and the errors of science are forced upon all men.

Quackery. There is a term that defines the god that is above all gods, above all men, above all thoughts, and above all things in the universe: pseudo-science. Before the word pseudo-science can have meaning, first it must be assumed and accepted and worshipped as true fact that science is the one and only possible judge of all things. Quackery. Science is a religion that is its own god created from its own dogma, and of the men who claim to be experts of consciousness, they also profess of their faith and servitude to the false god named science.

Science claims to be objective, to observe and to measure, and to acquire firsthand empirical evidence, but in no known scientific description of consciousness has there yet been a firsthand description of the acts of consciousness and thinking. Where are the firsthand observations? Where are the empirical evidences? Where are the measurements? There are none.

The ideal of Christianity is to love god and neighbor, but how many Christians do so? How many Christians can describe with details how the nature of love arises? Few or none? The ideal of science is to observe, but how many scientists do so? How many scientists can describe with details how the nature of love arises? None. Quackery and hypocrisy.

Ask a consciousness scientist to describe with intricate details the differences between Buddhist self-awareness, Christian self-awareness, and self-created self-awareness. The only answer to be given - if any answer is given at all - will be a recitation of words from what had been read in books. The science of consciousness is quackery, hypocrisy, and fraud.

If science has failed with the topic of consciousness - and it has done so utterly - then why does the public continue accepting the claims that science knows how consciousness works? Public education? Pause, and observe man's religion of science.




If the topic of love were the number 3, and if science were to add the math of 2+3+4, the sum would be 6. The nature of emotions is simply an unrecognizable unknown to science and philosophy.

Science does not know what consciousness is, nor has there yet been so much as a rational definition given to the word. Science will never possess the potential to discover the nature of consciousness because science cannot place a measurement upon a thing that has not first been described through firsthand observation.

News reports claim that some college professors have discovered that all biases - including beauty, love, marital preferences, racial preferences, food preferences, and all other biases - are all created unconsciously in all humans. The news and professors are claiming that all healthy humans have the identical same minds. The news reporters and professors sincerely do believe that their minds and thoughts are no different - or greater - than the minds and thoughts of Einstein's, Buddha's, Jesus', and god's.

It is one thing for an individual to make the error of assuming that the physics-based act of mental-processing would likely be similar for most humans, but it is quite a different thing for a paid professional to claim that all humans are identical, and it becomes a threat to life itself when the professional attempts to force his opinion upon all other people. The professional reporters and professors are attempting to force their biases upon all humans.

Science does not know what love is, nor what any emotion is, nor what consciousness is, and yet the news reporters and professors are claiming that science knows all things about the things that are unknown to science.

Howsoever the reporters' and professors' behavior might be defined, whether as egomaniacal, or perhaps as a god complex, still the behavior reeks of profound mental dysfunction.

Humans are not identical, and never ever will a claim of sameness be acceptable to a thinking human.

The man who can self-reflect, who is conscious, who can observe his own thoughts, he is aware of what his biases are, and from what means that his biases were created and now arise. Never does a thinking man form and act upon an unconscious bias. There is a difference between a learned response and a response of built-in 'brain mechanisms.' Perhaps the news reporters and professors are indeed as they claim - organic robots without the ability to consciously learn and think - but not all humans are identical.

I am strongly biased; I am biased for humans who are honest, I am biased for those who keep their word, I am biased for those who give of themselves to help their neighbors, I am biased for those who care to think and behave creatively, and of the countless parallel biases, I am biased in favor of individuals and species who speak with similar emotional tones as my own culture's. I am biased against the liar and the lazy man who believes his woes can only be resolved by someone else sacrificing their life for the lazy man.

I am biased for hand-painted paintings of fine details and artistic skills that thrill my own personal biases, I am biased for music that mirrors the rhythms within Nature's creative tones, I am biased for geometric shapes that coincide with fractal golden ratios (another topic that science has no knowledge of), and I am biased for all forms of accuracy of skill. I am biased against all forms of lazy low-effort/unskilled art.

For a mate I am biased for a female of a specific body shape (golden ratios within motion), I am biased for a female with talents in all of my previous pro-biases, I am biased for a female of a specific range of scents that thrill my own senses, and I am biased for a female who shares a similar genetic ancestry as my own (golden ratio topic plus numerous others). I am biased against females who are excessively outside of my biased personal interpretation of what denotes beauty and value, and I am biased against all males for mates.

The news reporters and professors insist that you and I no longer hold our biases, but rather for us to only hold the biases that the reporters and professors want you and I to hold: egomaniac hypocrites, each and every one of them.

The choice of food is a bias. I choose each meal relative to what I consciously remember of each flavor, combined and weighed relative to what the lower stomach region prefers of flavors and densities of textures, combined and weighed relative to the specific nutrients that the body needs, and within all of the many other ingredients of conscious self-observations as well as the consciously-processed analyses of the ingredients - a chorus of communication and dialogues throughout the body - the sum forms my choice of which food that I want to eat: my bias.

All of my other biases are formed similarly. Where is this magical ta-da unconscious bias that the news and professors claim to exist?

I would quickly die of malnutrition if I did not possess the ability to form a bias for food. In a society without biases, who will decide which food that you and I will be permitted to eat? Who will decide which mate that you and I will be allowed to marry? Who will decide whether marriage will be permitted? Who will decide which style of clothes - if any - will be permitted? Who will decide which occupation that you and I will be permitted to pursue? Who will decide what is beautiful, who will decide who we are to love, and who will decide our every choice in life? According to the news, the news reporters and college professors are the ones who want to be the gods that dictate to you and I what we are to want and to think.

Observe that the reporters and professors believe in science, they claim that their beliefs are scientific, and they claim that any non-scientific approach to the topic of consciousness is pseudo-science.

No man can express love without preexisting biases. The news reporters and professors would put an end to love, compassion, sympathy, kindness, tolerance, and all other quality behaviors if the men were to gain authority over other men. The reporters and professors may indeed claim that they have no such intention, but within their great ignorance they cannot reason the results of their actions and then know why their beliefs are robbing the life of every living creature.

Without biases, man cannot choose between peace and planetary annihilation.

Again, pause and observe, that the news reporters and professors are claiming that their biases are created unconsciously, and does that not also infer that there was no conscious reasoning of their choices? Should mankind follow and submit to humans who cannot think conscious thoughts?

It is unfortunate that the Internet has now become one of the prevalent means of pushing and forcing the biases of a few individuals' upon the many. The news and social media cry loudly when an individual does not share the identical same bias as the ignorant man's, and there is now no known source of commercial news that does not include the anti-you bias.

A tremendously great beauty exists within the cultures of Asia. The emotional toning of their music describes a deeper conscious self-awareness of one's feelings, and little things like the differences of formal and informal words are hugely wonderful to some of us who live in the cold and impolite cultures dominated by science. Of what little beauty remains in the world, the reporters and professors insist that it too must be destroyed so that no human can hold a bias different than any other human.

The thinking man consciously recognizes his biases, he enjoys his life, and he loves with an eternal love, a love that does not interfere with other people enjoying and expressing love within their own biases. The rock and the ignorant man, within them there is no love, nor potential of being reasoned with.

I sincerely do not care what anyone's biases are. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business, not mine. I will not attempt to force my biases upon other people, nor I will accept their biases being forced upon me, and it is here that one nature of violence is born, the attempted force of intolerance being met with the necessity of the victims saying no. The news instigates violence, the news is violent, as is unreasoned faith in science, but, of course, the news reporters and scientists say that they are not violent, and their beliefs are indeed true for themselves, because there cannot be psychological damage to the man who himself has no capacity for conscious thought, whose biases arise from the unconsciousness.