Intellectual Technology and Game Theory In Perspective
by Bobby Garner
September 12, 2009
Read replies to this article:
Introduction
The explanations for why things happen as they do typically fall into just two main categories. 1). Everything happens by chance and our best hope may be realized by playing the odds. 2) Everything happens by design, and our best hope is realized by understanding the design and cooperating with it. Thousands of different interpretations of what this all means results in the confusing range of choices we are expected to chose from. Game Theory strategists for example believe they may be the designers, and the strategy is designed to gain our cooperation. Intellectual Technology assumes that things exist as they are by some mix of these two concepts. It holds that there is some grand universal design at the subatomic level, the primary building blocks from which all matter is formed, but that the formations themselves happen pretty much by chance according to the design. Interactions between the formations (humans for instance) happen according to the design principles which caused their formation in the first place.
Doug Buchanan gets the credit for developing the "controlling concepts" of Intellectual Technology. He defines it as the most efficient means "to solve problems caused by governmental / organizational technology." He has written (at last count) thirty-three controlling concepts which illustrate the validity and effectiveness of applying intellectual technology to solve any institutionally induced problem. He equates the application of intellectual technology to thinking: "to think: (1) the mind's process of asking and answering questions, identifying and resolving contradictions."
Game Theory briefly stated is the teamwork development and application of a strategy to achieve a specific well thought-out result. A strategy so devised is believed to be superior to any possible strategy produced by any single individual mind. The idea is based on the fact that the "game" is designed to involve the interaction of many people of varied backgrounds and interests who don't necessarily have any knowledge of one another, and who may or may not have any particular interest in, or awareness of, the expected result.
Reference Framing
Intellectual technology and Game Theory each exist in their own frame of reference which is believed by their practitioners to be a true reflection of the reality.
Intellectual technology is believed to efficiently explain the human condition, and all of the resulting activities engaged in by humans, but more importantly, it offers the means to resolve any human induced problem. It presumes that nothing is planned, but that every development is the result of human activity directed by individual minds acting according to a grand universal design.
Game Theory is believed to be effective in overcoming obstacles standing in the way of the achievement of specific goals which may be perceived as the ultimate solution to any problem. In game theory, winning is all that matters. Consequently, it may introduce new problems as acceptable side effects. New problems may in turn be interpreted as opportunities for new game strategies. Intellectual technology is about solving problems by resolving contradictions, while game theory is about defeating all opponents to a desired solution. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges, yet they both work in the same environment. Each is set in it's own frame of reference representing two different perspective views of the same phenomena.
A reference frame is a perspective view of a situation or set of circumstances. It may be a codified religion, a political philosophy or a science discipline, but in recent years reference frames have been devised as social engineering tools. Simply by shifting the frame of reference from time to time, the entire global society can be shifted along a progressive line toward a specific objective. Shifting the frame of reference is a simple application of game theory. We are all participants in the game and must adapt to the new points of reference. This is why we often find ourselves describing our personal goals as a "moving target". To keep our focus on the target, we must find ways to justify and accommodate the needed changes. This typically forces us to frequently redefine our goals as they become unachievable under the new circumstances.
All frames of reference rest upon certain hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs. The degree to which those hypotheses, postulates and, assertions are true defines the range of validity for every frame of reference. Each of those hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions must be preserved if the frame of reference is to be maintained. The point at which they break down is where a particular frame of reference becomes ineffective and invalid. Therefore, by tampering with the hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions, the reference frame may be shifted in any direction. Public Polling and so called "Scientific Studies" in combination with an effective propaganda machine, are hugely effective in disturbing the underlying hypotheses, postulates and assertions which demand a shift in the points of reference. All of the big issues of the day from feminism to gay rights to climate change and dozens more are all examples of a shifting social frame of reference. Each of them is the product of a winning game strategy devised by the global strategists. Without all of us participating there would be no game. My notes on complicity are relevant here. While we cannot stop the game, I believe we may by choice become spectators rather than active participants on the field.
The purpose of this article is to identify a perspective, a point of view, or frame of reference, from within which intellectual technology and game theory may coexist side by side without conflict or contradiction. If indeed one exists, it will present a more accurate view which is much closer to the truth.
Intellectual Technology
Any valid frame of reference is one which contains no identifiable contradictions when investigated from within itself. Probably all frames of reference ultimately contain contradictions when viewed from an external perspective. The only thing which could indicate that a particular frame of reference may possibly present a false image of reality is a contradiction to one or more of the hypotheses, postulates or, a priori assertions upon which it rests. So, what are the hypotheses, postulates and, assertions establishing the frame of reference within which intellectual technology is believed to be true? Among the more important are:
- Pantheism; the universe (Nature) and God are considered equivalent and synonymous.
- Evolution; the origin of species by means of natural selection.
- Anarchism; a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign."
All of these of course imply the necessity for belief that man is the cause of his own problems and therefore he can and must develop his own methods of resolution.
In order for intellectual technology to be true, meaning that it does not harbor any contradictions, all of these things must also be true and accepted without question. We may acknowledge that they are widely believed to be true, but we also know from previous studies that belief in something does not establish a truth. We also know that the most commonly held beliefs were passed down through generations as a means to preserve ideas which were thought by the ancients to be of great significance. Many of them have since been acknowledged as mythes. However, under the influence of New Age moral relativism, such mythes may be and frequently are held to be true solely on the basis of belief by the person choosing to believe they are true. For such persons, there is no "truth value" in any opposing argument or viewpoint. When faced with hard realities which argue otherwise, they often claim reality is only an illusion, and may therefore, be safely ignored.
Intellectual technology invites students to identify and resolve contradictions from within the frame of reference established by the belief in the underlying hypotheses, postulates and, assertions. There is nothing within that reference frame to suggest an investigation of the hypotheses, postulates and, assertions. Indeed questioning them is generally not allowed, so they are never questioned. In order to do that, one must step out of the confines of that reference frame, into one where an outside independent investigation is allowed to be objective.
For example, intellectual technology must accept as a priori that Alice A. Bailey was nothing more than a very aggressive author who was able to achieve wide recognition by putting on paper the product of an extremely vivid imagination, and doing so in the third person of a fictitious character on matters of concern only to people with "power damaged minds". It cannot be acknowledged that Bailey received information from a super human intelligence, because such an intelligence is not possible according to the hypotheses, postulates and, assertions underlying intellectual technology.
If we accept intellectual technology as the most accurate and efficient means of dealing with man made problems then everyone gets a free pass, a waiver excusing the consequences of their activities, even at the enormous cost of life and resources. We are left with only two alternatives. Either solve all of the institutional problems through the aggressive application of intellectual technology (a lot of work which it is admitted that no knowledgable person would want to do), or take up a position on the side lines and find great amusement in the passing humans on their way to ruin.
Intellectual technology can explain the activities of people with power damaged minds, but it's only explanation for how they became so damaged is that they were tricked somehow or they carelessly swerved into it, because it's the design of the human mind which makes them vulnerable. It acknowledges the "manifested ignorance" of people with power damaged minds, but no space is given to question where such adult forms of ignorance come from, only that it is manifested.
If intellectual technology is true, then it would certainly account for the games people play. Game theory was first presented to the world as a discipline with the publication of The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morganstern in 1944, which expanded upon a paper published by von Neumann in 1928 on the general mathematical concept of strategy in games of chance. It has since been applied to many other fields of human interest with the apparent strategy being to manipulate and control the activities of ordinary unsuspecting humans in a directed manner toward what Alice A. Bailey indicated is a predetermined outcome. That final outcome, or "thought-out intent of the game players" was written and published by Bailey as she channeled her "Source" from on high. The thought-out intent was not the product of the game players whom Bailey called "World Servers", but was given to them by Bailey for them to act upon.
Practitioners of game theory believe it results in a strategy which is superior to any possible strategy produced by any single individual. The belief is based on the fact that the "game" involves the interaction of many people of varied backgrounds and interests who otherwise have no knowledge of one another.
I believe it can be established that the consensus driven decision making process, or "Third Way" as it is known (which is alleged to establish a "higher truth" than would be possible for any individual member), is a social application of game theory. I refer to these people as moral busybodies, while the more polite term is social engineer. Their individual status ranges from philanthropists to members of the courts to congressmen and the nosey neighbor next door, all of whom believe it's their moral duty to micro-manage our personal affairs to intercede and avert any threat or danger to the community as they imagine might be posed by our presence. Intellectual technology refers to them generally as people with "power damaged minds", and I agree, but I see no contradiction or incongruities in characterizing them as game theory strategists as well.
Just as those with power damaged minds, the game strategists also involve the unsuspecting victims as players, but it's their game, they make the rules, and they are the winners in the short term, which is sufficient to defeat most opposition and to set things in motion which may continue long after they tire of the game or die or repent of their activities. The final result may be something entirely unanticipated by the individual game players but it achieves a greater purpose (re Bailey) of which they may or may not have been directly aware. In that larger game, we are all players and we are all intended to loose in the final analysis.
Game theory is presently taught in many of our universities. However, it has been in practice for perhaps thousands of years. The power based Babylonian Talmud for example (and not surprisingly) appears to make an early application, see History of Game Theory.
Conclusions
While both Intellectual technology and game theory are employed to solve or overcome problems, interestingly "problem resolution" is the main activity of the established "new order", the "drastically different" and "transitory phase" (synthesis) of the dialectic. (see The Dialectic Tetrad and the "Third Organization of Society")
Intellectual technology cannot explain game theory as it is practiced, because it must admit to thought-out and pre-planned action, and because it cannot account for the superhuman source of the game plan, and because humans are incapable of such cleverly designed long range plans. Everything must be considered as a series of events each one of which is influenced by events which preceded it. All human responses are therefore, like inanimate responses, uncalculated and reactionary.
Intellectual technology is a tool adequate for explaining human behavior in a Godless world which has rejected it's Creator and giver of life in favor of evolution, freedom and independence from any and all authority. It's one of the responses to God's punishment for eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil": "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until your return to the ground." (Genesis 2:17, 3:19). Intellectual technology is valid within the frame of reference imposed by a literal interpretation of physical phenomena as resulting from a series of events and subsequent reactions according to some grand universal design, but it suffers from a self imposed inability to comprehend a designer with a personality and a purpose.
Intellectual technology maintains that humans thoughtlessly seek to acquire power by design of the human mind, and inadvertently create problems. Game theory maintains that power is acquired by acting on a pre-thought-out plan. Game theory therefore poses a contradiction to intellectual technology which cannot be resolved by the application of intellectual technology. The proper understanding of both demands a frame of reference which allows both to coexist without contradiction.
The function of the human mind has been tampered with, and intellectual technology predicates its solutions upon the assumption that it is functioning properly according to it's design. Game theory strategists have discovered effective methods of modifying brain function so that we act more like robots who cannot think. I submit that the superior frame of reference which accounts for all of this and more, is the one denied by both intellectual technology and game theory, and that is the one established by the biblical account of a Great Deception and compounded by a Master Conspiracy both of which have their origins in the Genesis account of creation and the subsequent rebellion against God's Sovereign authority.
Your comments are invited.
Bobby Garner is a researcher on the phenomenon of One-Worldism with an emphasis on the methods and techniques employed in it's attendant deception. He may be reached via E-mail from his Contact Page. He welcomes your comments. This article may be posted in it's entirety on any website provided this statement remains attached.
Comments:
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009
From: Linda Kimball
Hi Bobby,
You wrote:
- Pantheism; the universe (Nature) and God are considered
equivalent and synonymous.
- Evolution; the origin of species by means of natural selection.
- Anarchism; a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the
absence of a master, of a sovereign."
All of these of course imply the necessity for belief that man is the cause of his own problems and therefore he can and must develop his own methods of resolution.
Those who take a long view of history see that from the beginning,
mankind has continuously separated into two general categories:
- those who truly seek truth, which means they are ultimately searching for He who is the Author of Truth
- those for whom truth, rules, absolutes, norms and standards are a source of suffering. These people, whether called Gnostics, subversives, anarchists, nihilists, etc. prefer to 'worship' a god of forces, an elan vitale, or some such impersonal, nonliving, nonrational energy that can be manipulated for self-aggrandizement.
This last group of course, are those to whom your 3 principles apply. Paradoxically, while these people ultimately deny any personal responsibility for their bad thoughts, speech, actions, (which is why today we are handed the excuse that we are 'genetically caused' or 'fully caused and determined' by other unseen forces), they nonetheless boast of their magnificence even as they transfer their guilt onto scapegoats in order to crucify them. In other words, though they say of themselves that they are 'caused and determined' by the forces of nature (they deny having free will), mysteriously, the scapegoats must be free of nature (have free will), else how could they commit evil acts?
All of this is pure nonsense, yet it being the case, you may want
to modify your concluding statement to reflect it.
__
Reply: Thanks Linda. Your comments are very helpful as you have clarified the point very well. Scapegoating is a necessity when one avoids responsibility and locates the cause of problems in some inanimate mindless force.
This gives a whole new meaning to the "god of forces" mentioned at Daniel 11:38. Of course we know that any worship directed to such a lifeless force is graciously received by Satan the Devil. We can easily associate it with The Lodge of Materialistic Forces which Alice Bailey indicated was one half of the dualities working toward their goal. The Great White Brotherhood, Lucifer, being the other. I believe these describe the dual nature of Satan. In part because Bailey thought the activities of both were all "good", and part because Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Implying of course, a light and dark side. (2nd Corinthians 11:13-15). Rodolf Steiner called them Lucifer and Ahriman.
Not surprisingly, light and energy, or anything which resonates are all very important to the New Age.
__
Reply From Doug at DougBuchanan.com
Intellectual Technology and Game Theory, a relationship.
4 November 2009
As with all other words that you read or hear, it is through your mind's actually asked questions of these words, not these words, that you will learn the valuable knowledge that these words offer.
Conclusion.....
Intellectual technology is just the process of thinking, described with those two more precise words that may entice the mind to conduct a specific process, with a technique, rather than merely "think" which has amusingly remained among the most nebulous, uselessly defined and poorly utilized concepts known to humans.
Intellectual technology is the process of asking and answering specific questions, to identify and resolve contradictions, that is, the process of thinking, methodically and patiently conducted to the extent of resolving all contradictions of one's interest, and therefore their sum, including the contradictions of any human opposition, and can therefore be used to efficiently solve the most complex or seemingly impossible problems known to humans, most easily those caused by humans. And manifest the solutions. World peace? Easy. No government could escape. No contradiction in the process, for any mind, could remain effective.
Game theory seems to be one of the descriptions of what humans do as a society or societies. It describes the common endeavors of humans normally attempting to benefit themselves among other humans, with an added implication that various groups of a few people are attempting to "manipulate or play a game with other humans" for the benefit of the few. That is merely the social extension of what individuals normally do. Humans are competitors and predators, by design.
The term, "game theory" seems to be used more often in referencing that extension when it involves a few people devising processes that benefit the few at disproportionate cost or damage to the many or more. Concurrently, the term "conspiracy" is used for that phenomenon. Therein the more precisely described game theory seems to explain the nebulously described conspiracies.
The above are merely terms used to reference common processes.
More precise words to more usefully reference game theory that results in damage to people are the "organizational manifestations of human fundamentals". Simply list all the fundamental concepts inherent to all individual humans. Now, disregard the individuals. Consider how each of the fundamentals on the list function in relation to identified groups or organizations /
institutions.
Amusingly, you will notice that the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals describe the "corruption of power", since all organizations create group or institutional power without increasing any individual's intellectual ability. Intellectual ability is advanced by individual minds, isolated in their craniums, using intellectual technology, which therefore threatens the people using the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals based on advancing power without advancing knowledge or intellectual ability.
The nebulously used term, "corruption of power", is merely the alteration of a mind's perceptions after and because that mind has accepted the perception of its organizational power over other people. Simply ask a person with no institutional power a certain series of questions. He will respond with logical answers for the knowledge held by his mind. Give that same person a leadership title of an organization. Wait awhile. Then ask him the same certain questions that relate to his organization. The answers will be amusingly different and illogical. They will contradict the knowledge prior held by that mind. The power-damaged mind, created by certain stimuli, merely routes certain data through a group of neurons that cannot allow or answer any effective question of its perception of power over other humans. Therein, the corruption of power, the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, conspiracies, and game theory
are manifested.
Individual knowledge, derived by intellectual technology, and group power, derived by the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, and described by game theory, are opposites, and mutually exclusive. With knowledge there is no use for power or games that effect any damage to any humans. With power, knowledge cannot be tolerated. Knowledge can be extended to categorically destroy all manifestations of power, and power within the minds of its holders. Power holds no defense. Power, a precisely identifiable, functioning concept within a human mind, lacks the ability to ask questions of its contradictions. If it held that ability, its own questions of its contradictions would destroy it, or have not facilitated it in the first place.
Power cannot willingly surrender any portion of itself, and still exist as a functioning concept within the human mind, by design.
Humans hold no ability to sustain contradictions, by design of the human mind, a contradiction identification and resolution device. The device must be damaged or altered for it to willfully create and attempt to sustain a contradiction, by design of the device, within the design of the human phenomenon which readily provides the process for such stimuli-induced damage.
As commonly described, game theory describes the use of power, since the use of knowledge can benefit individuals and society without any damage or disproportionate cost to other people.
Explanation of this written presentation form.....
The common attempts by people who enjoy analyzing or thinking about things, to classify the classifications, and apply names to various groups of phenomena that are otherwise easily described by their nature, as their basis of explanation, needlessly complexifies the classifications and groups of phenomena, and therefore makes their understanding more difficult. Therein the brain must learn sets of new words, and new descriptions for old words, that are usually not necessary, and often contradict their prior applications, thus confusing their new use. Those attempts to meticulously arrange the concepts instead of learn the concepts, are extremely popular among humans, and have produced a few useful results, but only by the difficult way and at cost of the time and incentive to learn the knowledge otherwise more readily available. Every new reference that one must learn, to understand somebody's descriptions of concepts, detracts from the time and efficiency of learning the concepts by often entirely adequate, more common words.
The above is opposed by the benefits of using more accurate, more detailed words, often less common, for concepts that are otherwise commonly, sloppily referenced.
Therefore be judicious in using new or uncommon words or phrases for concepts otherwise described more easily, and routinely reference their definitions or descriptions to make the new knowledge more obvious.
Wisely use the existing descriptions and definitions, instead of uncommon reference words, whenever possible if you want the most people to understand your expressions.
A classic example is computer geek jargon. Many of the computer jargon words could be replaced with their more useful terms of, "click on", and, "type in", to make computer programs more quickly learned by computer users. The computer user clicks on something. He does not "open" it. He types in letters and numbers. He does not "enter" them. Simply look at what his hands must do to effect an action, and state what the hands must do. Use established words when they are accurate.
Another trait of some people who like to think a lot, is their use of long "run-on" sentences, such as you are reading herein. That too makes it difficult for people who are accustomed to short simple sentences. However, if one easily learns to understand long sentences, the advantage becomes clear. The described concepts, and their parts, are already associated in their proper relationship (usually), by the long sentences, therefore offering a service to the reader who would otherwise have to form or guess at the intended relationships among several sentences. The long sentences require reading slowly. But reading slowly is required for learning any new knowledge. If your mind can understand the concepts from hasty reading, then you already understand those concepts, and are wasting your time reading them again.
The writer of these words, like his others, reads his words many times, making many corrections, to resolve all of his perceived contradictions (usually), and as many as practical of another person's perceived contradictions. The writer reads his words as he understands them, then reads them from the prior practiced perception of several other categories of people. You might wish to do the same for your words.
NOW THEREFORE.....
Intellectual Technology, a process, explains Game Theory, a result.
Game Theory exists, and is being played by humans, but it is not a controlling concept. It is a result, not a causation. It ascribes to a smaller group of humans the ability to control a larger group of humans, which is in fact the case, but it implies some superior intellectual ability of the smaller group that is playing the larger group for various reasons.
Nobody is smarter than anybody else, by the singular design of the human mind, verifiable by asking and answering all the related questions. We just learn different things.
Nobody is smarter than anybody else. We just learn different things. Ask and answer as many questions as you must to verify that in your mind. Without that knowledge verified, you will not learn intellectual technology. The knowledge you most want to learn is among half the people in institutions for the insane. You need only learn how to effectively communicate with their minds.
But amusingly, as with the use of intellectual technology for any goal, the questions extend beyond the design of the human mind itself.
World peace? After learning and then using intellectual technology (asking and answering questions) methodically advancing through progressively more extended or complex arrays of contradictions, at midnight, November 7, 1998, the writer of these words stumbled upon the process by which one person, using rudimentary knowledge of internet websites, can cause world peace. No government could escape. At that moment, midnight, by chance or unrecognized design, the last question of a prior learned long series of questions became evident by the answer to a previous question. But amusingly, nobody else wanted to learn the knowledge or even substantively help with the boring effort that might require six months for one person. Everybody just wanted to keep playing their normal life games, usually as victims of power-based games, or discuss game theory and all the other games, BY DESIGN, much to the grand amusement of the writer of these words. The games people play, and thus the effects of game theory at every level and category of it, otherwise explained as normal life in organized societies, keep people talking about the games and game theory, rather than asking and answering the questions that explain how game theory is manifested in each human mind, including your mind.
Consider the Onions versus the Humans, among many such phenomenon. It fits the game theory.
The onion developed a particular, noticeable chemical compound defense, that produced its taste on the human tongue, against ground bugs looking for food. The ground buds do not serve the onion, and threaten the onion, and do not appreciate that chemical compound. Or did the onion develop that particular chemical compound which humans found to be very tasty, for that purpose, resulting in the humans propagating onions around the world, well beyond what the onions could do on their own without humans, serving the intent of the onions?
Who are what is playing what game, among the humans, for whom?
Hemp did the same thing. It played one of the more intriguing games with humans to cause them to plant and meticulously care for hemp on every continent, including dead center South Pole. The feds could not otherwise get any sane South Pole research station maintenance people to winter-over in 6 months of darkness, at 60 degrees below zero and high wind snow blizzards. Hemp even caused institutionally power-damaged minds of government to loudly deny hemp's traded benefits to humans, to therefore entice more-thinking individual minds to be curious, and easily prevail above the less-thinking, anger and hate-based government enemies of a plant. Hemp obviously created an extreme human reaction, with governments around the world attacking it viciously, therefore, combined with hemp having no lethal dose among humans, making the plant the most popular and widely cultivated plant among individually thinking humans. Such individually thinking human minds are the source of all new knowledge, by design. Would not such a process require a profoundly intelligent plant, or its designer, obviously more intelligent than the humans attacking it, playing a high quality game with institutionally power-damaged human minds?
What? You wanted to reserve "game theory" for human control, not available to plants? For that you would have to conclude that humans designed the universe, or at least planet Earth and all concepts affecting it. Easily verified as not possible.
Now therefore comes forward the objective questions of the design of the, "fill in the blank", starting with humans.
There is no superior design of a human mind. The victims of the games are playing the players, by design of the human phenomenon. With all minds verifiable as of equal design, the fool is being fooled, by his own mind.
Concurrently, if any group of extremely powerful people are playing a game with (manipulating) the world's population, or any sector of it, one individual can completely change the game, and cause the world population, including the powerful game players, to function in a different manner, by design of the human mind.
One individual, with the simple knowledge of how to write and upload websites, can efficiently cause world peace. No government could escape. The process is merely knowledge that inherently had to exist in human minds for any humans to have created the resolvable contradictions creating a game manifesting war or any humans damaging other humans. All knowledge is available to he or she who asks enough related questions.
Of the many terms used by people trying to explain game theory and human behavior, the term, "frame of reference" is like other technical or slightly technical terms chosen to sound more "scientific", which are better described by their basic nature, such as, "a person's current knowledge".
It is an aside to note that the writer of these words has used intellectual technology (patiently asking and answering questions of an obviously extensive array of contradictions), to prove the existence of God, and further, the complete design of the human mind, beyond any question any human can ask. Now think. The human mind was designed to identify its own design, and therein the existence and nature of its designer. But that design would logically be, and is, of such complexity that the effort to learn it is at an extreme of intellectual effort. The effort was "extremely tiring". Further, the attempt to convey the knowledge is nearly impossible because it requires any other mind to ask and answer all of those questions. Further, by design, and for identifiable purpose, anyone not so interested in such an extensive, time-consuming, horribly boring process will scoff-at, ridicule, ignore or attack any introduction or attempt to convey such inordinately valuable knowledge. With the knowledge, the real game is concluded. The knowledge must be available to any human mind, by design, but must be, and was, made so difficult to discover, with so many designed defenses against its discovery, that it is limited to an extremely few (ordinary) individuals with the same brain design as everyone else, who by chance of events, curiosity, tenacity and opportunity pursue intellectual technology to such an extreme. By design, those who "believe" in God, most strongly attack anyone offering the process to "prove" the existence of God beyond all questions. With a human mind, the super computer of super computers, the greatest gift to humans, why would one be so intellectually lazy as to merely "believe" in anything, instead of merely verify or disprove its existence? Amusingly, the nature of God is vastly greater than that of those who perceive God as the god of humans, rather than the god of the several universes, vastly more, yet fully understandable to the extent of all human knowledge.
I could herein accurately describe God, and offer the questions that prove the accuracy, as I have done at a few obscure places, but that so angers the institutionally religious folks and the atheists, that I wisely avoid the effort.
The human mind's born or initial system of data synthesis (thinking) is "damaged" or altered by any subsequent perception that it somehow became superior to other human minds (an impossibility by design), by the simple acquisition of a socially induced rhetorical title, credential or group reference, such as its perception that it is a "fill in the blank", examples, American, male, Christian, Hindu, scientist, soldier, farmer, teacher, thinker, researcher, president, mechanic, PhD, legislator, lawyer, cop, doctor, pilot, director, manager, gymnast, adult, or hundreds of other mere words that describe a group of two or more people that does not in itself have an individual mind that can dispute the intellectual attributes ascribed to the group name by those who ascribe themselves to the group. The organizational manifestations of human fundamentals are part of the design of the human mind. The mind holds its (near) perfect, stimuli-induced counterbalance to preclude it from answering all questions in the first week to thus end the game too soon, by design of the designer who also designed time, and designed the designer's own entertainment with a design that (near) perpetually contradicts itself, creating a comedy. A joke or comedy is an expressed contradiction or series of contradictions that the teller and hearer recognize, and recognize, much to their amusement, that the subject of the joke does not recognize. Therein, the human phenomenon with the most effective contradiction resolution device known to humans, the human mind, includes a designed process to continually contradict and confuse itself while trying to resolve contradictions. It is a comedy of such brilliance that no human could design it.
You can learn the design, if you patiently ask enough questions to identify and resolve the controlling contradictions, including that of the stimuli-induced perception that your mind (you) are superior to any other human mind. If you learn the design of the human mind, and therein the nature of the designer, you will laugh the laughter sought by all humans, and be ridiculed out of any attempt to engage in an intelligent discussion with humans who have not learned the design, much to your ongoing amusement shared by the designer.
The use of intellectual technology resolves all contradictions, and therefore flawlessly explains all things to the extent of the data available to human minds, including the identification of God, the explanation of game theory, and the process to defeat any and all humans playing any game of the human mind.
DougBuchanan.com