Innocence by Reason of Sanity
|
Rev. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer No. 34106-006
Affirmational Faith Ministry, 3635 Zirbel Rd., Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235-9433
drjbrianharris@innocencebyreasonofsanity.org
|
A FALSEHOOD, REPEATED AS MANY TIMES AS NEEDED FOR IT TO BECOME BELIEVABLE,
DOES NOT MAKE THE FALSEHOOD OTHER THAN A SINCERELY BELIEVABLE FALSEHOOD.
|
Revision of July 29, 2009 This web site is being revised from time to time. Please come again.
Note that there is a "Link" near the bottom of each web page which leads to another page.
|
Please note that this web site contains only a sequence
of web pages containing only English language text.
In the effort I have been making to put together an effective web site about the brain-biology
research I have done about the predicament of terrorism as a biological phenomenon, I found it
useful to write in ways that would discourage almost everyone from making the effort to
understand the meaning of the bioengineering research I have been given to do. I have known
people who acted in very dangerous ways, and I found I needed a way to understand how
people who may act out violently would respond to the findings about terror and terrorism of
the biological research I have done over many decades.
A scientifically rigorous demonstration is here given which includes the causes of terror and
terrorism and a practical process through which terrorism can be eradicated. This work is of
the form of the physical sciences and not merely a psychological inquiry. The findings here
reported are evidently irrefutable. This will be shown in the Methods section, which follows.
Deception was never used in the field work of this research.
About 3000 people were asked three simple questions in sequence. The three questions
were;
1. "Ever make mistakes?"
2. "Ever make a mistake you shouldn't have made?"
3. "Ever make a mistake you could have avoided?"
Very close to 98% of people so asked have answered "Yes," to all three questions. However,
about 2% have answered, "No," to the second and third questions, and most of these people
were engineers. As a professional engineer myself, I found it curious that engineers tend to
answer the second and third questions very differently than do non-engineers.
With the people who answered, "Yes," to all three questions, I asked the person to tell me of
a mistake the person had made which the person was comfortable telling me about, and also
asked the person to tell me what the person could have done to have avoided making the
mistake.
Every person so asked readily described a mistake made and told what the person could
have done to not have made the mistake. To what the person told me could have been done, I
asked, 'Why didn't you?"
Every person so asked readily came up with a reason and something else the person could
have done to not have made the mistake. Again, I asked, "Why didn't you?"
This process of a reason followed by something else the person could have done followed
by my asking, "Why didn't you?" continued until the person's answer suddenly changed.
After enough time going in circles of the form, "Why didn't you?" followed by a form of
"Because..., but I could have..." every person finally answered in the manner of, "Because,
until after I made the mistake, I did not know for sure what would happen.
There have been no exceptions to this pattern with the people who answered both the
second and third question with, "Yes," none whatsoever.
No engineer ever has ever answered the second or third questions with, "Yes."
Telling a young child that the child understood how to do something the child had not yet
done because the child was merely told in words about said something will lead to terror, as in
"the terrible twos" if the child is sufficiently coerced into believing that the child understood
something the child had not yet learned and the child is forced against the child's will until the
will is broken because of corporal or psychological punishment so devastatingly that the child
comes to believe that it is possible to understand something which the child has not been
given the actual opportunity to learn. This intensely brain-damaging process results in people
so coerced sincerely believing that people have made mistakes which could have been
avoided, even though, asked in a child-like manner about mistakes actually made, no person
can describe any mistake ever made, regardless of the nature of the mistake made or its
consequences.
It is my personal view that the false notion that mistakes actually made could actually have
been avoided takes on, from a psychiatric perspective, the form of a catastrophically addictive,
insanely psychotic delusion firmly held by a large majority of people. In talking with people over
the past seventy years of my life, I have never found a very young child who thought that any
mistake ever made could have been avoided.
Perhaps we simply need to allow remembering when we were truthful because we had not yet
learned to believe that mistakes made could have been avoided. I find that every person is, or
once was, such a truthful little child. We may simply need to remember how we truthfully
understood our lives before we learned not to be as truthful as a sufficiently little child always
is.
Evidence in the Scientific Literature
|
I find that the neurological evidence that no mistake ever made either could or should have
been avoided is well-presented in two books by neurologist Robert C. Scaer, M.D. The books
are "The Trauma Spectrum" (W. W. Norton, New York. 2005) and "The Body Bears the Burden:
Trauma, Dissociation, and Disease, Second Edition" (The Haworth Medical Press, Binghamton,
New York, 2007). At the beginning of Chapter Three, "Trauma as Imprisonment of the Mind" in,
"The Trauma Spectrum," I find that Dr. Scaer as flawlessly demonstrated how and why telling a
child that the child understood how to do something the child had not yet done causes brain
damage because of "time-corrupted learning," this brain damage being of the form of a
"thwarted freeze discharge."
Using the methods of systems engineering, and particularly the methods of system dynamics,
I have been unable to dream up any scenario in which allowing the truthfulness of little
children, which we all understand already, having once been little children, will not end
terrorism, and will do so without using terror. Terror seems to me to terrorize, and terrorized
people, being in a state of terror, tend to act terribly in terms of accurately understanding how
procedural learning actually happens.