http://www.informationenergymedicine-academy.com/wp-content/uploads/Pattern-recognition3-216x300.jpg 216w" sizes="(max-width: 449px) 100vw, 449px" />
In my last post on RANDOMNESS I have outlined that true mathematical randomness is in fact a very rare and difficult to achieve ideal. Here I continue this thought, showing you
how it is related to “Pattern recognition” and how this forms our life – for better or for worse –
When an “untrained” person looks at Blood-dark-field pictures, attempts a kinesological test, tries a pulse or EDS diagnosis he will most of the time, if honest to himself, feel that what he is perceiving/ doing/ assessing is random.
For that reason all of these diagnostic measures have never braved “double blind” studies that would have proven any objective value, which means reproducible results, independent of the practitioner.
Trained users however swear to their objective nature and blame failure of “double blind” studies on lack of training or even outright fraud by the scientific establishment.
As a physicist that has seen great value of these methods I was in a DLE between this experience and my university training. However instead of embracing one without further questioning and rejecting the other I went to work and did more studies which eventually lead to the development of the CoRe system.
I found that all these evaluation techniques have in common that they offer an almost infinite number of choices and possibilities to be taken as the evaluation result. Anyone who has ever attempted dark-field-blood analysis knows that one sample of blood under the microscope contains specimens of about every possible diagnostic indicator. Likewise with Electrodermal screening, the measurement is dependent of so many factors, mostly speed of application of the probe, skin humidity and texture, angle of the probe a.s.o. that “untrained” testers will produce about every possible reading, exactly like a pendulum.
For that reason the majority of the “scientific” community considers all of them subjective or even fraudulent.
The reason why there was never any possible bridge between these two opposite points of view, as I understand now, is simply that both are equally believers in the same incomplete concept of “scientific-ness”.
Both camps believe for something to be scientific or even accessible to our minds inquiry at all, there have to exist :
A) Clear, distinct, unquestionable pattern
B) Pattern are reproducible by any trained practitioner
C) That these pattern have a definite meaning
Both parties believe that scientific-ness is impossible in the absence of even one of these 3 criteria.
Looking closer at all of them we can realize that the terms in bold are descriptors of the modus operandi of the left brain : clear, distinct, unquestionable, reproducible, definite.