The following includes my answers to some questions I’ve been asked.

Where did you get the idea for your book?

I got the idea for my book after attending a 2015 webinar. The presenter was Mark Jaben, and the subject was a book he was then writing and later published as Free the Brain: Overcome the Struggle People and Organizations Face with Change (2019). Jaben’s presentation included a description of an experiment first conducted at UCSF in the 1980s by neuroscientist and researcher Benjamin Libet (1916-2007). Libet’s experiment made him and his experiment famous by revealing an apparently unexplainable phenomenon.

An input stimulus is delivered to the brain.  Roughly 500 milliseconds later, the brain triggers and informs a behavioral response. In an initial 300-millisecond phase, there is no increase in neuronal activity in the conscious mind. Instead, the increase is in the unconscious mind as it forms unconscious intent. The second and final 200-millisecond phase begins when unconscious intent is delivered to—causing neuronal activity to increase in—the conscious mind. As each half-second-long stimulus-response cycle ends, unconscious intent is informing and triggering a behavioral response.

A batter has roughly 400 milliseconds to respond to a major league fastball. The conscious mind has roughly 200 milliseconds to influence unconscious intent. If the conscious mind successfully influenced unconscious intent, then it had more time in lieu of half the time that a successful batter has when facing a major league fastball. And that is why, during the half-second-long stimulus-response cycle, the conscious mind is a passive observer, and any alternative explanation is manifestly irrational.

So, if the conscious mind is a passive observer while unconscious intent is informing and triggering a behavioral response, when is the conscious mind an active participant? That is the apparently unexplainable phenomenon, except that the appearance is an illusion, and the wisdom theory explains the underlying reality.

How do you get inspired to write?

One evening, I took out a pencil, an eraser, and a few sheets of paper, then I started sketching out a process. My intent was to explain to myself a phenomenon revealed by the Libet experiment, which I’d learned about at a webinar earlier that day. It took many failed attempts over a period somewhere between two days and two weeks, but I did accomplish my intent. That effort’s result was the first version of what is now documented in The Wisdom Theory on pages 35 and 37.

In that moment, I had not only explained the experiment to myself, I had also explained the phenomenon we refer to as consciousness (see Consciousness section, below).

It is almost certain that an explanation of the “consciousness” phenomenon will be easily refuted by a scientifically valid and sufficiently detailed description of the phenomenon … unless the explanation begins by explaining the “Libet” phenomenon. The wisdom theory is the first scientifically verifiable explanation of the Libet phenomenon. 

Two idea inspire me to write. The first is the idea that there is a verifiable explanation of the “consciousness” phenomenon that needs to be widely shared. Why? Because then it can be used to make the world a much better place in a short amount of time. The second is the idea that wisdom theory explains consciousness.

What are you currently working on?

My available time is dedicated to sharing the wisdom theory with the world by promoting my book and this website.

What is your advice for aspiring writers?

The premise of my advice is that listening to your “heart” is listening to your intuition, aka your gut, aka your unconscious mind, and listening to your “mind” is listening to your conscious mind, which involves the dedication of time, energy, and attention toward distinguishing between what is and what is not logical.

I have the same advice for aspiring writers as for anyone wanting advice. First, listen to your heart and your mind, but do not follow one or the other when they conflict and instead follow the wisdom that emerges when the conflict is resolved. Second, listen to your own wisdom and the wisdom of others, but do not follow one or the other when they conflict and instead resolve the conflict.

What’s the best thing about being a writer?

I’ll start with the hardest thing about being a writer, which is the necessary suffering that results when I’m unable to translate the wordless language of thought into the written words that express those thoughts in ways that others are readily able to interpret accurately. The best thing about being a writer is when I overcome that challenge.

The hardest thing about being a writer is not the worst thing about being a writer because when I fail, my ignorance is revealed, in which case I am always disappointed, but not for long because I also know that “revealing one’s ignorance” and “expanding one’s knowledge” are different words expressing the same meaning.

The worst thing about being a writer is the unnecessary suffering that result from being too afraid to reveal one’s ignorance. The cause of unnecessary suffering is the avoidance of necessary suffering.

How do you deal with writer’s block?

I deal with writer’s block by following what I refer to as the Mary McCartney Method. When he was young, Paul’s mother, Mary, told him, “When you find yourself in times of trouble, let it be. There will be an answer.”

Q: What is the nature of wisdom?

A: To be “wise” is to practice wisdom, and the practice of wisdom is an expression of wisdom knowledge.

Q: What is the origin of wisdom?

A: Carl Linnaeus named our species Homo sapiens, which is Latin for the wise hominid. He knew what he was doing. Our “wisdom” social instinct emerged at the origin of our species. 

Q: When was the origin of our species?

A: The origin of our species was roughly three hundred thousand years ago. Thus, assuming four generations per century, our species emerged roughly twelve thousand generations ago.

Q: What is the nature of wisdom knowledge?

A: Wisdom knowledge is a read-only unconscious cognitive assumption (UCA). A read-only UCA is an instinct. An instinct is a static set of neuronal connections that is a genetic inheritance and an expression of a species-specific genome. When “read-only” knowledge changes, the change is genetic, which is to say that it is inherited by an individual and is not changed by the experiences of life.

Q: What is the relationship between wisdom knowledge and a subject’s behavior?

A: A subject does not decide to follow wisdom knowledge. Instead, the subject’s unconscious intent is to follow wisdom knowledge like an actor following a script.

Q: How does wisdom knowledge influence a subject’s behavior?

A: A social signal detected by the subject’s sense organs is converted into a dynamic neuronal impulse signal where it is matched to and interacts with the static “wisdom knowledge” UCA. Unconscious intent is the interaction’s output, and unconscious intent is telling the subject to strengthen and defend the subject’s perception of the social system. When the subject is sufficiently mature, the subject’s behavior is effective in strengthening the system. A subject is potentially but not necessarily sufficiently mature.

Q: What was wisdom knowledge before the origin of our species?

A: Before our genetically inherited social instinct became wisdom knowledge at the origin of our species, it was a species-specific social instinct that defined the social system as the individual’s genetically homogeneous family unit. Thus, wisdom knowledge is the post-origin social instinct. It defines the individual’s social system as an internally independent and externally independent group of humans. In the Paleolithic Period, that group was invariably the handful of families that formed what we refer to as the “hunter-gatherer band,” which was Earth’s first genetically heterogeneous mammalian social system.

Q: What is the nature of a wisdom practice?

A: A wisdom practice is an expression of wisdom knowledge in a specific context.

Q: What is the relationship between a wisdom practice and an individual’s behavior?

A: An individual does not consciously decide to follow a wisdom practice. Instead, a human being’s unconscious intent is to adhere to wisdom knowledge like an actor following a script, and a wisdom practice emerges from an expression of wisdom knowledge.

Q: Why is there one wisdom knowledge and many wisdom practices?

A: Because we are members of one species living in many contexts.

Q: How does a wisdom practice emerge?

A: A subject consciously decides how to express wisdom knowledge. A novel context emerges, then wisdom knowledge is expressed in a way that is necessarily novel, and almost certainly initially ineffective. Over time, conscious deliberation refines the wisdom practice until it is effective.

Q: What makes a wisdom practice effective?

A: Maturity. A sufficiently mature subject is following an effective wisdom practice. Likewise, a subject following an effective wisdom practice is sufficiently mature.

Q: What is the nature of maturity?

A: Maturity is a function of the interaction between a subject’s circle of concern (CofC) and the subject’s circle of influence (CofI). If the CofI is encompassed within the CofC, then the subject is sufficiently mature, and otherwise insufficiently mature.

Q: What is a CofC?

A: With one exception, a mammalian CofC specifies the threshold of an animal’s social system. For example, a female elephant’s CofC specifies the threshold of the animal’s social system as a genetically homogeneous group of females and their juvenile offspring. We are the one exception. A human CofC specifies that there is a social system, and that the system is internally interdependent and externally independent, but it does not otherwise specify the social system. As a result, as the system continuously encounters novel contexts, the real (which is in lieu of perceived) system is continuously revealed.

Q: What is a CofI?

A: A subject’s CofI is the subject’s within-system circle of influence. For example, in the moment a child is born, the child’s “me and Mom” CofI suddenly expands. Ostensibly, the limit of a newborn’s circle of influence is the infant’s family. Between the day that an individual is born and the time that the individual becomes an adult, the individual’s CofI has continuously expanded in a stepwise fashion. With each expansion, the individual becomes insufficiently mature. In a healthy social system, an expansion of the individual’s CofI is followed by a commensurate expansion of the individual’s CofC, and the system is otherwise unhealthy.

Q: What is intelligence? 

A: Knowing a person’s latitude and longitude is a useful way to know that person’s location, and knowing only one of those two variables is not that useful. Likewise, knowing a person’s intelligence and wisdom is a useful way to know that person, and knowing only one of those two variables is not that useful. Exceptional intelligence is to a life what a fast vehicle is to a journey, and wisdom is to a life what knowing the direction of the desired destination is to a journey. 

Q: Is exceptional intelligence an asset? 

A: It depends. For a sufficiently mature person, exceptional intelligence is an asset, and for an insufficiently mature person, exceptional intelligence is a liability. It is easier to face an evil idiot than an evil genius.  

Q: If wisdom is to a life what knowing the direction of the desired destination is to a journey, then what are the desirable and undesirable destinations? 

A: The desirable destination is maturity, and the undesirable destination is immaturity. Immaturity has a small short-term benefit and an enormous long-term cost. Maturity has a small short-term cost and an enormous long-term benefit. 

There is a 4-phase pattern underlying every paradigm shift, and that common pattern is described in this essay. A 19^th century example is included for illustration purposes. The moral of the story is that we are in Phase 3 of an imminent paradigm shift involving our collective understanding of the “wisdom” phenomenon.

It is not hard to find an example of a paradigm shift. Instead, the hard part is choosing from so many examples, and this essay’s example is not entirely arbitrary. It is harder for us to see through the common misperceptions of our own time, and so the chosen example is a misperception that is no longer common, but it was in the 19^th century.

The original paradigm emerges as Phase 1 of 4 begins. A commonly observed phenomenon is initially described but not initially explained. And then many assumptions lead to a leap of insight, which is the original and universally accepted paradigm. And because it is universally accepted, there is no effort to prove that is valid beyond a reasonable doubt.

Example, Phase 1: Conflicting opinions about a patient’s health between the physician and the patient is often due to knowledge that the physician does, and the patient does not, possess. That phenomenon was being observed by 19^th century physicians. Eventually (and unfortunately), the medical community concluded that a doctor’s assessment of a healthcare-related issue is correct, and that a person who disagrees with the doctor’s assessment is incorrect.

During Phase 1, observations are made, and the interpretations of those observations are distorted by the original paradigm, but without apparent harm.

Phase 2 begins when the harm becomes readily apparent, except that it remains unaddressed because its relationship with the paradigm has not yet been discovered.

Phase 3 begins when the relationship between the harm and the original paradigm is discovered due to an iterative two-step process. In Phase 3’s Step 1, the phenomenon is carefully observed. In Phase 3’s Step 2, an assumption used to interpret the phenomenon is subjected to rigorous skepticism until it is refuted or confirmed, Step 2 ends, Step 1 begins, and the two-step process repeats. Over time, a testable hypothesis emerges. Then testing is used to validate the hypothesis.

Example, Phases 2 & 3: In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis validated the hypothesis that the cause of the appalling obstetrics-related mortality rate in 19^th century doctors’ wards was due to physicians not washing their hands between autopsying corpses and assisting in labor and delivery. The response of his own medical community to Semmelweis’ novel paradigm (first, he was mocked, and then he was ignored) was one manifestation of the harm caused by the original paradigm’s cognitive distortions.

Throughout Phase 3, evidence refuting the original—and confirming the novel—paradigm continues to build. Phase 4 is when the paradigm shifts.

Example, Phase 4: In 1867, the paradigm shifted due to Louis Pasteur’s confirmation of germ theory, but that was after two decades of unnecessary death and suffering (unnecessary in that a simple test would have confirmed the novel paradigm), and two years after Semmelweis’ unnecessarily premature death at age 47.

The Wisdom Theory is a book that anticipates an imminent paradigm shift. Initially, wisdom was observed and described, but not explained. Then the original and initially harmless paradigm emerged, and Phase 1 began. Many assumptions led to a single and universally accepted leap of insight. The original paradigm (aka the thesis) is that wisdom is ineffable.

In other words, Phase 1’s paradigm is that, although wisdom is a frequently observed and frequently described phenomenon, it cannot be explained.

Wise people are wise, but the problem with not being able to explain the “wisdom” phenomenon is that hindsight is the only objective test. And so, one unintended consequence of Phase 2’s harm was the emergence of a conflicting paradigm—the idea that wisdom is whatever the individual decides (aka the antithesis).

The thesis-antithesis conflict remained unresolved in Phase 2. Three manifestations of Phase 2’s harm are authoritarianism, environmental degradation, and unconstrained technological development.

In Phase 3, the “wisdom” phenomenon was careful observed. Then many assumptions were used to interpret the phenomenon. Then, as each individual assumption was subjected to rigorous skepticism, it was refuted or confirmed, and then the cycle was repeated until the harm-paradigm relationship was first discovered, then validated beyond a reasonable doubt, then documented in The Wisdom Theory. The novel “wisdom theory” paradigm suggests that wisdom is effable (aka the synthesis). The explanation of the “wisdom” phenomenon is in the “Who Are We?” essay below.

When is Phase 4? The sooner the better.

“Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.” —James Baldwin

“We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.” —Jo Cox (1974–2016)

What is the relationship between our shared human nature and civilization’s future? The answer begins by dividing the question in two:

• What is our shared human nature?
• What is civilization’s future? 

I’ll answer the first question first. 

Consider humanity’s miniscule genetic diversity. For every one of the eight billion Homo sapiens alive today, nine hundred and ninety-nine DNA base pairs out of a thousand are identical. Our miniscule genetic diversity is itself an atypical characteristic. There is more genetic diversity within a single troop of baboons, for example.

Imagine a three-column list of individuals. The first column identifies the individual, the second column lists all the behavioral traits expressed by that individual over the individual’s lifetime, and the third column identifies the individual’s species. Every mammal who was born after the origin of our species and lived a full life is on the list.

Now imagine a much shorter list of behavioral traits created by filtering the original list in three ways. The first filter excludes traits not expressed by members of our species. The second filter excludes traits expressed by multiple species. The third filter excludes traits if they are not expressed by every member of our species.

The list is now down to a single trait, and that trait is our species-specific “wisdom” social instinct. Wisdom is our shared human nature. Other traits may divide us. Our wisdom instinct’s function is to unite us.

Premise: A readily apparent characteristic of a complex adaptive social system is the enormous effects of a small change. A hidden characteristic of the complex adaptive human social system is the enormous effect of wisdom.

Premise: What is “hidden” can be revealed when it becomes the focus of our attention, and the hidden effect of wisdom is revealed in this essay.

What is civilization’s future?

Pete Buttigieg refers to the current “third decade of the third millennium” as our deciding decade. In addition to agreeing, my view is that our collective decision will have us walking together down one of two paths. The wise path will see us at decade’s end directing our energies toward a world in which our grandchildren and their grandchildren will live in peace and joy. Civilization will otherwise succumb to authoritarianism, unconstrained technological development, and environmental degradation.

Which path will we choose? The answer—that understanding the “wisdom” phenomenon will take us down the wise path—is supported by a six-event series described and interpreted in this essay.

Premise: A fission-fusion society is neither a life system nor does it exist within a life system. Instead, a fission-fusion society is comprised of life systems. For example, an elephant band is a fission-fusion society comprised of a handful of elephant social systems and adult male elephants, and an elephant social system is a life system comprised of a handful of adult female elephants and their juvenile offspring.

Premise: Elephants have a social life that is among the most highly developed in the animal kingdom. Elephants are like Paleolithic hominids in that bands and clans are part of the social structure. A “band” is comprised of roughly a handful of families and a “clan” is comprised of roughly a handful of bands.

Premise: A system is not a subsystem, and a subsystem is not a system. A system is internally interdependent and externally independent, and a subsystem is internally and externally interdependent. Thus, a life system is an internally interdependent and externally independent biological entity, and a subsystem within a life system is an internally and externally interdependent biological entity.

An animal knows whether it is a life system or a subsystem within (aka subject of) a social system because it is following its species-specific instinct in the same way an actor follows a script. For example, the elephant “script” tells an adult male elephant it is a separate life system within a fission-fusion society, and it tells an adult female elephant she is a subject of a single-family social system.

A fission-fusion societies does not stay together. Instead, it comes together if coming together is mutually beneficial (fusion), a within-society conflict of interest causes it to split apart (fission), and the cycle repeats.

Premise: A life system stays together even when being together is not mutually beneficial. Within-system conflicts of interest are resolved.

Albert Einstein’s “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler” advice implies that the ideal explanation is sufficiently and not unnecessarily complicated. A sufficiently and not unnecessarily complicated explanation of wisdom includes the following six-event series.

EVENT ONE:

Ancestor: Single-celled organisms grow until they divide into two single-celled organisms within a social system comprised of single-celled organisms.

Event: A single-celled organism grows until it divides in two, and then the two cells remain attached to one another.

Change agent: Biological evolution.

Outcome: Earth’s first (multicell) animal.

When: Roughly six hundred million years ago.

Risk: Minimal.

Reward: Enormous.

EVENT TWO:

Ancestor: Whether an animal thrives or fails to survive is up to the animal.

Event: A reptile mother, rather than abandoning her eggs, sacrifices self-interest to protect her hatchlings from predators.

Change agent: Biological evolution.

Outcome: Earth’s first single-family (genetically homogeneous) reptilian social system comprised of a mother and her juvenile offspring.

When: Somewhere between two and three hundred million years ago.

Risk: Minimal.

Reward: Enormous.

EVENT THREE:

Ancestor: A single-family hominin social system grows until it divides in two, and then the two separate social systems become members of a band-sized fission-fusion society. A band-sized fission-fusion society grows until it divides in two, and then the two bands are fellow members of a clan-sized fission-fusion society.

Event: At the origin of our species, the pre-origin “single family” social instinct changes into the post-origin “wisdom” social instinct.

Change agent: Biological evolution.

Outcome: The “hunter-gatherer band” is Earth’s first multi-family (genetically heterogeneous) social system. A Paleolithic Homo sapiens clan is a fission-fusion society, and families are subjects of (aka subsystems within) the now-larger (band-sized) social system.

When: Roughly three hundred thousand years (aka twelve thousand human generations) ago.

Risk: Minimal.

Reward: Enormous.

Premise: A band-sized Homo sapiens social system is healthy, and all else being equal, the bigger the system gets, the more its health declines.

EVENT FOUR:

Ancestor: Homo sapiens thrive in—while every other hominin species fails to survive—the Paleolithic Period. The number of hunter-gatherer bands increases as the area of readily accessible, unpeopled, and sufficiently fertile terrestrial territory declines.

Event: The area becomes effectively zero.

Change agent: Geography.

Outcome: Agricultural settlements, the first known-to-science and larger-than-band-sized human social systems.

When: Roughly ten thousand years (aka four hundred human generations) ago.

Risk: Enormous, but unavoidable.

Reward: Significant.

Premise: While the size of a Homo sapiens social system grows continuously, and while all else is equal, its health declines. Then an “all else is no longer equal” inflection point emerges, and the continuously growing system’s health begins to improve.

EVENT FIVE:

Ancestor: As a human system grows, and as its health declines, all its vital signs, which include the homicide rate, trend in the wrong direction.

Event: The above-referenced inflection point occurs when, for the first time in human history, several sufficiently accurate descriptions of our species-specific “wisdom” social instinct are composed by names familiar to us today including the Hebrew prophets, Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, etc. Then the documented compositions are widely distributed.

Change agent: Cultural (non-biological) evolution.

Outcome: Although the human social system continues to grow, its vital signs have stopped indicating that its health is declining and have started indicating that its health is improving. For example, the homicide rate stops trending upward and starts trending downward.

When: Roughly twenty-five centuries (aka one hundred human generations) ago.

Risk: Significant.

Reward: Enormous.

EVENT SIX:

Ancestor: The number of (internally interdependent and externally independent) human social systems decline until the number is precisely one. The homicide rate declines to its lowest point in human history. Meanwhile, there is an increasing risk that civilization will succumb to authoritarianism, unconstrained technological development, and environmental degradation.

Event: A sufficiently accurate description of wisdom is documented in The Wisdom Theory (see “The Wisdom Knowledge Test” on page 71) and made available for distribution.

Change agent: Cultural evolution.

Expected outcome: We walk together down the wise path in lieu of the unwise path.

When: The deciding decade.

Risk: Enormous.

Reward: Enormous.

What is wisdom knowledge?

Bedrock is the foundation of Manhattan skyscrapers. What bedrock is to a Manhattan skyscraper, wisdom knowledge is to the human social system. We are born knowing our species-specific “wisdom” social instinct because it is genetically defined and inherited. Phrases like “treat others the way you would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot” and Bob Dylan’s “don’t criticize what you can’t understand” are expressions of our born-with wisdom knowledge.

Premise: A sufficiently accurate expression of wisdom knowledge is sufficiently accurate in a healthy system. In a healthy system, a novel context will inevitably emerge. In a novel context, what was a sufficiently accurate expression of wisdom knowledge becomes insufficiently accurate, the system’s health suffers, then a novel expression (sufficiently accurate in the novel context) must emerge, then the system’s health is restored, and then the cycle repeats.

What is a wisdom practice?

What a structural component is to a Manhattan skyscraper, a wisdom practice is to the human social system. Wisdom practices include the world’s great religions, democracy, medicine, science, justice, capitalism, etc.

Are you tribal?

If unsure, take a DNA test. If it comes back Homo sapiens, then you are tribal. The only question is who to include in, and who to excluded from, your tribe. Fortunately, the idea that everyone is included, and no one is excluded, is the founding principle and defining characteristic of literally every wisdom practice.

Christianity is based on following the example set by Jesus of Nazareth. His words imply his followers’ tribe includes the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted because they are good, and those who are forgiven because they do not know what they are doing. Ref: Matthew 5:3-10 and Luke 23:34.

Those who established Christianity, the world’s largest religion, followed Jesus’ example by adhering to precisely two principles in every context. The first is to listen to your heart and mind, but not to follow one or the other when they disagree, and instead resolve the conflict. The second is to listen to yourself and your neighbor, but not to follow one or the other when they disagree, and instead resolve the conflict. Ref: Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-37, and John 14:12 & 15:12.

Those who established Islam, the world’s second largest religion, followed The Prophet’s example via adherence to the same principles expressed in different words and in a different context. The Prophet expressed the second principle at the end of his life in the words he chose to end his final sermon. Those words were Allah’s message to all of humanity, which is that “we have created you from a male and a female and made you tribes and families that you may know each other.” Ref: Quran 49:13.

The founding principle of science is that it “involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.” Again, only the words and the context are different, but the message is the same. Ref: Wikipedia’s “Scientific Method” article.

The followers of Adam Smith established capitalism based on the same founding principle. Smith documented the capitalist principle in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Yet again, the context is different, and the words are different, but the message is the same.

A Manhattan skyscraper is safe because it rests on bedrock. But a discontinuity within one of the building’s major structural components, or between one of those major components and its bedrock foundation, might cause the building to collapse. Likewise, the human social system is safe to the extent that its “wisdom practice” structural components rest on adherence to its “wisdom knowledge” bedrock principle. A discontinuity within a major wisdom practice, or between a major wisdom practice and its “wisdom knowledge” foundation, is dangerous.

Justice is a wisdom practice in that the rule of law is essential to an egalitarian democracy, but “the rule of law” is a means to an end, and the “end” is adherence to the “wisdom knowledge” principle within every wisdom practice and in every context. Conversely, “the law of rulers” is essential to an authoritarian autocracy, and it is one manifestation of a common underlying pattern, and that common underlying pattern is a violation of the wisdom principle.

In conclusion, the reason we seem to be walking together toward the unwise path is because so many people claiming to be adherents to a wisdom practice are violating its founding principle. Consequently, if everyone claiming to be an adherent to a wisdom practice starts consistently adhering to its principles on the count of three, then on the count of three, we are walking together toward the wise path. And it’s just that simple.

What is consciousness? The answer to this question involves answering a series of questions that ends with an answer to this question.

What is the unconscious mind? The unconscious mind is a within-body subsystem that receives an input signal, then an unconscious thought process occurs, and then the unconscious mind delivers unconscious intent.

What is the unconscious thought process? When an unconscious thought process occurs, it occurs in less than one third of a second. While it is occurring, a dynamic input signal is interacting with a static unconscious cognitive assumption (UCA). After it occurs, its output, unconscious intent, triggers and informs a behavioral response.

Example: When the eye detects an energy pattern from an incoming dust particle, it translates the pattern into a neuronal impulse pattern and delivers the pattern to the unconscious mind triggering an unconscious thought process. When the thought process ends, unconscious intent informs and triggers the “blink eye” response.

What is a UCA? A UCA is a within-mind subsystem comprised of neuronal connections. When the unconscious mind recognizes an input signal, it matches the signal to a UCA causing the interaction between the dynamic signal and the static UCA.

As the unconscious thought process ends, the unconscious mind is delivering unconscious intent to the body’s organs on a need-to-know basis causing the behavioral response. In summary, the unconscious thought process is comprised of 4 steps:

• In Step 1, the mind receives a phenomenon-specific input signal,
• In Step 2, the mind matches the signal to a phenomenon-specific UCA,
• In Step 3, the input signal and the UCA interact, and
• In Step 4, the mind delivers unconscious intent to an intent-specific set of body organs.

Example: The “incoming dust particle” signal is matched to the “incoming dust particle” UCA, the signal and the UCA interact, then unconscious intent is delivered to the muscles that blink the eye, and then the eye blinks.

What is instinct? Instinct is a species-specific and genetically inherited set of read-only UCAs. When a read-only UCA changes, the change is genetic. A species-defining genetic change sometimes survives and thrives, and in that scenario a novel species has emerged.

What is operant conditioning? Operant conditioning is a change to a set of read-write UCAs. “Read-write” means that the change is not genetic. Operant conditioning changes the subset of read-write UCAs that trigger and inform compulsive behavior patterns. The long-term consequence of a compulsive behavior pattern is potentially but not necessarily beneficial.

What is addiction? When a compulsive behavior pattern’s long-term consequence is detrimental, then it is an addiction.

What is a behavioral response? A behavioral response is physical or cognitive, a physical behavioral response is an act, and a cognitive behavioral response is conscious deliberation. Understanding these two types involves understanding the evolutionary history of the mind.

The original pre-conscious mind was an entirely unconscious mind subsystem. Then the mind evolved, the change agent was biological evolution, and the evolved mind was a subsystem comprised of two separate but interdependent subsystems including the original unconscious mind and the newly evolved conscious mind.

For a physical behavioral response, aka an act, the only difference between the “original mind” thought process and the “evolved mind” thought process is that sometimes the conscious mind is aware of an impending act, but the response is exclusively governed by unconscious intent, meaning that the conscious mind is a passive observer. In that scenario, from the conscious mind’s perspective, it appears to be an active participant, except that the appearance is an illusion. The apparent seamlessness of thought is due to the illusion, so it is necessary, but it is still an illusion.

Example: A major league baseball player stands at home plate observing a major league fastball and decides to swing. Three hundred milliseconds after observing the pitch, the decision has been made. Four hundred milliseconds after the pitcher’s release, the ball and the bat are crossing home plate in opposite directions. The batter’s conscious mind is aware of the decision and the rationale for the decision before the swing, but it is a passive observer. It is impossible to bat with an “active participant” conscious mind and get anywhere close to making the minor leagues, let alone a major league.

What is a social system? A system is an internally interdependent and externally independent entity, and a subsystem is an internally and externally interdependent entity. A life system is a biological entity. An animal is comprised of subsystems. A social system is comprised of animals.

Examples: An adult male elephant is a life system. Otherwise, elephants are subjects of a single-family (genetically homogeneous) social system comprised of adult female elephants and their calves. A Paleolithic Homo sapiens was a subject of a genetically heterogeneous social system comprised of a handful of families, and a 21^st century Homo sapiens is a subject of an inescapably interdependent civilization.

What is consciousness? When a behavioral response is conscious deliberation, there is only one organ on the “need-to-know organs” list, that one organ is the conscious mind, and the conscious mind’s function is to resolve a conflict between two within-system UCAs.

Example: As a mother elephant interacts with her calf, the mother’s act is informed by one read-write UCA, then the calf’s act is informed by a conflicting read-write UCA. Because of the elephant’s species-specific social instinct, both elephants “know” they are fellow members of the same single-family social system, and so the “collective unconscious” tells them they are facing a within-system dilemma in need of a multi-step within-interaction resolution (implying that it is not an extra-system problem with a one-step “end interaction” solution). Then the interaction changes from “seize opportunity” mode to “resolve dilemma” mode.

In summary, when unconscious intent is to act, it might be a response to the perception of a conflict-free opportunity. Otherwise, unconscious intent is responding to a problem with a one-step “end interaction” solution, which is to say that the intent is to neutralize a threat. Alternatively, the unconscious mind is responding to a perceived within-system and between-UCA dilemma, and unconscious intent is to resolve the dilemma, which is to say that the intent is to first identify and then heal the within-system discontinuity.