cvs2bvs is the Universal Brain Software which frees the brainuser to hop across parallel universes with tenpower.

cvs2bvs also allows the brainuser to switch from one parallel universe to another.

 

Leaping

A parallel universe is a possible future. At any particular moment you are heading to one possible future. But, you could escape from that possible future and head for a different possible future. We do this every day and every time we take a decision. For example, right now I am writing this sentence about a very embarrassing incident that once happened to me in New York when I …

However, I have just decided to escape from that sentence and instead of finishing it I have decided to write this sentence instead. A quite different but possible future.

 

alternatives

There are, of course, a virtually unlimited number of possible futures facing us at any moment in time but so many futures may be too daunting to think about. So, let’s just limit the options to ten.

Future XIO is the brain app which says that at any time you are faced with a decision there are always ten possible futures from which to choose.

Usually there is the most likely future which will turn out to be the decision you are most likely to take. In this brain app we call the most likely decision choice: Future #10. We do this to draw attention to the fact that there are at least 9 other options or possible futures that we could consider if only we made the metacognitive effort to do so.

Just to spell this out we’ll call these options or possibilities or choices:

Future #10

Future #09

Future #08

Future #07

Future #06

Future #05

Future #04

Future #03

Future #02

Future #01

 

The Future XIO Brain App

The excellence and power of the Future XIO brain app is that at any NOW moment of the day you have an opportunity for cvs2bvs and to select any one of ten possible futures.

For example:
» You might get writer’s block while preparing a scientific paper — cvs2bvs.
» You might find yourself being a space glutton in a family meeting — cvs2bvs.
» You might be trying to help your child solve a problem — cvs2bvs.
» You might be googling the www looking for an opportunity — cvs2bvs.
» You might be worried and depressed about money — cvs2bvs.
» You might be about to decide what to have for lunch — cvs2bvs.
» You might be boring a client or customer — cvs2bvs.
» You might be being bullied by a friend or family member — cvs2bvs.
» You might be playing Angry Birds — cvs2bvs.

Practise and repetition ensures that the cvs2bvs switch will pop up at a time when you need to use it. And when it does pop up, what then?

 

Repetition

To Look Is To See

If you decide to look for a BVS, you will see it. Yes, you really will see it.

INSTRUCTION: What time is it?
(Check your watch and record the time here ________.)

Isn’t it amazing! The time is always there, BUT you only see it when you actually look for it. Think about that for a moment! Through training and practice, your brain learned (developed the cognitive pattern) to tell the time, long ago. One just needs to use the trigger question: What time is it? and Hey! Presto! … We get to see the time! The same applies to a BVS.

It’s your attention that controls your behavior. You need a trigger to manipulate your attention from merely focusing on your CVS and to get it to switch to a BVS. This is also called lateral thinking or creative thinking or X10 thinking. You’ve done it many times before but you need to do it better and much more often — on command! The key to creativity is remembering to be creative at any particular moment, remembering to use the switch cvs2bvs. Remember: What time is it?

Seek and You Shall Find

cvs2bvs will dramatically increase your odds of finding ideas, because you will be actively looking for them, habitually, as a matter of personal policy. You can get a good idea today, a better idea tomorrow and you get the best idea … never! There’s always a BVS! This means that you can have a perfectly valid CVS, but there must always be a better one because you always have ten options from which to choose. And, for repetition sake, here they are again:

Future #10

Future #09

Future #08

Future #07

Future #06

Future #05

Future #04

Future #03

Future #02

Future #01

There’s Always a BVS!

The difference between the way you use your necktop now, and the way it could operate, is up to the software you use. Each time you do your 100 repetitions of cvs2bvs, it guarantees that you are keeping yourself, your family, your school or company, on the road to a much better future, the road to a BVS.  Here are 100 repetitions of cvs2bvs:

cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs

cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs
cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs cvs2bvs

 

From Michael Hewitt-Gleeson’s new book ET 123: English Thinking, The Three Methods for publication in August 2012:

Chinese thinking is different to Western ET 1 thinking because they do not both share the same cultural evolution. Chinese thinking methods obviously did not evolve out of a medieval bellicose Roman church.

For example, a dominant strategy of ET 1 thinking is to be First. This seems logical to the Western mind because, after all, I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong.

But to the Chinese mind the preferred strategy is not to be First but to be Second. In the words of the father of modern China, Deng Xiaoping;

“Keep cool-headed to observe, be composed to make reactions, stand firmly, hide our capabilities and bide our time, never try to take the lead, and be able to accomplish something”.

There are some Western leaders who also understand the beneficial paradox of the 2 strategy and Jack Welch of GE was a good example. Except in the very few situations, like boxing or poker when it’s a zero sum game, 2 is often a far superior strategy to 1. Have a think about it.

There is much that Western business can learn from Deng Xiaopeng’s ideas.

My personal experience is that many Westerners, even in 2012, are still pre-Enlightenment ET 1 thinkers. While they may know about the Enlightenment and be able to describe some of its breakthroughs their default position is still ET 1 thinking.

On the other hand, while it is true that the Chinese clearly have much to do and many issues of their own to work through and to improve and further develop, my own observation is that they are largely post-Enlightenment ET 2 thinkers.

They deeply understand the ET 2 evolutionary approach compared with the West’s ET 1 revolutionary approach and this gives them a great advantage going forward into the many possible futures. It will be interesting to see where this takes them in the next few decades.

Today I’m in the State Library of Victoria working on my next book and I picked up a new addition to the library. It’s a fascinating book by Carlo Rovelli  who is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Marseilles. His book is called The First Scientist: Anaximander and His Legacy.

 

Here’s a quote from the Introduction:

“Human civilizations have always believed that the world consisted of the Heaven above and the Earth below. Beneath the Earth, to keep it from falling there had to be more Earth; or perhaps an immense turtle on the back of an elephant, as in some Asian myths; or gigantic columns like those supporting the Earth according to the Bible. This vision of the world was shared by the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Mayans, the peoples of ancient India and sub-Saharan Africa, the Hebrews, Native Americans, the ancient Babylonian empires, and all other cultures of which we have evidence.

“All but one: the Greek world. Already in the classical era, the Greeks saw the Earth as a stone floating in space without falling. Beneath the Earth, there was neither more Earth without limit, nor turtles, nor columns, but rather the same sky that we see over our heads. How did the Greeks manage to understand so early that the Earth is suspended in the void and that the Heavens continue under our feet? Who understood this, and how?

“The man who made this enormous leap in understanding the world is the main character in this story: Anaximander, who lived twenty-six centuries ago in Miletus, a Greek city on the coast of what is now Turkey. This discovery alone would make Anaximander one of the intellectual giants of the ages. But Anaximander’s legacy is still greater. He paved the way for physics, geography, meteorology, and biology. Even more important than these contributions, he set in motion the process of rethinking our worldview–a search for knowledge based on the rejection of any obvious-seeming “certainty”, which is one of the main roots of scientific thinking”.

Wow! Sounds like Anaximander should also get credit for metacognition and for being the first to put forward the idea of cvs2bvs!

 

We sometimes get questions about how we moderate all the comments that are posted by SOT students. Currently there are over 40,000 comments posted on our school.

In SOT we are not trying to promote agreement or disagreement but thinking. It is not important whether students agree or disagree with the lessons. What is important is that they go away and think about them. That’s all.

So, which of your many thousands of comments do we post? Which ones do we leave out? Why don’t we reply to each comment? What is our policy for moderating comments?

For example, we received the following excellent question from one of the SOT students today:

From John: I appreciate your regular newsletters, Mr. Hewitt Gleason, and particularly the opportunity to comment on the various thinkers you feature in them. I am wondering, however, why so many of my own comments have been censored. It has come to seem that there is a pattern to this: You don’t like to post comments that disagree too strongly with your own views. If this is true, it seems to run counter to the most fundamental principles of your School of Thinking. I would be interested to hear what you have to say about this.

We replied to John:

Dear John,

Thanks for your message and question about how we moderate the comments for School of Thinking. There are a number of factors involved in how we currently do this.

First, SOT is a school not a chat room. Therefore, we don’t undertake to post every comment from every person. We are selective towards the aim of the lessons but are not censorious. This means we are biased towards comments that assist in the pedagogy of the lessons and biased against comments that distract from this aim. It doesn’t matter whether the comments agree or disagree with the lessons as long as they are relevant and supported by evidence.

Some of the SOT lessons, for some people, may be quite provocative but they are always supported by evidence that can be independently checked out by the students.

We tend to leave out comments that are just peeved, irritated or even angry about the lesson unless they make a point that is supported by evidence. When they do this we check out the evidence and if it’s valid we leave the comment in. When necessary we may change or correct our lesson to update to the new evidence. We do this many times.

We don’t promote debate or streams of abuse or endless I-am-right-you-are-wrong interchanges. These can be found elsewhere all over the internet.

We are also mindful of the amount of time students have for the lessons, which are already time-consumng,  so we are forced to be selective in the comments we post. We also make choices regarding quality, diversity, participation and fairness. Having said that we do have biases of our own, limited resources and don’t always do everything to please everybody all of the time. We also make mistakes.

In your case John, we have posted 66 of your comments to date and we do value the quality of your work and the thought you put into them. However, for example, we did not post your comment below on the Hawking article:

John: “The idea that there is no afterlife of any kind is one of those theories for which there is no possible evidence, nothing which could support the concept. If you want to believe this, you just have to accept it on faith, which makes it a curious notion for a scientist to put forward with such confidence!”

The reason this comment was not posted is because, as far as we can tell, the claim of an afterlife is not a scientific claim. Since this idea of the afterlife is not one that has been put forward by science, it is not a scientific theory, so it is not one that is required to be supported by scientific evidence. Evidence of an afterlife must be supplied by whomever puts forward the theory of an afterlife. In your comment if you could provide the evidence that supports the theory then your comment would be considered for inclusion. It is commonly accepted that the burden of evidence lies with the one who initiates the positive theory. All Hawking is doing is making that point. Should any individual like yourself, or a scientist or group claim the existence of an afterlife of some kind and support that claim with evidence that can be tested independently then I would expect Hawking to change his view as would many other thinkers.

Again, because of the lack of resources, a limitation of SOT (which must be frustrating to students) is the lack of commentary we can make on all their contributions. Many students wish they could get more personalised feedback on their comments. When we tried this in earlier years each comment on a comment would lead to a further comment which would need yet another comment and that sets off chains of time-consuming commentary which seemed equally frustrating so we have limited the system to what we currently have. Should Bill Gates or some other well-heeled and generous philanthropist provide resources for SOT one day then we could expand the pro bono services we provide to our students.

Thanks again for your interest and support John,

Best regards,

Michael