Psych2030_Assignment 3 ++


Published on

joke from psyc2030 research methods
-objective of paper --- from learning APA 5th formatting

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Psych2030_Assignment 3 ++

  1. 1. Level of Cognitive 1Running head: TRANSCENDENTAL COGNITIVE QUALITY Level of Cognitive Complexity and Abstraction of a Transcendental Being Conrad H. Ng York University
  2. 2. Level of Cognitive 2 AbstractThis study analyzes the power of transcendental being. The hypothesis includes Can Godcreate a thought that can not be understood. Jesus of the Christian religion participated inthe study while there remain doubts about the truth of the participant’s identity. Theparticipant completes a 30 trial study of generating and abstracting premises which wererecorded and analyzed by a super computer. The results show massive power in bothabstraction and universalization of the generated premises abilities. However, the resultsuggests a limit in the English language for cognitive ability as well as a limit in thestudy’s identification of a non deceitful transcendental being. This study neverthelessprovides evidence for the transcendental being as both powerfully developmental andregressive.
  3. 3. Level of Cognitive 3 Level of Cognitive Complexity and Abstraction of a Transcendental Being The notion of monotheism has mainly been a Western concept (Gerrard et al2005) While many cultures and religions continue to challenge monotheism, one premiseand contradiction has plague the monotheistic ideal since the question was first proposedby Simpson, “Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he can not eat it?” (Simpson,2005, 1) As suggested by Maldini and Nesta (2003) this basic question has the potentialfor putting known metaphysical as well as metapsychological reality, knowledge andorder into doubt. Since, Donald and Duck (as cited in Simpson, 2005) has suggested thatthe basic diet of God does not consists of burritos; the question proposed by Simpsoncannot be tested. However, it has been suggested that God thinks and may process somecognitive ability which maybe tested psychologically (Donald, Duck and Simpson,2006). This research hopes to provide some understanding of the proposed question byexamining; can God think similar to those of human minds? And can God think withsuch complexity that the thoughts itself becomes incoherent, even to God? This basichypothesis may provide a better understanding concerning the nature of divine order andpower, therefore this research may re-align current metaphysical and metapsychologicalcontradictions within our understanding and scientific paradigm. This research examinesGod’s, Jesus’, cognitive ability by counting the number of cognitive complex thoughtsgenerated and the number of abstraction possible. These cognitive abilities areoperationalize by counting the numbers of linked premises generated verses the numbersof conclusions form from the generated linked premises within a given timeframe.Perhaps once and for all the questions of, “Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even
  4. 4. Level of Cognitive 4he can not eat it?” (Simpson, 2005, 1) and; is God’s cognitive ability similar to the humanmind? (Donald et al, 2006) maybe answered. MethodParticipant Figure 1 showed the poster used in the universal search for Jesus which wasplaced at major churches around the world. Participant was given the choice of theexperiment and that the world wide search would be called off pending a response for theexperiment. The participant was male and appeared to be in his thirties however he wasrecorded to be 2007 years old at the time of the experiment. Upon recruitment andexplanation of the experimental procedures, participant was also informed that he maydrop out at anytime during the experiment and still be compensated with fifty Canadiandollars.Procedure The experiment was performed on Earth at York University, Canada, at a constantroom temperature of twenty-four degrees Celsius. The participant claiming to be Jesuswas also tested by a local Reverend in bible knowledge and was asked to turn water intobeer in order to ensure identity of the participant. One super computer which has infinitecomputational power made by NOMAC incorporated model number 1348c along with asoftware call DCPC version 1.15a was specially formulated by NOMAC was used tocount the number of and determine the validity of the participant’s premises andconcluding statements. In this particular experiment, it was logical to use infinity as themeasurement unit since the participant was thought to have great abilities. Thisexperiment attempted to use a double blind procedure and requires at least one research
  5. 5. Level of Cognitive 5lab assistant to ensure the validity of the data and to reduce researcher bias duringanalyses. A second set of randomly allocated data set was also created by the supercomputer and the sets of data were analyzed by two different researchers. The real dataset was announced by the super computer after the researchers completed their analyses.In a thirty-two trials experiment, the participant was first asked to type up in the Englishlanguage as many coherent premises as he can into the super computer within tenseconds. A premise was defined as a proposition supporting or helps to support aconclusion. The second task for the participant was to enter into the same super computeras many concluding statements from his previous premises as possible within tenseconds. A concluding statement was defined as the last main division of a discourse,containing a summing up of the points and a statement. The participant should be able tosum up all of his premises into the least possible number of concluding statements. Thesetwo sets of data were then compared and scored in the number of abstraction of premisesinto concluding statements. Results For this experiment, we obtained the mean numbers of premises generated and themean numbers of concluding statements abstracted. Table 1 presents, for both number ofpremises generated and the numbers of concluding statements abstracted, the degrees offreedom, the means and the standard errors. The mean difference in the number of premises and number of abstraction washighly significant, t(30) = 6.002 p < .05. In order to determine the validity of the datasetthe Spearman’s rho was calculated. However, there was no significance Spearman’s rhocorrelation, r(32) = -.41 p < .82. Figure 2 presents a scatter plot of each set of results,
  6. 6. Level of Cognitive 6which may explain the resulting lack of correlation. Discussion The study results show that the participant processes similar cognitive abilitywhen compare to human beings at premise generation and premise abstraction howeverthis ability are at a greater magnitude. While this study might reaffirm the hypothesis ofDonald, Duck and Simpson (2006) that God thinks and processes some cognitive abilitysimilar to that of human mind; the participating transcendental being shows that hecannot always create a thought that he can abstract and therefore may not understand hisown thoughts at some levels. Rather there appears to be some cognitive dissonanceamong some of the samples as the abstraction became more numerous than the previousnumber of premises. This study may provide some hint to Simpson’s initial questionconcerning, “Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he can not eat it?” (Simpson,2005, 1) Logic deduce that God might be able to microwave a burrito so hot that even hecannot eat it at times since Jesus, a God, both created abstraction and universalization ofhis past thoughts. This study has profound metaphysical and meta-psychologicalimplication on the nature of transcendental beings and humans alike as the results seem tosuggest a both a developmental and a recessive transcendental being. Yet, it is still uncertain concerning the nature of this research’s generalizability.For example, the research suggests that God may be capable of eating the microwaveburrito at times yet it might not correlate that gods of other cultures would be capable ofsimilar abilities. This research however at parts reaffirms divine status within the westernreligious world and the unbound cognitive psychological nature of divine power since theparticipant performed these task in the infinity scale. Yet, this study also provide some
  7. 7. Level of Cognitive 7evidence for transcendental cognitive stability since there was a significant finding thatcomplex thoughts are generally broken down while there was a lack of instructionsfollowed. Since, pre-existing knowledge of the difference in gender does not exist. Thisresearch may not be generalize onto the female population of goddesses since theparticipant is a male. The implication of this study will however remain within the divinerealm which is as hypothesize excludes Buddhism (Maldini & Nesta, 2003). Alternative explanation for the results might question the computational limits ofboth the hardware and software while there may have been a mix-up in the datacollecting, storage and retrieval process. However, this is not the case since the computeris capable of infinite computation. Another explanation may be cause by a limit in theEnglish language as a tool for cognitive abilities and philosophical logic. The cognitiveability of God/gods might not overlap in all aspect of the mind and therefore the studymight have exclude aspects of divine, non-human, abilities. However, this is the bestmethod we know thus far. Temperature might be a factor in the difference betweendifferent cognitive sources of transcendental beings since it has been scientificallysuggested by Graham and Schambaugh (1997) that hell is exothermic while heaven isendothermic. This experiment remains at a constant of twenty four degrees Celsius whichmight explain a difference in cognitive ability due to temperature since twenty fourdegrees Celsius may not the normal temperature of a transcendental being of heaven orhell. Another possible weakness of this experiment maybe from the knowledge that Godis a timeless being (Maradona and Pele, 2000). It might not be possible for God to have alimited calculable number of infinity as data. It might be suggest that the participant wassimply holding back his generative ability. However, Jesus is a being of truth and justice.
  8. 8. Level of Cognitive 8 Unlike the premises of the Great Aristotle for mortals, divine truth maybe virtuous but it does not require development nor regression. Truth belong to the set of the abstract; which is most pure and abstract can not be destroy nor created. It exist for because i. (Maradona and Pele, 2000). Jesus might not have participated in the experiment since the generated data mightinstead represent another transcendental being, the Devil, who is attempting to spread badpublicity for other divine beings. The Devil is also known to process great power that isbeyond human limits. The inability of humans to grasp divine concepts and divine realityremains a puzzle however this study provide evidence that some form of transcendentalbeing might be at interaction with our mortal world. We have only touch on the questionof if it can ever be answer, If transcendental being eats burrito; “Can transcendental beingmicrowave a burrito so hot that even it can not eat it?” (Simpson, 2005, 1) At the momentfrom the data of this study, the answer is possibly.
  9. 9. Level of Cognitive 9 ReferencesDonald, D., Duck, D., & Simpson, H. (2006). Alternative to Transcendental Eating Habits. Journal of Transcendental Philosophy, 15, 507-523. Retrieved May 28, 2007, from Blackwell database.Gerrard, S., Gigs, R., Henry, T., Pirlo, A., Terry, J., & Zidane, Z. (2005). Western Thoughts and World Religion. Journal of Religious Psychology, 56, 56-67.Graham, T., & Schambaugh. (1997). Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic? Inbox Humor. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from, P., & Nesta, C. (2003). Eastern Religious Thoughts. Journal of Anthropology, 67, 1-10.Maradona, D., & Pele, E. (2000). Gods of Football. In D. Beckham & J. Edwards (Eds.), The Creation of Gods by Social Cultivation (115-116). Lala Land, Dreamworld: Dreamworks.Simpson, H. (2005). Philosophy of Homer Simpson (2nd ed.). Toronto: Pearson
  10. 10. Level of Cognitive 10 Author Note Conrad H. Ng, Department of Psychology, York University. I thank Dr. Heather Jordan, Professor of Psychology at York University, for hermany detailed guidelines concerning the APA format. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Conrad H. Ng, 55Crazy Road, ONT A1A2A2.
  11. 11. Level of Cognitive 11Table 1Mean and Standard Error of Generative Complexity and Abstraction df Mean Standard DeviationLinked Premises Generated 15 77.8 15.0Abstracted Conclusions 15 53.0 17.8p < .05
  12. 12. Level of Cognitive 12 Figure CaptionFigure 1. Poster for recruitment and world wide search for Jesus.Figure 2. Dataset of number of linked premises generated and the numbers ofconclusions form from the generated linked premises.
  13. 13. Level of Cognitive 13 WANTED for cognitive psychology research Have you seen him? Or Are you a God Just like him?Can a God microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it? Then we need YOU! For $50 CAD, we will only take seconds of your divine time! Please contact us by miracles or phone 323-3232
  14. 14. Level of Cognitive 14908070605040 Mean3020100 Premises Concluding statements