From time to time we hear: "… another suicide bomber carried out a terrorist attack this morning". Our consciousness, in terms of perception of reality and sense of reality, has become inflamed. Illnesses come in many forms, including not only bodily illnesses. Now pneumonia has struck the mentality, and the "infection" with fatality has infected us with the effect of dumbing down of sensitivity. There is such a peculiar effect of physical "dumbing down" of sensitivity, but I mean spiritual, moral "dumbing down" of sensitivity. It is used to train combat agents of special services or fighters of special brigades. And in general, fighters called up for operations where violence is an accompanying attribute, including the one used against them. Here's a simple explanation. For example, you roar, or even go into hysterical convulsions, when stung by a wasp. And when you are trained, subjected to the same stings for a year, or even more, and even with the use of special drugs, you will be able to dissolve a hive of wild bees. So is the community of people: at the beginning of any social-psychological process, for us, for a society living in appeasement and condemnation of minimal evil, for example, a scandal between a student and a teacher – such an insignificant negative event, a minimal nervous phenomenon – is perceived as something dangerous, terrible and immoral and unspiritual. And when such things become a daily occurrence, then even in relation to something that is much more criminal, such as rape, the scale shifts, the justification of a rapist becomes quite acceptable, because "…a lady with a tarnished reputation". And then there's more. Look at the news, we no longer have the reaction to perceive everything emotionally: there – killed, here – raped, beaten, robbed, dismembered. And it's all over the place. Violence, violence, violence. Some people still somehow want to ask where is God? Because appealing to the authorities is useless. The authorities can not constantly carry out point operations and begin to tighten the general legislation. This raises fears of usurpation of power, tyranny and dictatorship. And we close our eyes again, indignant, and with a sigh we comfort ourselves: it is good that it did not happen to me; or even worse, it cannot happen to me. And I'll tell you: it can, and it can.

I have my own theory about this, and it is that if something happens to someone else, it can happen to you. When thinking about the human psyche, I involuntarily recalled a science fiction story that described the case of a robot android with intelligence. In the story, the ISKIN that possessed a "body" began to be presented to people as crazy, and the reason was that it had become too human. Are we not like that relative to anyone else? We have no one to compare ourselves to in terms of intelligence. If the same gods or highly developed aliens, whom we have imagined in any variety, were in real contact with us, then it would be possible to compare our mind, spirituality, mentality with theirs. But this is the folly and at the same time the arrogant narcissism of man. The fact is that we cannot logically combine one inference from three consecutive logical combinations. We can build one logical line, and even then a small one, out of several logical combinations, and not always and not in all cases. If already two logical understandings have to be combined for one logical conclusion, they either lead to misunderstanding of one of logical concepts, or to a conflict. Chess lovers understand well what I mean, for the rest of you, my smile, and… For the sake of clarity, let me give you an example: the mystery of Dzhokonda's smile lies in the absence of modern dentistry at that time. Now draw conclusions about how many logical combinations are "inside" such a conclusion. When asserting such logical conclusions the following effect can happen: if they are given by a person who has combined such a thing logically and clearly, if even for a long time, and sometimes it is a whole book and even a separate branch in science (agree, the whole book can be a justification of one logical sense, which is usually the case), then we either understand in the end what the point is, or, seeing the agreement with him of understanding, the more "abstruse" personalities (or experts in such a subject), we agree with him, taking what he said on faith. Even this sentence explaining a combination of logical concepts is built on a combination of logical concepts and… is difficult to understand. This is the paradox of faith, the essence of which is: you don't have to understand, but you do have to believe. Although it may not be the truth. Otherwise gods and beliefs would not change in the history of mankind (because the new faith is based on the fact that the old doctrine was false).

So, the following paradox emerges from all this: we, mankind, do not understand the combination of more than two-stage logical thinking. That is, we do not see, for example, in the monumentality of the pyramids of pharaohs the desire to surpass their greatness. We do not see in the history of the greatness of some god the desire of human leaders to immortalize their name by one or another deed, including global wars. And this is the incentive of not only the persons in power. We only assume and, intuitively understanding, still doubt. On this basis we consider as false the meanings that can be understood only by putting three or more logical concepts into a logical combination. This manifests itself in limitation and in not understanding where our action will lead. With experience and knowledge of examples, as they say, with wisdom, man and mankind intuitively begin to assume possible consequences. On this fact are born taboos, rules and belief in an invisible spirit that controls the cause and effect relationship, one that we cannot calculate, but only assume instinctively, based on the same experience of past similar variants. This is in the mass of all mankind, which develops according to the principle of natural selection, according to the main criterion: the goal is the survival of the species. But not selectively, not by choosing the most reasonable. Although in millions of variants it is still the more reasonable, intellectually superior to the general mass of "human beings" who bring civilization to a new stage of development. An example of this could be something that explains what comes as a consequent act from a common knowledge statement. It could be a prediction of the weather in the long term, for example: the summer will be rainy because… the winter was snowless. A variant of this prediction could calculate the outcome of stock market futures for fuel and food commodities. There may be logical combinations, quite distant in a chronological sense, with much larger chains of events that ended up being a factor in the final act. Of such multi-stage logical interrelationships, perhaps the most famous is the following: what is the connection between the fall of a huge asteroid 65 million years ago and the emergence of Homo sapiens? The events seem to be separated by millions, tens of millions of years, but it turns out that they are connected. Although for homo sapiens (man as the dominant species) – maybe, but the mind (the very possibility of thinking in this species of animal) – maybe not. That is, it is quite possible that mind came from external sources (an extraterrestrial civilization or god)… or an intelligent animal species would have appeared, but not man, but something else. Then another question follows from this – why did man appear then? We can argue here for a long time, but let's take Rangit's theory as a basis this time (yes, the intelligence is artificial, but if it is true intelligence, it is guided by logical concepts of inference). He argues: it was this primate, from which humans evolved, that had the greatest, proportionally, variety of variations suitable for an easier way to survive and – most importantly – to perceive all possible radiations (mostly solar, of course), which led to the mutation where it began to understand linear logic. That is, logic in general. And now imagine how long it takes for this homo sapiens to develop so that he could fill the Earth with his society, and after that – so that this society could become minimally reasonable and, of course, cultural at least to some extent, in order to then try to instill in him an understanding of his own mental labor. For example, let's take religious texts that we revere to a greater or lesser degree, the works of philosophers and thinkers, the Bible, the Koran, Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" or Poincaré's "Measurement of Time" (in it he formulated the general principle of relativity back in 1898, before Einstein) – all of us, making a smart face, think that we should be familiar with them, but in fact – we know practically nothing about them. I am talking about linear logic. So what I'm saying with these examples is that we, as a society, need to be trained to understand the works of scientists. But this is the way from simple to complex. But if we think about it a little bit, we can understand why, if there are aliens, they don't contact us. Tell me, if you start explaining the same religious texts, their meaning, abstruse philosophical treatises, the same theory of relativity, what reaction will you have? The overwhelming majority will have a reaction of rejection and indifference. The reason – we do not need it for everyday activities and, let's face it, for comfortable pastime, that is life as such. Their derivatives and consequences – yes, they are necessary, but we do not even notice them. For example, we use navigation devices, search engines, calm our nervous system or stimulate our aspirations, but we do not think much about the fact that all this is based on scientific theories and doctrines of theology about the creation of the world and man's place in it – both in the scientific concept and in the divine one. And certainly we do not need a deep knowledge in the exact sciences to use the instruments or to obtain the services by which certain technical means are created. But, for example, if, as in some religious community, we had to know the Lord's Prayer in order to be admitted to a meal, then we would learn it by heart. Or, to fly on an airplane, we would have to have at least an average knowledge of the techniques used on board, for example, to be able to provide primary medical care, then surely many people would learn it. After all, it is mandatory to study this for space flight. But space flights are not vital in everyday life, so we do not pay so much attention to it so far. We can reason otherwise: those who need us to use air and other transportation services try to make it as easy as possible for individuals to understand complex technology and prevent possible dangerous consequences. For example, no matter how you look at it, everyone should know how to use a fire extinguisher, even if the personnel (e.g., train, cafe, gas station) should be able to put out a fire without fail. This means: innovations that are part of our daily life, we have to learn how to use, for example, a seat belt in cars. But once upon a time, to get a driver's license you had to be able to fix a lot of things in the car: the technique was more primitive, service was not very developed, and difficult situations could arise even because of weather conditions. For example, it would be necessary to start the engine manually, with the help of a "crooked key". If, of course, someone knows what it is.