Labels

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

BETTER TO BE SAFE, THAN SORRY

I just did yet another neuropsychological evaluation with a doctor recommended by my court appointed defense attorney, this is a doctor of superlative experience and knowledge who works since several years at the Semel institute of UCLA, has been involved in the legislative process that concerns the testing of people with bran injury and the appointment of conservators.

Regardless of the fact that his analysis of me and mental/logic capacities turned out to be a personal success that is going to free me up of my temporary conservator, he said something commenting my previous evaluation that I can’t let go out of my mind, in fact he said that my previous neuropsychologist used as his guideline the “better be safe, than sorry” approach/attitude.

If this wasn’t used as sole term of reference by the judge deciding on my case and life, I wouldn’t have anything to say nor complain about, but since this “safe” assessment was used as the sole source to decide to be appointed a sorry conservator who could easily be my daughter, who to follow the law to the letter has made it impossible to me to even look at my money in my (now inexistent) bank and savings accounts, has cancelled my credit cards that I used to have for decades without a blemish, has cancelled my only way to spend my lonely days, called Netflix account and I fear that by stopping the payments to my life insurance policy whose only beneficiaries are my treasures.

In simple words the one “simple” assessment combined with a judge who clearly can’t see farther than his nose, both have destroyed my life as I had worked to build it for 50 years?

Any suggestion about who I should give my thanks to for this catastrophe is both very welcome and expected.


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1652940

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

ABOUT MATH AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

I wrote already here on Feb 6th, 2013 about the neuropsychological attitude towards a God and its existence, but since I also recently advised to one of those Losers to learn about Pascal Wager.

I decided to make his mathematical approach to the demonstration to the existence of God more known – at least for those who read my blog here.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a 17th century French mathematician and scientist who, sadly, died at the age of 39 in a vehicle accident. He is considered to be the father of modern probability theory. He created the first calculating machine, invented the syringe, developed the hydraulic press, and refined the barometer for measuring atmospheric pressure.

I’m going to try here to explain his logic with very simple math:

1=we believe in God + 0= God doesn’t exist = 1, we had a good life anyway

1=we believe in God + 1= God is real = 2, we go to heaven after death

-1= we don’t believe in any God + 1=God is real = 0 or hell/eternal oblivion

-1= we don’t believe in any God + 0= God doesn’t exist = -1 = sure eternal hell

Since my brain is injured I’m not sure to have explained and simplified correctly the theory of Pascal, but you can look at the links posted here below to check for yourself.

Can also anyone explain to Michele that 1Carlo + 1Michele = 2Heaven, please?