If You Had The Power, Would You Travel To The Past Or Forward To The Future?

If I can go back in time to March 24 – 2018, I will watch myself run to that sideline and rupture my ACL again and never change anything; because the mental growth and cognitive rewiring that ensued from that incident outweighs the physical ramifications.

What do we know about a predictable life, boring! no?

il_570xN.1169046465_cqsz.jpg       The vision, it was progressing, and the progress was very predictable to the point where each day was a repeat of the previous one, and the future was predictable, the vision was a predictable outcome. Then something unpredictable happened! I was glued to the ground realizing that I am going to be living an unpredictable uncertainty.

Isn’t uncertainty that ‘grey’ area where anything can happen and anything can exist; doesn’t that make it more exciting to wake up and explore the novelty of the day. Maybe we are afraid of uncertainty because it is uncomfortable, but what if we get comfortable with uncertainty, wouldn’t that bring a sense of euphoria that we are on the brinks of seeing something different, something new, something novel, something that will keep us on our toes rather than being flat footed.

To answer the title of this blog post, choosing to travel to the future is simply relying on the premise that the next few “skippable” months are based on experiences trapped by predictability, where we fail to appreciate each day as novelty entangled by the beauty of uncertainty. You know, I wish I had that mentality when I switched my career vision from medical school to physiotherapy school, but that I guess is the definition of wisdom; it comes with experiences not with time.



Thinking out loud

We were so happy together that simply being ‘by each other’s side’ brought us joy & their laughter gave us butterflies.
Then long distance came, so we started searching for happiness ‘apart’ to fill the void in our hearts; we began to see the beauty in different aspects of life within the different worlds we were in. Sadly, communication suffered, so we couldn’t combine the beauty we discovered ‘separately’ with the beauty we experienced ‘together’ and so we thought ‘we’ weren’t happy together…. I wonder how life would have turned out if we merged ‘US’ with the beauty we discovered ‘alone’.


But what if breaking up was meant to happen (blessing in disguise) that was designed by the world to allow us to appreciate each other’s presence even more, and create a level of conscious awareness where if we ever go back we will forever make the other person our #1 priority..


               We frequently settle at discerning the what and leave behind a curious eager age where we once scrutinized the whys and dissected the hows. It is a cognitive suicide to shoulder life as it presents itself and assume it to be no longer essential to question what one knows. The irony stems from venerating the past 10,000 years in historical developments yet feign to grasp the basic fundamentals of the minute occurrences within our sub-100 years of existence.


To probe the presence through root-cause analysis is to constructively fashion a self-tailored future. This does not merely mold our vision in a philosophical approach, rather it empowers us by coalescing and prospering the happy jiffies, and aid in eliminating the bases of malicious phenomenon. Through curiosity, we pave cognitive highways that enrich, amend, enhance, and compose life in a way that will strengthen our individuality.


Personal Growth Hinges On Curiosity. 


Patience and Persistence

Upon endeavoring onto a novel journey, one must understand that the course takes time, struggle is evident, and mistakes are a fundamental prerequisite for growth. It’s the appreciation of the labor that truly transcends happiness. Our scuffle with mishaps paints a portrait; each stroke denoting a stumble or a vault. We only begin to see the splendor of our art once we appreciate our idiosyncratic humanness that is impressed onto the canvass. Contempt with ones individualism and acceptance of the metaphorical view of life as a spring board (if it goes down at first then it is bound to bounce back up) paves the way for perseverance in the face of difficulties. In not allowing oneself to fail, one deprives oneself from growth itself. We ought to embrace and love failure but never accept it, and happiness can be found from within once we overcome it.


Our ECG is represented by bumps, with both an upward and a downward slope. If the schematic representation had no bumps then we would be dead. Those who do not appreciate the struggle of the process are promptly transformed into quitters. Hence, admiring the course of the journey is a time machine that transports the individual to their goal destination.

Appreciate the ups and downs and keep painting your picture 

Picasso’s White Wall

The human mind is very complex, exquisite, and proficient at unraveling most predicaments without strenuous contributions from the subject. For example, when confronting a broken elevator, we rapidly resolve to take the stairway without any cumbersome pondering. Such unpretentious problem solving skill portrays the human supremacy to other organisms. Conversely, when antagonized by a very difficult problem, our mind is momentarily inept at “instinctively” or immediately determine an action. In such instances, we ought to exploit our “imagination” to enlist few alternative perceptions to resolve the problem at hand.


Picasso would notably gaze upon a white wall to cultivate an inspiration for his canvases. When queried about what it is that he was doing; he’d respond, “I’m painting.” Boundless innovators have a dexterity for distinguishing relationships, seeing connections, and making associations that others cannot perceive. What Picasso grasped in utilizing a “white wall” as a prop for his imagination is the the key to practicing this kind of innovative thinking. Thereby, nurturing the mental operation into a habit; furthering the powers of his mind.

Problems cannot be disentangled with the same mindset that fashioned them

Embryo Vs Life

An embryonic stem cell line is obtained by harvesting stem cells from a fertilized egg at the (blastocyst stage). The stem cells are then placed on a petri dish in order to duplicate, grow, and later used for treatment.

The pressing question is, can we use stem cells from an early stage developing embryo in order to treat patients? The debate against stem cell harvest presents itself as follows: “When you harvest embryonic stem cell line, you are simultaneously destroying an embryo.”

But I yearn to reveal a facet that is never spoken of in the dispute against stem cell research.


Embryos are presently being obliterated in other practices; namely, in-vitro fertilization. Here, they reap multiple eggs from the ovaries and begin to fertilize them with semen; consequently, all of the eggs become zygotes. Subsequently, they allow the zygotes to develop to the (blastocyst stage), and only the ones that are ‘deemed’ healthier are then embedded into the uterus in hopes that one of the blastomere will become an embryo. Nonetheless, the other blastocysts are subsequently terminated. Hence, for every one embryo that has the potential to develop into a full fleshed human being, tens are destroyed.

So if in-vitro fertilization is destroying tens of potential embryos for the sake of producing a potential viable human being, then why is it wrong to utilize stem cells from a ‘potential’ embryo to better the life of an already existing human being? (Keep in mind that it is possible in modern day technology to harvest few stem cells without negatively impacting the developing embryo).

Opponents of embryonic stem cells that grasp onto the premise – stem cells harvest destroy potential human embryos – must on a similar philosophical ground, oppose in-vitro fertilization given that both of these approaches involve the destruction of zygotes.

I am not against in-vitro fertilization; rather, I aim to unveil the gap in reasoning of those who cherry-pick what they want to support.

Rationalism entails the adoption of philosophical wholeness in logic 


Is The Mind Physical? 

           The first law of thermodynamics professes: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but only converted from one form to another.

There exists a colossal debate pertaining to the exact entity of the mind; questioning whether mental phenomena are physical or non-physical. Mental states, such as thinking, is one pronounced facet of the mind. So is thinking a physical or a mental process? let us first direct our attention to the following question, is thinking a form of energy? Since energy exists as a physical matter, if the answer is ‘YES‘, then It appears that the first law of thermodynamics perfectly establishes the mind to be a physical entity.

If the ontological relation between the upper-level properties of the mind can be explained by their lower physical level properties, then the mind may be deemed to be a physical object.


Let us take a closer look at the molecular level, the act of thinking requires communication between neurons. Neurons communicate via chemical messengers; namely, neurotransmitters. neuronal communication is mediated by the mechanism ‘action potential propagation’ which itself requires the utilization of a high energy molecule, i.e. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Energy molecules like ATP are merely chemical entities. Thus, mental processes hing on the utilization of energy within a physical molecule. If the presence of ATP in the body ceases, the act of thinking would evidently disappear!

HOWEVER, If brain surgeons would observe a human brain during an instance where the brain is consumed by multiple thoughts; they will remain naive as to what the individual is thinking about. Hence, could there be a third dimension in addition to the two dimensions we traditionally attribute as “physical” or “mental”?

There may be an answer to the above exclamation! A single heart cell (myocardium), or one atria, or one ventricle alone (group of myocardium) are incapable of functioning as a heart. By the same token, one brain cell, or one lobe of the brain is incapable of functioning as a brain. Hence, the new dimension may be elucidated as: The whole gives rise to an entity that is bigger than the sum of its parts.