Inspiration and Insinuation Influences on Human Thinking and Behavior: A Psychoanalytical, Psychodynamic, and Cognitive Phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is insinuation one of the most influential phenomena in the early and continuous development of human behavior? Yes. Does previous scientific study give ample of time to understand unconsciousness and its manifestation from this point of view? No. As we have demonstrated in the following pages, insinuation does hold a high view in the divine scriptures as an opposite to inspiration. The scientific views on unconsciousness theory further ascertained its influence on human activities. A number of scientists however, denounced this clear evidence due to lack of laboratory prove of inspiration-cum-insinuation effects rather termed unconsciousness. In this essay, through dedicated analysis using both induction and deduction methods we showed that their theories failed to study unconsciousness from a holistic perspective. It only focused on those that have psychological and psychopathological problems in exclusion of reasonable human beings, thus, contained numerous errors that even contradicted their scientific findings. Following in-depth and dedicated analysis, we showed the influences of unseen phenomena that are beyond human control from Islamic philosophy viewpoints affirming earlier biblical claims of insinuation influences. We concluded by mentioning some of the physical evidences justified by the Islamic scripture “Qur’an” and some of the implications of these findings for certain aspects of the contemporary “inspiration and insinuation debates”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".