Honing of Honesty

To be honest, that probably shouldn’t even be a common term, it should be assumed. For a few years now, I’ve taken into my daily habits, being honest. I’m not talking about typical mediocre honesty of being mostly honest in those more significant situations, while still telling white lies and fibs when it’s convenient. I’m talking about being completely legitimately honest. I admit (to be honest) I haven’t been absolutely 100% honest this whole time, but those few times I ended up saying something not completely true -whether based on habit or from pressure- I took notice and reviewed the situation and as few situations as occurred, realised it was unnecessary. Within the last 2-4 years I can’t recall a single situation where even the slightest fib was overall beneficial.

Most situations where Ive found the temptation to lie to any degree was for my own benefit. Throughout this time Ive also paid attention to others dishonesty and what motivation there seemed to be to do so. Most small lies that seem unimportant seem to be an attempt to spare someone’s feelings and try to be polite. But when you really analyse the situation, you can come to realize in the end, you’re only really sparing yourself the uncomfortable and potentially awkward scenario in which you tell someone something honest, but which has a negative connotation. You like to think your being nice to the person because you say something more positive. But in reality you’re telling them something untrue, to your knowledge, which will enable them to continue whatever negative attribute is in discussion. The truth will likely only be beneficial to both you and the one hearing it in the long run.

It will be potential constructive criticism from their perspective, and the responsibility is really up to them to take it as that or less preferably, be a frick bag and be irrationally overdramatic and throw a hissy fit. It’s up to you to make the mature responsible decision of telling it how it is and allowing the receiver to play the ball as they wish. You may be worried of the potential initial temporary negative results, but if you really comprehend the situation you will realize even if the person takes it the wrong way and gets pissed off, that’s their own irrational decision which is up to them and not your fault knowing you made the right move. Basically, just know you’re trying to do them a favour, and if they take it the wrong way, it’s their own problem.

The overall general logic of being honest is pretty simple and should be graspable by even those of lesser comprehensive capabilities, being; if your less than honest even once, there’s little reasoning to know whether you’re telling the truth from that point on. Therefore, what you say is then more than less irrelevant and meaningless.

March 20/21 2015

The essence and logic of dishonesty is flawed. The point of lying or being dishonest is an attempt to make the directee believe something false or inaccurate. On occasion this may be effective in short term scenarios, but in the majority of situations, if there is any prolonged basis between the liar and lyee, the lyee will identify or at least suspect one of the untrue communications, and from that point on, no longer believe the liar. Any communication from the liar in the future -as well as instances recalled from the past- is then discredited, and not thought to be true, which was the intended purpose of lying in the first place. But the intended deceit doesn’t only become completely ineffective of its intended purpose, but also contributes an additional negative effect which spreads to all other communications from said liar. At the point of detected or suspected portrayed falsity, additional to any untrue communication, true communication will also be considered uncreditful.

The mistaken illusion that being dishonest with someone will spare their feelings is a less obvious and understandable, but still just as flawed, besides likely having the reverse intended effect of helping the directee. The entire concept is a dangerous illusion; of seeming as if you are doing the person some good, when in reality the negative effects are likely to have a much higher degree of effect long term. The risk factor is higher for the lyee, considering the intended function of the deceit is in relation to the lyees positive mental perception.

As is with the typical type of lying, the lyee will likely ultimately detect the lack of honesty, and as a result suspect all communications of dishonesty. But in this scenario of the lyees mental perception being the element at risk, there is more potential damage to be inflicted. As a negative result, regarding the aspect of enabling whichever negative attribute was at hand applicable to the lyee, the mentioned negative attribute will have persisted over a longer time period, so therefore the negative effect on the mental perception of the lyee will be applied to a greater range of that enabled attribute. That is one portion of negative effect being applied to the lyee. The extra addition portion of negative effect is applied to the lyees mental perception, through the uncertainty of the legitimacy of any additional communications relayed from liar to lyee regarding any alternate aspects effecting the lyees mental perception.

Next time you come across the scenario where you think lying is the best option, re-think it -honestly.

Minding Mindsets

WAKE UP!

This is a psychological spark to ignite intelligence. Typically you take action in life subconsciously, based on previously developed mindsets. But with the right knowledge, you can overpower or harness this.

This is some theoreticality created with a phenomenical lackage of mindsetivity..: There are few types of intelligence, of which, logic overall is perhaps the most important and significant in its usefulness and application. A mindset is a less sophisticated and less accurate form of intelligence. It is an undeveloped default function of the brain that is inherent. It is a lack of intelligence or thinking at the time of use, but is a form of intelligence when the mindset is created.

Everything with a brain has a degree of mindset and logic. Dumb animals have extreme mindset (perhaps 99%) and extremely low logic (perhaps 1%). Computers? Perhaps they have 100% mindset and 0% logic. For now at least, until they are advanced/ improved.

Humans are evolving from the degrees that dumb animals have. Mindset is decreasing and logic is increasing as humans evolve, making them more intelligent (from increasing logic) and more often capable of using the intelligence (from decreasing mindset).

Some mindsets can be overpowering and in control of many different types of situations or can only be only for one specific thing. Mindsets are created from circumstantial happenings (unexpected and or no choice or chance for logic), or purposeful force (by others) throughout experiences. This causes the brain to learn what the effect is and expect it the next time without logic (considering options and figuring out the most beneficial). A mindset can be created from one significant instance (eg. Trauma) or many small repeated instances.

If a mindset is created by purposeful force of the individual, then it must be done with logic (to choose to create the mindset for a reason). The moments of weak mindset influence is when someone has a chance to use logic. Someone needs a low degree of mindset influence in order to create their own mindset so they are more likely to have more situations where mindset is weak and logic can overpower and be applied. In these situations, there is a certain point where the mindset is weak enough compared to logic? If there is no mindset in place for any certain situation, then one is created from that 1^st time and is in place from there on.

A person is born with a certain overall degree (inherent) that mindsets (in general) will be the controlling force of the brain. Separate mindsets fluctuate in strength and power depending on how significant and relative each mindset is to that specific situation that a mindset is being applied to. The strength of each mindset is ultimately what controls the likeliness on it being the influence rather than another mindset.

Mindsets can grow exponentially. Every time a mindset is used it strengthens or weakens depending on the result being good or bad because the brain learns what the effect is and expects it next time without reconsideration. If a mindset is used in one situation and has a good result, the mindset is strengthened and therefore more likely to overpower in more recurring scenarios.

Maybe this can be significant enough to spark a mindset of logic. It may be weak at first and have few situations where it is applied, but when it is applied it should have good results and therefore the mindset will strengthen every time its used. This will be a purposefully forced mindset to begin with but become circumstantial when it begins to grow and strengthen every time it is used.

There is potential for advantageous life application, adaptable to nearly any circumstances, all from this 1 simple concept of minding mindsets--

Consciousness Comprehended

Consciousness is a profoundly relevant aspect of life. The distinct presence is of course relevant, because without it, a being is either dead, or in a deep dormant sleep. But the degree and quantity of which consciousness is applied, seems as though it should also be considered quite important. I believe with a better comprehension of consciousness, the understanding can be applied to be beneficial –as with most concepts-. The degree of consciousness is perhaps typically understood as being divided into 3 generalized categories, being; fully-conscious, subconscious, and unconscious.

From my understanding, the category of conscious would be considered to be distinguishably unique to human beings. I see consciousness as a gift to be very grateful for –whether you believe in God or not-, as without it the world would seem very dry, shallow, meaningless, and potentially completely pointless. To be outright conscious, is to be aware and capable of comprehension, understanding and retaining knowledge (at least as far as I am aware). Any animal (at least on Earth, and to our knowledge), may be considered conscious, but that is only in the more generalized distinguishment between conscious or unconscious. In those terms, it refers to the animal of being awake, and is conscious, but only to the (considerably) lesser degree of subconscious, when evaluating at that more specified degree of consciousness. 

Subconsciousness would be the capability of an entity to have a reaction -which is controlled by a preconditioned memorial system- to an effect (At least that is the most accurate definition, from what I can understand at the moment and relay into words). This would not include most awake, calm, and alert humans, because –being fully-conscious- their reactions are controlled by an over-writing, predominant, active action decider system, rather than the preconditioned memory system (ie. part of the brain). And this would not include unconscious entities or inanimate objects, because their reaction is controlled by the default of reactions, being the laws of physics, rather than a memory system. By my assumptions, subconscious would include: -Animals which are awake,

-Humans which are sleeping –but in the shallow state of dreaming-

-Humans temporarily inattentive or influenced by an external effect -to a point of lack of active decision capability (ie. Drugged, nutrient deprived)

-Humans underdeveloped in the reaction control system (ie. Children, mentally ill)

-last (and maybe least), theoretically by my standards- computers (until we develop them to the point of active, comprehending processing, where as they would become outright conscious and virtually capable equivalent in most relevant aspects to humans).

There seems to be a surprisingly distinct line between subconscious and outright conscious. Considering no other animal has crossed the line of fully (or at least as full as we know it for now) consciousness, in which the ability is gained to problem solve, adapt momentarily to changing circumstances/ surroundings, and intentionally/ purposefully alter variables. These abilities, gained through our consciousness have of course allowed humans to completely overpower and reign over every other animal (of equal opportunity but lack of that one aspect of life).

The line between consciousness and subconsciousness is actually crossed almost every day by every living person, multiple times. It is crossed every time you fall asleep -switching to subconscious (until you’re in a deep enough sleep to no longer dream and be technically unconscious)-, and vice versa. It’s crossed every time you get drunk enough to lose control, then back again when you sober up. And, perhaps most commonly (and… perhaps not so distinctly of a line after all), every time you lose focus or stop paying attention to what you’re doing, to enough of an extent that you’re not aware of what actions you are making. This actually likely happens numerous times throughout the day, with many repetitive tasks being acted upon without regard as habit and routine. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as most of the time your subconscious reactions will be the most beneficial reaction. But, where understanding of all of this comes in to be potentially productive and constructive application with positive outcomes, is those circumstances where a conscious decision would be superior to a subconscious reaction.

The benefit of consciousness is often differential distinguishment (as I’ve come to remember it). Where in, you have the ability to actively distinguish minor differences in a scenario, in which a subconscious reaction has not developed that distinguishment through its inferiorly slow-learning process of conditioned memory reaction. This extra capability of distinguishing those minor differences, acquires the benefit of acting more accurately to the current set of circumstances, by analyzing the probable effect caused by those differences which were detected.

If you can understand these properties of consciousness, perhaps you can perceive the potential positives and take advantage of having consciousness comprehended.

Intellectual Intel

What is intellect?

To determine what something is, an effective method is to determine the difference between the scenarios where the subject is present compared to unpresent. In the situation wherein something has intellect -a human for example-, it could be compared to something that does not have intellect, possibly being a dog. This should be a more applicable comparison, than a human to something completely lacking of brain activity like a rock, since intellect is assumedly considered a degree (the variable at hand) of intelligence (the constant). Distinguishing a variable is easier when there is a constant, so since a dog has some degree (variable) of intelligence (the constant), it should be a more relevant comparison, which should help more accurately distinguish the difference.

So, the most distinguishable difference regarding degree of intelligence, between a human and a dog could theoretically be the ability to distinguish differences (as of course I’m attempting to do right now!). Possibly, the reason humans are so much more intelligent -and considered to actually have intellect- is their ability to distinguish a far greater degree of differences in life, using conscious and aware comprehension. By being conscious of their surroundings, humans are able to comprehend the difference between whether certain variables are present or not, which would result in alternative outcomes. By being conscious and aware of any situation they’re put in, humans are able to then analyse what specific aspects of the situation are different from past situations, then comprehend what effect those differences will have. A dog on the other hand thinks basically only subconsciously, without the capability of analysing specific differences in any situation, and therefore not able to comprehend the effective outcome of those minor differences, and therefore not able to act accordingly in order to cause the most beneficial outcome.

Since ability to distinguish differences seems to be the element that causes intellect or a greater degree of intelligence, it should seem plausible that the greater the degree of ability to determine differences, the more intellectual or intelligent the individual. This makes sense logically in a practical manor as, in any general circumstance, the more accurately, precisely, and effectively the individual is able to determine differences in affecting variables, the more accurately they should be able to comprehend the minor causative effects of the variables. Once able to distinguish which variables cause which effects, they should be able to accurately predict the outcome of any situation by analysing the variables.

Having the ability to accurately predict and understand the outcome of any situation would be considered intellectual by my interpretation of the term intellect. This in turn, could be potentially relevantly beneficial with the plausibility of altering the variables to cause the most preferable outcome.

So for an advantageous potential of predicting, comprehending and therein altering variables of any situation, the key component seems to be determining differences by use of intellect.

Open

If someone is generally mostly mindset in their ways of thinking, they could be referred to as closed-minded. The opposite of this, would of course be open-minded.  To be open minded, you should be open to any possibilities, and therefore there is virtually no absolutes in your mind. Therefore I am not even totally sure that I am open-minded. Logically there should always be some possibility of anything, as even if the chances of said thing are theoretically 1 in a trillion for eg., there is still the chance. Therefore it should be logical to be open-minded.

Regarding an open mind, my theory is that; to be effectively open-minded, you should always (but not necessarily absolutely always) be open to the idea of any and all possibilities. This would therefore mean that you do not know of anything for absolute sure, since there should always be a possibility that you are incorrect. Saying you believe anything is possible can sound stupid initially. But I believe (and I say “I believe” because I try not to claim it as a certainty!) once you accurately understand it, it makes more sense than saying something is absolutely certain. Believing that anything should be theoretically possible, is virtually a practical observation of realistic mathematical probability. Mathematically lots of things are improbable, but that only means there is a small chance of it happening. That small chance could be ridiculously and incredibly small, but not zero. Considering the probability of an occurrence in chances, is the mathematical aspect to understanding this. For example, something improbable might have a 1 in one quadrillion probability chance of occurring. This seems extreme but not near the smallest chance, considering numbers can go infinitely high, making it possible for there to be a 1 in virtually infinity chance, making that chance an infinitely small percentage chance. If the chances of something occurring can be theoretically, infinitely small, then there is always still a chance greater than zero. Now that I’ve gotten relatively sidetracked as a result of my own wondering and attempted understanding and explaining… that is somewhat of an explanation of why I believe anything is possible and nothing is certain (including the fact that nothing is certain).

Being logically and realistically open-minded can sort of make things indistinct, since nothing is ever certain and there is always the clinging skepticism that something is not correct. From my personal experience, I find myself questioning virtually everything repeatedly. This tends to cause 2^nd guessing and 3^rd guessing and sometimes so on as there is always that remaining possibility that something that seems to be so, is not actually as it seems. This also makes decision making in the first place slower and more hesitant. But despite all that, by using an open mind, I believe since all aspects are more realistically and accurately analysed, the end decision should be more effective and accurate as a result.

As a default effect of being open to all possibilities, logical analysis is often used as a determinant. Since you consider any aspect of any potential scenario could possibly be applicable, you typically then need some method of determining which aspect is most probable. Even if the method of determinant is of the theoretical lower degree of intellect –being subconscious influence- the resulting average outcome will likely still be beneficial, based on statistical probability. This is as a result of trial and error and process of elimination (being potentially a whole separate topic). The alternative method of determinant would be conscious reasoning, whereas understandably each individual choice of option is more probable to be the potentially beneficial one. This would only increase the chances of the result of each trial being the one with a positive effect, rather than the chances being random.

On a more practical basis, when leaving your mind open to all possibilities, decisions and beliefs end up coming down to some degree of assumption of one option or the other. You will figure other options are possible, but one way should be assumed to be most likely, whether that assumption is decided based on subconscious memory, or more effectively, conscious analysis. Those decisions and beliefs etc. are then assumed on, based on probability, but are not definite or closed to alteration. If new evidential values of the variables -used to calculate the probability- are presented, then, as a continuous beneficial aspect of open-mindedness, a new virtual calculation is done, and a new degree of probability will likely surmise. This new degree of probability can then potentially change the assumption, if the probability changes to favor an alternate option, and therein change the decision/ belief etc. Basically, you’ll decide something, based on what’s most likely, but be willing to change your mind if something else seems more likely, later on.

More basically, if you want to be open to what is accurate, open your mind!

Life Logic

This blog is basically my attempted logical comprehension of various aspects of life. My interpretation of different elements of psychology, principles, influences of society, and any seemingly relevant topic regarding life in this world. Using what I believe to be deductive reasoning, practical analysis, calculated comprehension, and relevant rationalisation in an attempt of ultimate understanding.

This is a continuation of my previous few blogs, from which I'll re-post (with perhaps minor revisal) all my past writings. It is mostly theology, of various topics which I have a mental thirst for comprehending and understanding. I have been theorising potential methods of operation of various elements of this world since I can remember, and eventually discovered that writing it out makes it more distinct for my mind to process, as well as easier to remember, and much more practical to review. I dont expect many -if anyone at all- to read much of it (and therefore am potentially typing to myself...), but figure there's that added possibility that someone else could benefit from it as well.

In any case, this is my take on life logic.