Tuesday 29 August 2017

Is Pain in Vain?

After distinguishing what pain is, and my theory of its purpose, from a technical perspective it seems like pain –whether emotional or physical- is a tool used to avoid a scenario where harm will come to you. From this point of view, pain is beneficial and helpful when in its intended context.

Most typical natural occurrences would be in the context of pains intended function. For example, a broken foot causes pain as a function to cause the individual to refrain from using it until it’s healed. Or the pain from food poisoning causes you to not eat that substance again, since it is harmful to your health. Emotional pain from being away from somebody you care for causes you to be more likely to stay together, which is typically beneficial. These are examples of the theoretically intended context, where pain should be beneficial to the individual, based on evolution. These basic functions of pain would apply to only basic humans, with a lack of extensive consciousness and therefore a lack of extensive scenarios where emotional pain becomes potential throughout life. As humans have evolved after the point of conscious awareness, natural selection no longer has a very strong effect.

Artificial selection –from conscious choice of human reproduction, as well as artificial sustenance of life- causes an adaptation of conscious awareness to be sensitively influenced, therein, causing a whole new variety of potential scenarios for emotional pain to become a theoretically unnatural side effect. In these unnaturally intended circumstances caused by artificial selection, emotional pain theoretically becomes applicable to a much wider variety of scenarios, since comprehension of concepts grows –and therefore potential for comprehension of a negative aspect. As emotional pain has developed to occur from knowledge of a negative aspect of an occurrence, the pain will then occur for the comprehension of most negative aspects, which people develop the capability to be aware of. This potential for emotional pain would likely inherently be a developmental stage of intellectual progression -given the initial existence of emotional pain-, but would likely not persist in the case of continued typical natural selection.

Therefore, emotional pain beyond any minimal practically beneficial scenario is likely an unintended side effect, resulting from human choice. The practical benefits of pain would apply only to typical, naturally occurring circumstances in life, without any drastic factor applied to a scenario by conscious choice. With the added potential for conscious intervention and therein an intended extremity of a variable being applied (by said conscious choice), comes the additional potential circumstance for irregular and unnecessary pain, regardless of side effects from artificial selection. This potential unnecessary pain –caused by conscious decision- is not beneficial, but only a result of choice.


So, is pain in vain? It seems the only types of pain in existence, which are non-beneficial (or in vain) are not inherently intended, but a result of free will and human choice. 

Friday 25 August 2017

Purpose of Pain

What is the purpose of pain?
The first step in attempting to understand this significant question, might be to analyze the factors. One factor being pain, the question arises, what is pain? Pain is basically, technically negative signals going to the brain to warn that something harmful is occurring to the body. On the very basic and simple level of physical pain, which we share with the rest of animals, pain is a necessary requirement to warn from further damage. This type of pain is therefore arguably a beneficial concept.

Theoretically, the next type of pain would be emotional pain. Emotional pain is caused by the knowledge of something, and that knowledge causing a negative trigger in the brain, telling the owner something negative is occurring. In the case of animals, this negative trigger would most commonly be caused by separation from a typically necessary co-animal. By the theory of evolution, it would be beneficial for a lot of species of animals to live in co-operating with other animals of their own species in order to survive. Examples might be young animals being near their mother to be provided food and care, or the mother being near its offspring, in order to sustain their species population, or pack animals being with a pack to gain advantage on acquiring food, or defending. Since these relationships between animals would be beneficial, they would develop a negative trigger when separation occurs. This negative trigger would happen based on the knowledge of a scenario and could be considered the basic of emotional pain, rather than a direct physiological negative trigger such as hunger or a wound, being physical pain.
With such limited capable knowledge, animals would only have the small window for emotional pain based on the limited scenarios where they have developed the capability to have that negative trigger for their species typical benefit.

Humans on the other hand, have a profoundly vaster expanse of capable knowledge. With the development of conscious awareness in general, humans expanded the potential for knowledge almost infinitely. With the infinite scenarios and combinations of variables in this world, comes an unending possibility of knowledge. With all the potential for knowledge, comes the potential for the negative trigger based on knowledge of a negative circumstance. Therefore humans have a drastically increased potential for emotional pain.

Since it is based on knowledge, any emotional pain is therefore relative to the individuals’ comprehension and analysis of the knowledge. Emotional pain should be relative to the amount of knowledge (of which may be considered a negative occurrence), as well as that individuals interpretation of the knowledge, and comprehension to the degree of negativity of the knowledge. If someone comprehended nothing as negative to their perspective and understanding, they would therein feel no emotional pain. With the capabilities of analysis, processing, comprehension, and understanding, humans theoretically have the potential ability to determine –based on their perspective-, that any given circumstance is not a negative occurrence, and therefore intentionally avoid emotional pain.


Saturday 19 August 2017

Complete Consciousness

What is consciousness? It may seem simple at 1st; awake and aware. But what is complete consciousness in terms of intellectual deductive capabilities? 1 way to put it into perspective, is In comparison to subconsciousness.  

Would complete consciousness simply be complete awareness and comprehension of the individual perspectives surroundings and immediate scenario setting? Or perhaps that would be neglecting effecting factors beyond the individuals’ immediate perspective. If being conscious is being aware of and taking into consideration as many variables and potentially conclusion-altering elements of a scenario, then theoretically the more effecting variables considered, the more conscious an individual is.

For example, if this computer had a broader consciousness, perhaps it would be aware of the factors present for the potential that subconsciousness is a word (and therefore not underline it as a spelling mistake:). Technically -by current recorded universally accepted standards-, it might not be a word, but maybe the computer would be aware and conscious of the broader prospect and practical principles involved in vocabulary –as an adaptable and constructible means of communication-. But, plausible deductions, and analysis of data of which something is conscious of, may be a separate topic pending distinguishment.

If an intellectual being was to be simultaneously aware of every element within a significant visual and audible range of its single location, it would be quite conscious of its surroundings. But with the adaptation of technology –or hypothetical significantly acute senses-, there is potential to be aware of occurrences to in incredibly drastic distance and area. Even with todays technological capabilities, there is the potential to perceive visual and audial data –through cameras and microphones linked to the internet- from a significant number of locations around the world. The quantity could be multiplied exponentially, as well as accuracy capabilities increased to record nearly any and all current occurrences throughout this planet, -and beyond…


So for the maximum potential of consciousness, you would need to disregard human biological limitations, and take into consideration the possibility of an intellect capable of simultaneously perceiving a virtually limitless quantity of data of every situation occurring anywhere and everywhere. Basically,,. Complete consciousness would be the consciousness of God.   

Thursday 17 August 2017

Power of Purchase

How does money effect this world? How significant is the prospect of the dollar value associated with… everything? This is what I seek to analyze, process, comprehend, and understand.
Considering money is the universal credit system for valuation of virtually all products and services on the planet, money probably has quite a significant effect on the world.

To begin to analyze this, understanding the cause and effect of the money value of any given item, might be a reasonable starting point. The cause of the increase or decrease of the value of an item is typically supply and demand, and more specifically, the quantity, quality, and difficulty of acquirement of an item, compared to the perceived importance and requirement. So, in theory, the only way any object or service can attain a high dollar value, is as a result of people thinking they need something enough to pay that amount. Therefore, a different perception of importance in this world would make a drastic change in cost of items.

Even though greater desire for an item is necessary to increase the value, that doesn’t mean greater desire will always increase the value. Since quantity and difficulty of acquirement are also variables effecting value, high quantity or low difficulty can sometimes counteract an increase of demand. If there is a high enough quantity or low enough difficulty to produce, the value may not go up, or even go down after readjustment of resources, allowing quantity or ease of production to further increase. 

The effect of the money value of any given item is the quantity purchased and produced. If a higher quantity is produced as a result of higher dollar value, more resources will be put toward producing it as well as toward making the product easier to acquire and of better quality. All resources on Earth are limited, and when relocated toward production of one item, less of that resource remains for use of alternate items. For any product, including variations of quality or style of a product, many varying types of resources are used, some of which are in the form of physical material used to create the item itself, to manipulate/ transform the object, to package, transport, and to store the product. Besides physical material for a product, time is another relevant resource used, in terms of human interaction for production, management, and further development.

The expanse of total resources used for any typical product is perhaps ill perceived and underestimated with a typical lack of awareness and thorough comprehension. An item with an appointed high value is prioritized for these many limited resources. Based on my perspective, if a logical, rational, and intelligent valuation of objects or services were applied, the entire economy, society and therein world would be theoretically significantly -if not completely- different than the current scenario. Any products lacking in practical, functional benefit would have a fairly low value. Products and services for entertainment or personal preference wouldn’t necessarily have zero value, as stress release and enjoyment can have a beneficial functional effect. With a lower but existent value on entertainment, it would still be allocated its position in culture and society, just with a lower quantity of resources used, in ratio to practical elements. Perhaps a profound difference would be value in variances of products. With function prioritized, and the superficial aspect considered minimal in value, much fewer variances of a product would be produced. Therefore resources would be used much more efficiently for production and development of individualized product.  


So keeping in mind the overall effects of the value of -nearly anything and everything in this world-, being a seemingly significant and relevant influence on the allocation of the limited resources we have, it would seem rational to take care and caution when making our contribution to the cause of this effect, being quantity of purchase. If able to comprehend such a concept, and care about much more of this world than oneself, then if the scenario happens to arise with the capability and perhaps temptation for excess purchases, the purchases would still be taken into significant consideration. The potential to make an eccentric improvement on this world as a whole, may reside within the understanding of the components of contribution in combination with the power of purchase.

Saturday 12 August 2017

Prequel Chance, Equal Enhance

All should be considered equal! Right? Taking that as an absolute, would seemingly be quite drastic in reality. But, after analysis of pride, it seems all alternative individuals should be considered no less important than you. And after questioning contribution, it seems it is generally beneficial. Therefore contribution to the equal distribution of all personal resources to others (being of equal value) would seem logical. The idea of others being considered of the same value, has got me wondering; to what extent should support of others, or perhaps contribution to a grander prospect, spread? I think an understanding of equality in value of others is necessary (as understood from negating pride), as well as equality in opportunity of circumstances.

Theoretically, if all other individuals are considered of equal value to you, all others should also have the same quantity of resources. You would then relay all efforts and gained resources to any and all alternate individuals with less resources. This is a plausible theory, but living this way in absolute would be an extremist lifestyle –though some people do choose this-, and would seem unnecessarily selfless, as you would end up only supporting yourself with the bare minimum resources for sustaining your life, while giving everything to all others with even the slightest lower amount. To keep the extent of generosity to a less extreme and seemingly more reasonable degree, perhaps a better understanding of equal opportunity is necessary.

Assuming all individuals are of equal value, a method of determination of quantity of each individual is required. Typically you’d measure the quantity of resources each individual has, to compare potential current equality, and therein adjust the quantity of resources from one to the other in attempt to allow all to become equal by quantity of resources. But, with the constant in this situation being humans, the added variable of free will and choice should be taken into account. Considering all individuals have the option off free will, affecting the quantity of resources they have, the quantity to be measured in order to compare equality, should perhaps be opportunity rather than resources. By comparing opportunity that each individual had to begin with, this accounts for the individuals’ variable of free will, since accumulated resources would be varying as the current quantity based on what that individual chose to make of the beginning opportunity of circumstances, as well as ongoing opportunitial circumstances. Comparing opportunity therefore, would be a more accurate analysis to determine overall equality in alternate individuals being valued equally. 

Precise, specific circumstances of opportunity of others can never be known, leaving only an assumed estimation of what opportunities they have had. If you consider all alternate individuals which have had an estimatedly, generally equal opportunity as yourself in life, as being in equal position, then regarding them as equal value would generally not imply relaying resources or efforts towards them to any degree above yourself. Instead others of estimated less beginning opportunity would be the only ones to require adjustment of resources in their direction, in order to attempt equal current position of all constants of the same value.


Evaluating initial opportunity then becomes the necessary determinant in order to attempt to make all those values in this world equal.

Valuation

A very important element of life that I’ve recently discovered is perception of ones-self compared to others. This is a commonly distinctive issue when it comes to Christianity but, as I’ve noticed, most anything of the sort can just as well be applied to any belief system. In terms of Christianity; this regards the very difficult to distinguish and overcome (in my personal experience at least) sins of Pride and Judgement.

In my beliefs, as what I’ve determined, the sin of Pride is a result of thinking ones-self is of greater value than others. This includes crediting yourself for positive attributes, accomplishments, capabilities, and ownerships. Where-as credit and appreciation should be given to God for all accounts, for his allowance. It should be understood that nobody has any authority or plausible overall awareness, to make such drastic claims to one person being of greater value than another. Every person ever born is only at the mercy of circumstance that God happened to allow the existence of, and potentiality of accomplishments. Therefore everything you are capable of is only by result of your uncontrolled initial spawn of existence, and there-in not credible to you. With no primary credit or authority of valuation, self-pride and arrogance is illogical.

The same principles regarding valuation and legitimate authority, apply to judgment. Where pride is valuing you above others, judgment can be considered valuing someone specific, lower than others. Since everyone is a result of circumstantial implementation by a force far beyond and before our control, how could we reasonably credit any individual over another, or consider one of a greater elevated state? I find keeping in mind my own numerous faults, helps to relate to another who may initially seem like a lower value individual. Then it can be realized that every person is similar in their recurrences of faults, and with no primary credit applicable to the individual, degrees of faults -or value based on such- don’t seem plausibly, fairly distinguishable by any individual.

As I will try to do- next time you begin thinking you’re better than someone else, or someone is worse than everyone else- THINNK AGAIN.