Decision Drive

Why did I just type this? Why did you just read that? Why did I end up writing a sentence about why I'm writing a sentence? Why do I ask so many questions? Why does action take place? Why does anyone make any certain decision? How does a theoretically intelligent, self-aware, existence-conscious being make choices?

Are choices made by conscious reasoning of logic, or subconscious impressions of past experiences?

Perhaps more likely, a combination of both, depending on the individuals genetic and adapted intellectual capabilities. Are there any additional variables, besides genetic intellect, past experiences influencing subconsciousness, and current circumstances? If not, theoretically, there could be a formula to calculate every decision, action and reaction of any person, with those 3 variables known.

Could super computers in the future, potentially link with the human brain, upload all previous data to calculate those 2 variables, from all past influencing experiences, and processing operations of a human brain? Once those 2 variables are known, the computer would just have to analyse the current circumstance variable -which itself, consists of many variables, but seems plausible for future computers to be capable of calculating. The computer could theoretically link with a human brain once, upload the data, then predict precisely the decisions of that person, in any circumstance.

If there is no more to a conscious decision, then even if someone was to intentionally attempt to spew off thousands of random (or what they might believe is random) numbers or letters or words, it could be predicted exactly as it occurs. There would be no defying the predictability.

If all actions of a conscious being are predictable down to a scientific calculation, does that mean we have no free will? If the particular electronic reaction within your brain is as calculated as a chemistry reaction of 1 element combined with another, then perhaps every action you ever take is predetermined, and there is no possible alternate outcome.
If there is no other possible outcome, is there a point to taking any intentional action? If you try to take an intentional action, that will be the predetermined outcome, if you don’t take that action, then that was actually the predetermined outcome. It seems like if 100% of the universe is predetermined, there is no point in taking any action, since no matter what you do, that was the outcome, and it is not possible to make any difference.

This is all sort of a baffling concept! But it seems to me that, if choices are meaningless, and intentional actions make no difference, then there would be literally no point or purpose to the universe. If there was no reason for the universe to exist, then it would not exist.
Therefore, by deductive reasoning, since the universe exists, it must not be 100% predetermined. If it’s not completely predetermined because there is potential for alternate occurrences, it seems likely –based on current potential observations and available data- that conscious decision is the means of potential alternate outcomes in the universe.
How can the brain create an incalculable scenario of varying potential outcomes?
That seems to be my next question.

Distribution Devisal

Would an artificial intelligent program delete its replica to gain priority status? 

Would aliens attack humans for our resources rather than offering trade?

Would Jesus shove someone out of line to get a taco quicker?
Would a wolf hide a dead moose for itself, from its starving pack?

There is a common distribution rationalization between the scenarios, which would suggest the occurrence to be unlikely. An entity (be it the individual itself, or an efficiency output system of trial and error, such as natural selection) capable of effective rationalisation would likely come to the same conclusion of general logic application, from analysis of efficient dividend distribution.

A general applicable rule based on deductive rationalization; all undefined units should be considered of equivalent value for distribution of alterations in possession quantity. From this it can be derived, all units should acquire equivalent additives to keep the units equal, or alternatively reduction in quantity of posessions should be distributed evenly between units. This would be relevant in the scenario where 1 unit gains additives or negatives. The alteration in possession quantity should be applied universally, or evenly distributed to the remaining units in order to retain overall equality and efficiency of the group of units as a whole. Also derived and relative to this rule, is the occurrence where a change to the total sum is intended, where the alteration to all units –whether positive or negative- should be evenly spread.

With enough statistical evidence an entity might rationally deduce that it has greater value than some alternate units –based on practical capabilities etc.-, but it would likely only be to a small degree, assuming the unit is generally similar. It may actually be self-valuing in some scenarios to a small degree, but only in relation to distinctly differing attributes, and the occasion where resources are important enough to distribute disproportionately (as potentially causing risk of conflict).

Now, what in the frick am I talking about? I may sound like some sort of hippy calculator program, and maybe I am in some way –what’s wrong with that?) This is my method of describing something in the most generic form I can envision it, to reduce any biases, mindsets or preconceptions related to the topic which might be in place with a more specific example. So now that the unbiased description has been worked out, I’ll apply it to more specific examples.

An AI program would likely distinguish that a replica of itself (unit) is theoretically of equivalent value as far as its capable of deducing. If the Ai has any sort of achievement target, -with appropriate analysis capabilities- it would evaluate such that additional equivalent units to itself would increase probability of achieving its target in cooperation.

A similarly developed -to humans- alien race would likely realise that attacking humans would result in large net loss, where trading benefits all units with additional value in quantity of possessions.

Jesus would empathise that the guy –for all comprehensive awareness- deserves that taco as quickly as he does (assuming the perspective of an equivalent human), in relativity to time of entering the lineup for tacos. Time as a quantity of possession, should be considered equally distributable between units.

The wolf could keep the dead moose for himself as a long term source of food, but as natural selection would have deduced by long term trial and error of wolves behaviour, sharing the moose with the rest of the starving pack allows them to survive as well, allowing them to work together in the near future to much more effectively catch more prey.

When it comes to devising distribution, the most potentially effective and efficient method seems to be even application of variable acquirements, to all units of perceived equal value. Evenly spread distribution tends to keep the group balanced, and achieve net positive for the lump sum.

Cynical Cinematic Sample of Society

1 potential perspective of analysis of deduced and derived reasonality of why,

everyone is stupid.

Starting with # 1. As a very general reason, causing global warming seems selfish even beyond what I would have thought natural instinct would provide, as for preserving the very race that we are of humans. We still regularly and daily do what we know causes global warming, which we know could likely kill millions of people and species of animals -if not every of those both.

People keep driving their vehicles, which they know is a major part of causing the murder of this planet, just because mainly, well it makes you look better.. More cool and of better status to be driving, combined with being just damn lazy makes most of it. No bother to even mention that 99% of us could easily be using a much much less polluting method of transportation. As theoretically the best, but only one of many possibilities of that option of reduced pollution contribution, biking of course has several additional obvious benefits. But! I guess some people on the road that you will never see again might think you are weird, or possibly even not cool :o Let’s consider that reason 1.1.

1.2 could be perhaps using so damn much more of that -miracle of a convenience that we never really consider- being electricity, than we need at all. Probably 50% of that waste, only because we use so much of it otherwise, would be leaving lights on. If your looking for a lack of logic then here you found it. We keep so many lights on over every night to well, what they say prevent criminal activity, like burglary. Ok so they keep all these lights on every night for the whole night because it might possibly prevent someone from stealing from the place, or as streets go prevent what? Rape in the middle of the street because its lit up? Well hell ya that might stop a couple criminals from commencing they’re ideas, but at the price of causing pollution from the idiotic plants that create the extra electricity needed, and therefore causing the planet to heat up overall and obviously totally fucking up ever ecosystem trying to sustain itself and then killing uncountable living organisms.

Up to reason 1.3 now. How about simply landscaping. I tend to wonder if I’m the only person that’s actually put any thought towards what the actual point of it is (let alone pretty much everything else, ever). Anyway… people pay much many dollars to have some company or perhaps themselves, use up quite much time and effort to what? Make their property “look good”. Ok so somehow using up plenty of gas powered equipment which itself pollutes as well as much quantities of money which goes without saying could be put to better use, to make the surroundings of our house look better in order to impress… who? You don’t really know, but it is all worth it! Well of course not anywhere near it, but as if anyone would actually put any thought towards that.

No, being very mindset by everything we have been taught growing up and by society is a damn good excuse to do otherwise. And well I suppose landscaping is just a very good example of many other thoughtless things we do otherwise in everyday life to well, make us look better.

Speaking of which, simply spending money on extra stuff, since you have extra of it, shall be 1.4. Well who could possibly account for all the things people spend money on most oftenly as heard of before, to make them appear better off to others, or feel as of a better status. It seems anyone making a lot of money, because they were lucky enough to land a nice -do-shit-all get-paid-all- job, cant possibly think of anything better to do with their so awardingly earned money than to spend it on oh maybe a nice decoration for the front hall that, oh a couple people ever in history might notice and think oh nice this person must… I guess have a lot of money? So therefore they are awesome.

Yes pretty much anyone who has made it out of debt seems to forget how lovely it is to need that money and how incredibly better off and more usefully that money could be spent. 

Intellect Incorporated

I think humans’ brains are still at least partially in the state of animals with mostly basic natural instincts and not developed enough past that state. Humans have not evolved enough to properly apply: thinking, comprehension, understanding, problem solving, and seeing problems/situations as they are at that time and how they work and function.

Just as animals don’t comprehend things or understand. They only act because their brain is only developed enough for instincts and drive to survive from evolution. Animals are incapable of thinking why, or that there should be a reason for something to happen or to do something itself. That part of humans cannot comprehend that things happen for a reason to cause something else to happen and make a result, and that they should do things for a reason, for the outcome/ result. They cannot consider and analyze what an outcome will be (Cause and effect), or analyze what the possible outcomes are, and decide which outcome is best and most beneficial. Like animals, humans don’t realise that the results matter and they can decide what to do to cause a certain result.

Animals brains are built to make the owner only exist. The brain is set and pre-programmed by instinct/evolution and only works that one way, to do specific things certain ways, as it is already set. Not to realise it has a choice and can question and decide which route to take based on where it leads to.

We have been able to develop tech which has greatly accelerated and passed and left behind (in time as a race) the human brain capability. Humans are still acting from instinct as dumb animals without analysing why to do something to get what result. But humans now have technology advancing, which is a great powerful and dangerous, unstable weapon that should only be used by an intellect with comprehension. The ability to think independently, and forecast that there will be a result of actions taken would theoretically be a requirement for safe authority over technology, so that the controller would decide how to cause a certain positive, intentional result wielding the extended capabilities of technology and manufacturing.

Currently, people often act on natural instincts or individually temporarily developed mind-sets. But is seems we are close to passing the point of brain development to understand making an intentional decision to cause the desired effect based on analysis. Selfishness, carelessness, and ignorance are the common attributes of human intellect, which seems to be part of long term intellect development, but maybe in the early stages on route to true intelligence.

Perhaps we are on the very brink of crossing the boundary to acquire intellect beyond subconscious mindsets and instinctual actions of common animals. I believe some have passed that boundary (though, I suppose its likely faded and indistinct like most things in life), perhaps including me, and there should be many others. Though it is likely a small % of all of humanity, when considered on the larger scale.

Maybe tech has let us skip past brain development in evolution. Maybe our brains are now evolving to be able to think individually, and need to do so quickly to catch up to technology which we use. If humans acquire intelligent, logical sense and rationality, they could potentially reduce, stop and perhaps counteract the careless damage being done by side effects of tech. 

There may be a point where we have done too much damage to counteract, and don’t have enough time, with what is already set in motion. Maybe all evolution leads to this and other species of aliens have to pass this point. Maybe some make it and some don’t. Or maybe minds usually do develop 1^st, before the weapon of tech is acquired.
But then why did we get it in the wrong order?

Colossal Collateral

There are a couple 5 yr old spoiled bratty unsupervised kids walking home from school down a forest trail during autumn dry season. They have been bored all day at school and are feasting on candy, that the one boys’ rich, disregardful parents left him in his lunch, so they are hyped up and eager for excitement. They see something shiny and intriguing, 15 feet off the path, by a tree, and go to check it out. It’s a blow torch! (some idiot left it there for some reason, and it happens to be light weight and very simple to operate…)

These kids..; are the human race.

Before the rapid spur of development of technology (which is unfortunately, for the current circumstances, fundamentally virtually exponential), there wasn’t any significant risk of widespread (let alone, planetary) damage or effect from the careless and recklessness of any species on the planet. But now that capabilities, potential, and power have increased so much with the overpowering and reigning controlling species of the Earth, we have found that blowtorch! We are at a dangerous, universally life threatening point, in which we have too much unintended effect and impact on fundamental elements of the entire planets ecosystem, causing what could be considered collateral damage.

As humans (a very high percentage would be my guess) in general, are still mainly determined to take action specifically only to benefit themselves as an individual, all the while oblivious to any logical consequences that may result from their actions and decisions, the world is in a very dangerous stage as of now. It is human nature to be selfish and ignorant, just as it is with nearly all animals, as that has proven to be self-species beneficial up to this point. 

But, there is a difference, in that humans have the capability and potential to overcome, overpower, and overrule this selfishness. Humans have been given the gift of awareness and comprehension. We are aware and very capable of being conscious of general existence, as well as cause and effect, which is a significant differential from all other “dumb” animals on the planet. But the selfishness and lack of consideration of any situation (aka ignorance), still has a strong remaining presence in most humans typical brain processes. Selfishness and ignorance are still mostly overwhelming for the majority of humans and -if you believe in evolution- this makes sense, as we are still developing as a species from the less capable species we may have come from.

There is almost always collateral damage, but we may be at a point where we cause too much from our capabilities, as a result of lack of effective, controlled, and maintained use of such capabilities. Lack of control is caused by a lack of development of thinking, understanding, and comprehending or general use of the brain, which of course humans are only beginning to experience.

Rather than the historically typical minuscule collateral, we are in an age of Colossal Collateral!

Conscious Collateral

Animals are dumb, unaware, and theoretically meaningless, but globablly harmless. Humans are “intelligent”, conscious, and therein more purposeful, but globally destructive. So referring to intellectual method of thinking, which is the better?

Universally, generally for the world it seems that the lesser intellect, using the sub-conscious brain processing of the brain might be most beneficial. It seems to be proven by understandable history, that this is the safe, consistent surviving method. Considering, the almost instant (in grand time scale) destruction caused by the sole beings of this planet that have been granted the gift (in common opinion at least) of consciousness and awareness, it seems like this unique aspect of intelligence is detrimental to the world, and things might be better off without it. But, then where would the purpose and meaning in life be with a bunch of dumb animals inhabiting the planet?

It’s my opinion that this prospect, of conscious aware intellect being a negative attribute is an inaccurate, misunderstood depiction of intelligence and consciousness. Humans in general may have a substantially high degree of intellect (as the word I’ll use for conscious awareness in thinking processes) in comparison to other animals, but they also still often use that same subconscious functioning of the brain, that makes other animals seem so dumb. I think its this aspect of brain functioning within humans, that causes the considerable destruction, threatening to overwhelm the planet. The comparison of animals to humans, in terms of intelligence, isn’t really subconscious to conscious. It’s more like comparing subconscious to subconscious -with a degree of interceding conscious thinking.

I think if humans were completely, or at least majoratively significantly conscious decision makers, then there would be a distinctively relevant amount less of destruction and harm coming to the overall health of the planets ecosystem. The potentially small, but evidently profoundly impactful amount of distinguishing intellect which humans have acquired (by whatever means you may believe), gives humans the capability of grand destruction, but the remaining, retaining, and quite potentially restraining instinctual and unaware, subconscious thinking methods are what cause these potentially harmful capabilities to come into action. The conscious aspect allows the individual to prosper significantly, but the subconscious causes them to only consider individual prosperity, rather than acting based on what is most universally commonly beneficial, which would be comprehended from conscious mindful consideration.

           As far as collateral damage being inflicted as a result of human consciousness, it seems the dangerous aspect is the minimal degree of consciousness in combination with sub-consciousness, while in this stage of intellect. Subconscious may really be the culprit, with consciousness just unlocking a cache of dangerous weapons before advancing enough to learn to use those weapons safely.