Friday 28 December 2018

Free- Be.

What are the advantages of freedom of choice + action?
How much liberty is effective?

Continuing on the concept from my attempted distinguishment of effective regulations, in my post: “Reduction by Regulation”, freedom of choice can have it’s benefits, but should still be restricted to some degree, in the context of an effective society. It makes sense to have regulations to restrict the freedom of choice which will cause a reduction of the enjoyment of others (to a relevant proportion), but that restriction should be focused on the direct cause of the negative result, rather than generalizing the restriction for actions which only have a [potential] to allow a consecutive action that causes the problem.

It seems rational that freedom of choice should be maximized to those actions which only have potential for allowing a consecutive negative action, so that people are able to enjoy the liberty of taking those actions, in circumstances where they do not take the additional negative action. This maximization allows a wider range of actions for people to enjoy, therefore increasing the overall enjoyment.

With this extended freedom to take actions with some risk, or which are nearing the point of taking a consecutive negative action, an additional benefit would be the ability for individuals to learn. With more options of action, someone can learn physical and mental skills to deal with that scenario. In contrast, if someone lives in a “safety bubble”, they never gain physical skills to perform tasks, which would likely make their life more enjoyable for themselves in the future, and would also allow the potential to achieve more accomplishments, contributing to society (and therein enjoyment of others). Also, if the ability to mentally cope with situations involving risk or negative results, is never learned, then a future circumstance of negative results is more likely to cause trauma or other mental damage.

Besides physical and mental coping skills, there is also intellectual knowledge to be gained from a broader aspect enabled by freedom of actions + decisions. With the freedom to take more actions and make more decisions, someone can learn independently and effectively, the concepts of cause and effect which are involved. When taking any action in life, someone has the opportunity to personally observe the effects caused by the action they took. With any decision, they have the chance to take into account the resulting influence that their choice made. Understanding cause and effect, is just about the epitome of intellect, and increases accuracy of future predictions, and therefore accuracy of ability to intentionally cause preferable resulting effects. The concepts learned through independent trial, can be carried to other scenarios in the future, which involve variables that are relatable to the relevant cause and effect. Taking this into consideration, it seems profoundly valuable to have the opportunity to intellectually learn various concepts of cause and effect, which are relative to actions and decisions that are inherently available from increased freedom.

If a lack of liberty is taken in society, with a world of reduced allowance of actions, trends are built into people to perform an action or decision, solely on the prospect that they were told to, or that it is normal. With a habit of simply following orders or copying others, comes the lack of independent comprehension of reasoning, and the likeliness to blindly follow a negative commonality, simply because that is how the individual has been conditioned to function.

Besides the increased optionality of enjoyment of additional activities, freedom of choice seems to have significant benefits of; potential to learn valuable physical and mental skills, as well as gain intellectual comprehension crucial to progression. The concept of additional allowance to be free, is a freebie.

Friday 21 December 2018

Reduction by Regulation

Are there any fundamentally objective regulations that should always be in place?
What is an effective limit for regulations on any given circumstances?

If there were objective regulations, then they would be relative to an action that all individuals “should” or “should not” take. By definition, a regulation is basically a rule outlining a specified action that should or shouldn’t be taken. As in my previous posts; “Served, but not Deserved” and “Titled but not Entitled” I distinguished that the concept of something that “should” be done, is subjective, unless outlined in context. There seems to be no actions that “should” be done, which are genrally objective, since there is no universally definitive agreement fundamental to general existence. Relative to existence, an individual always has the potential to disagree on a preference of intended goal, as the resulting effect of that action; which is the factor in question for whether it “should” be taken. An agreed upon intended goal is required, for an action to be objective in determining whether it should be taken. This concept carries over to the application of regulations, considering regulations describe that which “should” be done.

A common agreed upon intended accomplishment, which seems to be reasonable for a functional society, and for a common preference, might be; to allow the maximum enjoyment of all individuals. If this is taken as the context, then there can be an objective action to be taken in any circumstances, in order to attempt to accomplish the intended goal. Granted, it can be very difficult to determine the action which should be taken in order to accomplish this result, but this can be a contextual goal to base best estimates off of, for concepts such as Deserving, Entitlement, or regulations.

So what are effective regulations, to attempt to achieve this hypothetical goal for society?
In general, it seems regulations restrict people from taking an action which reduces the enjoyment for others. But to be effective for this goal, the regulation should restrict only the specific action which reduces others enjoyment. A “blanket-barricading” regulation is generalised to prevent everyone from performing an action which only has the [potential] to be used to take a further action that is negative (in the context). In this case, the generalized restriction prevents the enjoyment for some people, even though they would not have taken the consecutive action which is negative.

This seems to be a growing trend in society, of creating blanket-barricading regulations. For eg. if someone drowns in a quarry, in a public conservation area, the typical reaction seems to be to then make a regulation that nobody is allowed to swim in that quarry any longer. The idealism is to prevent future people from drowning (reducing their enjoyment & their families’), but the regulation restricts the enjoyment for all those who would take that initial action of swimming, but not take the consecutive negative action of drowning. Instead of a regulation which restricts enjoyment for others, perhaps the regulation should be focused on the problem of drowning. This is likely difficult to do, other than perhaps putting up signs, warning people of the danger. But, at least it would not be counter-productive in restricting alternate enjoyment. Freedom should be a fairly common preference for enjoyment, and therefore a component of the contextual intended goal of society.

If blanket barricade regulations are put in place, restricting freedom of particular actions, the individuals restricted from that action, are additionally prevented from learning skills and concepts related to that action. When learning these skills and concepts is prevented, the person is then unable to transfer that knowledge or those abilities to alternate situations. They are then more likely to fail or be harmed (reducing their enjoyment), in a future scenario involving relatable concepts, since they don’t have the applicable skills or knowledge.

For eg. if a regulation is put into place to require crossing guards to always stop traffic for children crossing the street, and the children must cross at that spot, the children may never learn the concept of giving cars the right of way, of the skills to judge when it's safe to cross. At another time, when there is no crossing guard, a child might just cross a road right in front of traffic (assuming this is normal), without the learned skills of independently awarefully crossing the street (I’ve witnessed this happen, at a crosswalk in front of my house...).

It seems logical that regulations should be heeded in the effect of their restrictions. If it’s a regulation which blankets generalized circumstances, only on the potential of a consecutive negative action being taken, then the side effect causing the restriction of the freedom of others, is counter-productive. Additionally, over-regulations are ineffective in the prospect that they prevent valuable learned skills and knowledge. Perhaps, in today’s society, the best implementation in the context of allowing enjoyment, should be regulation reduction.

Tuesday 18 December 2018

Titled, but not Entitled

What does it mean to be entitled?
Is anyone legitimately entitled to anything?


By my understanding, to be “entitled” is the concept that an individual should receive a positive attribute, based on their figurative position, status, or accomplishments.
Similar to the concept of “deserving” (as I described in my previous post), being “entitled”, is based on the concept that someone should receive something. “Deserving” has more of insinuation, that the individual should receive something as a result of their actions, where being “entitled” insinuates that they should receive something as a result of their status. Their status or position, could be as a result of their actions (just like “deserving”), but could also be circumstantial.

As in my previous post, I distinguished the term “should”, to be subjective, unless in context. So in relation to “entitlement”, the prospect that someone “should” receive something, is opinionated, unless there is context which outlines parameters. If the context of the situation includes an agreed upon designation of status or position, respective to what they will be attributed, then by definition of the context, someone “should” receive something if they are in the designated position.

For eg. Sally is promoted to executive producer (whatever that might entail specifically :), and it has been agreed upon, between employees and company owner, that someone in the position of executive producer will receive benefits of an additional week of vacation. Within that context, Sally is entitled to and should receive that extra week of vacation.

Is there any generically objective positions in life, that are entitled to benefits that an individual should receive? If there was entitlement which is fundamental to the position of existing, there would have to be parameters which were agreed upon by all proponents. It seems there is no such parameters which are definitively agreed upon in the context of existing. Since the concept of “”entitlement” requires all individuals who are involved, to agree on the designations, there could always be someone or something that disagrees with the designations. For eg, you may have the belief that existence entitles the individual to a long and happy life. But, a crocodile did not agree to that designation, and would still kill an antelope, when it’s hungry, therefore disallowing something with the status of existing, to live a long life.

It seems, simply having the status of existing, does not necessarily entitle any individual to anything. But, this also doesn’t mean that nobody has entitlement from anyone, in any situation. It means, the only entitlement that should be rationally expected in life, is receiving something within context, from other individuals whom have agreed to those parameters. There can be numerous elastic parameters of entitlement in life, which includ different people at different times, based on their comprehension and agreement. It can be very difficult to determine who should be included for entitlement within specific context, since it is based on their agreement to the outlines of that entitlement.

Perhaps it can be beneficial to keep in mind, that general existence does not fundamentally entitle anything. Existing in the 1st place, could be considered receiving a positive quantity of something, since without it, there would be zero. To assume that receiving something (existence) entitles us to something more, seems like a misunderstanding of concept, and false assumption. In life and society, we might want to assume that we have a certain status, and expect to receive something for it, but all it takes is a differing opinion (or no opinion at all (from an inanimate object (as a result of cause and effect))) to negate legitimate entitlement.

In a lot of cases, we might be titled, but not entitled.

Sunday 16 December 2018

Served, but not Deserved

Does anyone objectively deserve anything?

If we assume “deserve” means that someone should receive a positive or negative return, then the positive or negative would depend on whether the individual’s actions were positive or negative. Whether or not someone “should” do or recieve something, tends to be subjective, or based on the context of the intended accomplishment.

Perhaps if the context is with an agreed-upon intended accomplishment, then there can be an objective action that “should” be taken. Therein, someone “should” do a certain action, rather than another, based on the contextual intended accomplishment. For eg. the agreed upon intended accomplishment could be to allow the most people within a town, to experience the maximum enjoyment of their lives. Within that context, someone “should” refrain from hitting random people with a baseball bat. It would (without a reasonable doubt) reduce the enjoyment of the people who get hit by the bat, and counteract the intended accomplishment.  

So within some contexts, someone “should” receive something, and would therefore “deserve” something positive or negative, usually relative to their actions contribution toward the agreed-upon intended accomplishment. If someone does something which is a positive contribution, they hypothetically deserve something positive in return. But how much?

If all individuals contributing a positive quantity toward a goal, received an equal quantity of positive return right away, then there would be no accomplishment. The goal would not be accomplished, since any progress added by individuals, would then be returned to those same individuals, causing no overall increase toward the goal. For eg, if a city wanted to raise money to build a bridge, and when anyone donated, the city then gave back the same amount of money to the donator, because they “deserved” to receive something positive in return, then the city would never reach its goal of raising enough money for the bridge.

So for it to be an advantageous concept, an individual should “deserve” less positive in return for their contribution. There could potentially be an equivalent or even bigger positive return, while still making progress, but only if the return is delayed to after a point where the goal has been reached. This would work, if the overall goal allows an increase of positive attributes. If more money was returned to the contributors, than they donated, after the bridge is built, there could still be overall gain, if the bridge allows the city to make more money by trading with a neighboring city. But considering gain after the goal, would be extending the context to include future gain. If the context includes that future sum gain, then the individual is still receiving less in return, than the overall gain.

Perhaps the general concept of “deserving” can be described as; a positive return should be given, for positive contribution. How does this apply to the context of general life and existence?  
Something rather than nothing is positive because, nothing would be zero, and something is a numerical positive quantity. So within the context of life, if existence and consciousness is considered to be a positive, which each individual has received, then is a positive return “deserved” to be given back by each individual? If the concept of “deserving” is believed to be applicable within specific contexts throughout life, then it seems logical that it should be applicable to the context of overall life and existence. Therefore, it seems that everyone should give a positive return, relative to the amount of positive which they received from existence and consciousness (if they believe in the concept of deserving).

Perhaps the evaluation of amount of positive, received from existence, is up to the estimate of the individual. If the amount of positive is considered to be substantial (as I would consider), then perhaps the amount that the individual deserves to return, for the receival of consciousness, easily outweighs any amount of contextual positive they might consider they “deserve” throughout life. Without each person's receival of existence, they would never have been able to make any positive contributions, or “deserve” any return, within those specific contexts that occur in life. In a way, it seems any contributions made by an individual, could be credited to the contribution of their initial receival of existence, so any positive return could also be credited to a return for receiving existence in the first place.  

Within context, it seems positive return can be deserved for contribution. But from my perspective, in the context of life, the return can never be enough, which is deserved for receiving the positivity of existence in itself. Any positive received within circumstances in life, can ultimately be credited to the receival of existence by that individual, rather than credited to the individual themselves. For, without existence, there would be no positive whatsoever. In the context of overall existence, for any individual; positives are served, but not deserved.

Friday 14 December 2018

Insinuation of Genuination

What are the parameters for being genuine or ingenuine?

My basic understanding of the meaning of genuinity, would be; portraying and executing that which the individual believes to true.

If genuity is based on the individual's belief, then similarly to the concept of blameability or credibility, it should somewhat depend on the individuals estimate of outcome, of their actions of any given scenario. When the concept at hand, is relative to someone's intention or belief, their intention can often be best distinguished based on their estimate of the result of their actions. If someone performs an action with an estimate of less than 50%, that it will result in the way that it does, then their action can be considered unintentional, or not believed to occur, by them.

For eg. I explain this function of genuinity, then it helps someone understand genuinity, helps them become more genuine, then helps them save a relationship they are in. While writing this, if my estimate is a very low %, that this explanation will help anyone, then it will not be my genuine belief that I will help anyone. If I then later pretend that I had believed that my explanation would help someone, then I would be ingenuine on that prospect.

The key, is portraying (to an approximate degree) what your belief was, of the outcome. Portraying is a significant element of genuinity. In order to be genuine, you should portray that which you believe, to an attempted accurate degree. If you portray, or act in a way which intentionally causes others to think that you believe(d) something that you don’t (or didn’t) actually believe, then it is considered ingenuine. Since the way that you portray your belief, is dependant on your intention of that which you portray, your estimate is also relevant for how others are interpreting that which you believe. For that which you portray to be intentional, you must have an estimate of 50% or higher, that others are interpreting you in that way. Basically, if you believe that others will think, based on your actions, that you meant to do something, but you didn’t really mean to do it, then you are not being genuine.

Someone’s estimate of how they are portraying their intentions, can be very vague and inaccurate. Someone’s estimate of the interpretation of their actions, from others, can vary quite a bit. It can vary based on knowledge of how others in general tend to interpret actions, knowledge of the specific individual’s likeliness to interpret in a certain way, knowledge of the amount of information that the interpreters have, and more. Since someone’s estimate of others interpretation can vary so much, it often just comes down to their best estimate of what their own actions insinuate.

Insinuation, is basically that which others interpret and assume about any given circumstances. So, an individual’s best estimate of the insinuation of their actions and intentions, is a significant aspect of genuinity. For eg. Bob does not shake Garry’s hand, when they meet. If Bob estimates 90%, that Garry will be offended by him not shaking his hand, then Bob is intentionally offending Garry. But if Bob estimates only 10% that Garry will be offended, then Bob is genuine in his unintention to offend Garry.
Furthermore, in the case where Bob did intend to offend Garry, if he then later comments to Garry, that he often forgets to shake hands, he is intentionally insinuating that it was an accident, that he offended Garry. Even though Bob is not necessarily outright lying (if perhaps he does indeed often forget), this insinuation is still ingenuine, because in this case, it was not really an accident (of not shaking his hand), it was intended.

So genuinity can often come down to minor insinuations of your actions, and can highly depend on whether you expect others to perceive your actions in a certain way or not. When it comes to genuinity, It’s not important whether the outcome of your actions was a positive result or not. It’s the intention of your actions, as well as intention of the insinuation of whether or not you meant to cause the outcome. Basically, to be genuine, it’s most relevant to try to act as if you believed that which you really did believe.

Friday 7 December 2018

Credit by Consciousness

Is there more potential credit to be gained, with more consciousness?

As I attempted to derive the connection between blame and consciousness, it seems suiting to cover the virtual opposite of “blame”, being “credit”. I considered “blame” to be basically the insinuation that someone should have taken an alternate action. So let's consider “credit” to be basically the insinuation that someone did take a correct or positive attributing action.

As for the meaning of “consciousness”, I’ll use my understanding, which is basically comprehending awareness, in general, or of any given factor and how that factor interacts relatively to other factors.

3 main concepts related to “blame” that perhaps are the same for “credit”.
  1. Degree of “blame” seems to be virtually proportionate to the estimate, by the individual at blame, of the outcome occurring.
  2. Potential scenarios for “blame’ seem to increase, as conscious awareness increases.
  3. Accuracy of causing intended scenarios to occur, also increases.

1. Regarding someone’s estimate of the outcome, this seems rational for “credit” as well, since if the person had estimated a higher likeliness of the positive result. They should be credited and held more responsible for intentionally (if 50%+) causing the result. If the person had made a lower estimate (of >50%), and the results were unintentional, then it seems they should receive less credit, as they acted without the belief that the positive outcome would occur. For eg, someone throws their toque on the side of the road, with an estimate of 5% chance that a homeless person will need it to survive, + an estimate of 94% that it will remain litter. If the outcome is indeed that the toque ends up helping someone, then that person should be credited less than someone who intentionally ives their toque to someone, with an estimate of 95% that it will help them.

2. As for potential scenarios to get credit, (in the same way as blame) more conscious awareness of circumstances, should allow more numerous occasions that the person is capable of making an estimate of the result of their actions, rather than acting subconsciously and obliviously to the result of their actions. With a lack of conscious comprehension, comes a lack of ability to estimate differing results caused by actions. With more estimates, by the function + allowance of consciousness, comes more potential scenarios for rational credit.

3. Besides an increase of scenarios for potential credit, conscious comprehension also allows a more accurate estimate of outcome. With a more accurate estimate, it is more probable that the individual will cause the preferred outcome. When someone comprehends more interactions of cause and effect between variables, they are more likely to accurately cause an outcome for which they can be credited.

As a positive contrast to the negative, “credit” and “blame” seem to be factors to be put into the variable of; others insinuation for someone's action. The overall concept, is the insinuation being a result of someones estimate of the outcome caused by their actions. Both “blame” and credit” seem to follow the same relation to conscious awareness and comprehension. More consciousness means more potential scenarios, and higher accuracy of causing the preferred result.

Wednesday 5 December 2018

Blame by Consciousness

If an individual is more conscious, does that make them more probable to be fairly blamed, in general?

I will consider “blame” to be basically; held accountable and responsible, with a negative connotation implying that the individual (that is being blamed) should have taken an alternate action.

For blame to be considered fair, it seems logical that it should only be for a negative outcome resulting from the individuals actions, of which they were aware. If being more conscious is being more aware and understanding of results, then it seems to follow that an individual would be more aware of the resulting effects of their actions, and more to blame.

If this is true, does it mean that the likeliness and degree of blame, increase proportionate to conscious awareness? Does that mean that the more somebody learns, understands, and comprehends of their environment and actions within, the more likely they are to be at fault and blame for something, and to a higher the degree of blame?

If you agree that conscious awareness coincides with comprehending, then it does seem to be the case. It seems fair to only blame an individual for that which they are aware of, and capable of avoiding. Alternatively, if an individual has no knowledge of the result of their actions, it seems fair that they should not be blamed. Take animals for eg. They have very little knowledge or awareness of their ability to cause alternate effects. A deer has no awareness that if it walks on a highway, it is likely to cause a traffic accident, so that deer should not be blamed. Or if a person commits a crime without mental awareness of their actions, by law it is often considered insanity, and they are usually not blamed.

So with no awareness, there should be no blame, and with relevant awareness, there should be blame. But what is the relevant and required awareness? If someone absolutely knows their actions will result in the negative outcome, then sure, it seems fair that they are to blame. But does anybody know anything absolutely? If knowing something is considered to be that person's belief of estimated probability of an occurrence taking place, then it seems that rationally, people would never estimate that a probability is 100%. As long as there is even the smallest chance of an alternate outcome (eg. life is a simulation, and laws of physics might stop functioning), then rationally, someone should not know anything for certain.

So what % estimate of someone is required for blame? If someone does something intentionally, it seems to mean that they correctly estimated the resulting outcome of their actions. The minimum % estimate would then seem to be 50, for someone to do something intentionally. It seems fair to blame someone for doing something intentionally. But should someone be blamed more, if they had a higher (than 50%) estimate that their actions would cause a negative result? If “blame’ is; holding accountable, with the implication that the individual should have taken an alternate action, then perhaps their estimate of outcome should be proportionate to blame of them. If the individual has a higher estimate that their action will result in the negative, then it can be assumed that rationally they should have been less likely to take that action.

Does this apply for unintentional results of an action? I’ll consider an unintentional result, to be with an estimate of less than 50%, by the individual, for that outcome. For eg, if someone estimates a 10% that they will kill a pedestrian unintentionally, by street racing, are they to blame, if it does happen? The same proportion of blame to estimate of the blamee, seems to be applicable. The lower someone’s estimate of an outcome, the less they should be accountable for taking that action, rather than another. Perhaps that street racer should be to blame, equivalent to their estimate. So 10% to blame.

If blame is relative to the estimate, by the individual, of the result of their actions, how does this tie into conscious awareness? Without conscious awareness of the future and cause and effect of actions, no estimate can even be made, so still no blame. With some conscious awareness of cause and effect of actions, comes the ability to estimate, and therein the potential for blame. With a higher degree of conscious awareness, comes more ability to predict outcomes of actions, with more awareness of more circumstances, so more probability of blamable circumstances. With more information learned, and more concepts comprehended, comes more awareness of potential effects of personal actions. This also means more potential circumstances to estimate the result of actions, and the more probable it is to be in a situation, which is blamable.

But with more understanding of cause and effect, comes more accurate estimates. If more accurate estimates are made, the individual would still be more to blame, with a higher estimate of the negative outcome, but their estimates are more likely to be correct (with higher accuracy). If estimates are more likely to be correct, then the negative results can more effectively be avoided.

So, fair blame seems to require a minimum comprehension by the individual, of the cause and effect of their actions, as well as awareness of a potential alternate outcome, resulting from their actions. If an individual is capable of predicting the effect of potential alternate actions that they are able to take, then their estimate of the outcome resulting as it does, seems to be proportionate to their blamability. The higher their estimate, the more responsible they are for not taking the alternate action. The more consciously aware an individual is, the more circumstances they are likely to be in, where they could be blamed. But also, the more likely they are able to accurately predict and avoid an outcome for which to be blamed.

Blame seems to be proportionate to someone’s estimate of the results of their actions. More conscious awareness allows more situations to make an estimate and potentially be blamable, but also allows more avoidance of a negative and blamable result.

Friday 30 November 2018

Contendment for Contentment

What is contentment?
What causes it, and how is it achieved?
Why does it seem difficult to achieve?

To be “content” is basically to be satisfied with current circumstances. Contentment insinuates to be complacently appreciative or grateful for present conditions. If being “satisfied”, “appreciative”, or “grateful”, are forms of a positive perception, then it seems it is relative and subjective to the individual, and dependant on their mentality (based on my previous post and understanding of “Positive Perception”).

The term “Satisfied” seems to basically refer to, an individual having a positive perception in relation to something (a particular factor or their general existence). If so, then the positive perception should be attainable from any of the 3 states of brain function; instinct, subconscious, or conscious comprehension.

“Appreciation” or “gratefulness” seem to require an additional comprehension of the cause of the positive perception, in order to be “grateful” for that cause of the positive effects. If so, then gratefulness should only be attainable by some degree of conscious comprehension, rather than instinct or subconsciousness. If consciousness is understood as accessing memories of a factor simultaneously to the cause of that factor, then “gratefulness” can be understood as being conscious of the cause of a current positive factor.

So contentment seems to relative to positive perception (which is relative to survival factors for the individual), as well as comprehension of some aspect of cause of the positive factors. Why does contentment seem difficult to achieve?

If positive factors are pursued with a lack of comprehensive awareness and focus on the current positive factors and the cause and effect of those factors, then there should be a lack of contentment. If an individual only focuses on positive factors which are not current, such as past or future potential factors, there will be a lack of satisfaction or appreciation.

Instincts trigger the subconscious part of the mind to pursue more positive factors, but the function of subconscious only involves simple short term memories of positive factors. With only the function of subconscious, there would be no capability of the individual to comprehend concepts of potential future. Without this capability, there’s no capability to over-focus on potential positive, reducing focus on present positive. Conscious comprehension of concepts of potential positive circumstances is what allows the over-focus. Consciousness seems to be a required contributor to 1 cause of lack of contentment.

With conscious comprehension of this entire topic & concept in itself, an individual can make the memory connection of these causes and effects of contentment or lack thereof. They could remember the concept that over-focusing on potential future or past positives is ineffective, and reduces focus on present positives. A lack of focus on present positives causes a lack of satisfaction, and a lack of focus on cause of positive factors (and therein appreciation). Consciousness may be an enabler of over-focus on non-present positive, but is also what enables the potential to counteract that over-focus, and for all the components to contentment.

Wednesday 21 November 2018

Positive Perception

What is good?
What causes a perception of positivity in a person or animal?

If something being perceived as good, is considered to be subjective to the individual, based on their psychology, then that which causes certain things to be perceived as good would be dependant on that individuals instincts, subconscious influence, and conscious comprehension.

Instincts would be the default triggers gained from birth, which cause the individual to perceive certain aspects of life to be good or bad. Typically, with animals, natural selection causes instincts to give positive reinforcement for occurrences which help that animal survive. When the animals’ sensory input receives general resemblances of these occurrences, the instinctual triggers cause it to perceive that occurrence, as good. Negative reinforcement instincts, of occurrences which harm the individual, cause the opposite perception, of bad. Based on instincts, the perception of good, basically depends on what helps that animal survive and reproduce.

Experience can alter what an animal or person perceives as good. Experiences cause the subconscious to to influence the individual on what is good. As an animal experiences something beneficial for its survival, and receives the positive reinforcement from instincts, that positive reinforcement can associate other things which the animal sensed at the time, even though the alternate factors were not a direct cause of the positive reinforcement. Say a raccoon sneaks into a yard at night, and after exploring, finds some tasty dog food in a dog dish. It will receive positive reinforcement from instinctual triggers, because the food helps it survive. After this experience, from that point on, the raccoons subconscious will associate positive feedback with the sight of a dog dish. The dog dish was not perceived as good before the experience, but the raccoons perception of good has been altered by those memories, to also include the sight of a dog dish.

Conscious comprehension can make things more complex. When a person actively accesses memories, making new connections based on comprehension of the interaction of different concepts or factors within memories, this can alter subconscious association between various factors and past positive feedback. With comprehension of how a factor (which is connected with positivity), affects alternate factors, those alternate factors can then also become associated with positive reinforcement, and therein perceived as good.

Since food causes positive feedback for a person, if they comprehend that money can cause them to acquire food to eat, money then becomes associated with positivity. Furthermore, if a person comprehends the connection of concepts within memory, that winning the lottery would allow them to acquire lots of money, they may then alter their subconscious to associate lottery tickets with positivity. Lottery tickets would then be perceived as good by that person, whereas without conscious comprehension of concepts, a ticket would be virtually perceived as a useless piece of paper.
If the goal is to achieve a maximum quantity of what is perceived to be good, then perhaps finding a positive instinctual trigger which can be implemented the most (without reduction of other positive feedback), or can be associated the most by subconscious influence, using available factors. Finding an overall balance of environmentally available factors, associated with positive feedback, might be the key. Making the best use of available factors, would additionally allow the conscious comprehension association between the factors, to make more positive connections based on comprehension of cause and effect of those factors. Generally, keeping overall good health, should be a common and effective balance of positive reinforcement based on survival. Using various factors associated with health, conscious comprehension of function can associate those factors with the instinctual positivity of health.

The core cause of the perception of good, seems to be instinctual feedback triggers. But experiences and memory access can influence additional factors to be perceived as good, based on factors that are caused by those reinforcement triggers which are acquired from birth. Since conscious, active memory access can cause the perception of positivity and good, by accessing memories of factors and connections to particular positive aspects, conscious comprehension seems to be an effective tool in orchestrating a comprisal of positivity.

Thursday 15 November 2018

Life Logic Philosophized (Post #100)

This seems to be my 100th posting (+ < 1 week to my 30th B-day), so it should be suiting to do an overview, review, & preview of the topics and concepts that I’ve covered. Perhaps I can come up with some sort of summary.

It’s been almost 2 yrs since I 1st started posting on this blog, though the 1st 37 were all reposted writings, which I had already written previously (then revised), so I had actually been writing for awhile before that. The earliest date I seem to be able to find is April 3 2015, so lets say its been about 3.5yrs of writing. After all this, I’m aware that still, little to nobody reads any of it or cares, meaning I’m basically talking to myself right now. But at a minimum, it’s still an effective way for me to think concepts through more distinctly, and have a recording for potential review.

Some concepts that I refer to here, will be linked (electronically, as well as conceptually) to another of my posts of an attempted explanation. If anyone does happen to read this and other posts, feedback is almost (no absolutes.. :) always appreciated. Now that I’ve expanded my philosiphizing (including adaptive vocabularisation ;) to regular discussion Meetups and some (previous) personal discussions (probably the best of my life, with someone in particular…): and online forums, I’ve had some feedback and and mental stimulation for ideas and topics (so can have some more confidence that I’m not just completely delusional about everything (wondering, may be a side effect of open mindedness)). But, more feedback would be potentially beneficial, adding input of additional perspectives.

So, what have I been writing about?
My post counts are at:
Psychogy 30
Dirivity of Divinity 21
Consciousity 16
Perspectual 15
Priciplication 6
Conceptary 9
(I seem to be missing 2 here, which I probably forgot to record in my chart. But I’m too lazy to figure out which ones..)

I write mostly about “Psychogy”, which is psychology and how the mind or brain works. This category would include all my posts in “Consciousity”, but the category was so big, it seemed practical to divide it, and separate my biggest subtopic, being consciousness. How the mind functions, is by far my biggest category, I suppose because it seems like the most widely relevant and important concept. Psychology could be considered to be the core of virtually every action taken by people, and therein the point of origin for all problems or successes in this world. If every decision and action that anyone has ever taken, is caused by the functionality of their brain, then it seems like a fairly significant prospect. (And yet, little to no psychology is taught in our lovely school system. hmm...)
Perhaps the importance adds the extra reason to pursue the topic, but also the mystery and complexity of function of why we and animals do what we do, is very intriguing to me. If we understand the cause and effect of how our brains work, we should be able to further develop our thinking methods, and therein improve decisions/ actions, and virtually improve every aspect  of humanity.

“Dirivity of Divinity” is my 2nd biggest topic. As the concept of God is quite relevant to life, in terms of whether or not “he” exists, also the significance in relation to common life, under the circumstances that he does exist (which I believe). From my perspective, God is probably even more commonly misunderstood than psychology.

Then there’s the last 3 categories. “Perspectual”, meaning basically differing concepts of perspectives, relevant to life. “Principlication”, meaning topics related to principles. And lastly, “Conceptary” is basically more generalized concepts, which don’t seem to fit the categories of perspective or principles. These are basically categories of concepts which can be applied to various aspects throughout life, once understood. All, of course influenced and caused by psychology, but these concepts are more focused on applicability to typically recurring scenarios within life.

As I consider all of my attempted Analysis Processing Comprehension & Understanding (APCU) to be philosophy. My topics are mostly, at least somewhat complex concepts involving a lot of variables, making it difficult, indistinct, and inaccurate to effectively comprehend. Science can take care of the mathematical and or precisely measurable prospects. I consider philosophy to be more abstractish questions, benefitting from a wide perspective of consideration -to theorize potentials, combined with rational understanding and reasoning -in order to carry concepts and distinguish probable cause and effect. Open-mindedness (or at least what I believe it to be ;) mixed with logic, seem to be effective ingredients for interpreting the mysterious complexities of life. Overall, in some ways, it’s just Life Logic.