Friday 17 August 2018

Disproportionate Society

What are the causes and effects of a disproportionate society?
In, what seems like typical society, there is a fairly uneven distribution of wealth, resources, and power. Wealth is basically the same as power, or ownership and control of resources, as money is what buys resources, and money buys control over others. So if it mostly comes down to money, what causes so much more money to end up in the hands of a few, compared to so little money in the hands of many?

With money, comes ease of making more money, by ability to purchase assets for more efficient methods of making profit. With this exponential increase of wealth, comes certain individuals who continue to increase income. Others, putting all their time into climbing or staying out of debt, never get out of the ditch, in order to redirect their profit onto that upward curve.

But for those on the steady incline, once the point is reached for practical self sufficiency, wouldn’t it seem logical to redistribute the excess wealth to benefit others? The problem is, with the instinct of self survival, comes the societal interaction of selfishness. Considering humans as generally selfish, once someone starts making a decent amount of money, instincts drive them to keep all possible resources for themselves. Even when more than enough resources are available for sufficient survival, short term instinct still pushes them to keep collecting more and more and more.

If this instinct could be overpowered, by say rational conscious comprehension, the concept of redistribution could cause a significant change. By logical evaluation, this would add significantly more value overall to society, since any quantity of money beyond that point, adds little to no practical or conventional benefit to the individual, yet could make a profound impact to someone at the bottom of, or nearly to the brim of, the ditch.

For eg. a fast food franchise owner, in a city of 200 000 people, makes 1 million $ profit, per year, after using profits to streamline efficiency and replicate locations. In typical society, this person can continue keeping that $1 million per year, to spend on daily $50 dinners, weekly $1000 shopping sprees, monthly $5000 maintenance costs on a summer house, bi-monthly $20 000 vacations, and various purchases of $100 000 cars or $2000 paintings.

But with rational comprehension and perspectual consideration, the franchise owner could instead live in a comfortable sized house with efficient maintenance + utilities for $300/month, use a functional $15 000 fuel efficient vehicle (or $1000 bike:), and buy healthy nutritious $10 meals, experiencing down-to-Earth, functional, authentic comfort. With the additional $980 000 per year, left over, it could be redistributed to society. Say $10 000 redistributed to 98 people, which could each use it, to make a profound enough upholster to their economic state, that they could climb out of that ditch, and hitch onto that towing incline curve.

Rather than that 1 person, buying a glaring appearance over the rest, and increasing a feeling of superiority, 98 people per year could permanently reach their way out of constant stress, and the majority of their life time spent working a boring repetitive, or gossipful job, to afford rent.

Wednesday 15 August 2018

Equation of Action

What causes someone to take action?

For someone to take a simple action, it takes a simple trigger and a simple reaction. Most simple actions are quick instinctual reactions, which take little to no comprehension, understanding or consciousness. Considering instincts as preset triggers designed to stay alive and reproduce, most of these simple actions dont require memory access involved with subconscious reaction or conscious comprehension and decision making. A simple instinctual trigger might be eating as a reaction to hunger, taking a crap as a reaction to food being processed, breathing as a reaction to the body needing oxygen, pulling your hand away from a flame as a reaction to pain, running away as a reaction to something startling, etc.

When there is more complex circumstances involved, the cause of trigger in the mind, is more complex and based on more complex influences of memory. The reaction is subconscious, if not consciously decided upon, and if influenced by memories, rather than simple instincual reaction. Subconscious reaction will overpower simple instinct, since it uses memories relative to the circumstances at hand, and proves to be more accurate at predicting the most beneficial reaction. So the variables for the action in a lot of circumstances, includes memories of past situations with similar factors which are in the current circumstances. For eg. if the current circumstances are taking an action of choosing either a red candy or blue candy, the relative memories would be eating blue candies and red candies. If red candies have had more positive influence on memories of past circumstances, this will cause the person to choose red (assuming the decisions is not made based on conscious analysing of the circumstances). Whereas if they have memories of getting sick from eating a red candy, the influence will be negative, and they will choose the blue candy instead.

If the cause of action is even more complex, it might be conscious decision. Instead of the previous scenario of acting based on the influence of basic memories resembling the current circumstances, the mind accesses a much more complex array of memories. Here, the variables involved in the cause of action, include memories saved of the concepts of various aspects of the circumstances. Not only does the memory access previous similar scenarios with an influencing positive or negative result, but the memory also accesses more specific aspects of the circumstances, and the previous results of each specific aspect. The memory access can continue to make more connections, and continue analysing more memories of an aspect, and analyse the probable cause of each occurance of each aspect. With the prolonged and continued access to various connection between aspects which are relative to the current circumstances, a more accurate result will cause the action to more likely be beneficial.

For eg, the action is to go to work, or not. They might subconsciously access memories of past occurrences where they went to work, and had a negative influence because they disliked the work. But by conscious analysis of memories, they would then access memories of the conceptual effects of going to work, and the connection that work causes a paycheque, and the memory connection of the concept that a paycheque causes the ability to buy food, and that food is necessary for the future. Through these memories of concepts, the person might result in a more accurate action of positive toward going to work.

For any action involving complex enough circumstances, the cause of action can be general basic memories, resembling the current circumstances, causing a positive or negative influence for one action or another, in the case of subconscious reaction. But if conscious decision is implemented, memories of specific aspects of the circumstances (including concepts of cause and effect) are accessed, until an accurate prediction of most beneficial action is determined, by analysis.

Free Will, Alter & Falter

Is God to blame for innocent people being harmed?

If the innocent person is being harmed by another person, in order for God to alter the circumstances of the innocent being harmed, he would have to force the person doing the harming, to stop. If God forces someone to stop something, he is preventing free will. If the functional property of free will, is humans to have free choice, then God would not force any circumstances on people, with the intention of altering their choice. Therefore, if God wanted to allow full function of free will, he would not force someone to do something against their will, therefore he would not prevent the person from harming another person.

If God prevented everyone from harm, he would be constantly forcing everyone to make certain decisions and take certain actions, in order to prevent any harm from anyone. This contradicts the fundamental principle of free will. But if there was no free will, and God forced all decisions, what would be the point of creating intellectual human beings, with the capability of conscious comprehension? Forcing all actions of individuals, doesnt require incredibly complex organisms with billions of neurons, and vast influencing variables on the circumstances which occur throughout a lifespan. Instead, to fit that concept, it would be sufficient elements for God to use a universe consisting of only a 2D circle and a couple lines. God could then force the actions of that circle to bounce back and forth between the 2 lines.

A universe without free will, would look more like a slow game of pong, but God is playing against himself, and controls every movement of the circle.  

Friday 3 August 2018

Concept of Contribution

Is contribution important?
As so many elements in life, which involve contribution, seem like they have such a minimal impact, is making your contribution relevant at all?

Contribution can be positive or negative, toward a grander positive or negative. Nearly everything you do throughout the day has a negative or positive contribution value, if you analyse and evaluate it. Nearly everything you do causes a chain of reactions, and influences an overall grander impact.

Evaluating whether the grander impact is positive or negative may be subjective, and depend on your perspective, but chances are that you would consider the impact to be either positive or negative. So if you do consider the impact positive or negative, then you must consider it relevant to some degree, otherwise you would consider it neutral. If the impact is relevant, then your contribution should be relevant, at least to some degree.

That degree of relevance of contribution, and therein the grander impact, only has to outweigh the degree of relevance for making the contribution. For eg. The choice at hand, causing a contribution, is to buy a doorknob made in Canada or made in China. If you consider the grander impact of, shipping across the planet causing pollution, which then causes climate change, and consider that to be relevant, then buying the knob from China (if you live in Canada) would be a negative contribution toward the grander impact of climate change. The degree of relevance of that negative contribution, just has to outweigh the negative impact to you, in order to buy that knob, rather than the 1 made in Canada.

If the negative impact to you is $3 extra in cost, then the negative impact of $3 on your life, just needs to be outweighed by the negative contribution toward the overall impact of climate change. The degree of negativity of the $3 is relative to your financial situation. A rough estimate of percentage relevance of that $3 might be, in ratio to the total amount of money available to you, in the time period before the next equivalent contribution decision (of perhaps buying something else with a $3 difference). Lets say that time period is 1 week, and you make $600/ week, then the % relevance of that $3, to the impact, is 0.5%.

The relevance of that impact, then needs to be evaluated, for comparison to the impact of the negative contribution. To put a # on it, for attempted accuracy, you could consider the relevance of any given element within your life, to be a value between 0-100 (where 0 is completely irrelevant, and 100 is maximum possible relevance), then the impact of $ could maybe be considered about an 80 (since its significant to survive, but not absolutely vital). Then we take 0.5% of 80, to get a relevance value of 0.4.

That relevance needs to be outweighed by, the negative contribution to the grand impact of the effect of buying that doorknob. If the negative impact is climate change, then you would estimate a percentage of relevance of contribution toward climate change. The contribution relevance, of shipping a single doorknob, toward climate change, should be considered within the time period before the next equivalent contribution element. If the time before the next contribution of that amount was 1 minute, the relevance toward 1 minute of climate change, might be 0.5%. Then the relevance of the impact, should be estimated as a value of 0-100, in ratio to all other elements of life. If you consider climate change to potentially ultimately kill all people and animals, then the relevance of that, as a value compared to all other aspects of life, might be 99. 0.5% of 99 = 0.5

Since the relevance value of negative contribution toward climate change is 0.5, and outweighs the relevance value of negative impact of spending $3, at 0.4, it would be most logical to avoid the negative contribution.

This is and example, and are of course very rough estimates, but you can take the concept to apply to any contribution scenario. These calculations would take too much time to be worth doing for every small decision in life, but after gaining a general understanding of tendency for certain elements of contribution to outweigh the cost, quicker estimates can be made to make more effective and relevant contributions. The relevant effect of this Concept of Contribution is to be conscious of actions and decisions having an affecting contribution, and to be mindful of which contributions are worth it, whether they are negative or positive.