Processes for Thought

How does the conscious mind use memory to think in organized processes?

We do it all day long (at least most of us), and take it for granted, but how does the mind actually think thoughts in an effective and relevant method? 1 important component of our thinking process, is language. Since we have language, we are able to make much clearer and distinct constructions of thoughts. Language basically allows a short form reference of objects and actions. By using these short form references, it allows us to remember much easier, that which the word references. With easier and more distinct access to memories of any given factors in life, it makes it much easier to make connections between factors. As I mentioned in my last post; Learning Memory Mechanisms, if someone is able to make connections of the cause and effect of the interactions of factors, they should be able to effectively learn. 

Once the ability to make connections between factors is fluid enough, and sufficient words have been saved in memory, for ease and accuracy of reference, then thoughts can be constructed as sentences. Since it seems plausible that all thoughts function via memory access, as I further explained in a post from almost 2 yrs ago; Theory of Thought, the ability to construct a sentence should be quite relevant. Linking words with objects or concepts in memory, seems simple enough as a labelling system, but constructing a sentence using an appropriate, logical and relevant combination of these words, seems to be a whole new level of complexity. 

It seems there should be some degree of conscious thought involved for every word combined into a sentence. Assuming conscious thought is basically accessing memories of factors and their interaction, for each word added to a sentence, the person must access memory of that word (factor), and how it interacts with other words, in order to determine the appropriate word to add to the sentence, to express the overall idea or thought which is intended. 

If thoughts are only memory access, then what is the order of process for the mind to access a memory of a complicated concept, and form a sentence relevant to that concept? It seems that commonly, thoughts are processed in the order of; a concept 1st, then the words saved in memory which are linked to each component of the overall concept. Perhaps a lot of thoughts are processed in this order. 

1) A stimulus causes memory access to an overall concept, which often consists of an interaction of actions and or objects (ie factors), and the result of that interaction 

2) This triggers memory access of particular components of that overall concept. The generalized components would be; factors and the result of their interaction.  

3) Words connected in memory, to the basic factors and their interaction, are accessed. 

4) The words are placed in order respective to the order of interaction of the relevant factors.

As language includes different types of words for different components of a concept, such as; nouns as factors, and verbs as interactions, memory of these components can be accessed before memory of an applicable word to suit that component. There may be many components to any concept which is being “thought of”, but each factor and interaction within the concept can be added step by step, to create the final combination of a concept, described as a sentence. 

When concepts involve components which are less tangible, due to lack of memory of factors or their interactions, which is often due to lack of physical sensory recordings, then thoughts and concepts can be difficult to understand. For eg. the overall concept of this topic..

It seems that each step of a thought, or sentence (if it’s being distinctly expressed) involves some degree of conscious thought, in order to comprehend how each factor interacts within the combination, and which words most effectively describe those factors and interactions. The factors involved to create the combination of the words which were added 1 by 1 to this sentence, via conscious memory access of the interaction of each component, are all part of the Processes for Thought.

Learning Memory Mechanisms

What mechanisms in memory are used in the process of learning?

Learning can be done using the more basic function of subconsciousness, which is basically accessing the closest resembling memory, most commonly used memory, or the memory with most significant positive or negative feedback. Or, as I further explained in a post from the beginning of this year; Learning Learning, learning can be done using the more advanced function of consciousness. Also, in my last post; Preprogrammed Adaptability, I explained the general processes involved in general intelligence, as well as the potential for the concept of learning. But what are the mechanics of the process of learning, using consciousness?

Basically conscious learning involves accessing memories of how factors interact with each other. If memory is accessed of a factor and how it interacts with another factor, then cause and effect can be learned. Since an interaction involves an effect on a factor, the cause of that effect can be accessed within memory. For eg, if a child sees a rock break a window, he can learn, by accessing memory of the interaction of the rock and the window. The interaction is the action of the window breaking, so he learns that the cause of a rock hitting a window, has the effect of the window breaking. 

Once the cause and effect of a factors interaction is accessed within memory, that interaction can be saved as a new memory, in summarized form. A new concept is learned for potential use in the future. For eg, if a child is learning that water puts out fire, he might learn this by seeing someone put out a campfire with a bucket of water. He accesses memory of the scenario and the interaction between the factors of water and flame, causing the effect of the flame going out. If he also later sees a candle put out by rain, he can access memories of the previous scenario of water putting out the campfire, and notice the resemblance of interaction of factors within the 2 scenarios. Using the convenience of language, he can save a new summary memory, with labels connected to the factors and the interaction. The concept is saved in his memory, that water puts out fire. 

More detailed mechanics involved in this process for the capability of accessing memories of the interaction of 2 factors, would require pattern recognition. In order for someone to learn by accessing memories of the interaction of any 2 factors, they must be able to recognize patterns within memories. They would need to recognize the pattern perceived through sensory input, of each factor, in order to identify it as that factor. Then they would have the ability to identify factors, and recognize them within the scenario of an interaction of the factors. 

Once someone (or something..) is able to record sensory input, access memories of the recordings, and recognize patterns within the memories, they need to be able to access memories of those patterns (factors) and memory of the interaction of those patterns. If memory is accessed of the cause and effect of the factors interaction, then they have consciously learned. The ability to effectively perform this process of Learning Memory Mechanisms, should allow a vast range of potential, to save, interpret, and understand virtually any information.

Preprogrammed Adaptability

How much adaptability is required in the programming of general intelligence?

Taking the generalized structural concept of human intelligence; we seem to have 3 basic categories of mind processes: instinct, subconsciousness, and consciousness. Instinct is basically the prepregramming to avoid or pursue generalized categories of factors which might be encountered. Subconscious is the process of updating more accurate factors, within those categories, to avoid or pursue, based on probability of trial and error. Consciousness is the process of comparing details of the factors which are relevant to avoid or pursue. 

Each of these 3 processes seem to use flexibility for adaptability. Instinct has some flexibility because the factors which the individual is programmed to avoid or pursue, are so generalized.   Preprogramming of generalized factors (such as eating, staying healthy, reproducing) allows for simple programming, and will guide the individual in the correct enough direction, but allows adaptability to varying factors within varying environments. The generalization of factors allows the next process of subconsciousness, to update the mind for more specific factors within the generalized categories of factors. Once an individual has an experience and receives positive or negative reinforcement based on the generalized preprogramming of instinct, then memory updates more accurately, which factors were sensed during that experience. 

The combination of these 2 processes, seems to be key for allowing general adaptability. General adaptability seems it should be a prerequisite for general intelligence, just not as complex as the necessary processes (such as comprehension) which are involved in intelligence. To allow general adaptability in a changing environment, it seems logical that the preprogramming should be flexible to a degree relative to the adaptability. Relevant flexibility and adaptability should be plausible using programming of the 2 basic processes;
1) avoid or pursue generalized factors based on preprogrammed negative or positive reinforcement (instinct)
2) update memory for more accurate factors to avoid or pursue, based on the reinforcement of process 1 (subconscious)

This programming should allow general adaptability and functionality to the degree of typical animals. The next process required to be programmed for general intelligence, would then be consciousness. For the combination of processes to be upgraded from general adaptability to general intelligence, a process needs to be added of: 3) determine avoidance or pursuance based on detailed memory access and comparison, of factors involved. Subconsciousness accesses memory based on which factors were updated as highest priority, based simply on degree of instinctual positive or negative reinforcement. Consciousness allows access to additional memory data, relevant to the factors involved, to determine more accurately which factors should be avoided or pursued. 

Despite the fact that triggers and reactions must be pre programmed for intelligence, it seems that in order to cause general intelligence, a large quantity of the programming can be set to be adaptable to a wide range of circumstances. With the right combination of programmed processes, significant adaptability can be allowed, to cause beneficial reactions within a changing environment, and even the potential to learn intelligently. 

Empathy

What are the causes and effects of empathy?

Is it natural or artificial?

1 technical definition of empathy is; “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” According to this definition, it’s required to understand, to feel empathy, so it seems plausible that most animals, other than humans, wouldn’t fit this definition, as it seems likely they mostly have little ability to understand anything in general. If empathy is more common in humans, then what caused humans to develop empathy in the 1st place?

Considering empathy has the effect of making someone care for another and aid them, it seems likely this developed as an instinctual trigger for pack animals to aid and care for others in the pack. Similarly to the concept of an individual receiving positive reinforcement from another pack member gaining a benefit, as I described in my last post; Pass the Positive, empathy seems it would also include negative reinforcement, caused by knowledge of another pack member being harmed. This seems plausible since other animals which seem to show signs of empathy, are pack animals. 

The concept of reinforcement for empathy, could be relatable to hunger. Hunger is negative reinforcement, as a form of pain, which drives the individual to change the circumstances, in order to avoid that negative reinforcement. Once the hunger is satisfied, the individual experiences positive reinforcement in the form of relief, just as when another pack member is aided.

If this concept of reinforcement is the natural origin of empathy, then why does the function of modern day empathy, seem to require understanding? Perhaps, like many emotions, the initial trigger is instinctual, and it functions on basic simple scenarios, but can cause a range of varying complicated concepts to be affected. If the original trigger of wanting to aid others, occurs for a species which has the additional capability of comprehension and understanding (such as humans), then it seems likely this trigger would have a tendency to provoke similar concepts to come to mind. 

Since the trigger involves focusing on another individual who needs aid, the tendency of concepts which come to mind, seems logical to be; worrying about and understanding why the other individual could use aid. For this depth of the concept of empathy to be a regular result of the initial basic instinctual trigger, it seems the species would require awareness of mind. For an individual to make the relation that another individual is experiencing pain of some form, they 1st require the ability to comprehend that both themselves and the other, have similar minds, and experience similar pain. 

If empathy is indeed the concept of; a basic instinctual trigger to aid another, causing understanding of that other’s state of mind, then could empathy occur artificially, without that initial natural trigger? For eg, we may develop AI in a certain way, or another species of animal or alien could perhaps develop the capability of understanding concepts such as the mind, without having the same instinct to aid others. If an individual was to have awareness of mind, but not have the instinctual drive to aid others, it seems plausible they could still have the ability to understand and share the feelings of another individual. As long as they have awareness of mind, they should be able to understand what the other is experiencing, and as long as they have experienced the same feelings, then they should be able to share the feelings. The instinct to aid others, seems it may make it a lot more probable for empathy to occur, but not necessarily a requirement. 

How adaptable would understanding and relation of experience need to be, in order to cause empathy? Would the exact same form of feelings need to be experienced by the empathizer? Or could vaguely categorized forms of feelings be enough for comprehension, to allow understanding of another's feelings? Perhaps there are different types of degrees of accuracy for empathy, depending on the individuals accuracy of estimate of similar experience. But as for a rough accuracy, perhaps experience of any form of positive or negative reinforcement (or “feelings”), could be enough for empathy, when sufficient comprehension and understanding is involved.

With awareness of mind and similar experiences, empathy might be possible artificially, but it seems likely the instinct to aid others, naturally caused empathy to be more common for humans. Even with minimal relatable experience, comprehension and understanding might open potential for empathy.

Pass the Positive

How can a positive be passed to someone that it doesn’t affect directly, to add to their sum positive perception?

It seems that an individual's positive perception is generally mostly influenced by positive aspects which have a relatively noticeable effect on them directly. This would make sense based on the idea that all perception of negativity or positivity, is caused by instinctual reinforcement triggers, as I further tried to understand in a post from last yr; Formula For Feedback. But interpretation seems to allow a lot of adaptability for the resulting perception. As I tried to further explain in my last post; Past Positive, interpretation of aspects of life, is a step of comprehension and conscious awareness, which allows alteration (or potential mental self manipulation) of which factors in life are perceived as positive or negative. So how can someone use their interpretation of positive factors, to increase their resulting positive perception, even when those factors are external, and don’t seem to affect them directly?

External positive factors could be; knowledge of someone else being happy, or knowledge of a concept, development, or process which is beneficial in some way, yet has little to no effect on the individual themselves. Some examples could be; Frank knows that his friend who moved to another continent is now living a happy fulfilling life, yet he never gets to hang out any more. Or Beth learns that scientists just developed a method to cure a disease to help thousands of people, but she doesn’t have the disease herself or know anyone personally who does. Or John hears that a country on another continent developed and is implementing a new education system which projects it will improve that countries economy by 20%. 

These types of developments or concepts benefit others, but not the individual themselves. Since the basic instinctual positive reinforcement triggers don't seem to include factors which don't directly affect the individual, perceiving these types of concepts as positive, seems to be exceptionally difficult. Comprehension of complicated concepts is a step beyond the function of instinctual reinforcement triggers, as the affects of some concepts are removed from the individual, and therefore would not have been developed as a function for benefiting basic survival and reproduction. 

1 potential instinctual positive reinforcement, that might be plausibly indirectly triggerable by these concepts, could be; care for others of the same species and pack. Perhaps, as pack animals, if another member of the pack receives something beneficial, this would trigger some positive reinforcement, as it would still be beneficial for an individual's survival, if another pack member is healthy and strong, to add to the packs strength. Since there is varying degrees of reinforcement influence, it seems likely it would be minor positive influence compared to the individual receiving a benefit themselves. But some, is better than none.

If we have the mental ability to interpret concepts which benefit others, as a positive influence towards our own perception, this would give the allowance to potentially perceive a multitude of concepts as positive. This could increase personal sum positive perception, by utilizing the amazing adaptability and functionality of conscious comprehension. Simply being happy for others, allows concepts such as; societal or technological development, or knowledge of people being happy whom were close in relation, to positively influence the individual that is aware of the concepts. 

Considering the quantity of positive aspects affecting others in life, and the workability of interpretation, to use those positives, perceiving others positives, as your own, has the potential to be a significantly effective way to Pass the Positive. 

Past Positive

How can someone perceive positives from the past, which they no longer have, as positive?

Typically, it seems that thinking about positive aspects of life which are not in the present, often can cause a negative perception. As I attempted to understand in a recent post; Positive Reinforcement Perception Relativity, having a positive perception seems to be relative to what an individual is using to compare positive aspects (of any given situation), to. If comparing present positive aspects to past positives, the interpretation often becomes, considering any lack of present positives, as a negative. In that post, I suggested the option of ignoring the past positives and focusing on present positives. But is there some method of comprehension of past positives, which allows focus on past positives, and a positive interpretation, despite the current lack of those positives?

Considering the core trigger for perceiving something as negative, seems to come from instinctual negative reinforcement triggers, perhaps comprehending those reasons, that an individual's mentality is being triggered negatively, can be a tool in the method of overwriting the natural negative result. 1 common strong instinctual negative reinforcement trigger would likely be; being apart from someone you were close to, as naturally we are pack animals, and negative reinforcement for this, causes the urge to pursue staying with a pack, for the benefit of survival. Another negative reinforcement trigger, would probably be losing possessions, as naturally, avoiding losing possessions, such as food or a quality area to live, would be beneficial for survival. Another may be losing an ability to perform an action, as a similar concept, since avoiding losing an ability (such as via injury of a limb), should be beneficial.

These seem to be the basic natural negative reinforcement triggers, which can then be triggered by a multitude of scenarios, especially considering the complexity of modern day life, with society and technology. No longer having someone in your life, could happen in the scenario of a friend moving away, arguments with a family member causing a disconnect, a boyfriend or girlfriend breaking up, or someone you know passing away. Losing possessions can situate in the way of; moving to a new city because of family, a car breaking down, being laid off from a job, having to sell clothes you’ve had for years, or losing a place to live, due to failed payments. Losing an ability might be in the form of a disease restricting physical capabilities, an accident losing a limb, a mental disorder, or common loss of ability from age. 

Simply having the knowledge that; the trigger of negativity from the loss of these past positives, is an instinctual process of the mind, developed for reinforcement of basic situations, should be potentially helpful. Comprehending the function of a process, allows understanding of the cause and effect, allowing the potential to be aware of, and cause more effective processes, for a more preferable result. This is the basic advantage of comprehension and conscious awareness. By comprehending the function of negative reinforcement triggers, someone can alter the factors involved in causing the end result. Since a result of a more positive perception should be preferable, the adjustable factors involved, would be mental interpretation of the initial negative trigger. Mental interpretation can be self manipulated, to bypass that end result of negativity. 

To manipulate the interpretation, 1 step is to gain the knowledge of the function, and that the current function is not preferable, with its end result of negative perception. Perhaps knowing the cause of the negative perception, and knowing you have the ability to redirect interpretation, can be positive enough of a concept, in itself, to redirect interpretation to an end result with significantly reduced negativity. But beyond the positive influence of knowing this concept in itself, alternate positives can be focused on, to add to the resulting positive sum perception.

Besides the option of using positives which are unrelated to the scenario, or positives caused by a fresh opportunity (as I mentioned in my previous post), positives of experience and knowledge gained, can be interpreted directly from the past positives. For eg, if you can no longer be around someone that you were close to, things you’ve learned from them, or positive influences they had on you, to cause you to become a better person, can be present positive aspects to focus on. Mostly the same concept can apply to possessions or abilities lost, since experience and knowledge, are a common positive which is gained from past situations.

These types of positives (as well as knowledge of the concept in itself) should be some of the easiest to connect for interpretation, with past, yet lost, positives, since they are more direct links, and related to the individual themselves. Since the step of interpretation is so adaptable, via comprehension and knowledge, there should be more applicable positive aspects connected to past positives, to be potentially used as a tool for causing the end result perception to be more positive. Basically, any instinctual positive reinforcement trigger can be focussed on, to improve the resulting perception. More complicated connections to past positives, or more complicated comprehension of something being positive (such as inconspicuous positive influence on others/ situations, or being happy for someone else), can be more difficult to work into interpretation.

But the beauty of comprehension, is it allows that workability and adaptability, for the potential to have a positive resulting perception, from a Past Positive 

Scope of Hope

Is hope a help or hinder?

To hope, is to want and have some expectation that something positive will happen. The common connotation seems to be that it's a good thing, to hope. But as I tried to understand in my last post; Positive Reinforcement Perception Relativity, too much focus on a positive that is not currently present, can cause the perception of negativity, due to comparing potential positives to current positives, and viewing the lack of present positives, as a negative. This seems to make sense in the comparison of past positives, or positives which others have, but does it also apply to potential future positives?

Potential positives might have a different element involved. If the potential positive is highly probable, and soon to occur, then it might be plausible to use that positive to increase current mental positivity. Since a positive perspective seems to require knowledge of positive aspects that an individual has, if a future positive is known to be very probable by the individual, it can add to the positive aspects for them to focus on, to increase the sum positive perception. The future positive should be near enough in the future, and certain enough, that they can allow it to energise them, by basically considering it the present. Or perhaps focus on present factors which lead up to the future occurrence (such as preparing).

For eg, I have a tag and bonfire event tomorrow, which I can perhaps use a positive influence. Since I really enjoy this type of event, I can consider it positive, and also because its only 1 day away, and have had some present preparation for it. It’s also highly probably to occur, in my mind, since I know that enough reliable people are planning to attend, and the weather forecast looks good, and is reliable enough for this close of a time period. 

If the potential positive is questionable of whether it will occur, focusing too much on it can lead to stress, and also focus on the potential that it does not occur. Once the probability is high enough (from the estimate of the individual) that the potential positive will not occur, then they will likely come back to perceiving the hypothetical situation of lack of positives, as a negative, by comparing the scenario of positives, to the scenario of lack of positives.

For eg, if I focus on the hope that a certain women will want to date and be in a relationship with me, at some time in the future, I can easily perceive this as negative. Since the probability seems low, by my best estimate, considering current factors, if I focus on that hope, I will likely compare that potential positive to my current lack of that positive, resulting in the perception of current negativity. And since the timeline is so unknown, I would likely perceive any time before it potentially happening, as a negative. 

In the case of the future positive being too far in the future, the individual will likely consider it to not be a present positive. If it’s not a present positive, then the same misinterpretation happens, of perceiving the lack of positives, as a negative. Over-focus on a far future positive will likely cause this negative perception, due to thinking about all the time before the positive occurs, and considering that time to be negative, because of its lack of positive. 

Hope for something questionable or far in the future potentials can be a useful thing, for motivation to take applicable actions required to cause that potential future positive. As with preparation, taking present actions toward a future potential, can contribute to perceptible present positives. Over-focus on the future positive, seems to be mainly where the problem comes in. 

A lot of focus on that potential positive itself, causes that disappointing downside, of considering the lack of immediate positives, as a negative. Keeping a balance of focus seems to be most beneficial. Enough focus on a potential positive, to keep motivated for making progression towards it, should be helpful, while keeping in mind accurate probabilities, and avoiding focusing too much on the future positive itself. Too much or little seems to be a hinder, so understanding and aiming for the effective degree, should be helpful, within the Scope of Hope.

Positive Reinforcement Perception Relativity

How can the perception of positivity or negativity be manipulated?

In my previous post; Positron, I attempted to explain that there seems to be no natural physical negatives, but rather lacks of positives, yet we do seem to have negative mental perception. Some negative perception is likely caused by a mental comparison to potential positives. This step of perception seems to allow adaptability for altering the final result of negativity, to a lesser degree, or perhaps to a contrarily positive result. The negative mental perception seems to stem from instinctual, neurochemical, negative reinforcement triggers, as I also further explained in a post from last yr; Formula For Feedback. If reinforcement triggers are only a physical reaction in the brain, programmed to cause us to repeat (positive), or to not repeat (negative), then what room does this leave for intentional mental alteration of these triggers causing the end result of mental positivity or negativity?

If indeed a scenario of experiencing mental negativity, is caused by the perception of a lack of positives, from comparing the current circumstances to potential positives, then perhaps a readjustment of comprehension can be made to overwrite that result of negativity. Rather than the individual comparing their current circumstances involving a lack of positives, to potential circumstances which involve more positives, they can refocus their comprehension toward the current positives. By focusing conscious awareness of the circumstances, on the present positives, this should eradicate the mis-perception of a lack of positives being a negative. Perhaps a perception of positive is relative, just like most (or all?) things in this world. 

For eg, Larry’s car just got totalled in an accident, and he is now perceiving his situation as negative. Perhaps he can readjust his comprehension, so that rather than comparing his circumstances to the potential positive of when he did have a car (perceiving the lack of positive, as a negative), he refocuses on positives. The positives could be unrelated to the past situation of losing the car, such as having a decent area to live, or friends or family. Or the positives could be related, such as the opportunity to get a new more efficient car, or to bike and get exercise, or take public transit and save on insurance costs. 

Since the result of feeling mental negativity or positivity, is caused by perception, via consciously-aware focus, manipulating that perception should be quite plausible to alter the resulting degree of negativity or positivity. Even in complex scenarios involved in modern day life, a lot of negative perception is caused by subconscious influence, which is the natural reaction method of your brain, using that instinctual negative reinforcement, to tell you to avoid those circumstances in the future. 

It seems that often in life, the negative reinforcement causes too much prolonged mental negative influence. This is likely what causes a lot of depression or over-emotional reactions to situations in life. These reinforcement triggers were developed to be beneficial for a simpler more natural life of perhaps our ancient ancestors, rather than the complexities involved in modern lifestyles or interactions with others of their own complicated minds. Conscious comprehension and awareness also likely causes the basic subconscious reinforcement to be triggered in countless complicated ways, which are not practically beneficial, by the development design of these triggers in our brains.

For eg, if I feel significant mental negative reinforcement because I was in love with a girl, and lost that opportunity, the negative reinforcement was perhaps originally developed as a natural instinctual trigger to cause a male to stay with a female, for more effective upbringing of offspring. But with complicated conscious awareness, I might focus too much on the present lack of positive, which I had before I lost that opportunity of love. The conscious mind can cause over-focus and dwell on those particular circumstances, by comparing those past positives, to the present lack of positives. But being aware of that concept, I should be able to redirect my conscious focus to alternate positives of the present. 

The upside, is that using the same conscious awareness that may accidentally cause unpreferable negative influence, we can hypothetically counteract the resulting influence. Intentionally altering perception is likely a difficult thing to do, with probable recurring strikes of the negative subconscious influence. But with persistent counterstrikes of conscious reevaluation and focus on the positives, once enough battles are won, the new perception of positivity should convert that subconscious influence to automatically be on the positive side.

Though mental negativity can often be caused by a comparison perspective of lacking positives, the incidentally involved conscious awareness, seems it can also be used for counteractive measures, by comprehending positives and reinforcement, from the perception of relativity. 

Positron

Are there negatives in this world, or only a lack of positives?

In a post from a couple yrs ago; Negatron, I attempted to understand whether there is more positive or negative in this world, in general. I made a very rough estimate that there is equal positives and negatives, but that the substance of both quantities (negative and positive) existing, seems it is still better than zero. This rough estimate was an assumption that actions and occurrences in this world are both negative and positive. But, to understand things more accurately, what are positives or negatives in this world?

Naturally, a negative does not exist, that we know of. There are objects or substances (positive quantity), or there are no objects (Zero). Negatives are a mathematically constructed concept, coming from the idea of having objects, then taking 1 or some away. If the only way to create a negative, is to take away positives, it seems a negative is only a lack of positive, in the physical world. 

Taking this into real life situations, being in poverty might be considered a negative concept to live with. But having little or no resources, is not a negative quantity of resources, it’s a lack of a positive quantity of resources. Losing a job may be considered a negative occurrence, but it is losing a positive quantity that was gained, and which was not there to begin with. Or having your bike stolen, is losing a previously gained positive, rather than an overall negative.

If it is assumed that there are no fundamental negatives, then the only negatives to be considered, are lacks of positives. If the perspective is taken, that a lack of positive, is a negative, then what degree of positive, should be taken into consideration, to determine the present negative? By that logic, should any lack in the maximum possible positives in life, be considered a negative? The maximum possible positive quantities, are far beyond what any person has ever possessed, so by this interpretation, everyone should be considered to have an immense amount of negatives. This seems like a mathematically and physically realistic, faulty perspective, as far as physical possessions.

Mental positivity may be another subtopic. For someone to perceive a negative or positive mentally, is more subjective, and less distinct. In a post from 3 months ago; Mutual Morality (+ the post before it), I attempted to understand the fundamentals of what we consider moral. Relative to this topic, morals seem to be based on what we perceive as good or bad, which seems to derive from instinctual reinforcement triggers. So a perceived mental positive or negative, seems to stem from these reinforcement triggers, which instinctually drive us to consider something positive or negative. 

If it’s assumed that instinctual negative reinforcement triggers are a mental negative in this world, perhaps this contradicts the idea of no negatives, as it seems with physical quantities. But does the concept of; lack of positives, creating a mistaken interpretation of negatives, apply to mentality as well? If someone receives mental positivity, then loses it, is that a legitimate negative, or a mistaken interpretation of a lack of positive? The physical result of feeling negative reinforcement seems it would be similar, whether the result is from the perception of lacking a positive, or from direct, basic instinctual negative reinforcement. The difference would be the factor of perception, which would likely allow for much easier variances in degree of mental negativity. When the step of perception is involved in negativity, there should be much more potential to reduce or even counteract the resulting negativity, by altering perception.

It seems that in physical quantities within this world, there are no negative sums, but rather positives or a lack of positives, which may be mistaken for overall negatives. Perhaps this concept can be carried over to mental negatives, caused by instinctual negative reinforcement. The step of perceiving the complexities of life, gives an allowance for the resulting effect on mentality, to be POSITRON (which isnt a real word. I’m just weird).