Accomplice of Accomplishment

What makes something an accomplishment? What causes accomplishment? What effects are there?

A simple way to describe accomplishment might be; achieving something which is desired. Virtually anything could be considered an accomplishment, if someone caused, and wanted it to happen. It is based on the context of any scenario and an individuals’ subjective perspective. Accomplishment can happen by accident, even if the individual didn't intend for it to occur, as long as they caused it, and consider the result to be something they prefer. But the more common method of accomplishment, through causation, would be by intention. 

With intention, comes goal-setting for what is intended in any context or general scenario. Goal-setting seems it would be the main cause and “accomplice” of accomplishment. Quantity of accomplishment should generally be relative to the quantity of goals set. Without goals to drive motivation, accomplishments will only be by fluke, and very rare comparatively. Motivation is a key component, which despite seemingly being sparked by instinct, can still be consciously oriented through understanding, as I further hypothesized in a post from 10 months ago; Motivation Direction. 

If more of a quantity of goals are set, there may be more failures, but also more probability for accomplishments, through motivation. If quality or probability of accomplishment is preferred, fewer goals can be set for focus, or smaller steps of accomplishment can be made toward a larger goal, but few will still no doubt result in more accomplishments, than none. This should apply to various contexts, whether it's an individual, group, or an entire species. 

Accomplishments can be distinct with an outlined specified goal, or gradual from degrees of a goal succeeded. For eg, someone can set a distinct goal of losing 20lbs, or a gradual goal of improving health, with degrees of accomplishment through every minor improvement of exercise or eating healthy. On a large scale, there can be an agreed upon goal for any number of individuals in any separate locations, who have never even met. Yet still, there can be a group accomplishment for all who make any degree of contribution toward the intention. For eg, millions of people can individually have the mutual gradual goal of reducing pollution, and can all make a degree of accomplishment through individual contribution. 

The objective effects of accomplishment, whether small or large, would be mainly mental. The positive reinforcement (as I further described the mechanics of, in a post from 7 months ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms) would have the effect of appeal, satisfaction, and likely motivation for more accomplishments. Subjectively, based on the particular accomplishment, it could have the effect of benefit for others and or allow for more future potential. 

It seems it should be pretty basic, that to achieve success, it should be much more probable through motivation and an intended direction. Whether it's an individual with a specific distinct intention, or many contributors causing gradual mutual achievement, the effects are likely to be satisfactory. Though it can be a subjective concept (as many concepts are), at least in context, initiative of goal-setting seems to be the main; Accomplice of Accomplishment. 

Time Awareness

How does awareness of time affect the mind?

With the mind capability of being aware of, considering, and remembering experiences of the past, comes the potential to dwell, obsess, and be inundated by the past, but also the potential to appreciate, and learn. With the ability to comprehend, predict, and assume the future, also comes the potential to obsess and be over fixated on what might happen, but also the potential to plan and prepare for the future. So is time awareness a benefit or hinder?

The cause of the negative elements of time awareness which I just mentioned, should be important to consider. There may be another cause behind elements such as dwelling and obsessing, which awareness might increase because of detailed thought. Without time awareness, it seems there can still be a form of obsession or over-fixation, caused by experiences of the past. Without awareness of time, i'm assuming the mind state is mostly subconscious, considering lack of awareness and comprehension to be in the definition (as i further explained in a youtube video; What is The Subconscious, and a blog post from 15 months ago; Subconscious Subjection). 

The function of the subconscious mind can cause fixation on factors based on previous experiences, because of significant positive or negative reinforcement connected with similar factors. Trauma or phobias are an example of subconscious negative reinforcement causing a fixation on avoidance, as I further explained in a post from almost 2 yrs ago; Traumaphobia. Addiction is an example of subconscious positive reinforcement causing obsession, as i described in a post, also from almost 2 yrs ago; Addiction Affliction. 

It seems likely that the over-fixation aspects of time awareness are driven by these effects of the subconscious. Awareness and conscious thought would cause the additional effects of the mind going into detail of the past negative experiences, or cause fixation on potential future prospects, based on what the subconscious has learned to strive for. Besides subconscious experiences causing these fixations, instinct can be another drive to obsess on a certain aspect. The cause behind reactions of the mind can be complicated, including instinct and (sub)conscious, as I further hypothesized in a post from 9 months ago; Mind Driver. 

If time awareness is not to blame for the cause of the negative aspects, that leaves the potential to overpower and alter them through understanding and adjusting relevant factors. This includes using the positive elements mentioned at the beginning. The potential to appreciate, learn, plan and prepare in depth should only be plausible with awareness and comprehension. In order to appreciate something significantly, someone needs the ability to think about that factor in detail, and understand the positive causes and effects which it has on other factors. To learn from the past, and plan and prepare for the future, someone needs to comprehend how the factors interacted within a past scenario, in order to alter future factors to their benefit, by predicting the causes and effects of the same factors. 

Being conscious of the past and future, and details of those experiences and possible outcomes, can cause more drastic negative effects of obsession and fixation, but since these are driven by instinct and subconscious, there lies the potential to reformat. Positive effects of appreciation, learning and planning are tools only made available from awareness. With potential of new positives and potential to change negatives, overall there seems to be quite a benefit from; Time Awareness.

I

What defines who I am?

Upon quick questioning, it doesn't seem too difficult to know what makes anyone that person. Perhaps, the general idea that someone is their physical body. With deeper digging, questions can arise to challenge the details of this idea. Who I am, or anyone is, in general, would basically come down to what the common interpretation is, of using that term. Different people could have different perspectives of what applies to define who someone is, but I’ll try to cover what seems to be the most common interpretations, and go into detail of potential rational parameters.

If it’s their physical body, at what point of the body's composition changing, does that change who the person is? According to studies, every cell in the human body is replaced by a new cell, over a 7-10 yr span. Does that make it a new person every 7yrs? Is it still the same person if they become brain dead, or lose all memories? Is a dead body of mostly the same composition, still the same person? If someone’s consciousness (or entire function of brain and memories) is transferred into another person or computer, is that still them?

It seems, at least by what most would likely perceive after considering the details, that a physical body does not effectively define who I am. Since the physical composition changes constantly, and the body could even be discluded (if the mind was transferred) from some perspectives. Perhaps the mind should be included, at least partially. But even if the mind defines who I am, some aspect of the body could likely still be included, since the mind functions based on the body it has used to build its methods of function in experience.

The mind has similar problems to the body as a definition, considering it changes constantly, from every experience that someone goes through. Every experience adds new memories and new neurochemical reinforcement (as further described in a post from 7 months ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms). From new reinforcement, changes likely occur at least to a slight degree, in habits, preferences, and ideologies. 

So it seems neither 100% body composition, or 100% mind composition effectively define who I am. Those ideas could potentially define who I am at 1 given moment, but it would change constantly with time. It seems that common interpretation would be that what defines someone would include a relevant time span. During a time span, perhaps someone can be considered to be; how their mind and body functioned throughout that timespan. 

Which timespan is relevant for defining someone, is likely a broadly changing variable, depending on perspective. A lot of people might consider somebody to be how they functioned throughout their entire life, whereas a lot of perspectives might be that someone is a different person after significant changes in their functions. Perhaps it can be generalized and categorized into 2 types of what defines someone; 1) Someone’s mind’s reactions (which incorporates their body) over their entire life. Or 2) over a period of time, before significant change (which in itself would have to be determined based on particular circumstances) in reactions.

It seems that the mind is likely more significant in defining who someone is, since it is what controls the body, and it is commonly the factor more significantly involved in someone’s reactions, interactions, influences, and decisions through life. But the physical body could still be a factor included, since the function of the mind is based on experience of utilizing that body. The tendencies of the mind over a timespan, seem to be a more applicable outline, than the mind at any given moment, but the length of time seems to be a significant variable based on perspective. Overall, it seems to be my mind that defines the answer to; who am I?

Generalized Subconscious Communication

How is communication incorporated into society and individuals, when used with a more vague and generalized degree of accuracy?

The essence of spirituality is flowing with beauty in freeing our elegance. How accurately was that understood? It sounds fancy, and might make people feel good, but there is likely not a significant degree of accuracy of specific meaning. When someone communicates to a vague degree, without accuracy of intended meaning, this causes a more varying scope of potential interpretation by others. Using generalized terms which are lacking in specific mutual understanding of meaning, causes communication on a more subconscious level.

By subconscious, I mean the mind functioning without the individuals awareness or knowledge of the specific thoughts or memories being accessed. I further described my understanding of the subconscious in a post from 15 months ago; Subconscious Subjection. If terms and description within communication are to a generalized degree, it seems likely that not only the person speaking is using a mind function which is closer to subconscious (than more accurate description would be), but also the person receiving the communication would be interpreting it on a more subconscious level. Both individuals would be accessing the generalized words used, more subconsciously, without accurate understanding of what the words mean. 

Subconscious communication isn't necessarily fundamentally bad, but inaccuracy allows a greater chance for error. With the communicator accessing less distinct understanding of the meaning of words, and less accurate memories connected with those words, it allows a greater chance to use words which are unintended. Also, the individual receiving the communication has less accurate factors to determine the communicator's intended meaning, even if they tried to use more definitive thought processes. If the 1 receiving, simply takes it as it is, they can subconsciously interpret a generalized meaning which has a greater chance of being different from what was intended. 

Along with subconscious access of words, comes the mind's neurochemical positive or negative reinforcement, connected with the words or general ideas, without awareness of the connection of that reinforcement. I explained more of what I mean by this type of reinforcement, in a post from 7 months ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms. Since this type of communication uses more subconscious reinforcement, this can cause a cycle of repeated incorrect reinforcement about a generalized idea. 

Consider my example in the 2nd sentence of this post. That sentence could cause positive feedback because some of the specific words are usually connected with positive feedback, but the overall idea has no accurate intended meaning by the communicator (me). If an idealism lacks accurate distinction of communication of meaning, it can be incorrectly linked with subconscious positive reinforcement. This can be as a result of inaccurate understanding of cause and effect, allowing positivity to be connected to a factor by correlation rather than causation. Basically, a generalized idea can make someone feel good because a certain aspect of that idea gives positive reinforcement, despite the remainder of factors of the overall idea, lacking correct cause and effect. It can become a cycle since the more that the generalized idea is communicated without accurate understanding, the more subconscious positive reinforcement is received (from the communicator or receiver) as a connection with the idea. If many people with the same type of subconscious thinking and communication begin to communicate more and more often with each other, they can cause an increase of growth of an inaccurate reinforcement cycle. 

More vague forms of communication dont seem to fundamentally cause problems, but allow a much higher chance for error, caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding of meaning. In a more simple world, such as the animal kingdom (where this type of mind function likely comes from), this may cause few problems, but in our complex world of accurate information, technology, and society, perhaps improvements can be made with a move towards accuracy, and away from; Generalized Subconscious Communication.