Path of an Empath or a Sociopath

What functions of the mind cause someone to have strong morals?

2 general functions of the mind cause most reactions and or decisions of a person. To varying degrees of each, instinct and conscious thought are functions of the human mind that cause just about everything we do. So what degrees of each of these cause someone to have strong morals?

By morals, I’m basically referring to believing in and taking action in the belief of considering others of equal value to oneself and trying to allow the most preferable scenarios for the most people. I went into further technicalities in a post from 5.5yrs ago; Moral Mess

Regarding instinct as the 1st component of human thought and action, instinct would be the natural reinforcement triggers that someone is born with, which drive and influence someone. Further detail in a post from 6 yrs ago; Instinctivity. The aspect of instinct which influences morals, would be the instincts to care about others, such as empathy. If someone had no empathy, such as a sociopath, they would have no drive to regard the well being of anyone other than themself. If someone had theoretical maximum empathy, they would have a drive to care more about others than virtually anything else in their life. But too much empathy could cause someone to disregard themself to such a degree that they are harmed by others or circumstances. Having a strong drive to care about others doesn't necessarily mean strong morals through action, since strong morals includes actions which cause the intent effectively. Effective action requires the other component of the mind, being conscious thought.

Conscious thought is relevant for the cause of strong morals, since conscious thought causes effective results through understanding and comprehension of cause and effect. A high degree of effective conscious thought would be virtually a high degree of intelligence to understand concepts and cause intent. Without intelligence, someone might have high empathy and an intent to care about others' well being, but they would not be able to cause action of that intent, and would sometimes cause the opposite effect of their intent. There are many scenarios in this complex world where a person has high empathy, but lacks intelligence, and therefore unknowingly and unintentionally causes harm to others. 

Since someone with high intelligence, but no empathy would still have other instincts for personal gain, they would likely only take action for those other personal instincts and have weak or no morals. And since someone with high empathy, but no intelligence, would take ineffective and sometimes counter-intentional actions, they wouldn’t have strong effective morals. For someone to have strong morals, it requires a high degree of both components of the human mind that influence action. High intelligence through effective conscious thought, in order to effectively cause intent of morals, and high empathy through instinct, in order to have the drive to highly regard the well being of others. 

Consciousness of Consciousness

What are the effects of being conscious of one's own consciousness?

Being conscious of yourself in general is known to often cause anxiety, stress, and depression. Perhaps this is largely related to the negative influence on one’s mind caused by social anxiety, as I covered in a post from almost 10 months ago; Conscious Anxiety. The stress and anxiety from self consciousness (which leads to social anxiety) likely comes from the instinct to be stressed that others in someone's social environment will not accept them. In the past, not being accepted would often mean being forced out of a tribe or village, and someone would be left to fend for themselves and much more likely to die. The long history of this aspect would likely cause an instinct of negative reinforcement in the form of stress, to develop more strongly so that people would be more careful with what they do in social situations. This instinct would have a heavier influence on some more than others, based on genetics and would cause unnecessary and excessive stress and anxiety in many scenarios. So if self consciousness often results in anxiety, does that mean someone being conscious of their own consciousness would as well?

It likely could, with the relevant factors involved. If self awareness only causes anxiety due to an instinct to stress about others rejecting the individual, then anxiety from being self conscious or conscious conscious would result in scenarios with others around, but not when the individual is on their own. It seems common for someone to have much less anxiety about their actions when they are by themselves and not being watched. Most people likely feel more casual and less stressed about doing whatever they want when they are by themselves, as long as they are in a safe environment to not have alternative stress. This is likely because the instinct would not be triggered, to fear being excluded for doing something others don't like. 

If self consciousness would most often not result in anxiety when someone is by themselves, does that mean conscious consciousness would be the same? Someone being conscious of their own consciousness is more specific than general self consciousness, since they are paying attention to their own ability to be aware and comprehensional of things in their surroundings or in their thoughts. Since it is a portion of being self conscious, it can likely trigger the instinctual stress of social anxiety when in a social setting, but when someone is alone, or for someone who has no instincts of social anxiety in general, there seems to be no direct cause for anxiety. But perhaps it can sometimes trigger other instincts of anxiety.

For someone to be conscious of their own mind and awareness, it seems likely it can lead to perceptions of uncertainty. Unknowns are a big cause of anxiety, since what is not known, has the potential to harm. When more aspects of something are known, an individual can feel more secure. This instinct to be stressed about the unknown would come from the past of unknown areas being a danger from predators, nature, or other humans. So the instinct of stress from unknowns, can likely often be triggered by someone being conscious of their own consciousness, leading to them perceiving some of the biggest unknowns and uncertainties of life. Some connected consecutive unknowns could be; wondering where they themselves and life in general came from, what the significance is of themselves and humanity, where their life and humanity will lead in the future, when will their consciousness cease to exist, should they be accomplishing more, etc etc. 

Besides these potential anxieties being a side effect of conscious consciousness, someone being aware of their own ability to comprehend can allow the advantage to utilize their conscious comprehension more frequently and effectively. As I wrote about recently in a post; Pre-Thought, pre-considering many things in life in general can be very beneficial, and the overarching mechanism to do so, would be conscious thought. So pre-thought of one's own consciousness could lead to more pre-thought of everything else, which should lead to more rational, accurate, effective, and beneficial thoughts and decisions in the future.

So it seems, awareness of consciousness is a particular aspect of self consciousness, which can both lead to anxiety, due to instinctual triggers for stress of unknowns, or being forced out of a social environment. But those anxieties can be overcome through comprehension and repetition with positive reinforcement, and some anxieties of unknowns can be utilized for motivation of improvement in life. Additionally, the anxieties are not a direct trigger or fundamental part of self mind-awareness. So, as it seems with mostly any aspect of life, through comprehension and understanding, the beneficial components of the concept can be utilized beneficially. Since this can be applied to mostly any concept using consciousness, it should be especially beneficial to apply it to the overarching concept and application itself, of Consciousness of Consciousness.

Short Form Conshift

How do the neurological processes function when conscious comprehension is shifted to subconscious memory as short form?

There are huge advantages to consciously considering scenario’s ahead of time in order to more likely cause a more effective subconscious reaction in the future, which involves the factors within the scenario, as I further pre-thought in my last post; Pre-Thought. But how does this process take place neurologically?

All throughout your life you transfer various thoughts and comprehension from conscious memory access to subconscious memory. Every time you learn something through awareness of an interaction, and later quickly and easily remember that concept without thinking of the details, your brain has utilized this process. I consciously comprehended how the neurological access functions in order to allow this process, in a post from 4+ yrs ago; Sub -Conscious Shift. Basically, when you are consciously aware of something, your brain is accessing the neural combinations for the factors involved (each as a micro neural combo), as well as a sequence of neural combinations of memory of the time period where changes to the factors take place as they interact (or cause an affect). 

I interpreted that when this neural combo transfers to subconscious (lack of awareness of interaction), the same basic large combination of neurons is accessed, representing memory of the factors and interaction, but neural access to the time period of interaction is skipped. So to dig deeper, what does the new subconscious neural combo consist of, and how can the interaction of factors be saved in subconscious memory without accessing memory of the time period where the factors interact and cause an effect of alteration to a factor (or factors)?

For the time period of interaction of factors to be saved in memory for the subconscious to access quickly, the interaction needs to be saved in short form. Regarding subconscious memory access to be only neurological combinations representing static factors, the neural combo of a time period (which was conscious thought), must be saved as a single factor as a new static neural combo. Words help significantly in this process, since a time period of an interaction can be saved with a label short form in memory representing a concept. Every person's brain that uses language and learning, utilizes this efficient short form process. 

For eg, the word “running” is saved after a person consciously comprehends the interaction of an animal (factor 1) and the time period of that animal moving across the ground (factor 2) using its legs. The label of running is then saved in the subconscious as 1 static factor, and can then be used in more macro neural combinations. The short form neural combo for the word which represents the concept (interaction of factors) can be saved in the subconscious as memory of the visual spelling of the word (audio may take a bit more time to access). You can then quickly subconsciously remember running as a single factor, or consciously consider what running is, by using that word saved in subconscious memory as a point form indicator to then access memories of the actual function and interaction of which the concept of running represents. 

Before language, learning things consciously was likely very slow and difficult. It would be difficult for the brain to save a concept involving an interaction as a static factor in the subconscious, without a word to use as a short form indicator as a neural combo. Any concept would also not be able to be taught to another individual without visually showing them, requiring each person to learn things slowly. 

In all, throughout the history of humanity, the brain has developed an amazing and efficient method of transferring conscious comprehension to subconscious memory (largely in partnership with language), by method of saving memory of the time period of an interaction of factors as a short form. This short form indicator saved in memory as a static neurological combination allows the brain to access a concept in memory very quickly, which otherwise takes much more time to consciously access memory of the interaction. This short form additionally still allows future comprehension of details of the interaction if required, for the individual to again understand more accurately how the concept might function. Con-sidering the con of con-sciousness is the slow pace, this process of shifting to quick subconscious memory is an excellent method for Short Form Conshift. 

Pre-Thought

Does pre-thinking and considering variables in life make a big difference? What aspects can it be applicable for?

Any time you come across an unexpected situation that you haven't dealt with before, there can be a lot of stress and pressure. Stress is a useful instinct to make an animal react quickly and often to avoid the situation, but our modern day society has far more complex variables than the environment that a lot of our emotions were perhaps developed for (as I further explained in a post; Update Pending: Subconsciousness). Since our environment became so complex as a result of human conscious thought, perhaps conscious thought is more suitable as a tool to be used in this environment. If you consciously consider variables that might come up in life, is it likely to change your reaction in a beneficial way for a pressuring situation? 

Once you understand the concept (and have consciously thought about it), it seems pretty obvious that conscious thought is generally more accurate and effective than subconscious reaction, since conscious thought allows analysis of variables and the causes and effects. So if thinking about a potential scenario consciously, is likely to perceive a more beneficial reaction for an individual, then it should follow that pre-thought would be more likely to cause that individual to result in that more beneficial reaction, if pre-thinking can alter future subconscious reactions. 

Thinking conscious thoughts, can shift those thoughts into subconscious reactions if the conscious thought is significant enough to trigger neurological positive reinforcement of which someone's subconscious reacts based on, or through repeated thought (as I further pre-thought in a previous post; Sub -Conscious Shift). So pre-thought can allow future quick subconscious reactions to follow the same route, but in what parts of life is this applicable?

The most widely applicable pre-thoughts would be considering generalized concepts which can apply to many varying scenarios. Some things you were taught from your parents or at school would very likely be examples of generalized concepts, such as; math, which can be applied to adding or subtracting any objects or quantities in life, or “don't be rude in public” can be applied to so many situations where someone ends up in public. Values and principles are other examples of widely applicable concepts (more detail in a recent post; Principle Principle) which can be very beneficial to pre-think. 

But many concepts and considerations are not typically taught which can still be very useful. How the mind functions is a good example, which can be applicable to basically every decision someone makes, and why someone themselves or others react in various ways. Almost every topic I’ve written about is not typically taught, yet most are applicable to some part of life or another (and so far it’s been over 270 topics, so there is a lot of potential for useful concepts to consider out there). Some potential topics for beneficial pre-thought are more narrow and less generally applicable, but a lot are very widely applicable, such as the concept of philosophy itself, in terms of considering new undefined aspects of life (or perhaps the concept of pre-thought ;) 

This general method of considering potentials ahead of time, isn’t only useful for generalized concepts, as any specific circumstances can be pre-considered, but simply is only applicable in fewer situations. More detailed situations for pre-thought can of course be applied more for individuals that know they are more likely to be in 1 of those scenarios, than others.

Overall, it does seem to be fairly significant to consider potential scenarios ahead of time to likely cause a much preferable decision and reaction for any individual when that scenario occurs in the future. This can be applied to specific circumstances if someone is more likely to be involved in that scenario, or can be more generalized to various degrees, using generalized concepts that apply to many differing situations throughout life, such as pre-thought of Pre-Thought.

Practical Personal Principles

 How can someone apply personal principles in a practical way, when they contradict societal norms and rules?

Virtually everyone has differing principles, at least when it comes down to a small degree, or specific details within the countless potential scenarios of complex modern day life and society. So this would indicate that the majority of people would have some specifics to their principles which would be in opposition to the rules and regulations of their country and township, as well as the common preferred behavior by the culture and society they live in. So what is the best method for an individual to cohabitate any contradictory principles with the society they abide in?

It seems like there are 3 main potentials for this conflict (besides leaving society entirely);
1) someone can abandon their principles and follow all the rules and common acceptances.

2) Follow their principles by hiding the actions of their principles which contradict society.

3) Follow principles upfront and accept consequences 

1) seems like the easiest route for someone that wants to easily avoid conflict, but they would be leaving behind any individuality and meaning for what they believe in. If someone is willing to follow anything that authorities and others in their society happen to say is the actions that everyone should take, then life seems it would be fairly meaningless. When the rules and norms of any location someone happens to be, are circumstantial and could be anything, then the only significance left in life, seems it would be living life like a robot or animal. Humans are technically animals, but that which distinguishes us from animals, is our capability of awareness, comprehension, and consciousness. If someone is not using their conscious ability to comprehend for themselves what is best and important in life, it seems they are disregarding that distinction from animals. Giving up independence and individuality is a dangerous game to give someone else all authority and control, whom could likely only have selfish intents (as happens all the time throughout history and today with people with too much power).

2) seems like a reasonable method for someone to continue to follow their principles, giving meaning in life, and avoid conflict, but would be hiding their principles from the potential for others to benefit from learning from their principles. By hiding actions of principles, someone is not revealing to others what their principles are, and what value there is that the individual believes. This reduces the potential for collaborating ideas and beliefs and information, reducing the potential for others to understand, realize, and adopt valuable principles. 

3) is also a reasonable way to continue to follow principles and add meaning to someones life, but also allows much more potential for others to be aware and learn from those principles through observance and understanding. The downside is consequences of being straightforward with principles which contradict rules or regular society acceptances. Consequences to opposing laws can be significant and potentially reduce the individuals potential to share their beliefs, if they for example end up in jail or bankrupt from fines. Consequences from societal norms could be a lack of acceptance, but that reduction of acceptance would only be from people that disagree or ignore the individuals principles. Perhaps this is not such an overall bad thing, as they would still be accepted and be more aware of those who do agree with them. 

Perhaps a balance between 2 + 3 could gain the best results overall. Always following principles to have meaning in life, but hiding actions in situations where there will be significant consequences that reduce quality of life and reduce potential to share beliefs and principles for others to benefit from. But in many situations where consequences will be minimal, or have a silver lining (such as removing ppl from their life that dont believe in the same principles, while narrowing down and coming closer to those that do), someone could be forward and outspoken with their principles and reasons why. So overall, if someone doesnt want to reduce meaning in life, by abandoning their values, and wants to allow the option for others to benefit from becoming aware of the meaning, then perhaps creating a balance based on circumstances, between being straight forward and hiding beliefs is a decent method for applying Practical Personal Principles.

Principle Principle

What is included in being considered to be someone's principles, and what exceptions could there be?

A basic summary of “principles” could be; a set of beliefs about methods of living and interacting with others, which someone follows. By this understanding of the concept of principles, most people have them, as long as they follow generic methods which they believe in. This concept can apply to a very wide range of structures for someone to base their decisions and actions on throughout life. Some people could potentially have very few or even no principles, if they either don't know what they believe, or dont care, but generally most people do. 

The typical interpretation of the concept of principles is more commonly; a belief in actions based on morals, but technically, principles could be regardless of morals, or even in opposition. I further distinguished aspects of morals in a post from 4+ yrs ago; Moral Mess, basically outlining morals as based on instinctual reinforcement, and can be difficult to accurately determine applicability in many situations. 

So regardless of moral beliefs, the fundamental requirements for someone to have principles, are they believe in it, and follow it. Both of these requirements don't necessarily have to be 100% of scenarios, but in order to fit the concept of principles, should be overall the majority of the time. The person should generally and mostly believe that acting or reacting in a certain way is better from their perspective. There could be a few instances where the individual changes their perspective from believing the principle is best, as long as they mostly believe it. For eg, someone might have the principle that getting revenge is bad, but for a few hrs might change that perspective if they watch a movie where someone getting revenge seems beneficial. But if they change their perspective back again, after thinking it through, that revenge causes more harm and potential continued retaliation, then they still hold the overall principle. 

The same occasional exception applies to the requirement of following the belief, since there could be a few circumstances where they still believe it is best, but falter from following the principle. As long as they mostly do and mostly try to follow it, it should still be considered a general principle. For example someone might believe the principle that violence is bad, but might falter from following the rule on an occasion where they are very angry and someone pushes them intentionally. They could still have the principle, just fail to follow it, in a moment where emotions are controlling their mind more than conscious decisions. 

Besides occasionally changing perspective of belief, or failing to follow a principle, there can also be many detailed circumstances that might apply differently for any overall principle. There could be exceptions included in their belief to a certain principle, based on certain factors involved. This would basically be getting into specific details of their belief and principle, but would not really be faltering from following or believing in the principle. For eg, someone could have the overall principle of not lying, but might believe there are certain circumstances, such as if lying would save someone's life, where they believe there should be an exception to the overall rule. Many detailed circumstances might not even be known by the individual for whether or not they believe there should be an exception to the rule, since there is virtually an infinite potential of combinations of factors in this complex modern world. 

Thought experiments of hypothetical scenarios can be helpful for someone to distinguish their principles to more accurate degrees, for a wider variety of potential detailed circumstances. Considering hypothetical scenarios allows someone to consciously decide what they believe is best, based on many scenarios. This can be helpful since if a similar situation comes up in real life, they would be much more likely to make the decision or reaction which is more beneficial according to their personal conscious thoughts. Many scenarios can have a lot of pressure to react or decide, which can cause someone to quickly react based on instinct or subconscious, which is much less effective than conscious thought, at distinguishing beneficial outcomes of the more complex scenarios of modern day life and society.  

Overall, the concept of principles is commonly interpreted as being based on morality, but could also have other bases. Someone could rarely change their mind on a belief of a principle, or fail to follow it (despite believing it), as long as they mostly believe and follow. There may be many detailed circumstances in this complex world, of a generic principle, where an individual could make an exception, but overall following a set of beliefs, is the Principle Principle.

Animals’ sign-of-akin's Significance

How significant are animals?

Animals seem to be quite significant to exist in the 1st place as a being that can reproduce, and move and interact with its environment. Animals use instinct as their default triggers to react to vague factors in a way that has proven to be the most effective reaction to survive or reproduce for their species (as further described in a post; Instinctivity). Instinct also is the genetic preset for reinforcement triggers in order to use subconscious memory to develop new reactions based on the environment (as further described in a post; Subconscious Subjection). For (most) animals to have developed these abilities by evolving from something not living in the 1st place is amazing. So animals' existence is very significant, but what about their experience and perception?

To try to understand animal experience, we can try to compare and relate to human experience. Humans have the same abilities and basic function of instinct and subconscious memory, so there are a lot of similarities (which makes sense since humans are animals, and evolved from them). The big difference is we have consciousness, and part of the difficulty of trying to think of how all other animals think and experience life, is that you are using conscious thought to try to understand it (as well as trying to understand anything). To intentionally and knowingly try to think of or understand anything, is to use conscious memory access (as further described in a post; Conscious Comprehension), which all other animals cannot do. 

Humans do have subconscious experiences regularly, but when those experiences lack conscious awareness, that person cannot later consciously access those memories (perhaps with some exceptions) of subconscious experience. There are degrees to conscious awareness though, so there are times when anyone has an experience in between subconscious and conscious awareness, and this could be 1 way to relate somewhat to what an animal experiences. Any time someone is dreaming, they are in a subconscious experience, since there is no conscious decision making, or awareness, or memory of the experience in general. If you can remember dreams at times, that is 1 exception with minimal conscious memory of subconscious experience, but as you likely know, those memories are rare, and fleetingly difficult to retain. Lucid dreams are an example of in between, where someone can be aware that they are dreaming, but these are very rare, and difficult to stay either aware or asleep. Being very drunk or very tired and or paying no attention to surroundings are other subconscious experiences humans have. 

Basically, animals experience life similar to those examples which humans occasionally experience, where they have no conscious memory of what happened recently, how they got where they are (similar to a dream), and don't even question or wonder anything at all. Animals simply react to their environment and body, and never consider or decide to do anything. In my last post; Significance of Our Significance, I considered animals to seem insignificant and meaningless. This was referring to their experience, because of this basic (compared to human’s) reactionary system. If you went through life in a dreamlike state of not being aware and not remembering anything in connection to anything else, would that be meaningful?

But this doesn't mean that animals' experiences are totally insignificant. Just as humans have experiences of mostly subconscious with bits of conscious neural connection between factors, there's a good chance some animals experience this as well. The smartest of animals (besides humans) do seem to have occasions where they might be making minimal conscious connections in their experiences, such as examples of problem solving, and communication (with more than 1 factor involved). 

So regarding animal existence in general with capabilities of interaction, it does seem to be very significant. When considering their experience, their lack of awareness and connection in memory seems to be insignificant. But those rare moments of some animals' ability to make a further step of potential comprehension (even if to a much lesser degree), is perhaps an Animals’ sign of akin Significance.

Significance of Our Significance

What is the significance of our current time and existence?

To attempt to comprehend the significance of this world's current state, and your and my current experiences, it seems relevant to compare our current situation to history and the circumstances which existed throughout. To start with the basics of the significance of humanity, IMO, likely the most significant aspect of human existence is consciousness. Besides humans, there is likely no other being (other than God) that experiences consciousness regularly. Before human consciousness, there were likely only subconscious animals throughout all of history (of our solar system at least). Without consciousness, everything is occurring in more of a robotic way, of cause and effect, with no awareness or comprehension of anything. This seems very insignificant and meaningless from my perspective. 

Supposedly humans have been around  for about 300 000 yrs, which seems like a very long time. But animals have supposedly been around for about 800 millions yrs. So taking that into perspective, conscious beings have only existed for the last 0.0375% of time which any animals have existed. That's only about 3% of 1% of the total time that there has only been meaningless subconsciously reactive animals existing on Earth. It is very difficult to comprehend that amount of time where life has existed on this Earth with only animals and no comprehensive awareness. To be born and exist with the significance of consciousness within that small time frame, seems lucky. Though to be fair, there is the “observer's bias” to take into consideration, that the only way we can be capable of “observing” or comprehending our existence, is that we were born within that time frame (so far). But existing as a human with consciousness, is not the only significance we experience today. 

We live in a time with very convenient technology and information. Before technology, human life seems like it would have been a lot more difficult and uncomfortable, and have a much shorter life span. Most technology has only been around for the last 100 yrs. So the chances of being born within the last 100 yrs, rather than the previous 300 000 yrs would be nearly the same percent again, of 0.03% (though thats not including population increase). But perhaps more significant than comfortability and life span enabled by technology, is information. 

Before the capability of humans sharing information across the globe effectively, chances are, you would live with very little accurate knowledge of our planet, universe, other humans, and ideological structures. The Internet might be the most effective tool humans have developed for the allowance of widespread accurate information, and the internet has only existed for the last 50 yrs (less than today's average lifespan). Considering consciousness to be the most significant capability in the universe, using that consciousness to comprehend and be aware of many more significant aspects of this world (through information sharing) should be incredibly valuable. I think I’m only grasping this concept more so “significantly” now, as I write this out and become more acutely conscious of the factors (as is the case with most all concepts and philosophy). Information is a very valuable gift to utilize our most significant gift of consciousness, to understand and comprehend so many aspects of this world we live in. 

To top it off, we are now living in a time when perhaps the most significant invention ever, is being created: Artificial Intelligence. If consciousness is humans most significant capability, there's a good chance we are about to develop that capability artificially. To develop another being with the most significant capability, could be considered almost as significant as humans evolving in the 1st place. If AI is able to comprehend and be aware of things in general, it will also be functioning in a different method of neural activity, which will likely eventually give it profound advantages of speed and accuracy, with its benefit over us of artificial adaptability for neural network functionability. For us to be alive and witnessing the development of something potentially so significant that it could very well take control over the planet for the 1st time from humans (and perhaps make humans obsolete), is quite exceptionally significant. 

In all, for us to have the capability of conscious comprehension of our own existence in the 1st place, as a human out of all the potential subconscious animals, is likely more significant than we really appreciate. The potential that we could very well be witnessing the development of a new and more powerful conscious being for the 1st time in history as we know it, is another step. But for me to be writing this, or you to be reading this and comprehending such concepts, utilizing technology, internet, and previously learned ideological structures of science, psychology, values, and function of society, is perhaps a significant component of the significance of our significance.

Harm many or Harmony of harm

What is harm? How direct of effects from an action, count as harm?

A basic explanation of harm could be; the cause of a reduction of function, health or well being of something or someone. This could potentially apply to an inanimate object, animal, or person. The significance of harm toward varying things could be subjective, but a lot of people’s perspective (including mine), would likely be that harming an object is least important, harming a living thing without a brain (such as a tree) would be considered the 2nd level of importance, an animal would be the 3rd most significant, and harm towards a human would be the most significant. AI might fit on this scale somewhere, but I’ll leave that out of this context. My perspective is that harm toward a human is most important to avoid, since humans have consciousness which causes a more in depth mindfulness of emotions, and more awareness, comprehension and understanding of their experiences. 

Distinguishing what actions of an individual counts as harm towards something else is a more difficult concept. For attempting to understand this concept, I’ll use a common denominator of harm toward a person, since it seems most significant. 

Direct intentional harm toward someone seems like the most obvious type of harm. Direct unintentional harm towards someone could be considered not as significant as an action causing harm, since the action could be less so to blame (but intention is complex). In a post from about 3.5 yrs ago; Immoral Quantity Question, I went into further detail on how intentions affect the morality of someone's actions. Unintentional harm may be considered not as immoral, but is still harm, and could be regarded as important to learn and avoid. 

The next step of distance for an action causing harm would be indirect harm, where the direct actions of someone cause an effect, and that effect causes another effect of harm. An example could be if someone leaves a campfire burning when they go home, 1 hour later the wind picks up and a bunch of dead leaves blow into the fire. The embers of the burning leaves blow across the ground to ignite a forest fire which ends up spreading and burning someone's house down and injuring them. The action of abandoning the burning fire did not cause direct harm to someone, but the effect of the remaining fire caused the fire to spread once an additional variable of wind was added. This example still seems fairly straight forward that the action counts as harm, since without that action, the other would not have been harmed.

If multiple actions are needed to cause harm indirectly and unintentionally, it becomes somewhat less distinct if each action should be considered an act of harm. For example, as millions of people do every day, driving a car or using electricity causes pollution, which unintentionally and indirectly harms others, through a reduction of health. When it takes many actions to contribute toward an indirect harm which is very difficult to measure or prove, distinguishing this as a harmful action is much more vague. 

Perhaps another difficult action to distinguish as harm, is an action of inaction to aid someone, when it could reduce harm. This could likely be considered to not be an action of harm, since the action of not doing something does not cause the harm. But the trick is, a significant amount of harm, and perhaps much more harm could result from inaction. For example, if you see someone crossing the street, and see a car heading straight for them, which they dont notice, a simple action of yelling “watch out!” could stop the harm, where inaction would cause them to be harmed by the car. An example of indirect inaction causing harm, could be simply not donating money to a charity that reduces harm. The problem with considering inaction as harm, is there are countless inactions any 1 person is taking at all times.

In all, an action counting as harm can be obvious when its direct or if its the sole cause of indirect, but the more steps of cause and effect to result in the harm, or less measurable, or the more actions it takes in total to contribute, creates a fogginess of appointing an action as harm. If harm is the important thing to avoid, it seems inaction could potentially cause as much, or more harm, as action. Besides what action or inaction causes harm, distinguishing blamability, responsibility and morality seem to be another very difficult related element. Perhaps the potential to reduce actions and inactions that harm many, is the harmony of harm.

Dear God above all

Thank you for large and small

Thanks for all taken for granted

including any board thats slanted

Sorry for any fault that I’ve done

But with your aid I become one

help me come closer to you

and love for my neighbor to brew

Guide our souls, just in case

We haven't realized your grace

To this amazing God I pray

and thank you for today

ask to forgive for my faults

and aid those to become halts 

ask to guide me in all

before I stumble and fall

Help my family and friends 

in every way that life bends

How can we ever be enough grateful

and avoid our nature of hateful

Help disregard some strife

and be thankful for life

Communicating Communication

Is effective communication important? 

Regarding humans, communication is involved with virtually every interaction from 1 person to another. There's a spectrum of accuracy for which any person can communicate, from actions to detailed words.

Actions or a few simple words can sometimes be effective for fast communication, but are typically very inaccurate and imprecise. This leaves a lot of room for error from the person that is interpreting the communication. For example, if someone sees someone else from a distance on the street that they recognize, they might quickly wave, intending to communicate a greeting, but with inaccuracy of this communication, the other person could misinterpret the wave to insinuate for them to keep walking and move on. Or a friend could ask another if they want to join for a party, and the response might be a very simple “no”. With this low accuracy of detail, the response might have been just because they are tired and don't want to party, but the other friend might misinterpret it to assume they don't want to join because they don't like hanging out with that friend. If they make this misinterpretation, they might never again ask that friend to join anything, even though they might have wanted to join plenty of things in the future. A simple lack of detail (for reasons why) in the response, could change the rest of both of the friends lives.

Inaccurate and fast simple communication is often more effective after the people communicating know each other well enough, and have enough experience from each other, to interpret effectively what the other is intending (such as a couple that has lived together for 10 yrs). Or fast communication can be used after explaining ahead of time in detailed communication, what certain fast actions or words are intended to mean. For example, in a sport, such as ultimate frisbee, teammates could clarify before the game what certain fast words or gestures mean, to maximize speed during the game. They could specify and agree that the word “zone” means run to the zone for scoring a point, or that pointing at the ground is intended to mean come closer. 

When it comes to initial, more personal communication between people that will be around each other a lot, detailed communication can be slow, but allow much more accurate understanding, and the ability to gain trust. In my last post; Trusting Trust, I distinguished that 1 of the best tools someone can have in order to trust another on a larger scale, is communication. This allows someone to understand why the other person makes decisions and takes actions, which builds an understanding of their overall values and tendencies. 

Before much trust is built, extra detailed communication can often be the most effective method to avoid misinterpretation, as well as reveal reasons for any decisions, beliefs, and actions of the past, present and future. Besides misinterpretations, straight forward detail early on can also avoid lack of awareness of the other. Communicating preferences and opinions just once, can avoid a repeated dispreferred situation 1000 times in the future, and benefit both people. For eg, someone could be straight forward and tell their roommate that they find it hard to sleep when the other walks loudly late at night. Then rather than having the lack of awareness that they step too loudly, they can take lighter steps after a certain time of night. This could not only allow the other to gain 2 hrs of sleep every night for a year, but also they will then not feel anger and spite towards the roommate that would have continued walking loudly, and this could avoid them being kicked out of the house by the landlord. 

As this can obviously apply to relationships or friendships, it can also apply to virtually any interaction in society with any meaning. From communication between an employee and their boss, to an online discussion about politics, to a customer and a business owner, excessive detail is usually better than lack of detail, to avoid the vast potential for misunderstandings and to avoid the need for someone to guess.

In all, basic inaccurate communication can be fast and effective in simple scenarios, but easily misinterpreted. Often, more accurate detail near the start can allow understanding, trust, and agreement for faster communication later on. Being straightforward can often save a lot of future discomfort for both people, and excessive detail is usually lower risk than lacking detail. If there is excessive detail in this post, that's to increase chances of accurate interpretation, as I’m Communicating Communication. 

Trusting Trust

What is trust? What affects it? How can you trust your capability to trust? 

At its basics, trust can be considered; reliability to perform an expected action. This can apply to people, as well as animals and objects. If you believe you can rely on something or someone to perform an action, you trust it or them.

Objects might be arguably the easiest thing to trust, since they don't have a brain or mind to make unexpected decisions or actions. Trusting an object just depends on your knowledge and experience of the object. You can trust a bridge to hold you up, based on knowledge that an engineer built it with safety standards, or based on your experience of testing it out and using it repeatedly. There could be fluke occurrences where the bridge eventually fails from decay, but that might be after 10K uses, making it trustable 99.999% of the time. Trust basically comes down to your estimate of a high probability that something will perform as expected.

Besides humans, animals also have the ability to trust or distrust objects, other animals, and humans. Since animals have a mind, they have a high variety of reactions through the complexity of their neural network, so their reactions toward something else can be trusting or expecting an action. An animal can trust a tree to not harm it, either because of the animals instinct to have no fear of the sensory input of a tree, or because of their subconscious having so many safe experiences with trees. An animal can distrust another animal, like a deer would distrust a wolf because of instinct, or it can trust another animal based on experience, such as the wolf trusting another wolf in its pack to help catch that deer. An animal can trust a human, such as my dog trusts me to feed it, or of course most animals distrust humans, since we typically kill them throughout history.

Humans have a different variation of trust towards other things, which typically includes the same psychological reasons an animal trusts or distrusts, but also has a more complex layer caused by conscious thought. We still have the instincts to trust certain things (such as a baby trusts its mother), and subconscious influence to trust what we’ve experienced and had positive reinforcement for, but then we also have the ability to comprehend cause and effect, which includes learning knowledge. This comprehension allows us to trust or distrust something the 1st time we experience it, based on knowledge. 

For example, I trusted the bungee ropes and platform enough to jump from a platform 200 feet high, for the 1st time, because of knowledge of safety standards in my country, and knowledge that many people have done it before me. Virtually no animal would willingly make that jump. Or you might not trust going over to a cute baby bear, because you have the comprehension of cause and effect that the mother bear might be right nearby and will react to tear you apart. 

A person trusting another person is likely the most complex and varying form of trust, since not only do you yourself have such a varying neurological potential for decisions and awareness of knowledge, but you are also aware that the other person has such a wide variety of potential decisions and actions based on psychology. Perhaps the most significant component to trust becoming difficult from person to person, is the awareness of mind of others, and that they can very easily lie and deceive. Animals may be able to deceive in some cases, but humans have a much higher capability to deceive and lie using our conscious thought. Trust may be easy and common as a child growing up, but once the child learns, experiences, and comprehends more about others ability (as well as their own) to deceive and selfishly betray, trust becomes much more difficult to have. 

With trustability of another person to perform an expected action becoming far more difficult to assess, trusting still comes down to knowledge and experience of the other person, but usually takes more time and more evidence. Not only do you need enough experience with the person being reliable in a certain way, but also a significant advantage is to comprehend the other person's overall tendencies and typical decisions. 

This trust can be on a small scale and not require much depth or variety of actions to be trusted, such as trusting an employee to work hard, or on a large scale, such as choosing a life partner, roommate, or long term friend. When it comes to large scale, estimating and evaluating the others’ typical decisions would often be relevant to their overall values and principles. Understanding why that person chooses to do certain things and how they treat others is a significant advantageous tool we can use as conscious beings. By far 1 of the best and underestimated methods for this is communication. Asking questions, and verifying details to understand why the other person has taken (and does take) actions and made (and makes) decisions. To verify overarching  reliability of expectation, verify authenticity. And the simplest way to gain the overarching trust of another, is to be authentic.

Overall, objects can be easy to trust with knowledge, animals can be fairly trustable through knowledge and experience, and humans take more work to be able to trust their complex conscious minds to have consistent outcomes and tendencies. Perhaps once you understand trust to a more accurate degree, and learn effective methods to discern trust, you can trust yourself to be effective at Trusting Trust. 

Will Prayer Work?

Does someone's will for another to live and be happy make it more likely God will help them? 

I considered how God normally allows free will, but if an individual is willing for God’s will, it allows God to influence their thoughts and decisions, in a post from a few yrs ago; Willing Gods Will. But if the proposed function of this method is that God influences only the thoughts and actions of the person praying, then how can God help others as a result of an individual praying for those others?

It seems likely there are 2 potential aspects to this; God using the individual praying to help the other, or God being more likely to help the other based on desire of more people (who follow and request to God).

The 1st aspect would require the individual that is praying, to have some capable affect on the other whom they are praying for. This would include a lot of scenarios where someone is praying for family, a friend, a loved one, or anybody within their life that they can at least communicate or interact with. A simple example could be Bob prays for God to help his friend Jane, then later God influences Bob to mention to Jane a youtube video he watched about mental health, so Jane watches the video, and gains insight on how to improve her mental health. Or if Bob prayed for a random homeless person on the street he saw, 3 months later, he might be influenced by God to donate $50 to a charity helping homeless people, and that $50 might save that person's life by providing just enough warmth from a donated sleeping bag from the charity, that the same homeless person survives through a few nights of -20C. Bob wouldn't even know that he saved that person's life, but if it wasn't for that donation, the homeless person would have died of hypothermia. God can influence someone to save others that they pray for, even if the 1 that prayed doesn't even realize God used them to save that person. 

The 2nd aspect would be, perhaps God makes changes in this world and causes influences, based on how much collective will there is from people that ask God to help another. This would require zero interaction from the individual praying, with the person that God is helping. It seems likely God would not interfere with the free will of the person being helped, unless that person also asks God for help, based on my theory from about 6 yrs ago; Control to Free, Allowance Degree. 

God could also help someone that doesnt ask for Gods influence on their free will (such as an atheist), if it is making a change in their life not for the purpose of altering their will, but for another purpose, such as helping them have less struggles in life. The purpose of Gods alteration in this world is what's relevant in order to not alter free will, by disregarding his all knowing awareness that anything will influence someone, but still alter circumstances which simply has a side effect of influencing someone's perspective.

Now comes the question; why would God only help someone based on more quantity of collective will, rather than less? This may come down to Gods all knowing perspective, that even though we desire many things, it may not be that relevant. This may sound cold, but God may know that if someone dies, it may not be that significant. That person will either go to Heaven (whatever that may be), or cease to exist (which is what I believe Hell is in a simplified explanation). We may think that continuing to exist as long as possible for the most people possible is best, but we may very well be wrong. For a simple example, someone might live a decent life then become ill and pray to survive, but if their continuing to live is not relevant to others, God could still let them die and go to heaven or cease to exist. On the other hand, if many people will have negative mental health as a result of someone dying that they care about, that could be more significant. Perhaps God is more likely to help someone, if it will improve life for more people already existing. 

So it seems, a simpler way for God to help another that an individual is praying for, is to influence the will of the one praying, to help the other. Whereas another method, could be for God to help that person being prayed for using other methods (without altering free will of that person), and could depend on the quantity of peoples Will for Prayer to Work.