Will within world

The desire for engagement with the world manifests personal being, and the lack of desire, or aversion towards the world, collapses being.

One can desire for an end, or the lack of desire for the end. In this we see that we have two choices, either to manifest the end or not to manifest the end.

The desire for, may have desire linked to it. Desire for, is its own set, where as desire for desire for, is another set.

Fundamental survivalistic desires, are innate, in that they prime the will with desire for things in the world, for engagement with the world, as to fulfill their ends, which is survival of the organism. These FSD, might also be called rational or self-interested desires. The ends or means that lead to desires, which are not fundamental are mutated forms of attaining being-in-its-end.

These desires for particular engagement exist as in accord with the supplies within the economy to instigate more primary desires. Cars, fulfill the primary desire of mobility, but this end is not fundamental in that it isn't required for mobility; rather the structure of the body, that makes mobility possible, is the direct metaphysical or structural nature of desire made manifest. Legs are for the desire to be mobile, as the desire to be mobile is to have legs, as a fundamental relation between desire and engagement. With cars, being a world mutation (rather than a body mutation), we might also see production or economic machines in consequence of a secondary desire or fulfillment. Examples: A snow plow for clearing the roads of snow, so people can drive.

The fundamental desires, are in accord with the nature of the structure of the organism. The impulses which determine the movement of the organism, and its engagement with the world, are visible at a physiological level, and are the contribution of bodily chemical reactions. Not only do the fundamental desires instigate movement of the body, but they are for the material ends which exist in the world, that satisfy them, that is trigger the desire, and than attenuate it with its existence in a present, in some cases.

Secondary desires and secondary ends, are mutated forms of primary desires and primary fulfillment. When we think of the human form, and its desires, we can imagine the confines of the being and its reactions with the world. Many of the reactions which take place for the human organism, correspond with the ontology, of emotion (from comfort to disdain), pain/pleasure, and logic, as some examples. The freedom of the individual organism, depends on its reactions with the world,; the desires it has and the satisfiers that exist to allow for the impulse to be satisfied.

These, might be considered to be a part of the biological mechanisms of the organism. Every living thing might be considered to have organized chemical reactions, for engagement with the world, which either support or degenerate their existence.

The confinements of human will, that is as a product of a biological mechanism, is either to fulfill survivalist impulses, to fulfill secondary desires, or to exist in a state of emotionality. When desires of the organism are fulfilled, it will either benefit, detriment, change the emotionality of the human organism, or increase memory or consciousness. To categorize and write on some, there is rationality, emotionality, behavior, knowledge, judgment, within which human beings make their decisions, through physical movements of their body, engaged with the world, its objects, and its beings.

The existence of a choice is a battle between the intensity of the dualistic impulses of aversion and attraction. If we create dichotomy of the choices we can make we can form a gradient system, wherein we can measure the probability or value of the impulses.

Rationality - Is defined as a proporition between harm and care, or pleasure and pain. If pleasure is subjective, than so is rationality, but we do know that some pain, and pleasure, can either be agreed upon, or it can be a consistently identified value. With a gradient, we would see behaviors that fell into the most harm, as in extinction of all life on earth, to the most possible highest "good" being the care or well-being of the most amount of beings, with a minimal amount of caused harm.

Emotionality - Can be defined within the confines of categorized emotions. Emotional choices, rather than rational choices, do not consider or are not determined by the rational value of their ends, alone, rather they determined by the feelings invested into the desires or the ends of those desires. Sometimes, these attachments have unconsciousness processes which create attachment, and other times the emotionality of a world relation, can be brought into consciousness. These two therefore, can be thought of in a spectrum, in how conscious one is of their emotionality behind their decisions. When a person describes their choice, as brought on by emotion, they will use words like "because of I want to be happy" or "because I think this will make me happy" or, something of the sort of "my mother was happy in the life, and so I will be as well, therefore, I will make this choice." In any registration of the emotionality, which may conceded with rationality, there is some awareness of what feelings are being used as impulses, in their intensity for the existence of the end of the choice.

Consciousness and the acquirement of skill - A person can venture into a field or topic that exists with its own ontology, and they might be able to perform the processes necessary to become well-informed or able to engage with that environment in way that might be judged as excellent, in contrast/comparison to others which bring about other forms of judgment.

Behavior and Judgment - In almost anything that is done, there is the possibility of two ends existing, creating a spectrum of better or worse. With every performance there is an end which has an accuracy. Every aim has a target, every target has a point of highest accuracy. This can be observed: in teaching children to pour their own liquid, in teaching children to be economical and motivated, in teaching children to answer the correct or accurate answers to applied formulas, in the assessment of a employee under a boss, who defines the ends of "good" and "bad" work performance, even in the existence of playing the correct notes in the corrects sequence on a piano.

The existence of "normal" and "healthy" are highly turned into judging the self, as I have observed, normally. The world can be divided up into the sick and the well, the functional and dysfunctional, or any contrasting system of being. Our observations or knowledge of such dichotomies, are pertinent in our identification with the ontology of a thing, and our judgments of its existence.

Had a mind singularly observed people walking on all fours, having seen the same feet be used in upright walking, would be considered abnormal, whereas the person who walks on all fours, and has singularly seen this performance, will judge those whom do walk on all fours, as abnormal. Therefore, our ideas of normality, are, in one sense, our observations of the frequency and regularity of human behavior, and the structural functions of human beings. This idea plays a role in our ideas of culture, economy, religion, and tradition.

These factors, can exist in particular by themselves, or they may be interconnected. The point of this entire expose, is to get at the question of freedom, and whether it exists or are we determined by a chain of cause and effect. We see that the effects of our actions can be chosen, and that there particular effects of particular desires. For example, the desire for happiness, is not the desire for some other kind of mental state, or the desire for food, is not the desire to die (these are particulars, wherein variables might be added as to produce differing effects from the same causes). So, we know that self is determined by desire, which is cause, and consequence which is effect, and these desires and effects work within the confines of the natural world, as any naturalistic would conclude. By this, we know that our internal reactions with external reactions define our reality, and give us the aptitude to be as we react. The desire for food is a reaction (rationality), the desire for a BMW is a reaction (excess self-interest/excessive rationality), the desire to be happy with someone is a reaction (emotionality), the liking of someone's work is a reaction (judgment), the acquisition of information concerning the existence of any thing is a reaction (consciousness), the acquisition of skill by repetition and ends marked accurate are reactions (behavior.judgment). Within the spectrum and ontology of these consequences, there is more or less, and aversion and attraction to any of the values, is potential.

I think there are:
1. Common human desires - as in any desires that fulfill homeostasis, and can be observed to fulfill survival for a wide population,

2. Personally defined desires - as in the desire for a "higher" value product, than the essential (rationality), or as in the desire to be dead rather than alive, or even the desire for blue rather than gray (judgment). PDI's may be in the interest of the organism continued existence, or may not be, where as common interests, are most frequently favorable. Our emotionality with unfavorable or harmful common desires, is usually aversive, as is the emotional association (atrocity) to societies and their politicians that generated racial partiality to survival.

Emotion as Judgment

Can emotion be correct?

We can use a formula:
1. X will make me happy.
2. X made me happy
3. Therefore the emotional judgment of x, is true.

Consequentially, as a predication, emotional predications can be true.

However, there is the possibility of person "a" feeling conversely about something.

We can use a formula for this understanding:
1. X will either make "a" or "b" happy or sad,
2. X makes "a" happy,
3. X makes "b" sad,

What then of emotional judgment?

Emotional judgment can exist or not exist, making either it subjectively "true" (actual), however if we look at the above example we see that with differing emotional judgment there is no "objective" or "universality" to SOME emotional judgments.

 This doesn't seem to explain much, other than A) Emotional judgment (stimuli>feeling) can either have some objectivity (widely agreed upon) or B) be subjective (unique for the individual).

 We can find out how objective an emotional judgment is, based on the existence of experimentation or survey. As in : (A) If your Mother hits routinely you will you be happy, angry, or sad about that? I would think this is a human objectivity, if people agreed to one or a set of emotional reaction.

We can think of subjective emotional judgment as in the circumstance : (B) X occurs, person a reacts with y, person B doesn't react. Particularly, as in the case of finding out your father has died, were you may feel intense sadness, but a stranger who finds this out will not react with that same emotional reaction.

EDIT:

Instead of thinking of emotional reactions as objective, it would be more precise to think of them as being normal/abnormal.

A brief look into the nature of religion

Contemplation on 5 main thesis' on the origin of theism and its relation to human nature.

1. As a result of latent inhibition of past interpretation - It seems to appear as an alternative way of interpretation and approaching reality, brought on by our past interpretations.

It is because we used to interpret the world through mythological archetypes that we continue to see their presence in the modern world.

Past renderings of reality, no longer holding validity to scientific minds, once did because people didn't have a method of testing idea/hypothesis on the basis of its empirical manifestation. Rather, the ideas of human's about the natural phenomenal world were fit into parental hierarchies (father,son) and figures (gods, demons, angels). These are ostensible in themselves. You can find more about this Jungian theory in my book, "Devil, demons, angels, gods." (no longer available).

To deal with this inhibition, society and groups having the agenda to diminish religious interpretation, might fund debates, education, or organizations working towards an informed populace.

2.  As a result of the ease of theistic interpretation - Its much easier to put your mind into religion than to understand science or seek to learn about the natural world through the process of naturalism.

Take for example what Dawkins calls god-of-the-gaps. This a teleological understanding of theological realism. Causes and effects or the world as it is, is said to be that way because of or for "God".

Therefore there is a tendency in human nature, in human beings, to conform to past explanations rather than adapt to conventional thought. Planck pointed this out in his quote "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

This kind of thinking is also exhibited in people that are conformists because of their indoctrination, which is responsible for the ease of which a mind conforms to provided information.

3. As a result of beneficial ends promised - Herein lies the self-interest within religiosity. It is brought on by the promises of reward that may come from adhering to traditions. Not all traditions or rituals followed by a society are always explicitly beneficial, but most are, and if not are implicitly beneficial.

Example of implicit : The Hamar tribe, were women are beaten, and those that are can later come to their masters or "honored" to receive food or care from them (exhibiting their commitment to the tribes "cult-ure"). Example of explicit : Pope's having qualified for their position receive large amounts of tithes and are honored for their identity in the Catholic community.

4. As a result of Authority, slave morality -  In the past the government was theocratic. Through investment of tithes religions have brought themselves up from the lands of the imaginations and story-telling. As they have, there were people in power that controlled the flow of that money, and took on a financial authority and it came with a social influence. During many times, religion has been used as mode of artificial selection, ridding the world of any one that was an antagonist or in popular opposition to the religious creeds.

5. As a result of conformity bias - CB is a tendency to behave similarly to the others in a group. People tend to conform to what a group of others think or tend to do. This is exhibited in isolated groups or tribes, and not so easily understood in secular societies, where other things, such as preference or personal logic might be at work.

Causing Pain

1) Demeaning

A) Teasing - can be quiet fun to do, and is expressed in children. Whether or not it comes from experience or instinct alone I do not know.

B) Rejection, negative-feedback - can be used as form of judging a person's behaviors or thoughts, and can work as to model the person out of or into a particular behavior. Example: You are "bad" at singing. This criticism (negative reaction) can cause the individual to remodel their behavior, stopping what was rejected and taking on another form of being. However, a person may continue in there efforts of self-actualization, even in receiving a greater "third nature" (amount) of rejection.

The reaction of negativity, to negative-feedback, greatly depends on attachment, emotion, and value. A person that neither values, or is positively attached to their behavior will not react with an emotional negativity when they are given negative-feedback. This means that negative reaction greatly depends on positive attachment. Example (induction): Think about love as an obsession to y. The more intense that love, positive attachment, the more emotional pain there will be when lost, Take the converse, when something is not even in one's life as an attachment, there is no repercussions or reactions (possible hypothesis for closed and open experimentation).

C) Emotional abuse - The intensity of a threat (see 2), can become emotional abuse. When some one is threatened with death or ends that are painful as caused by the other, this can result in emotional abuse, and obviously physical abuse if the threats are "manifested".

2) Threat
This according to Behaviorism is called negative-reinforcement, it is to used as "threat" or "pain" as to reduce undesired behaviors in others or self. Its a way of control or dominance, as you might find out through experimentation or description of past social experiences (positive-reinforcement is also possible).

3) Inflicting pain
Really hurting people, might be the result of what I call the elimination principle of frustration, where one becomes angry and acts to harm others as to eliminate their feelings or target.

4) Masochism and Sadism
They also may be inclined to do as not just because of the above, but also because of gaining pleasure from it. Sadistic personalities works with in these mental reactions. It can be seen in young children and developed or emergent in older humans. Pleasure derived from other's pain, also might be called deficient empathy and sympathy. The later are functional in seeing self in other, and treating them as to benefit them. Some sadism, lack of empathy, can be in one's own interest rather than others, and be easily justified and permissible both by law and will.

All threats to life cause fear unless it is inhibited. People that do risk behaviors routinely are likely to become accustom to comfortability. For example: A solider in war at first will probably feel more fear when first engaging in battle, but may become more confident dependent on experience as well as strength of his platoon.

This article frames the distinction between "pain"  "threat" and "admonishment/warning".

Thinking alternatively _ Emotion, will, freedom, need, consciousness, No belief

Emotion as I know it is rejection or acceptance, and it intensity. We might form an understanding of emotion as judgment reaching a certain energy barrier where it becomes a mode of emotion. Personally, my thoughts have become much clearer in realizing that emotion is:

1. Rejection of
2. Acceptance of

Will comes from:

1. Rejection to (will not, desire not to)
2. Acceptance to (will, desire to).

As I follow this line of thinking, I am able to observe myself accepting and rejecting "ends". I have observed myself reject stimulus "x" as to avoid state "y".

These mental forces, exist as to determine will. The more intense the rejection, the more likely that the mind will reject the end. Acceptance and rejection compete, and the one that is activated to a higher energy state or intensity becomes the actual.

I have observed myself accepting to act out of need, meaning accepting to eat, drink, sit, walk, etc. Need is "physical acceptance" of ends that come from a biological mechanism. Instead of having need, I have body accepting or rejecting ends for the body.

Personal freedom is more than being allowed to have competing intensity of rejection and acceptance of ends, without interference from "other". Influence by other, is created through the positive and negative intentions of others, and they become dominate in one's life, because of physical forces or acceptance of the person's intentions.

Consciousness, is "thought equal to sense impression." This means, in my mind either a thought will be equal to sense or not equal. When it is equal it takes on a level of certainty, and not equal, a level of uncertainty. As an example, you have a dog. This dog is taken from you and you are shown two dogs, both look like your dog. The question "is 1 your dog" will be answered yes or no, accepted or rejected based on how equal your idea "my dog" is to the existence of the actual thing(s).

Using empiricism, when a thought is equal to world the thought is "accepted as is," when not equal "rejected as is." Equality between mind world is a function of the mind, consciousness. Study is the ability of the mind to encode information, so as the make the mind equal to the world. So when some one says "are you conscious of x?" It is really to ask if you have a thought that is equal to x in your mind.

Cause and effects can also be thought using mental equality. We can set up an experiment  like this, by splitting an area into section A and B, and concealing the events that take place in one section, therein concealing the causes and the effects. In either side of the area there is a recording of the cause or effect that is taking place. This then will allow the mind to think up a idea of the causes and effects and later compare it to the actual events that took place.

For example you may have multiple ideas of what the source of a light beam is. You might accept that one of them is equal to the cause. This kind of thinking, without empirical evidence is called assumption of cause/effect. When you are observing the cause/effect but you have never seen it before this is called the "encoding phase." A mental equality can't exist without activating encoded information in the mind. Direct observation causes more equality, where as assumptions cause multiple ideas for possible equalization.

No belief, instead thought as is/isn't. Belief might be thought of as a accepting or rejecting somethings existence, whether or not thought was equal or unequal to world. Belief is to conform to some idea is or isn't, where without belief one is able to think that something is or isn't. Instead of belief, I replace it with probabilistic theory.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

If we suppose that something always existed, than to prove that something always existed we would need t demonstrate a thing existing always. The paradox than arises, that you can not demonstrate that something will always exist, as it would require an infinite and ever increasing amount of time. This means that, in this case eternity or immortality is non-demonstrable. To see this clearly, ask an immortal if they have lived forever? Not True.

Again, we might think or deduce that either:
1. Something came from something.
2. Something came from nothing.

In each case, if you bring them to their logical ends, 3. 0>something>0 can still be used as causation loop, just as (2 ) something>something. In either case it is probable that both 1 & 3 are possible, but there can still be 0>something>0 wherein there is no causation chain as in 3.

The probabilities work out amongst the three that 66/33 that the universe is perpetual, meaning infinite in both directions. True.

We look at what we can deduce from something and nothing as energy states:
1. Conservation of energy - No loss or gain, transformation.
2. The impossibility of absolute zero.
3. Infinite singularities.
4. Maximum entropy.

One, two, three, confirm perpetuity, and 3 annuls 4. According to this evidence it is 75% eternal. True.

There are conclusions that come from this, that you might find with your own reasoning.

One question might appear for example: Which is greater, variation or time?

>Source

CLICK TO ENLARGE

TECHNET - 2013

GHQ

FIND YOUR HQ

1. Rate -10-+10 with -10-10
2. Total your rates.
3. Use is/of %/100 to find your percent satisfaction.

1.) Food - -10, days without food/water, +10 necessary food, extra foods
2.) Cleaning/clothing - -10, no cleaning, no clothes, +10, 10 outfits, access to laundry, dishwasher.
3.) Shelter - -10, no shelter, +10, shelter, space, warming/cooling
4.) Comfort - -10, lacking comfort mats, +10, sofa, chairs, den
5.) Transport - -10, no public or personal, +10 public, personal, Driver's license
6.) Entertainment - -10, none, +10, computers, television, phones
7.) Social - -10, enemies, +10, online friends, real friends....
8.) Health - -10, terminal illness, chronic pain, mental health
9.) Environment - -10, high crime, bad neighborhood, no parks, no malls
10.) Education - -10, no access, none,
11.) Occupation - -10, no access, few jobs, 10, nice people, easy completion of tasks.

The Universal Observer

The Universal Observer

What I present is a thorough synopsis of the functionality of the mind in relation to world, inquiring upon the very principles which make the mind a feature of the universe. By feature of the universe I mean to convey the meaning of a universal.

I am unsure if the populace is prepared for the information which I ruminate over and have published. The philosophical side of humankind is buried in the muck of religion, conviction, and the unquestioning mentality and lack of curiosity of the sedated masses.

Any mistakes or inaccurate representations in this presentation or in any of my publications come from my imperfect nature. Those who act because of what I have written or said, are doing so by their own choices. One should remember that individuals are free to think and act out of accordance or in accordance with the philosophies or those that offer any form of guidance.

Let us now sink into the universality of observation. What is reality? Reality as we know it is an observation or thought. How does an observation become a thought? We have several observational devices and ways of detecting that are sensory and neurological in origin, brought on by the sense data from the external world. Our sensory devices are functions of inputting the external world into memory, and mind, which uses logic, analyzes, differentiates, and intends.

The external world is observed to have functionality. Every subject can be linked to action which can occur to the object. This means we know the world and its contents within how we think of interactions or effects. The mind can observe the functioning of something, as in a chair, for sitting. Man thus has a relational-function to all things, as each and every thing has a relational function, that is possible interactions of thing with thing. Our observation of the world is not only one of ontology, being, but also of teleology, cause and effect. We can separate analysis as a way of determining cause and effects in time, and intention as way of being cause and creating effects upon physical manifestation of intention.

The direct observation of any object in space is a kind of 2d impression with 3d shadowing. We do not see an object as a 3d total object, that is we do not perceive of an object at all potential 3dimensional angles. The world we observe is determined by our distance from an object, the objects form, and the objects place in space. Just as all objects can be perceived to have spatial-relation, the mind has a spatial-relation to all actual being.

The local world we live in, is confined to immediate physical contents. The more immediate the reality, the closer we are to potentially observing that reality, that is the contents of the external world. The world as we observe it becomes a sense-impression, which we can imagine having existence when we aren't looking at the thing.

By virtue of imagination or memory we can recall the positions and the objects identity in space. The world as we know it is manipulable because we can recall the objects that exist in it, and we can recall the functionality or the possible interactions of the objects in the environment. When present with totally new objects the past arrangements or functions will be similar to past experiences, and novel as so far as the object is a device unto itself, being mutable as a novel functioning object.

The novel object having novel function is learned through interaction with the object. The observation of the object and its function become a memory, which can be later recalled and its function intended into existence.

When thinking of an object we don't only identify it as a thing, using recognition, we can also recognize its functionality and even impute the object with functionality as we imagine. This is the evident difference between ontology and teleology. The ontological mind identifies a thing based on comparison with a thing in the past, or it can initiate a novel object with a identifier, or word, and place this in memory for future recall. This means that recognition is a matter of repeating a neurological response containing sensory information from the past and forming an equality function between direct observation.

Including the existence of objects that are put into the ontological mind there is the existence of the self as having an ontological existence. Differentiation of identity is an occurrence of the ontological, comparing or contrasting objects to objects. This explains the neurological connections, and their network like structure, working to create an ontological description of the world and objects and their properties. The possession of similar properties of two objects causes similarity in mind, and the possession of different properties of two objects causes the idea difference in the mind. These two ontological facts explain the branching of neurons, where the connections are caused by ontological identification, as one source.

The environment contains objects of the subjects, their properties, their functions, and their spacial relations. When an object is not know at an ontological or teleological foundation this means mental deficiency arises. Following this is experimentation or postulation with the unknown object searching for an identity based on categorization of its ontology and teleology.

The experimentation can make the object fulfill its teleological nature, through manifestation of its potential phenomena into existence as an actuality. Through this manifestation of actuality, the observer can store the teleological nature of the object of effect in memory and recall or reapply the same cause to bring about occurrence of the actuality. For example: A young child learns that water can be put into a cup, he now has teleological knowledge, which when applied into the physical from the mental can manifest the teleos of the object.

The very existence of repetition becomes the confines wherein the mind can intend results into reality. These confines may seem as confounding, as the teleos of past teleological apprehension is imputed on to the object, creating a function for it, novel but at the same time a rendition of past observational learning. Much of the world is thus seen through the mind as potentially repeatable phenomena. The most immediate function of things is reduced to the patterning of neurons that takes place because of repetition of the objects observed teleos.

We understand teleology to be of the teleo of mind and world. Every mind interaction with the world is a manifestation of teleos existing in the mind and than being articulated into physical movement, the intentional teleos of the object. There is a subtle difference between the recalled past teleos of a specific object, and the imputed teleos onto an object. The recalled teleos is a past observation of its function reapplied, where as the imputed teleos is a application of possible teleos of the object not having been previously observed of the object. The differentiation might be called the recalled and the imputed teleos.

The mechanism of will seems to be endowed by observation of the world and its nature. The observed as it were remembered may not exist in the phenomenal world, but through this non-being of phenomena, the observer can intended or will a remembered existence into the world as an is. An is, working as a noun, is equate to being. Therefore the observed teleology become potentiality with inside the will-mind, teleological mind, as potential being. Every observed or imagined being or is can or can not be manifested as in actuality. The teleological-mind is the intending mind of an observer. The teleos in mind can either be envisioned or enacted. A teleos that can be intended into existence is called a possibility, where as an imagined teleos alone is deemed impossible.

The reinforcing powers of the mind as emotionality or pain/pleasure and attraction/aversion, can be linked to certain phenomena as to make the ideas of the things more prominently associated. Say for example, you are given something sweet and pleasant when you do a certain act, as in playing chess, or golfing, or expressing any train of thought. The positive reinforcement strengthens the teleological or ontological association.

Pain or aversion may also be used as a reinforcer of any teleos or ontos. Fear as an example reaction to something, may continue to be associated with something that caused pain. Aversion can stop an association, as in negation, but most of the time an aversive association can strengthen an association with a thing.

The most effect way to detach or disassociate from something is to not only be aversive towards in the form negation (not hatred or the like) is to feel indifferent or not be triggered into any recognition of its existence. For example, if you don't repeat a phone-number you are more likely to forget it. There is also the replacement of something that equates to an association in the past. When a phone-number has been changed, just as a partner in romance might be changed, the brain often occupies itself with the immediate experiences and let's the similar past associations entropy. This might be called, past association entropy by replacement.

The existence of pain and pleasure, can be used as way of giving thought or imagined being desirability. Pain avoidance behavior is a kind of identity, personality, or a manifesting trend of an agent. The pain-avoidant agent tries to formulate aversive behaviors towards anything known to cause itself pain or detriment to its well-being. The aversion may come in the form of negating an intention, as in the negation of bashing one's head through a television. The end result is pain, and therefore the pain-avoidant personality will negate the intention of the consequence of becoming in pain. Pleasure-approach personality, is also a trend of human existence. The very idea of it was written in philosophy, as in, hedonism and utilitarianism. The pleasure-approach personality thinks of the functions of things as serving to pleasure itself, and intends to gain pleasure from its environment through intention. These are two of the possible personalities working with in this main understanding of emotional personality.

People can be conditioned or reinforced into these intentional modes of being. A person may offer another person a certain amount of reward, as in a paycheck for labor that might cause pain, stress, or annoyance, or as in a person being dared into acting to cause pain by being promised a certain reward after having done it. These are examples of reinforcing pain-attractive behavior. Conditioning pain-attractive behavior or personality, requires that the agent be constantly rewarded for some form of pain to itself or others.

There is a difference of causing pain or pleasure to oneself and pain and pleasure to the other. The four types of personality under pain and pleasure can be directed towards self or other. Another type of personality that comes from mentality is indifferent personality. This personality itself also has a social context in the writings of the Stoics as well as the Buddhists and Taoist. Together there five main personalities under the emotionality of the mind, and there twice any many ways to manifest it, either towards self or other. How to classify the personality and its aims has not been written up in this theory.
We have covered the general ideas of how things can be thought of in form of their functions and their identity, and we have covered how emotion works with identity of the self and the other, but is left out is an understanding of the opposing personality traits of extroversion and introversion. Just like any behavior they are mostly strengthened by conditioning and reinforcement. The more hate one exhibits, the more they tend to be anti-social, the more love one exhibits towards a greater amount of people the more they tend towards extroversion. People can be conditioned to feel fear of others, because of how they were treated, or threatened or approved by the others and the emotionality come from outside of their ego.

Any behavior can be conditioned and reinforced, any personality can be conditioned or reinforced. Every being is a byproduct of their most frequent emotional reactions within their environment.

Just as objects and our associations with them mandates what we think we can do, our associations with others mandate what we think we can do with them. Social conscience is formed by patterning reactions with others. The consciousness awareness of being doesn't have to rethink its conscience judgments as it has been programmed by conditioning.

The powers of the will, that is to say the powers of the conscience which are patterns of approval and rejection, and positive and negative emotion, become a way of manifesting behavior with out internally altering choices as to become some other form of personality, as in changing from pain-avoidant to pain-attracted towards others. The will of the mind comes out as an impulse for ends, this impulse can be resisted or allowed, so determined by conditioning, emotional personality, or the illusion of choice. For example a pain-avoidant personality can become a pain-attractive behavior if the pain is chosen. For any manifestation to occur the intentionality, which exists as the “is” and “is not” in proportion with attractive or aversive emotion must compete with one another and the stronger impulse always manifests, at least in theory.

Emotional reactions are also thought forms. One can observe their emotion as it arises, and know it as friend or enemy even. There is plenty of exploration left when it comes to observing emotional reactions and what triggers those certain states of emotional being.

How is judgment formed by emotionality? There are positive and negative emotions associated with how we judge people, for example the ideas and feelings present in the words, revere and pity, are forms of judgment. We may reject or accept certain things as judgment because of our emotional personality or emotional behavior associated with those certain things. Observation, that is sense itself doesn't judge on a basis of rejection or acceptance, it is the mind which makes or intends these judgments into existence. There is no judgment of others, there is no acceptance or rejection of others, in the optic nerve, but rather deeper inside one's mind, in reptilian brain, the lower biology of survival.

What is the biological nature of man?

What is the relation of need to the observer? The satisfaction of biological need, as we know it, can not be stopped or else it results in the end of life. A contingent choice is set of logical events, as in, if p then q. One can make a choice contingent on the existence of another variable, as in having children being contingent on the existence of enough resources to have the child.

The continuance of biological fulfillment of need, is required for physical existence to continue. Living as a human is contingent on fulfillment of biological need. Why does need continue? The mechanisms of organism such as a human being, are naturally selected to find gratification in the world so as to want to continue to exist. The refusal to live as an actual intention eliminates the probability of being able to live. Of course there is not only the internal mechanism increasing the probability of survive as it is naturally selected, there is also the existence exterior resources that when achieved sustain a biological structure.

The scarcity of resources or consumables in the environment is another kind of force that may lead to certain natural selections, not only the ability to repeat biological reactions that work, that is are able to survive and be reproduced. This means biological need not only exists as itself but as a byproduct of the resources or consumables which it has evolved to consume.

The needs of man, stem from what human life depends on for survival. These needs are of food/water, warmth, care providers, the acquisition of teleos and ontos, the security against threat, and some civilization-based needs, as transportation and energy.

How is fulfillment caused? Onto-teleos is the mechanical nature of a thing which makes it a thing. For example: A person imagines an onto-teleos and then puts together clay in the form of what was imagined. The clay takes on an ontos as designated by teleos. The intentional onto-teleos and the material cause might be considered to be two different aspects of nature.

The material cause is that which in nature brings a thing to exist as its being. All human constructs are onto-teleos, from a chair, to the existence of an economic model. These constructs are intended into existence by the people, by the will or imagination of the mind. Now this is not their only source, because the source of all human constructed materials or objects comes from the biological nature of the being who is doing the constructing, imaging the thing in relation to the human being.

As biological need is permanent so is the need for those things which bring about supply to that need. Routine requires needs. Routine requires repeatable ends. The demands of the biology of a being, construct infrastructure as an implicit cause, only implicit as not recognized by the species.

The existing constructs are either fashioned artificially, not previously existing in nature, such as cars, and naturally existing, such as planting trees. Every ontological thing can be destroyed with energy or created with an information concerning its makeup. In some cases certain limitations make the destruction of certain organisms permanent in linear time.

The will of others causes opportunities which exist. These opportunities supply the mind with ends whereupon intention or choice can select these ends and act as so as to fulfill them. The opportunities present by others can all be traced to a biological source, that means the intentions of others emerge from the nature of life, being its biology.

The biological imperative present in the organism are preconditioned habits. When the stomach becomes hungry the mind searches for food. The teleos of this imperative is consumption. This teleos will be remarkably similar at all times. The food is either taken by the mouth or taken from hand to mouth, in the case of animals. In all animals the sense of smell linked to food becomes a conditioned response, so when a heavy aroma is smelt it causes salivation or craving, and is a marker for the ontological recognition of the food as edible. This impulse leads to farming, marketing, transportation, the food economy.

Another biological imperative is a certain temperature. The chemical nature of organism just like that of any sort of energy undergoes visible changes in different temperatures. The homeostasis of temperature is different in differing organisms. Most organisms attempt to move to conditions that bring them to a homeostasis of temperature. This imperative leads to sheltering, immigration. Among temperature other environmental conditions can be eliminated using shelter, such as safety against predators.

What is the universality of the Observer Mind?

The observer, no matter where it exists, requires input functions so as to experience a flow of consciousness sensation. Wherever we observe a life that observers, it will thus have the ontological similarities to us, as we so can postulate, being the existence of wave-detection organs. These input devices detect the available environment, and can be as varied as the environment's data itself.

The sensory device is unlike instinct. Instinct is a universal mechanism. It responds to a particular interaction, going on between the mind and what exists in its environment. As in the case of fear, for example, it is a universal mechanism, a reaction to threat in the environment. Some organisms do not sense fear or have the emotion of fear, but instead react with an a biological defense. The way to differentiate between the biological defense and to notice or identify with the fear in a thing, is too observe the existence of increased mobility coming from a stimulus, where as a biological defense would not react to a threatening stimuli. These too can exist together, as a flight response and biological defense may be combined to increase survival of the organism two-fold.

The universal observer requires the existence of teological mind. Thoughts are processed at mechanical level by interactions with the environment. Each organism has different responses because of differing environments they have evolved to or have assimilated in their subjective experiences. Although teleological mentality is a natural endowment of all observers, the teleological mind is varied because of varied experiences of the world. The teological collective conscious, is sphere of the mind, which is expressed in all forms of social constructs and social media. The collective teleological mind is just as complex and subject to subjectivity as the teleological mind of an observer, as it exists as a construct to a point.

The laws of syntax and semantics are also important when dealing with the existence of an observer and its potential sentience. Language can work as a tool for devising specific potential realities, and can be used along with logic to generate or resist the effects of an intention. It is hard to imagine much of a civilization existing without using audio-symbol codes to represent things. When this first starts to begin, what is in the interest of expanding knowledge of the world, is the use of more words, and the expression of more sentences, to become understandings.

Before the idea of theory exists, much of the words representing things were probably taken without much doubt, but I can only theorize that doubt didn't exist in the potential magnitude as it does today, simply because of the lack of the idea of theory, probability, validity, and certainty. I would theorize, that the cultivation of language, slowly becomes a way of validly representing reality with idea and word. Before the existence of testing validity, there is no testing for validity, therefore before testing validity anything was believable, all conclusions could be thought, and whether or not they existed in the world, or could be demonstrated as truth, fact, or fiction, was not a concern. This theories begs the question of whether our ancestors had logic or is it merely the condition of learning? This remains a mystery.

The ontological and teleological mind can express itself through words, which is the point. Reaching the level of sentience that we have, brought on by our vast language, and ability to equate consciousness to word-thought is one of the universals, a contingency of existing as we do now.

Introversion and Extroversion via Emotion

To me, its very interesting to think of the possible connection between emotion and personality. When we think of the two factors of personality being withdrawing into self and expanding and manifesting into others, how does emotion fit into the mechanics?

We might say that certain negative emotions towards others leads to the aversion of others, or that aversion of others leads to negative emotion (see: theory of emotion). The opposite is true of extroversion, following along with the powers of emotion.

Fear, hatred, anger, rejection, sadness, all aimed at others, can all lead one into a greater introversion. Comfort/peace, love, acceptance, and happiness, targeted at others can lead into a greater extroversion.

This is just a simple idea of possible mechanical force connections. It may not be true or correct in all cases, as for example sadness coming from a dead relative might lead one to find comfort in the sympathy and understanding of others. This dual will of emotion is what I have called dualistic behaviors.

An applicable understanding of emotional triggers and introversion and extroversion can be found. Such triggers for extroversion is getting people together, including yourself, and experiencing something that causes some form of emotionally positivity. To become more introverted would thence require some form of positive emotion being by one's self, and aversion towards others.

The ideal or optimal form of these two personality traits is a balance, health. Not to become over-come by or indulgent in either, as one can increase their emotional positivity if they live an extroverted and introverted life, instead of just one.

Become the ends of your desire

My philosophy is to be aware and to make that awareness a kind of tool you can use when confronting things. For example, one the thing I do is apply word tools (question-words) as in "what is x LIKE" or what will "x cause." Life is an experiment -- thinking of what you can do, and proving to yourself you can do it!

Phenomenology and existentialism tells us, in its philosophy, that we are responsible for ourselves, and that the world is split between being and non-being. By intention and opportunity the self creates itself, gives itself being.

An intention is what Hume started calling, "conjunction." It starts with "wanting an end", meaning intention is desire/cause and end/effect. What should one's attention be? According to rational philosophy intentions should cause self-sufficiency and the ability to sustain the life of those you live with. In capitalism the idea is to make enough profit to pay all your expenses as well as save enough money to fulfill greater dreams. Your money becomes the means of your greater material desires.

 Intending to start relationships, however, doesn't always require financial stability but does require that you start becoming more social. There are plenty of ways any one can think of how that can happen. Being involved in social functions, and even creating them, can offer you more opportunity for bonding. Start a book club, start a organization with single mom's raising children. You can do it.

So from existential and phenomenology we have in this understanding, an idea of intention for material and relationships/family. This kind of thinking works with the law of attraction as well as the laws of karma. The forces of karma are not just cause-effect. Rather they can be thought to be what Lewin calls, "aversion" and "approach", the Stoics called proherisis, "acceptance," and "rejection" what decision theorist call "benefit/determent", "harm/care" and "loss/gain." When you start using these few tools, you will become more aware of what is best for yourself. For example ask yourself, "How will this choice effect me?"

Normally when choosing a career, it is best to think of how much money is in it, as well as how it is effecting society. This occupation is called a social role, or what might be called a purpose.

What does fulfillment mean? It means reaching an end, but it also means fulfilling your biological needs. For this we look at Maslow. Needs can be known so as to obtain homeostasis. He didn't however offer us information about the needs of education. To get a high paying job, one must achieve a certain level of educational qualification.

You are the start of your own ends. Meaning that you and only you can start achieving ends your own ends. These ends are provided by our system, known as opportunity (opp or turn). This is all you need to know, the ends are given, but they don't become your experience till you intend your being into them (what Hurressel calls a bracket).

The best insight comes from within. No one can know you like you know yourself. You are with yourself always.

Remember you don't have to do everything, don't have to give up on doing all the things you can dream of. Plan, position goals in the time of your own creation. Focus on not too much, but enough. Remember, you are the source of your own initiative, you are the desire. Though inspiration can come from with out, desire comes from within.

True power comes from understanding the nature of yourself.

1. Education
2. Occupation
3. Relationships
4. Materials

In all these things there is benefit to be found, happiness to be lived, dreams to come true.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. Imagination is the preview of life's coming attractions. Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow." Einstein

Intentional Conflict

Contradiction of morals and intentions, isn't really much of a problem unless there is some kind of interaction between agents, where the combined judgment of two causes a contradiction or a conflict.

Say for example, working with intentions rather than moral views about life: John wants to keep the sofa and Sally wants to throw it away.

This creates an object of conflicting intention, which will elaborated on in the following framework. The "object of conflicting intention" is resolved either by 1) dominance/surrender, 2) reason, or 3) agreement.

1) Having dominance immediately means the surrender or the service to another intentions. How is dominance achieved?

A) It can actually be achieved through reason, meaning that reason itself might be form of creating dominance, in a word called justification. For example, the couple arguing over keeping the sofa, may state reasons as  "The sofa is old and smells bad." In this the woman is stating her reasons to have a negative intention. What is a negative intention? Simply it either comes from emotional aversion or logical averison as so explained in recent blogs.

Another way it can be achieved is through B) "Emotional Manipulation. An example of emotional manipulation comes from our understandings of psychological forces so described by behaviorist, as negative and positive reinforcement. For example, a woman may exert "dominance" in that she makes x (a positive or negative reinforcement), contingent on the agreement or disagreement of her intention(s). This may seem complex, but in a common demonstration  of this we can see it is rather simple. Example: John's girlfriend Sally says she will only have sex with John if he gets rid of the sofa.

 The "manipulator variable" is called the "reinforcer," this is a law of social psychology.

C) Intelligence, wisdom, and qualification. These forms of dominance, which may come out as trust or distrust come from personal experiences and education.

D) Group bias, or group conformity -- This may be thought as a surrendering your own intention because of the group agreements. This may also come from a simple friend bias, where you agree with your friend for alternative reasons than being valid or having your own view. It is easier to agree with people than to think out your own intention, so justified by your feelings and your reasoning.

2) Reason which is explained as a form of dominance, justification above. The reason as explained usually works with the feelings associated with the object, so it is that the object of conflict receives "negative and positive intentionality from the agents."

3) Agreement, this may also be the result of dominance and reason. If there is a disagreement followed by its resolve of agreement there is thence a surrender.

A question that arises is,  where is surrender and dominance in the existence of two people that agree?

As a law, where the intention being mutual and equal exists no dominance exists.

What this shows is that you one does not have to give up their moral view simply because of disagreement but there can be cases where the moral view or intention is changed, as noted previously.

How might this framework be used to understand parent-child interaction, or in the case of capitalism?

Conditioning Yourself

The premise is that all forms of behavior can be molded through conditioning.

Let's start with the basics.

Conditioning requires response and reinforcement.

Reinforcement is either negative or positive,

Meaning that it causes the responses of desire or aversion.

Negative reinforcement reduces the frequency or the strength of a behavior.

Positive reinforcement increases the frequency or the strength of a behavior.

This is generally, as the intensity of a positive/negative response may not increase/decrease behavior.

As in the case of eating something rare, that is pleasing to the senses, as in watermelon that is not frequently eaten. Christmas gifts are also a good example, as people fall into the cultural trend of not giving without being triggered by a specific date. Its a matter of gifts being traded, which usually doesn't happen without a mutual intention to do so. Mutual gift trading or giving is more desirable than simply giving without getting anything but positive emotion back.

Conditioning yourself is what takes place in religion, but many people are not aware of commonsense psychology, and so remain unaware of their own behavior determinism. As an example having an all loving and caring being watching and mediating your life, being a continuous positive reinforcement that can come from anything associated with stimulation, i.e. religious community, scripture reading, or indoctrination.

Now that we understand the basics, lets move into how you condition yourself.

First is intention:

1. Positive intention is "I will do". The more positive an intention of x, the more it is being reinforced, and the more likely the behavior is to change. The converse is true of the negative, in the logic of "I will not do."

2. Positive/negative reinforcement/ends. Let's use two examples: A) A child receives high grades in school. Whenever he does he is rewarded with something that pleases him; as in his parents buying ice cream, or a toy he wants. To make a quick point this is the best thing about being parent, as a parent has more control and can condition a child better than most can condition themselves at an older age. Next example B) When ever John smokes he burns himself afterward. This burning is an aversive stimulus because it causes pain.

One problem of conditioning that arises is wanting to create aversion to ends, without wanting to feel the negative reinforcement. You have to want to be aversive in order to create an aversive end.

As a law, the strength of aversion is based on intensity and duration of pain or harm, the strength of desire is based on pleasure achieved by an end.

How then does one condition themselves precisely? Simple, by creating a positive or negative end, and than doing a behavior with its effects being that end. Example: You will eat ice-cream but only if you do a particular behavior.

Most self-conditioning starts with an idea or an intention, and than becomes reality or a condition based on the reinforcement.

Now the next question is what should be conditioned? Well its optional, but rationally, what should be conditioned is productive behavior, self-interested behavior, and if you have the surplus investment in a continuously productive behaviors of others, or in some cases simple charity when you have the resources. What should be negatively reinforced, eliminated behavior, is any behavior which increases the chance of your death or decreases your condition of living.

Therefore, I have presented here a method to Condition/Change of behavior based on a rational moral standard.  

Learning what behaviors can be conditioned or eliminated is a matter of exercising these factors.

If you have any questions please leave them in the field below.

General Theory of Improvement

The general theory of Improvement – problems and solutions

The following is a biological definition of and overview of problems, solutions, and improvements.

The following production is theoretical ideological version of a possible mathematical understanding of the subjects promised to be expounded on in this film. This film has the underlying transformative power to adjust your thoughts to greater corresponding consciousness, basically meaning

it will cause increased realism, where thought equates to life and world more.

Before I outline this conceptual work, I will first state threes laws

1. Life exists in relation to the total systems it can encounter and interact with.

2. Survival depends on maintenance of a system that is in a sense alive, in an internal/external and even constructing/manipulating the internal/external.

3. Precise effects caused by precise causes, can be avoided by eliminating the cause. Meaning, effects can be prevented or allowed depending on how the cause is allowed or prevented to exist.

I start by going into the main ideas by asking What is human dysfunction, weakness, disability, failure?

A biological imperative of living systems is to sustain survival, as so far the living system is adapted to survive in a wide range of possible environments. Dysfunction is equate to kind of weakness in the system, wherein the attribute or operation of the system impedes or severely lessens the chances of survival of the life-forms.

We thus think of improvement as a kind of engineering or adaptation that takes place where in the gene-pool or environment there is the elimination of that which impedes survival. This is basic biological Darwinism, wherein improvement is identified, and improvement is conceptualized as any process that eliminates any operational or property weakness, that lowers the chances of survival. In other words, improvement increases chances of survival, and decreases chance of death. This improvement is really just in increase in strength of survivability, which I propose can be mathematically  quantified.  

The first biological weakness that comes to mind, is the fact human beings can't survive on earth, if an asteroid of a considerable mass impacts the surface and engulfs the atmosphere which we breath, and overturns the surface which we have mobility and life-dependence on.  

This proves that a population of biological systems is not inherently likely to have increased risk of death purely on biological operations and properties, instead the environment can directly influence chances of survive. We will see that is clearly apparent, as we move through the problems and challenges that put human life at risk. 

If the environment and biology mutually effect strength of survivability, improvement can be pursued by adjusting biology or environment. This is a law, which I now label, the law of changing survivability.

The first challenge I note we face is possible asteroid collision with earth. What are the solutions? Solutions here mean the elimination of that which decreases chances of survival, or implantation of that which increases the chance of survival.  

A solution is an implementation of current actualities to manipulate survivability. When the solution is in thought alone it is said to be in theoretical or conceptual phase, when it actually is demonstrated it is a proven and repeatable tactic as so far as the problem is a general or similar problem.  

Problem (1): Potential asteroid collision destroying life.

Solution A) Chemical reactions which entirely subdivide the mass into less deadly/massive objects. How might this be done?

By sending drones, or sending up capsules of sort, or even both that initiate a desired obliteration of the dooms-day mass.

Solution B) Inhabiting other planets with some maintained survivability upon them, after a dooms-day asteroid destroys our planetary dependence.
Solution C) Movement of asteroid.

Please consider contemplation of possible solutions, and gearing yourself to working on them, because no ends/effects exist without causes. Your are the cause. Working on this project is to work on increasing the probability of survival of humanity and our possible alternative forms.

Another large astronomical event which will decrease survivability of humans as we know them now is the sun's expansion and finally its consumption of the earth. There is a time frame wherein we have till it becomes too hot on earth to bare life as we know it. So what are the solutions to having our current planet dependency obliterated?

Problem (2): Earth obliterated by sun's heat as well as sun flares, which can destroy our atmosphere and disrupt technology.

Solution A) Slowing the phase change of our star and its consumption of hydrogen.

Solution B) Inhabiting other planets, solar systems, galaxies.

Solution C) A temporary solution of using force fields, just like the earth's naturally existing fields, to protect at least some of life in case of large discharges, if not most of life on earth.

It appears that in our second problem solution B is the same as solution B for problem 1. Why do we see this duplication?

It is because the problem, is the effect of the inhabited planet being destroyed. And it is, therefore a law, if there are multiple planets inhabited by a life-form its survivability increases. In other words, the law is when a inhabited planet is threatened survival depends on extraterrestial habitation.  

Let us turn our scope inward somewhat, to the economical instead of astronomical impacts of natural order and chaos.

Let us visual problem (3): Scarcity

All life requires certain consumption in order to convert energy in to biological work. This energy, can come in form of life or prey. What man needs to consume is what I would call metabolic-resources. How can we solve scarcity, eliminate it or possibly eliminate the biological cause of scarcity: biological metabolism.

Solution A) Lower demand, by lowering population to be directly proportional to required metabolic-resources.

Solution B) Increase reproduction of m-r.

Solution C) Improve by transitioning into cyborg life form that only requires free energy.

Surprisingly, though I can not measure how hard either change is decisively, I would say A,C are just about equally probable in this time of civilization. A isn't really required, because most m-rs can be regenerated and can exist in surplus.  

The second problem is of scarcity (4) is scarcity of essential industrial resources.

Solution A) Create more recyclable materials.

Solution B) Mine off of home planet

Solution C) Nano-technology and multi-dimensional computing.

Solution D) Proportioning population to supply.

Solution E) Becoming cyborgs.

Lack of resources is not only an economic problem, but can be a personal problem, an occupational problem. The solutions are:

A) Going back to school to qualify for a higher paying job.

B) Seeking a higher earning.
C) Cutting down on personal expenses.
D) Getting loans or social service assistance.

E) Converting into a robotic life-forms.

Problem (5) Health Coverage
Solution A) Mandatory HC

Solution B) National HC

Solution C) Laws that make some have rights to free or cost-reduced HC.

Problem (6): Global Warming

S: A) Reduction of fossil fuels, also means in increase in non-destructive energy use.
S: B) Nano-bots or machines that eliminate pollution and extra carbon.
S: C) Cyborgism
S: D) Off planet living

Problem (7) Inter-species Harm

S: A) Anger management and increasing emotional intelligence.

S: B) Inhibition drugs.
S: C) Punishment, negative reinforcement.

Not only is dysfunctionality, weakness in relation to the economy it might be a disability, something that inables an individual or those under the disabilities limitations and status to be in-cable of production and many if not all forms of economic work/productivity.

From disabilities we move on to health. Just as there are many problems being the effect of disability there is many problems, as the effect of illness.

Another problem we might consider is behavior that does not comply with democratically approved governmental law. In this case like the others engineering can also alter biology and maybe even environment to change effects.

With all are problems and solutions environment and usually biology must all be shifted -- manipulated at the chemical level up.

Personal problems can range from relationship creation/end or betterment, to management of money and personal resources.

Relationships can be improved by compromising, by changing reactions or treatment of one another. Sometimes relationships are ended and may be thought of as causing problems as well as being solutions. Marriages are broken up because of various relationship incongruity with desires. This may create finical problems as well as custody problems.

Relationships may also result in law suits, where problems are taken up in court, and compensation may be legally mandatory.

Problems and solutions are not always directly linked to survival. Personal desires, and likes, may cause problems. As in example I gave in a previous publication, two people listening to music, and disagreeing because of differing tastes, is an example of a problem caused by differing personal preferences.

Religion, or just differing ideas in differing and clashing minds can cause problems. Religion is still a cause for war, and war puts mankind closer to death. Peace treaties as well as renunciations of belligerent ideas can reduce the chances of warfare.

I now cover a problem, and that is a conversion of idea into number, ratios, math. This problem may not seem to effect our survivability, but I think in some inconceivable way, to me at least, its possible applications will improve our lives and make the uncertain that much more certain. Converting things into other things, even concept to math, or resource to product, or chemical to cure, are all problems which require some kind of conversion.

Each specific problem can be faced from a different angle, and solutions proposed.

Whether or not we increase our problems or improve is up to us and our total ability to do so. Improvement isn't required, its optional, and sometimes very difficult.

Improvement means decreasing problems. This is a kind of adaptation that happens because of artificial improvement. It usually takes less time to evolve or adapt with engineering and medicine than it does by mutations and natural selection driving improvement.

What about other animals how do they improve? Many animals can only improve by natural selection. One of the natural problems, that is something that causes increase in chance of death, is the existence of prey-predator relationship. This animal animal relationship isn't that big of predicament for man, but other animals face it to a greater degree. It may be considered as a problem, but it also my balance life out, and provide predators with life.

We are a problem to animals we consume for energy, but they are neither consciously aware that they are prey nor are they aware of how to improve their lives, and avoid slaughter, expect by distributed flight-fight response. As man converts more and more to a robotic life, and can reproduce foods artificially without having to kill, our predator relationship with other animals will vanish.

How might we improve other life-forms? That greatly depends on the life-forms and how they relate to the rest of nature. We could spend our time in the future working on improving the lives of many animals, even engineering some of them to be self-improving – evolving initiated by their minds. Its an interesting prospect, not having much thought invested into it.

Here we have looked at problem solving, but there is also the possibility of problem creation.

It would seem as a universal law, beings which obtained immortality and the highest levels of survivability are a final destination, an ultimate end of evolution -- mainly being of life-forms which can escape the death of planets, galaxies, even universes, and escape death or total entropy of their cellular or mechanical life processes.

With consciousness or knowledge, the continuum of memory would be required for temporal identification of immortal existence, as well as a continued application of data and improvement thereof.

These same problems we face, are problems that most all civilizations can face, depending on how similar they are too us or more improved they are.

In m-theory, we might include this universal end, as having already been reached by beings. It might be necessary that at first less "improved" beings slowly increased their survivability so a time-line of development or causality positions that actualize the highest end in the continuum.  

Severity of problem = -(chance of survival) + Time till

Categorizing facets of Speech

FORMS OF COMMUNICATION:

1. Subjects (economics, politics)
2. Experiences and emotions/reactions/judgment (My friend Jill rode her bike into a car when she was drunk. I thought she was smarter than that.)
3. Ideals and expectations (I think I want to become x, what are you going to do about x, etc.)
4. Relations (I meet this guy named Steve who had brother who had MS.)
5. Argumentation (comes from differing views)
6. Relating (comparing/contrasting) to their ideas (as in 1-5) (1. People do stupid things when there drunk. 2. I know x who went far in that pursuit. 3. I also know someone with MS. 5. My mother also thinks anti-abortion.

Personality

Personality

Extroversion/Introversion – 25 pts)

Talkative, -5-5)
Works in groups, -5-5)
Number of friends and relationship status, -5-5)
Romantic relationship (length, and status) -5-5)
Social activities (many/few a week) -5-5)

Self-image and state of mind – 25 pts)
Good decisions/bad decisions (impact, frequency) -5-5)
Judgment of appearance of self and other -5-5)
Judgment of others behaviors and attitudes -5-5)

Importance of material quality (good, best) -5-5)

Importance of being successful -5-5)

Pessimism/Optimism – 25 pts)
Want to live -5-5)
Want to be in a romantic relationship -5-5)
Have a future ideal for self -5-5)
Admire or wonder in experience of nature and beauty -5-5)
Apocalypse or revolution (end of world, improvement of world) -5-5)

Productivity – 25 pts)
Demanding job (hrs worked) -5-5)
Relates to production of essential resources ((-) athletes vs. (+) farmers), -5-5)
Self-dependence vs. following management ((-) must ask to do anything (+) boss) -5-5)
Amount of income generated -5-5)

Amount of surplus money -5-5)

Emotional Waves, and Localization

THIS ARTICLE IS INCOMPLETE AND IN NEED OF FUTURE EDITING.

This theory of brain waves touches on the fact that delta waves are of a lesser frequency than beta waves. These waves are electrical stimulation, which may lead to more work depending on the intensity/frequency. Since delta is a wave with lesser frequency and equals sleep, and beta is a higher frequency and equals activity, it is plausible that higher frequencies equal: Increased motor activity, and increase in the sensation of the electrical field of mental human emotion. 

1) Beta emited when we are consciously alert, or we feel agitated, tense, afraid, with frequencies ranging from 13 to 60 pulses per second in the Hertz scale.

 2) Alpha when we are in a state of physical and mental relaxation, although aware of what is happening around us, its frequency are around 7 to 13 pulses per second.

 3) Theta more or less 4 to 7 pulses, it is a state of somnolence with reduced consciousness.

 4) Delta when there is unconsciousness, deep sleep or catalepsy, emitting between 0.1 and 4 cycles per second.

Fear = Threat/Loss of a positive/rejection

The greater the fear, the greater the stimulation meaning high levels of amygdala activity and beta frequencies. Through cognitive neuroscience research  scientists can come up with a ratio between flight-fight and threat. When fear is at a certain intensity fighting is ineffective and flight is effective.

There is also a chemical release of adrenaline that determines flight or fight. The more intense either flight of fight the more adrenaline that is consumed, reacting, or bonded to organs as to increase their stimulation.

The part of the brain and the chemicals that instigate arousal of a flight-fight response are required for avoiding predators or anything that would pose a threat to survival.

Greater fear, means a reduction of frequency in the pleasure centers of the brain.

Love = Care/Pleasure/(self-acceptance/other-acceptance),

Increase electrical frequency, as well as an increase in dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin, occur in all stages of lust/attraction/attachment. f(e) (d+s+o).

Another important chemical in continue attachment with a person, place, thing, or phenomena, is in the existence of vassopressin.

"When male prairie voles were given a drug that suppresses the effect of vasopressin, the bond with their partner deteriorated immediately as they lost their devotion and failed to protect their partner from new suitors."

All mental activity is seen in the phenomena world as moving towards attachment or into the detached. All movement of the physical body, is really an increase and decrease of matter and the distances between them. The biological and emotional fields of existence structure human beings to be aware of threat and care, friend and foe. By avoiding death, and obtaining survival, life continues on.

Two of the overactivities of love and fear are:
1) PTSD (post-traumatic-stress-disorder) -- There should be a chemical analysis as well as an emg analysis of brains that have undergone highly active fear situations. In this way, the line between normal reactions and stressed reactions might be found, and there might be a consideration of what chemicals to increase or brain areas to stimulate under certain stimuli to reduce stress reaction.

2) Obsession, co-dependence, learned helplessness, depression -- A higher rate of depression occurs, after having lost someone.  The brain lowers its stimulation of positive emotion, and also increases its negative emotion in realization that the a positive has been lost. When something is potentially going to be lost, such a mate, obsession may take place, and the person may become more and more manipulative to ensure they do not loss their mate. It is a kind of relationship obsession that results from the fear of loss, and the desire for love.

Co-dependence can appear in two possible ways:
1. Two people in a relationship, and one of them doesn't invest their part into the financial structure of their needs acquisition.
2. Two people break up, and the one can not depend on their own earnings to pay for their bills. This might also be called dependency-abandonment.

What is the distinction between grief and fear?

The idea of no control over the loss, results in the idea of sadness rather than in fear. Fear is a response that manipulates the circumstances to potentially avoid sadness, where as sadness itself is to have already lost a positive and to face it afterwards. Fear might be thought of as anticipatory, where as sadness is an immediate emotion.

On the Survialistic Morality of Social Justice

Provided with the fundamental requirements for life being survival we understand morality to be a dichotomy of consequences, being decided or intended upon by a person, or naturally occurring, with a valence of care/harm or positive/neutral/negative to self or other.

In general this theory proposes that greatest good comes from the production of essential commodities for essential needs. Prioritized from the greatest positive, benefit, and from the avoidance of death, or near death actuality (starvation, sickness, pain).

Ultimately, this idea is altruistic rationalism. We develop a moral judgment based on what we think should be avoided or desired.

The justice system of America, legitimizes positive or rational law. It attempts to prevent negative consequences from reproducing or repeating, by imprisoning or killing criminals that have acted out a behavior -- so determined by social justice.

Behaviors are classified as criminal as far as they hurt the condition or lessen the condition of life for others. Behaviors are classified as rewarding, as so far as they have qualification and work in relation to some form of production. According to this theory, as mentioned above, the most rewards a employee should obtain is from being in relation to the amount of production created by their work. This makes more sense than paying entertainers more than farmers.

Mathematically:
Hn  = Pn Harm intensity equals punishment.
Cn = Rn  Care intensity equals reward.

These are general equations of reciprocation, and are not true in all conditions.

This is not always the case, as harm is done to prey of human beings, so as to live. Therefore there is a necessary prey-predator harm, that results in care.  There may even be a harm-harm condition between prey-predator as the offensive defenses of prey may retaliate with harm to the predator.

In this condition, the less death one imposes on animals, limited to consumption rates, the more care that is supplied. Man's relation to himself is not thought to be a condition of harm --> care, as in rewarding those who do harm. Those that punish, who may be considered to be harming the criminal are in actuality care for the populace and attempting to correct the aberrant behavior. In this sense un punishment may be considered punishment --> benefit, and in this sense harm cares for the populace and government officials.

Harm --> care explicit (sadism), is what would be what I call a "contrary state of justice" or "irrationalism" where harm unto one another is rewarded. Harm --> care implicitly, is rational, as punishment --> earnings (justice system). In some ways punishment may decrease liberty, but is also a corrective form changing a negative agent into a positive agent. In this way, punishment isn't really a harm at all.

If prisoners were tortured or inflicted with some form of pain, rather than just their loss of liberty, the justice system would work by not restraining harm unto harm. Criminality followed by torture, is what I would call malicious justice. These can be related to the moral system or justice system thought to exist by some religious people. Except it follows that even though you are good (produce, care, peace, happiness) you punishment is torture in hell. This is what I would call malicious injustice, according to an understanding of biology and its relation to the consequences that can effect life.

This is actually what happens during war, as well as the end of punishing harm caused by a criminal which equals an income for the legal enforcers (harm-->punishment-->care).  In this condition man is a predator to himself. Where those that harm others are prey to the government which is a predatory democratic government PDG. Not prey in the way one might normally know of it, not as something which is eaten, but rather the prey is something which harmed. As in the usage, "prey on little children." The predators, abusers, sadists, are themselves predators, so one might consider the punishment of these predators as predators against predators. There is no real use in understanding crime and punishment in this way, it just goes to show that harm leads to punishment, and that punishment leads to care within the system of justice.

This kind of justice (rationalism) is matter of imprisoning, taking liberty away from the "agent of harm". The government  gives man a task of being obedient to the laws so as to make profit, as well as generate care, peace, and happiness. When one refuses to generate the positive, the ultimatum is the generation of negative. The generation of harm by an agent of harm, is punishable by the PDG, so as to prevent the existence of further harm, greater than the "harm of punishment" (which in its can be beneficial as 1. Preventing harm. 2. Correcting behavior 3.Financing the work of PDG enforcers and judges).

In the condition of war or revolution, a group of people is harmed by another group of people. The winning side is the side that can punish, kill, or destroy one side, because of greater armed forces. Though war is mostly harm-harm, and individually is harm-harm, on a marco-scale, there is always some one profiting from providing weapons of war or enforcement of the PDG ideals. All costs equal someone else's profits.

In+Wn/In+wn = Pw

Infantry, plus weapon power, divided by others, equals probability of winning war. The strongest force are likely to overcome the weaker forces.

How could we eliminate the care or profit that comes from punishing criminals? In capitalism it isn't possible, nor in any system. Why is this? The criminal himself, because of potential repetition of their misbehavior, is causing more harm than those punishing the criminal. In order to eliminate benefit from penal system, it would require the end of crime, the end of harming others. Such a world is not entirely possible, and therefore man will use government to punish (harm) those that do harm, and benefit from it. This kind of order could be considered somewhat rational, as the product of penal conviction is an essence an attempt to attenuate harm from the people and in doing so gain benefit.

How can crime rate be lowered? I think there are multiple factors that work to condition man into behaviors that are obedient to the general will of the people (peace and prosperity). Examples of modeling coming from the environment are critical in understanding how criminality can be prevented. 1. Parents 2. Media 3. Social connections/community 4. Education access 5. Occupational access are some of the leading opportunities which employ man into acting according to the economic system of rewarding ends. It is the responsibility of every man to implicitly care for others. Punishment that catches the behaviors after the effect, are less powerful in eliminating crime than early intervention, as is true in catching any disease in its early stages.

Note:
Although it may be debated that there is an initial harm done to those that experience sexual encounters having no information of sexual engagement, this theory doesn't account for the punishment of rapist or pedophiles.

It also does not include the parting of savings after a divorce, or the responsibility placed on one parent or the other. Though, one could consider fair parting of property to be in the interest of both parties, and giving long care privileges to the parent that is more nurturing.