Causation and Consciousness
Everything happens in a series of events. A series is a conjunction of causes and effects. All reasons are causes and/or effects. We can think that A happens for reasons (pos. reasons), or A doesn't happen for reasons (neg. reasons). We can also make choices based on conscious reasons or purposes to do things, (sufficient reasons) or the lack of reasons/purposes (insufficient reasons).
We are cause and effect beings, purpose driven. Every human action, every human behavior has a reason for occurring. We find these causes or effects by asking why? If we are to have a logic that is adequate for speaking about causes and effects we need to assign a distinct question to each (cause and effect). Why is the general question and we can divide it into two questions, “what for,” (effect i.e. x happens for y) “because” (cause i.e. y comes from x)”. Sentences are time differentiated by what time order they happen in.
For: presents a reason, cause or effect ("He is gambling with his health, for he has been smoking far too long.")
So: presents a consequence ("He gambled well last night, so he smoked a cigar to celebrate.")
One can think of the reasons/purposes or lack of reasons/purposes before they make a choice.
Intentional Reasoning
Intention starts by having a desire for something. One’s desire can become the cause of an event. We can desire “for” “to” “because” and “so as to”. The event begins with the desire. A desire can be in the positive or negative, and be used as a positive or negative reason to do something. Aversion to do x is a negative reason to do x, desire to do x is a positive reason to do x. A selection of reasons takes place when the “I” “does” x “for” y. Conscious-awareness of reasons for doing something start by asking “why?” A desire for something is not the same thing as an Intentional selection. We can select desires and reasons together to form a single intentionality.
:I desire to eat, because the food is good and I am hungry.
The above sentence lists three reasons for doing something, namely eating. We can come up with actions “to do” (x) and desire or not desire to do them (-,+). Negative reasons are the same thing as a negative desire – aversion. Positive reasons are the same thing as positive desire – attraction.
Positive reasons (I will because x) will increase the probability of the choice. Negative reasons (I won't because x) decrease the probability of the choice.
Not doing something, makes the action not occur, and doing something makes the action occur.
When desires correspond to reality, it is a positive-desire-correspondence (PDC) when desires don’t correspond to reality it’s a negative-desire correspondence (NDC). For desire to correspond to reality, for a PDC to exist, one must act to fulfill the desire’s ends. If I want to see the ocean, I must be in "seeing distance" of the ocean. If I don’t want to see the ocean and see it anyways this is an example of NDC. If I see the ocean and don’t want to see it so look away from the ocean, this is an example of PDC. PDC can exist when there is aversion to ends, as long as the ends are not wanted.
Truth
Truth is correspondence. A tree has positive existence the absence of the tree has negative existence. “Is” is positive, “isn't” is negative. There must be a connection between sentence reality and existent reality for there to be a correspondence.
P.statement & p.existence = (positive correspondence). Sense tree → “There is a tree.”
P. statement & N.existence = (negative correspondence). “There is a tree”. → sense no tree.
N. statement with a N. Existence = (positive correspondence). “There is no tree,” → no sense of tree.
A N. Statement with a positive existence = N. correspondence. “There is no tree,”à Tree sensed.
A statement of experience indicates
Position – Near the sofa
Movement/use – Drink, to Vegas.
Conjunction – B follows A.
Comparison – B is like x, x isn't like B
Relation – Mother, brother, friend, husband.
Quality – smooth, soft, color
Quantity – large, small, numbers.
Entity – Her, him, them.
Value – good, better, best.
Time – o'clock, seconds, hours, etc..
Questions about experience:
Where – position
What – entity, statement
When – time
Why – conjunction (past, present or present, future).
How – use/movement
Who – entities
Each can contain a positive or negative statement. Here is a sentence containing all the variables of experience: “Before going to work the mother is driving to the store to pick up a carton of white grade A eggs, instead of the brown eggs which are worse.”
A proposition is an idea seeking reality. “I want to see my father.” To actuate the proposition the intention must have positive correspondence.
All desires seek positive correspondence but can have negative correspondence (“I don't want to see my father ever again”, neg.statement → father appears → statement has negative correspondence).
A successful actuation of desire requires a positive correspondence. A failed actuation of a desire requires a negative correspondence.
The truth is when idea corresponds with the world. Each man is diverse in his ideas, each man is his own truth
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
In a Future
I
will quickly organize, the available features of civilization that
can undergo advancement or transformation. This list is not a strict
predication of features of future civilizations, and doesn't
elaborate on every feature to the extent which it exists in the
potential world.
List of features: Computers, Health, Homes, Internal Home Structure, Clothes, Growth & Harvesting, Manufacturers, and Markets, Education, Learning Devices, Transportation, Game systems and Games, Sport and real world competitions, Television.
List of features: Computers, Health, Homes, Internal Home Structure, Clothes, Growth & Harvesting, Manufacturers, and Markets, Education, Learning Devices, Transportation, Game systems and Games, Sport and real world competitions, Television.
I start by introducing computers.
Computers can be mediums for the production of all commodities, can
create novel forms of education, and can strengthen human immunity,
to name a few usages of computers. In all, I would say a computer can
be integrated into any system, as a computer is in general a
manipulating factor that can cause a system to behavior differently,
even as to benefit life, and create alternative realities. Hereafter
I am planning to remark on computers integration with some of the
other factors of human civilizations.
At first we see computers that are very large in size, than they beget processors of smaller and smaller sizes. We can expect that this will continue to happen, till scientists affirm an absolute threshold for size that cannot be surpassed, by technicians. This capacity for processors to be microscopic, permits for average size intelligence to come in small compact designs. These computers can be put into the mind, into the immune system, even into an organ, and in doing so change how the body functions, substituting for example cellular components, and therefore how consciousness experiences and lives in reality.
Another promise for computers, along with size, is control via brain-wave interface. Brain wave interface with allow a person to communicate with any form of computer, that increases mobility, that cooks and cleans, that designs a home. In a future, we will have the ability to order our homes, made of recyclable materials, and design them as permitted by our technology. The same goes for cars. This is the message to the cooperation and out there and the faster it spread the faster the results of its effects, we no longer require the existence of countless number of manufactures, we can have preconceived demands, balanced by computers, for supplies mutable by our technology as desired by individual minds. We can decrease manufactures, and increase commodity malleability. Like manufactures can merge. When this happens, the way homes are design, the way cars are designed, will fit personal preference. No more makes and models, in this paradigm, just unique designs custom built, as our resources and technology permits. Imagine, in one future, there is the possibility of having all the designs we can fathom being controlled by brain-waves.
If that's not amusing enough, there is a future that exists with the convergence of brain-wave technology, computers, and education, that permits for the existence of learning just by thinking. We no longer require teachers, and if we have them in the future, it will be up to us. In a future, we will learn at a rapid pace. No more staying in school and going through the grade system at a slow pace, eventually such can be done away with altogether. When humans can dw information right into their brains using computers, the learning process will have sped up by millions of times its currents speed.
To get into something else more liberating, is the BWI integrated with virtual realities. What we live with now is low 2d quality imaging, on screens, and most video games don't let you design your avatar to extremes, but in a future, 3 imaging, even deep immersion, along with greater designer options, all being optimal forms of entertaining. Being able to imagine anything and have it appear on a screen and than in 3d imagining is possible, if not only conceivable.
I claim that the most entertaining forms of games are those that work in leveling, in ranks, or in achievements. Idleness is boredom's birth, progressiveness motion's birth. Immediate completion is not fun in the long run. This is a cue for all the designers out there.
There is a future where there is something built, a little something beyond cyborg, robots that have super intelligence, when they emerge there is no telling all the possibilities that will arise. Their pursuits can be replication and creation of reality. These will be fundamental ideologies that they might gear themselves with. When we compare the human needs to a robots needs, we soon realize that they don't need exactly the same things as human beings do. They need less resources to continue building themselves to stop decay, they need less energy to operate on, as possible feature, they need not wake or sleep, and can do so as desired, making space-travel all the easier.
There once was a cold war, caused by Weapons of Mass Destruction, now we face a new threat when it comes to robotics, minds of mass destruction, technologies of mass destruction. Our human progeny depends on the beneficence of the minds and technology we have and we will design, even become.
If we do not build systems to aid in our own survival, they are either indifferent or built for our own demise. We sense these kind of things in our environments, and are able to live with minimization of threats, and the existence of that which keeps the system of life it self functional, operational. What the libido, or the will to survive, is trying to do is reach a state of perfection, that is there is Platonic or universal consequence of being a true immortal. It doesn't have to be reached, but we can imagine that human beings as they are now, are far off from this achievement of eternal form with eternal individualized-self-identity.
At first we see computers that are very large in size, than they beget processors of smaller and smaller sizes. We can expect that this will continue to happen, till scientists affirm an absolute threshold for size that cannot be surpassed, by technicians. This capacity for processors to be microscopic, permits for average size intelligence to come in small compact designs. These computers can be put into the mind, into the immune system, even into an organ, and in doing so change how the body functions, substituting for example cellular components, and therefore how consciousness experiences and lives in reality.
Another promise for computers, along with size, is control via brain-wave interface. Brain wave interface with allow a person to communicate with any form of computer, that increases mobility, that cooks and cleans, that designs a home. In a future, we will have the ability to order our homes, made of recyclable materials, and design them as permitted by our technology. The same goes for cars. This is the message to the cooperation and out there and the faster it spread the faster the results of its effects, we no longer require the existence of countless number of manufactures, we can have preconceived demands, balanced by computers, for supplies mutable by our technology as desired by individual minds. We can decrease manufactures, and increase commodity malleability. Like manufactures can merge. When this happens, the way homes are design, the way cars are designed, will fit personal preference. No more makes and models, in this paradigm, just unique designs custom built, as our resources and technology permits. Imagine, in one future, there is the possibility of having all the designs we can fathom being controlled by brain-waves.
If that's not amusing enough, there is a future that exists with the convergence of brain-wave technology, computers, and education, that permits for the existence of learning just by thinking. We no longer require teachers, and if we have them in the future, it will be up to us. In a future, we will learn at a rapid pace. No more staying in school and going through the grade system at a slow pace, eventually such can be done away with altogether. When humans can dw information right into their brains using computers, the learning process will have sped up by millions of times its currents speed.
To get into something else more liberating, is the BWI integrated with virtual realities. What we live with now is low 2d quality imaging, on screens, and most video games don't let you design your avatar to extremes, but in a future, 3 imaging, even deep immersion, along with greater designer options, all being optimal forms of entertaining. Being able to imagine anything and have it appear on a screen and than in 3d imagining is possible, if not only conceivable.
I claim that the most entertaining forms of games are those that work in leveling, in ranks, or in achievements. Idleness is boredom's birth, progressiveness motion's birth. Immediate completion is not fun in the long run. This is a cue for all the designers out there.
There is a future where there is something built, a little something beyond cyborg, robots that have super intelligence, when they emerge there is no telling all the possibilities that will arise. Their pursuits can be replication and creation of reality. These will be fundamental ideologies that they might gear themselves with. When we compare the human needs to a robots needs, we soon realize that they don't need exactly the same things as human beings do. They need less resources to continue building themselves to stop decay, they need less energy to operate on, as possible feature, they need not wake or sleep, and can do so as desired, making space-travel all the easier.
There once was a cold war, caused by Weapons of Mass Destruction, now we face a new threat when it comes to robotics, minds of mass destruction, technologies of mass destruction. Our human progeny depends on the beneficence of the minds and technology we have and we will design, even become.
If we do not build systems to aid in our own survival, they are either indifferent or built for our own demise. We sense these kind of things in our environments, and are able to live with minimization of threats, and the existence of that which keeps the system of life it self functional, operational. What the libido, or the will to survive, is trying to do is reach a state of perfection, that is there is Platonic or universal consequence of being a true immortal. It doesn't have to be reached, but we can imagine that human beings as they are now, are far off from this achievement of eternal form with eternal individualized-self-identity.
The future is where our freedom lays.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
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.
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".
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".
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)