It has often been stated that logic, by it’s very nature has no place for emotion. Indeed, it has even been stated that logic and emotion are at odds with each other. That they cannot coexist.
To be very ‘Vulcan’ on the subject, emotion is a complete lack of logic. Emotions are not logical.
I was thinking today however, that socially, upon analysis of human nature, logic would be flawed NOT to include the possible emotional state and reaction of an individual.
Is it not logical, in order to understand people, that we factor in their emotional state at any given time?
By doing such we can discern a probable outcome on what they will do, how they will react and come to a logical conclusion on their behaviour and behavioural patterns.
By allowing the inclusion of emotions within logical boundaries we would actually increase the chances of coming to a logical outcome, at least where people and human nature are concerned. To exclude emotional outcomes from logic is to miscalculate, as to omit emotional factors is the very same as omitting a numerical factor in a mathematical equation.
With that, I submit that, if it where possible to accurately predict a persons emotional state at any given time, then it would be possible, through observation, to predict all their actions and reactions or at least to narrow them down significantly through use of probability and even more so with the more data gathered on their core nature.
I bring the fight or flight instinct to the front as an example.
We know that one of our base instincts when confronted with a danger is ‘fight of flight‘.
This is when our brain decides to we try fight off whatever is endangering us or run away.
That instinct is one of our most primal, stemming from back to when we could be confronted with a wild animal at any moment.
Thusly, there are two possible outcomes of such a situation. We fight, or we run.
Logically, knowing that such an instinct and emotional response is ingrained in human nature, we can determine that a human being will most likely follow one of those two paths.
We are creatures of emotion. We lend ourselves to it. Yet people are still surprised by emotional reactions and responses.
Even the most logical of us is emotional in some regard. If not in day to day, then in moments that invoke anger or fear at least.
(The most logical of us could probably be angered by a sheer lack of logic and outward ignorance.)
Perhaps, since emotions are something we will most likely never be rid of (and I do hope that’s true), it would be wisest to actively consider emotional responses, from which we can speculate outcomes and possibilities, thusly limiting, if not eliminating, something that for so long has been considered an unknown variable.
If we are prepared for the possible outcomes, one must be correct, and thusly, it is not unknown at all.
It all seems…so logical.
-K
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Quotes of the Week
And now for something completely different.
It’s Friday, and as such I’m going to end the week with something a little light hearted.
These are a collection of memorable quotes I’ve encountered and gathered throughout the week, some funny, some inspiring and some downright odd. I’ll try do this every Friday, just to break things up!
Enjoy!
-K
“Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”
“Arise my Chickeny Minions!”
“I’ll be the Thane of whatever the hell I want.”
"Remember that life's length is not measured by its hours and days, but by that which we have done therein.”
“I’m going to have two beds. A sleepy bed and a sex bed.”
“It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”
“So what you’re saying is she’s like a virus? Is she some sort of STD?
“The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.”
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.”
It’s Friday, and as such I’m going to end the week with something a little light hearted.
These are a collection of memorable quotes I’ve encountered and gathered throughout the week, some funny, some inspiring and some downright odd. I’ll try do this every Friday, just to break things up!
Enjoy!
-K
“Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”
“Arise my Chickeny Minions!”
“I’ll be the Thane of whatever the hell I want.”
"Remember that life's length is not measured by its hours and days, but by that which we have done therein.”
“I’m going to have two beds. A sleepy bed and a sex bed.”
“It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”
“So what you’re saying is she’s like a virus? Is she some sort of STD?
“The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.”
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.”
The good, The Bad and the Uncertain
Nature versus nurture.
That’s a debate that’s been going for some time. I’m not, however here to specifically talk about that.
What I’m considering is something a little more…simple. Something more, black and white.
I’d like to believe that everyone is, fundamentally, at their core, a good person.
However that’s a personal preference and not a fact backed by evidence.
Are there people born basically good and others born basically bad?
I presented an argument recently that, though I would love a society that committed good deeds for the sake of good, currently, as it stand, people need a push. A stimulant. Be that in the form of some figure to lead them or some event in their lives that can ‘push’ them into action. To be good.
I realise, after examining it further, that premise is flawed.
A person may possibly only act as their nature would dictate.
Let us examine an event, such as something simple as finding a wallet and examine it:
You find a wallet, you want to return it because you’re a good person.
You find a wallet, you decide to keep it because you’re a bad person.
Ok, now since we are keeping it simple, we are using ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as very base terms.
We are totally disregarding the grey area and the fact that people have the capacity for both good and evil I am trying to present a theory as to an over all nature of a person.
There where two possible outcomes for this event. A good and a bad.
My point is, a good person is already good. Posing such an event to them is not going to force them to be any more good, but simply allows them to be good. It highlights the fact they where good anyway.
Much the same as the bad person will be bad.
Lets go more extreme.
A man points a gun at a girl.
A good person may jump in the way and try and stop him
A bad person won’t and will stay completely out of the way and let it happen.
Whilst I’m ignoring survival instinct and a million more possibilities that could occur, just bare with me.
My point is the situation only served to emphasize the good nature or the bad nature of an individual.
So good people generally do good things over all.
Bad people generally do bad things over all.
Right.
That still leaves me with my original question however.
Was the good person born good and the bad person born bad?
Was it inevitable that they would follow their natures no matter what nurture and stimuli where put to them?
With that in mind, I began looking back through my own childhood as best I could.
We are creatures of learning. We learn new things everyday.
We had to be taught what was right and what was wrong, but once we are fully aware of that, I believe, we may then begin to show our true nature. The teachings may facilitate our personal nature.
When I was younger, If I did something I knew was wrong, deliberately or by accident, I always remember feeling guilty about it. I was genuinely sorry and from that I choose to do good things, because I simply didn’t want to do bad things.
Like all things, we learn from the positive and negative reactions and emotions. Guilt is of course one of those. It is a negative emotion that we wish to avoid. It aims us toward being good.
So, let’s, for arguments sake, say I AM a good person. (I’m not saying I’ve never done anything bad. But this is for arguments sake.)
Is the urge to do good things ingrained in me? Was I born with it? Is a feeling of guilt when doing something bad a sign of that?
Does a bad persons still feel the same guilt? Do they not? Can they disregard it? Do they feel the opposite in negative actions?
This of course is a purely nature orientated theory.
Let me present another theory though.
What if we are in fact, not just nature driven. We could very well be the result of our entire lives to date. Our nature, our thoughts, our experiences, our emotions: All of it. This is what makes us, us.
It’s what makes you, you. What makes me, me.
We are the result of the cumulative affect of all these things.
Still, I’m left with the possibility that our very nature may be what results in us experiencing things the way we do. It may influence the way we feel, the way we process our experiences and our very thoughts on all things.
It doesn’t eliminate the fact that a stimuli, ‘hero’/ ’leader’ figure or optimal event may be required to urge people into actively doing good deeds for the sake of good, but it does possibly mean that they are good people to begin with, and just need a boost in this muddy mixed up world of ours.
Interesting. And something I’ll continue to think on.
-K
That’s a debate that’s been going for some time. I’m not, however here to specifically talk about that.
What I’m considering is something a little more…simple. Something more, black and white.
I’d like to believe that everyone is, fundamentally, at their core, a good person.
However that’s a personal preference and not a fact backed by evidence.
Are there people born basically good and others born basically bad?
I presented an argument recently that, though I would love a society that committed good deeds for the sake of good, currently, as it stand, people need a push. A stimulant. Be that in the form of some figure to lead them or some event in their lives that can ‘push’ them into action. To be good.
I realise, after examining it further, that premise is flawed.
A person may possibly only act as their nature would dictate.
Let us examine an event, such as something simple as finding a wallet and examine it:
You find a wallet, you want to return it because you’re a good person.
You find a wallet, you decide to keep it because you’re a bad person.
Ok, now since we are keeping it simple, we are using ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as very base terms.
We are totally disregarding the grey area and the fact that people have the capacity for both good and evil I am trying to present a theory as to an over all nature of a person.
There where two possible outcomes for this event. A good and a bad.
My point is, a good person is already good. Posing such an event to them is not going to force them to be any more good, but simply allows them to be good. It highlights the fact they where good anyway.
Much the same as the bad person will be bad.
Lets go more extreme.
A man points a gun at a girl.
A good person may jump in the way and try and stop him
A bad person won’t and will stay completely out of the way and let it happen.
Whilst I’m ignoring survival instinct and a million more possibilities that could occur, just bare with me.
My point is the situation only served to emphasize the good nature or the bad nature of an individual.
So good people generally do good things over all.
Bad people generally do bad things over all.
Right.
That still leaves me with my original question however.
Was the good person born good and the bad person born bad?
Was it inevitable that they would follow their natures no matter what nurture and stimuli where put to them?
With that in mind, I began looking back through my own childhood as best I could.
We are creatures of learning. We learn new things everyday.
We had to be taught what was right and what was wrong, but once we are fully aware of that, I believe, we may then begin to show our true nature. The teachings may facilitate our personal nature.
When I was younger, If I did something I knew was wrong, deliberately or by accident, I always remember feeling guilty about it. I was genuinely sorry and from that I choose to do good things, because I simply didn’t want to do bad things.
Like all things, we learn from the positive and negative reactions and emotions. Guilt is of course one of those. It is a negative emotion that we wish to avoid. It aims us toward being good.
So, let’s, for arguments sake, say I AM a good person. (I’m not saying I’ve never done anything bad. But this is for arguments sake.)
Is the urge to do good things ingrained in me? Was I born with it? Is a feeling of guilt when doing something bad a sign of that?
Does a bad persons still feel the same guilt? Do they not? Can they disregard it? Do they feel the opposite in negative actions?
This of course is a purely nature orientated theory.
Let me present another theory though.
What if we are in fact, not just nature driven. We could very well be the result of our entire lives to date. Our nature, our thoughts, our experiences, our emotions: All of it. This is what makes us, us.
It’s what makes you, you. What makes me, me.
We are the result of the cumulative affect of all these things.
Still, I’m left with the possibility that our very nature may be what results in us experiencing things the way we do. It may influence the way we feel, the way we process our experiences and our very thoughts on all things.
It doesn’t eliminate the fact that a stimuli, ‘hero’/ ’leader’ figure or optimal event may be required to urge people into actively doing good deeds for the sake of good, but it does possibly mean that they are good people to begin with, and just need a boost in this muddy mixed up world of ours.
Interesting. And something I’ll continue to think on.
-K
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Way of the World
One of the things I found early on in life, was that I had to be open to the fact that I may be wrong. It’s the only way to learn. I may have a lot of ideas, but if I was never to accept that they might be wrong, I’d never know the truth. My fun with possibilities would be gone because I wouldn‘t be even open to it.
To quote a certain movie “Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”
I like possibility. Possibility and probability are some of my favourite things to debate.
Will I wake up tomorrow to find society in ruins? Probably not. But through a series of highly unlikely events it IS possible.
Will I become a rock star? Probably not. But again, it’s possible.
Could vampires exist? Highly improbable. But through some genetic off shoot of humanity, the right conditions and necessity, sure, its theoretically possible.
These are the thoughts that make up my day and I enjoy them. I enjoy working out how it could come to be. Sometimes the more absurd the better.
Take water for example. We are, on average, between 55% to 78% percent water, depending on body type, size, sex and fat content.
I was thinking the other day that it’s possible that the fact that we came from the water, evolutionarily speaking, consist of so much water and need so much water to simply survive, that perhaps liquid, in it’s many states, has more of an impact on our minds than we would realise.
Why wouldn’t it? It’s so very important to our continued existence, but because it’s so readily available, in bottles and from your humble tap, we do take it for granted.
Like a lot of things, we would notice it’s significance more in it’s absence.
What if though, water and its states have had more of an affect than simple survival needs?
What if it’s somehow impacted on our mind in other ways and thusly made it’s way into comparative terms, items and acts in every day society?
Take money for example.
Notes= Solids
Coins= Liquid
Banking/ investment= Gas
Three form of our currency. Indeed, in finance we even refer to ‘Liquid assets’ and ‘Liquidation’.
I began to wonder why we would use such comparatives. Why these in particular? Is it the water speaking? Has it imprinted itself upon our mind?
This is of course only an idea. A possibility. A shot in the dark. A musing.
The point is, I could very well be wrong. It could be total rubbish.
People shouldn’t be afraid of being wrong and definitely not afraid of new ideas.
Sure it mightn’t work out. But if Einstein was too afraid of the possibility that he might be wrong to voice and test out his theories, where would physics be today? If Newton had just kept quite about that apple because gravity seemed like a silly idea….well ok somebody else might have figured that one out…. But his laws of motion dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries.
They all started as simple ideas and those ideas can happen anywhere.
Archimedes discovered water displacement in the bath after all.
My message to you, is to not dismiss ideas out of hand. Sure, they may seem absurd, but they could also be revolutionary new ways of thinking.
Think. Test. Learn.
Never be afraid to be wrong about an idea.
The worst that’ll happen is you’ll learn something.
-K
To quote a certain movie “Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”
I like possibility. Possibility and probability are some of my favourite things to debate.
Will I wake up tomorrow to find society in ruins? Probably not. But through a series of highly unlikely events it IS possible.
Will I become a rock star? Probably not. But again, it’s possible.
Could vampires exist? Highly improbable. But through some genetic off shoot of humanity, the right conditions and necessity, sure, its theoretically possible.
These are the thoughts that make up my day and I enjoy them. I enjoy working out how it could come to be. Sometimes the more absurd the better.
Take water for example. We are, on average, between 55% to 78% percent water, depending on body type, size, sex and fat content.
I was thinking the other day that it’s possible that the fact that we came from the water, evolutionarily speaking, consist of so much water and need so much water to simply survive, that perhaps liquid, in it’s many states, has more of an impact on our minds than we would realise.
Why wouldn’t it? It’s so very important to our continued existence, but because it’s so readily available, in bottles and from your humble tap, we do take it for granted.
Like a lot of things, we would notice it’s significance more in it’s absence.
What if though, water and its states have had more of an affect than simple survival needs?
What if it’s somehow impacted on our mind in other ways and thusly made it’s way into comparative terms, items and acts in every day society?
Take money for example.
Notes= Solids
Coins= Liquid
Banking/ investment= Gas
Three form of our currency. Indeed, in finance we even refer to ‘Liquid assets’ and ‘Liquidation’.
I began to wonder why we would use such comparatives. Why these in particular? Is it the water speaking? Has it imprinted itself upon our mind?
This is of course only an idea. A possibility. A shot in the dark. A musing.
The point is, I could very well be wrong. It could be total rubbish.
People shouldn’t be afraid of being wrong and definitely not afraid of new ideas.
Sure it mightn’t work out. But if Einstein was too afraid of the possibility that he might be wrong to voice and test out his theories, where would physics be today? If Newton had just kept quite about that apple because gravity seemed like a silly idea….well ok somebody else might have figured that one out…. But his laws of motion dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries.
They all started as simple ideas and those ideas can happen anywhere.
Archimedes discovered water displacement in the bath after all.
My message to you, is to not dismiss ideas out of hand. Sure, they may seem absurd, but they could also be revolutionary new ways of thinking.
Think. Test. Learn.
Never be afraid to be wrong about an idea.
The worst that’ll happen is you’ll learn something.
-K
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Money Can't Buy Happiness
Money doesn’t buy happiness. That’s true. But it can buy you security and free time to pursue what makes you happy.
That’s the way society’s built.
Of course if you don’t happen to be a millionaire then chances are, you’re going to spend a large portion of your life working away.
Lets face it though, unless you’re doing the job you absolutely love, you’re not always going to be bright eyed and bushy tailed heading to work. Nobody WANTS to spend all that time in work.
There has to be a better way.
So, as my theory to over throw the current order is not one that was as readily accepted as I’d hoped and I want to save my life theories for another time, I’ve come up with a different solution.
Lets say, for arguments sake, a person works a part time job of twenty four hours a week. That’s the average hours of your regular part time worker.
That twenty four hours a week spread out over a week can take up about four days.
Six hours a day.
Right. Good.
Socially you are unable to really do much on those four days other than get ready for work and head home from work.
Depending on what days you’re working you can be quite restricted in your activities, even on your days off.
Not really much of a life. You should be working so you can enjoy life, not snatching mere moments between work days.
So here’s an idea. Since it’s not time to over throw anyone yet, what if you took those 24 hours and split it into two twelve hour days? Six hours. Break(not counted) and then six hours more.
Not just for one person but for all the staff working those types of hours.
Suddenly a max of three days to yourself possibly slotted between work days becomes five days. You could do so much with five days worth of freedom a week.
Then an employer would simply rotate his staff to cover two days at a time. Everyone gets five days off and the world becomes a more carefree place.
What about the 40 hour weeks I hear you ask?
Officially I think work hours should be cut, but this is a temporary solution.
40 Hrs= 8hrs Per Day X 5 Days a week.
But….
40hrs= 12hrs Per Day X 3. 333 days a week
Again, by concentrating the work hours, you find yourself with more free time.
Yes, it would be a radical change in how things are done, Yes it’d take time to adapt. But it’s doable.
With a little more free time and a little less work, or in this case structured work, the world might just be a better place.
-K
That’s the way society’s built.
Of course if you don’t happen to be a millionaire then chances are, you’re going to spend a large portion of your life working away.
Lets face it though, unless you’re doing the job you absolutely love, you’re not always going to be bright eyed and bushy tailed heading to work. Nobody WANTS to spend all that time in work.
There has to be a better way.
So, as my theory to over throw the current order is not one that was as readily accepted as I’d hoped and I want to save my life theories for another time, I’ve come up with a different solution.
Lets say, for arguments sake, a person works a part time job of twenty four hours a week. That’s the average hours of your regular part time worker.
That twenty four hours a week spread out over a week can take up about four days.
Six hours a day.
Right. Good.
Socially you are unable to really do much on those four days other than get ready for work and head home from work.
Depending on what days you’re working you can be quite restricted in your activities, even on your days off.
Not really much of a life. You should be working so you can enjoy life, not snatching mere moments between work days.
So here’s an idea. Since it’s not time to over throw anyone yet, what if you took those 24 hours and split it into two twelve hour days? Six hours. Break(not counted) and then six hours more.
Not just for one person but for all the staff working those types of hours.
Suddenly a max of three days to yourself possibly slotted between work days becomes five days. You could do so much with five days worth of freedom a week.
Then an employer would simply rotate his staff to cover two days at a time. Everyone gets five days off and the world becomes a more carefree place.
What about the 40 hour weeks I hear you ask?
Officially I think work hours should be cut, but this is a temporary solution.
40 Hrs= 8hrs Per Day X 5 Days a week.
But….
40hrs= 12hrs Per Day X 3. 333 days a week
Again, by concentrating the work hours, you find yourself with more free time.
Yes, it would be a radical change in how things are done, Yes it’d take time to adapt. But it’s doable.
With a little more free time and a little less work, or in this case structured work, the world might just be a better place.
-K
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)